Pan Am Worcester Main Line

jamoldover wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:55 am According to Worcester's property lines GIS viewer, the land under the tracks between Barbers and the north portal of the Lincoln Square tunnel is, in fact, owned by the B&M. The same is true between the south portal of the tunnel and CP45.

Maybe CSX can now tell P&W that they are changing the rules that B&M didn't care to do. It's now our railroad and we have to talk.

I’ve heard for many many years that there are spots of utility encroachment
Can be fixed with $$
But I agree that with few trains there isn’t a real need
And they got g&w onside anyway with the b&e lease

They are going to have to make some changes in Worcester. You are going to have the NS train, MBTA to Springfield, and more Amtrak. That's not even counting any future growth, just what is going to happen for sure. They are almost certainly going to have to take the P&W cars of the 426. That means another train as well.

They are not going to be able to park trains on the main or use the siding as a yard track like they do now.

I know they used to run more trains, but that was in the past, before trip optimizer running well under track speed, engine and crew shortages.

It makes sense to put another track between the radio-controlled switches at Garden and New Bond. A new interlocking would not be required, the tracks could be separate. P&W on the existing single track and CSX on the new track right next to that.

However, I don't know what the arrangement is between the B&M and P&W that gives P&W control of the tracks (and, I believe, the right to lease part of the land to Eversource for a power line).

I couldn't find anything definitive, but I did see this, which states that P&W purchased the line in 1983
https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploa ... 4_5664.pdf

Your linked article explains it. The P&W just bought the section from Barber Station to Gardener, with trackage rights over the B&M from Barber Station to Worcester.

They never bought that 3-mile track segment, so CSX owns it now.

Did you read the same article I read? It says they did buy those three miles.

This has been discussed before. It is a weird arrangement. I believe the P&W owns the TRACK up to the Barbers switch but the underlying ROW remained owned by the B&M.

Yes, bought out the trackage rights is how I'm reading it, B&M never sold the land.

If the B&M owns the land, then why does the bridge over Front St have the P&W on it? Wouldn't the bridge constitute land?

If you lease something, you're often allowed to put your own name on it. Think office buildings, vehicles, locomotives, virtually anything that can be leased.

The last time I looked (many moons ago) GTI still owned Mohawk Yard and much of the underlying ROW of the D&H in that area, with CP owning the railroad on top. It's a weird setup but could be similar to Worcester.

If that is the case, CSX cannot just tell the P&W that they no longer own the track. We're not talking trackage rights here we're talking actual physical property. They'd need to build another next to it

The ownership split between ROW and tracks may have accounted for an "issue" back in the late '80s or early 1990. CR and Guilford had gotten the P&W to agree to accept racks from Worcester to Barber so Guilford could cut crew and fuel costs.
1 day, CR and Guilford supposedly tried to run general with the racks, but the P&W refused authorization. Got the info 2nd-or-more hand, so dunno more deets.
Whether DownSouth wants D-1 to be issuing authorization between ~CP 45 and Barber for WOGR/GRWO or will leave things up to St. Albans will be interesting.

They never bought that 3-mile track segment, so CSX owns it now.

I should have included the actual quotation. The article does mention the Gardner to Barbers purchase + trackage rights over the 3 miles, but it later says:

P&W also filled a couple of small but strategic gaps in its route map in 1983 when it bought the 3 miles of B&M trackage that connected the Gardner branch with the rest of the P&W system in Worcester, plus 1 mile of it at Gardner. Interestingly, this purchase required P&W to give up its stock in the Vermont & Massachusetts, a 19th century company that officially owned a portion of B&M's main line between Fitchburg and Greenfield, Mass.

That said, the article's statement could also be wrong or not digging into the nuance of the transaction & ownership.


Worth noting is that in CSX's STB filing for the purchase, it discusses the trackage rights agreements for NS to move intermodal and/or autoracks over the line, and makes the statement (in reference to the routing):

These trackage rights agreements will allow NSR, upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction, to move up to one train pair per day, carrying intermodal and automotive vehicles traffic, between NSR’s connection with CSXT near Voorheesville, NY, and the intermodal terminal located near Ayer, MA, over CSXT’s east-west rail line between Voorheesville, NY and Worcester, MA, then over P&W’s rail line between Worcester, MA and Barbers Station, MA, over Boston & Maine’s rail line between Barbers Station, MA and Harvard, MA, and finally over PAS’s rail line between Harvard and Ayer.

I followed the ROW from Barbers all the way down to CP45 on the Worcester GIS tax map to put this to bed (attached). The entire thing is owned by the B&M. However, if the track ie railroad on top was sold as should be assumed, property ownership means very little.

But if the B&M owned (and CSX now owns) the land, then there should be no problem putting a parallel track in there if there is room. right?