The difficulty is not in getting the state of New Hampshire to desire rail service. The difficulty is getting them to pay their share for it.
Right now, New Hampshire enjoys the benefit of three Downeaster stations, all with substantial ridership. Yet they contribute *zero* to the operation of the Downeaster itself, leaving Maine and Massachusetts to pick up the tab for their share. Is this fair and equitable? I don't think so.
At least for MBTA Commuter Rail service which operates into Rhode Island, that state contributes to the cost of providing the service. Through what is known as the "Pilgrim Partnership", RIDOT financed the purchase of a number of MBTA locomotives and coaches so that there would be enough equipment to provide the service to Providence. There's also a layover facility under construction in Pawtucket to replace East Junction, and most recently, five of the latest order of Kawasaki bilevels are being financed by RIDOT to allow expansion of MBTA service to T. F. Green Airport.
Will New Hampshire contribute to the operating cost of commuter service to their state, or even sign up for a Pilgrim Partnership-style agreement, in order to get MBTA service? Or will they do like they have with the Downeaster and "Live Free Or Freeload"? That remains to be seen.
Of course, Lowell, Haverhill, and Newburyport are very close to a majority of the Boston-bound commute market in New Hampshire, too. I don't think the good folks in Concord are exactly rushing to the treasury to offer up money for something that most of the people who want it can get for the cost of driving a few extra minutes into Massachusetts.