Defunct Cold Train is suing BNSF for it’s demise
Cold Train committed the cardinal business sin of putting all its eggs in one basket. Moreover they had no “Plan B” should BNSF fail to deliver as promised.
A couple of thought from a know-nothing:
I’d think that several layers of lawyers would have worked out all the what-ifs before anything was signed and before the first train moved.
I think they’d have a hard time convincing people that their business was worth $40 million more than what they had to sell it for.
The plaintiffs say that preferential treatment to oil shippers in the northern tier was the wrench in the system that messed up their 72 hour shipping time from Washington to the midwest. The article then mentions that only 10% of the traffic to the PNW is oil and gas. I think someone missed the biggger picture.
Was the “promise” in writing as part of a contract?
You’d have to believe that two big corporations that would enter into an agreement like this would have some very specific, written, ideas about who does what for how much.
I’m sure they did… but in writing or not, do you base the viability of your entire business on one other party’s commitment to perform? Sure there was a contract… that’s why all they have now is the option to sue… cold comfort. They may even win…which would then be the busness equivalent of being dead right.
I would think there would have been a contract, but I would just be guessing. That important point is missing from the article. So for all I know, it would be like asking Amtrak for reimbursement for your train ride being late. But if they did have a contract, I can’t imagine why it would be necessary to sue for non-performance. And if they have to sue, I can’t imagine them losing if they had a contract.
When the article says this, it certainly does not sound like the clear cut agreement of a contract:
“BNSF caused significant damages in an amount which is estimated to be over $40 million.”
BNSF provided Railway Age with the following response. “BNSF has not been served with the complaint, and cannot categorically comment on allegations we have yet to see. But any suggestion that BNSF would intentionally seek to cause harm to any customer runs completely contrary to how BNSF conducts business.”
Cold Train says BNSF gave priority to other trains (coal, oil etc) thereby causing its service to Cold Train to falter. BNSF probably has some counter argument to that; perhaps weather. And contracts usually contain small print and exclusions…
Stick the Reefer cars on the back of a Amtrak Empire Builder. I assume the 40 million is from purchase of equipment and terminals.[%-)]
I would suggest that to the list of ‘fails’ posted by Ulrich there bean item to include lawyers for the plaintiff ( Cold Train). Someone dropped the ball when the final contract was written. To my unschooled eye the glaring failure seemed to be that they (Cold Train) seemed to have no Plan ‘B’.
I cannot speak to the railroad side of this argument, but in the trucking side of things…One ALWAYS has a Plan ‘B’…Things might work perfectly 99% of the time, but that little 1% will reach out and make your life a ‘merry hell’, and create free flowing stomach acid for all sides.
I canniot imagine starting a multi-modal operation like ‘Cold Train’, and expect it to function flawlessly, going forward. It would be insane undertaking ( or destined for failure from the start?) Just my [2c]