Are crew shortages this Bad?

Maybe the end of Rotterdam Jct as an active interchange?

RJ isn't going anywhere. There is a lot more moving through there than sporadic grain.

As for handing it off to the B&M at Springfield I concur that makes little sense operationally having to change ends.

I watched the G103 go through Palmer last week, so their info is already bunk.

Question— I always understood that the milling was a PAS customer. Does PAR have access to it? If no, on what basis is this grain traffic moving via B&A and the Worcester route main?

When it takes NS/PAS 3 days to move a 16R train 230 miles, and CSX can move a train nearly double that mileage in 9 hours, the customer probably wants the latter option.

In reality, what advantage does Rotterdam have over Springfield in terms of interchanging manifest traffic? In both cases, there needs to be a back up move at the interchange, the mileage from Selkirk to Deerfield is close the same either way and via Springfield you don't have to deal with all that 10 MPH track. Not saying it's going to happen but unless someone is going spend the $$ to get the line from Rotterdam to Deerfield up to class 4, it isn't actually a bad idea.

Note everything that comes in at Rotterdam goes to Deerfield. A sizeable chunk goes via Hooisck Jct to the VRS. Not a good idea to haul those cars over the hill twice.

Additionally, CSX could chose to run a direct train out of points west (Buffalo) to be able to pull in/out at Rotterdam, then all that is needed is a power move to/from Selkirk on what is effectively a Buffalo-Selkirk train. This has been done in the past.

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:24 pm When it takes NS/PAS 3 days to move a 16R train 230 miles, and CSX can move a train nearly double that mileage in 9 hours, the customer probably wants the latter option.

I totally get why the customer wants the faster route. I’m more interested in how in fact they are able to obtain the faster route if they are in fact a captive pas customer.

With the shift to the Barbers interchange and the general demise of traffic on the Fitchburg, I don't think there's going to be enough density for CSX to run solid PAS trains from Buffalo or points further west any time soon. That was done from time to time in the past when Conrail or PC before them was interchanging multiple trains per day to the B&M at Rotterdam, but those days and that level of business are long gone and Selkirk is really the only practical consolidation point to handle today's PAS traffic levels. The local PAS and Hoosick Jct business could still be interchanged at Rotterdam where a local could handle. They could also shift the VTR business to PAS or NECR routings via Bellows Falls or even have VTR handle the business directly themselves if they happen to get those kind of new trackage rights as a result of the acquisition. Further, a lot of what CSX hands over at Rotterdam is going to points on the Conn River South of Deerfield or to points in CT, where the Springfield interchange would offer a considerable savings in mileage and switching. Traffic moving over Springfield could likely be handled up to Deerfield with the existing or expanded EDPL service and it would also allow them to eliminate the EDRJ/RJED pair. Not saying it's going to happen but it has it's merits.

ST can likely access the grain mill via a PAS switch. This is not the first time grain trains have moved via Barbers.

Lots of CSX to PAS Ayer traffic moves through Barbers as well, always has.

So that’s the answer
Par and pas regularly interchange at Ayer

roberttosh wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 3:04 pm In reality, what advantage does Rotterdam have over Springfield in terms of interchanging manifest traffic? In both cases, there needs to be a back up move at the interchange, the mileage from Selkirk to Deerfield is close the same either way and via Springfield you don't have to deal with all that 10 MPH track. Not saying it's going to happen but unless someone is going spend the $$ to get the line from Rotterdam to Deerfield up to class 4, it isn't actually a bad idea.

They have either received a grant or have an application for one to rebuild the Rotterdam Branch. They've stated they're committed to doing it.

roberttosh wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 4:24 pm With the shift to the Barbers interchange and the general demise of traffic on the Fitchburg, I don't think there's going to be enough density for CSX to run solid PAS trains from Buffalo or points further west any time soon. That was done from time to time in the past when Conrail or PC before them was interchanging multiple trains per day to the B&M at Rotterdam, but those days and that level of business are long gone and Selkirk is really the only practical consolidation point to handle today's PAS traffic levels. The local PAS and Hoosick Jct business could still be interchanged at Rotterdam where a local could handle. They could also shift the VTR business to PAS or NECR routings via Bellows Falls or even have VTR handle the business directly themselves if they happen to get those kind of new trackage rights as a result of the acquisition. Further, a lot of what CSX hands over at Rotterdam is going to points on the Conn River South of Deerfield or to points in CT, where the Springfield interchange would offer a considerable savings in mileage and switching. Traffic moving over Springfield could likely be handled up to Deerfield with the existing or expanded EDPL service and it would also allow them to eliminate the EDRJ/RJED pair. Not saying it's going to happen but it has it's merits.

Too much guess work here when we have stated intentions. Traffic currently being interchanged (PAS local, NECR, BKRR, VTR, etc) at RJ will continue post sale. Furthermore, traffic that is bring interchanged in Ayer between PAR and PAR currently (Ayer is NOT an interchange point and they are really only getting away with it because ST is the carrier for both) will return to Rotterdam. No off the waybill interchanging when ST is gone.

CSX loads or empties for points destined on PAR that are using the RJ gateway (there aren't many left, but some) will move to Worcester route.

There are several reasons that Springfield has never been a big CR/B&M interchange but was for NH to B&M and CP to CR, CP to NH, (both bridge) etc and this have not changed.

So you'll see more PAS local traffic via RJ but less run-through from there.

Cry baby VRS needs to take PAS Hoosick West. PAS' days are numbered, not enough traffic for anyone to operate as a through route. Heck it's not even listed on the DODs list as a viable corridor. Too many things going against them, 200 miles of broken down bare bones ROW, connection to nowhere at Ayer, and no modern facilities along the line to handle any sort of major traffic. It should be hacked up between Mass Dot and VRS.