Why didn't the MTA contract out operation of Metro-North?

I see that the MBTA contracted with Amtrak originally and then other operators to run MBTA commuter trains, and Metra, MARC and some others do as well.

Why didn't the MTA do the same when Metro-North was formed; why did the MTA decide to directly operate Metro-North trains?

Thanks.

Economies of scale.

Small systems tend to be cheaper to contact out, while large systems tend to be cheaper to operate in-house. The MBTA being a notable exception, is the largest commuter rail system contracted out, and there are frequently ideas floated to have the T operate it in-house.

For comparison:
-Metro-North: in-house
-LIRR: in-house
-NJT: in-house
-Metra: primarily in-house, a few lines contacted to UP, 1 to BNSF
-MBTA: contracted
-SEPTA: in-house
-Caltrain: contracted
-Metrolink: contracted
-MARC: contracted
-VRE: contracted
And pretty much all of the smaller, primarily one-line systems are contracted out.

If MNCR ceased to exist or MTA decided to contract service who would it be: CSX. CSX is the successor to Penn Central and has trackage rights on the Hudson, Harlem and New Haven lines. CSX also operated MARC service for many years as a "legacy" from the B&O.

Imagine M-7s, M-8s or P32s with the letters "CSX".

MTA would not be bound by those considerations. They could contract with Amtrak, Keolis, or Herzog, or just about anybody, but as pointed out above, the MN operation is big enough to justify keeping it in-house. I have a hard time imagining CSX getting interested in taking that on in any case.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:If MNCR ceased to exist or MTA decided to contract service who would it be:

Just like any other government operation it would have to go to the lowest bidder.

The Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 assumed that at least some commuter services might be picked up by a sub-division of Amtrak, perhaps called "Amtrak commuter".

But that never got off the ground as states like New York and New Jersey decided it would be better to assume direct control -- hence, Metro-North and NJ Rail (and SEPTA).

How did Amtrak handle its contracted operations in California for Coaster and LA Metrolink? Were they just folded in to regular West Coast Amtrak operations? (I believe the crews had the right to bid back and forth.)

truck6018 wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:If MNCR ceased to exist or MTA decided to contract service who would it be:

Just like any other government operation it would have to go to the lowest bidder.

Sometimes the RFB and quals are creatively written such that only a single bidder meet them.

Ken W2KB wrote: Sometimes the RFB and quals are creatively written such that only a single bidder meet them.

Agreed. The main point I was trying to make is it has to go out to bid.

SouthernRailway wrote:I see that the MBTA contracted with Amtrak originally and then other operators to run MBTA commuter trains, and Metra, MARC and some others do as well.

Why didn't the MTA do the same when Metro-North was formed; why did the MTA decide to directly operate Metro-North trains?

Thanks.

To be nit-picky, MN does use an outside entity to operate some of its trains under contract.
They pay NJ Transit to operate their West-of-Hudson service.

Ken W2KB wrote:Sometimes the RFB and quals are creatively written such that only a single bidder meet them.

Well said. I used to have customers ask me for a sample spec for all parties to bid to. You can bet I would write them to be slanted toward my firm, which is not that hard to do if you know your competitors. It's totally legal, too. A few tactics that worked - requirements to be in business >10 years is a great way to keep upstarts out, requirements to show prior projects that involve XYZ features, etc... In this way, you could say that the potential contract needs 10+ years experience running a commuter agency with the EMD 567 rolling stock to a city over 5m population. You just eliminated quite a few vendors...

I think the original question " why" is being replaced by " how"

I guess it was implied, but prior to 1983 MNRR was contracted out to Conrail, as were the operations of NJDoT and SEPTA. Because Conrail was still nationalized and losing money at the time the Republicans in the White House and Congress felt that the contract commuter services were in effect a subsidy to Democratic northeastern cities and their unionized labor forces. Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 forced Conrail out of the role of contract commuter rail operator and because this was before multi-national transport services companies existed the only option for the transportation agencies was to go with Amtrak or do it themselves and they chose to do it themselves.

Boston and Chicago never lost use of their "legacy" train operating companies so the original contractual relationships survived in those cities. More recent services were established in the era when such contracting was much more feasible for outside parties to participate in.

Boston has had it share of operators, first Boston and Maine, then Amtrak, then a consortium of Bombardier and Veolia? , now Keolis as a new operator again.

DutchRailnut wrote:Boston has had it share of operators, first Boston and Maine, then Amtrak, then a consortium of Bombardier and Veolia? , now Keolis as a new operator again.

Conrail - southside-only, 1976-77 (transitional after end of Penn Central ownership+subsidy era)
Boston & Maine / Guilford - northside-only 1976-77 (transitional from B&M ownership+subsidy era), systemwide 1977-1988
Amtrak - 1988-2004
MBCR (Veolia, Bombardier, Alternative Concepts partnership) - 2004-2014
Keolis - July 2014-


That brief Conrail bridge era was sort of akin to what the pre-MNRR setup was, although they took advantage of all the gov't sausage-making that created Conrail to dish off the MBTA district much faster than they were able to in Greater NYC. I don't think they even bid against B&M on the '77 contract for systemwide ops because they wanted out of that biz. Easier for them to quickly exit there only dealing with 1 state + a few bucks of Rhode Island subsidy for the Pawtucket and Providence stops than the sheer bureaucratic complexity of transitioning a half-and-half NY and CT system, or NJ/PA/DE and NJ/NYC crossover systems, to public control. They did retain control of the short Providence-Westerly commuter service (basically whittled down to just a lonely RDC on inconvenient schedule) outside the T district for a few years because it had no other caretaker to dish off to and the ICC didn't give them permission to discontinue so long as the state kept cutting the subsidy checks. But they'd sufficiently chased away the ridership with lousy service that they finally succeeded in '79 at killing it off when it wasn't worth RI's while to subsidize any longer during a recession.