VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Their game (if you insist on them acting maliciously) could be to retaliate against something (though not sure what). I don’t think there are any negative consequences for them if the courts were to eventually decide in VIA‘s favour, but they would have caused havoc on them for multiple months.

Depending how damming the verdict is, VIA could potentially sue CN for damages, for expenses, lost revenue and damaged reputation. There could potentially also be a class action lawsuit against CN from the passengers for a needless loss of time.

 

[Urban Sky]

Depending how damming the verdict is, VIA could potentially sue CN for damages, for expenses, lost revenue and damaged reputation. There could potentially also be a class action lawsuit against CN from the passengers for a needless loss of time.

I believe that there are „no suing“ clauses which even prevented VIA from suing CN after such egregious negligence like when they killed scores of people in the Hinton derailment. However, they would work both ways, so CN couldn’t sue VIA after the Burlington derailment…

 

[crs1026]

It appears from what's available to us that CN's case lacks foundation. I wonder what their game is.

Ironically, it reeks of "Hey look, if you had your own rail line, you wouldn't have these problems". Which ultimately assists VIA in selling the HxR thing.

Or, more generously, "Hey, look, if this is a problem, by all means offer to pay for replacing our old plant"

If this were a one-of, I would attribute it to somebody at CN overreacting and erring on the side of extreme caution. But when one combines it with other measures - such as the new hot weather restrictions on jointed rail - one does wonder if the conspiracy theory has merit.

I doubt that anyone at CN thought that VIA would just give up and go away, but it sure sounds like a drip-drip-drip approach to making passenger trains inconvenient to operate. Knowing that no one in government is going to take the position that greater risk is acceptable. Sure reeks of a micro-aggressive, malicious-compliance attitude towards passenger trains. Much like the extra shove that hockey players give their opponents after the whistle has stopped play - not enough grounds for a penalty, but very much for effect.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Their game (if you insist on them acting maliciously) could be to retaliate against something (though not sure what). I don’t think there are any negative consequences for them if the courts were to eventually decide in VIA‘s favour, but they would have caused havoc on them for multiple months.

No mal intent implied; simply a turn-of-phrase. Alternatively, 'end goal', 'intent', raison d'etre'. Other than to create havoc, why start a fight you know you likely can't win? Understanding that it is likely VIA would legally retaliate, why spend money to defend it (assuming in-house counsel almost never handles litigation). Maybe they just assumed VIA would roll over and say 'oh well, this is our new reality'.

Depending how damming the verdict is, VIA could potentially sue CN for damages, for expenses, lost revenue and damaged reputation. There could potentially also be a class action lawsuit against CN from the passengers for a needless loss of time.

Perhaps, although the Crown and its agencies seldom do that. Class action by riders? Possibly; no doubt some ambulance chaser is trolling the Internet as we speak.

Or, more generously, "Hey, look, if this is a problem, by all means offer to pay for replacing our old plant"

Perhaps, but if the evidence is that the equipment meets regulatory minimum shunt standards, it doesn't seem like much of a case (again, based on information available to us).

 

[Allandale25]

Why VIA Rail will not make a full recovery in 2024

And why it might not happen in 2025 either….

johnnyrenton.substack.com

 

[micheal_can]

Their game (if you insist on them acting maliciously) could be to retaliate against something (though not sure what). I don’t think there are any negative consequences for them if the courts were to eventually decide in VIA‘s favour, but they would have caused havoc on them for multiple months.

We are ignoring the other main issue between Via and CN -that CN does not schedule trains such that Via stays on time. So, what this could be is finding a way to get rid of Via/forcing Via to use its own right of way. What may end up happening is a court order that forces CN to treat Via trains as trains that are over siding. In other words, all trains must yield to Via. This also may force CN to upgrade their signalling, and it may be at CN's expense.

If CN loses this court case, this could be a big win for passenger rail in Canada.