• Pan Am Worcester Main Line

  • 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 taracer
 
b&m 1566 wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 4:46 pm
taracer wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 2:33 pm
The current method of operation will not stand.
Ever since it was announced that CSX was purchasing Pan Am, this was one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind. How long will it take before CSX builds their own track beside the P&W, it just makes sense. Has CSX made any indication that they are heading in the direction with doing that?
The main indication is that they are putting money in to rehab up there. The 40 MPH section on the Worcester line looks as good as the 40 MPH sections on the B&A proper. I mean its ditched, trees cut back, etc. It just looks like a serious railroad is in charge.

They are not messing around here, and I know the CSX mentality. They want to control.
  by taracer
 
F74265A wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 4:56 pm
b&m 1566 wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 4:46 pm
taracer wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 2:33 pm
The current method of operation will not stand.
Ever since it was announced that CSX was purchasing Pan Am, this was one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind. How long will it take before CSX builds their own track beside the P&W, it just makes sense. Has CSX made any indication that they are heading in the direction with doing that?
Where does p&w territory start for csx? I always thought it was where the 2 main tracks converged near garden st. But tarcar suggests that maybe it is much earlier just past cp 45. If P&W controls both tracks through the tunnels, no easy way to avoid p&w dispatch even if csx builds a 2d track garden st to barbers
It's P&W from the switch for the Gardener branch by New Bond St., to CP45, but it's easily bypassed , the track is already there.
  by F74265A
 
Yep, the ancient moribund 2d track is still in the row. In the mid 1990s guilford would park cars on that 2d track behind the now amazon former greendale mall
Would need 100% replaced and any rumored lateral clearance issues addressed
  by jamoldover
 
And the P&W would still need to agree to 1) give up control of the second track through the Lincoln Square tunnel and 2) remove (or lock) the hand-throw switch at CP45.

I know there are those on this forum who think CSX considers the investment it would take to make it happen a no-brainer; I still think the P&W won't go along with it and that the "bottleneck" will remain for a while to come. I could be wrong, but I don't think the business case is there for what would be at most a 10-minute improvement in running times. We're only talking about a 2-1/2 mile long section of track, after all.

I think CSX talking to G&W about improvements in coordination/dispatching is more likely, though, and will improve things without as much cost.
  by newpylong
 
But we have a current CSX engineer (who operates over the territory) telling us it may only be a 10 minute improvement in the best of circumstances, but likely much more. For a company that has gone all in on PSR, is about efficiency, has sunk millions into getting the Worcester Sub from 10, to 25 and now 40 - I don't think it will stand long term. Keolis also was pushing CSX hard right when they bought PAR to takeover dispatching and they were having none of it. They like the control.

Also I think we confirmed via Worcester GIS Tax maps that the B&M (now owned by CSX) still owns the land under the P&W, and the P&W just owns the infrastructure on top. This is a similar arrangement as CP around Mohawk yard in New York where PAS still owns the land but CP owns the roadbed on top. This could provide some negotiating power regarding getting a dedicated second track. Wouldn't the P&W also not want to deal with CSX anymore? There is going to be another pair of trains soon too. It could be a win win.
  by jaymac
 
I keep on having to remind myself that what was "P&W" is now "G&W," the selfsame "G&W" that has entered into an agreement with CSXT to be the KittyCat's cat's paw in the joint operation of PAS.
The pre-G&W P&W was territorial when it felt its interests were threatened by connecting lines. Ownership has changed, probably likewise for priorities...
  by johnpbarlow
 
I have no insight as to why but NS just told STB in a recent filing that as of 5/8/24 it has executed three of four trackage rights agreements for its new Ayer-Voorheesville IM trains: CSX, B&M, and PAS, but hasn’t yet executed a trackage rights agreement with P&W. Perhaps additional track for this 2.5 mile stretch is on the table?
  by Douglasphil
 
If I may add my 2 cents worth , that second track would save a lot more than 10 minutes . We often spent 30 - 45 minutes ( and sometimes more ) getting from CP 45 to Barber . We always had trouble getting ahold of the St Albans dispatcher , only to find out that WOGR had the track and was heading south toward us or was heading north and had forgotten to call clear and was not responding to the radio ( there are some radio dead spots up there ).
  by CPF363
 
It is surprising that the second track has not been implemented by now considering Conrail and Guilford began to route so much interchange traffic via the WN&P first with auto traffic in 1989 then the freight less than a year later. The shared track was the reason why the yard limits were extended east of Shay so that eastbound trains could pull up to Burncoat to clear Barber so that P&W could reach their line to Gardner.
  by newpylong
 
It was explained to me by the chief (Ferguson) at the time that the western limits of DCS were moved East because westbound trains that were recrewed at New Bond (which were sitting in DCS still) by CSX frequently forgot? to call clear of DCS and thus their Form D could not be cancelled and no other movements made until it was resolved. Not easy when the crew changed to another channel already. Billerica would need to work through Selkirk and the rules got muddy.
  by taracer
 
That was a big part of it, as well as CSX crew having a hard time taking the Form D to go east to Burncoat St. I remember one CSX conductor arguing over the radio with the District 3 TOM saying we don't do Form D's, only EC-1's !

That was like 20 years ago though, it was a different time.
  by newpylong
 
Yep, at the time pretty silly to need to be NORAC qualified "enough" to take a Form D just to drop the train at Burncoat.
  by newpylong
 
The music for the entire train is brutal.
  by F74265A
 
Would prefer no music ideally
  • 1
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64