• CSX to acquire 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

  • 2446 posts
  • 1
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 164
  by bostontrainguy
 
roberttosh wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:31 pm Interesting to note that CSX for apparently the first 3 years is only allowed to run 2 pairs of trains per day through the Ayer terminal.
Seems very odd to me that CSX would limit themselves in this way. Why even include this restriction?
  by F74265A
 
Where in the filing (page number) does csx stipulate to that restriction? I’d like to read the language but don’t have time to read the hundreds of pages carefully
  by roberttosh
 
Page 230, part VIII, section A
Last edited by MEC407 on Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by F74265A
 
Presently I believe there is only 1 train pair per day on the Worcester route. I think it runs most days. Maybe not every day sometimes. With 150-200 car dpu operations, I’m sure there’s more capacity on that one. If the 2 pairs per day restriction is true, that leaves another train pair that could be manifest, intermodal or a mix. Coal is basically gone. Don’t know whether they could find a way to mix in ethanol or cbr occasionally
  by roberttosh
 
Agreed that 2 manifests should be able to cover any carload growth but again it's the unit train and intermodal that may be an issue. As far as it being true it seems to be right there in black and white.
  by Shortline614
 
With PSR, CSX could tack whatever grain, intermodal, etc onto the back of existing merchandise trains.
  by roberttosh
 
To a degree, but with train lengths capped at 9,000 feet that could still pose a capacity issue, especially since unit and IM trains can themselves be quite long.
  by F74265A
 
NS appears to have had a ton of leverage. This may be a ploy to delay any csx intermodal expansion to Maine while NS tries to build its Ayer service with the new DS capacity and better service times.
  by roberttosh
 
Somewhere in the filing it mentioned that NS was modifying the existing tonnage restriction to allow CSX to run more traffic so there must have been something already in place dating back to the original PAS deal. Page 249, section 9, CSXT trackage rights.
  by Trinnau
 
johnpbarlow wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:03 am ii. Addition of the powered, heated, switches at the end of the NW wye
as shown in the drawing;
Those powered, heated switches on the NW side of the wye are the MBTA's crossovers. Be interesting to see how that goes over considering the whole area was just rebuilt by the MBTA with Camp interlocking as the powered yard access. Pan Am insisted MBTA retain the Moore's crossovers - they were originally going to be removed.
  by F74265A
 
So that’s 6 trains per day on the Worcester route. On one every 4 hours of evenly spaced. There’s no place to park a long train between Worcester and the hill yard without blocking traffic. There’s a short, dumpy passing track in Clinton. Does a passing siding get built at some point if operations end up at 6 per day? I’d guess it will be 4 per day to start off and no near term added capacity, other than higher MAS on the Worcester route. But running 6 per day, I could imagine the need for a meet sometimes.
  by roberttosh
 
One thing is for sure, with this transaction, CSX is now seriously out flanking the NS in the Northeast as well as in the Southeast where it already had a big advantage with its' lines going deep into FL.
  by roberttosh
 
F74265A wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:07 pm So that’s 6 trains per day on the Worcester route. On one every 4 hours of evenly spaced. There’s no place to park a long train between Worcester and the hill yard without blocking traffic. There’s a short, dumpy passing track in Clinton. Does a passing siding get built at some point if operations end up at 6 per day? I’d guess it will be 4 per day to start off and no near term added capacity, other than higher MAS on the Worcester route. But running 6 per day, I could imagine the need for a meet sometimes.
They were running as many as 8-9 trains per day over the line back in the Conrail days so 6 may not be a big problem but a new passing siding sure wouldn't hurt.
  by GuilfordRailSD45
 
With regards to Page 230, part VIII, section A (the part about CSXT not running more than 2 pairs of trains per day between CPF 312 & Harvard for the first 3 years after consummation by the STB)...

If CSXT ultimately has a need to run more than 2 pairs of trains / day within the first 3 years, would it be possible for CSXT to hand those additional trains over to Berkshire & Eastern at Rotterdam Junction, and have the B&E bring them to Ayer (i.e. CPF 312?) for continuation Eastward on CSXT? Not sure if that'd be a matter of swapping power, or simply switching between CSX and B&E crews...

Just wondering if that's a 'loophole' of sorts... ultimately I'm just a buff who really hopes to see more than 4 freights a day (6 including the gravel trains...) passing over D2 :-D
  by roberttosh
 
That's how the CBR trains to SJ were handled so I wouldn't see why not? Furthermore, I can't see how or why PAS would want to restrict themselves on interchange traffic to CSX and in fact the restriction was probably put in place to actually force more business over the PAS.
Last edited by MEC407 on Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  • 1
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 164