My concerns are that VIA would:
a) No longer service K-W, a major market, impacting the financials for this route.
b) No longer maintain access to the route w/the greatest potential for ridership growth
c) GO has little experience or expertise offering the type of service that I think is necessary for 2hr + journeys.
d) That CN cannot spare the type of capacity VIA should want and need on the Dundas Sub.
This is the antithesis of how Amtrak is growing in the U.S. where it becomes the State-level provider of service for longer journeys; which is where I think VIA should be headed.
It's a bit of a dilemma. ML has access to the funding right now, VIA doesn't. So if one puts the mandate with VIA, one will have to wait for Ottawa to get moving..which could take a decade given the focus on HFR. Whereas if one hands the mandate to GO, one gets quicker action (in ML's characteristic hurry-to-wait way) but possibly a less attractive product.
To my mind, the worst part of the test is the possibility that it would enshrine a change-in-London regime. The KW market is not just Toronto-bound. There is far more opportunity to leverage the Kitchener-Stratford route as the through line to Windsor and Detroit than to try to get CN to open its Brantford main line for more passenger service. (I was told that VIA does have contractual right to additions slots on the main line that aren't used at the moment, but only one or two).
I'm less worried about the equipment angle. ML has shown its willingness to modify equipment to suit the weekend cycling ridership. I'm sure they would be just as willing to dedicate specific equipment, and modify it, to recognize the longer-ride needs.
While it's quite possible that London GO trains would utilise GO trainsets that otherwise lay over in Kitchener, it doesn't seem likely they would send 12-car land barges on these runs. To my mind, getting the Halton sub expansion in place would open the door to a heavy duty RER service east of Mount Pleasant, and shorter faster trains with better amenities handling the longer distance runs.
The spin from both levels of government is that VIA and ML are exploring how to work together. I find that very encouraging. There's no reason that they couldn't operate an interleaved schedule (very similar to how the Amtrak San Diego line is a mixture of Amtrak through trains and locally funded service) that offers extended and short turn runs. By working together, VIA and ML might be able to leverage whatever capacity CN has given them more effectively.
The big issue is track. An investment in the capacity and speed of the line is required, or none of this will happen.
- Paul
