• Millers Falls interchange yard

  • 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 KEN PATRICK
 
sorry about the caps. trackage rights for necr/pwrr/cn. like an 'open access' concept. since the state is trying to assist in freight development and spends taxpayer money on pas, it seems to make sense to support an option for cost-effective montreal -worcester intermodal. can't believe this could be significant but give it . pas is not a player in this move anyways.
railroads use truck as a guide in pricing. equipment and service hurdles notwithstanding, truck per mile is used for 22-24 tons at whatever gvw is applicable. the problem is that truck miles are 20% shorter than rail, a major factor in the marginal intermodal rail profit margins. i think railroad intermodal would be more profitable if road gvw's are 107k# (up from 80k#) on 6 axles. ken patrick
  by NECR-Conductor
 
On the CN/PW/NECR subject, I can't imagine our unions would have spent days in meetings/negotiations if there wasn't something a brewing. No one is talking as to what, when or how, But something is going on.
  by newpylong
 
KEN PATRICK wrote:sorry about the caps. trackage rights for necr/pwrr/cn. like an 'open access' concept. since the state is trying to assist in freight development and spends taxpayer money on pas, it seems to make sense to support an option for cost-effective montreal -worcester intermodal. can't believe this could be significant but give it . pas is not a player in this move anyways.
railroads use truck as a guide in pricing. equipment and service hurdles notwithstanding, truck per mile is used for 22-24 tons at whatever gvw is applicable. the problem is that truck miles are 20% shorter than rail, a major factor in the marginal intermodal rail profit margins. i think railroad intermodal would be more profitable if road gvw's are 107k# (up from 80k#) on 6 axles. ken patrick
The state has not spent money (yet) on Pan Am Southern. When it does, it will be federal money in the form of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grants won by the state and will be used with the intent of improving Amtrak service.
  by jaymac
 
NECR-Conductor_
Sincere best of luck. A Framingham, MA, non-rr company I worked for was owned by a group in San Antonio, and the gallows humor at our place was the following Q&A: "How does a Texan start a small business?" "He buys a big one."
  by NECR-Conductor
 
NECR-Conductor wrote:On the CN/PW/NECR subject, I can't imagine our unions would have spent days in meetings/negotiations if there wasn't something a brewing. No one is talking as to what, when or how, But something is going on.
To answer my own question:

The Providence and Worcester Railroad (Nasdaq: PWX) and the New England Central Railroad, part of the RailAmerica (NYSE: RA) family, are pleased to announce the establishment of the Great Eastern Route, a new coordinated commercial and operating platform. This new strategic alliance is being developed to increase our collective business with both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to rail customers in southern New England and to enhance their global access through our port facilities.

Over the past 5 years the NECR and P&W have jointly invested significant capital in the infrastructure along with the States ofVermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and the federal government. These investments enhance our service and combined with this new commercial and operating relationship will provide the basis for a greatly improved customer experience aimed at growing our collective business across all commodity lines.

The alliance recently hosted inspection trains with our Canadian Class I partners and looks forward to establishing new and improved supply chains throughout the region.
  by camster202
 
No way, that is awesome. I'll look forward to an increase in traffic down here on NECR in Massachusetts. I've always admired them for nothing less than consistency, as to the northbound 610/611 that just now went by my house here in Amherst.
  by roberttosh
 
KEN PATRICK wrote:I ABSOLUTELY KNOW HOW 'THEIR PRICING SYTEM WORKS' HAVING 'ENJOYED' IT FOR 20 YEARS ON MANY MOVES BY MANY RAILROADS.' IT IS MYOPIC AND A VOLUME-KILLER. RATHER THAN PRICING TO ELIMINATE TRUCK COMPETITION, THEY MATCH TRUCK PRICING- A NO-NO SINCE TRUCKS ARE SUPERIOR IN ALL RESPECTS. ONLY PRICING AT COST MIGHT OVERCOME RAILROAD DEFICIENCIES. I'M SUGGESTING A CONTRACTUAL CAR RATE MILLERS FALLS-GARDNER WITH RUN-THROUGH POWER & CREWS -USUALLY ABOUT $1.35/ LOADED CAR/MILE ( FREE RETURN) $34/CAR.THIS IS A 'STANDARD' ON AMTRAK AND OTHER CLASS ONES.IT IS NOT A 'RULED' PRICE. IN THIS CASE I THINK PAS COULD NEGOTIATE A $100 DOWN & BACK RATE WITHOUT ANY EXPENSE. I'M SURE NECR WOULD PAY FOR SOME TIES AT MILLERS FALLS. BUT CLEAR THINKING WILL STILL PUT THIS INTO THE ASH BIN. THERE'S NO WAY ANYONE CAN BEAT THE COSTS OF MONTREAL-ROUSES POINT-SELKIRK-WORCESTER- VIA CSXT 300 MILES V 500 MILES VIA CONNECTICUT. EVEN IF NECR AND PWRR WANTED TO 'EAT' $270/CAR, I'M SURE THE SERVICE WOULD KILL ANY PRICE BENEFIT. RUN-THROUGH OFFERS A SLIM CHANCE FOR NECR-PWRR. KEN PATRICK
Ken,

First of all, I have no idea where you're getting your information from, but I can tell you with 110% certainty that PAS is under no obligation to handle haulage traffic for anyone and would laugh in your face if you even mentioned any type of pre-determined haulage factor. They price moves on a case by case basis and that $100 per car figure you are throwing around wouldn't even cover their per diem costs. As for the new service, you, nor I, have no idea what type of business they are targeting. You mention CSXT as being a better option for the CN, but how do you even know that this isn't business that they are competing against CSXT for? Both CN and CSXT have lines from the New Orleans, Memphis and the Chicago gateways to the Northeast, so how can they work together on such business? One is getting shorthauled no matter how you slice it. You seem passionate about the rail industry, and I respect your views, but believe me, you aren't making any sense at all with these recent posts.
  by BigLou80
 
KEN PATRICK wrote:I ONLY PRICING AT COST MIGHT OVERCOME RAILROAD DEFICIENCIES.
Didn't you say you were an accountant? Why in the world would they want to price something at cost? All successful business try to make this thing called a PROFIT, it's the whole reason they are in business. If your not going to make any money moving it whats the point ?
  by Cowford
 
C'mon Biglou, don't you get it? The real secret to success: Lose money on each carload and make it up in volume!

"i think railroad intermodal would be more profitable if road gvw's are 107k# (up from 80k#) on 6 axles."

Mr Patrick, if you're referencing the proposed federal legislation increasing gross truck weights, it's 97K, not 107K... and it's already been removed from the bill. And the rail industry does not agree with you. But that's just them...
  by jaymac
 
Dag! A Class-I-plus-proxy throw-down for New England! CN and CP in common cause! This is a few weeks too early for an April Fools joke, so the intent must be serious, however it actually works out.
Wonder how many metaphorical divots there are in the executive-suite walls of of PAR. If only management had managed -- in multiple senses of the word -- well enough to hang onto the D&H, then negotiating with NS for the Patriot Corridor would have been easier and more profitable and CSX would have had to make nice with them instead of CP in efforts to reroute Montreal service.
What have we relearned? If there's an OCS -- particularly one with a diverse consist -- plus union meetings, then these conjoined events should serve as hints of something about to happen and that whatever does happen has been part of the corporate chess game for more than a little while.
I'm still amazed that the big dogs are showing anything other than legacy interest in the area. It's a good time to be track- and monitor-side.
  by newpylong
 
Maybe CN wishes they still had the CV, lol.
  by CN9634
 
CN & CP influence in New England is nothing new. CN selling the CV and GT (SLR) for that matter helped during privatization to make the company more attractive while at the same time these railroads, New England Central and St. Lawrence & Atlantic, were nothing more than paper railroads for the CN. Arguably speaking they still are, even though they are under the RA and G&W folds now.

If you think that Pan Am management had no idea about this for years, then you are sorely mistaken. The only new factor in this equation is Norfolk Southern, who for all intents and purposes, is the "new kid on the block". Moreso for them is CN's resurgence and not so much CP (Being as CP and NS are strategic partners in NE). Also, look up the relationship between CN and CSX in New England. CN on all sides.

Nothing new here, just an "official" announcement of something that has existed for a while.
  by jaymac
 
CN9634-
After some reflection -- not my usual practice -- there is something new here: official pronouncements and "ownership" in the behavioral sense of what had been somewhat stealth-tested as the new way of doing things. NS did similar stealth-testing with PAR before the PAS announcements to see if there were more than possibilities in the arrangement. Whether there will be greater contractual ties between and among those involved in the more recent arrangements will play out.
If something is not formally announced, the claim can be made that the activity does not exist, the Nixonian mantra of "plausible deniability" having been maintained. After the recent announcement, this becomes a CN/CP enterprise, and the prestige of the Canadian transcons has been invested, as well as however much of their money and a portion of their influence in determining routing.
One other mantra -- the "no eternal allies, no perpetual enemies, only permanent interests" of Palmerston -- seems to have gotten a new proof, not that it needed it.
  by KEN PATRICK
 
I think the postings give these railroads a "marketing strategy without foundation. My underestanding of the JUA is that csxt has two daily cn moves via Watertown. Csxt pleaded this made no sense mileage-wise and pointed out cn Montreal freight should move on csxt/cp trains using the shorter rouses point -selkirk route. Cp supported this in exchange for csxt handling all cp Bronx-LIs traffic on merchandise trains at haulage rates. Because i support efficient use of track, i advised my LI client to support this for its cp Saratoga-Yaphank stone move- soon to start. STB approved and issued the JUA. Continuing on with the best-use of track objective, i believe trackage rights on pas from Millers Falls to Gardner ( 20 miles) would give this necr -pw routing a chance at besting the Selkirk option. Run-throughs have no cost for pas save for slight Dispacher time. ken patrick
  by roberttosh
 
So Ken, lets say CN/PW as well as NS/PAS want to go after the Toyota business now going through East Brookfield. Do you still think the PAS is going to offer CN/NECR a 100+ mile shortcut for a $100 per car haulage fee between Millers and Gardner? And how does that CN/CSXT Montreal/Albany routing into New England that you are so infatuated with fit into such a push by CN to get a bigger foothold in the New England finished auto marketplace?
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 17