Pan Am Railways (PAR) Freight Traffic Volume

Jaymac, check out the MMA Searsport thread...the chances of Searsport becoming a big container port are pretty small-to-none. Not that it wouldn't look good in theory for MMA/CP, but it's the steamship lines and their ship economics, to a great degree, and inland tranportation costs, to a lesser degree, which determine the ports of call and logistics, not the railroads. The steamship lines want to go to Halifax, already CN's Atlantic port link, NY/NJ, and the VA ports, to a large degree. Makes sense because the steamship lines are trying to minimize port calls and inland transportation charges. Halifax gets you to Montreal and the US midwest; NY/NJ the center of gravity to the huge NE corridor population with 2nd morning rail service to the Midwest, and, VA also with good access to the Midwest and East Coast population.

Perhaps now that Pan Am is relieved of most of the ex-B&M's operations they'll be able to spend more time and money on D1 (and ME's politcal leadership)?

QB 52.32-
...and I thought I was a pie-in-the-sky optimist!

So, about Pan Am traffic volume!?
This discussion is great but I haven’t read anything pertaining to PAR traffic volume since the end of page one.

Good point... one area of interest if ME's TIGER grant awards for port improvements. Portland rec'd an award to convert the International Marine Terminal to freight-only status, marketing to two segments: container traffic and wind energy components. Interestingly, there is no mention of corresponding "on-dock" or near-dock rail improvements. I'm assuming that the Maine-bound wind components will be for western maine/offshore, precluding rail. However, the Me Port Authority suggests that 40% of the expected volume will be for out-of-state destinations. It doesn't appear that they are factoring rail into the equation. The only practical location for rail loading would be (a rehabilitated) Yard 8... and that would be a long shot; clearance issues with the bridge approach that bisects the IMT and railhead may be a problem, i.e., the components would need to be unloading from ship and loaded on a truck, only to be reloaded onto a railcar 1/2 mile away.

b&m 1566 wrote:So, about Pan Am traffic volume!?
This discussion is great but I haven’t read anything pertaining to PAR traffic volume since the end of page one.

All of the above mentioned projects have the potential to affect further freight business for PAR. Although the dicussion is not necessarily about observed car volumes it doesn't seem to far off-topic to me.

I haven't been able to catch a train at the crossing downtown in some time. If anyone else has impressions on current volume that would be nice to know. Trains MOAY/AYMO certainly seem to be doing quite well on the PAS.

There has also been a restart of a paper machine at the New Page Mill in Rumford, which is now working at full capacity. This should bode very well for the railroad.

It is quite funny what these clowns are doing now. In order to avoid paying the NS their portion of the cut for haulage on PAS, they are sending over 70% of the CSX traffic via Barbers, in effect robbing themselves to avoid a small payout. Some things just never change...

I think part of it is that CSXT themselves wants to avoid the PAS, which keep in mind is half owned by their biggest competitor. If you look at a route map, it actually makes sense for anything going to points east of, and including Ayer, to go via Barbers vs going west from Selkirk to Rotterdam Jct (where trains tend to sit), then east to Deerfield (where cars also tend to sit), and then finally to points east. Cars from Maine and the east end of the B&M have always moved faster over Barbers than via ROTTJ.

I caught the Rumford job coming into Rigby about a week ago, and they were definitely lengthy. Must have been around 3 in the afternoon.

roberttosh wrote:I think part of it is that CSXT themselves wants to avoid the PAS, which keep in mind is half owned by their biggest competitor. If you look at a route map, it actually makes sense for anything going to points east of, and including Ayer, to go via Barbers vs going west from Selkirk to Rotterdam Jct (where trains tend to sit), then east to Deerfield (where cars also tend to sit), and then finally to points east. Cars from Maine and the east end of the B&M have always moved faster over Barbers than via ROTTJ.

This has nothing to do with CSX at all.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

newpylong wrote:It is quite funny what these clowns are doing now. In order to avoid paying the NS their portion of the cut for haulage on PAS, they are sending over 70% of the CSX traffic via Barbers, in effect robbing themselves to avoid a small payout. Some things just never change...

Your posts sound like a disgruntled ex-employee with some ill feelings toward Pan Am. Most of your recent posts are 100% negative about the railroad, when most people that are closely following railroad operations have seen a vast improvement over the last year. Unless you are the one sitting in the office in Billerica making the decisions, I would caution against these types of criticisms. Opinions are like... well you know the rest.

cp8558 wrote:

newpylong wrote:It is quite funny what these clowns are doing now. In order to avoid paying the NS their portion of the cut for haulage on PAS, they are sending over 70% of the CSX traffic via Barbers, in effect robbing themselves to avoid a small payout. Some things just never change...

Your posts sound like a disgruntled ex-employee with some ill feelings toward Pan Am. Most of your recent posts are 100% negative about the railroad, when most people that are closely following railroad operations have seen a vast improvement over the last year. Unless you are the one sitting in the office in Billerica making the decisions, I would caution against these types of criticisms. Opinions are like... well you know the rest.

There have been many improvements. I grew up track side, I watched the bluebirds dissappear and the Big G arrive. Trains went from 40 to 10. Freight declined. 25 years later I was the one running those trains. I have been waiting my whole life to see the B&M come back and it's slowly happening.

Unless you have better information that what I get directly from those running the trains (and having run them myself), those making operational decisions, I suggest not questioning my motives, my attitude, or the factuality of what I post. What you see on the outside and assume is not always reality.

roberttosh wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

straight from the horses mouth why the traffic is going that way, tough to argue with...

newpylong wrote: Unless you have better information that what I get directly from those running the trains (and having run them myself), those making operational decisions, I suggest not questioning my motives, my attitude, or the factuality of what I post. What you see on the outside and assume is not always reality.

I have many close friends in the industry as well and unfortunately most of the information they provide is based on assumptions, hearsay and office gossip. I prefer to make statements using my own experience, judgment and common sense. The accurate answer as to why certain traffic is routed over certain routes has more to do with the customer's needs rather than profit divisions. In light of your response to my questioning of your posts, might I suggest you practice what you preach when responding to the opinions of others.

cp8558 wrote:

newpylong wrote: Unless you have better information that what I get directly from those running the trains (and having run them myself), those making operational decisions, I suggest not questioning my motives, my attitude, or the factuality of what I post. What you see on the outside and assume is not always reality.

I have many close friends in the industry as well and unfortunately most of the information they provide is based on assumptions, hearsay and office gossip. I prefer to make statements using my own experience, judgment and common sense. The accurate answer as to why certain traffic is routed over certain routes has more to do with the customer's needs rather than profit divisions. In light of your response to my questioning of your posts, might I suggest you practice what you preach when responding to the opinions of others.

You just contradicted yourself by saying much of the information you have obtained is through assumption, and then claiming to have the most accurate answer on this subject. I can tell you in this case, you are incorrect. Do you think customer's needs changed the minute Pan Am Southern started up and began charging haulage rights? I don't think so. In the end, it may be better (faster) to go via Barber's, but this was done solely to avoid paying haulage and switching fees (the cars are being blocked and broken up in Selkirk now as opposed to Deerfield). To the railroad, the longer the line haul, the more money they make, so they almost rather send the traffic a longer route, regardless of customer needs. This is fact, not assumption.