• Intermodal to Maine

  • 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

  • 214 posts
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  by johnpbarlow
 
WN&P wrote:
johnpbarlow wrote:
fogg1703 wrote:
BM6569 wrote:The containers are not going past Ayer at this point so I'm not sure it would make sense to use well cars. You can't have double stacks to Portland anyway.
My point was if the service was to grow to any markets beyond New England (Midwest, Southeast) we could see well cars loaded single stacked in Maine and then filet/toupee in Worcester (CSX) or Mechanicville (NS) a la 22k/23K.
Minor point but 22K/23K don't get toupeed or filleted at Mechanicville as 205/206 handle all M'ville containers. Is there any intermodal terminal in the US where a RR does perform such a likely time-consuming operation?
Syracuse, I believe
I think CSX eliminated filleting/toupeeing operations at Dewitt once the B&A was cleared for domestic doublestacks to Worcester three years ago. One other point about 22K/23K as pointed out to me by a fellow rail fan is that these trains use a lot spine cars interspersed with well cars. Spine cars can only handle single stacked containers or pigs and I'm guessing that with RRs' general trend to double stacking containers rather than hauling TOFC, spine cars are plentiful. Perhaps it's somehow cheaper NS/PAS to use "excess" spine cars and/or it's easier to load/unload spine cars when overhead cranes aren't installed at intermodal facility like Hill Yard/
  by CN9634
 
Well this post aged rather nicely given the events of the past several months... interesting to compare and contrast from a few years ago to now. I figured it would be a good time to dust off this old thread instead of starting something new relative to a potential CSX Intermodal terminal in Maine

Working from home today, I decided to pop on the Palmer, MA webcam as a minor distraction to the barrage of emails and calls. It's been a while since I've been on the B&A in person, and I was pleasantly surprised to see on the intermodal trains still had quite a few TOFC vans mixed in. I knew that UPS was still a good chunk of that TOFC mix, but also saw quite a few random OTR vans mixed in.

Given the TOFC product still exists in some form in the Worcester lane and given District 2s vertical challenges, I'm wondering if the rumored Rigby intermodal facility would best be serviced by both 53' boxes and vans.
  by Cosakita18
 
Schneider TOFC immediately pops to mind as a growth avenue for Rigby Intermodal. Take a drive on 95 and you'll always see lots of orange Schneider trailers. I assume CSX has no problem running a mix of single stack, COFC and TOFC east of Worcester.
  by Eli17zn6
 
CSX should have no problem to run single stack containers on wells, spine and TOFC east of Worcester to Maine. I live off 495 by NE mass and i see lots of Schneider, JB Hunt, NS and CSX containers.
  by roberttosh
 
Will CSX want to run single stack containers from Portland all the way to Chicago if they can instead be trucked to Worcester and be shipped double stacked to Chicago? If not, that is going to cut down on what can be loaded at Rigby, or at least until they clear the route for DS service.
  by F74265A
 
I understood from this discussion that the purported reason for adding rigby is capacity constraints at Worcester. If true, then I would think they would be less concerned about running single stacks out of Maine
  by pnolette
 
They might run it to Dewitt and add a second container there.
  by newpylong
 
CN9634 wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:07 pm Well this post aged rather nicely given the events of the past several months... interesting to compare and contrast from a few years ago to now. I figured it would be a good time to dust off this old thread instead of starting something new relative to a potential CSX Intermodal terminal in Maine

Working from home today, I decided to pop on the Palmer, MA webcam as a minor distraction to the barrage of emails and calls. It's been a while since I've been on the B&A in person, and I was pleasantly surprised to see on the intermodal trains still had quite a few TOFC vans mixed in. I knew that UPS was still a good chunk of that TOFC mix, but also saw quite a few random OTR vans mixed in.

Given the TOFC product still exists in some form in the Worcester lane and given District 2s vertical challenges, I'm wondering if the rumored Rigby intermodal facility would best be serviced by both 53' boxes and vans.
To add to this, some of highest priority trains on the Water Level route (Q00X) are nearly all TOFC. Pretty cool. Lotta UPS.
  by roberttosh
 
No doubt, though you have to wonder if Maine has the volumes to generate a solid TOFC train.
  by PT1101
 
I am not sure if RUMORS are allowed to be posted. If not, delete at will. The reason I am posting this RUMOR (disclaimer, this is nothing but a rumor) is that I find it slightly amusing. The RUMOR I heard (I hope I have stressed that enough) is that one the transaction is complete, CSX will rebuild parts of the West Yard (former MEC side) of the yard at Rigby. The tracks currently are in deplorable condition. On the BM side, tracks closest to the transload site and wye to the old Eastern Route will be reconfigured and 2-3 IM tracks will be created. Again, purely RUMOR. I just wonder if the old LeTourneau "Piggy Packer" is still there rotting away behind the mountain of old ties. :-D
  by newpylong
 
This falls into the RUMORS I also have heard.
  by roberttosh
 
That makes sense and quite honestly don't know how else they could do it. Can't be on the West side of the yard as that would require either going through neighborhoods and crossing over the Downeaster by-pass track or crossing the entire yard from the other side. The way the yard is currently constructed, I don't see a feasible way of creating a legitimate IM terminal on the East side without a lot of track reconfiguration, so this is really their only good option.
  by CN9634
 
I’ve also heard these RUMORS
  by gokeefe
 
Interesting to see these ideas coming up ... Rigby certainly has plenty of space to work with. Lots more than most other places. Never thought of that as an asset bit given growth in Boston it makes a lot of sense.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by johnpbarlow
 
FWIW, looking at the newly renovated ShipCSX web site for intermodal service lanes, there are currently 7 origin points for domestic/UMAX IM service to Worcester as shown in the attached image. Presumably a portion of this IM service to Worcester comprises containers/TOFC that are bound for Maine. The CSX trains facilitating IM delivery to Worcester are as follows:
  • From Indianapolis: Q008 / Q022 (2 day transit)
  • From E St Louis: Q008 / Q022 (2 day transit)
  • From Cincinnati: Q008 / Q020 (4 day transit)
  • From Monterrey Mexico: UP / Q018 (8 day transit)
  • From San Antonio TX: UP / Q022 (7 day transit)
  • From Bedford Pk Chicago: 0300 cutoff via Q010 / Q022 (2 day transit) and 1600 cutoff via Q020 (2 day transit )
  • From Cleveland: Q158 / Q020 (3 day transit)
Assuming there's no re-ordering of cars/containers enroute, I believe this means 7 different origin blocks arrive Worcester on 3 different pig trains from which an IM train or block on a carload train would need to be created for Maine delivery. That incremental work looks to me to be a logistical challenge for what we we have estimated to be a near capacity IM operation. But perhaps a Maine block creation would happen at Dewitt Yard, which I think is larger?

Note that Worcester originates domestic/UMAX IM service to 14 destinations with all but Bedford Park being off CSX. So there's a challenge of blocking Maine originating COFC/TOFC at Worcester or Dewitt, as well.

Also note that no IM service to/from Worcester serves the I-95 or I-81 corridors in the SE US but maybe in the long run this will change once the ex-B&O line between Philly and DC is cleared for domestic double stacked containers. More logistical challenges for Worcester (don't think Dewitt would help here being a bit out of the way)...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15