CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

You would definitely need CP trackage rights, it's more miles and you'd still have to change ends at CP SK.

Sure it's feasible, but why give CP a cut just to have to go all the way around the horn and then pull into Selkirk and change ends? Might as well stay on PAS the whole way.

Edit: sorry roberttosh I didn't see your reply to the same tune.

The attached image shows how the CP NEUS Employee Timetable of July 2005 described the "Voorheesville Running Track" 15 years ago. And the roughly 2 miles of track north of the connection to Northeastern Industrial Park ("Voorheesville Junction") and the CSX connection at Voorheesville is described as FRA Excepted Track.

R&P is reporting $600 million. Article explaining the filing:

https://railsandports.com/2021/02/csx-b ... quisition/

Article says line to Ayer via Worcester is cleared for doublestacks. I don't believe that is true.

What happens to the Pan Am owned track in the Whitefield, NH area? I didn't see anything about it in the listing (if it is there, can someone point me to it)? Thank you!

According to clearance map at Pan Am’s website, the Worcester Main is cleared to 19’6” (enclosed auto racks and double stacked international cube containers), like the main between Ayer and Mechanicville.

Obviously a long way off, but would double stack be a remote goal from Ayer to Portland (and points north)? Or, just way to costly with old bridges / tunnels?

99.9% sure Worcester route is NOT cleared for the domestic DS service that ns plans. To accommodate the rack trains when the line was rebuilt in the conrail days, the csx bridge in Clinton was a significant barrier. To get clearance for the racks, they both undercut the track bed below and lifted the bridge, which was cool to watch. From talking to folks at the time, they did not want to undercut more bc of the local track geometry and make a big dip there — just south of the bridge is a curve and just north is a grade crossing. The overhead csx track is on a big fill with a series of at least 3 bridges. Very curious to see how this is addressed. Of course, this work was done bc hoosac at the time could not accommodate enclosed racks and raising the Clinton bridge to 19.5 feet plus rebuilding the moribund and rarely used Worcester main was way cheaper than enlarging the tunnel for the Ford auto rack business
My understanding is that the Clinton clearance was improved just enough for the racks.

I have heard by a railroad employee that csx would want to bring back the boston job B721 to get to the Coke Works and occasionally up Rousselot in peabody. That would mean CSX making a return east of Framingham and up the grand junction which would be nice.

Yes and they would still need to come down from Lowell or Lawrence to get to the Tighes, Rohtstein and Atlantic plywood if the Framingham local ia going to do Chelsea, Everett and Peabody ie BO duties.

They will likely still need to run into Everett from Lawrence so am surprised they wouldn't just keep things consolidated and stick with one job out of Lawrence.

What traffic would require moving Lawrence to Everett? I’m curious. Or do you mean that such a move would appear more convenient than sending Boston area traffic from Maine down around through Worcester or even Selkirk?

There's not only stuff from Maine going into Boston, but also stuff that moves over PAS, most notably scrap metal. Also, do they have F-plate clearance via the GJ?

I recall that GJ used to be clearance limited. No idea about now.
Good point about traffic moving from PAS. I forgot that