• 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

  by eolesen
 
Grants get awarded based on the merits of the Improvement, not necessarily the railroad. I would be shocked if the grant money were to be withheld or revoked. The benefits are realized regardless of who the operator is.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  by Red Wing
 
You all got me thinking with this Connecticut talk. I wonder if more CT traffic will be rerouted to Deerfield? No backing up West Springfield into a train station then reversing direction to hit the CT line. Up in East Deerfield a strait shot right onto the Springfield line but added mileage.
  by Trinnau
 
That would introduce PAS into the routing instead of a straight CSX move, so it likely won't happen. Plus under current operations it would increase transit time.
  by PBMcGinnis
 
Ale Rider1 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:46 pm I know this has been going on for some time, but for years I thought CSOR had an iron clad paper barrier that prevented them from interchanging with anyone but CSX or terminating short-lines like CNZR. How did that new agreement get put in place?
Pan Am cannot and does not interchange with CSOR. The Conrail paper barrier is still in effect. A shipper can petition for a waiver since this new business post-Conrail, on their traffic but 20+ years none have done so. Pan Am has to hand off cars for CSOR to CSX at Rotterdam Junction, NY and then CSX takes them on a reverse trip back to CSOR. Home Depot traffic from the Irving Saw Mills to the new DC in Windsor Locks take this very expensive and circuitous route. They were warned by Pan Am a year in advance of the issue. They (Home Depot) have yet to petition for a waiver for Pan Am to interchange direct with CSOR. So CSX still acts as the intermediate carrier.

And no - the railroads cannot file the waiver. The customer has to do it.
  by jamoldover
 
According to both the interchange map filed by Pan Am and the current CSOR web site maintained by GWI you are incorrect. The interchange map filed by Pan Am explicitly shows an interchange with CSOR in Hartford. The CSOR web site explicitly lists an interchange with PAS in Berlin. I suspect the former location (Hartford) is the location cars get exchanged and the latter location is the interchange location for accounting purposes. However, regardless of the location, according to the public information released by both railroads, they do, in fact, have an interchange. It is between PAS and CSOR, not PAR and CSOR, if that makes a difference, but it does, in fact, exist.
Last edited by MEC407 on Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by johnpbarlow
 
And now the mayor of West Springfield objects to CSX acquisition of Pan Am because CSX has been uncooperative in the city's opinion in attempting to resolve grade crossing blockage by trains accessing W Springfield Yard at Front St/Bridge St. Sigh...

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 303551.pdf
  by jwhite07
 
The choice of accompanying photo is not particularly compelling to the argument. One vehicle waiting at the crossing for a train which seems to be moving judging by the motion blur in the photo. Whoopie.

Should have sent a picture of a stopped train with lines of ambulances, fire trucks, and families with baby carriages staged on both sides.
  by newpylong
 
The blocking crossing argument is irrelevant to the transaction not sure why these people are wasting theirs or the STB's time.

It will be nice when the filing period is closed at the end of the week and the people stop coming out of the woodwork.
  by PBMcGinnis
 
jamoldover wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:26 pm According to both the interchange map filed by Pan Am and the current CSOR web site maintained by GWI you are incorrect. The interchange map filed by Pan Am explicitly shows an interchange with CSOR in Hartford. The CSOR web site explicitly lists an interchange with PAS in Berlin. I suspect the former location (Hartford) is the location cars get exchanged and the latter location is the interchange location for accounting purposes. However, regardless of the location, according to the public information released by both railroads, they do, in fact, have an interchange. It is between PAS and CSOR, not PAR and CSOR, if that makes a difference, but it does, in fact, exist.

Trust me. Yes there is "interchange" on the map. But the cars go to Selkirk and back on CSX still due to the paper barrier. It's an issue with Irving mills and you can probably track someone down and confirm them as a 2nd source.
  by newpylong
 
I surely can't say about recently but when I was on the RR I never saw a car waybilled to CSOR via Hartford or heard about the PL stopping there to interchange with them. I frequently worked the Deerfield hump so if it was happening I would have seen the cars.
  by CN9634
 
I got a good kick out of this and he's absolutely correct--

"Testimony of Ike Brannon, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Jack Kemp Foundation
STB Docket No. FD 36472, CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., et al.—
Control and Merger—Pan Am Systems, Inc., Pan Am Railways, Inc., Boston and
Maine Corporation, Maine Central Railroad Company, Northern Railroad, Pan Am
Southern LLC, Portland Terminal Company, Springfield Terminal Railway
Company, Stony Brook Railroad Company, and Vermont & Massachusetts
Railroad Company
14 January 2022
I believe that the proposed merger between CSX and Pan Am Railways
would bring benefits to both the U.S. economy and the environment. The
consolidation will serve to improve rail service in the Northeast and
increase the quantity of goods shipped by rail, which will in turn reduce
road congestion, particulate emissions, and greenhouse gasses. There is no
reason to think that this merger will result in a materially higher market
concentration, or that prices will increase for Northeast shippers. The
opposition to the merger appears to be motivated by parochial interests,
and the cost of preserving them vastly outweighs the public benefits from
the merger.
First, the merger between the two railroads will not change the competitive
balance in the rail industry in the Northeast in any discernible way--at least
not for the current Pan Am customers. The shippers formerly served by
Pan Am will now have a Class 1 Railroad rather than a short line railroad
providing their service.
CSX does not currently have tracks in the places where Pan Am operates,
so it is merely expanding its network by incorporating Pam Am’s network
into its own. It is not eliminating a competitor.

By being a part of a larger network, Northeast shippers will be able to get
better service. There will be more customers that they can ship to directly,
which tends to be quicker and less expensive to do, as well as more efficient
in general. This transaction will allow CSX to take advantage of economies
of scale in operating a train network, and by extending into the Northeast it
will acquire more customers who can benefit from their network and
resources.
The merger should serve to increase the capacity of the current Pan Am rail
network, which will have a positive benefit for New England. Being
integrated with the larger CSX rail network will allow CSX to expand how
much trains can operate and carry in the region. Being a part of a larger,
better-capitalized company will undoubtedly boost investment in
maintaining tracks and expanding capacity.
Besides benefitting shippers in the area, New England residents will benefit
from expanded train capacity because it will reduce the number of trucks
operating in New England. Fewer trucks mean that there should be less
congestion on the area’s roads, which translates to less smog, less particulate
pollution, and fewer emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Reducing transportation costs is an unalloyed benefit for society that helps
firms reach customers faster and less expensively, saving them and their
customers money.
That is why it is puzzling that several governmental bodies (but by no
means all of them) oppose the merger. It appears that one objection deals
with a Pan Am dispatch office that would likely see its functions folded
into and integrated within CSX’s broader dispatching operations. But
holding up such a merger benefits an entire region over such parochial
interests could effectively force New England’s shippers to pay more and
accept inferior service for the sake of a relatively small number of
jobs--when a more efficient and robust train transport system would almost
surely serve to create more jobs and higher wages in the region in the long
run while at the same time also providing additional benefits to shippers
across New England.
The objections of Amtrak and its supporters--who want guarantees that
passenger rail access would be unaffected by the merger--are also
misplaced: It is unclear how blocking the merger would help Amtrak, but
doing so would result in more goods being transported by truck, as would
their demands for passenger rail priority on the combined rail network.
Shifting goods from rail to truck to accommodate little-used passenger rail
routes makes no economic or environmental sense. Amtrak’s opposition is
even more puzzling when we see that other passenger rail focused entities
in the region have been publically supportive of the transaction because of
the expected upgrades to the rail network that will seemingly lead to
improved passenger rail performance for everyone over the status quo.
The Biden Administration has opposed or delayed a wide number of
mergers in the last year, for reasons of both economics and, I submit,
ideology. But I fail to see how either precept can explain its apparent
opposition to this merger. The competitive landscape for Northeast freight
rail would be unaffected.
The benefits of this transaction--from jobs created in the long-term to its
positive impact on the environment and the substantial benefits that would
accrue to shippers in the region who stand to gain from an improved and
expanded network--should be obvious to public policy officials. Rejecting
this merger would amount to the government rejecting its explicit
economic agenda of combating climate change and expanding economic
opportunities for slower-growing regions in the country for narrow,
short-term, parochial interests."
  by MEC407
 
Looks like someone learned the word "parochial" recently and is keen to show it off.
  by BM6569
 
They even got a support statement from the former Auburn mayor on behalf of the Lewiston Auburn Railroad Company. Doubt we will see the intermodal yard get used again for containers but would be nice.
  by codasd
 
A couple of interesting comments from the NS representative on the first day of the hearing. When questioned about the reroute of the IM train over the B&A he said it would be running 6-12 months after the close. When pressed he said 6 months. Later in his comments he stated that the Hoosac tunnel expansion for double stack was estimated at $300 million. Comments from both the board chairman and NS expected it would probably be done under PPP if it was deemed a necessity.
  by MEC407
 
If they can do it for $300 million and that price tag includes whatever repairs/upgrades are necessary to make the tunnel safe and reliable for the next 100 years, that seems like a pretty good deal for everyone involved: railroads, shippers, and the general public. (e.g. if something happened on the B&A and it had to be shut down for more than a day or two, being able to use the Hoosac route as a safe, fast, double-stack-capable detour would be nice...)

If $300 million is strictly for clearance work and doesn't address any of the tunnel's myriad other problems, that seems like too big a price for too small a return.
  • 1
  • 229
  • 230
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 247