TacSupport1 wrote:It seems like every time there is a major disruption in MNRR service, the Beacon line is brought into discussion on here. Would it be feasible to maintain the Beacon line for equipment moves only so that equipment can be transferred in case of emergency?
The Hudson-Harlem connection, were it even in service, is just too damn long with too many problematic grade crossings to work for an equipment shuttle. It would be so painfully slow and require so many stop-and-protects that it's probably easier and less labor-intensive to go Albany-Springfield-New Haven with an Amtrak escort than to make a trip down the Beacon. They didn't buy it to run that segment. They bought it as a rent-free place to string up fiber cable for back-end communications support. The semi-operable tracks were just gravy on top. They don't have a need for them, so it can either stay out-of-service, go rail-with-trail the whole way, or get landbanked.
Danbury-Harlem connection does have some emergency move utility. Unlike the Hudson, here there is no emergency bypass around the horn for the Harlem or Danbury for a blockage to the south. They can't get an escort from a reputable partner like Amtrak and CSX the the whole distance around on full 60-90 MPH passenger track like is available northbound on the Hudson. So having the Beacon/Maybrook emergency route proved its worth during the floods a few years back. They have very little annual budget to maintain it to barely operable status, but they have very good reason to keep it operable and to save up some annual appropriations for bridge repairs and whatnot. Maybe even splurge one day when they can on reinstating a leg of Put Jct. @ Southeast to trim the 3 extra miles to Dykemans and keep it a taut 10 miles between Southeast Yard and Danbury. It'll help even more if CDOT can buy out those clowns at Housatonic for the track they don't use west of Danbury to the state line so MNRR can dispatch its own moves for a change.
And, yes, if it weren't for Housy there'd probably be a *little* warmth towards the future idea of running excursion trains from Southeast to Danbury and the Berkshire Line via some scenic operator like DRM or Berkshire Scenic. Just as long as disreputable HRCC is long gone and it's somebody much less shady doing the asking. So, yes, for a variety of reasons that stretch is a long-term hold as an active railroad. Albeit one that shouldn't be mistaken as any sort of future revenue MNRR route or oft-used emergency route. Maybe if/when they sever it from Dykemans in favor of a Southeast junction they should just rename it the "Danbury Secondary" or something and let Dykemans-Beacon rust away OOS as the Beacon Line. After all, ever since thru freight ended they really are two separate lines of separate purposes. Only one of them is functionally a rail hold; the other is just a land hold.