• 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

  • 2397 posts
  • 1
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  by F74265A
 
I think we are being confused bc there are 2 Fitchburg lines. Ken is referring to the csx Fitchburg secondary while some other references here are, I believe, to the ex-B&M Fitchburg line running from Boston engine terminal to Ayer and beyond (originally part of the Fitchburg railroad)
  by pnolette
 
newpylong wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:46 pm
Trinnau wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:09 pm
newpylong wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:35 pm Expect 50 MPH everywhere the T or the Downeaster runs. 40 is an artificial MAS imposed by PAR and Guilford before them. The T has tried to no avail to get them to run faster.
Problem is the MBTA's signal system is designed for 40mph freight operations because that's all they had to design for to satisfy the deed. Going to 50mph increases stopping distance and impacts signal progression - potentially slowing down passenger trains more than needed in high-density operations.
That is a great point, and their implementation of PTC with the breaking distances effectively kills any chance of > 40 freight too...
When they redid the signals on the Haverhill end,they put in a 3 block-4 aspect system. Clear-App Medium-App-Stop.That should be plenty braking distance for a 50mph freight?
  by CN9634
 
I find this conversation interesting in that CSX is not new to operating over passenger networks and should be a strong contributor to a more efficient joint operation. In fact, they operate over several to include the Northeast Corridor, MN, Metra, VRE (see the latest deal), NJT, MARC and MBTA South Side. Certainly no need to reinvent the wheel here, I think CSX will have a better handle on the joint territory than Pan Am ever did.

In retrospect, some believe Pan Am was an ideal partner to MBTA by letting them do whatever, but in reality Pan Am was a terrible partner. They reaped benefits of better infrastructure without much contribution. They ran trains with ailing locos that would break down, gum up the works for a several minutes to hours. They didn't work collaboratively with MBTA to plan more efficient capacity and inter-line connectivity. For instance, I've heard crews tell me about locations of switches in the T territory that made some switching work take much longer than it should, or were simply non-sensical to the freight operations.

And let's face it... MBTA is no champion of efficiency either. How long have they been working on certain projects? Someone like CSX would be a valuable stakeholder with resources to push along projects such as the Merrimack River bridge (will it ever be done?) and relieve other bottlenecks. MassDOT doesn't seem to have much going for them in the strategy, planning or relations departments I can say that much.
  by BandA
 
Ken Rice wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 am
tvachon wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:37 am The closest the Fitchburg line gets to the Cambridge reservoir is about 1 mile (as the crow files).
The Fitchburg line crosses right over “Foss Reservoir”: https://goo.gl/maps/fqxEvouwdsZ4awWa6
I believe I was thinking of the Lexington Line aka Minuteman Commuter Bike Trail, and the Mass Central line, neither current problems. The Fitchburg Line does go by the Stony Brook reservoir briefly.

I believe the Foss Reservoir is a backup reservoir, part of the Sudbury River system that is a backup water supply and is heavily contaminated with mercury from the Nyanza superfund site in Ashland.
  by Trinnau
 
pnolette wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:51 am When they redid the signals on the Haverhill end,they put in a 3 block-4 aspect system. Clear-App Medium-App-Stop.That should be plenty braking distance for a 50mph freight?
Doesn't matter what the progression is, it matters how far apart the signals are and the speeds/grades. And the PTC/ATC installation is effectively shortening blocks so the MBTA can squeeze as much capacity as they can out of it.
CN9634 wrote:I find this conversation interesting in that CSX is not new to operating over passenger networks and should be a strong contributor to a more efficient joint operation. In fact, they operate over several to include the Northeast Corridor, MN, Metra, VRE (see the latest deal), NJT, MARC and MBTA South Side. Certainly no need to reinvent the wheel here, I think CSX will have a better handle on the joint territory than Pan Am ever did.
I think you are forgetting CSX's lack of interest in the Worcester Line, which led to the eventual MBTA/MassDOT purchase and a subsequent substantial investment in new rail and de-stressing by the latter agency when CSX wouldn't lift a finger to improve passenger operations. Perhaps times have changed, but CSX is in the business of moving freight, and they only jump in with their checkbook when it means they benefit too (see VRE).
  by Knucklehead
 
Ken Rice wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 am
tvachon wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:37 am The closest the Fitchburg line gets to the Cambridge reservoir is about 1 mile (as the crow files).
The Fitchburg line crosses right over “Foss Reservoir”: https://goo.gl/maps/fqxEvouwdsZ4awWa6
The CSXT Fitchburg Running Track is Class 1 (10 MPH) the entire length anyway, and the Foss Reservoir is a back-up system that has not been used in years, and requires a boil water order if/when it is to be used again. It also runs over the Sudbury Reservoir in Southborough, another back-up water supply on a longer causeway.
  by gokeefe
 
I think the "significant" determination does not bode well for G&W as the PAS operator.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by F74265A
 
IF no GW as operator were to be the outcome, how does NS get trackage rights in Worcester? Without NS double stack access via Worcester, why would NS be accommodating with the Ayer bottleneck? I think GW stays but with concessions to vtr. That’s my gut feeling
  by newpylong
 
GWI isn't going anywhere. The transaction will pass with (more) concessions to an already bending over backwards application.
  • 1
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160