CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

I read some of the details on Trainorders. Don't know how to put them here.

How long is the double track at the south end of the Hill Yard? To keep things fluid on the Worcester main, there will need to be adequate track on the south end to switch the intermodal facility without fouling through traffic.

Am I right in thinking that adding PAS to their portfolio gives G&W the most rail mileage of any operator in New England? They own the New England Central (ex-Central Vermont), the St Lawrence & Atlantic (ex-Grand Trunk), the Providence & Worcester (former NH lines radiating out of Worcester) the Connecticut Southern (former NH Springfield Line) and now PAS-- the former Fitchburg Rail Road across northern MA, the B&M Conn River line to Springfield, and the former NH Highland Line + bits of the Canal Line in CT.

Ridgefielder, I did the math, and here is what I got

New England Central is 384 miles
Providence & Worchester is 612 miles
Connecticut Southern is 90 miles
St. Lawrence & Atlantic is 162 miles
Pan Am Southern is 437 miles
That is 1685 miles in total (although the actual number is less because these railroads often have trackage rights over the same lines)

CSX operates around 700 miles of track in Massachusetts and 220 in Connecticut
Springfield Terminal is 1165 miles
That is 2085 miles in total

So CSX still would be bigger by about 400 miles. G&W's total milage is still very impressive though.

So more tonnage will move via the Worcester Main than on the Fitchburg route? Pre-pandemic, the Commonwealth of Mass was thinking of lending financial assistance to rebuild the Worcester Main through the Wachusett Reservoir area.

STB apps are in. Reading through the document this caught my eye:

"CSXT does not expect the Proposed Transaction to result in the diversion of any rail
traffic to motor carriage. Indeed, CSXT expects the opposite to occur. CSXT expects that its
best-in-class service model once implemented on the PAR System will allow it to divert traffic
from trucks to rail. The efficiency and reliability of our rail service will allow more traffic to
move from trucks to rail."

The talk about this transaction being about truck-to-rail conversion turns out to be true!

I believe this is the application: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 301684.pdf

Per the STB filing for NS Trackage Rights over CSX:
"Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“NS”) submits this Notice of Exemption (“Notice”), pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(7) and the procedures at 49 C.F.R. § 1180.4(g),
seeking approximately 161.5 miles of overhead trackage rights pursuant to a draft written trackage rights agreement (the “Agreement”) between NS and CSX Transportation, Inc.
(“CSX”). Per the Agreement, NS is acquiring trackage rights on CSX’s mainline between approximately Voorheesville, NY (at or near milepost QG 22.5) and Worcester, MA (at or near
milepost QB 44.5) (inclusive of appurtenant passing tracks and sidings) as part of a route between approximately Voorheesville, NY, and Ayer, MA (“CSXT Trackage”).

And

...to allow NS’s movement of one train pair (that is one train in each direction) carrying intermodal and automotive vehicles traffic per day no longer than 9,000-feet plus locomotives meeting the clearance requirements of CSX, not exceeding the siding capacity between CSX’s line between Schenectady and Harvard, and sufficiently powered to maintain maximum track speed on the Subject Trackage between approximately Voorheesville, NY, and Worcester, MA.

Worcester route will need almost a full rebuild. Unless pan am changed it out in recent years, much of the rail in the Clinton, Lancaster and Harvard section is ballpark 100 years old and beat up to be kind.

From the application:

Once necessary upgrades to the route
between Voorheesville and Ayer are completed for NSR service, at NSR’s expense, NSR will be
able to operate up to one train pair per day carrying intermodal and automotive vehicles between
Voorheesville and Ayer to improve NSR’s access to the Boston area.

Also from the application, and probably not unexpected:

However, the Applicants understand that B&E does not expect to need the same number of employees who currently operate PAS, and therefore the Applicants expect that some of the Springfield Terminal craft positions allocated to PAS will be eliminated, as explained in more detail in the Labor Impact Statement attached as Appendix 1, and those Springfield Terminal employees will be able to assert their rights under New York Dock and any implementing agreements.

If I'm readying this correctly, will this removed the Hoosac Tunnel, from ever needing double stack clearance?

Be sure to check out pages 61+ for system maps that show the overall system, train routes, Eastern MA dispatching regions, interchanges, etc.

I’d say yes on it ends needing tunnel clearance as a practical matter indefinitely. Unless NS really, really comes to need more than 9000 feet of intermodal capacity per day and cannot buy more capacity on the B&A

"Moreover, the benefits for the public on the PAR System and PAS will not be offset by
any operating dislocations. While CSXT expects rail traffic on the PAR System to grow over
time, CSXT does not expect to make any significant changes in traffic routes or traffic volumes
in the next few years."

CSXT does not expect to
establish or abolish craft positions
on the PAR Railroads affecting
Springfield Terminal employees
as a result of the Proposed
Transaction, but there will be
impacts as a result of the related
change in operator of PAS. Some
positions may be transferred but
CSXT cannot determine any
specifics at this time

Interesting how CSX said the transaction won't result in a big increase in traffic or the need to change the operation of PAR as it currently stands. They also said that no PAR workers will be fired, which makes sense if they aren't changing anything major.

CSX also touted the single-line service benefits for shippers. They used the example of a CSX customer in Georgia who ships pulp originating on Pan Am in Maine, would now have single line service. CSX being Pan Am's largest interchange partner only strengthens this argument.

There are also plenty of letters of support at the bottom of the document. Including from some big ones like EIMSKIP USA, J.D. Irving, The Port of Saint John, Sappi North America, as well as two New Hampshire Senators.