• 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

  • 2812 posts
  • 1
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 188
  by budd6209
 
I think this because Panam service was so poor that they think CSX would be better. They are not seeing that CSX could make harder to send freight by way Ayer to the west end and the long run make it more costly. CSX only wants the Maine lines and not west of Ayer.
  by F74265A
 
Regarding no rebuild of Worcester main and stony brook, would csx run 40 mph on what I believe is ancient stick rail on much of the Worcester main? I believe some stuff is 70-90 years. ( or more). That rail has taken a beating and wonder whether the rail heads can be refurbished to today’s standards
  by budd6209
 
Just saw on the STB site that there are business are in Connecticut are supporting the transaction. They think that they are having CSX serve them. By the filing Berkshire and Eastern will be serve them instead of CSX.
  by newpylong
 
budd6209 wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:56 pm I think this because Panam service was so poor that they think CSX would be better. They are not seeing that CSX could make harder to send freight by way Ayer to the west end and the long run make it more costly. CSX only wants the Maine lines and not west of Ayer.
There is (next to) nothing going that way from East of Ayer now anyway.
  by newpylong
 
F74265A wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:19 pm Regarding no rebuild of Worcester main and stony brook, would csx run 40 mph on what I believe is ancient stick rail on much of the Worcester main? I believe some stuff is 70-90 years. ( or more). That rail has taken a beating and wonder whether the rail heads can be refurbished to today’s standards
No they would not, it will be replaced.
  by newpylong
 
codasd wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:45 pm It will be interesting to see the plans that CSX has for the property if they eventually take ownership. Besides the Worcester main I hope they would upgrade the 43+ miles from Barbers all the way to LJ. If they could get that stretch up to class 3, they would be able to run 40mph from Royal Junction to Barbers. CSX would get immediate productivity returns for both the road crews and the locomotive fleet.
CSX has the MoW equipment and knowhow to get that completed in a full maintenance season. A complete rebuild is not needed. Brush cutting, drainage work, culvert cleaning, joint maintenance, tie replacement and ballast would be needed for the entire length. There is already some CWR on the Stoney Brook and a well thought out plan implemented over 3-5 years would reap the above-mentioned productivity gains and show customers CSX is serious about their business.
With much talk on this thread about IM at Waterville, what is the track condition north of Royal Junction. We all know further north up to Keag is a POS.
Of course they will do the Stoney and Lowell branches, there is no point in doing the Worcester Main to just throw the anchor out passing the Willows East.

Expect 50 MPH everywhere the T or the Downeaster runs. 40 is an artificial MAS imposed by PAR and Guilford before them. The T has tried to no avail to get them to run faster.
  by newpylong
 
budd6209 wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:02 pm It might be a good thing for east Ayer to Maine also might not be for Ayer west . The west end will be losing at least one train. I would think that in five years there will only be local service and a train to Gardner for P&W traffic. I would think CSX would try to quote cheaper rate on traffic to NS by the way of the B&A route than by the northern route. They have no reason to keep the northern route and have to split the revenue with two other railroads. Also I would expect the companies would rather have to deal with only two railroads than three. If some thing went wrong with there shipment it is easier to deal with two company to find out what happen to the shipment. This show how bad the companies feel about Pamam service.
Besides the Ayer, Gardner, and Slurpy traffic that's all it is today (local traffic). Barely anything moves from Deerfield to Maine, and it's been like that since PAS was formed over a decade ago. It's just a cheaper and quicker run out Barbers on a two line haul instead of three, unless it's a customer sourcing or sending cars to a PAS interchange.

I posted this before and I will post it again, the West End will lose a pair off the bat. It may even see some of the single iron CTC transitioned to TWC, but its future is sound. Have you seen the SLR, NECR or P&W? I was just by the SLR today, for 1 train a day in each direction the track looks like the Chicago Line. They usually run their short lines with Class 3 main lines. They would not have agreed to operate it if they did not believe it fit into their network and they saw organic growth potential. The tonnage to Gardner has gotten huge. The CP traffic is still there, the VRS traffic is still there. CSX still has to get its cars to Deerfield and to local customers. The CT traffic is still there. None of this even factors in what B&E will come up with on their own. CN now has a way to get its toe in the door (via St Albans) without having to buy anything.

So yeah, you'll see 2-3 jobs moving at 40 instead of 4 at 25 and 10. Which may be worse for snapping pictures but is likely better for rail customers.
  by jwhite07
 
On the Worcester Main, CSX will likely have to clash swords with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to avoid being imposed with a 10mph speed restriction through southern West Boylston and across the Wachusett Reservoir causeway no matter how many millions of dollars CSX invests in track improvements. Gotta protect the numerous municipal wells and the reservoir itself from the big bad trains running through there, and the only way MWRA thinks that can be done is to run them at a snail's pace.
  by BandA
 
I think federal preemption would prevent the MWRA imposing rules on CSX. And the trains were literally there before the reservoir. Practically it would make sense to have voluntary restrictions on haz-mats though.
  by VRSfan
 
West of Greenfield has a limited if any future.
NSC and CSX will reroute the remaining merchandise trains via CSX,
Western Mass and that section of NY state are economic deserts.
VRS might be interested in Hoosick Jct. to Rotterdam, but they don't really need it.
As for the Conn. River, G&W will lock that up and no more friendly connection for VRS at Bellows Falls.
How about this?
NSC leases Binghamton to Mohawk to NYS&W and the SuzyQ becomes the neutral PAS operator.
CSX and NSC each own a piece of the NYS&W.
  by newpylong
 
False: NS merchandise stays on the B&M. You still have the BKRR, VTR and NA traffic in the middle as well. This excludes any new traffic resulting from GWI opportunities. Let's not get in the business of turning into Facebook here.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
F74265A wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:19 pm Regarding no rebuild of Worcester main and Stony Brook, would CSX run 40 mph on what I believe is ancient stick rail on much of the Worcester main?
One would think that if B&A-Worcester-B&M-Ayer-B&M-Lowell Jct-B&M had sufficient volume of traffic (and I think it would if the Maine and NB maritime ports became viable), Chessie would put her Fancy Feast into FRA Class 3.

If such be the case, watch the passenger train advocacy community start chanting "bring back the 'State of Maine'" - oh, and let's throw in the "Bar Harbor" and "East Wind" for good measure - and make Chessie give them access at Amtrak's prevailing bargain basement" rates. :wink:

Trouble is volks; it ain't funny. It's simply a "taking without just compensation" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. :(
  by jwhite07
 
B&A, federal preemption and "I was here first" matter very little. It's who/what entity has their checkbook out first that matters. Here's the proof, starting on page 65: https://www.mwra.com/monthly/bod/presen ... 011718.pdf

In sum, the plan has been that MassDOT throws the lion's share of the cost to upgrade the southern end of the Worcester Main to Class IV standards, and in return they get to impose a 10MPH speed restriction that MWRA wants. I don't think CSX would pass up "free money" like that, either.
  by PBMcGinnis
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:34 am
F74265A wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:19 pm Regarding no rebuild of Worcester main and Stony Brook, would CSX run 40 mph on what I believe is ancient stick rail on much of the Worcester main?
One would think that if B&A-Worcester-B&M-Ayer-B&M-Lowell Jct-B&M had sufficient volume of traffic (and I think it would if the Maine and NB maritime ports became viable), Chessie would put her Fancy Feast into FRA Class 3.

If such be the case, watch the passenger train advocacy community start chanting "bring back the 'State of Maine'" - oh, and let's throw in the "Bar Harbor" and "East Wind" for good measure - and make Chessie give them access at Amtrak's prevailing bargain basement" rates. :wink:

Trouble is volks; it ain't funny. It's simply a "taking without just compensation" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. :(
Sad part is "taking without compensation" already happened under Guilford in 1987. Amtrak forced the ICC to take the Conn River North line away from Big G and gave ownership of it to CV all because of 2 passenger trains a day moving at a snails pace over bad track. Almost 35 years later it is still just 2 trains per day between East Northfield, MA and White River Junction, VT. Plus NECR, the CV successor hasn't kept up the speeds as much either on the same line.
  by jamoldover
 
Let's get real. Nobody "took away" the Conn River from Guilford. They were simply required to sell the line to Amtrak at what was determined, via due process of law, to be the fair market value, and therefore were provided with "just compensation". Amtrak then sold it (for the same fair market value) to CV. Guilford was not kicked off the line, and didn't even lose a single existing customer. They even were able to rely on the agreement that was put in place at that time to fight back against G&W/NECR's attempt to later force them off via economic means.
Last edited by MEC407 on Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  • 1
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 188