CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

The only way Bucksport ever gets one iota of attention from CSX in terms of being a viable port option, would be if they discover another Powder River Basin type coal field say on the line up to Keag and even then it would be highly unlikely. Pretty much the same with Searsport. They have less than zero interest in developing anything at either location, take my word for it.

The only business stemming from Bucksport would be contaminated soil. As part of the clean up in Orrington, mercury was found in large portions of the lower Penobscot, and will have to be dredged. Since there doesn't appear to be a dock at the clean up site anymore, Bucksport might be the next best thing. Unless Pan Am has pulled up some of the yard tracks, there should be a few tracks over by the dock. They could in theory unload the material from the dredge at Searsport and reload it onto rail cars, but that would likely require the material being short hauled by trucks from the dock to the rail cars (since the dock doesn't have direct rail access). If so, this would require a tie job on the branch at a minimum (the local MOW crew did a small tie job back in 2015 and 2018 on the Bangor-Orrington section to keep the track open).

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:36 pm https://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/13309.shtml

Mr. F7, "Ancient Mariner" to the rescue!!

Looks like the Penobscot is navigable to Bucksport, but what would be gained especially if the port is undeveloped.

I don't know if it's a Port of Call for Fairfield Navy cruises, as the closest I was there when a Cadet was Rockland. If it is, forget it; for the same lobby that limits Amtrak trains over the East End (Shore Line) would be in play.

But now that I've learned that Bucksport is on the MEC, Chessie and Beaver could have "I dare you" stares X the River. Maybe instead of Chessie trying to build out Bucksport and diverting some traffic that would otherwise be CP's, they could come together in their mutual interest and build out one or the other.

I don't think it's disputable that maritime companies prefer to have two railroads over just one.

I've been debating linking to this, but for more info specifically on Sears Island, https://friendsofsearsisland.org/ has a History section devoted to telling the tales of blocking any industrial development there. The forces that want to keep Maine a rustic and underdeveloped refuge from the parts of the country where there is money to be made are strong.

What I'm at a loss to understand is where can an ocean going vessel dock at Searsport?

Reviewing the NOAA Chart, I don't see soundings much deeper than 23ft there.

OK; maybe a 3KT coastal vessel, but our discussion, and CP's marketing campaign, suggested Searsport is an ocean going port waiting to be used (a Lazaro Cardenas, shall we say).

Now on the other hand, God made 65ft soundings in the Penobscott River right up to river's edge at Bucksport, yet Timmy, by grace of allowing the Maine Central to become a 5 mph road there, has put rail transportation out of the running to handle any cargo.

Additionally, our discussion has clearly established that the Town Fathers of either community really are not interested in industrial development.

So I guess I should leave it with that I ask how can either expect to be a maritime port on the scale of Saint John - or even Portland?

Chart you sent shows 32 foot dredged channels right up to beside the 2 large piers at searsport

Agree, but even 32ft will not begin to suffice for the container vessels at sea today.

Everyhody's friend within the maritime community, the mv Ever Given @ 226KT, draws 48ft (15m).

The port was never deeper than 35 feet. Interestingly enough, there is a $5.8 million dollar grant in the works to dredge the harbor. Which I imagine will face the environmental lobby sooner, rather than later. In another article I found from 2015, it covers the last attempt to dredge the harbor to 45 feet.
https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom ... bor-passes
https://bangordailynews.com/2015/09/09/ ... withdrawn/

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:29 pm Agree, but even 32ft will not begin to suffice for the container vessels at sea today.

Everyhody's friend within the maritime community, the mv Ever Given @ 226KT, draws 48ft (15m).

Containers super highly unlikely to ever land in searsport I believe
Of course, other ships may need deeper drafts as well. We will see whether there is sufficient industrial interest to overcome nimbyism.

Here's a vessel presently under way to Searsport:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/de ... OF%20MAINE

If this vessel is indicative of the size of those that call at Searsport (draught 9m), then I can't see how all the "brouhaha" that this backwater port had any potential of becoming World Class ever came to pass.

As the dredging and monitoring for mercury from Holtrachem extends south, I am certain they will find some around Searsport. Based off of the BDN article CPF66 shared, that's what was stirring up many of the environment lovers last time. Which that material would have to be excavated anyway, so while that's being done, why don't they just dig it down to the max depth. Granted that will be years down the road, but for now the port is holding itself where it is. The other issue with Searsport is, the DOT shot themselves in the foot when the new dock was built. The BAR era dock had several tracks, which allowed direct rail to ship transloading. And actually, in the 90's the BAR converted several bulkhead flats, so lumber from a Russian ship could be transloaded to rail, moved a few hundred feet to the nearest road, and transloaded onto trucks. I think that was for robbins lumber, which got a contract to plane a ship load of Russian lumber, and then reload it back on the ship. The lack of direct rail access really hampers operations at the port. The new warehouse which replaced the one on the old dock was built quite a ways away, and while CMQ was hauling loads of pulp from Searsport in 2019, the operator of the port had to move the dried pulp in pallets from the dock to the warehouse which is a good distance away so it could be loaded onto rail cars.

Mr. Backroad, the move you describe is a "thank you Jones Act" charade.

That this wood apparently raw forest arrived on a Russian vessel meant it had to be transported on a US rail before it could be loaded on another foreign flagged vessel for onward shipment - even if now milled lumber.

There are other instances of similar moves about to obviate the Jones Act which would have required the lumber to be handled on a US flagged vessel.

Back to topic....

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 303350.pdf

35ft is plenty to be a viable port. With a 12ft tide range in that area and most vessels operating with a minimum under keel clearance of 1-2ft that gets you to 45ft at high water.

The Arthur Kill (west side of Staten Island) in the port of New York and New Jersey also has a 35ft controlling depth and hundreds of tankers call at the various oil terminals along it. Phillips 66 Bayway refinery takes very large tankers such as the SFL Trinity currently discharging there. Until recently when it was dredged to 45ft tankers lightered off fuel in the upper bay until they reached the 35ft controlling depth.

Lightering operations are not limited to busy ports. A few off the top of my head are for salt for gateway terminal in New Haven, CT and prior to their shutdown for Brayton Point power station in Ma and Bridgeport Harbor Station in Bridgeport CT.

Nice tidbit:

Dispatching at GWI Railroads
The current dispatch practices at GWI railroads are not relevant because B&E expects to
hire existing Springfield Terminal employees and will simply take over the existing Springfield
Terminal dispatching desk that relates to PAS operations.
4. Dispatching at NSR
Information related to NSR is addressed in the Safety Integration section below.
5. Safety Integration – Dispatching
CSXT does not intend to integrate CSXT and Springfield Terminal dispatching in the
foreseeable future. Rather, CSXT intends to maintain separate dispatching systems for CSXT
and Springfield Terminal dispatching operations, and Springfield Terminal dispatching
operations will continue to be located in North Billerica, MA

CSXT and GWI employees in North Billerica it would seem, until all the smoke blows over and they move out of there.

Here's a vessel of the size Searsport can handle:

m/v American Tern

Tonnage 13,382 gt 17,175 dwt
Displacement 8,650 long tons (8,789 t)
Length 521 ft (159 m)
Beam 76 ft (23 m)
Draft 33 ft (10 m)
Speed 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)
Complement 21 contract mariners

"Uh, not exactly" mv Ever Given or its "Sisters" (just can't bring myself to referring to that vessel in the feminine gender).

Mr. CF14 mentions lighterage and I respect that mention. But really, could a port ever be considered competitive if Containers, as distinct from the dry bulk cargo he notes, needed to be lightered?