• 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
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 164
  by F74265A
 
roberttosh wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:15 pm 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.
Was it 8-9? I recall NESE, the auto racks plus the occasional coal move. That’s 4-5. Maybe there were more? I lived with earshot of the Lancaster crossings in the CR era and don’t remember more. Track speed was sure higher in those days
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
OK; Messrs. Moldover and Newpy, I get it where you're coming from with the lack of passenger train interference (well, freight interference in the eyes of the two sponsoring agencies).

Using this map as a guide, now I see that Topper would operate on the B&A only as far East as Worcester, then head North on the "route of the State of Maine" to his existing facilities at Ayer. The "T" only operates West as far Worcester. The "T" would actually benefit on the "to be" Berkshire in that there would be less traffic Fitchburg-Ayer.

Now insofar as Lowell Jct to Haverhill with the "T" and on to Portland with NNEPRA, it would appear that is the only area in which there could be conflict. Somehow, I don't think the NNEPRA has the "clout at the State House" that does the "T". Besides, you noted that Chessie will be paying to have PTC installed, from which NNEPRA ("Downeaster") will benefit.
  by roberttosh
 
F74265A wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:37 pm Was it 8-9? I recall NESE, the auto racks plus the occasional coal move. That’s 4-5. Maybe there were more? I lived with earshot of the Lancaster crossings in the CR era and don’t remember more. Track speed was sure higher in those days
4 manifest (SENE & SELA/SENA pairs), 2 auto, 2 intermodal (TV 95/96), coal plus the occasional Worcester local.
Last edited by MEC407 on Sat Feb 27, 2021 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: excessive quoting
  by Ken Rice
 
Re the number of CSX trains per day between Barbers and Ayer. That seems to be for "overhead" trains. I think they're allowed other non-overhead trains. See the bottom of page 226 "If CSX wants to use this train to set off or pick up cars in Ayer, then the train shall be limited to the clear length of the running track, which is currently 4750’."
But on page 227 section VI b. i. Schedule Preference - "In terms of establishing this plan CSX shall have schedule preferences for its first overhead train pair, and its Ayer Local (e.g. Barbers Station – Ayer), should that train be in scheduled operation by the time that NS begins its Premium service over the CSX."

The way I interpret that whole section is CSX will initially run one overhead train pair, and can add a second one. But there may also be non-overhead trains - like a CSX Ayer local. Given the wording on page 226 I'd guess they could use the local to do the pickups and setoffs in Ayer to let them run through 9000' overhead trains without stopping. As long as the local fits in the clear on the running track in the Hill yard.

The drawing of the Ayer yard bypass track on page 232 is interesting.
  by johnpbarlow
 
Q: when Dragon Cement shipped loads from Maine to Millis, MA the Bay Colony for Tresca Bros, the cars went via Selkirk Yard (POAY to Q427) and back east to Framingham on Q426 and then via a CSX local to Medfield Jct interchange track. Perhaps once CSX gains ownership of PAR, the Dragon Cement cars might be set out at Worcester for the local turn to Framingham avoiding a couple extra days of transit and dwell at Selkirk? I wonder if there's a similar short-cutting opportunity for New Brunswick sheet rock to go the G&U at N Grafton?
  by bostontrainguy
 
RE: The expanded market opportunities will extend to international trade. The PAR System’s
rail network connects to four ports in Revere MA, Portsmouth NH, Portland ME, and Saint John,
New Brunswick. The PAR System connects to Saint John through a haulage arrangement with
the Eastern Maine Railway and New Brunswick Southern Railway. Shippers on the CSXT/PAR
System rail network will have greater access to the inbound and outbound traffic using these
ports. Substantial new investment is being made in these port facilities. For example, new
investment in the Port Saint John in New Brunswick is making that port an increasingly
important gateway for international commerce. Rail traffic from Saint John already accounts for
a substantial volume of the PAR System traffic. Improved rail access to and from Saint John and
the other New England ports will provide new opportunities for rail shippers to access overseas
markets.


Revere? There certainly is no activity between ship and train in Revere and just try to bring in oil trains. Do they mean Everett? Also no mention of Boston or Charlestown even though there is at least some slight potential there. And saying that Saint John already accounts for substantial volume of PAR traffic? Am I missing something here?
  by roberttosh
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm Revere? There certainly is no activity between ship and train in Revere and just try to bring in oil trains. Do they mean Everett? Also no mention of Boston or Charlestown even though there is at least some slight potential there. And saying that Saint John already accounts for substantial volume of PAR traffic? Am I missing something here?
Revere is probably alluding to Global and other Oil terminals there. Yes, Pan Am already handles a substantial amount of traffic out of SJ, such as paper, pulp, wallboard, lumber, CO2, etc.
  by roberttosh
 
johnpbarlow wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:16 pm Q: when Dragon Cement shipped loads from Maine to Millis, MA the Bay Colony for Tresca Bros, the cars went via Selkirk Yard (POAY to Q427) and back east to Framingham on Q426 and then via a CSX local to Medfield Jct interchange track. Perhaps once CSX gains ownership of PAR, the Dragon Cement cars might be set out at Worcester for the local turn to Framingham avoiding a couple extra days of transit and dwell at Selkirk? I wonder if there's a similar short-cutting opportunity for New Brunswick sheet rock to go the G&U at N Grafton?
Highly unlikely that they would slow down velocity and complicate things that much just to save some mileage on a few cars here and there. Selkirk is operating pretty efficiently these days so despite the greater mileage, it probably isn't going to be a much longer transit time. What I think will change is that CSX will start building an Ayer and or Lawrence block at Selkirk instead of just using one Portland block which is the case now.
  by lirrelectrician
 
Hello all,
I remember in the 90s when railfanning the Worcester main there were 4 trains in each direction. SENE, SENA TV95 and the rack train (forget the symbol). I remember in the 90s all 4 trains would follow each other maybe 20 to 30 mins apart. Now in regard to the P&W. i wonder if they could now interchange all traffic in Gardner with the B&E? And eliminate the Worcester interchange. Then G&W would have a longer haul of the traffic and anything for CSX would go to Rotterdam and anything for NS would go to Mohawk. I would assume a run through from East Deerfield to Worcester. To make it official the B&E could have rights on the P&W or P&W have rights on B&E. yes they are owned by the same company but just for business accounting purposes.
It will be very interesting to see NS reactivate the Albany main. Plus there was talks years ago but noting happened that they were going to add a second track from Barbers to Worcester so CSX and P&W would have their own tracks. I wonder if now that would be done. I also assume the Worcester mails days of being a 10 mph railroad will soon be over.
Thank you and enjoy .
Mike Scholz
  by newpylong
 
Some food for thought: There is nothing to say that if the relationship is harmonious between PAS and CSXT that these Ayer overhead restrictions won't either be bent outside of the agreement or amended after the fact. There is plenty of room to rub eachother's backs to make things happen.

Re: new PAS/B&E HQ and dispatching, I think dispatching will likely be Stm Albans or Worcester and the HQ likely Deerfield. That is smack in the middle of operations and already has some office space within the engine house.

I think Lowell and/or Lawrence will be an important area for CSXT as they are going to need some space to service their ex-PAR Eastern MA customers.

There is already some double iron north of CP45 I would assume it would be extended to allow staging trains to/from the Worcester line and not block the crossings.

They could get 6500 feet or so of siding between crossings if Clinton siding was extended. If its back to 35 or 40 MPH may not be needes, but who knows. Likely will remain TWC until the shiny window trains wind up using the line, if they ever do.
  by roberttosh
 
lirrelectrician wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:41 pm i wonder if they could now interchange all traffic in Gardner with the B&E? And eliminate the Worcester interchange. Then G&W would have a longer haul of the traffic and anything for CSX would go to Rotterdam and anything for NS would go to Mohawk. I would assume a run through from East Deerfield to Worcester. To make it official the B&E could have rights on the P&W or P&W have rights on B&E. yes they are owned by the same company but just for business accounting purposes.
CSX has no incentive to add a third carrier into the mix when they already have a perfectly good direct connection with PW at Worcester, not to mention the fact that that traffic would need to first be backhauled from Selkirk to Rotterdam Jct with a reverse move before even getting on to the PAS. As I've stated before, CSX's intention is to put as much traffic over the B&A as possible.
  by jay.barnes
 
So, just out of curiosity- does anyone see an increase or decrease (or no change) in traffic on the CT River Line between EDFLD and SPFLD, should this merger go through as-is with the STB?
  by p42thedowneaster
 
Another possible advantage for CSX taking on Pan Am. From what I've read in WSJ it appears boxcars now account for only 3% of freight traffic in NA. More are being scrapped per year than new ones being built. Now obviously, with the paper industry, Pan Am moves far more than 3% of its freight in boxcars...(maybe more like 70%) and worse than that, many are the older 50ft cars that are approaching 50 year scrapping dates. The customers like the shorter cars because they are set up to load them and they cost less!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1434879182

So if CSX now owns the cars and the track maybe it's possible they have direct access to the final destination as well. By not interchanging would they be able to keep these cars rolling even longer?
  by CSRR573
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
Revere? There certainly is no activity between ship and train in Revere and just try to bring in oil trains. Do they mean Everett? Also no mention of Boston or Charlestown even though there is at least some slight potential there. And saying that Saint John already accounts for substantial volume of PAR traffic? Am I missing something here?
While Obviously not Revere, but could CSX open the Auto terminal in Charlestown where Boch has all his Subarus imported? AFAIK the tracks and infrastructure is there, just never been used. And maybe rehab Track 61 to Black Falcon and finally build the extension to Conely?
  by newpylong
 
This transaction does not increase the odds of returning service to Southie but I believe there is a project planned to build over the terminal tracks so it may be a moot point?

As for the Mystic Wharf, who knows. Massport does own it.
Last edited by newpylong on Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 164