• PAR Business Train (ST 100, 101, 102 & 103; PAR 1 & 2)

  • 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

  • 1315 posts
  • 1
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  by b&m 1566
 
I just saw the pictures on Nerail, the newest addition (103?) has received the Pan Am blue dip. I could not make out the number, I assume 41 was only temporary to honor the passing of President George H. W. Bush?
  by PBMcGinnis
 
I hope they didn't go with "Pan Am 103" that would be in poor taste.
Flight 103 was the reason the original Pan Am Airways went bankrupt.
  by NHV 669
 
Tied down at ED.
  by MEC407
 
PBMcGinnis wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 8:45 pm I hope they didn't go with "Pan Am 103" that would be in poor taste.
The reporting mark is ST 103. The official name of the car is SYD CULLIFORD (the deceased executive vice president of the railroad), painted below the windows. It has a small Pan Am globe on one side, and a much larger Pan Am globe on the other side.

I don't consider myself superstitious, but I probably would've skipped 103 and gone straight to 104, had the decision been mine. Alas, it ain't my railroad.
  by b&m 1566
 
With PTC implementation, are the "Sisters" days numbered on Pan Am or will PTC be installed?
  by gokeefe
 
The have to install PTC equipment on many of their other units. Can't imagine they would skip the OCS after dropping several million into new equipment.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by MEC407
 
A 2012 article from Progressive Railroading estimated that PTC equipment and installation would cost $100K to $150K per locomotive. Is that still the case?
  by KSmitty
 
I've heard rumors this may be the last summer for the FP's. Both need some pretty hefty work, aside from PTC installation. Electrical issues abound, never-minding the numerous mechanical issues. How much money do they really want to dump into 2 units that see a few thousand miles a year?
  by MEC407
 
That's a valid point, although they've spent a lot of money on the whole train in recent times. They doubled the size of it. That, and the acquisition of the F-units, would've been unimaginable a few years ago. They're operating the train a lot more frequently than they did in the '90s and early 2000s.

On the other hand, if the F-units really do need more work than they're worth, it would make sense to power the business train with a couple of freight units that are already PTC-equipped. I guess it depends on how important the streamlined look of the train is (they never cared about that in the past, FWIW) and how much work the F-units really need.
  by KSmitty
 
From what I've heard, they may have added new cars, but the train itself is a little rough right now. Issues with electrical/generators on the cars themselves, and look at how long it took them to paint the sleeper. The dome still has it's fluted steel. They also picked up the FP9's shortly after NS brought their train up to the PAS venture with 4 shiny F's. NS just let their special power go. Do they follow big brother's lead?

I've heard nothing conclusive, and railroad rumors certainly abound, but rumors of the demise of 1 & 2 are floating...
  by gokeefe
 
Unless ownership of the railroad changes I would expect PAR 1 & 2 to continue in operation with any necessary maintenance and modifications as needed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • 1
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88