Quote:
Originally Posted by nito
On the political front, there is already coordination when it comes to the Port Authority. The benefits from combining operations would be substantial for both states and their respective devolved authorities, through reduced operating costs and improved revenue generation prospects.
Another point is that rolling stock doesn’t have to be just discarded. Cascading of stock which isn’t life expired can be reallocated to another part of the network to allow for the deployment of new rolling stock or plug stock gaps. Cascading is common in the UK, for instance the class 319 trains that predated the class 700 on Thameslink weren’t scrapped, they were moved to improve service levels on routes into Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. There is even a proposal to convert some mothballed class 319’s into parcel trains.
|
Cascading has worked well in the past, but cities Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle are buying brand new rolling stock wholly owned by themselves, with no share of ownership for the National Trust. I wonder why? Maybe they are completely tired of the UK's past "Cascading" system used in the past.
They want bespoke trains built especially for their needs too.
NJT, MRA North, and LIRR want bespoke trains in the past, and will far into the future as well. Sorry, "Cascading" will not work here.
The Port Authority already runs PATH trains between NY and NJ. It's one line out of over 26 lines. And to add to all the other incompatibilities, it is bespoke and its trains can't run anywhere else. It is not the solution.