Northern Light
Superstar
I mean I agree but if the region is struggling to financially justify that extra service, longer trains is a fine stop gap.
I don't think 'struggling' is a fair characterization.
The issue as noted below is reopening/amending a contract.
On a straight-line basis, the region can certainly find funds for more service.
My understanding is that for the region to order more service they’d have to reopen the contract, and it’s very likely that the overall rate would rise significantly - for a major financial hit. Isn’t that why they were trying to rejig the off-peak schedules?
If that’s the case, ordering extra trains won’t solve the problem. I also don’t even know how much power exists to ask for double-length trains.
This is also my understanding; however, I fail to see why a contract amendment has to jack costs out of sight. The region has carrot and stick to get cooperation.
They can choose to offer a contract extension on a no-bid basis, with lower future pricing than would otherwise be the case in exchange for a bit more now..........
They can also choose to offer a small increase for existing service in the contract in exchange for more service; and why would any sensible provider leave extra $ on the table?
I'm sure the contractor would love a vast increase, but I suspect they will take any material increase over what they are contractually tied to....
Alternatively to the carrot, the Region can choose to expressly deny any future contract extension due to lack of cooperation and can be a stickler at enforcing contract terms in a very annoying and costly way.
If the region wants better service, and it should, then it can find some additional money and a beneficial path for the contractor at a cost the region can afford.
Last edited:




