Return of Crude to PAR?

CN9634 wrote:

GP40MC1118 wrote:I think everyone is forgetting the fact that PAR still has to pass through MBTA owned lines
with its passenger traffic (despite the glacial restoration of double track). Then there's
the Merrimack River Bridge problem and its rebuilding.

Not to mention the near complete overhaul of the Freight Main between CPF-LJ and CPF-WL,
unless they can get someone else to rebuild it for them (i.e. Downeaster, the so-called Knoweldge
Corridor)...

D

There are two siding projects on the books between Portland and Dover as well. One extends Surf to the Biddeford industrial spur and the other Berwick to Dover.

DO you know if the State/Amtrak are helping fund these or if its all PAR? Wonder if they will use some of the money that they used to bid on MMA.

What does extending Surf do to improve capacity? Rolling meets instead of trains having to come to a complete stop perhaps? When are these two projects scheduled I wonder?

Regarding a possible double tracking from Berwick to Dover, It would only be as far
as the current CPF241 in Rollinsford. The only advantage I see there is that the
current #2 track between CPF243 and Dover and CPF241 at Rollinsford will not
hold the 100+ car unit oil trains. They had to hold them on the main line and run
the Downeaster around on the #2 track between CPF241 and CPF242 (east of Oak
St). I believe only the #2 track between CPF241 and CPF242 was upgraded to
passenger standards, as they do not run the Downeaster on the #2 track between
CPF242 and CPF243 (Dover), other than in a pinch to have the DE just pull into
the track there just one train length to clear and then back out.

Double tracking between Surf and Biddeford will present challenges at Saco, as
the current #2 track could not extend by the Saco station. The current #2 track
would have to become the main line to get through Saco, unless there are new
crossovers, with the #2 track being on the north side of the main line.

CN9634 wrote:The problem is really the 65 miles from NMJ to Keag.

To fix this portion of the line up is going to require a lot of materials, e.g. welded relay rail and 1500 new ties per mile, all of which are long lead items.

CN9634 wrote:There are two siding projects on the books between Portland and Dover as well. One extends Surf to the Biddeford industrial spur and the other Berwick to Dover.

Could the siding between what was CPF-232 and CPF-233 be reconnected to the main line for added capacity? It looks like most of that track is still physically in place as seen using Google Earth.

CSX units came into Portland yesterday (2nd time this week) on SEPO with 20 loads of 1267.

i read where cbr averages 6 days while pipeline averages 20 days. i find it hard to believe. if true, then why build the XL pipeline? if factual, this difference certainly supports the current 48000 anker new build backlog. i hope our railroads are investing in new capacity as we move to true energy independence. ken patrick

With respect to pipelines, as with barges, overall transit time typically isn't as important as maintaining a predictable supply of the material at the destination point. With an oil pipeline that is carrying a single type of fluid, how long it's been in the pipe generally isn't as much of a concern as having something come out when you turn on the faucet at the other end. With both pipelines and barges, competitive transportation cost is typically more important than speed.

My impression is the same as Tom's and yes assuming we are talking about a comparison between Bakken from North Dakota those are the same transit times I have read elsewhere. Consequently pipeline terminals have to build very substantial storage facilities in order to effectively manage supply and demand.

CN will be handling 15 crude oil trains to Saint John this month, with the first being yesterday. With the MMA/CMQR still shut down, Pan Am is the only other rail alternative. However, they could still be shut off due to CSX service to Buckeye at Albany.

CN9634 wrote:However, they could still be shut off due to CSX service to Buckeye at Albany.

You're saying that the choice would be to transload everything at Albany as opposed to run through to St. John via PAR?

transit time is a major cost factor. i continue to be amazed at the railroad thinking that transit is not as important as pricing.think of the product value stuck for 14 days in a pipeline when the railroad has already delivered similar product. as i poste in the lac megantic disaster, mma was penny wise in handling crude. they should have done everything to insure a rapid transit. new power, new trackage and new hos rules. par has an opportunity to capture some of the cn irving business. i'm certain ns would supply funding for a cbr plan. there's 4000+ cars/day volume to go after. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:transit time is a major cost factor. i continue to be amazed at the railroad thinking that transit is not as important as pricing.think of the product value stuck for 14 days in a pipeline when the railroad has already delivered similar product.

Its not as simple as pricing, or transit time. Its reliability, costs and transit time in that order that answer the question "How do we get out crude?" Why is reliability most important? Think about it, if it costs a little more, or takes a little more time to get to you it costs you a little. If your supply line is interrupted (unreliable) you have a billion dollar business stopped because you haven't got anything to refine. Sure pipeline might require more inventory/money, account the longer end to end time, but you know when you open the spigot crude flows. CBR has its risks, and I'm sure Irving paid a price with the Plaster Rock derailment that screwed up their oil deliveries for a few days. Even if all that happened was their stockpile of crude at Saint John dropped. Basically, its WAY MORE EXPENSIVE to sit on a refinery idled because of a lack of crude than it is to pay a little more in delivery costs or time.

KEN PATRICK wrote:as i poste in the lac megantic disaster, mma was penny wise in handling crude. they should have done everything to insure a rapid transit. new power, new trackage and new hos rules.

I can't agree more that oil on MM&A should have been prioritized. However, you'll find it was prioritized. There are no railroads in North America that aren't doing their absolute best to expedite CBR. They know its importance and value.
I know you've run the numbers and estimate MM&A had a revenue of roughly $300K for each oil train, and expect that that money would be spent on new power, track and HOS rules. You need to rembember MM&A had shaky books prior to oil, and was arguably losing money. So some of the oil revenue was used up just covering other losses. Then there is the expense of at least 3 crews each way to move an oil train and the fuel burned. Overhead operation, no terminal/switching costs, oil was high margin business. Say they managed to net $250K per train. A New locomotive costs $2.5 Million, they would have to move 10 trains to buy a single new locomotive. It takes 3 new locomotives to move a train, so the first 30 unit crude trains would have been needed to purchase enough new power to handle the CBR business.
How about track? The Downeaster upgrades which brought freight speeds to 40mph cost over $1M/mile. MM&A's line from Montreal to Brownville was about 220 miles. Figure they had already replaced a lot of rail, so cut the track costs to $500K/mile then go further and say the Moosehead is in good shape (not a big stretch) and cut it in half again, we'll say $250K/mile. 250Kx220 miles=$55Million. Thats equal to the profit from about 220 oil trains. I can tell you, they didn't run nearly enough needed to upgrade the whole of the CP main from Brownville Jct to St Jean. Maybe they ran 30 unit trains, its business and you can't simply stockpile money buy locomotives when other assets/operations are bleeding money. They simply didn't have the money to make the needed upgrades.
And HOS, how the hell are they supposed to change this? Its a federal law, not a company policy. MM&A has just about 0% impact on HOS rules. Thats simply the dumbest statement I've read here, and I've made some dumb statements...

KEN PATRICK wrote:par has an opportunity to capture some of the cn irving business. i'm certain ns would supply funding for a cbr plan. there's 4000+ cars/day volume to go after.

Pan Am's cost to upgrade the Freight Main to 25mph from Keag to existing good track at CPF 185 is better than $100M. That is again a lot of oil trains they would need to run to make it worthwhile. There is also in no way 4000 cars/day to go after. The crude rack in Saint John has a capacity (peak) of 192 cars. This is if NBSR switches are perfectly timed, and the weather cooperates (the cold slows unloading). Reality says they can unload around 160cars/day at the rack. Transitive property would state that if there is 160 car capacity at the refinery there is in fact 160 cars/day in volume to pursue.
Finally, I doubt you will see NS invest in a PAR CBR deal, considering all oil previously has run on a CSX-PAR routing...I also don't think you will see CSX invest. Both big eastern roads are plenty busy with CBR projects elsewhere on the east coast, and NS is power short, requiring money be spent there. Compared with Delaware/NJ/Pennsy, Irving-SJ is small potatoes, not going to get the big boys interest.

Well put KSmitty. This is CN traffic for the foreseeable future. I can't see any Class I risking sending any considerable amount (IE 1 Unit CBR Train/week) over a under maintained, slow and sometimes gridlocked PAR. Too much aggravation with easier fruit at Albany or the Mid Atlantic.

I would dare say that PAR's current motive power situation might actually be a bit worse than MMA's. PAR has had two locomotive fires in two weeks. PAR's 300-series locomotives, which still make up the backbone of the fleet, are approaching 50 years old... and they're crapping out all over the place. The 500s are showing their age, as are the 600s, and there's never enough of either of them to go around. The leased GMTX 3000s are no better than the PAR 300s.

The situation at Lac-Mégantic could have happened even if MMA had been using nice, new, shiny run-through power from one of their Class I partners (or new locomotives that they purchased on their own). New locomotives can — and do — shut themselves down, for a variety of reasons. The situation with the hand brakes was why the train ran away. That was a separate issue and had nothing to do with the power on the head end.

Now, having made that point, I want to make clear that I don't want this thread to turn into another MMA/Lac-Mégantic thread. It's OK to say "PAR shouldn't do what MMA did" and give relevant examples; I just don't want to rehash debates that we've already had in the MMA forum. Thank you all for understanding.

MEC407 wrote:I would dare say that PAR's current motive power situation might actually be a bit worse than MMA's. PAR has had two locomotive fires in two weeks. PAR's 300-series locomotives, which still make up the backbone of the fleet, are approaching 50 years old... and they're crapping out all over the place. The 500s are showing their age, as are the 600s, and there's never enough of either of them to go around. The leased GMTX 3000s are no better than the PAR 300s.

The situation at Lac-Mégantic could have happened even if MMA had been using nice, new, shiny run-through power from one of their Class I partners (or new locomotives that they purchased on their own). New locomotives can — and do — shut themselves down, for a variety of reasons. The situation with the hand brakes was why the train ran away. That was a separate issue and had nothing to do with the power on the head end.

Now, having made that point, I want to make clear that I don't want this thread to turn into another MMA/Lac-Mégantic thread. It's OK to say "PAR shouldn't do what MMA did" and give relevant examples; I just don't want to rehash debates that we've already had in the MMA forum. Thank you all for understanding.

The possibility isn't in question but rather the probability. Pan Am had zero lead locomotives on their oil trains shut down, as it was all modern BNSF power (Can't speak for the PAR units added on). Further, Pan Am tied down trains in sidings and not on the top of hills on a mainline...

Back to this topic, Pan Am is still a viable line to run the oil. Saint John had been running oil trains from two sources, PAR and MMA. Now that one of those options is gone, and CN is running traffic, it is possible that PAR and CN could source the trains. Now that we spotted 20 cars on SEPO a few days ago, I wonder if they will trickle in again.