Pan Am / Guilford Bashing

I think this thread is wandering all over the place...

I will don my flame-resistant suit before continuing.

There are some good points regarding how PAR is trying to emulate a Class 1 railroad when optimizing the traffic it chooses to move.

However, there seems to be an unrealistic expectation here that PAR also maintain its trackage to Class 1 standards. And that is simply naive. The railroad will only maintain its rails to the level needed to keep the traffic on the railroad and move it safely. They have no obligation to do any better. While it would be great to have track speed up to 35 mph all over, they will not do as such unless it has a significant impact on the bottom line.

B&MYoshi wrote:I will don my flame-resistant suit before continuing.

There are some good points regarding how PAR is trying to emulate a Class 1 railroad when optimizing the traffic it chooses to move.

However, there seems to be an unrealistic expectation here that PAR also maintain its trackage to Class 1 standards. And that is simply naive. The railroad will only maintain its rails to the level needed to keep the traffic on the railroad and move it safely. They have no obligation to do any better. While it would be great to have track speed up to 35 mph all over, they will not do as such unless it has a significant impact on the bottom line.

I don't think people are expecting that they should be maintaining track to Class 1 standards. You point out that they will not upgrade track unless it has a significance on the bottom line, which is a very valid point. However, the other side of this coin is that upgraded track results in decreased transit times which eventually will result in happier customers and more traffic. Why would a company in Maine want to ship to New York by rail when it would take a minimum of 3-4 days to get there when a truck would take 12-15 hours? Living in Central Maine, I (along with other railroaders around) compare Guilford operations to those on the MMA and NBSR. Granted that compared to the rest of the system, the Maine operations are relatively minor, but its what I'm exposed to which greatly effects my opinion. Now back to my point, of the railroads in Maine, Guilford has the worst track record on track maintenance. NBSR maintains their track at 40 MPH, with sections that are up to 50MPH. I will also point out that NBSR goes overboard on their maintenance. The MMA since it's startup has actively been upgrading track, with portions of the Moosehead Sub (Brownville west into Canada) now up to 40 MPH and the former Bangor & Aroostook main now 30-35, and those portions extending each year. Should Guilford increase its standards just because other companies are doing so? No. But then again it wouldn't surprise me that the paper mills of Maine served by Guilford try to reroute their cars over other roads (namely the MMA and SLR).

Chris, interesting points. However, I'd wonder with companies like paper mills that are dealing in great bulk as to whether transit time is a huge factor for them. Depending on their business scheme, if a paper mill has a constant customer with a strong product flow, the transit time would not be a significant issue, and neither would it require the money draining excess inventories at either end. I suspect that this is a reason why Guilford has been able to keep traffic moving as it does.

Two more unscientific observations re: PAR mainline track speeds:

1. Dawdling trains will tie up more locomotives and crews than spritely train operation over a largely single track RR, reducing asset productivity. I believe 1-2 years ago GRS invested $ in a push to get more locomotives operational. Perhaps higher speed track might have mitigated that need.

2. When PAR operates over well maintained MBTA trackage such as between Willows and Fitchburg on weekends when T service is reduced, the freights move right along at track speed. So PAR is willing to run at competitive speeds where they can.

emd_16645
It appears from your statement that you are "mixing apples and oranges". There is a differance between a Class I railroad and Class I track. The definition of a Class I railroad has to do with it's monetary income, that of Class I track, the maximum permissable speed permitted under FRA regulation.
And, actually, Class I track is pretty p***-poor track, with maximum allowable speeds of 10mph for freight and 15mph for passenger. Come to think of it, THAT DOES sound like most of PAR.......except for the infamous Watertown branch, which wouldn't even qualify for FRA "excepted track".

B&MYoshi wrote:Chris, interesting points. However, I'd wonder with companies like paper mills that are dealing in great bulk as to whether transit time is a huge factor for them. Depending on their business scheme, if a paper mill has a constant customer with a strong product flow, the transit time would not be a significant issue, and neither would it require the money draining excess inventories at either end. I suspect that this is a reason why Guilford has been able to keep traffic moving as it does.

That may be the only reason. A few years back Guilford lost the contract to move the clay shipped into the mill at Bucksport. The clay is now hauled in by truck. This was more due to a change in where the clay was barged into, not a fault of Guilford (change in supplier as far as I know). In any case, that clay is now barged to Searsport, which is less than 20 miles by road, and over 60 miles by rail over two carriers. Moving paper doesn't seem to be time dependent, but the capability for faster service could attract new customers.

NHRDC121 wrote:It appears from your statement that you are "mixing apples and oranges". There is a differance between a Class I railroad and Class I track. The definition of a Class I railroad has to do with it's monetary income, that of Class I track, the maximum permissable speed permitted under FRA regulation.
And, actually, Class I track is pretty p***-poor track, with maximum allowable speeds of 10mph for freight and 15mph for passenger. Come to think of it, THAT DOES sound like most of PAR.......except for the infamous Watertown branch, which wouldn't even qualify for FRA "excepted track".

My reference to Class 1 was in regards to a Class 1 carrier, not the FRA standards for rail conditions. Class 1 carriers have a much higher tendency to keep their track in better operational shape. This is what I have ben comparing Guilford to. Looking back at my post I can see where there could be some confusion.

johnpbarlow wrote:1. Dawdling trains will tie up more locomotives and crews than spritely train operation over a largely single track RR, reducing asset productivity. I believe 1-2 years ago GRS invested $ in a push to get more locomotives operational. Perhaps higher speed track might have mitigated that need.

2. When PAR operates over well maintained MBTA trackage such as between Willows and Fitchburg on weekends when T service is reduced, the freights move right along at track speed. So PAR is willing to run at competitive speeds where they can.

Slow trains mean increased costs. The longer the train takes to get from point A to point increases fuel costs, and extra crews. As operations stand right now, a turn from Northern Maine Junction to Rigby (140 miles) and back requires 3 crews. That means each crew is averaging just under 100 miles for a 12 hour shift. If track speed could be maintained at 40 or 45, that loop could likely be completed by a single crew. A reduction of two crews would be a considerable cost savings (remember its not just pay, but benefits and extra transportation/hotel costs need to be factored as well). Would it justify the costs for maintenance? Probably not. Guilford has definately shown that they will operate their freights fast if they can. The before mentioned example of the MBTA track is one example, a second is the trackage used by the Downeaster. Guilford has absolutely no problem running fast, they just don't want to pay for it.

I'd hardly call 40 MPH fast.

Rockingham Racer wrote:I'd hardly call 40 MPH fast.

Try running a freight at 40, its plenty fast. More importantly, for the mileage on the BM and the MEC, 40 is a very economical high speed. Too bad the only time the running is that fast is on anything but their own track.

newpylong wrote:

Rockingham Racer wrote:I'd hardly call 40 MPH fast.

Try running a freight at 40, its plenty fast. More importantly, for the mileage on the BM and the MEC, 40 is a very economical high speed. Too bad the only time the running is that fast is on anything but their own track.

By Maine standards, 40 MPH is about as fast as it gets. Its also bout as fast as you need. Unless dealing with priority shipments (pretty much just intermodal), it really isn't economically viable.

newpylong wrote:Try running a freight at 40, its plenty fast. More importantly, for the mileage on the BM and the MEC, 40 is a very economical high speed. Too bad the only time the running is that fast is on anything but their own track.

Yes, 40 is fast for PAR; 50 was max on the B&M; try running a freight at 70. THAT'S fast. And yes: PAR is not NS or BNSF; I'll concede that.

Rockingham Racer wrote:

newpylong wrote:Try running a freight at 40, its plenty fast. More importantly, for the mileage on the BM and the MEC, 40 is a very economical high speed. Too bad the only time the running is that fast is on anything but their own track.

Yes, 40 is fast for PAR; 50 was max on the B&M; try running a freight at 70. THAT'S fast. And yes: PAR is not NS or BNSF; I'll concede that.

40 MPH is plenty fast enough on the former B&M and MEC. I have heard
that some track work has taken place over the past months to raise many
speeds up to the 30 to 40 MPH range. I got this information second hand
so I can't be positive of it.
I just checked a 1964 B&M timetable and there was some 45 MPH
territory for freight trains but nothing any higher. There is not a big
difference between 45 and 40 except for fuel consumption and the type
of freight traffic on the B&M in both the 1960's and in 2007 is not the type
of traffic that needs to run any higher than 40 MPH.
The key to good freight service is more on time and dependable than it is
high speeds at least in New England.
It would not be worth the major expense to upgrade this territory to
higher speeds for what little potential really time sensitive traffic that
would be offered today.
Noel Weaver

Pan Am is currently installing new welded rail on the hill between Athol and Royalston. Even with the new rail I don't think track speeds will increase by much, since new ties are also needed.

atholrail wrote:Pan Am is currently installing new welded rail on the hill between Athol and Royalston. Even with the new rail I don't think track speeds will increase by much, since new ties are also needed.

Yup... When the rail was replaced in the hoosac tunnel, some ballast was dropped, and the worst ties were replaced but not enough was done to get it back up to timetable speed (30MPH). I don't think anything since 2000 or so has come back up above 25 MPH once its dropped down to thast... Up until 2005 there was a few miles out in Pownal on the BM that you could go 40... we used to joke that the track department somehow missed putting restrictions on those miles because boy were they rough, lol.

people bash the pan am railways? in what way?

signed,
people bashing the ns paint scheme