Railroad Forums 

  • CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

 #1567277  by F74265A
 
During the conrail days of nese and lase/nase, what were track speeds over the reservoir causeway? How much csx cares about this will depend, I think, in whether such a restriction would make it not possible as a practical matter to run Selkirk to Rigby with a single crew reliably
 #1567278  by NRGeep
 
jamoldover wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:48 am Let's get real. Nobody "took away" the Conn River from Guilford. They were simply required to sell the line to Amtrak at what was determined, via due process of law, to be the fair market value, and therefore were provided with "just compensation". Amtrak then sold it (for the same fair market value) to CV. Guilford was not kicked off the line, and didn't even lose a single existing customer. They even were able to rely on the agreement that was put in place at that time to fight back against G&W/NECR's attempt to later force them off via economic means.
And the reality remains, little g forced Amtrak's hand by their chronic deferred maintenance of Conn River Line.
 #1567284  by newpylong
 
F74265A wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:36 am During the conrail days of nese and lase/nase, what were track speeds over the reservoir causeway? How much csx cares about this will depend, I think, in whether such a restriction would make it not possible as a practical matter to run Selkirk to Rigby with a single crew reliably
The entire line was 30 MPH outside of a small stretch of 25 in Lancaster.
 #1567285  by newpylong
 
PBMcGinnis wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:14 am
Sad part is "taking without compensation" already happened under Guilford in 1987. Amtrak forced the ICC to take the Conn River North line away from Big G and gave ownership of it to CV all because of 2 passenger trains a day moving at a snails pace over bad track. Almost 35 years later it is still just 2 trains per day between East Northfield, MA and White River Junction, VT. Plus NECR, the CV successor hasn't kept up the speeds as much either on the same line.
The same can be said about the Portland Division, the number of restrictions on that route at times is astonishing. Amtrak even had to bus for a week a couple years back because Pan Am let the ties get so bad and had to do a massive construction job that shut the RR down.

However there is a big difference between 40 MPH and 10 MPH, the later of which the Conn River was when GTI got the boot. Any current restrictions on the NECR are rolling and are minimal. Most of it is track speed.
 #1567289  by Engineer Spike
 
I'm surprised that CP has been so quiet on the PAR sale. Much of the northern Maine traffic off of CMQ goes down the D&H, to either NS, or CSX. I wonder if CP is keeping its mouth shut because the KCS merger is more important. The CMQ traffic is small potatoes in comparison.
 #1567295  by F74265A
 
Presumably cp would keep any ns bound traffic off of Irving. The csx traffic on the other hand seems at risk. But cp seems focused on DS to Saint John
Last edited by MEC407 on Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
 #1567297  by roberttosh
 
I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that anything moving via CP or CN to or from the Irving roads going to or from CSX will be shifted to an all CSX routing via Keag. Am thinking that traffic must be at least 15-20 cars per day, maybe more.
 #1567298  by markhb
 
BandA wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:23 pm I think federal preemption would prevent the MWRA imposing rules on CSX. And the trains were literally there before the reservoir. Practically it would make sense to have voluntary restrictions on haz-mats though.
Given that it's a public water supply, I would think that the MWRA would be able to bring in the EPA cannon if it feels there's a potential risk to water quality. Not that I'm advocating that, but there are plenty of environmental wrenches that can be thrown in just about anything.
 #1567309  by F74265A
 
If mwra had the authority to impose the restriction, why haven’t they done it already? This is not a new issue. So it seems to me that they are looking for other leverage to accomplish what they must not be able to do directly. Just a conclusion from observation
 #1567343  by jwhite07
 
I have neither seen a Pan Am speed bulletin or gone deliberately chasing a train on the Worcester Main (both "chase" and "main" being loose terms) in quite a while, but I'm going to guess from the last time I witnessed a train going across the Wachusett Reservoir causeway, the bulletin speed is already 10mph, even if it's allegedly 25 by my several years old timetable copy.

As a taxpayer of the Commonwealth as well as a resident of the Town of West Boylston, my humble opinion is if my tax dollars go in part to paying for track upgrades that allegedly "protect" my water supply by allowing safer track conditions, I'd much rather those trains utilize those improved track conditions and move right along safely on the properly maintained track through my town, rather than needlessly plodding along at 10mph and only causing an enormity of wasted time and fuel burn for both the trains and any motorists unlucky enough to encounter one at a crossing in town. Class IV I believe allows a 60mph freight speed; cutting that to 40 or 50 is plenty enough of a safety margin for me and the water tap I drink from in my kitchen, especially if the railroad is safeguarding the watershed by applying better funding, better equipment, better staffing, and a corporate desire to maintain the property at a given level at all times.

I would hope that CSX will very carefully scrutinize any proffered bag of money from the state and note the strings attached to it, and maybe just maybe say, nope, we'll take on this upgrade out of our own pocket and thus be able to use the federal preemption excuse and all else and run their trains at a speed in keeping with real and not perceived safety margins and per their operational objectives, if spending millions of dollars only to run at 10MPH on Class IV track is as ridiculous a concept to them as it is to me.
 #1567350  by Trinnau
 
newpylong wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:35 pm Expect 50 MPH everywhere the T or the Downeaster runs. 40 is an artificial MAS imposed by PAR and Guilford before them. The T has tried to no avail to get them to run faster.
Problem is the MBTA's signal system is designed for 40mph freight operations because that's all they had to design for to satisfy the deed. Going to 50mph increases stopping distance and impacts signal progression - potentially slowing down passenger trains more than needed in high-density operations.
 #1567351  by BandA
 
Yeah, 6+ miles at 10MPH in perpetuity seems like a big ask, even if it is a "voluntary" agreement. Maybe if it's only for trains with haz-mat. PS & OT - towns such as Boylston and West Boylston receive a big pile of property tax from the MWRA and their rate payers.

I don't think there are similar restrictions on interstate and state highways and roads running through or next to reservoirs. Such as the Cambridge Reservoir, Quabbin, Wachusett, Worcester's, etc. The Fitchburg Line runs through or next to the Cambridge Reservoir. The Watertown Branch was in decrepit condition and used to run next to Fresh Pond, of course dumping wheat flour into the reservoir would only affect the gluten intolerant.

For a few million, New York City got Ulster County to pull up tracks & block the Catskill Mountain Railroad from running tourist trains next to a reservoir, and that was 100% passenger-only.
 #1567355  by newpylong
 
Trinnau wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:09 pm
newpylong wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:35 pm Expect 50 MPH everywhere the T or the Downeaster runs. 40 is an artificial MAS imposed by PAR and Guilford before them. The T has tried to no avail to get them to run faster.
Problem is the MBTA's signal system is designed for 40mph freight operations because that's all they had to design for to satisfy the deed. Going to 50mph increases stopping distance and impacts signal progression - potentially slowing down passenger trains more than needed in high-density operations.
That is a great point, and their implementation of PTC with the breaking distances effectively kills any chance of > 40 freight too...
 #1567385  by tvachon
 
BandA wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:15 pm The Fitchburg Line runs through or next to the Cambridge Reservoir.
The closest the Fitchburg line gets to the Cambridge reservoir is about 1 mile (as the crow files). Only Walden Pond and the Charles are closer inside 495. The Worcester line is right next to the reservoirs in Framingham, that's a closer equivalent particularly since CSX runs in over those rails to Boston. It would be interesting to see if there is any existing restrictions as a result although that rail is in far better shape than the Worcester Main across Wachusett.
  • 1
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 302