F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,926
- Reaction score
- 12,080
Amtrak definitely uses the fees as a big stick for turf warrage. Their fees NY-DC are particularly opaque because all of the NEC's power is single-sourced from Safe Harbor Dam in Pennsylvania, where 2 of the dam's 3 hydroelectric units are exclusively devoted to supplying the Amtrak 25 Hz traction network. Amtrak has a large amount of leverage to wield over tenants NJ Transit, SEPTA, and MARC because of that vertical integration, and wield it they do. MARC's partial dieselization of the Penn Line is a byproduct of that, though it's probably NJT that fights with them most openly being their heaviest-using electric tenant. The New Haven-Boston electrification has no special sources...it's all generic local-utility 115 kV single-phase lines feeding their substations, so effective rates are pretty easy to democratize from their wholesale sources. ConnDOT even put in for some upgrades to the Branford and New London substations to enable M8's on SLE, but that hasn't stopped Amtrak from jacking rates simply for touching their on-ROW infrastructure. And yes, it's totally retaliation for the constant warring between parties that goes on over all manner of ops issues in Metro-North territory. Amtrak definitely needs to grow up here, because their actions are causing direct harm to decarbonization in America. I wouldn't say ConnDOT are necessarily complete angels because they've done their fair share of turf warrage harm themselves over in MNRR territory, but for SLE they're absolutely right to be bullshit about what Amtrak is forcing on them for rates. Absolutely nothing about the infrastructure (not even the flimsy Safe Harbor-related sourcing excuses that prevail south-of-NYC) is causing them to need to be gouged like that. I don't even think Amtrak is looking for a specific concession here...it's just "pay up, or fuck right off for all we care" because they can.
It's no doubt one of the excuses plied, but really, the T is so up its own arse in avoidance of electrifying with any honesty that NEC electric rates probably wouldn't crack the Top 5 reasons they aren't doing it. Especially if the would-be Roxbury infill substation that powers the innermost NEC, terminal district, and Fairmount charging stations ends up being a wholly T-owned substation that shears them off of Amtrak rates everywhere they run outside of Hyde Park-Providence/Stoughton. The primary reason there's been no movement on Providence/Stoughton electrics is that the kooky BEMU trial for Fairmount is contractually booby-trapped to be an ultra-outsource job...Keolis-owned, not T-owned , captive to the Fairmount Line only and the Keolis/not-T -owned maintenance shed that's going to be built for only servicing the very few units of the Fairmount trial, and not free to roam to other lines unless a whole new complicated graft-on outsource contract were drawn up. They've done a superb job boxing themselves in so it's legally almost too difficult to expand electrification beyond the bounds of the limited Fairmount trial, because of the way the T has washed its hands of actually owning the BEMU's. There's actually some rumors starting to circulate online that they might be evaluating the facepalmingly stupid Siemens Charger battery loco (same 2x as expensive make that Metro-North is debasing itself with for Penn Station Access on the frigging New Haven Line) as a possible split-off option on their next diesel replacement order to cover their decarbonation asses for Providence/Stoughton. Not even multiple units on a line (Providence) where theirs and Amtrak's own internal math projects an 18% trip time reduction with EMU's...no, some $20M-a-pop unicorn battery loco hauling slovenly push-pull coaches on the same schedules forever.
