by fromway
Just thinking outloud. I think I remember that Poland Springs got access to wells in Lincoln, ME a few year ago. Could PS build a new plant that could then access the rebuilt Keag line to get their product to the NY area?
Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:14 am Now what does surprise me is that apparently you hold a route over the B&M "route of the Flying Yankee" (don't know what to call it at present other than that) could still be a viable through routing. From what I read here, it appears that such has at best FRA Class 2 track with all too much of it Class 1. Further, it has a restricted height tunnel that can cave in whenever it chooses, and who knows if this Short Line operator set to become such has the wherewithal to keep such clear. This operator may simply choose to handle what traffic there is Eastward to a CT River line interchange (Deerfield, I believe) or Westward to the Albany area.Mr. Norman, at least in the relative shorter run, the "route of the Flying Yankee", to be operated but not owned by GWI, will likely remain a viable non-intermodal through route with the western Mechanicville gateway STB-conditioned for CP as open-on-commercially-reasonable terms, and for both CP and NS, a mid-railroad Gardner gateway and connection, including via the railroad's E. Deerfield hub, to 7 carriers over 8 interchange locations as well as an eastern Ayer gateway STB-conditioned specifically for traffic to/from Everett, MA just outside Boston and as generally open-on-commercially-reasonable terms, and, success in service about reliability and not speed.
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:14 am That's great to learn, Mr. ST, that there are shippers up there who want rail, and who are prepared to sacrifice speed for more favorable rates than highway can offer.I am having a hard time grasping the apparent pessimism in regard to PAS in various circles. GWI is going to have a tremendous opportunity to offer several interchange options to every single Class I railroad in the Eastern US to their (many large) consignees, plus all of the other connecting railroads who may not have such routing options. PAS is moving HUGE tonnage lately.
Now what does surprise me is that apparently you hold a route over the B&M "route of the Flying Yankee" (don't know what to call it at present other than that) could still be a viable through routing. From what I read here, it appears that such has at best FRA Class 2 track with all too much of it Class 1. Further, it has a restricted height tunnel that can cave in whenever it chooses, and who knows if this Short Line operator set to become such has the wherewithal to keep such clear. This operator may simply choose to handle what traffic there is Eastward to a CT River line interchange (Deerfield, I believe) or Westward to the Albany area.
CN9634 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:24 pm When Class Is have trains stacked up for days on end so it doesn't really matter what speed your track is if your network isnt fluid...PSR principles, which I'd hardly characterize as a fad, aren't going anywhere on NS or any other Class 1 except, perhaps, in name only. Railroad network congestion and recovery, the importance of the operating ratio as a measure, how to grow, and how railroads have historically responded to traffic downturns with labor are ever-present issues above, beyond and before PSR, and in this particular case with NS, their strategy is about how they will deal with labor resources through business cycles moving forward and, as a consequence, what they see as an acceptable operating ratio, not PSR principles.
Interesting pivot -- seems as though the PSR fad is on its last leg if not entirely over. NS remarks that its going to return to service and growth... I can't help but wonder if the new NS regime is disappointed by how easily they gave away Pan Am to CSX, but hopefully they look once again at PAS as a route of interest.