WASHINGTON — The Surface Transportation Board will hold a virtual public hearing next month on CSX Transportation’s proposed acquisition of New England regional Pan Am Railways.
The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 13 and will continue on Jan. 14 if necessary, the board said today.
The hearing is part of the board’s review of the CSX acquisition of Pan Am, which stretches from the Albany, N.Y., area to northern Maine. The hearing also will cover related transactions, including Genesee & Wyoming subsidiary Berkshire & Eastern being named the neutral operator of Pan Am Southern, the joint venture between Pan Am Railways and Norfolk Southern that includes Pan Am trackage west of Ayer, Mass.
Also a topic at the hearing: The trackage rights agreement NS reached with CSX that will divert NS intermodal and automotive traffic to CSX’s former Boston & Albany main line from the former B&M Hoosac Tunnel route.
The CSX-Pan Am deal has broad support from shippers and many political figures in New England. But Amtrak wants to ensure CSX will permit potential expansion of passenger service in the region, Canadian Pacific has concerns with the diversion of traffic from the Hoosac Tunnel route, and Vermont officials say the G&W-Pan Am Southern deal poses competitive concerns for Vermont Rail System and shippers in the Green Mountain State.
The board said it would release instructions for participation and viewing the hearing at a later date. Today’s announcement also said the CSX-Pan Am merger and related transactions do not require environmental or historic reviews.
Matthew Harrell says:
“Why hasn’t NS been more aggressive over the last 20 years in snapping up Pan Am and Florida East Coast to balance out market reach with CSX?”
FEC is a non-union operation. NS already has a JV on logistics with FEC on containers in and out of Miami. They don’t need to buy them out.
As for PanAm, they used to never have enough online business to warrant the attention, but when the Canadians made the come back move to get better access to east coast ports and to Irving Oil, things changed.
CSX wants PanAm becuase they see the Canadians encroaching on their business in the east. I don’t think they want them for any particular business purpose other than keep away. NS is too weak to get into the game.
FEC is actually a Union operation. Their employees are represented by the United Transportation Union.
I though FEC broke away from the rail unions back in the 60’s followed by bomb threats, damaged rail and years of legal entanglements.
The Hoosac Tunnel can’t accomodate Double Stack’s, because of clearance issues. The CSX Berkshire line can.
Thanks, Mr. Callahan.
The infrastructure overall is far better on the Berkshire line even taking the Hoosac out of the equation. It also gives the option of going straight into the Worcester intermodal yard or head north to the Ayer yard.
I wonder if it has occurred to anyone to make parts of New England the fourth venue for Conrail Shared assets — neutral between NS and CSX, to the benefit of both.
CSX is making a play for domination in the Northeast and NS appears to be willing to concede. The STB seems to recognize the dangers involved. I agree with you – expanding Conrail Shared Assets to include Pan Am and CSX’s B&A route would be the optimum solution for enhanced competition and customer service in the Northeast. Why hasn’t NS been more aggressive over the last 20 years in snapping up Pan Am and Florida East Coast to balance out market reach with CSX? NS seems to have lost their mojo. CSX on the other hand keeps using Hunter Harrison’s playbook of brutal cost-cutting paired with strategic acquisition of smaller railroads.
To expand on this topic, the agreement between CSX and NS is for one NS train pair, 22K and 23K. These trains have been dropping and adding respectively containers in the top position at Mechanicville Yard. I don’t know the destination(s)/origin(s) of the the containers handled at M’ville. From personal observations, tri-level autoracks are cleared to operate through Hoosac Tunnel. So a new connection was built where the old D&H Delanson-Albany passenger line once crossed the former New York Central line, Selkirk Yard-Hoffmans, at Vorheesville. And 22K/23K will operate over CSX’s Selkirk and Berkshire Subs Vorheesville-Worcester (Ayer) if CSX+Pan Am is approved. As far as I know, no capacity expansion on the largely single track Berkshire Sub is planned to accommodate these “detour” trains.
Can anyone inform me as to why NS wants to use trackage rights on the CSX Berkshire line rather than their own Hoosac line? Grades, tunnels, curvature, single vs. double track? Other issues? Thanks in advance,
Charles Mortensen