• CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

  by ElectricTraction
 
Oh fascinating, I didn't realize that P&W owned part of the PAS route to Portland. So that's about 3 miles?
Last edited by MEC407 on Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by johnpbarlow
 
I know I'm being pedantic but G&W's P&W owns a couple of miles of the CSX PAR route to/from Rigby. PAS has no operational presence in Worcester.
  by ElectricTraction
 
Got it.
Last edited by MEC407 on Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by taracer
 
mrj1981 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 10:15 am Doing some rough math here - trying to figure out the total distance from Selkirk to Rigby, to derive an average train speed required to do it in 12 hours.

Someone will be able to come up with more precise figures, but I'm coming to just over 300 miles, which is 25 mph required average speed. That strikes me as doable? Esp if you're able to move at 60 MPH for portions of the distance.

Selkirk Branch is 10 miles (this is a guess...) + B&A is 147 miles (CP 192 to CP 45) + Worcester Sub is 30 miles + GRS Freight Main is 123 miles (CPF 315 to CPF 199) = 303 miles total. (I am sure that multiple of these mileages is off by a bit, but I believe the total of just about 300 is probably about right.)

I can't fault CSX for being insufficiently ambitious!

Anyone know the length of the crew territories on the River Line?

I'd love to hear their long-term trip plan for the Portland-Keag portion of the route.
It's around 230 miles Selkirk to Philadelphia at rough estimate. River Line is 130 miles from CP-SK to CP-3 in North Bergen. South or east bound crews don't really use the Selkirk sub, but the rear of the train will still be in with a mainline crew swap. It's about 6 miles from CP-14 to CP-SM, the beginning of the B&A, or 3 miles to CP-SK to head south on the River. Trenton sub is 50 miles and Selkirk crews are qualified on about 7 miles of the Philadelphia sub depending on where you bring the train.

It's around 30 miles on Conrail shared assets depending on which way you go.

There is a good amount of 10 and 15 mph track speed on shared assets and the Philly sub, so they have some bottlenecks there, but the big difference is that it is all signaled.

So unlike the P&W you don't really need to talk to anyone to take the normal through train route in the Conrail shared assets, you are governed by signal indication.
  by F74265A
 
Would it be cheaper for csx to pay GW to signal that stretch of track or relay the 2d track? I’m guessing the former
  by ElectricTraction
 
If it's TWC, are there actually conflicting moves or is it a matter of slow response from the DS? Under TWC, if there's nothing else that needs the track, they could call for a Form D miles before they ever get there. The way the track arrangement is though, if CSX could convince P&W to lease them the ROW, each railroad could have separate single tracks side by side without any crossovers, and there don't appear to be any online customers on the eastern side of the line.
  by F74265A
 
If you hunt around on here, it is believed that csx actually owns the entire ROW but PW/GW owns the track. Goes back to a decades old agreement between B&M and P&W. Rebuilding the 2d track has been much speculated by railfans but theres been no sign of any kind so far that that might actually happen
  by ElectricTraction
 
That's just.... weird. If they do indeed own the ROW, it seems like that would be a no-brainer to eliminate a weak link in their Rigby-Selkirk operations.
Last edited by MEC407 on Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by newpylong
 
Weird but not uncommon and not necessarily a no-brainer because we don't know what the language was when the B&M sold the P&W the track.

The track in question is not TWC.
  by F74265A
 
Around the time of the csx purchase, Folks found the worc tax maps that showed B&M as owner of the underlying real estate. And I recall there was other evidence supporting this relationship between B&M and Pw that goes back decades. Do some research on this site as there has been much discussion on this subject over time

I’ve heard rumors for years that the 2d track was fouled somewhere by the high voltage lines along the track. Don’t know if that is true along with whatever other limits and restrictions are in that old agreement. I do know that NS has to get a trackage rights agreement from PW to move its stack train to Ayer via the B&A and Worcester main over that short stretch in downtown Worcester
We will have to watch and see what, if anything, csx does to alleviate the pw situation.
  by bostontrainguy
 
I found a detailed map a while ago that shows the power line poles leave room for the second track. It is clear all the way according to the map I saw.
  by jamoldover
 
newpylong wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:37 am
Cosakita18 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 10:31 am Maybe a small point in the grand scheme of things, but is CSX following the PAR tradition of a posting a 25mph speed restriction through Old Orchard Beach in the summer months? I assume CSX wants to minimize those localized speed restrictions as much as possible.
Every indication shows that the seasonal OOB speed restriction (it was in the timetable) has been removed.
Unless there's been a timetable update since January (which is the most recent subdivision bulletin I have), the OOB speed restriction is still in the timetable, and still in effect from May 1 through October 1.
  by newpylong
 
You're likely missing the bulletin order that would cancel this special instruction that is referenced in the TT.

~35 mph

~40 mph
  by jamoldover
 
Quite possible. I thought that had originally been introduced as a measure to prevent pedestrian and vehicle strikes during tourist season, though- has that been removed as a concern in other ways?
  by MEC407
 
Sort of related: since CSX took over, they have been much less aggressive with heat restrictions in the summertime. Last summer in southern Maine and coastal NH there were several days in the mid to upper 80s and one or two days in the low 90s, and no heat restrictions were imposed. Those temperatures always triggered heat restrictions under the previous ownership.

On one of those 90+ degree days, out of curiosity, I contracted NNEPRA and asked them about the change. They replied, "Amtrak has indicated that CSX does have a different protocol for monitoring and implementing heat restrictions. Currently, there are no reductions in speed."
  • 1
  • 301
  • 302
  • 303
  • 304
  • 305