Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; 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.

Moderator: MEC407

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby KSmitty » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:29 pm

ST 100 & 101 have been loaned out to CM&Q. They were hauled to NMJ Friday, and ran north and then west to Jackman and beyond on Sunday. The CM&Q leg of the trip was led by CM&Q GP38-3 3812. Maine Train Chaser was able to catch the move and posted video of the Bangor Sub (old B&A Millinocket Sub) leg of the trip. https://youtu.be/uqPkK3ywqOE

Rumor hazit, the cars are to be part of a joint marketing effort with a trip from Farnham to Deerfield planned for this week. Maybe rumors of "the Vermont Gateway" are coming true?

Edit: And here's his video of the Moosehead leg of the trip. https://youtu.be/jN-OjB776V0
KSmitty
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby newpylong » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:47 am

Rumored to come back via the Pomp and WRJ as it may have to do with the VT gateway. Now that the STB spat w/NECR is complete and PAS knows what it will be charged they (PAS/VRS) are trying to give it to he NECR back. Interchange moved back to Millers (hell for the NECR). The NECR has been keeping EDBF at East Northfield many nights for 6 hrs for no apparent reason.
newpylong
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NH

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby MEC407 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:05 pm

Fascinating. Does PAR get similar treatment from SLR these days, or is that relationship still good? In other words, is the nastiness coming from the top (GWI) or is it coming from NECR local management?
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10794
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby MEC407 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:07 pm

Foamer observation: the white stripe near the top of the CMQ loco lines up almost perfectly with the white stripe on the ST biz cars. :-)
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10794
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby 690 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:08 pm

Ran Farnham to WRJ today, will run WRJ to EDFLD tomorrow.
User avatar
690
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:50 am
Location: Maine

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby johnpbarlow » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:47 am

newpylong wrote:Rumored to come back via the Pomp and WRJ as it may have to do with the VT gateway. Now that the STB spat w/NECR is complete and PAS knows what it will be charged they (PAS/VRS) are trying to give it to he NECR back. Interchange moved back to Millers (hell for the NECR). The NECR has been keeping EDBF at East Northfield many nights for 6 hrs for no apparent reason.


Perhaps this comment should be posted in the Conn River line forum discussion but while the STB rendered a decision in this dispute last October, NECR is still contesting the decision in a pair of 12/29/17 filings with the STB as NECR believes the October decision was "unlawful":

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
_________________________
New England Central Railroad, Inc. (“NECR”) hereby petitions for reconsideration of the decision served October 31, 2017 in the above-captioned proceeding (the “Decision”) on the
grounds of material error. The Decision modified a trackage rights order (“TO”) governing the operations of Pan Am Southern LLC (“PAS”) over three contiguous segments of a railroad line
owned by NECR (together, the “Line”).1 The approach of the Surface Transportation Board (the “Board”)2 to rate setting and the associated prescribed rate were both unlawful. They violated the
Board’s mandate to “make an adequate and continuing effort to assist carriers in attaining revenue levels” that are “adequate, under honest, economical, and efficient management… to
cover total operating expenses, including depreciation and obsolescence, plus a reasonable and economic profit or return (or (both) on capital employed in the business.”3 Other aspects of the
Decision were also unlawful.

One TO modification was a new trackage rights fee to be paid by PAS to NECR to supplant the prior prescribed fee, which had been in place for over twenty years. The Board
recognized that the prior prescribed fee was too low and established the new fee. The most important component of the new fee (which the Board calls the Interest Rentalate Component
(“IRC”)) defines the return of, and on, the trackage assets to be paid by PAS. The Board set the IRC too low and effectively precluded NECR from earning adequate revenues on the Lines.

The Board violated its independent statutory duty to regulate the rail industry to promote an efficient and safe rail system by ensuring that a railroad can earn adequate revenues. The fee
forces NECR to subsidize PAS’s usage, and the competitive situation leaves NECR with no means to recoup PAS’s equitable share of its capital costs from other shippers. The fee not only
determines the pricing not only for the traffic hauled at any time by PAS, but also impacts the more than of the car miles moving over the Line subject to competition between PAS and
NECR. The resulting below adequate revenues compromise NECR’s ability to maintain efficient and safe rail operations over the Lines.

The Decision produced an unlawfully low rate because the Board erred by using an economically unsuitable tool to calculate the IRC and compounded the error by using the tool
improperly. The Board’s use of the capitalized earnings (“CE”) approach to value the trackage rights assets was arbitrary and capricious, and produced an unlawful result,.


https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/7ebbc3a34326386e85258209004f8fcc/$FILE/244917.pdf
https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/7b4fb17baa15130485258209004f6ee0/$FILE/244916.pdf
johnpbarlow
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:50 pm

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby gokeefe » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:01 pm

This sounds like a pretty interesting fight over the STB's methodology. I read parts of the original decision and got the impression that the STB was apply their methods in a manner that was consistent with past practice (as would be expected).
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 10743
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby newpylong » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:42 pm

It will be tossed out.
newpylong
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NH

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby CPF363 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:19 pm

KSmitty wrote:Rumor hazit, the cars are to be part of a joint marketing effort with a trip from Farnham to Deerfield planned for this week. Maybe rumors of "the Vermont Gateway" are coming true?

Frustrating that CP removed the old Quebec Central line between Newport Lennoxville in the 1990s. This would have allowed for a much shorter route between Brownville Jct. and White River Jct instead of running west to Farnham before turning south.
CPF363
 
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby 690 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:33 pm

Who said the reason for this trip was because of traffic heading west out of Maine.
User avatar
690
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:50 am
Location: Maine

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby Dick H » Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:19 am

Any word on what route the two OCS cars will be using to get
back to their home base at Waterville? Thanks..
Dick H
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby KSmitty » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:34 pm

East out of Deerfield this morning. Coming back to Waterville on home rails, but was tentatively going to have CM&Q 3812 leading.
KSmitty
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby Dick H » Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:44 pm

Reported on The Guilford Sightings Yahoo Group that the OCS cars
led by CNQ was by Westford MA at 1329 hrs.
Dick H
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby Dick H » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:37 pm

There is a final excursion on the Philadelphia to Altoona PA in May using the two restored PRR E-8
locomotives, as these will no longer be allowed on the lines without having PTC installed at an
estimated cost of $100,000 per locomotive. PDF Flyer below. @1.000 per ticket.
http://www.philaprrths.com/PRRTHS_TRIP_ANNOUNCEMENT.pdf

This raises questions about the future of PAR1 and PAR2, I believe that lead locomotives
running in MBTA territory will be required to have PTC. PAR could use a PTC equipped
freight locomotive to lead between Plaistow and Boston and Plaistow and Wachusset,
I don't see PAR spending $200,000 for PTC on PAR1 & 2, But, never say never with PAR.
Dick H
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Business Train Discussion (ST 100, 101 & 102; PAR 1 & 2)

Postby newpylong » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:41 pm

$20-30K per engine not 200. Considering all they've spent on those engines and the rest of the clown train so far it's well within the realm of the imagination that they'd do it.
newpylong
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NH

PreviousNext

Return to Pan Am Railways (formerly Guilford Rail System)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests