Boston to Manchester by rail

They were talking about it on NHPR this morning.  They are spending taxpayer money on a "study".  They hope the study will be convincing enough to gain them federal funding.  Greenies love rail, they think it's low carbon.  They also love the money that rail projects soak up.  They estimated that 31,000 passengers a year would ride a Boston to Manchester train. 
   On an emotional level, I like it.  I'm a rail fan from way back, I have an HO model railroad in my guest room.  On an economic basis, it's craziness.  Right now, travelers from Boston to Manchester drive.  It's only 53 miles on I93.  Takes about an hour by my reckoning, and only 55 minutes by Google maps reckoning.  And there is bus service, takes about an hour 20 minutes and costs $18. 
   Rail would have to compete, in speed and cost to be worth the sizable money fixing up the track would cost.  The land is hilly and the existing track, all laid down in the 19th century, is curvy, which limits speed. Buying a brand new ultra straight right of way would cost maybe $10 million a mile, for 53 miles, or $530 million.  Which is probably out of the question.  Especially  for a mere 31,000 passengers.  Figure a fare of somewhat more than the bus, say $25.  That makes farebox revenue for a year $775000, and it takes 683 years to pay off  the bonds.  No can do.
   So the project has to run over existing right of way, of which there are plenty.  Much of it has been abandoned, or turned into bike trails, but some still works.  Bring the track and roadbed up to 19th century standards and the trains could surely do 60 mph, but probably not more than 100 mph.  Trains don't corner as well as cars.  So that makes the train trip somewhere between half an hour and a hour.  On the Boston end, it has to connect with the T, and it ought to have a station on 128.  Assume fixing up the track is a mere $1 million a mile, so we put $53 million into track work   At that rate the fares will pay off the bonds in a mere 68 years, assuming ALL the fare goes to baying off the bonds, with nothing for maintenance, keeping the culverts clear, buying diesel fuel, plowing the snow, paying the trainmen, buying rolling stock.  And assuming the bonds are zero interest.  At 5%,  a 68 year $53 million bond will require $147 million to pay off. 
   For the taxpayer, this isn't just a bad deal, it's a swindle.