CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

No, as he said, the agreement has been there forever.

CP didn't really have much to stand on with it's PAS dispute.

newpylong wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:23 am You hit the nail on the head on your last paragraph.

However, things weren't bad off the bat at all under GTI. The B&M was just coming off the massive 4R mainline reconstruction project and had a 40 mph East to West Freight Main. Besides new paint and symbols, the combined MEC and B&M were fairly harmonious until the lease (and subsequent strikes) to the ST was initiated. The workers at the time were hopeful that the cash infusion and combined system would be able to compete with Conrail in the Northeast and return both railroads to the forefront. Guilford used the dwindling carloads of its staple industries at the time as an opportunity to implement those draconian labor practices. The end result was the bottom fell out never to return. If industry was leaving New England, Guilford gave them a kick in the ass to get them out the door.

Absolutely! I saw that taking place and have early pictures of the mixed traffic, locomotives, and rolling stock with long freights multiple times during the day which all came to an end rather suddenly.

GTI did a lot to lessen the customer load too by making it difficult for customers to receive freight on time. The strikes only hastened the customers leaving for which I don't blame them.

The one thing I remember was the poor quality of the ROW all over with branch lines being trimmed and cut using the excuse that the tracks are too poor to maintain, and there's no longer customers on the line. The M&L up to Salem, NH was one of them that stands out for me.

This was around the time that the crew in Lawrence told me to talk to the folks in Billerica, but I didn't.

I know my dead horse beating of this CSX Operating Agreement over CP/D&H is getting a bit tiresome (not to mention off topic!) but the zoomable detailed CSX system map does NOT show such an operating agreement even though the map legend suggests that it does show operating agreements (also note that Pan Am is shown in green as a short line partner!). I can understand that this more detailed map has yet to be updated with the Pan Am acquisition in the same way the less detailed "printable system map" has been updated. But I would have thought that any existing CP/D&H operating agreement mileage would have been depicted on the zoomable map.

I did find this news release on the CSX corporate web site that announced CSX proposed use of the CP/D&H to route carload traffic between Albany and Montreal but I didn't think CSX ever pulled the trigger (if it was approved by STB) even though CP stopped running its own freights into NYC letting CSX haul that small amount of traffic:
https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/ ... d-service/

When I clumsily use the ShipCSX web site carload schedule to see if one can ship to any CP as partner based Montreal locations from a CSX origin, all I get are Canadian National-based Montreal locales: Melocheville, Beauharnois, and Montreal ICTF (in Beauharnois).

The CSX zoomable map link: https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers ... ystem-map/

I thought at one point there was talk of CSX running CN interchange traffic from Selkirk up the former D&H to Montreal so as to avoid the roundabout routing via Syracuse/Huntington.

johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:00 am I did find this news release on the CSX corporate web site that announced CSX proposed use of the CP/D&H to route carload traffic between Albany and Montreal but I didn't think CSX ever pulled the trigger (if it was approved by STB) even though CP stopped running its own freights into NYC letting CSX haul that small amount of traffic:
https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/ ... d-service/

That's the agreement, it was even further back than I remembered. They were going to qualify Selkirk crews to Saratoga about 8 years ago. CSX changed their mind on that at the last minute, like a week before the jobs were supposed to go up for bid.

The agreement was never terminated, and they can still use this agreement today. Of course, now there aren't enough people to spare, but that is why it shows on the map.

JohnPBarlow,

Instead of trying to figure out how CSXT and CPRS would do an interchange at Selkirk, Saratoga Springs or Mechanicville, ask yourself "Why?" to get your answer.

"Why would you bother with such an arrangement when there is no large volume of traffic being passed over?"

As demonstrated in earlier discussions in this thread, CP and Pan Am interchange cement from Delson, PQ at about 30-40 cars at a time at Mechanicville with any consistency. Rest of the cars moving between CP and PAS are not enough to demand a separate train in either direction.

The same logic applies with the available CP-CSX arrangement in the Albany/Saratoga Springs areas.
Traffic from BC, AB, MB from CP to CSX (the largest carload volumes - wheat, lumber, paper) pretty much interchange at Chicago. So that traffic has no need to go over Saratoga/Mechanicville/Selkirk.
It doesn't benefit CSX to be subject to shorter miles from a revenue standpoint.
The other provinces of ON and PQ don't have a large volume of origin traffic, and New Brunswick traffic is one of the top 3 reasons why CSX bought Pan Am.

There just isn't a solid reason revenue wise to use the agreement that is in place since it won't increase your traffic.

Not too much news but some tidbits:

CSX trying to give NS the shaft on trackage rights (high fees, etc).

CSX saying the Clinton bridge needs to be replaced.

The new rail will be going in weekdays soon Harvard to New Bond.

CSX wants to add an SELA but no man power anywhere to do it anywhere across the system.

72k ties MP 64 - MP 0 and that's just to open it up for regular service at 10 mph.

Clinton bridge needs to be replaced to accommodate NS DS or needs to be replaced as a general matter?

It was raised and undercut to accommodate rax in the conrail era

Not surprised they are looking to run an SELA as something really needs to give at this point. 426 will likely be a straight Selkirk - Portland job (which should really grow in size as time goes by) while SELA can handle PW, Ayer and Lawrence traffic. Will be interesting to see what they do with EDPO/POED going forward, perhaps run an AYPO/POAY set instead?

"72K ties from MP64-MP0----------just to get to 10MPH". Is this for the NOrthern Maine Juntion to Keag line?

Should be, given the mileposts....

It could also be a case of where poor rail condition is keeping it at class one, not necessarily the ties, especially if they're replacing on average more than 1,000 per mile.

The rail is garbage for sure, but everything else is, too.

Not to suggest that tie condition on the line is good, but didn't they do a fairly substantial tie job on the line to Keag within the past few years?

Remember Pan Am has done some tie work— not as extensive— but definitely put in a few Timbers on the Keag line in the past few years. If you get a solid roadbed in shape then you can get the gateway reopened. Even at 10MPH Pan Am was successful on a rate basis (less miles, less carriers) to get a good bit of Irving traffic so CSXT will build some D1 density quickly if they can get that in. From there it’s scalable with trackwork into much larger volumes.