• CSX to acquire Pan Am Railways

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

  • 2446 posts
  • 1
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 164
  by NYC27
 
There are about 30 obstructions Ayer To Portland (assuming NS pays to clear Worcester-Clinton). The worst spots are the Dover arch and Ward Hill by the incinerator. Both are 17’ 0” and the B&M needed 4R funds in the ‘70s to get them raised from 16’ 0”. Prior to that high cube vans had to be trucked to MAine from a Mass. ramp.

I don’t think you will see CSX clear this route and I don’t think they will run it single stacked either. There isn’t as much Midwest paper as there used to be and they aren’t going to know what to do with Pan Am-Poland Springs direct relationship. My feeling is that adding a “channel partner” and CSX costing policies to the mix is going to kill the business.
  by PBMcGinnis
 
There is also another issue with Worcester to Waterviile...each time service and customer demand has been solicited, all the traffic demand is for westbound only. Nobody has any 53' intermodal eastbound traffic that would be viable to deramp and dray from Waterville. So it is all empties going east.
Last edited by PBMcGinnis on Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by roberttosh
 
Not saying intermodal won't ever happen to Maine, but I will say it was nowhere close to the driving force behind this deal.
  by CN9634
 
PBMcGinnis wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:25 pm There is also another issue with Worcester to Waterviile...each time service and customer demand has been solicited, all the traffic demand is for westbound only. Nobody has any 53' intermodal eastbound traffic that would be viable to deramp and dray from Waterville. So it is all empties going east.
Waterville would certainly be a deficit ramp but Worcester is a headhaul market, so they repo empties west daily anyways. Net net empty miles on a full tour from WTVL would be way less than sending them back west empty... that’s also how van truck works in this market and also the current regional intermodal. I’ve sent empties off the yard in Shrewsbury to get a load out of Skowhegan more than a few times... or even a load locally to Mass then deadhead up to Maine. Before you all make the claim all I’m saying is plant a lawn chair at the Kennebunk service plaza and count the 53’ domestic boxes you see and you’d be surprised...or become an intermodal dispatcher (plenty of need for those right now). The best way to expand Worcester is to debottleneck as well, and the barrier to start Worcester is very low after they takeover.
  by Trinnau
 
NYC27 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:48 pm There are about 30 obstructions Ayer To Portland (assuming NS pays to clear Worcester-Clinton). The worst spots are the Dover arch and Ward Hill by the incinerator. Both are 17’ 0” and the B&M needed 4R funds in the ‘70s to get them raised from 16’ 0”. Prior to that high cube vans had to be trucked to MAine from a Mass. ramp.
Plate Fs are 17'1", so it's likely 17'6" or thereabouts. Still a long ways from domestic doublestack (20'2") and still over a half a foot from international.
  by johnpbarlow
 
So if/when CSX offers an intermodal service lane originating at Waterville ME, what destinations would CSX offer Waterville-area shippers? At this writing, per the intermodal schedules link at the ShipCSX web site, CSX appears to offer only 1 westbound departure Monday through Friday, Worcester to Selkirk Q019. At Selkirk, connections are made to daily wb Q003 to Bedford Park, IL (Chicago). Bedford Park is the only CSX destination for Worcester shippers but apparently they are offered a number of UP destinations via connection (drayage?) at Chicago: Denver, Laredo, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Sparks, Lathrop, Portland, Tacoma, Mexico, etc.

On the other hand, eastbound service lanes for IM shippers to Worcester originate at Bedford Park, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, E St Louis, and, from UP, Monterrey and San Antonio.

https://shipcsx.com/pub_sx_mainpagepubl ... anding.evt
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by Red Wing
 
Raising bridges and undercutting in the MBTA territory may also have to consider the possibility of the T electrifying their fleet.
  by JacobKoppel
 
@johnpbarlow
Q115 OD 19:00 Worcester to Syracuse. Takes manifest traffic off of P&W for Selkirk and 40' international intermodals from the P&W in Worcester as well.
Q017 OD 22:00 Worcester to Bedford Park Chicago. All domestic containers from CSX Worcester yard.
Q019 OD 03:00 Worcester to Selkirk. Highest priority trailers and containers. Combines with Q003 in Selkirk and heads west to Bedford Park Chicago.

That is all the intermodals west out of Worcester. Correct me if I am wrong on the OD times.
  by taracer
 
Q115 OD 2000, Q019 0330. All three work West Springfield.
  by roberttosh
 
And still only 2 EB intermodalls?
  by johnpbarlow
 
The impression I have re: Q115 is its containers are international cubes loaded at P&W’s Stackbridge facility so its IM traffic isn’t originating on CSX Worcester. I might be wrong....
  by markhb
 
roberttosh wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:22 pm The biggest obstacle from what I've heard is where the tracks run under I-495, more specifically the exit 44 off-ramps in North Andover just east of CPF Frost (see below link). Be a major, major reconstruction project to raise the roadway there and the other problem is that there's a grade crossing just East of the overpass so you'd have to lower the road (if it even can be lowered ) to undercut. There may be some other issues at that location that I'm not fully aware of but that spot may end up being a real game stopper in terms of getting DS service to Maine anytime soon.

https://goo.gl/maps/Z4MZnseLoXqjeLgs9
Yikes. It's not just the ramps, it's the 495 main line as well from what I can tell... and it's straight off the Merrimack River bridge.
  by roberttosh
 
Realistically, under cutting is probably the only option at that location and from what I recall, that presents its' own serious issues as well. Dropping the tracks down 4 feet under the highway would almost certainly require some type of reinforcement, encasement, or pile driving in and around the support columns which is not an easy task being under all the overpasses. In addition, the street is already on a steep downhill slope to the grade crossing so not sure if they would be able to lower by 4 feet at that location. I'm sure it can be done, but it will be very expensive and not sure if it's really worth it. Also, for some reason I think the main highway isn't a clearance issue, just the ramps, but then agin, it's been a long time since I've seen this discussed so my facts may be off a bit.
  • 1
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 164