CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

To make sure I am clear: There is a world of difference between “turning off” some islands of CTC, vs. going in and ripping out the signals and other electronics? Management must figure that turning off the CTC is a fairly risk-less move, as you can always turn it back on later with minimal cost / difficulty if the circumstances dictate doing so. Right?

Personally, I welcome anything that the RRs can do to reduce the marginal cost of moving a given shipment. The more profitable NS and CSX can make their lines into New England, the more the future of those lines will be assured. The challenge is that it is nearly impossible for people on the outside (like us) to understand the trade offs that are being made.

roberttosh wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:57 am How do you get from PAS to the river line? Go out to Rotterdam and change ends to head back East? Even if NS could get access to the River Line, how does that really help them? They'd have to go through the congested North Jersey terminal and then would still need to go out to Harrisburg. Is that really any quicker than going via Binghamton?

You don't (efficiently). It's a non-starter.

johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:37 am So if EDPO and POED continue to run daily, are these NS train extensions to/from Ayer basically daily ED-8 / ED-9 trains (which had only run rarely of late)? So EDPO/POED now get to skip Ayer/Fitchburg/Gardner each day? Sounds like a win - win for traffic velocity. Lastly do those blue trash containers go to/from CSX at RJ? If so , PAS is using NS assets to realize revenue through hauling CSX traffic. Wonder if these PAS ops changes came from the CSX - NS - PAR acquisition negotiations?

I may have been wrong - EDPO might run less frequent now. The move makes sense as the Rigbies going east on EDPO can usually be counted on one hand while the other blocks are massive. Essentially yes ED8/9/495 with the 16R/11R power.

Yes the blues go to Rotterdam, but it's not CSX traffic until it hit their railroad. Until then it's PAS traffic. Any power is fair game.

I don't think it has anything to do with the possible sale.

mrj1981 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:23 pm To make sure I am clear: There is a world of difference between “turning off” some islands of CTC, vs. going in and ripping out the signals and other electronics? Management must figure that turning off the CTC is a fairly risk-less move, as you can always turn it back on later with minimal cost / difficulty if the circumstances dictate doing so. Right?

Theoretically yes, but once that stuff is not maintained it's as good as dead long term the longer it sits. Not often does a railroad go through the trouble and turn around and re-enable them in the future.

If you shut the CTC down,you have to just about start from scratch to bring it back,ripping out the old dead system and replace with new gear in the huts and new signal/signal heads wayside
there will be parts salvaged to keep other sections up and running,,,,,,,,

There is now a crew on duty 1100 at Deerfield, to try and coincide with the arrival of 16R, and forward it east to Ayer.

FI3 has been added to help with the turn and is on duty 2200.

EDPO/POED are still running.

Here's todays 16R at Erving with a crap ton of rax on the end. 77 cars.

Nice photo!

One Q?

How will those auto racks fit through Hoosac?

From Wikipedia's article desxcribing the Hoosac Tunnel:

Clearances were increased in 1997 and 2007, the former by lowering the track, the latter by grinding 15 inches (38 cm) off the roof,[10] allowing trailer on flat car (TOFC) and tri-level automobile carriers to pass.

The following wasn't asked but the topic comes up a lot:

In March 2012, the Federal Railroad Administration awarded a $2 million grant to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for preliminary engineering on further increasing clearance in the tunnel to allow double stack container trains to use the tunnel. As of 2019, MassDOT, with FRA support, has surveyed the 155-mile (249 km) Patriot Corridor, including the Hoosac Tunnel, and identified 19 improvement projects needed to achieve double-stack clearance. MassDOT is preparing needed environmental reviews

Somehow I think, if I read The Journal, so must Chessie. I must wonder if she was motivated to make her bid arising from this apparent reality:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shipping-c ... lewebshare

Fair Use:

Some container lines and their importing customers are looking for alternate paths to get around bottlenecks at the main U.S. trade gateways in Southern California, where an armada of cargo vessels is anchored offshore at the congested seaports.

Shipping lines have started moving some operations to smaller ports and have canceled some sailings altogether to avoid the backups that have tied up dozens of ships and hundreds of thousands of containers stuffed with goods off the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

I guess so long as the boys and girls around Suez keep their cap pistols away from each other, the maritime companies could consider Asia-Canal-Atlantic Port routings feasible and the lesser of evils than having your vessel anchored outside a West Coast port awaiting a berth for stevidorage. The ports "potentially served" by the Maine Central, Chessie sees ready for development - and she wants her "catnip" more than Topper wanted his oats.

Some more information that can be construed as rumor until proven otherwise:

There is still serious discussions apparently about NYSW operating PAS. NS wanted G&W, CSXT and PAR said no way. We all know how much Mellon and Fink hate them.

As you may or may not know, NS and CSX both have a share in the NYSW.

Isn't it solely up to NS who operates PAS after a transaction?

What about all that talk about CONRAIL and the fact that CONRAIL representatives were onboard the OCS?

Mr. Trainguy, if there is to be any kind of a Shared Asset arrangement, in all likelihood it will come from the SurfBoard, and definitely not from Chessie.

An outside chance from Timmy so he can have his deal and move on; greater chance from Topper, assuming he still wants in, or from affected shippers, who presently have a choice to route their traffic over either at Worcester/Ayer.

Then WHO operates PAS is the "poison pill" in the talks,CRSA would be the "cure all" for the STB.

BandA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:11 pm Isn't it solely up to NS who operates PAS after a transaction?

Sure, and then CSX walks letting NS operate it by themselves, something they've made it very clear they have no interest in doing.