• G&W to acquire P&W

  • Topics relating to the operation of the P&W Railroad, which is a subsidiary of Genesee and Wyoming. Regional freight railroad based in Worcester and operating in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York.
    Official Website
Topics relating to the operation of the P&W Railroad, which is a subsidiary of Genesee and Wyoming. Regional freight railroad based in Worcester and operating in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York.
Official Website

Moderator: MEC407

  by boatsmate
Well for one I can see some layoffs, Office personal eventually, as billing and other clerical functions will get moved to G&W HQ, I would think hey would most likely move Dispatch to their main dispatch center just like NECR, and CSO. this will not likely occur right away as they need to train the dispatchers in the territory, and set up radio comm's but I would bet with in the first year.

Just my two cents worth of watching other takeovers.
  by MEC407
Yup, sounds about right to me.
  by Safetee
Well one strike against changing dispatching right off the bat is the fact that P&W is a big player on the corridor and is a key NORAC member road. I do not believe that GW has any other NORAC roads in its stable. I would think that a key to maintaining P&Ws corridor value would be to not even hint at lessening P&Ws NORAC connection.
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
johnpbarlow wrote:G&W will finally gain access to Tiverton, RI! :wink:
That's a paper quid pro quo with RIDOT. By never giving up its freight rights, the long-disused track never formally went abandoned...just OOS. RIDOT has the future option to reactivate the Tiverton connection between the Fall River Branch and Newport Secondary while sidestepping most of the NIMBY Operation Chaos maneuvers to try to kill it. P&W would wink-wink give its notice to the FRA that it plans to reactivate for freight service and give the beachfront owners their due notice to get their boats and makeshift gravel grade crossings off the ROW in X days. Then RIDOT would fight the battles about the reconstruction work and upgrading the track to greater than its last active operating condition of Class 1.

There'll never be freight to Newport again, but it'll remain on the P&W system map forever because of this paper sleight-of-hand with RIDOT.
Last edited by F-line to Dudley via Park on Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
BandA wrote:We know they plan to sell property in East Providence. Is that good or bad? I assume it is bad for railroading because it will be developed for something else like condos or offices and precluded forever from freight.
That's been in the works for years. It's South Quay on Veterans Memorial Pkwy., with straight shot to I-195 Exit 5 and loading docks on the river. They're developing it for multimodal shipping, primarily trucks because of the easy access to 195. This is a real estate development of theirs, not a railroad development...so rail access is a secondary consideration. It does mutually serve the railroad by indirectly bolstering the truck shipping presence in RI, so that's why they purchased the property years ago and have high hopes for the development.

In the event one of their new South Quay tenants does request rail access, RIDOT is required to restore the 2 miles of East Providence Secondary track it ripped up to build Waterfront Drive...per a land swap agreement with P&W when the abandonment proceeding was processed. New ROW reservation is provisioned on the median between Waterfront Dr. and Water St., and you can see on Google to the south that the East Bay Bike Path on the ex- Bristol Branch dives off the ROW and bolts itself to Veterans Pkwy. on a side path to stay away from the South Quay property.
  by johnpbarlow
Presumably this $2.37M grant from the FRA announced yesterday to support 12 miles of CWR installation means the P&W Gardner branch will continue to be an important line in the G&W big picture...
Track-related grants include:
• $2.37 million to the Providence and Worcester Railroad Co. in Massachusetts to rehabilitate 12 miles of century-old rail to improve track conditions substantially with new continuous welded rail and ties along Providence and Worcester Railroad's Gardner Branch rail line in central Massachusetts.
  by johnpbarlow
Very interesting article in Worcester Telegram from 9/12/16:

http://www.telegram.com/news/20160911/t ... r-its-sale

So who was "Party A", seeking to "to further develop strategic opportunities and enhance regional connectivity" by merging with P&W? Pan Am Southern? NS?

And who was "Party B", the contender that was ultimately outbid by G&W? CSX? NS?

I'm guessing Party A must have had physical interchange connections with P&W as well as existing interline marketing agreements.
  by CN9634
Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure did bid... they own Central, Maine & Quebec. Doubtful a class I put in a bit but it's certainly possible.
  by daylight4449
And how, pray tell, do you know that Fortress threw in?
  by CN9634
The internet.
  by Jeff Smith
Lots of interested parties: https://www.stb.gov/home.nsf/case?openf ... FD_36064_0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by johnpbarlow
I'm surprised that CSX, VRS, Seaview Transportation, Conn DOT/Metro North, New York & Atlantic, and Amtrak haven't expressed interest...
  by DutchRailnut
Why would CDOT or Metro North or Amtrak express interest in a freight railroad ??
  by johnpbarlow
Perhaps because the RR that is being acquired, P&W, is a trackage rights tenant of Amtrak & MN/CDOT, running stone trains and manifest freight along the NEC? Maybe G&W has some operational plan changes that these passenger RRs might want to know about? I don't know - just speculating...

I saw that VRS has filed a support statement for the G&W acquisition of P&W as of 9/26/16:
https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7 ... 241578.pdf

See attachment for excerpt. VRS' support of G&W is interesting in that (1) I had read in various railfan forums that G&W had tried to acquire VRS and (2) G&W's ward NECR was trying to stifle Conn River route competition by imposing much higher trackage rights fees for PAS interchange with VRS' WACR between E Northfield and White River Junction, a case still pending in front of the STB. Maybe there's a quid pro quo pending here (more speculation!): VRS supports G&W if NECR institutes less onerous fees for PAS-WACR interchange?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by RJDC85
I wonder if there is also a potential increase in traffic over the Green Mountain Gateway, the partnership between CP-VRS-NECR-P&W? VRS appears to benefit from this merger.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10