crs1026
Superstar
. Yes, GO paid hundreds of millions to CN (and CP) for track over the years to the point that they now own 80%. However, from what I can tell, CN really didn't care that much if they owned these lines or not. I assume they didn't care if the status quo continued. Their goal shareholder value, not more passenger trains on their tracks. So I don't see how much leverage GO had in the discussions over CN. I don't see CN and GO as equals in this.
Totally agree, and I don't think the price paid to CN and CP was unreasonable. The alternative would have been some form of expropriation. I will give ML credit to be smart enough to offer an amount that is less than what a third party might have awarded the railways. The railways have an obligation to extract the best deal they can. There is no principle of "public interest" here - if the shareholders get less than they arguably deserve, they can sue. And fire their Board.
The other challenge is that this forum really doesn't have anyone (as far as I can tell) that can provide CN's perspective to confirm or support what I've written above. I don't mind playing the Devil's Advocate here, or at least trying to understand the considerations freight railways have when it comes to track decisions.
I don't pretend to know specifics, but we can speculate a little. The traffic conflict inherent in 2WAD level traffic, electrification, and encroachment on core freight routes all make the 'hole' discussions a larger 'ask'. As you noted, the railways simply have more negotiating leverage than ML, and their shareholders expect them to be aggressive. Time is on the railway's side. An old negotiating maxim goes, "he with the lead butt wins".
- Paul