Vermont Railway Opposes Pan Am/NS deal

A very interesting document found on the STB website is a filing by Vermont Railways stating that the NS/Pan Am Deal would be "anticompetitive". They want the STB to call the transaction "significant" as opposed to the minor transaction that PAR/NS wants. This is pretty interesting stuff I highly suggest those interested read all the material.

Needless to say they got shot down in their claims. But it is interesting none the less to think why they would think this deal would "harm" them

http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

Click on the PDF to view

I don't have a link, but the P&W filing seemed to say that they were cool with the plan as long as they didn't lose interchange points. They also said that due to (hopefully) better service levels, the plan would increase competition since it would give P&W another quality route to the West to compete with CSX.

And smackdown is right, BTW (from the STB reply to VRS):

Second, as the Board has stated many times, the Board's proper concern is with harm to competition, not harm to competitors.

Doesn't VRS interchange with GRS? Wouldn't they want faster traffic?

Any update on the timetable for an STB decision? I snooped around their site, but didn't find anything.

Apart from the VRS denial, it looks like lots of communities, states, industries, and other railroads are lining up to participate in the eventual STB hearing. Environmental issues, competition issues (although if VRS got shot down, I doubt that other such challenges will be taken seriously), etc.

gprimr1 wrote:Doesn't VRS interchange with GRS? Wouldn't they want faster traffic?

They do, and they would. I'm really not sure what their issue is... except perhaps that they're worried about NECR benefiting from this deal more than VRS will.

MEC407 wrote:

gprimr1 wrote:Doesn't VRS interchange with GRS? Wouldn't they want faster traffic?

They do, and they would. I'm really not sure what their issue is... except perhaps that they're worried about NECR benefiting from this deal more than VRS will.

I think the VTR is concerned about freight that comes up on the NEC to Bellows Falls and is interchanged there to the VTR
and forwarded to Whitehall for interchange to the CP there. I am not sure how much freight is routed that way but
apparently there is at least some.
Noel Weaver

There are a handful of interesting letters to read in yesterday's STB filings wrt OMYA, State of Maine, and Clay producers' desire to extract various concessions (eg, payment of past bills for car usage) as conditions to their approval of the PAS proposal. Especially pithy is the submission from the Committee to Improve Rail Service in Maine, which prescribes how many locomotives PAR should maintain for Maine service following the PAS start up:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

OMYA likes the proposal but doesn't want to see VTR business harmed:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

The US Clay Producers are against the transaction but only because they want the STB to compel PAR to pay delinquent car usage fees:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

And Vermont Transportation endorses the proposal subject to certain conditions(eg, rebuild Conn River line between Springfield and E Northfield for use by the Vermonter):
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

Rather pointed comments from the folks in Maine. Let us hope that the STB puts some contingencies into the agreement to address the various issues in the Pine Tree State. And the Clay Producers need to hire a proof reader for their documents. What a mess.