Fundamental differences between MN and LIRR

In terms of the Genesis on LIRR, I remember a major factor in the decision was EMDs willingness to assemble the DM/DEs in NY State, which GE was not willing to do, given that it already had a plant in Erie.

I don't know about clearance issues - IIRC the MTA IG put out a report on this that was referenced in some earlier threads. It's a bit OT for the Metro-North board, but let's just say nobody came out looking good with the DM/DE acquisition.

You might want to try posting this question on the LIRR forum, I'm sure you'll get some heated responses!

Look at the clowns who were running the LIRR at the time. IIRC, Prendegast was from out west, and probbably never saw a single level EMU in operation in his life until he accidently looked out his office window one day.

Hell, the guy didn't even live on LI...

I was once told by a former MN employee the difference is that MN was created and run by railroad people and LIRR is an assembled state agency with little railroad experience in management.

today i beleive that both railroads are ran with too much poltics and not enough "real railroad" running.

i know MTA is 100% political, but the line needs to be drawn some where, and let the railroads do what they feel is right to do.

im at this point not too familier with MTA coorprate structure but from the looks of things and the way most people talk about them its not good.

MN was created from scratch when it was spun off from Conrail. Used to be the Metropolitan Region of Conrail-before that PC.

So, as a new outfit, it may have had more freedom in the creation of new labor agreements.

Anyone remember the "Commandant"-Joe Spreng ? He ran a very tight ship.

Compared to our M of E brothers on the LIRR, our facilities were kept in a much better state of repair. We had nothing that approached the decrepit nature of either the Dunton or Richmond Hill car shops. Never has to split M1 pairs up as they did on the LIRR when the time came for periodic inspections.

The state of CT built a brand new carshop east of NH-complete with overhead walkways so the bosses could keep an eye on things. All and all, I think labor relations on MN and its predecessors may have been a a bit better than on the LIRR.

I'm told the new Harmon shop complex is a bunch of much smaller buildings-probably so mgmt can keep a closer eye on the men.

The answer on the LIRR locos has been beaten about forever. The reason for EMD is the quick load pickup of the EMD engine. GE can't match that.
Remember that LIRR Transportation and M of E management recommended convential GP type locos modified to suit. However, top mgmt-aided and abetted by the inexperienced capital improvement dept-pushed for the space ships.

Why did the LIRR have trouble with the rebuilt FL-9 units, while Metro North kept their rebuilds in operation for many years?
Roger

I seem to remember that there was a labor dispute when M-N was first formed circa 1983. Not sure, but I think it was something like whether M-N would honor the contract agreements that the unions had with Conrail. I think crew sizes might have been one of the issues. Anyone here familiar with that period? Maybe Noel Weaver?

The LIRR Vs MNCR FL-9's is totaly other tread, so go start your own:-)
Yes when MNCR was created in 1983 a bitter strike that lasted over a month took place in early months

Sorry, Dutch. I thought it might have something to do with the relative operating ability or maintenance capacity of the two railroads. Not to say management decisions. I defer to your experience, and it's your dime.
Roger

Head-end View wrote:I seem to remember that there was a labor dispute when M-N was first formed circa 1983. Not sure, but I think it was something like whether M-N would honor the contract agreements that the unions had with Conrail. I think crew sizes might have been one of the issues. Anyone here familiar with that period? Maybe Noel Weaver?

The UTU pulled their people and went on strike early in 1983. It was
mostly over the size of the train crews on passenger trains and eventually
it was settled and pretty much the railroad got what they wanted. The
strike in my opinion was not necessary in the first place, the UTU had
given away the firemen's jobs on the diesel jobs even before Metro-North
so they were not really interested in the jobs, only in the dues that the
affected people would pay to the union, again, my opinion.
As for pay, we got a huge increase in pay under the Metro-North scheme
but the railroad in return got a lot of freedom in the set-up of crew runs,
work rules and a lot of other stuff. In my opinion, it was a fair trade off.
In fact, today, if Metro-North had stayed with the old Conrail agreements
and conditions, their labor costs would probably be less than what they
are at present. It was good politics to bash the unions and their workers
so they felt they needed their own agreements.
The UTU strike hurt the company, passengers and all of the employees
especially the UTU members in more ways than one.
Noel Weaver

"the LIRR still has a considerable amount of ABS territory where trains run under current of traffic rules and no cab signals nor speed control either."

Where?