CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

'Amtrak and MassDOT remain the last “major” challenges'… Do these two parties along with the politicians and MWRA have any substance to their challenges? I believe that CSXT has stated they will uphold all agreements that PAR/PAS has with all parties. Are Amtrak and Mass DOT trying to change the existing agreements? Hopefully, any requested changes would be treated as not relevant to the CSX purchase filing.

Is there a need for a stipulation that PAS track be maintained at a class II level? CSX's interest is getting PAR up to 25mph and less so with the PAS route. PAS work needs to be unanimous by the owners.

There have also been some questions raised on the forum about the Hoosac Tunnel. NS isn't going to go it alone and CSX doesn't need the expansion. The solution is probably like the two Baltimore tunnels. It will be funded by Federal, state and the owning railroads if there is enough push.

From page 21 of the 07012021 filing:
March 9, 2022 Service date of final decision.
April 8, 2022 Effective date of final decision.
I'm not sure if another update had a new schedule.

I concur with your concurrence that it looks like CSX is getting it done ; -)

I got a chuckle out of this statement in the PAR comment uploaded:

"Through the hard work and resourcefulness of Springfield Terminal employees, the PAR System has been maintained for decades with limited resources. Those efforts both saved and preserved the New England rail network. But the New England economy deserves a better rail network."

A215 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:51 pm It isn't April 1st and effective May 1st as originally planned?

Ah, I'm incorrect. I was looking at CSX's proposed schedule, not the STB's schedule.

I've had some time to think about the VRS conditions and I don't think it changes their situation that much compared to what would have been. Sure, VRS now has two "paper" interchanges with NS and one with CSX, but they still don't have any "hard" interchanges with any other railroad besides CP, which is of limited use, and G&W, their primary competitor. My fear is that VRS will contract "D&H Syndrome," where the railroad will slowly be strangled due to having their major connections being controlled by a competing railroad. Sure B&E will be run on CSX's and NS's terms, but given the choice between VRS and G&W, the two will choose G&W.

Vrs, however, must think either that (1) it materially improves their position or (2) the deal is better than any relief they could expect from stb. Otherwise, why settle?

Hey, it's 40 miles of someone else's 40 mph track, why not?

Shortline614 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:36 pm

A215 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:51 pm It isn't April 1st and effective May 1st as originally planned?

Ah, I'm incorrect. I was looking at CSX's proposed schedule, not the STB's schedule.

I've had some time to think about the VRS conditions and I don't think it changes their situation that much compared to what would have been. Sure, VRS now has two "paper" interchanges with NS and one with CSX, but they still don't have any "hard" interchanges with any other railroad besides CP, which is of limited use, and G&W, their primary competitor. My fear is that VRS will contract "D&H Syndrome," where the railroad will slowly be strangled due to having their major connections being controlled by a competing railroad. Sure B&E will be run on CSX's and NS's terms, but given the choice between VRS and G&W, the two will choose G&W.

How will they get "strangled" when there are conditions of service and price guarantees as part of the approval (assuming it's approved)?

Here are the specifics of MassDOT/MBTA's seven requested conditions that they want the STB to impose for approval of the acquisition:

1. Upon consummation of the Transactions, CSXT will transfer to MBTA train dispatching responsibilities for all MBTA and MassDOT-owned line segments – (1) over which regularly-scheduled commuter rail passenger service operates; and (2) over which CSXT otherwise holds, or would hold, dispatching responsibility post Transactions... Alternatively, if CSXT is not required to transfer dispatching responsibilities, then CSXT must be required to maintain dispatching functions permanently at MBTA’s existing Billerica dispatching offices, and must employ dispatching software and technology prescribed by MBTA to ensure that MBTA can monitor CSXT dispatching in real time, and so that MBTA can coordinate its dispatching territories with MBTA-owned routes that CSXT would dispatch.

2. CSXT must be required within three (3) months of the consummation of the Transactions to develop jointly with MBTA a written, and mutually-accepted plan to alleviate against threats to capacity and to existing and projected future passenger rail service over MBTA-owned trackage, including, most particularly between Ayer (MP36.0) and Willows (MP-33.7). This plan should include designated traffic volume thresholds, that, when exceeded, would trigger CSXT-funded capital improvements to alleviate congestion, including, but not limited to, the installation of additional main line trackage parallel to existing MBTA Ayer-Willows main tracks.

3. Within three (3) months of the consummation of the Transactions, CSXT will, with the Commonwealth, engage in a joint inspection and evaluation of MBTA-owned and MassDOT-owned railroad facilities currently maintained by or for any rail carrier subsidiary of Pan Am Railways (“PAR”) or by or for Pan Am Southern (“PAS”) to determine whether such facilities have been maintained to a condition that – (a) meets railroad industry standards of serviceability and safety; or (b) complies with the standards of upkeep set forth in the agreement or agreements governing PAR’s and/or PAS’s use and control of each such facility, whichever standard of maintenance and safety is higher in the case of each such facility.

4. PAS will maintain the MassDOT-owned Knowledge Corridor to a condition that satisfies the Federal Railroad Administration’s safety standards for Class 4 railroad track, in adherence with existing agreements between MassDOT and PAS. In so doing, PAS will comply with the terms of the Operating Agreement between MassDOT, MBTA and PAS dated May 21, 2015, and more specifically, Exhibit B to that agreement – Service Outcome Agreement of the 2015 Operating Agreement.

5. CSXT, on behalf of itself and as the future 50% owner of PAS, commits to work with MassDOT, Amtrak, and any future local rail authority (i.e., a Western Massachusetts Intercity Rail Authority) in good faith, to explore, study, and allow additional expanded passenger service in Western Massachusetts under the governance and operations framework described in MassDOT’s Intercity Rail Governance White Paper and on mutually acceptable terms, including, but not limited to, the proposed passenger service identified in MassDOT’s East West Rail Study over the former Boston & Albany main line and the PAS main line west of Ayer

6. In keeping with condition #5, CSXT must be required to reach an accord with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) with respect to certain Amtrak operated and Commonwealth-supported intercity passenger train initiatives (as Amtrak may discuss in its own responsive filing to the Board) that will benefit mobility within, and proximate to, Massachusetts, including, but not limited to – (a) the introduction of seasonal round-trip service (with certain multiple daily starts) between Albany, New York and Pittsfield, Massachusetts (known as the Berkshire Flyer, under terms to be provided by Amtrak); (b) multiple round-trip service between Springfield and Worcester, Massachusetts; (c) up to two daily round-trip service between Albany and Worcester, Massachusetts; and (d) the negotiation in good faith (under general terms and conditions regarding modelling and impacts analysis and mitigation set forth by Amtrak) of expansion of or modification to existing intercity service within Massachusetts.

7. CSXT must be required to support the continued development of a Springfield Master Plan for capital improvement investment to enhance North-South, East-West and multidirectional passenger services in and around Springfield Union Station, including, but not limited to, construction of passenger layover facility(ies), additional tracks and platform access, and expanded interlockings. Consistent with the goals and purpose of the Springfield Master Plan, CSXT will not remove, without MassDOT’s written consent, the currently-installed, 950-foot-long “shoo fly track.”

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 303476.pdf

Those conditions are ridiculous. I can tell you what I would tell MassDOT to do... Actually I might actually agree then do what I wanted afterwards.

About #7 (the Springfield Union Station projects), what does MassDOT have in mind? Why make a thing about the "shoo fly track" in particular? Expanded interlockings where? Why not dream big and ask for a loop track to eliminate all backing moves?

Looks like MWRA and CSX have reached an agreement that permits MWRA to formally withdraw its STB-filed commentary and request for conditions re: the acquisition:

In light of a settlement agreement among the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (“MWRA”), CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., fully executed as of January 5, 2022, MWRA hereby requests leave to withdraw its – (1) substantive comments in its filings of March 19, 2021, and August 27, 2021 (including its request for conditions as set forth in the latter filing) submitted in the above-referenced proceedings; and (2) December 16, 2021 notice of intent to participate in the hearing scheduled for next week. Although WMRA will not participate in next week’s hearing, MWRA intends to remain a party in these proceedings.

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 303487.pdf

it certainly appears on the surface that CSX really wants to get this done.

They're not going to agree to keep dispatchers in Billerica or use a dispatching system approved by the MBTA. I think they are remembering the bad days when B&M would purposely dispatch freight trains in front of the Amtrak-operated Commuter Rail trains because they had lost the Commuter Rail contract. It's good that the T is listing every project they can think about.

What's the stuff about agreeing to follow agreements that are already in place? Has PAR/PAS been violating agreements?

Isn't there an issue with "the diamond" crossing at Springfield? Is there fuzziness about who owns what near Springfield station? Is that why MassDOT hasn't fulfilled their promise to CTDOT to build a layover facility? Since they don't mention Worcester I assume that track ownership by the train station has been resolved. I didn't see anything about double-tracking WOR-SPG, are the frequency increases requested for existing single track?

Also note the mention of passenger service on the Worcester Main west of Ayer...

The passenger service is on the "PAS Mainline" - MassDOT is studying service to Greenfield via the Fitchburg in parallel to E/W rail via the B&A.

The track ownership at Worcester was never in question, it's pretty clear. The frequency increases requested are likely minimum goals they want to achieve.

Agreed the dispatchers will move, but MBTA will retain the dispatching of the territory. This is in an existing agreement. CSX was terrible as recently as the early 2010s handling MBTA trains on the Worcester Line. As mentioned, CSX has greed to honor existing agreements already, MBTA/MassDOT probably just wants these conditions on the record as much as possible so it has further weight. Requests are generally harmless, STB can just say no to imposing the conditions. But it's beneficial to get any imposed.

If the MBTA takes over dispatching, I can see things getting complicated quickly, particularly along the Ayer-Lowell-Lawrence portion. Any freights heading east from Ayer would be going from MBTA dispatching (under one dispatcher) to CSX/PAR dispatching (at CPF WL), back to MBTA dispatching (with a second MBTA dispatcher) at CPF NC or CPF WA, back to CSX/PAR dispatching (at CPF BY), then back to MBTA dispatching (with a third MBTA dispatcher) at CPF LJ....

The commuter trains only cross dispatching boundaries once. A freight would be crossing dispatching boundaries FIVE times in a 25-mile run... That's ridiculous.