by CN9634
From a strategy standpoint these guys seem to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:29 am CP has filed comments re: its thoughts around the proposed CSX acquisition of Pan Am and downstream effects:{/quote]
The Transaction marks a fundamental restructuring of the competitive incentives relating to the entirety of the New England rail map. The Board should proceed with great caution here, and condition the Transaction in a way that preserves the long-run incentives of the various parties to invest in and operate PAS’s Hoosac Tunnel Route as a no-less viable competitive alternative than it would have been absent the Transaction.
MEC407 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:44 am Here's a wild and crazy idea: if CP loves Hoosac so much, maybe they should buy out CSX's soon-to-be 50% stake in PAS. Put your money where your mouth is, CP!It is interesting that CP is just getting interested in this now. If they still owned the D&H South End and had a decent line between the D&H and Southern Ontario through Buffalo, they might have been a viable bidder for CSX's portion of PAS together with access to some of the customers on the old MEC.
NotYou wrote: Why did / does Pan Am send so much traffic to CSX via Worcester, aren't they short hauling themselves vs interchanging at Rotterdam Jct. NY?On paper, PAS is a different railroad than PAR, so any cars routed from Maine to Rotterdam would have a switching fee at Deerfield, whereas routing via Worcester keeps it solely on PAR.
The CSX-Pan Am merger is the first before the Surface Transportation Board in which passenger trains account for the majority of traffic on many of the lines involved, Amtrak noted in a filing posted to the STB website today.
Pan Am has worked with Amtrak and its state partners to expand and improve service in recent years, Amtrak said, including the Downeaster linking Boston with Portland and Brunswick, Maine, and Vermonter and Valley Flyer service in western New England.
“In contrast, CSXT consistently has taken the approach of obstructing the expansion of passenger rail, and to limit access to its facilities, despite the fact that CSXT is statutorily required to provide Amtrak with access to its rail lines,” Amtrak wrote. “Indeed, as the Board is aware from the current Gulf Coast dispute, CSXT has a history of stonewalling Amtrak’s requests for additional service.”
As a result, Amtrak is asking the STB to impose seven conditions on any approval of CSX’s acquisition of Pan Am. They are:For those of you with a Trains Magazine subscription: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... am-merger/
— CSX should be required to fulfill all of its merger-related promises regarding passenger service. Specifically, Amtrak asks for a modification of the CSX-NS trackage rights deal to reflect a commitment that the trains will be scheduled to operate over CSX’s former Boston & Albany main line outside of the Lake Shore Limited’s operating windows and that the NS trains don’t interfere with the Valley Flyer and Vermonter service at the diamond in Springfield, Mass., where their routes cross.
— CSX should be required to negotiate in good faith with Amtrak and its state partners for service expansions, improvements, and additional weekend and seasonal service, particularly on its route between Albany and Worcester, Mass.
— CSX should be ordered to cooperate with Amtrak and its partners to identify what improvements would be required to raise passenger train speeds on Pan Am and CSX routes, then work in good faith to promptly make improvements.
— CSX should be ordered to not make operational changes that would result in a deterioration of on-time performance of Amtrak trains.
— CSX should be required to perform non-emergency trackwork during non-peak passenger periods.
— CSX should be ordered to provide for the operation of up to four weekend Berkshire Flyer trips in the summer between Albany, N.Y., and Pittsfield, Mass., within 90 days written notice from Amtrak – and without any Amtrak-funded capacity improvements.
— Amtrak also asked the board to maintain jurisdiction over the CSX-Pan Am merger to ensure compliance with any conditions imposed.
Shortline614 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:37 am Passenger rail people seem to think they should have unlimited access to the freight rail network without having to give the companies compensation.That's painting with a broad brush, don't you think? The "passenger rail people" I know all agree that the freight railroads should be compensated fairly. As far as Pan Am is concerned, they have made out very well with the Downeaster.
MEC407 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:07 pm Perhaps, although it's also notable that Pan Am eventually came around and has for the most part been a better-than-average partner. They went from fighting it tooth-and-nail, to grudgingly accepting it under duress, to outright embracing it. And it's a good thing they did, because thanks to Maine taxpayers Mellon is going to get a lot more money for this railroad than he would have if it was still in pre-Downeaster condition.Fink Sr. and Culliford were very risk averse. The original anti-passenger move was the banishment of the railfan trips in the mid 80s. Then someone smartened up and realized they could get a new railroad and MOW salaries paid for by someone else. The trend has continued. Why not when you're only running 4 trains a day yourself?