Oil Trains (RJMA / MARJ, OI-x, etc)

[CN9634]

There will never be an Intermodal terminal in Freeport. There was talk about Portland, but the Waterville facility will handle all the needed traffic. Anything that is within 250 miles of a terminal is well within the range. There simply isn't a need to build a multi-million dollar facility that is within 100 miles of an already existing one. Remember, railroads are for long hauls and trucks are for short hauls (In the realm of intermodal).

Look for more CSX presence at Waterville by years end.

[JB283]

((((("Part of the problem is that it's never been tried before. In addition to asking BNSF and/or CSX to provide only units that have steerable trucks, PAR would probably have to conduct some tests over the affected trackage to see how those units fare, and how the track fares. That's a pretty expensive test if one or more of the units ends up on the ground (or if the units make it across but the track gives way afterwards, putting the oil tanks on the ground)."))))))

@ MEC 407, Thanks for the info. I cant think of some places near Winn ME where it would be a somewhat steep fall, if that where to happen.

@ KSmitty, Thanks for the info you gave me earlier.

[gokeefe]

There will never be an Intermodal terminal in Freeport. There was talk about Portland, but the Waterville facility will handle all the needed traffic. Anything that is within 250 miles of a terminal is well within the range. There simply isn't a need to build a multi-million dollar facility that is within 100 miles of an already existing one. Remember, railroads are for long hauls and trucks are for short hauls (In the realm of intermodal).

Look for more CSX presence at Waterville by years end.

I agree there isn't going to be a "ramp" in Freeport. But if the opportunity offerred itself I believe PAR would attempt to take advantage of it. This could be a special situation where with the right equipment and rotation of crews it might actually make more sense financially for L.L. Bean to let PAR deliver containers directly to their Freeport facilities. I always took note of the fact that both facilities (the OFC on Desert Road in particular) were situated near the rail corridor. I do not believe this was by coincidence.

[bostontrainguy]

There will never be an Intermodal terminal in Freeport. There was talk about Portland, but the Waterville facility will handle all the needed traffic. Anything that is within 250 miles of a terminal is well within the range. There simply isn't a need to build a multi-million dollar facility that is within 100 miles of an already existing one. Remember, railroads are for long hauls and trucks are for short hauls (In the realm of intermodal).

Look for more CSX presence at Waterville by years end.

Often wondered if Waterville would make a good Roadrailer facility.

As far as the oil train goes:
1) Watching the videos it looks like three of the four engines did have steerable trucks,
2) Checking Bingmaps, the curve coming into Waterville looks like it's pretty tight.

[roberttosh]

If a trucker will make the Auburn to Freeport move for $100, no way the added SLR haul to Yarmouth Jct, the Pan Am haul to Freeport, the trailer unloading cost, the local delivery cost, plus the amortization cost of the terminal is going to beat $100 per trailer. Plus, unless Pam Am made it the #1 priority move on the whole railroad, it would be a much slower option. I like your enthusiasm but this is a non-starter. I do however believe CSXI and Pan Am are cooking something up for Waterville....

[MEC407]

1) Watching the videos it looks like three of the four engines did have steerable trucks,

The only one with steerable trucks is the badly-faded BNSF SD70MAC. The three GEs all have Hi-Ad trucks.


For reference:

The GE Steerable Truck looks like this: http://www.trainweb.org/csxrailfan/nov99/ac60/truck.jpg

The GE Hi-Ad (non-steerable) truck looks like this: http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/data/ach ... P_4899.JPG

[gokeefe]

If a trucker will make the Auburn to Freeport move for $100, no way the added SLR haul to Yarmouth Jct, the Pan Am haul to Freeport, the trailer unloading cost, the local delivery cost, plus the amortization cost of the terminal is going to beat $100 per trailer. Plus, unless Pam Am made it the #1 priority move on the whole railroad, it would be a much slower option. I like your enthusiasm but this is a non-starter. I do however believe CSXI and Pan Am are cooking something up for Waterville....

I think that's part of the point. I'm not entirely sure L.L. Bean really can move the trailers from Auburn to Freeport for $100. Regardless of the figures the real question is, "Can it be done for less?". If PAR is running the job as a local switcher on a regular schedule it just might work.

We are talking about a distance of not more than ~2.5 miles for PAR. What I'm trying to point at is the idea that "interchange" from YJ-Freeport would function more like a yard job than an actual haul. Since PAR really is trying to go after "all" incremental business for a higher volume customer such as L.L. Bean I would think they might be willing to work out a deal of some kind.

Sorry for the extended OT discussion but I think we can all agree at this point that the railroad is going after traffic in a manner that hasn't been seen since the pre-1980 MEC. At this point nothing would surprises me anymore. Keep in mind also that PAR is looking at business opportunities in areas and on lines that are in far worse condition than the ones that we are talking about here. That alone is enough to make me wonder.

[roberttosh]

Again, I can appreciate your enthusiasm, but they'll be running daily 100 car potato trains off the MMA with steam engines before this ever happens

[CN9634]

Again, I can appreciate your enthusiasm, but they'll be running daily 100 car potato trains off the MMA with steam engines before this ever happens

Seconded. I'm sorry Gokeefe but sadly that isn't how the RR industry works.

[gokeefe]

Again, I can appreciate your enthusiasm, but they'll be running daily 100 car potato trains off the MMA with steam engines before this ever happens

Seconded. I'm sorry Gokeefe but sadly that isn't how the RR industry works.

Again, I completely agree.

But apparently right now PAR is living in some kind of a twilight zone and is taking on incremental traffic that all of us thought was lost and gone forever. Grimmel's on the Lewiston Industrial Track is one example that comes to mind. A bunch of the old New Haven branch lines down in CT are another example (with recent reports indicating ballasting on the Canal Line).

I can't emphasize that I'm as much of a student of the "rational" school of through as anyone else here. Lately whatever this model held for PAR apparently has gone out the window. They're taking on marginal traffic in multiple locations that had been "rationalized" years ago.

We'll have to wait and see...in the meantime I think management has got some pretty serious decisions to make in regards to track conditions between Waterville and Mattawamkeag.

Prediction: $3.50/gal (or lower) gas before the end of June in Central Maine.

Stretch Prediction: Bakken crude oil stocks are so cheap that Gas hits $3.00/gal in Central Maine before the end of June (based on current trends I wouldn't be surprised by this).

[doublestack]

WAPO with BNSF 5778,4426 power and Pan Am 609 head west pass Congress st. bound for Rigby. It's hard to believe that this sighting would ever happen in Maine. Be patient, the first 4 mins or so are of less interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twLpR2AC ... ature=plcp

[newpylong]

Enthusiasm and new business interests aside, there will never be an intermodal facility in Freeport, it's not even worth talking about.

As for East of Waterville, as business to the NBSR continues to increase, track work will be necessary. The big question is, who is going to pay for it - Pan Am or NBSR or someone else? Will Pan Am even keep all of District 1? While the mainline is more bread and butter than the Woodland Branch, they have shown they will sell if it's better for them, which is a huge difference than in the past where they have kept little bits of trackage just to screw everyone while the traffic dries up around them.

Related, service has gotten drastically better to the mills. On average they ship 30% rail / 70% trucks. If service keeps up this is going to tip and put further strain on those old branch lines. In the time table most are 25 mph. In reality they are all 10, and 5. If I was the state of MA I would put pressure on them to do something given the continued increase in derailments.

[gokeefe]

While the mainline is more bread and butter than the Woodland Branch, they have shown they will sell if it's better for them, which is a huge difference than in the past where they have kept little bits of trackage just to screw everyone while the traffic dries up around them.

Do you think there could be movement on the sale of the remaining Mountain Division trackage in NH to someone else or will they keep it in order to protect against a new "bridge"? I would guess even with the "new way" that they would still want to protect themselves against competition from "elsewhere" but who knows....

Related, service has gotten drastically better to the mills. On average they ship 30% rail / 70% trucks. If service keeps up this is going to tip and put further strain on those old branch lines. In the time table most are 25 mph. In reality they are all 10, and 5. If I was the state of MA I would put pressure on them to do something given the continued increase in derailments.

I've been wondering how much potential there is for additional service to the mills and certainly didn't realize it was that much.

Sounds to me as if their only hope is to undertake a self-funded comprehensive track rebuild program. Given the dividends that they are likely used to reaping I'm not sure if the private shareholders are going to be happy with that as any program of this magnitude would almost certainly affect the current dividend payout (which I'm assuming is relatively substantial).

[gokeefe]

On an oil related note benchmark U.S. light crude (CLN2) is testing the technically significant $90.00 mark in trading today.

Since declining from above $100 barrel the price appears to have achieved technical support at $90 +/-.

Estimates of economic costs for shale oil extraction vary substantially and I have yet to see reliable figures. I have also seen cost estimates of the price of transportation per barrel in the $15/barrel range for rail and $6-$7/barrel for pipeline transit. Some of this differential has been used to explain the price spread between Brent crude, West Texas Intermediate (~-$15 relative to Brent) and North Dakota Light Sweet (as much as ~-$25 relative to Brent). We will know what the real economic price of shale oil is when/if the wells get shutdown, as of right now there's no sign of that yet whatsoever despite a very clear "bearish" picture for crude prices in the medium term.

On another related note the recently released monthly report for the Oil and Gas Division of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources indicates a new all time record high active rig count of 214 and a new all time high of 575,490 barrels per day of production in March. We are now in May and it seems likely ND is probably above 600,000 barrels per day at this point.

This article from last week on CNBC probably gives as good a description of the displacement on the global oil markets caused by increases in U.S. oil production of any I have read yet to date.

LONDON, May 22 (Reuters) - Europe is facing a glut of high quality crude oil grades, only a year after war in Libya created a serious shortage, as the continent's demand falls and the United States cuts imports due to greater availability of domestic supply.

This has led to a steep weakening in values for many high quality sweet and low-sulphur grades in a rare market development potentially suggesting oil futures prices have scope to correct yet lower in a very oversupplied market.

I am curious to see whether or not continued declines in the price of oil affect production in North Dakota and hence the potential for development of this new line of business for PAR.

[Highball]

Arrived at Mattawamkeag around 13:10

Departed the Keag at 13:53

Power was
HLCX 6318
HLCX 8144
MEC 507
MEC 517
MEC 510

HLCX's 6318, 8144 are SD-40's leased by NB Southern. The remainder ( 36 cars ) of the crude oil shipment reached Saint John last evening, May 29th.