• 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

  • 2943 posts
  • 1
  • 187
  • 188
  • 189
  • 190
  • 191
  • 197
  by bostontrainguy
 
Consummation meaning done deal?
  by newpylong
 
Correct, the date on which the transaction is executed as authorized.
  by markhb
 
Reading the decision, it's interesting that the STB is calling PAS from Ayer to M'ville the "Northern Route," to differentiate from the Selkirk - Barbers "Southern Route". So Pan Am Southern travels the Northern Route, but not the Northern Railroad which is also sometimes called the Northern Route. Fits perfectly with a city where one travels north from the center to get to the West End. ;)
  by markhb
 
johnpbarlow wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:23 am Letters of support for CSX acquisition of Pan Am filed at the STB by Pan Am customers Broco Oil and GFI Partners.
https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302791.pdf
Maine's Governor Mills also has filed a statement of support, https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302802.pdf
  by johnpbarlow
 
NNEPRA and State of Connecticut support CSX acquisition of Pan Am:

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302825.pdf
https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302826.pdf

In addition to agreeing to existing Downeaster operational and maintenance activities, CSX and NNEPRA agree to complete the Wells siding lengthening and construction of second high level platform with pedestrian bridge, working toward I-ETMS PTC implementation to Brunswick, assisting NNEPRA with Portland station relocation to between the Fore River Bridge and Congress Street (is that where Union Station used to be?), and assistance in planning a new station for West Falmouth ME.
Last edited by johnpbarlow on Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by newpylong
 
And guess what MassDOT is going to get by not coming to the table earlier (at all?) A big fat goose egg when the trough was ripe to be eaten from.
  by jamoldover
 
Interesting line in the letter from Connecticut:

"CSXT has proposed Pan Am's subsidiaries, Boston & Maine and Springfield Terminal, to be operated by Genesee and Wyoming (G&W). CTDOT has an excellent working relationship with G&W and supports this proposal. G&W will be able to draw on their experience operating in Connecticut and we believe they will provide efficient, customer responsive rail service."

There seems to be some confusion at the state level about the relationships among ST, PA, B&M, PAS, etc...
  by bostontrainguy
 
newpylong wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:00 am And guess what MassDOT is going to get by not coming to the table earlier (at all?) A big fat goose egg when the trough was ripe to be eaten from.
Yeah, I got a feeling they may have played the game wrong here. CSX may just say, "sorry Charlie".

Remember my suggested approach, Rep. Neal:

How about something more like: "I fully support the CSX/Pan Am merger to better serve the freight needs of all of New England and I look forward to working with them on future passenger rail projects in the State".

It may be a little too late for that.
  by Safetee
 
on the other hand mass dot and company over the years have been very generous with csx in their pursuit of passenger lines as well as providing funding various freight rail projects around the commonwealth. with all the running that they will be doing on state owned lines, i dont think that it would be in csxs best interest to say "you folks missed the hail csx boat so in retribution we're putting all of our money into connecticut or maine or new hampshire.
  by roberttosh
 
Are these 2 support letters potentially needle movers in CSX's favor? I would think that the NNEPRA one definitely is a big get. Certainly more support now across across the entire spectrum than opposition, which has to bode well for CSX's chances.
  by bostontrainguy
 
Safetee wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:55 am i dont think that it would be in csxs best interest to say "you folks missed the hail csx boat so in retribution we're putting all of our money into connecticut or maine or new hampshire.
It's not that. CSX will still be putting money into the infrastructure in Mass to get their railroad up to snuff. They just may not be so cooperative in dealing with the East-West passenger plan which is what the Commonwealth wanted by pushing an ill-advised opposition tactic.
  by newpylong
 
jamoldover wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:06 am Interesting line in the letter from Connecticut:

"CSXT has proposed Pan Am's subsidiaries, Boston & Maine and Springfield Terminal, to be operated by Genesee and Wyoming (G&W). CTDOT has an excellent working relationship with G&W and supports this proposal. G&W will be able to draw on their experience operating in Connecticut and we believe they will provide efficient, customer responsive rail service."

There seems to be some confusion at the state level about the relationships among ST, PA, B&M, PAS, etc...
Semantics, they were dealing with PAS and that will be operated by GWI. The crazy lineage / ownership structure is not really a concern to customers.
  by newpylong
 
roberttosh wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 9:08 am Are these 2 support letters potentially needle movers in CSX's favor? I would think that the NNEPRA one definitely is a big get. Certainly more support now across across the entire spectrum than opposition, which has to bode well for CSX's chances.
To be honest, while not meaningless, the letters really don't amount to much one way or the other. Especially these politicians/groups with no skin in the game...

The STB has to look at the transaction wholelistically and make a decision based on facts whether competition will be hampered and whether the transaction will benefit the service region.

They could be a tie breaker in some cases but is this one I don't believe so.

There could be some hold outs who dig their heels in, but by the decision date I fully expect there will be enough back room discussion (ie more greasing/concessions) where the naysayers will relent.
  • 1
  • 187
  • 188
  • 189
  • 190
  • 191
  • 197