Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, Jeff Smith, FL9AC
DutchRailnut wrote:Keystones operate of catenary ( little secret: no gaps)
MN would run of third rail just like LIRR (little secret: big big gaps in third rail)
DutchRailnut wrote:LIRR does not run cab cars into NYP all their dual mode trains are double ended.
EuroStar wrote:The details will never be known for certain as in who and when took what decisions, but with the MTA persistently short on capital funds and the politicos in Albany not willing to shell out much, when something had to be cut, the one that had less political power and the lower prospective ridership got axed. it was not necessarily the more expensive option that got cut as I have been trying to point out. Politically this might even be the correct decision because even if the New Haven Line Access is delayed and over budget if it gains its projected ridership it will make the case for the Hudson Line access to be implemented too. Going the other way around and building the Hudson Line access first and hoping that it turns out to be an enormous success and then being able to justify the New Haven Line access is certainly riskier proposition.
njt/mnrrbuff wrote:Remember that the 1 train is slow.
jlichyen wrote:"Under the umbrella of a single agency" is a nice dream. But merge MNRR and LIRR? Isn't there too much resistance in each organization to ever cooperate? Realistically speaking, what would need to change in the bureaucracy to make that happen?
DutchRailnut wrote:not only in each railroad, but the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has denied permission to merge the two railroads.
In their opinion only reason for merge was to set up Unions against each other as there is no common territory or potential common territory.
Only thing MTA was allowed to merge was certain departments like purchasing, legal, engineering as cost saving measures.
rr503 wrote:The real lost opportunity w/ Hudson line access was through running. Yes, cab signals and 3rd rail contacts, I know, but those would be comparatively small changes, and would have allowed us to at least see how a, say, Croton-Ronkonkoma service would shake out ridership wise under the umbrella of a single agency.
EuroStar wrote:rr503 wrote:The real lost opportunity w/ Hudson line access was through running. Yes, cab signals and 3rd rail contacts, I know, but those would be comparatively small changes, and would have allowed us to at least see how a, say, Croton-Ronkonkoma service would shake out ridership wise under the umbrella of a single agency.
The benefit of through running is not in getting people from Croton to Ronkonkoma or elsewhere on Long Island. The benefit of through running if they went all the way in with electric service is sending those trains (or at least most of them) from the New Haven line up the Hudson. Not because anyone in Stamford wants to go to Croton via New York, but because you do not need to find yard space for them at Penn or one of its yards. While I have not seen service plans, I would guess that the New Haven Line trains are likely to turn at the platform.
Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest