• Milford-Bennington Railroad (MBRX) Discussion

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  • 187 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
  by MEC407
artman wrote:Have they ever supported a public cause or charity?
Many years ago -- I'm not sure exactly how many years, but I believe it was pre-2001 -- they mentioned in the company newsletter that they gave some used railroad ties to a law enforcement agency for some kind of training exercise. I'm sorry I can't remember all the details.

Regardless, in all the years I've been following the company, that's the only instance I can think of in which they gave something away without asking for anything in return.

Now it's entirely possible that they've done other things and simply didn't publicize it, but considering that they went out of their way to mention that in their newsletter, you'd think they'd mention any other charitable giving as well.

If anyone knows or can think of anything else, please chime in!
  by BigLou80
artman wrote:
My God, I hate PanAm. Has anyone ever (ever!?!) heard anything positive about them? Have they ever done more than their share? Have they ever supported a public cause or charity? Have they ever been called a good corporate citizen? Have they ever paid all the taxes they owe on time? Has a year gone by when they haven't been sued to pay what they owe?

As heard on the scanner today " I can't believe we actually have something around here that works" if that tells you anything about moral with in the company much less it's outward appearance.

I hate to do it but I'm going to support Pan Am. It sounds like this guy did a little shady dealing with the state when he was in office. Now Pan Am has their chance to put the boots to him Oh well that's business.

Owning my own business I lost a project to a guy who was cheating on his taxes and the insurance. He never should have been issued a permit but one of the unit owners worked at the Inspectors office. I waited until he was a week in to the project and called every regulatory agency I could on him. I had him shut down for over a week and cost him who knows how much in fees and penalties. That unit owner now works in a different town department.
  by Tim Mullins
NOOOOOO...."Mullins".....But I did get teased alot when I worked there....and the commuter rail before that...Wish i had his money though!
  by cpf354
artman wrote:Have they ever supported a public cause or charity?
Yes, in 1999 Tim Mellon personally donated $72,000 to the The New York Times College Scholarship Fund, more than any other single donor that year. I don't think it was in the name of the company though.
Pan Am also had a long running legal and regulatory battle with another New Hampshire shortline, New England Southern, after terminating their lease to operate from Manchester to Concord.
  by boatsmate
I have to defend my friend Tim he is deff. not a mellon... I know they have done free training for the fire depts along the ROW I have been to there trainging a couple of years ago, and yes it was free

Capt Bill
  by MEC407
That training directly benefits the railroad, so one would sort of hope that they wouldn't charge fire service personnel to attend.
  by Tim Mullins
Ok!...We were told other wise....So with the companies that wanted railservice, why did the state allow it?
  by b&m 1566
I was told by Peter Dearness himself that he was looking to interchange freight via the northern during the strike of 86 but Guilford owning the tracks didn't allow it. Before the sale to the state, the tracks were removed to keep New England Southern from having other connection to interchange traffic.
Depending on who you ask, I'm sure you will get a different story.
Now back to the Milford and Bennington.
  by GP40MC 1116
The dispute between Pan Am and Leishman ostensibly stems from a collision between one of Leishman’s trains and a flatbed tractor-trailer truck, where the tracks cross Route 101A, near the junction of Route 101, on Oct. 22, 2009.

No one was hurt in the crash, and the truck driver, Eric Macias of Milford, was later summonsed for failing to stop at a railroad crossing. The train had activated the signal lights at the crossing (which also turns all traffic lights red), and sounded its air horn as it approached, witnesses told police.

I would have asked NH DOT or FRA where fault was proven in the accident? Leave it to Pan Am to yet again claim they've got all the answers.....
  by NRGeep
Some would call the above comments "Guilford bashing" though it's based on reality.
  by Trinnau
citystation1848 wrote:So, the Nashua Telegraph had an article today regarding the shutdown in 2010.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/906 ... racks.html
Rail owner banned from using tracks
by Andrew Wolfe
Staff Writer

CONCORD – Pan Am Railways has banned Milford-Bennington Railroad owner Rep. Peter Leishman from driving his trains on their tracks for life, following a collision that police found was not his fault.

Pan Am officials conducted their own investigation, however, and concluded that Leishman had violated safety regulations by failing to get down off his train and flag traffic.


Leishman and Pan Am President David Fink have been fighting over rights to the rails since the late 1980s, when Leishman took over the line abandoned by Pan Am’s predecessor, Guilford Transportation.
Now, I'm not familiar with the NORAC rules, but why would they need to flag a crossing that has crossing signals? Last I knew, that crossing was NOT considered exempt and there's no lack of crossing lights (as you can see in some of the photos in the article).

What is it with Pan Am and New Hampshire shortlines? NEGS and MBRX have not faired so well this past year.

Based on the article, if he was indeed required to flag the crossing then it's a 50% fault case. If either (or both) the truck or the train had stopped there would not have been an accident. I would assume police departments aren't versed in NORAC rules either - hence the need for a railroad investigation of the incident.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13