by F74265A
Regarding dropping pw racks by ns at new bond st, I read the trackage rights deal as prohibiting any interchange between VO to, and including, Ayer. It is overhead traffic only
Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:35 am Now let me revisit a potential issue I broached earlier; what will the two passenger train agencies - "T" and NNEPRA, both paying to have Class 4, PTC enabled, track think about their track being "chewed up by and interfered with" more freight? Will they be going to the Board and airing any possible concerns? And will the Board, responding to the ostensibly "passenger train friendly" Biden Administration, impose restrictions upon time, frequency, and weight of Chessie's and Topper's trains, much the same as Amtrak does on the Corridor?Where will that be happening? (Class 4, PTC enabled track being chewed up)? If anything, the opposite will be happening - the NS train that currently runs on MBTA-used track from Westminster- Ayer will now be on non-MBTA-used track from Albany-Worcester-Ayer, and the track in NH and ME that CSX might be increasing operations over isn't currently PTC-equipped. CSX will be paying for that and putting it in place. What is there for the passenger agencies to complain about?
Enquiring mind wants to know.
jamoldover wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:46 am It prohibits any NEW interchange agreement. Barbers is already an EXISTING one.Negative, PAS nor NS directly has interchange rights at Barbers with PW or CSXT and this will not change. The racks will need to come over the B&M and down the Gardner branch or up to Ayer then west and south again. The more likely scenario is they come in on 16R or whatever eastbound has the NS PAS traffic and the B&E has a direct Deerfield to Worcester turn no stops at Gardner. The tonnage warrants it today even.
"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"(Page 21/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)
"The introduction of CSXT’s single-line service into New England through the Proposed Transaction will significantly increase the ability of the PAR System, once it is integrated into the CSXT system, to provide intermodal competition"(Page 25/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)
"CSXT also expects that rail traffic will increase organically over time as CSXT integrates the existing CSXT and PAR System networks, implements its operating model, and makes capital improvements, but CSXT does not expect significant traffic increases to occur in the next few years."(Page 25/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)
"Over time, applicants expect rail traffic to increase as rail users in New England identify new market opportunities and convert existing truck movements to rail. The degree to which rail traffic will increase cannot be estimated at this time, as it is expected to results from more organic growth.”(Page 43/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)
"The proposed transaction will not result in an increase in rail traffic of 50 percent (measured in gross ton miles annually) or at least three trains per day on CSXT or on any segment of rail line affected by the Proposed Transaction."(Page 45/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing). It's mentioned before this on the same page that there won't be a 100% increase in traffic, or at least eight trains trains per day. (Page 45/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)
chrisf wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:15 am As a casual follower of this thread/topic, I find that the nicknames for everything make it extremely difficult to follow what's being written. Given that "CSX" is 3 letters and "NS" is 2, calling them something else serves no purpose of any value.I agree. Although cute(?) it makes it very difficult to decode and follow...
Just my 2 cents.
newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:56 am I have been told that the NEGS aka VTR now is a near lock on operating the Northern (unsure what that type of lease would look like or when). They plan to move into Nashua yard as the main point of operations.A deal with vtr on nashua and concord might smooth over any issues they have with the overall carving up of the pan am pie
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:35 am All right, Topper cedes whatever local business there is along the PAS to this new G&W Short Line. Again, I foresee "a Class III road with Class 1 track"; who knows what they'll do when Hoosac next caves in; just run Locals from either Deerfield or M'ville?Instead of having underpowered freight moving over their lines at less than track speed, AND having to pay to equip those locomotives with PTC they are going to have proper HPT (Horsepower to Tons) equipped freight moving over their track faster and that are already PTC equipped and getting assistance from CSXT on future PTC installation. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lift of the 40 MPH MAS for freight, which is a Pan Am artificially induced limitation. There also will not be more jobs running vs now since the advent of PSR.
Now, Topper can only run "one a day" over the B&A, and Chessie surely envisions capturing more high value business from the MEC. Now let me revisit a potential issue I broached earlier; what will the two passenger train agencies - "T" and NNEPRA, both paying to have Class 4, PTC enabled, track think about their track being "chewed up by and interfered with" more freight? Will they be going to the Board and airing any possible concerns? And will the Board, responding to the ostensibly "passenger train friendly" Biden Administration, impose restrictions upon time, frequency, and weight of Chessie's and Topper's trains, much the same as Amtrak does on the Corridor?
Enquiring mind wants to know.
newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:56 am I have been told that the NEGS aka VTR now is a near lock on operating the Northern (unsure what that type of lease would look like or when). They plan to move into Nashua yard as the main point of operations.Would interchange take place in Nashua, or could we see that move to Lowell?