CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

@CPF363 Could CP possibly obtain trackage rights on the CSX River Sub to access the North Jersey area?

Strangely, the NY Metro Area and the North Jersey Shared Assets Area (or at least part of it) can be seen on this map dated December 2022…

https://www.cpr.ca/en/choose-rail-site/ ... orkMap.pdf

Work progresses on NS Albany Main rehab:
https://www.albanycounty.com/Home/Compo ... iteid=1#!/

Bracdude181 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:23 pm @CPF363 Could CP possibly obtain trackage rights on the CSX River Sub to access the North Jersey area?

Strangely, the NY Metro Area and the North Jersey Shared Assets Area (or at least part of it) can be seen on this map dated December 2022…

https://www.cpr.ca/en/choose-rail-site/ ... orkMap.pdf

If they aren't running down there on their existing Hudson rights why would they want to? They aren't interested in south of Albany.

What's shown on the map are the haulage rights CP has, where CSX provides haulage for cars between Albany and Fresh Pond at a fixed rate per car/axle. I have no idea how much they're sending that way, but since it runs in the existing CSX freights, the only way to know if they're using those rights (and if so, how much) would be to look in CSX's or CPs accounting system, which I don't think either railroad will let you do.

A215 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 7:16 pm The rumored start of the B&E continues to not live up to the hype. May 1st is off the table, and while there was briefly talk of June 1st it appears that won't be the case as well.

First; post is quoted here in its entirety as it appears on a preceding page.

I have to wonder to what extent Mr. Newpy's road will have a play in "the new world order".

It could possibly get some Shipper's Routing traffic where the shipper, say, is on the MEC, and "has their reasons" to minimize their CSX line haul (short haul) as they have reason to "play nice" with NS.

Otherwise, former B&M/PAS "Route of the Flying Yankee", seems like its going to become a Short Line operation over (W of Fitchburg) FRA Class 2 and through a tunnel that chooses when it's going to have a cave in.

Not my road; While I mainly worked the B&M, as an ST employee I was qualified all over what would become PAS and also PAR into NH and Maine.

Minus the tunnel caving in which it is not at imminent risk of, your characterization of PAS is exactly as it is today. But this exact conversation has been rehashed probably 10 times and I've replied with the same information to you regarding PAS's past, present and future physical plant and strategic value.

As for the B&E takeover date shifting; it's in the I'll believe it when I see it category for me at this point. However, the delays should come at no surprise. Folks are being asked to make career upending moves that could affect not only work practices but seniority. It's not going to happen overnight. CSX's goal of shedding PAS operations within a few months was ambitious at best, if not laughable. I always thought a year at minimum is more realistic.

Just my opinion but it would be understandable to me if the uncertainty of the B&E cut-over date (and corresponding lack of crews perhaps?) is another reason why NS is working diligently to get its IM traffic off PAS. And correct me if I’m wrong but given CSX grain trains and coal traffic are still running over the B&A as opposed to PAS (as the B&E ops agreement mandates), I’m guessing CSX isn’t in a sweat to see B&E assume operations either.

That doesn't really relate to NS's desire to get traffic off PAS. GWI was their pick for operator, CSX wanted NYSW. It (the takeover) was supposed to have happened by now and the Albany Main & connector are nowhere near ready for rerouting that traffic. They are in no rush. Their trains are prioritized on PAS while freight sits.

The grain train that ran this week went via Rotterdam. CSX wants nothing more than to jettison PAS and not have to be the operator there any longer. This will allow them to finally deep six the ST and move to CSX collective bargaining agreements.

OK Mr. Newpy, I'll accept your word regarding possible Hoosac cave ins. You've "been there done that" and I trust there are adequate redio relays through such that the Train Dispatcher would know there had been an incident to get your one-time colleagues "outta there".

Now insofar as routings of traffic go, a one sentence primer is in order. There are two types of routings - an Agent's Routing and a Shipper's Routing. Obviously, the Agent's will give his originating road, i.e. the road whose name is on his W-2 (really can no longer say "paycheck" anymore) the most favorable line-haul. But then, Shippers can have their reasons for giving the best line haul to another competing road, which could result in routings for a shipment originating on the MEC being "short hauled" to Ayer, then interchanged to PAS to the NS at "Albany" (wherever the actual interchange point may be). Reasons for such are many; perhaps NS can "come up with cars" while CSX cannot. Possibly it is a "play nice with Topper" because he could adversely affect you with your other rail transportation needs.

I've even seen where paper mills in the Wausau WI area, instead of giving "my MILW" a line haul to a Chicago IHB interchange, routing GB&W then X-Lake on the C&O ferry to the C&O lines through Michigan. Reason, those shippers wanted to do their part to ensure there was a competitive routing, and never mind the additional transit time.

Agreed that NS IM traffic over PAS isn’t being delayed anymore than it has been historically but if ST crews are made available through NS using its own crews to get IM to/ from Ayer via CSX, then NS’ higher profit margin carload freight might get more expeditious handling over PAS.

And CSX also gets more revenue keeping its Ayer-bound carload freight off PAS with the B&E takeover being pushed out indefinitely.

Correction: I probably misspoke about Bow coal traffic having to be handled by B&E over PAS since it’s obviously not
terminating at Ayer.

Bow coal unfortunately does not have a long term future in all likelihood. The political winds are strongly against it. Odds on it is totally phased out from its already diminished state within 5 years

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:26 am OK Mr. Newpy, I'll accept your word regarding possible Hoosac cave ins. You've "been there done that" and I trust there are adequate redio relays through such that the Train Dispatcher would know there had been an incident to get your one-time colleagues "outta there".

Unfortunately no, there is 0 functioning comms in the tunnel as it stands now.

Grief, Mr. A215.

So apparently when a train goes into that hole, they are "incommunicado".

A215 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:55 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:26 am OK Mr. Newpy, I'll accept your word regarding possible Hoosac cave ins. You've "been there done that" and I trust there are adequate redio relays through such that the Train Dispatcher would know there had been an incident to get your one-time colleagues "outta there".

Unfortunately no, there is 0 functioning comms in the tunnel as it stands now.

So the tunnel phones that the FRA has mandated work are not currently functioning? That's going to go over like a fart in church when the GWI gets in there.

They may be in service, I haven't been out there as of late but the last time a train split in the tunnel that I can remember (within 2 years) they couldn't get a hold of the dispatcher.