CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

jwhite07 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:14 am I think more realistically the crew districts would be Keag-Portland, Portland-Worcester, and Worcester-Selkirk. Still two or three crews less than such a move would be possible with today.

Yes, this is likely what the end result will be, or similar. You don't build terminal points based on a 12 hour run, you build them shorter and account for delays en route.

Cowford wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:04 am Indeed. NE-84/NE-87, then later POME/MEPO trains (symbols changed in 1978?) ran Rigby-Michy with one crew up until GTI takeover, I think.

Based on the old timers who I worked with before they retired, this was true, but was a 16 hour day, not 12, and they had a fireman on the head end.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:37 am Is that "yard" even necessary anymore? Can't they remove the yard limit there or is it more involved than that?

Yes I would fully expect DCS to be extended down to the P&W switch on the Worcester Main to get a little bit more running not at Rule 93. I doubt the P&W will remove their Yard Limits though.

You need to allow at least an hour at terminal from on-duty to depart and an hour from arrival to off-duty. On departure crews need time to review paperwork, have a job briefing, get on their train, have the dispatcher take them out of the yard. On arrival they need to pull into a low-speed yard track, put their power away, get to their off-duty point and complete any required paperwork. This can take longer sometimes too. So that means your crew has an absolute maximum of 10 hours on the road when planning crew change points.

Then it's a simple matter of distance and speed. Portland to Mechanicville is 267 miles. Average speed of 40mph is 6hrs, 40mins. Average speed of 30mph is just under 9 hours. And so on. So when you factor in train meets, passenger trains, and anything else that could delay you on the road you don't plan your crew run on maximum speed, it's some number less than that.

Portland to Ayer is 115 miles, plus another 28 or so to CP-45 in Worcester for a total of 143 miles. CP-45 to Selkirk is about 152. Portland to Keag is 200. So if you're running an overhead train Selkirk to Keag it's 495 miles. If you're planning an overhead train, Dover is probably a more realistic crew change point assuming equal average speeds on both sides. Keag is about 243 miles, Selkirk about 252 miles. You'd want to maintain an average speed of 30mph for a comfortable crew run - 8hrs on the road, 2hrs sign up/off, 2hrs buffer.

Trying to go Selkirk to Portland on one crew - about 295 miles - and assuming an average speed of 40mph is just under 7.5hrs. But there are places on the railroad that a mile long freight train will have to reduce speed and run under 40mph for several miles even if the mainlines are brought to 40mph. CP-45, Ayer Yard/Wye (even with a run-through track of some kind, it won't be 40), the Lowell Jct Wye, approaching/departing the terminal yards. In addition to meets, passenger trains or other delays, I wouldn't build this for more than a 30mph average speed, more realistically 25. 30mph gets you just under 10hrs while 25mph gets you just under 12. So it's doable, but also has to be well-timed with minimal delays on the trip

[
Based on the old timers who I worked with before they retired, this was true, but was a 16 hour day, not 12, and they had a fireman on the head end.
[/quote]

Very good point about larger crew and longer OD hours back then

It'll be Selkirk to Ayer, Worcester yard is east of the junction with the branch. Westbound its effectively single track due to main 1 being used to hold Q436 for the local. Q426 sits here too, until a yard crew can bring it up the branch. There is no where to stage trains around the CP45 area.

Q426 currently has a block of P&W cars, that will likely change of course. Q436 could start running back to Framingham with the Selkirk crew, but that is unlikely to happen due to PSR and Keolis PTC.

I think that business on the P&W at Millbrook St. is closed or no longer uses rail. There have not been any cars spotted there for years and the tracks are overgrown. There use to always be a bunch of cars there.

My guess is that they rebuild the east most track from Garden St. to the switch at Barber. They were actually thinking about doing that about 10 years ago, just to park 426/427 there. Seems it was to expensive back then.

As I've said, I don't really see CSX spending hundreds of millions buying a railroad and then being at the mercy of another railroad to access it.

Likely not going to be Ayer proper as they won't own the railroad there.

I know, its going to be like the North Jersey shared assets.

If the east track were rebuilt- which I understand that the B&M still owns- how much would that free them from p&w? I cannot remember if that fully does it.

The P&W track out of their yard is separate from CP45. There is a hand thrown connecting track that forms a "pocket" between these tracks that can hold about 10 cars. The "north" switch of this would be a trailing point switch for CSX headed east from CP45 toward Ayer. The " south" switch of that track connects to the P&W's track to their yard. You can not get to CP45 westbound, "south", if you are on the P&W yard lead track.

This connecting track is not used for regular movements and will be done away with, as under the current rules we have to be prepared to stop at that "north" switch. The actual junction between the P&W yard lead and our lead from CP45 is a radio controlled switch at Garden St.

All they have to do is remove the connecting track's hand throw and straight rail the switch at Garden St.

Guys, all this petty stuff in a hundreds of million dollar transaction.

Why then the need for pw trackage rights? A temporary thing unless and until the east B&M track is rebuilt and connected at garden st?

Because the P&W owns the track between CP-45 and the Barbers switch, not Pan Am or CSX. B&M sold it to P&W when they sold the Gardner Branch in the '70s and maintained trackage rights, but it seems Pan Am still owns the old yard property. This is now part of the P&W Gardner Branch which connects Worcester to Gardner Yard, so "straight-railing" the Garden St. switch is a big NO for G&W. The interchange at Gardner is very busy and if G&W does operate PAS this thread has already discussed the possibility of Deerfield-Worcester through freights.

The ideal concept would be to make one track the Pan Am/CSX, the other P&W and have both run all the way to Barbers - past the current Garden St. switch. P&W track goes straight rail (left) to the Gardner branch, Pan Am/CSX track straight rail (right) to the Pan Am Worcester Main. I'd put a crossover in as well so a move coming back from Gardner could still get to the Pan Am/CSX track if desired.

taracer is right, not a lot of money, but requires the P&W/G&W to play ball since it's their railroad. They could probably be convinced or paid, but if they say no it's a non-starter.

That makes perfect sense, even if they (P&W) still controls the East track, giving CSX dedicated use of the iron will help both parties.

Your ideal concept is exactly what I envision operationally. For some reason I thought B&M retained ownership of the east track. Many years ago GTI would park cars and small trains in that track behind green dale mall before it was disconnected. So the takeaway is that with $ and cooperation, things can be made operationally similar but no way to totally cut out PW dispatcher

Gotta think that threading the needle through Hill yard and getting across PAS/B&E and MBTA through Ayer to get back onto home rails at I believe CP 312 is going to be a bigger headache.