• CSX Track Upgrades & Infrastructure of Pan Am

  • 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

  by Ken Rice
 
Judging by the pictures and captions over the past month on nerail there have been two separate derailments both involving seriously messed up track. I recall seeing one photo caption that implied a rescue train and pulled everything back to Nashua after the first repair, but there’s also a photo caption that implies it’s still the same train. So I’m not sure. Some interesting photos can be found of both derailments on the first couple pages of results of this search:
http://photos.nerail.org/search/searchr ... ING=Derail

That branch really needs ties and roadbed more than anything else. New rail would be good too, but rail that’s basically sitting on mud can only do so much. The existing light rail would probably do much better if it was properly supported.
  by F74265A
 
captions indicate that it is the same train but that it hasn't sat in the same spot the whole time. I read it that after fixing derailment #1 they made it to the wire customer and switched them out but now cannot get back because of broken rails from derailment #2. Says it is 75 pound rail on what looks like worthless roadbed. Wow.
  by copcars
 
CLASSIC TRAINS had an article recently ,that a rail line with light rail in IOWA or MN,i think CNW. USED 6 AXLE engines to use various rail lines due to 75 lb rail.The engine was built specifically for this line to spread out the engines weight on the rail.Very few of these engines were made,due to the need for them.I will try to find story.It goes back to 1960's or 70's
  by Allouette
 
Soo Line used six axle RSC2s in the Dakotas due to light rail. Milwaukee special-ordered six axle SDL39s from EMD in the late 1960s for light rail in Wisconsin where RSC2s had been the normal power. Soo Line's Wisconsin Central used an RSC3 and a very lightweight SD9 in Wisconsin for the same reason.
  by jwhite07
 
Probably the Milwaukee Road's SDL39 locos? Ten built, I think nine still exist but were sold to a railroad in Chile. Long way from New Hampshire.

It is hoped that CSX will pay adequate attention to the line's upkeep, at least enough to prevent the constant derailments. Sure, maintenance costs money, but so do derailments.
  by Allouette
 
At a time when most of the B&M system allowed 263,000 lb. cars, the Hillsboro branch had the same limit. There was a locomotive restriction, with only one class allowed. I think the limit had more to do with bridge restrictions than rail weight. The only locomotives listed with tonnage ratings were small Alco switchers.
  by hillsboyro
 
According to @n_scale_nh on Instagram MEC 509 has just left Nashua to bring supplies to save MEC 503.
  by Douglasphil
 
I wonder what that is about ? Normal procedure for CSX would be to send a truck from Mechanical and a fuel truck from their local supplier. The photos make it look like trucks can pull alongside . Possible that crew is just going to tie on a drag the whole thing back home ?
  by CPF363
 
Please re-point thread back to discussing track, yard and terminal improvements made by CSX across former Pan Am routes.
  by johnpbarlow
 
In a Progressive Railroading article of 2/14/23, ZIM Shipping Lines is reported to be doubling its "Baltimore Express" frequency to Port of Baltimore to weekly by the end of February and will also be increasing the capacity of ships calling on the port by 50%. Relevance to CSX upgrade of Pan Am infrastructure is this excerpt:
The port's rising container business will be further buoyed by an expansion of the CSX-owned Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore, which is underway and scheduled to be completed in 2025, port officials said.

The expanded tunnel will accommodate double-stacked container rail cars traveling to and from the port, clearing a longtime hurdle and providing the East Coast with seamless double-stack capacity from Maine to Florida, as well as the ability to send double-stacked containers by rail into the Ohio Valley and on to Chicago.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ ... ort--68592
  by QB 52.32
 
Appears to be a mistake since it's 17'0" ATR east of Ayer, not good for any kind of doublestacked containers, and no indication on the radar of necessary public or CSX funding to bring the overhead clearance up a substantial additional 3'02", certainly not by 2025. Maybe north of Maryland when it comes to Maine or Massachusetts it's all the same!?
  by MEC407
 
. . .clearing a longtime hurdle and providing the East Coast with seamless double-stack capacity from Maine to Florida . . .

Clearing a hurdle, not all of the hurdles. Perhaps they meant to write "in" in place of "and."
  by CN9634
 
The intermodal service territory of Maine is covered by the Worcester ramp so it’s accurate… Maine to Florida means the i95 corridor so it’s sort of a buzz point more than anything
  by fromway
 
Not claiming to know much about railroading, but if there is a clearance problem then it will mean that everything picked up at the Keag from Saint John will have to be single stack. That is not a great marketing feature because it will add more expense on tothe shipper.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 56