Pan Am Worcester Main Line

MaineRailfan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:24 am Didn't they do the CWR around 2019-2021? It could have been done before they made a move on Pan Am, or at least was planned before the sale was approved.

It was just installed.

In terms of additional overhead clearance under the Fitchburg sub bridge, I think we're talking about a range of 1-2.5 feet.

The 115lb CWR on this section of the Ag Branch looks brand new - unfortunately there’s no fabrication date visible in this capture.

Q: does the formal NS-CSX trackage rights agreement for NS rerouting the IM train via Worcester require the IM trains to be double stacked, perhaps due to CSX concern that a single stacked train will exceed the stipulated 9,000 ft max length? IOW the NS trains can’t be rerouted until all the clearance projects on the Worcester sub are complete? Thanks.

johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:07 am Q: does the formal NS-CSX trackage rights agreement for NS rerouting the IM train via Worcester require the IM trains to be double stacked, perhaps due to CSX concern that a single stacked train will exceed the stipulated 9,000 ft max length? IOW the NS trains can’t be rerouted until all the clearance projects on the Worcester sub are complete? Thanks.

Are you asking if the clearance work must be complete before NS can begin using any kind of trackage rights? I haven't seen this stipulated anywhere and as noted all except 1 agreement was published to the STB recently to execute the rights. My guess is they can start whenever the last agreement is complete.

....and they have both enough qualified crews to run the trains, and finished work on the west end of the connection towards Delanson.

Well the IM train is running now as a single stack, right? Why not start running via CSX trackage? Maybe they are waiting for the lowering of the tracks to make it easier for the work to be done. The less activity the better.

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:37 am ....and they have both enough qualified crews to run the trains, and finished work on the west end of the connection towards Delanson.

Are you implying that NS has already competed crew qualifications on csx from VO to AY?

I think he's adding those as additional conditions to "whenever the last agreement is complete." regarding when NS would be able to start using the route.

What is the reason for that? How do the routes compare timewise?

Here's my understanding of 264's schedule to Ayer:
- Pass Elkhart IN live cam between 6pm and 9PM on day 1 typically. Not sure what time 264 departs 63rd St pad in Chicago but I would guess 2PM to 4PM or so
- Pass North East cam 9-10 hours later between 3AM and 6AM.
- Arrive Binghamton noonish on day 2 where 2-3 hours are spent setting out the Taylor container block and swapping power for SD60E leader. Depart northward up the D&H by early afternoon.
- Spend time at Mechanicville setting out containers
- Here's where it gets murky given there are no live cams to watch but I think PAS train B100 sits at Ferry St east of Mechanicville until early morning (8AM - 9AM?) when B&E crew arrives to take train to Ayer arriving around 5pm give or take.

Net: 264's Chicago to Ayer transit time is about 48 hours with two major stoppages for yarding/recrew at Binghamton and Mechanicville.

I have no idea how the rerouted train will be operated by NS but assuming the "new" 264 operates as it does today between Chicago and Binghamton with the 3 Taylor/Mechanicville/Ayer COFC blocks totaling 9,000 feet in length, and assuming the Mechanicville stop is eliminated, the Ayer block of containers could hit CSX rails at Voorheesville between 6PM and 8PM and be in Worcester 6 hours later and Ayer 1-2 hours after that or by 2AM - 4AM perhaps? That would be less than 40 hours after leaving Chicago. Net: a 264 reroute over CSX and elimination of a Mechanicville stop would save 8 hours or so?

By comparison, CSX best IM schedule between Chicago and Worcester is 3AM CT cut-off at Bedford Park with Worcester spot 1525 roughly 36 hours later via 2 trains I010 to Dewitt and I022 to Worcester. Note: for reason unknown to me, the CSX IM Schedule portal doesn't show a direct I020 Bedford to Worcester today; rather I020 only operates to W Springfield now?

It's always about cutoff at origin terminal and availability at destination terminal, accounting for terminal handling as well as train handling, and across what are oftentimes different markets served on the same trains between terminals and some service schedules published for general consumption and some not.

I think your eastbound 264 analysis is within range, Mr. Barlow, and my general take is that while doublestack is clearly the major benefit NS gains, as well they will gain the benefit in improving but not fully closing their service deficit with CSX who will also maintain their 2 daily departures within the marketplace.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:39 am I think he's adding those as additional conditions to "whenever the last agreement is complete." regarding when NS would be able to start using the route.

Correct, hence the "....."

I simply misread it
Thanks for the clarification