• Pan Am Railways For Sale?

  • 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

  • 744 posts
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 50
  by gokeefe
 
I have read indications that a significant contingent from NS was on the property ...

Perhaps Mr. Norman's "Hilltopper" hypothesis may win out yet.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by Rockingham Racer
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:34 pm https://youtu.be/49_QHBR4OxE

"$2 on Topper to WIN"
:-D :-D That was popular when I was grade 2 or 3.

I am of the opinion that if NS buys, it will be D3 and D2 only. Sorry George, but your area may be relegated to a shortline, unfortunately. And for the Downeaster, that would be three separate railroad agencies to deal with.
  by newpylong
 
gokeefe wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:44 pm I have read indications that a significant contingent from NS was on the property ...

Perhaps Mr. Norman's "Hilltopper" hypothesis may win out yet.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Yes, it was them on the train, but that is not indicative of anything as they own 50% of what they were looking at and they're always on it.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Rockingham could easily be on mark. No question whatever. NS would be most interested in protecting their interests in the East-West traffic over the traditionsl B&M (I need do a "huh" over terms like D2 and D3). It would appear the existing "marketing arrangement" is "worth it" to Topper and his stablemates in Atlanta.

"Up the River" to Windsor and Eastward from Ayer to Rigby? who knows.

But that the MEC will be "sliced and diced" into one Class III Short Line or the other is not surprising to me. It seems that the traffic Maine has to offer is Local traffic of the "forest to mill" varietal, such as JD Irving needing to handle their timber to their sawmill in St. John. They already have a US Corporation subdidiary for their Maine rail operations (long standing treaty between US and CA) so there would be no issue (I'm sure Customs formalities are already "well oiled") on that front from acquiring what they want of the MEC.

Now reverting back to NS acquiring the B&M, isn't the reason there are entities such as Springfield Terminal and Pan Am Southern that Mellon was able to "squeeze" more favorable Labor Agreements out of such than he would the Conference? The NS is obviously party to such (National Handling is the "in term" - or was "back in my day"), and that could well dilute the benefits NS apparently enjoys from the "marketing arrangement".

They "ain't dumb in Atlanta" (I've walked by NS HQ; it's quite near the Woodruff where the Atlanta Symphony performs, and it's impressive) so I'd keep humming that Stephen Foster ditty.
  by oat324
 
I still say Irving will take over north of Portland, ME under their Maine Northern name. They will upgrade those tracks finally, which is really needed.LOL
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Well Mr. Oat, if some party, Irving or other, were to pick up the Maine Central as a whole entity with interchanges preserved with (predecessor roads; darned if I know who's who anymore) the Grand Trunk, CP-Maine, and B&M, whatever shippers move lading from here to there, as distinct from here to mill, should be happy campers.

But sounds as if much, much work would be needed for a Class 4 road to attract trailers shipped by Amazon and Wally World to their distribution centers up there rather than rail to Ayer and highway beyond.
  by markhb
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:52 am Mr. Rockingham could easily be on mark. No question whatever. NS would be most interested in protecting their interests in the East-West traffic over the traditionsl B&M (I need do a "huh" over terms like D2 and D3). It would appear the existing "marketing arrangement" is "worth it" to Topper and his stablemates in Atlanta.

"Up the River" to Windsor and Eastward from Ayer to Rigby? who knows.

But that the MEC will be "sliced and diced" into one Class III Short Line or the other is not surprising to me. It seems that the traffic Maine has to offer is Local traffic of the "forest to mill" varietal, such as JD Irving needing to handle their timber to their sawmill in St. John. They already have a US Corporation subdidiary for their Maine rail operations (long standing treaty between US and CA) so there would be no issue (I'm sure Customs formalities are already "well oiled") on that front from acquiring what they want of the MEC.

Now reverting back to NS acquiring the B&M, isn't the reason there are entities such as Springfield Terminal and Pan Am Southern that Mellon was able to "squeeze" more favorable Labor Agreements out of such than he would the Conference? The NS is obviously party to such (National Handling is the "in term" - or was "back in my day"), and that could well dilute the benefits NS apparently enjoys from the "marketing arrangement".

They "ain't dumb in Atlanta" (I've walked by NS HQ; it's quite near the Woodruff where the Atlanta Symphony performs, and it's impressive) so I'd keep humming that Stephen Foster ditty.
For clarification, D2 and D3 are the remaining divisions of the old B&M under PanAm ownership; D1 is the former MEC north / east of Rigby. Springfield Terminal is indeed the one-time switching railroad with advantageous labor agreements to which the operation of the BM and MEC were leased upon Guilford taking control. Pan Am Southern is the joint venture with NS that operates the former District 4.
If the MEC is to be sold to a shortline, I wonder if M&E will be in the running. They seem to have done quite a good job with the Rockland Branch back on the day.
  by oat324
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:22 am Well Mr. Oat, if some party, Irving or other, were to pick up the Maine Central as a whole entity with interchanges preserved with (predecessor roads; darned if I know who's who anymore) the Grand Trunk, CP-Maine, and B&M, whatever shippers move lading from here to there, as distinct from here to mill, should be happy campers.

But sounds as if much, much work would be needed for a Class 4 road to attract trailers shipped by Amazon and Wally World to their distribution centers up there rather than rail to Ayer and highway beyond.
Irving did such a great job with track work on the old BAR north of Millinocket and the NBSR. And I know trains would be moving faster than 10 mph thru Old Town.LOL
  by newpylong
 
markhb wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:42 am
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:52 am Mr. Rockingham could easily be on mark. No question whatever. NS would be most interested in protecting their interests in the East-West traffic over the traditionsl B&M (I need do a "huh" over terms like D2 and D3). It would appear the existing "marketing arrangement" is "worth it" to Topper and his stablemates in Atlanta.

"Up the River" to Windsor and Eastward from Ayer to Rigby? who knows.

But that the MEC will be "sliced and diced" into one Class III Short Line or the other is not surprising to me. It seems that the traffic Maine has to offer is Local traffic of the "forest to mill" varietal, such as JD Irving needing to handle their timber to their sawmill in St. John. They already have a US Corporation subdidiary for their Maine rail operations (long standing treaty between US and CA) so there would be no issue (I'm sure Customs formalities are already "well oiled") on that front from acquiring what they want of the MEC.

Now reverting back to NS acquiring the B&M, isn't the reason there are entities such as Springfield Terminal and Pan Am Southern that Mellon was able to "squeeze" more favorable Labor Agreements out of such than he would the Conference? The NS is obviously party to such (National Handling is the "in term" - or was "back in my day"), and that could well dilute the benefits NS apparently enjoys from the "marketing arrangement".

They "ain't dumb in Atlanta" (I've walked by NS HQ; it's quite near the Woodruff where the Atlanta Symphony performs, and it's impressive) so I'd keep humming that Stephen Foster ditty.
For clarification, D2 and D3 are the remaining divisions of the old B&M under PanAm ownership; D1 is the former MEC north / east of Rigby. Springfield Terminal is indeed the one-time switching railroad with advantageous labor agreements to which the operation of the BM and MEC were leased upon Guilford taking control. Pan Am Southern is the joint venture with NS that operates the former District 4.
If the MEC is to be sold to a shortline, I wonder if M&E will be in the running. They seem to have done quite a good job with the Rockland Branch back on the day.
Correction however irrelevant to the topic. Guilford Transportation Industries did not lease anything to the ST until 1986, starting with the MEC. That is where the initial strike began (with the MOW union). From 1981 to 1986 things on the MEC and B&M under GTI were largely as they were before besides power pooling and sharing other resources. The infrastructure for the most part also was well maintained until the strikes.
  by Cosakita18
 
What benefit would NS have in taking ownership of D2? Getting to Portland still doesn't get NS to the "meat" of mill and forest product traffic, and the Port of Portland (and Portsmouth for that matter) doesn't have too much more rail based potential to squeeze out.
  by MEC407
 
markhb wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:42 am If the MEC is to be sold to a shortline, I wonder if M&E will be in the running. They seem to have done quite a good job with the Rockland Branch back on the day.
It's hard for me to imagine M&E having the money or the resources to make such a big acquisition. M&E is tiny—as of early this year they only had two locomotives in service—and they're much tinier today than they were several years ago when they operated the Rockland Branch (they lost several big NJ-area customers after that). M&E buying MEC would be like a squirrel buying a moose.
  by newpylong
 
Cosakita18 wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:56 pm What benefit would NS have in taking ownership of D2? Getting to Portland still doesn't get NS to the "meat" of mill and forest product traffic, and the Port of Portland (and Portsmouth for that matter) doesn't have too much more rail based potential to squeeze out.
None - because they aren't interested. They aren't even interested in owning PAS outright.
  by NHV 669
 
District 1 not counting branchlines is more than double of what M&E currently operates for mileage anyway.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
markhb wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:42 am For clarification, D2 and D3 are the remaining divisions of the old B&M under PanAm ownership; D1 is the former MEC north / east of Rigby. Springfield Terminal is indeed the one-time switching railroad with advantageous labor agreements to which the operation of the BM and MEC were leased upon Guilford taking control. Pan Am Southern is the joint venture with NS that operates the former District 4.
Thanks, Mr. Markhb

So it appears that the "Springfield Terminal guise" enabled a more favorable "non-Conference" Agreement to be effected with the entire Guilford system.

Now did this "guise" affect only non-Operating crafts (an earlier post notes that MofW employees "walked") or the "Ops" as well?

Now if NS wants the E-W B&M Mech-Ayer and maybe Rigby to protect their traffic they enjoy with whatever arrangement (I thought it was just Marketing, but other posts suggest an investment) exists, are they prepared to have the favorable Local Agreements with ST abrogated in favor of the Conference's?

Again I note, Topper ain't some dumb bobtail nag.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 50