Railroad Forums 

  • Potential PAR/PAS Traffic Growth

  • Pan Am Southern (webssite: https://panamsouthern.com ) is jointly-owned by CSX and Norfolk Southern, but operated by Genesee & Wyoming subsidiary Pittsburg & Shawmut dba Berkshire and Eastern,
Pan Am Southern (webssite: https://panamsouthern.com ) is jointly-owned by CSX and Norfolk Southern, but operated by Genesee & Wyoming subsidiary Pittsburg & Shawmut dba Berkshire and Eastern,

Moderator: MEC407

 #1608391  by fromway
 
Just thinking outloud. I think I remember that Poland Springs got access to wells in Lincoln, ME a few year ago. Could PS build a new plant that could then access the rebuilt Keag line to get their product to the NY area?
 #1609927  by johnpbarlow
 
For the 1st time that I can recall since CSX acquired Pan Am, manifest M426 has a 5 pack double stack well car near the rear of the train loaded with what appear to be single stacked blue Republic trash containers. Wonder where these containers are headed to as the latter portion of the M426 consist is generally traffic headed to Ayer/Maine (front portion is typically P&W interchnage traffic)? Attached is a screen capture from the Westfield MA live cam grabbed at 0130 Tuesday 11/8/22. New traffic perhaps?
Attachments:
CSX M426 blue republic trash containers night Westfield 110822.jpg
CSX M426 blue republic trash containers night Westfield 110822.jpg (120.86 KiB) Viewed 1933 times
 #1613226  by ST377
 
Baker Commodities (D2, in the Iron Horse Park area) supposedly going to receive cars again. Siding needs to be built, so don't expect any loads for a while. Possibly the first example of customers willing to try service again now that Guilford management is out of the picture.
 #1613248  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. ST, I doubt if what you observed will be just an isolated instance.

Chessie did not acquire "Timmy's 1:1 Lionel" simply to liquidate the property. She clearly recognized that there was potential traffic, presumably high value moving over highways, that she could get back on the rails.

A further question; even if the answer is not likely, does this Baker Commodities facility have traffic that they can originate? In my experience reviewing interline settlements when I was in the industry, the originating road gets a far bigger "chunk of the pie" than does the delivering - and both do much better than any intermediate (bridge) road.
 #1613263  by ST377
 
To answer the further question - yes that is the case. Regarding the first statement, one cannot underestimate how much traffic ST management drove off with a toxic combination of abhorrent service and a 'if you don't like it, pound sand' attitude. With new players in the game (CSX from Ayer east and the CSX/NS/GW hydra from Ayer west) a number of former customers are willing to listen. They want rail service, just not the significant migraine that came with it.
Last edited by MEC407 on Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
 #1613282  by Gilbert B Norman
 
That's great to learn, Mr. ST, that there are shippers up there who want rail, and who are prepared to sacrifice speed for more favorable rates than highway can offer.

Now what does surprise me is that apparently you hold a route over the B&M "route of the Flying Yankee" (don't know what to call it at present other than that) could still be a viable through routing. From what I read here, it appears that such has at best FRA Class 2 track with all too much of it Class 1. Further, it has a restricted height tunnel that can cave in whenever it chooses, and who knows if this Short Line operator set to become such has the wherewithal to keep such clear. This operator may simply choose to handle what traffic there is Eastward to a CT River line interchange (Deerfield, I believe) or Westward to the Albany area.
 #1613286  by bostontrainguy
 
From Trains:
"Storm also said G&W anticipates starting operation of the Pan Am Southern through its newly created Berkshire & Eastern Railroad in 2023’s first quarter, once labor agreements are resolved."
- Kristine Storm, Genesee & Wyoming’s vice president, procurement
 #1613489  by QB 52.32
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:14 am Now what does surprise me is that apparently you hold a route over the B&M "route of the Flying Yankee" (don't know what to call it at present other than that) could still be a viable through routing. From what I read here, it appears that such has at best FRA Class 2 track with all too much of it Class 1. Further, it has a restricted height tunnel that can cave in whenever it chooses, and who knows if this Short Line operator set to become such has the wherewithal to keep such clear. This operator may simply choose to handle what traffic there is Eastward to a CT River line interchange (Deerfield, I believe) or Westward to the Albany area.
Mr. Norman, at least in the relative shorter run, the "route of the Flying Yankee", to be operated but not owned by GWI, will likely remain a viable non-intermodal through route with the western Mechanicville gateway STB-conditioned for CP as open-on-commercially-reasonable terms, and for both CP and NS, a mid-railroad Gardner gateway and connection, including via the railroad's E. Deerfield hub, to 7 carriers over 8 interchange locations as well as an eastern Ayer gateway STB-conditioned specifically for traffic to/from Everett, MA just outside Boston and as generally open-on-commercially-reasonable terms, and, success in service about reliability and not speed.

Moving beyond the shorter run, the issue of the Hoosac tunnel and overhead clearance is really more about the $300m. it would take to fully clear the route than a risk of imminent collapse and the issue of through-route viability a mix of strategic interests, not the least that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a political commitment to invest $2-3 billion for expanded passenger rail on the parallel B&A as well as a long-time interest in preserving the railroad as a competitive route. Importantly, to some extent a range of present STB conditions and future STB considerations would inform the framework as to the probabilities of the strategic possibilities. And, lastly, when considering those probabilities of future possibilities not a bad idea to remember the past with the route having survived serious threats from the creation of Conrail and a failed Guilford expansion strategy.
 #1613494  by newpylong
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 8:14 am That's great to learn, Mr. ST, that there are shippers up there who want rail, and who are prepared to sacrifice speed for more favorable rates than highway can offer.

Now what does surprise me is that apparently you hold a route over the B&M "route of the Flying Yankee" (don't know what to call it at present other than that) could still be a viable through routing. From what I read here, it appears that such has at best FRA Class 2 track with all too much of it Class 1. Further, it has a restricted height tunnel that can cave in whenever it chooses, and who knows if this Short Line operator set to become such has the wherewithal to keep such clear. This operator may simply choose to handle what traffic there is Eastward to a CT River line interchange (Deerfield, I believe) or Westward to the Albany area.
I am having a hard time grasping the apparent pessimism in regard to PAS in various circles. GWI is going to have a tremendous opportunity to offer several interchange options to every single Class I railroad in the Eastern US to their (many large) consignees, plus all of the other connecting railroads who may not have such routing options. PAS is moving HUGE tonnage lately.

I would recommend getting past the notion of what "Class" of track it is. It's more about service and not speed though they aren't always mutual exclusive. Regardless, the route is a solid Class 2 (get Class 1 out of your head) and historically has been Class 3 and can be again as it was in 2009 if they deem the extra 15 MPH required. Though I believe 25 MPH is sufficient for their purposes.

I've seen the engineering reports and the tunnel is not at risk of further immediate cave-in. In the event it does happen, the operator is not on the hook to clear it, it would be NS and CSX as the owners. As has been mentioned, the state is not going to allow that to happen and neither are the owners.
 #1613517  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Newpy, I've been out of the railroad industry for over forty one years, and, after my eleven year career with such, had a "third profession" (rail was my second; the Air Force my first) as a CPA in private practice for thirty four years. So it is with this "CV" and based upon what I read here, I draw the conclusions I share.

Now if you hold the "Flying Yankee" line - the former B&M East-West X-Northern Mass. can render viable transportation to shippers in its existing state of repair, then it is my duty to accept your thoughts as you have shared them at this forum.
 #1613518  by CN9634
 
When Class Is have trains stacked up for days on end so it doesn't really matter what speed your track is if your network isnt fluid...

Interesting pivot -- seems as though the PSR fad is on its last leg if not entirely over. NS remarks that its going to return to service and growth... I can't help but wonder if the new NS regime is disappointed by how easily they gave away Pan Am to CSX, but hopefully they look once again at PAS as a route of interest.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... -analysis/
 #1613538  by QB 52.32
 
CN9634 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:24 pm When Class Is have trains stacked up for days on end so it doesn't really matter what speed your track is if your network isnt fluid...

Interesting pivot -- seems as though the PSR fad is on its last leg if not entirely over. NS remarks that its going to return to service and growth... I can't help but wonder if the new NS regime is disappointed by how easily they gave away Pan Am to CSX, but hopefully they look once again at PAS as a route of interest.
PSR principles, which I'd hardly characterize as a fad, aren't going anywhere on NS or any other Class 1 except, perhaps, in name only. Railroad network congestion and recovery, the importance of the operating ratio as a measure, how to grow, and how railroads have historically responded to traffic downturns with labor are ever-present issues above, beyond and before PSR, and in this particular case with NS, their strategy is about how they will deal with labor resources through business cycles moving forward and, as a consequence, what they see as an acceptable operating ratio, not PSR principles.

While the greatest strategic improvement from PSR came to those roads, IC, CN, CP and CSX, where its application was made directly by Hunter Harrison with UP transformed but struggling, likely only in the short run, NS' approach to applying PSR has been been somewhat wobbly with CSX transformed and more competitive. And, I would not discount where the strategic benefits of PSR, including growth and service improvement, is the greatest are for those roads whose strategic opportunity has greater weight in the carload business segment, as is the case with CSX and UP as opposed to NS (and BNSF).

As to whether NS regrets not moving on purchasing the other half of PAS and PAR, they are getting a strategic intermodal improvement opportunity out of the deal, and, good chance with their weaker network position accessing New England, including via PAS, the greater capital and operating costs required turned them away vs. the benefits and in light of having to compete against other bidders, including CSX.
 #1613540  by johnpbarlow
 
I'm not totally convinced about huge tonnage running on PAS. My only data points are eyeball observations of the daily 264 container train as it passes Elkhart each evening and the M426 manifest (not PAS) as it passes the Westfield or Springfield live cams each night. Generally 264's consist is 5,000 to 7,000 feet long with somewhere between 40 and 70 single stacked containers in the Ayer block. And M426 typically has 75 or so revenue cars (ie, taking out any company cars with ties or stone to be used for PAR rehab) with perhaps half the car count going to P&W at Worcester. Note there have been days when no M426 operated across the B&A.

Obviously M426 has never run on PAS but its Davisville-bound autorack traffic used to arrive via PAS at Gardner for P&W interchange. And of course coal traffic and grain unit trains no longer operate via PAS in favor of CSX.

So that leaves 264/265 (daily?), 11R/16R (daily?), RJED/EDRJ (3 days/week?) , and EDPO/POED (3 days/week?) that currently operate via PAS. As I've suggested, I don't believe 264 train lengths are large on PAS. I don't have a handle on the tonnage/lengths for the manifest trains (although I did count 55 cars on an EDPO passing through Bradford MA last October on YouTube) - clearly 11R/16R handle a lot of trash cars that have appeared only in the last couple of years.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 22