Vermont Activity and Sightings

Discussion of present-day CM&Q operations, as well as discussion of predecessors Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (BAR).

Moderator: MEC407

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:36 pm

CN9634 wrote:
csx2039 wrote:Not to mention thier crappy marketing department doesn't help much either. They hung onto most of the marketing people from mma that the customers can't stand. I also hear cmq is getting very friendly with cp now which will hurt this line even more...
I'd say given the way things ended with MMA you are lucky to have a railroad down there.
Yes for now, probably will make a great bike path in a few years at the rate it is going. And you are right, they are doing a good job with the rest of the system. Unfortunately they strung the vermont customers and vtr along with some pretty far stretched tales but most now think their traffic projections were a ploy to get cp to lower rates. And it worked.

CN9634
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:50 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by CN9634 » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:33 am

csx2039 wrote:
CN9634 wrote:
csx2039 wrote:Not to mention thier crappy marketing department doesn't help much either. They hung onto most of the marketing people from mma that the customers can't stand. I also hear cmq is getting very friendly with cp now which will hurt this line even more...
I'd say given the way things ended with MMA you are lucky to have a railroad down there.
Yes for now, probably will make a great bike path in a few years at the rate it is going. And you are right, they are doing a good job with the rest of the system. Unfortunately they strung the vermont customers and vtr along with some pretty far stretched tales but most now think their traffic projections were a ploy to get cp to lower rates. And it worked.
See what I find most irritating about your post is that its based largely on assumption. It's certainly possible they did just that but also it is possible and more likely that they were actually intending on sending traffic via WACR to meet CSX and competing road such as NS priced them out with the shipper (Twin Rivers, Irving, LPG customers, ect).

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:01 pm

It's a pretty accurate assumption wouldn't you say? where is all that traffic and promised 5 day a week service? Yes that's right it's going cp. And as far as assumptions go, where's the traffic that you claimed was being routed via NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS a few months ago? A NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS does not exist at this point and quite possibly never will.

CN9634
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:50 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by CN9634 » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:19 pm

Your assumption was that CMQ conspired (yes, what a dramatic word but from a legal sense it fits) against VRS in order to press CP-NS into better rates. However, you also have to understand that a lot of the mill traffic off Irving is ultimately destined for places on NS (PA areas, Southeast) and CP (Montreal, Toronto and Midwest points) so a routing could be rated competitively through the Conn River gateway but ultimately it may be that CP rebuffed their rates to be more competitive via their routing. But in any case, we simply DO NOT KNOW what exactly happened.

I can assure you what I heard from many railroad sources was they had planned to send a lot of traffic that way but just as things in life change fast, so does the railroad. Once again, sorry things didn't work out on your end but your antics towards this topic are at times contradictory and also suggest CMQ's plan is to ruin this stretch of railroad. Once again, I have not see this happen at all and as my posts suggest, CMQ is running down the line (with marginal traffic) several times a week AND they have invested into the line. So with the positive outlook on these real developments, why don't we wait and see if anything real ever comes to fruition.

In the future, I'll be sure to hold my tongue when I hear of potential freight opportunities on this line so as to not disrupt the largely negative atmosphere inherit in this thread.

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:15 pm

I don't think CMQ'S plan here is to intentionally ruin anything. I just knew by some of the statements by others (outside the list too) that their claims for increased traffic were a little nieeve... Although ironically (yes Im going to say something positive ) we MAY see a SLIGHT increase in traffic as connecting carrier's are starting to try to get involved, Personally I am confident that it's cause they are loosing thier shirt on a service they are trying to provide CMQ (at CMQ'S request) and are realizing if they don't start trying to push a little bit then nothing will ever change... I guess the big thing in the next few months will be to see if CMQ is willing to play ball, but this is just my speculation, I know cmq and cp are making big plans together, so it may be to - late...

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:49 pm

Big traffic between cmq and VRS this week... 6 loads on Monday and 4 today...

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:15 pm

Get your picks of the Newport sub while you can CMQ has all but given up on vermont, as of 1 April VRS will be drastically cutting back service to Newport on account of CMQ not delivering said traffic. Very high frustrations at VRS and NECR directed at CMQ. So I guess we're not the only ones with concerns about CMQ'S lack of interest in Vermont..

KSmitty
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by KSmitty » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:36 pm

NECR is frustrated?

That seems strange, given their constant contention over Pan Am Southern's useage of the Conn River to interchange directly with Vermont Rail System (WACR), which is the route most likely taken by CMQ-VRS bridge traffic for NS destinations...If anything, I'd think NECR would be quite pleased with themselves, having essentially sacked the service they were seeking to sack.

dustybroe
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:06 am

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by dustybroe » Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:54 pm

CMQ should try hard get the traffic back on the Newport Sub, i dont blame VTR and NECR not being happey with them, MMA ran that line better then CMQ, Problem with CMQ the Farnham crew dont like running to Newport, it Make more Sence for VTR take line over to Richford or Brookport.

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:04 am

KSmitty wrote:NECR is frustrated?

That seems strange, given their constant contention over Pan Am Southern's useage of the Conn River to interchange directly with Vermont Rail System (WACR), which is the route most likely taken by CMQ-VRS bridge traffic for NS destinations...If anything, I'd think NECR would be quite pleased with themselves, having essentially sacked the service they were seeking to sack.
Necr was very interested in cmq traffic to csx.

CN9634
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:50 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by CN9634 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:38 am

The original plan was to route traffic off NBSR to the conn river line to meet up with PAS. Obviously things have changed which is the nature of the business. Perhaps someday they'll develop something but not today

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:53 pm

dustybroe wrote:CMQ should try hard get the traffic back on the Newport Sub, i dont blame VTR and NECR not being happey with them, MMA ran that line better then CMQ, Problem with CMQ the Farnham crew dont like running to Newport, it Make more Sence for VTR take line over to Richford or Brookport.
I agree, I think the ball is in VTR'S court to approach CMQ about running to farnham. Cmq has proven they are not up to the task and really don't care at all what happens down here. Weather it would be a lease or a lease to own (I believe cmq cannot sell for a period of 10 years after closing) I would hope cmq would be open to it as it makes the most sense. I think it would be a win win for everyone, cmq rids itself of a money losing line, and vtr gains a money making one. And we would finally get service.

dustybroe
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:06 am

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by dustybroe » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:24 pm

i Agree i think be, Matter of time before VTR takes over the Newport sub to farnham, one My neighbers works for Blue Seal Feeds in Richford she said she never seen Rail Service that bad up there before, and Kaytec said, the same thing, when Northern Vermont Railroad ran that line in late 90.s early 2000s the ran four trains day between newport vt to Farnham PQ,

Dick H
Posts: 3496
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by Dick H » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:53 am

I see little or no discussion of how much traffic there is from the VTR/WACR to the CMQ at Newport.
Surely, VTR needs this to be a two way street to make the line profitable. If the only increased
advantage of better service is serving the business at Richford, I don't see it being worth it for
the VTR to run and maintain the extra miles between Newport and Farnham.

It needs to be noted that the VTR owns only the Rutland to Whitehall line. The rest of their
trackage is all government owned. I am not sure the state of VT will want to buy or lease
the Farnham to Newport line. Also, operating this line raises the issue of operating in Canada,
customs issues with cargo and crews and Canadian locomotive regulations. All these items add
to the cost of operating this (at least currently) marginal line.

csx2039
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Vermont Activity and Sightings

Post by csx2039 » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:24 pm

Dick H wrote:I see little or no discussion of how much traffic there is from the VTR/WACR to the CMQ at Newport.
Surely, VTR needs this to be a two way street to make the line profitable. If the only increased
advantage of better service is serving the business at Richford, I don't see it being worth it for
the VTR to run and maintain the extra miles between Newport and Farnham.

It needs to be noted that the VTR owns only the Rutland to Whitehall line. The rest of their
trackage is all government owned. I am not sure the state of VT will want to buy or lease
the Farnham to Newport line. Also, operating this line raises the issue of operating in Canada,
customs issues with cargo and crews and Canadian locomotive regulations. All these items add
to the cost of operating this (at least currently) marginal line.
Vermont railways marketing team has been trying very hard to build traffic to and from cmq, unfortunately they are not getting a whole lot of cooperation from cmq at all... Cmq just doesn't care

BTW did vtr not put in a bid for the Newport sub originally with cmq?

Return to “Central Maine & Quebec Railway (formerly Montreal, Maine & Atlantic / Bangor & Aroostook)”