by CN9634
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:My point is, you can easily cover the market with Mechanicville and Ayer. If you want to penetrate more, expand Ayer or go east. I also know from experience that the volume through Springfield is moderate to low, but they also cover different service lanes.BostonUrbEx wrote:Slice-o-pie is more like it, since the IM yard distribution isn't a straight-up match between the two carriers. It doesn't have to be equipped on the scale of Mickeyville or Ayer, but CSX is expanding/modernizing at West Springfield so a new market entrant's got to keep their flanks covered. ED's crowded, but modern and peak-efficiency it is not. It does little to no trucking because it's got an under-height bridge of its own blocking big rig access to US 5 from River Rd. Which in turn has given PAR zero motivation to improve that potholed one-lane driveway of theirs with rickety, narrow bridge over tracks and dirt-road access into the yard. MassDOT's got a real proposal for fixing CSX's under-height bridge blocker keeping them from direct state highway access. Fixing the roadway dimensions under this single-track guy way out in the woods is a far cheaper proposition than solving this six-track sucker over a busy city thoroughfare, and would open up options that ED has never had before.CN9634 wrote:NS has no need for a terminal in CT or Deerfield. They already have Ayer, Mechanicville and Croxton/E-Rail. CSX uses Syracuse, Springfield, Worcester and Kearny/The Bergens (Not sure if anything is coming in Albany).If they're competing one-on-one -- or if NS just flat out wants to serve the I-91 corridor -- I would think a terminal at East Deerfield would be necessary. The only issue I see is where to fit it. Looking over E Deerfield in Google Maps, it doesn't look like Rigby. It looks like a larger percentage of tracks are in-service, whereas Rigby might be able to "shift" the yard by putting tracks back in service and putting IM on the eastern flank. Or if they made a Gerry Ave crossing for the mainline, they could put a 3000' pad in the vacant west yard.
But, anyway, I digress. Point is, East Deerfield doesn't look so simple, but I imagine NS needs a piece of the I-91 pie.
Nothing grand...but a little modernization for efficiency's sake; better land usage on the north/mill end and where the junk piles are strewn around the perimeter; gee-whiz 21st century innovations like a real paved asphalt two-lane driveway; and ability to get a full-height trailer in and out of there goes a long way. NS has a vested interest in tightening the bolts up there to get the yard as efficient as it can be for the role it serves. The slack that's left to tighten there probably carves out all the above-and-beyond ceiling they'd need to cover future needs. Such as judiciously protecting their flank on I-91.