• 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

  • 2994 posts
  • 1
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  by Trinnau
 
F74265A wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:13 am For reasons including the necessary backup move at the diamond in spfld, I would not expect such a routing.
The connection track is in the correct direction for a South to East move, no backup required.

The extra mileage is not worth it though especially with the current condition of the Pan Am Worcester main but probably even if it was upgraded. CPF-385 to CPF-AY(315) is about 70 miles (under 3 hours at 25mph) as opposed around 120 miles (3 hours at 40mph) via Springfield and Worcester. B&E would still own the crew down to Springfield, where it would turn over to CSX, so you're only saving 35 miles or so of B&E crew but adding a lot to CSX.

Re-crews or some type of run-through agreement between B&E/CSX will need to be planned for any Deerfield-Portland service that remains anyway, it's not unique to BFPO.
  by F74265A
 
Thanks for correcting that. I had forgotten about that connection on the northeast side of the diamond,
It is the northwest side that is lacking a connecting track
  by bostontrainguy
 
Massive area of scarce industrial property with nearby rail is up for sale in Everett. No idea if this is going to mean anything but what an incomparable opportunity for rail related businesses in the Boston area.
Image
https://www.bldup.com/posts/4-million-s ... the-market
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
From Little America Wyoming---

Train Guy, the problem appears that to the "Commonwealth of Tax" is that the only train is a passenger train.

Look at how they have formed their merger objections around passenger trains. Look at how they get what they want; some for the good like the electrification, but some questionable like restoration of the through cars on the Lake Shore.

So will the Development Authority seek industries that need rail (and I don't mean drayage to Worcester) and that no party (even an inside @500 Water) will interfere with Chessie's attempt to provide such.
  by Red Wing
 
A majority of rail lines in Massachusetts are owned by the Commonwealth Between CSX selling all of southcoast, the B&A between Boston and Worcester Most of the B&M inside 495 and the Conn. River Line and many smaller lines to like the Housatonic. So Yah the Commonwealth gets a big say. And you might want to look at the grants given for freight improvements: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/fu ... p-projects Lots of money given for improved freight operations.
And off of the topic or railroads we are in the middle of the states for taxes at number 21 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-h ... rden/20494
Like it or not CSX has to play ball with the Commonwealth.
  by Trinnau
 
But only to an extent. The retained freight rights and the movement of interstate commerce and required common carrier service under those freight rights does have some sway in the matter. In my opinion the Commonwealth overstepped and went in with a stick but with very little leg to stand on in terms of actual merger requirements. A more cooperative tone may have resulted in better response from CSX in the long term, particularly when the state has interest in track they do not yet own.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
From Salt Lake City Hilton---

While I would like to think that all who place rail interests first would like to see that parcel in Everett developed with industries that can generate high value rail traffic, Mr. Trinnau's point that both Chessie and Topper's predecessors sold off their access to Boston to the Commonwealth. Therefore, any expanded freight operations by either road is at the mercy of public agencies.

Will an industry needing rail be comfortable locating in that Everett parcel where the access by any rail carrier is controlled by a public agency (they own the tracks) be dissuaded remains to be seen.
  by newpylong
 
I don't think that would have anything to do with a business's decision to locate there or not.

It is not uncommon for a governmental agency to own trackage and have a freight railroad with common carrier freight rights to that trackage. Remember, when CSX and the B&M sold the lines they retained perpetual freight rights. For the B&M at least, they don't pay anything per carload ton to the state. Assume CSX is the same.
  by NotYou
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:01 pm ...Mr. Trinnau's point that both Chessie and Topper's predecessors sold off their access to Boston to the Commonwealth...
What is topper?
  by johnpbarlow
 
CSX responds to various commenters (ie, Voorheesville, Altamont Library, MWRA (Wachusett Reservoir), Portsmouth residents, Traffic growth forecasts:

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 303033.pdf

Nothing eye opening but a few more i's are dotted:

Re: Voorheesville: CSX will continue to assist in Voorheesville's efforts to establish quiet zones for Selkirk Branch grade crossings that currently see 32.7 daily freights. CSX also commented that the addition of 2 NS trackage rights trains will not require any environmental review.

Re: Altamont library - no environmental review is required. WRT blocked Main St crossing, NS will upgrade track (with CWR) to 25mph MAS permitting a 9,000 ft train to clear the crossing in 4-5 minutes. And here's an excerpt re: the feared vibrations of passing trains:
As to the Library’s vibration concerns, the vibration effects of the NSR operations will be neither extraordinary nor significant. The Library building is a former train station, which has apparently been located adjacent to an active railroad line for over 120 years.
Re: MWRA/Wachusett Reservoir:
As the Board noted in Decision No. 4, CSXT will work actively with local agencies to improve the existing rail infrastructure on the Reservoir Segment. And under this commitment, CSXT and MWRA have made substantial progress in negotiations regarding each area identified by MWRA. In particular:
• CSXT has agreed to upgrade the tracks and track structures within the Reservoir Segment to no less than FRA Class 3 standards;
• CSXT will maintain the tracks and track structures within the Reservoir Segment to no less than FRA Class 3 standards;
• CSXT has agreed that no trains, locomotives, or hi-rail vehicles will operate at a speed over 25 miles per hour (FRA Class 2 track speed) within the Reservoir Segment;
• Except in limited safety-related circumstances, CSXT has agreed not to park or otherwise idle trains within the Reservoir Segment;
• CSXT will provide MWRA and MassDOT/MBTA with information describing the type and quantity of hazardous materials transported over the Reservoir Segment during the previous month;
• CSXT will notify MWRA and MassDOT/MBTA of any relevant derailment, spill, or release;
• CSXT has agreed to the installation of dragging equipment and hot bearing detectors at either end of the Watershed.
Re: Portsmouth residents:
The concerns raised by the Portsmouth residents are pre-existing and will not be affected by the Merger Transaction. However, CSXT acknowledges the residents’ concerns and will work with the residents to reduce the impact of rail operations on their community from Springfield Terminal/CSXT operations. CSXT has a strong record of engagement with communities in which it operates across its network, and Portsmouth will receive the same focus and attention following consummation of the Merger Transaction.
Re: Traffic Growth Forecasts:
As discussed in Section I above, Applicants have submitted traffic growth forecasts confirming that none of the Board’s traffic increase thresholds would be exceeded because of the Merger and Related Transactions, and, therefore, the categorical exclusion applicable to control transactions should apply here. None of the filed comments invalidate – or even challenge – application of the categorical exclusion.
and
The Commonwealth’s concern with CSXT’s traffic forecasts does not implicate the Board’s categorical exclusion. CSXT has projected that the Merger and Related Transactions would cause PAR/Springfield Terminal traffic over the Ayer-Willows segment (and most other PAR segments) to increase by only approximately 4-11% by 2027, well below the level that triggers environmental review... The potential increases in traffic associated with PAS discussed in the Commonwealth’s comments would not affect CSXT’s forecast. Those traffic increases, if they occur, would not be associated with the Merger Transaction and the Related Transactions but would occur (if at all) with or without the Merger Transaction and Related Transactions. Therefore, they would not relate to the Board’s categorical exclusion.
Conclusion:
The Merger Transaction and Related Transactions (including the NSR trackage rights operations) are subject to a categorical exclusion from environmental review. The Rehabilitation Project and NSR operations on its own line do not require an STB license and therefore do not require environmental review. None of the environmental comments submitted in this proceeding have identified any “extraordinary circumstances” in which the excluded transactions “may have a significant effect.” Therefore, Applicants respectfully request that the Board confirm its preliminary conclusion that an environmental and historic review of the Merger Transaction and Related Transactions is not required.
  by jwhite07
 
re: the Wachusett Reservoir watershed concerns, 25 is better than 10 and far more likely to be kept in that condition. If that's enough to placate the scaremongers, good enough for this resident of the area who gets his tapwater from the corridor. As far as the commitment to install HBDs on either end of the segment, that sounds like a positive take-charge PR commitment, but remember they're already halfway there since they're inheriting the one at Temple Street and will really just need to put one more in.
  by taracer
 
Altamont has not been on an active line for 120 years, it was abandoned for at least 20 years. I used to go to the fair that borders the line there when I was a teen in the '80's and the line was totally overgrown. It was put back in service a few years after that line east of the old diamond at CP VO (Voorheesville) was abandoned around '99 or '00.

It was just used to access the industrial park just out side of Voorheesville and CP ran it at first. The quickly turned it over to a short line, so it's always been just a handful of cars at slow speed since it was restored.

I'm for the merger of course, but the town of Altamont is doing the right thing to get the full facts. This will change their town . I don't live there, but as a homeowner I get it.
  by jamoldover
 
taracer wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:40 pm Altamont has not been on an active line for 120 years, it was abandoned for at least 20 years. I used to go to the fair that borders the line there when I was a teen in the '80's and the line was totally overgrown. It was put back in service a few years after that line east of the old diamond at CP VO (Voorheesville) was abandoned around '99 or '00.
The line was never abandoned. It may have been out of service (and overgrown) for 20 years, but that's not the same thing. For a line to actually be abandoned, there's a formal approval process that has to happen through the STB (and previously through the ICC) requiring official notice, and lots of other things. In addition, once that process has happened, if anyone wants to start a new operation, even on the same route, there's also a formal approval process that has to happen.
On the other hand, all that's needed for a line to be out of service is for the railroad to not use it, and all that's needed to bring it back into service is for the railroad to make sure the tracks are safe and usable when they start using it again. Regardless of the line's status with the railroad, though, as far as the government is concerned, unless the formal abandonment process has taken place, the line is considered to be active.

I know I'm oversimplifying this, but that's basically the important difference between the two.
  • 1
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200