amm in ny wrote:Greg Moore wrote:On one hand, I'd like to say, "New York ultimately is in control" but the truth it, it seems the MNRR truly is the tail that wags the dog.
The question is: why would NY state even want to overrule MNRR? The MTA, and thus MNRR, are the people the state hires to do their railroad-running for them, and if their hired hands (who have a reputation for knowing what they're doing) don't think it's a good idea, why would they overrule them?
For the same reason a CEO or Board of Directors "overrules" the employees they hire to run their company. In this case, MNRR's goals may be different from the state's overall goals (for example increasing speed/frequency to Albany).
And quite honestly, MNRR and the MTA doesn't have the best reputation in the Capital. When I say MNRR (and MTA since you brought it up) is the tail that wags the dog, I meant it. Many of the local politicos would like a bit more oversight into both (especially the finances, witness the big bruhaha over the MTA request (I think 2 years old now?) to raise rates and the questions raised by the MTA books.)
amm in ny wrote:
Aside from fullfilling foamer fantasies, I haven't seen any advantage for Amtrak to switching to electric service on the Hudson. I suspect that when you factor in the cost of installing and maintaining catenary or 3rd rail, even just from Poughkeepsie to Albany, diesel is cheaper.
Yes, I'd love to see the Hudson line go electric. But before you ask the people of NY State (and the US government) to foot the rather substantial bill (very WAG: in the billions), you really need to give a better reason than "it would be so cool!"
Several reasons have been given (in this thread and elsewhere) but basically increased frequency (NY has talked about adding several more ALB-NYP trains to ensure hourly service), faster acceleration and diesel prices are going up, while NYS gets a lot of cheap hydro electric power.
It would also ultimately open up possibilities (much further down the road) of trains from ALB continuing past NYP w/o a platform change.
I do agree it would cost billions and the case isn't a strong one. Yet. (and as I noted, it's unlike Keystone Service which simply required fixing the infrastructure already in place. But Empire Service and Keystone service appear very similar in terms of frequency, distance (Empire is a bit further) and ridership.)
But I predict it'll come and the talk will get more serious as time goes on.
(to go back to something Dutch Railnut mentioned. Assuming the Hudson division ever went to catenary, I suspect MNRR could handle it the same way they handle GCT-New Haven.)
(PS, I'll note known of the animosity I'm aware of is towards the "line workers" at MNRR or MTA. It's directed towards the upper management).
Check out
QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
