• 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

  • 2592 posts
  • 1
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 173
  by MEC407
 
Rockingham Racer wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:42 am My point was that NNEPRA should be just as concerned about what's going on down there. Are they?
NNEPRA has been pretty quiet thus far. It was only recently that they opted to "participate without comment" in the STB proceedings.

Perhaps NNEPRA and Amtrak are playing "good cop, bad cop" here: Amtrak plays bad cop and NNEPRA gets to look like the nice guy.
  by johnpbarlow
 
Amtrak’s negative media release re: the “threat” posed by CSX acquisition of Pan Am is not a formal filing at the STB so it likely has no bearing on STB’s review. But maybe Amtrak will shortly file such a comment with the STB, presumably with more substance. Hopefully not....
  by J.D. Lang
 
CSX's OCS came across the B&A today presumably headed to Worcester. Wonder who's on board and will they head up to Ayer or further East.
  by jamoldover
 
J.D. Lang wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:21 pm CSX's OCS came across the B&A today presumably headed to Worcester. Wonder who's on board and will they head up to Ayer or further East.
No further east - the OCS is currently parked in Worcester after turning around on the P&W. They're using it for meetings for the next couple of days, presumably between CSX, Pan Am, and possibly others involved in the acquisition/merger.
  by newpylong
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:18 am Seems like a good opportunity to get CSX's commitment to extending service to Lewiston/Auburn or Bangor, moving the Portland station to the main line and anything else they might be considering like going to Concord, NH and increasing Boston - Albany frequencies.
This is all out of scope. I don't see why they should have to make any commitment other than to maintain performance at present levels and reasonable future Downeaster service.
  by bostontrainguy
 
newpylong wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:51 pm
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:18 am Seems like a good opportunity to get CSX's commitment to extending service to Lewiston/Auburn or Bangor, moving the Portland station to the main line and anything else they might be considering like going to Concord, NH and increasing Boston - Albany frequencies.
This is all out of scope. I don't see why they should have to make any commitment other than to maintain performance at present levels and reasonable future Downeaster service.
Out of scope? I think this is what he is talking about:

WASHINGTON — Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn says the company opposes CSX Transportation’s acquisition of New England regional Pan Am Railways, saying the deal in its current form “represents a significant threat to the American traveling public” and “will negatively impact current passenger train service and future routes in Massachusetts and Northern New England.”
  by Rockingham Racer
 
Boston-Concord is commute distance, in that it's about the same distance as Poughkeepsie, NY to GCT. A lot of these proposed "new" corridors have actually been in the planning / talk stage for years now. Amtrak is just legitimizing them by putting them on the map. I do not have high hopes for Ohio, for instance.
  by newpylong
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:10 pm
newpylong wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:51 pm
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:18 am Seems like a good opportunity to get CSX's commitment to extending service to Lewiston/Auburn or Bangor, moving the Portland station to the main line and anything else they might be considering like going to Concord, NH and increasing Boston - Albany frequencies.
This is all out of scope. I don't see why they should have to make any commitment other than to maintain performance at present levels and reasonable future Downeaster service.
Out of scope? I think this is what he is talking about:

WASHINGTON — Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn says the company opposes CSX Transportation’s acquisition of New England regional Pan Am Railways, saying the deal in its current form “represents a significant threat to the American traveling public” and “will negatively impact current passenger train service and future routes in Massachusetts and Northern New England.”
Exactly. The "concessions" (if you want to call them that) that you described are out of scope of the filing. They should be held to commit to current and anticipated future traffic levels, not any possible future expansion of service (and some of that is already agreed upon via the B&M and MassDOT).
  by codasd
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:10 pm
newpylong wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:51 pm
bostontrainguy wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:18 am Seems like a good opportunity to get CSX's commitment to extending service to Lewiston/Auburn or Bangor, moving the Portland station to the main line and anything else they might be considering like going to Concord, NH and increasing Boston - Albany frequencies.
This is all out of scope. I don't see why they should have to make any commitment other than to maintain performance at present levels and reasonable future Downeaster service.
Out of scope? I think this is what he is talking about:

WASHINGTON — Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn says the company opposes CSX Transportation’s acquisition of New England regional Pan Am Railways, saying the deal in its current form “represents a significant threat to the American traveling public” and “will negatively impact current passenger train service and future routes in Massachusetts and Northern New England.”
A press release is not a substitute for an STB filing detailing the specific 'threats to the American traveling public'. CSX in its filing has stated that it will maintain all current agreements with Amtrak, MBTA and MASSDOT. Any future service to Bangor, Concord, or western MA are not part of the acquisition agreement and of no relevance to the STB in this filing.
  by gokeefe
 
I concur with the idea that Amtrak is signaling they are going to play hardbal in New England in order to gain leverage on the Gulf Coast. The problem here is to get CSX to take it seriously and that may not happen without negative indications from the STB.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by CN9634
 
Again, the problems I have (in life) with complainers, especially in business... IF you cite concerns, work collaboratively ahead of time and propose specific remedies. I see none of that here, just complaining to the STB. Relationship building is important and Amtrak should work to bolster the relationship with CSX, not damage it.
  by steam1246
 
I have reserved comment on the Pan AM/CSX sale up until this point , but with Governor Sununu's letter to the STB outlining New Hampshire's support for the sale I feel several comments are appropriate. The points made in Sununu's letter underscores previously reported, and unreported, support from NHDOT, the mayor of Nashua, the owner of the Milford & Bennington RR (who is also a state legislator), and several NH on-line shippers. Do NH supporters REALLY think CSX is a "better solution" for freight railroading in NH? Will CSX suddenly cough up money to "fix, or help NH DOT fix, infastructure problems in NH? I doubt it! Talk is cheap. There is a better solution. Over a year ago, a new railroad was authorized to operate /in NH by the STB: the Merrimack & Grafton RR, an affiliate of the Vermont Rail System. To date, VRS has acquired the New England Southern RR--and not much else has happened, thanks to the Pan AM/CSX sale entering the picture. Anyone familiar with VRS knows they DID NOT buy NEGS for two cars of slurry per month to 3M in Tilton! In fact, the $5 million Per year annual revenue the STB approved for the Merrimack & Grafton was based upon "cooperative freight efforts" with Pan Am. VRS, with a 50-year-plus proven record of customer-based rail service In Vermont and New York, would be a much better choice for "taking trucks off the highway" in NH than CSX. Wake up NH--there is a better way for the future of rail freight in south central NH than CSX!
  by jamoldover
 
Let's assume you're right for the moment - wouldn't it help to have a Class I partner who has just as much interest in having NEGS and MBRX succeed and drive long-haul revenue to them instead of a regional railroad who has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for personal vendetta over increasing business? Even if having VRS beat the bushes to actively seek new customers is ultimately the way to get more trucks off the road in New Hampshire, unless those trucks are only going to Massachusetts or Maine, you need someone who's interested in getting them to their ultimate destination in a timely and reliable manner.
Last edited by MEC407 on Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by F74265A
 
There were many rumors posted here a while back of csx turning over operation of the northern to a vrs affiliate.
  • 1
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 173