• 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

  • 3074 posts
  • 1
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 205
  by F74265A
 
Vrs as I understand it has access now to pas, cp and gw and no access to csx or ns. That’s 3 interchange partners. Under proposed deal, they would get cp, gw and gw as pas contract operator. So that ‘s 2 or 3 interchange partners depending on one’s view of the situation. But demanding csx and ns access gets vrs at least 4 interchange partners. Not clear to me why they think they should get more interchange partners than they have today.
  by newpylong
 
See the post directly above yours that I wrote. They aren't asking for direct access, they are asking for an operator that is not GWI so that access to NS and CSX is not controlled by them and thus reducing gateways.
  by johnpbarlow
 
Is there a reason (s) why VRS wouldn’t just ask for trackage rights over the new PAS for the 40-50 miles between Hoosick Jct and Mohawk/RJ to get direct interchange with NS and CSX? I suspect the new PAS wouldn’t be too happy about such a concession, though.

Alternatively (and facetiously) perhaps the Battenkill could run HJ to Mohawk/RJ overhead trains on behalf of VRS!

Serious question: post acquisition, will PAS still operate the Mechanicville IM/Auto facilities? I think yes suggesting to me one day CSX might get access to a Capital area container facility that they don’t currently have.
  by newpylong
 
They can ask but they won't get it. I wouldn't let them out onto my railroad that is already single track from Hoosick Junction to Ferry Street and lose my cut.

I am sure PAS will still switch the facility but NS manages it as part of their network. CSX is going to exit PAS it has nothing to do with XO now or in the future.
  by NYC27
 
johnpbarlow wrote:Is there a reason (s) why VRS wouldn’t just ask for trackage rights over the new PAS for the 40-50 miles between Hoosick Jct and Mohawk/RJ to get direct interchange with NS and CSX? I suspect the new PAS wouldn’t be too happy about such a concession, though.
Assuming CSX, NS and G&W all thought this was a good idea (which none of them do) they still couldn't do it. CP owns and controls XO to Crescent. Why would they allow VTR to connect with CSX when CP currently gets a share of that traffic via Whitehall? VTR would need PTC to cross that section, an expense I'm sure they don't want to take on. On top of that the yard at Rotterdam is two long tracks and one short one anyway, not exactly an ideal place to invite another carrier into.
  by NotYou
 
There was talk on the VRS thread about CP wanting to shutdown the Whitehall interchange and interchange exclusively through Newport. Guessing that is not happening.
  by NYC27
 
Do the math - Whitehall is on a main and Newport on a branch. If anything they shut down Newport.
  by NotYou
 
I agree with your logic @NYC27, just passing along what I read. I would be surprised if CP doesn't try to abandon the Newport line.
  by newpylong
 
My sources are saying a new neutral operator for PAS will be announced by the end of the year. Unknown how much will need to be refiled.
  by F74265A
 
If a neutral operator is in fact selected, will be very curious to see how the ns need for trackage rights through Worcester on the pw for the stack train is addressed
  by johnpbarlow
 
Q: should we anticipate any routing change to PAS' weekly slurry train (ie, BFPO) post acquisition? A CSX version of Q-BFPO could take good quality track all the way from Bellows Falls to Portland by way of Springfield, once the Worcester Main is upgraded (admittedly at additional mileage). As a side note, if today's D3 routing is preserved for whatever B&E will call BFPO, a crew change from B&E to CSX will be needed at Ayer.
  by F74265A
 
For reasons including the necessary backup move at the diamond in spfld, I would not expect such a routing.
  by newpylong
 
johnpbarlow wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:48 am Q: should we anticipate any routing change to PAS' weekly slurry train (ie, BFPO) post acquisition?
No, and I would imagine the dedicated train will go away with more reliable service.
  by NYC27
 
Rumford has replaced much of its coated paper production with pulp and pulpboard. The slurry is about half of what it was last year and the BFPO is going to go away sooner or later. That type of 1x a week operation doesn't fit the CSX PSR playbook, when they can just as easily move it in manifest. It really only exists because PAR's manifest service is too unreliable.
  by NHV 669
 
Last I knew, that symbol was abolished earlier in the year, and they just tack those cars on the BFED or whatever they call that part of the ED turn.
  • 1
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 205