CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

Sadly not the only case.

The best thing that could happen to New England railroading is a sale and to put the last 30+ years into the rear view mirror.

newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:30 am No - it would and should gain scrutiny.

Sounds like you're channeling circa-1910 Louis Brandeis up against Mellen and Morgan in the form of GWI. But, of course, 2020 is not 1910.

Scrutiny?- sure, but that's a long way from what I posted. Politics? - always possible. Outbidders or a decision to bid on only a portion of PAR/PAS or not at all? -absolutely possible. Serious competitive issues and STB prohibition? - no.

The only serious anti-competitive concern with a GWI purchase of PAR/PAS (half or whole) might come from VRS, but that would likely be an easy fix with conditions. For all other PAR/PAS connections there would be no serious anti-competitive concerns and arguably CNZR, CSOR, NAUG, and PVRR benefit with improved competition connecting to CN.

Q: Given CP's acquisition of CMQ and the low frequency of interchange with VRS' WACR operation at Newport, VT (once per week?), what traffic of significance remains accessible to VRS if it acquires PAS' operating rights along the Conn River route? I'm assuming VRS would continue to interchange traffic to/from CSX/NS via whomever owns the District 3 track at Hoosick Jct (or maybe seek haulage/trackage rights to Mechanicville/RJ for direct interchange?).

The tale Mr. CN9634 relates involving the Icelandic maritime concern, Eimskip, and Pan Am is simply the case that the Pan Am system need be acquired by a Class I. Possibly, PA being the delivering road, thought they'd get the short end of the division stick ("back in my day", the originating road got the best, the delivering next, and the intermediates got a crumb or two). Class I ownership would eliminate any issues of divisions - ar least amongst the roads.

And once again, if Pan Am is to be acquired by a Class I, all paths lead to Topper's paddock.

Again just my gut feeling... CN buys most of the Pan Am, rest of Pan Am gets divided to other railroads interested, NS sells the southern tier line to CN and their interest in the NYS&W, NS sells back the D&H to CP Rail, NS / CN work out sale or trackage rights for Buffalo to Cleveland ( connects them to their line in Conneaut, Ohio for the B&LE. I truly believe NS wants out of this area, NYS altogether, within two years.

Mr. Norman,

Thank you for sharing the anecdote on rate making. Now I understand why bridge traffic is considered low value.

With regards to the Eimskip traffic what exactly is the "can't get it together"? Where the rates too high or was there some kind of problem with service or transit time guarantees? I'm not directly familiar with anything beyond a basic carload rate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

RMB357 wrote:I truly believe NS wants out of this area, NYS altogether, within two years.

I find it hard to believe NS would want to bail out of anything in the Northeast. Their coal hauling network is going to collapse in the next 20 years. They need new traffic sources to replace it or they are going to be in serious trouble.

Tip of the hat to Mr. Norman for his bet on "Topper".

My money stays on Canada but after writing the above I find myself wondering if the CN/CP odds are longer than those on NS, reporting from reliable sources notwithstanding.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

gokeefe wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:50 am
With regards to the Eimskip traffic what exactly is the "can't get it together"? Where the rates too high or was there some kind of problem with service or transit time guarantees? I'm not directly familiar with anything beyond a basic carload rate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

PAR seems to have a hard time keeping trains moving and avoiding yard bottlenecks. This is pretty evident by the fact that they've had several instances of losing large amounts of PS water to freezing in winter. (Most of the time, while the cars sit for 12+ hours at Rigby) That's also probably why the brief experiment with Sait John - Ayer intermodal with CMA CGM fell spectacularly flat.

I would imagine they couldn't organize a solid schedule or crew rotation that would meet transit times and work for interchange in either Ayer or Mechanicville.

Mr. Cosakita, simply because there is a yard, does not mean a car should take twelve hours to move through it. That is what Yager (EHH) always wondered.

If Mr. RMB's thougts relating to an NS withdrawal from the Northeast, the Grand Trunk Corporation - CN's US subsidiary- will be approaching a Class I the size of KCS, there could be regulatory resistance to that. There is only one way coal traffic is going, and for better (environmentalists) or worse (mining and railroad industries), we all know which way that will be. If all the Class I's, with so much of their revenue base wrapped around those Black Diamonds, if they are to survive as investor owned entities and not having Amtrak in what's left of the freight, must develop new traffic sources. We sure know a government bureaucracy is hardly about to.

Simply having Topper walking away from his piece of the D&H, the ERIE, the NKP, and the Pan Am "marketing arrangement", would be the biggest abdication in railroad history, and certainly would make what occurred with the Icelandic maritime concern look like a child's tea party.

CN9634 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:17 pm Funny story about the Portland IMT.... About 3 years Eimskip lined up some business in the Midwest, loads going both ways and at a decent volume, so the plan was to rail containers to/from Portland ST-NS and vice versa. On the vessel side, they had to go to weekly sailings to get the biz (which they did). For whatever reason however on the rail side, they couldn't secure the service (I'm told the weak link was... you guessed it Pan Am) but Eimskip wasn't going about the lose the business. So what do they do now? Plan B -- Halifax rail to the midwest via CN. And the lesson learned? Eimskip will probably never send containers on Pan Am as long as they can use CN at Halifax. One and done opportunity lost there as well as any future real rail prospects...

They had the opportunity to do this with CSX in Everett when they were there. They could also have done something bigger in Boston when the new rail line to the MMT was being discussed (https://www.mass.gov/service-details/ma ... land-lease) or even initially at the rail-on-dock pier at the end of Track 61. That could have been started up very easily.

CSX over PAR should have been a no-brainer in this case.

CN9634 wrote:Funny story about the Portland IMT.... About 3 years Eimskip lined up some business in the Midwest, loads going both ways and at a decent volume, so the plan was to rail containers to/from Portland ST-NS and vice versa. On the vessel side, they had to go to weekly sailings to get the biz (which they did). For whatever reason however on the rail side, they couldn't secure the service (I'm told the weak link was... you guessed it Pan Am) but Eimskip wasn't going about the lose the business. So what do they do now? Plan B -- Halifax rail to the midwest via CN. And the lesson learned? Eimskip will probably never send containers on Pan Am as long as they can use CN at Halifax. One and done opportunity lost there as well as any future real rail prospects...

Untrue. I have it on good record that neither CSX nor NS was interested in this traffic. NS stopped doing international business to Ayer and wouldn't quote rates. CSX declined as well, since this was international traffic they would have had to run the boxes through P&W at Stackbridge (Class I's hate to mix 40 and 53' well equipment at the same facility). The volume wasn't enough to either excited even though it would have been loaded in both directions. PAR was more than happy to add it to the PS block and move it at the same rates.

QB 52.32 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:01 am

newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:30 am No - it would and should gain scrutiny.

Sounds like you're channeling circa-1910 Louis Brandeis up against Mellen and Morgan in the form of GWI. But, of course, 2020 is not 1910.

Scrutiny?- sure, but that's a long way from what I posted. Politics? - always possible. Outbidders or a decision to bid on only a portion of PAR/PAS or not at all? -absolutely possible. Serious competitive issues and STB prohibition? - no.

The only serious anti-competitive concern with a GWI purchase of PAR/PAS (half or whole) might come from VRS, but that would likely be an easy fix with conditions. For all other PAR/PAS connections there would be no serious anti-competitive concerns and arguably CNZR, CSOR, NAUG, and PVRR benefit with improved competition connecting to CN.

I've taken 10 minutes to make a map of owned (red) and trackage rights (blue) of all GWI owned roads should such a full sale be proposed. I think you're on another planet if you think this would not get a serious look. Yes, it could go through with concessions, but it would be scrutinized heavily, at the very minimal.

But would it be generally good for New England which suffers now from a lot of rather mediocre service? Is there something to be said about a healthy large system vs. a bunch of smaller competing but marginally surviving separate lines? Maybe this is exactly what we need.

GWI isn't known for putting much money into their railroads.

But neither is Guilford, and when you're starting from the bottom, there's nowhere to go but up.