• 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

  • 2802 posts
  • 1
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 187
  by newpylong
 
ElectricTraction wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:38 pm
newpylong wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 5:21 amI'm not sure how they will handle it operationally but from a routing/billing/paperwork perspective it will have nothing to do with CSOR.

The point of PAS is to try to preserve access to multiple Class Is, not provide single line access.
I would think getting G&W service would be to the advantage of the shippers, even though they're not getting CSX. The lines have already blurred a bit between P&W and CSOR. Maybe they'd formally transfer the Plainville/Waterbury operation from B&E over to CSOR, it would make no sense to have two different arms of the same company overlapping each other like that, unless they share equipment, yard, etc in Hartford and just write up the paperwork differently for the different jobs. It would also connect B&E to P&W at Derby Junction, although I don't know if that connection is of much use.
I think you've been provided with ample information on what will change and won't with the sale.

If CT trackage is sold or merged into another GWI railroad, that will only occur when GWI buys the entirety of PAS and chooses to do so. Until then they are just the operator and all PAS traffic is treated as such, a distinct carrier.

How they choose to physically crew, share power, etc is TBD but is exclusive of the routing.
  by ElectricTraction
 
NYC27 wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:51 pmSure that would be great, but it isn't part of this deal.
Call it a side effect, but it's what is going to happen if G&W/B&E is running PAS.
G&W will own 100% of CSO and NS and CSX (for now) will own PAS. The twice weekly EDPL will continue to feed cars to Plainville. CSO is tied up in so many paper barriers they won't be able to merge with anyone anyway. The lines may look blurry from trackside but commercially they are separate and distinct carriers. P&W can interchange with whoever the want. CSO has to go through CSX alone. I think long term G&W will definitely buy out CSX and maybe NS. At that point they can merge P&W-NECR-B&E but unless CSO can get free of its paper barriers (as an imposed condition of CSX merging with another Class I or blanket STB action) it will remain separate.
That's really interesting. The original articles implied that B&E would own Pan-Am's share of PAS, I Googled it again, and now they're saying that CSX would keep ownership of Pan-Am's 50% stake. So does that mean B&E is purely a contracted operator, or will B&E own trackage rights over track owned by CSX/NS? This is like some weird version of CSAO.

CSOR interchanges with P&W, it's just a lousy (NEC) and circuitous route from CSOR to the national system compared to interchanging with CSX in Springfield, so the interchanges that they do now are P&W cars headed for the national system via a more direct route through CSOR. I've heard that in practice PAS runs separately down the Springfield Line to Berlin, but CSOR's map shows an interchange there.

It will be interesting to see how G&W decides to run these various railroads, even if they can't be merged on paper, they may well end up looking like a single railroad with some interesting lashups.
  by F74265A
 
I understand the filings to say B&E will be the operator of PAS. Pan am is the current operator. Nothing I’ve seen in the transaction results in any change in ownership of PAS, only a change in designated operator. So nothing changes in terms of trackage rights or paper barriers in respect of PAS
  by MEC407
 
ElectricTraction wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 3:04 pm The original articles implied that B&E would own Pan-Am's share of PAS, I Googled it again, and now they're saying that CSX would keep ownership of Pan-Am's 50% stake.
I don't know which specific articles you're referencing, but the original STB filings always stated that PAS would be jointly owned by CSX and NS (CSX inheriting Pan Am's 50% stake in PAS), and that operation of PAS would be contracted out to GWI subsidiary Pittsburg and Shawmut Railroad, which would operate and market PAS under the new name Berkshire and Eastern Railroad.
  by ElectricTraction
 
F74265A wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 3:23 pmI understand the filings to say B&E will be the operator of PAS. Pan am is the current operator. Nothing I’ve seen in the transaction results in any change in ownership of PAS, only a change in designated operator. So nothing changes in terms of trackage rights or paper barriers in respect of PAS
It's likely that was the plan all along and the reporting on it was sloppy/incomplete. I read news articles, not the actual filings themselves.
  by NYC27
 
The P&W-CSO interchange is done under a waiver from CSX and is only for CSX bound freight off the P&W. It gives them a shortcut.
  by ElectricTraction
 
Is that in exchange for the ex-Conrail trackage rights over the Springfield line? What a discombobulated cluster****.
Last edited by MEC407 on Thu May 20, 2021 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by lordsigma12345
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 7:32 am The Vermonter....isn't that an issue with a PAS successor G&W?
The Vermonter and Valley Flyer trains have to cross the B&A at the Springfield diamond to get from the Amtrak dispatched territory to the Pan Am dispatched territory and are at the mercy of the CSX dispatcher for the crossing. I think the concern related to the Vermonter is an increase in freight service on the B&A impacting the timeliness in passenger trains being able to cross the diamond. Typically the northbound Vermonter has to wait for 449 to pass which of course is another Amtrak train but the Valley Flyer trains sometimes see delays getting thru due to freight traffic.

Additionally Amtrak is trying to seasonally launch the Berkshire Flyer train and has an interest in being an operator of the east west service Massdot has been looking into (seemingly with Albany - Boston trains and possibly some inland route new Haven - Boston service as evidenced on their “Connect US” map - all of which increased freight traffic on the B&A related to the deal would have implications on. )
  by markhb
 
Maine's Senator Collins has also submitted a letter of support for the merger. Her office, at least, is not looking forward to the unprecedented visibility into their supply chain they will get via the ShipCSX platform. 😉
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Markhb, something incongruous with your immediate posting.

"Senator Sue" supports the CSX-PAR combination, but she " is not looking forward to the unprecedented visibility into their supply chain".

She supports the combination, yet she is concerned about her constituency's supply chain.
  by gokeefe
 

Gilbert B Norman wrote:[Now insofar as the Downeaster, doesn't the NNEPRA actually hold the contract to operate such over PAR, and Amtrak is a subcontractor with NNEPRA to provide maintained equipment and Rules Qualified, rested under HOS, Train and Engine crews? (surprise!!!!….I don't know)
I am nearly certain the Operating agreement is between Amtrak and Pan Am (with likely mention of the ST/B&M/MEC corporate subsidiaries).

Amtrak has an agreement with NNEPRA to operate the state supported service. NNEPRA may have certain grant agreements with Pan Am for previous capital improvements but I am unsure of this. It could be that agreements on improved operations are incorporated into the Operating Agreement.

Regardless I am certain that Pan Am is only willing to contract with Amtrak for liability reasons.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by Trinnau
 
I can say definitively the Downeaster agreement on MBTA territory is between the MBTA and Amtrak, so it make sense the agreement would also be with Pan Am.
  by markhb
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 3:02 pm Mr. Markhb, something incongruous with your immediate posting.

"Senator Sue" supports the CSX-PAR combination, but she " is not looking forward to the unprecedented visibility into their supply chain".

She supports the combination, yet she is concerned about her constituency's supply chain.
It was hard to phrase. Virtually all the businesses who have submitted comments in support have used the exact same boilerplate that mentions 'unprecedented visibility into [their] supply chain with ShipCSX'. I was joking about her letter not using that line because, of course, a Congressional office has no need for that level of supply chain management.
  by Shortline614
 
A lot of applications filed recently seem to be "incomplete." This certainly pushes the acquisition back a few months. I wonder how much patience is still left in both Jacksonville and Billerica.
  • 1
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 187