• Trains on CSX St. Lawrence Sub (CR's Montreal Secondary)

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

  • 2187 posts
  • 1
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  by BR&P
 
Well, I recently yanked a couple chains on here because guys memories were not totally accurate after a lot of years. Now it's my turn. I had said that engine had been painted up to resemble Amtrak. Having fount the picture, it only had the "Armtrak" logo and arrows where the Interface logo is now, the rest of the unit was as you see it. Flies on me! :P

To make amends, here's a shot of it in better times.
img625.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by lvrr325
 
I saw that go by but I was on the way out the door. Track Geometry Train. Maybe someone can get lucky and get it in daylight Wednesday.
  by BR&P
 
Interesting that CSX would feel so strongly about blocking FGLK forever no matter what, that they would be willing to potentially sink the whole deal.
  by RSD15
 
The only thing I can think of is CSX losing unit grain trains to Fulton and Military trains to Drum to a FGLK/NS routing.
Then they might lose NY/NJ traffic to NYSW.
  by lvrr325
 
CSX owns a chunk of NYS&W, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Finger Lakes already tried the unit trains over the Auburn and it didn't go very well.

Literally all they have to do is change a few words, from "never" to "maybe someday if a need arises" more or less. I would expect if CN changed their mind and wanted it they'd just have to pay out CSX for it.
  by tree68
 
Railroad thinking, CR version:

After a wreck some years ago at CP237 (right next to the Utica station), Conrail removed the crossover (and thus the CP) at that point rather than leave access to the Adirondack Division for whoever was operating the current NYSW at the time.
  by Ironhorse27
 
lvrr325 wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 3:37 am CSX owns a chunk of NYS&W, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Finger Lakes already tried the unit trains over the Auburn and it didn't go very well.

Literally all they have to do is change a few words, from "never" to "maybe someday if a need arises" more or less. I would expect if CN changed their mind and wanted it they'd just have to pay out CSX for it.
What unit trains did the Finger Lakes run, and what was the problem with them?
  by lvrr325
 
For a while maybe 1999, 2000, I forget exactly when, they tried running coal trains for the power plant in Solvay via Corning, Geneva and then over Finger Lakes via Auburn. The supplier was located on NS but before that they ran via the Water Level Route from Buffalo, as Conrail had always done. Someone got the bright idea they could cut CSX out on the haul.

However they stopped because the big engines and 100 ton cars were rough on the track, which is mostly jointed rail, I seem to recall Seneca Falls and maybe other places were unhappy with 90 car trains blocking crossings as they passed through at 25 mph, and I believe rather than just one crew to get it from Buffalo it was taking two or three, which added to the cost to run it that way. I think they even tried breaking them up into two trips, but of course that means even more crew time to run them over.

Heck that could even be why CSX wants to ensure they keep Finger Lakes out of the picture now, somebody remembers that and wants to make sure it can't happen again.

I may even have slides somewhere although in randomly poking through since I got a scanner I haven't run into them.
  by lvrr325
 
Okay I was wrong. Mentioned this to someone more in the loop than I am and apparently Finger Lakes did take a shot at grabbing some traffic from CSX, CSX got wind of it, and that's why they're so adamant about blocking them.
  by Ironhorse27
 
So essentially Finger Lakes got caught with its hand in the cookie jar and CSX is slapping them. It must have been some substantial traffic Finger Lakes was chasing.
  by ccutler
 
WIth traffic levels falling by a third, CN may be looking for reasons to renegotiate or back out of a binding purchase agreement. STB apparently offers that reason by asking CSX to agree to a term CSX doesn't want. Even though it is difficult to see how the term presents a real threat to CSX's interchange patterns, perhaps CSX legal might find the STB term could pose a challenge to many other paper barrier agreements CSX has. Who knows? If I were CN I would look for any chance to renegotiate or back out.
  by BR&P
 
Ironhorse27 wrote:So essentially Finger Lakes got caught with its hand in the cookie jar and CSX is slapping them. It must have been some substantial traffic Finger Lakes was chasing.
I'm not a huge FGLK fan but they are not stupid. I have a hard time seeing that they would go far enough in poaching traffic from CSX as to jeopardize the working relationship they have built up all these years. They have too much already invested in what they already have to risk alienating their primary connection. Disagree with CSX? Of course. Have some "what if?" conversations with a few shippers? Not unlikely, and also not unethical. But get caught doing something serious? I would be surprised. Over the years FGLK has shown itself to be very adept at playing the political end of things, and in this case I'm not talking government politics, but rather the whole getting-along-with-those-you-need-to-get-along-with stuff.

I talked to someone who probably has a much better ear for what's going on, and they were not aware of anything serious. What you say MIGHT be the case but IMHO it would represent a significant departure from the norm if it was accurate.
  • 1
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146