CMQ Operations

murray83 wrote:Why would the port want to upgrade the 2 tracks at the navy island forest products terminal?

I'm not privy to the specifics of the new project, but I'm assuming they would need to clear the auto unloading operation off the tracks located on the Rodney Container terminal in order to handle direct COFC loadings. Since AIM has takes over the southern portion of the pier, the tight clearance around the forest products sheds may have to be eased on Navy Island in order to facilitate unloading of auto racks. Im surprised they haven't torn down the forest products sheds A and B on the pier already as they are using it to store autos anyways. Unless the Port can convince the operation to move to Irvings new auto facility.

Actually they have since last year that area now is just overflow for containers and all the unused forterm trucks and trailers.

Funny to think in the early 70's that pier was the original container terminal and gave Halifax a run for its money with one crane.

http://www.sjport.com/assets/PDFs/2015- ... conomy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See draft on page 3

murray83 wrote:Actually they have since last year that area now is just overflow for containers and all the unused forterm trucks and trailers.

What have they been doing since last year?

Thanks for the link CN. Enlarging the pier and two new cranes will eat most of the investment and the cherry on the top being the ever important dredging. Interesting to see if these ambitious plans bear fruit for American railroads (PAR or CMQ) or CN regains some market share to Saint John.

Rumors hint NS is interested in running intermodal to the area via a CMQ-VRS connection. The D&H deal will provide a 'direct' NS connection (NS considers its PAS interest connections to be direct). Also, CSX had been interested and tried to start a domestic service via PAR a few years ago.... it didn't go great because of service, not lack of freight. I think there is a huge potential to run not just the international traffic, but the domestic as well. CN is poised to benefit primarily but PAR and or CMQ can certainly try to get a piece of the action.


By the way, you should see an uptick in Searsport traffic with scrap metal coming soon. Logs might be coming at some point this summer, we shall see. At least the scrap business combined with the slurry may yield more frequent trips.

CN9634 wrote:Rumors hint NS is interested in running intermodal to the area via a CMQ-VRS connection.

What would be the routing?

NBSR set up the auto facility at its yard in west Saint John its a much better set up

Seeing the new Dodge trucks roll out covered in bird crap and God knows what flew off the bridge possibly damaging the paint was probably enough to warrant the move

On a side note does anyone know if Fortis obtained LMS with its purchase?

CN9634 wrote:By the way, you should see an uptick in Searsport traffic with scrap metal coming soon.

Isn't Grimmel's trying to relocate it former Portsmouth NH operation to the old coal pads on Mack Point? Everything I've read states the scrap would be processed elsewhere and transported to Searsport via trucks. So rail is now in the picture? And this would involve a rail move from....Topsham?

fogg1703 wrote:

CN9634 wrote:By the way, you should see an uptick in Searsport traffic with scrap metal coming soon.

Isn't Grimmel's trying to relocate it former Portsmouth NH operation to the old coal pads on Mack Point? Everything I've read states the scrap would be processed elsewhere and transported to Searsport via trucks. So rail is now in the picture? And this would involve a rail move from....Topsham?

They quoted 4 cars and 10 or so trucks a day. The application is already in and been preliminary approved.

CN9634 wrote:They quoted 4 cars and 10 or so trucks a day. The application is already in and been preliminary approved.

The Searsport selectmen granted Grimmel a permit, but the planning board will be having another hearing on 02/09. (That will be the third time it's come before the planning board.) The Penobscot Bay Blog <http://penobscotbay.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... 21615.html> says company reps got "grilled" at the 01/26 hearing. J hadn't seen this article about the first (01/12) hearing until just now:

The Searsport Planning Board on Monday heard two descriptions of a proposal by Topsham-based Grimmell [sic] Industries Inc. to create a scrap metal staging area at Mack Point marine terminal. Company representatives painted a picture of pristine, softball-sized pieces of shredded steel shuttled discreetly to an area out of reach of public disturbance. Opponents who attended the public hearing at Union Hall anticipated a convoy of trucks fumbling steel pieces sharp enough to slash tires and laden with toxic residue onto town roads en route to a location beyond the reach of oversight.

Read more at <http://www.penbaypilot.com/article/sear ... tion/46515>

Previous news articles that I've seen quoted Grimmel's general manager, Tim Garrity, as saying materials would be trucked in. If the drawing at the top of the article above is accurate, the spot looks close to the tracks but maybe not "close enough" for rail to be used.

Maybe the guy who was predicting that allowing the facility to be there would lead to "a gradual but steady increase in thefts of all things metal" got told to cite a source or that, or go sit in the corner. <:rolleyes: smiley goes here>

CPF363 wrote:

CN9634 wrote:Rumors hint NS is interested in running intermodal to the area via a CMQ-VRS connection.

What would be the routing?

That's what I was wondering. Hoosick Jct.-N. Bennington-Rutland-Bellows Falls-WRJ-Newport seems like a lot of zig-zagging to get north; Greenfield-East Northfield-Bellows Falls is at least direct but you can't fit double-stacks through the Hoosac Tunnel...

You can, just not two domestic stacks. You can't fit any doubles or racks at all through the Greenfield Arch though. Everything would need to be single stacked.

..And you would need to run around the train somewhere near Greenfield, possibly Deerfield siding.

WACR would need a lot of track work as well.

Any routing from Saint John to NS is full of issues.

WAY too many issues... I have been doing this long enough to know that the recent past is a pretty good indication of the future, in 4 years things will look pretty similar to what they are today... I'll put $ on it.

csx2039 wrote:WAY too many issues... I have been doing this long enough to know that the recent past is a pretty good indication of the future, in 4 years things will look pretty similar to what they are today... I'll put $ on it.

I certainly hope your wrong. The one thing that has changed from the past 20 years is potential US Class 1 interest in competitive traffic patterns to Atlantic Canada. The potential is there and this may be the last shot for the Moosehead sub, so lets hope some creative marketing/rate making and good old fashioned cooperation can keep all lines with a steady traffic base.

The one thing that has changed from the past 20 years is potential US Class 1 interest...

What exactly is "potential" interest?

CSX2039, give me five years and I'll put a sawbuck on that wager!