newpylong wrote:The interchange wouldn't like CLOSE, but it very well might be a win-win for CSX and G&W; CSX wouldn't have to pour as much resources (i.e: labor) to keep the interchange as open as much (like F-Line said), and G&W would keep the freight on their own system longer. Along with the opportunity to cut CSX out of the picture completely with some loads by transload/intermodal in Worcester. Circuitous routings just aren't as big of an issue for railroads, especially when in this case a detour down to Willimantic is actually not all that much of an increase in time or mileage, nor will it make much of a difference to the customer - might even be cheaper for them. Just look at how most freight has to get into New England from the west, now THAT'S circuitous.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Does PAR still have any claim to the Barbers Yard property? The NECR Palmer interchange is quite likely going to move to Worcester out of convenience and cost-savings for both G&W and CSX (who can reduce presence @ Palmer by letting Framingham sort it instead). But that puts pressure on P&W's already tight space crunch in downtown. Barbers is far and away the juciest and easiest parcel for expansion and place to block interchange loads if they want to stay out of the way of general freight at Southbridge St. and IM down by the city dump. Did P&W get ownership + rights to do what they please with Barbers when they bought the lower Gardner Branch, or does it require PAR's blessing/back-scratching to make use of the property?Why would moving interchange be a cost savings? Even if G&W acquires the P&W, you're still talking two different railroads (NECR to P&W) and a circuitous routing. Hauling NECR north tonnage all the way down to Willimantic and then up to Worcester does not make sense. CSX still has to go into Palmer for the Mass Central so I don't think moving the interchange would be a huge benefit to them either.