ramrod [Snip] CP has called off it's merger attempt with CSX. Talked to my broker this afternoon about the proposed CP & CSX merger and was told the same thing. Their Wall Street office was less than enthusiastic about the proposal and welcomed today's news. They had no facts why CP bailed, only speculation.
[Snip] CP has called off it's merger attempt with CSX. Talked to my broker this afternoon about the proposed CP & CSX merger and was told the same thing. Their Wall Street office was less than enthusiastic about the proposal and welcomed today's news. They had no facts why CP bailed, only speculation.
According to today's Vancouver Sun business page, Harrison states he was pursuing discussion with CSX about 'potentiol merger' (sounds like equivocation to me) but discovered after three or four meetings that CSX was not of the same view (they saw the world differently was how he put it). The article went on further to state that Harrison remains convinced that such mergers will come in time as 'they only make sense'. He also said he believed that customers (and their rates) wouldn't be affected by such changes
IMHO he may well be a victim of his own hubris and 'spin'.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
I just saw a headline, didn't follow the link to read the story, on a daily e-mail rail news update (I get a couple from Railway Age and one from the AAR) that said CP has called off it's merger attempt with CSX.
Jeff
Paul_D_North_Jr Might run afoul of the STB rules requiring its approval of ownership over a certain percentage of more than 1 railroad. See, for example: 49 CFR PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD LINES, at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5b357abf281ff51866233513be60d0aa&node=pt49.8.1150&rgn=div5 and: 49 CFR PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5b357abf281ff51866233513be60d0aa&node=pt49.8.1180&rgn=div5#sp49.8.1180.a - Paul North.
Might run afoul of the STB rules requiring its approval of ownership over a certain percentage of more than 1 railroad. See, for example:
49 CFR PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD LINES, at:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5b357abf281ff51866233513be60d0aa&node=pt49.8.1150&rgn=div5
and: 49 CFR PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES at:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5b357abf281ff51866233513be60d0aa&node=pt49.8.1180&rgn=div5#sp49.8.1180.a
- Paul North.
Even Warren Buffett and the Mighty Berkshire Hathaway empire ran afoul of the STB when they bought BNSF. Turns out two of B-Hs subsidiaries owned shortlines that their corporate legal folks weren't even aware of:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/stb-to-berkshire-hathaway-divest-two-railroads.html
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Wasn't there a post a while back that contained a long list of projects CP needed to do to have a fluid RR with their existing business? Why go thru a merger/hostile takeover/whatever while trying to cure problems like that? Or, is the Chicago mess the biggest single problem on CP's plate right now?
See also the articles and links in this thread about the STB asking the railroads to provide their plans to handle the fall traffic rush and possible winter slowdowns - and the insufficient CP response, and the STB's follow-up questions. It speaks for itself - if Harrison had any credibility left with the STB after some aspects of the EJ&E-CN merger fiasco, I think that's just been evaporated by CP's non-responsive (evasive) reply.
(EDITED 6:10 PM 18 Oct. 2014 to add the link): "RR responses to STB letters Not sufficient"
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/239031.aspx
- PDN.
We need a 3rd transcon not a new merger bring back the Erie-Laccawanna
MP 173. First an admission. I have a gut feeling that Mr. Ackerman has drunk deeply of the Hunter Harrison Kool-Aid and wishes to add a second (this time US) railroad to the Pershing Square portfolio.
That is why, without knowing what is really going on, I believe that throwing the slimey "merger" word out on the table, is just the first salvo of a possible hostle takeover of CSX. A Childrens Fund 2.0, but this time CSX would be dealing with an advisary that is much more estute about North American railroads and politics.
You wanted to know why I suggested transferring all US holdings to the US company and all Canadian holdings to the Canadian company. The reason is political and not financial.
National elections are on the way in both countries. The last thing Mr. A and Mr. H would want is an uproar about a major company being "stolen" across the border.
Imagine if Pershing Square attempted to take over CSX, what could they offer stockholders?
If they could say that the Soo, the D & H (all or part) and control of the IHB would pass to CSX, that might get them a few votes.
Then they could talk about the synergies.
Combining Blue Island and Bedford Park, run one eastbound and one westbound with the larger Blue Island also handling local traffic.
Combine the IHB and B&OCT into one co-ordinated operation, one that could move trains through the city more quickly by reducing the number of yards and stops a train has to make, both for their own trains and any IHB customers.
Increasing the velocity through Chicago is worth millions. Create your own CREATE.
Finally, an overseeing holding company would allow both companies to remain in their respective countries with their respective laws and politicians and take the "merger" word out of play. If that holding company held the purse strings of both CP and CSX and could "advise" the boards of those companies on policy, co-ordination of service and joint marketing.....well, who cares what color the locomotives are painted?
Just some thoughts.
Terry
The merger of a Canadian RAILWAY Company with a United States Railroad Company could keep lawyers busy and off the unemployment line for years. If I recall Grand Trunk Western was the US subsidery of Canadian National. Some parts of the Penn Central Merger STILL have not been settled as in the land around the Niagara Falls Amtrak Station and yard which is controlled by American Underwriters which was left of Penn Central under a paper railroad version of Lehigh Valley.
Metra line could probably be moved to the south along Green Street. All I am saying is real estate is valuable around the airport...actually anywhere in the city.
WM...can you explain the flipping of assets? I dont understand why.
That would still be considerable debt to service. Nothing could go wrong in that scenario....nothing. No drop off in oil, no recession, nothing. Total revenues of the two companies would be $18B per year and $3B would service debt, if not more.
Ed
WM7471The ability to close Bensonville and move it’s work to the IHB and sell the property. To O’hare perhaps.
The Metra Milw west line goes on the north side and it is owned by Metra/RTA.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MP173... Don't think merger Ed. Think co-ordination.
A multinational transportation company set up by Pershing Square to aquire stock and run by EHH & KC.
All CP assets in the US transferred to CSX (Soo, ICE, remainder of D&H).
All CSX assets in Canada transferred to CP.
All nicely co-ordinated and marketed by the paper overlord.
Just a thought.
WM7471...I think you are on the right track. My thoughts are this is a play for financial gain (isnt all business that?) plus the opportunity for EHH to do something spectacular twice (get a route thru Chicago). Further he could transform CP into a strategic powerhouse with the sale of Bensenville Yard, which would fund a nice dividend to Pershing and provide funding for CTC and capacity increases on the Soo.
If the merger went thru, the amount of debt would probably approach $50B...I dont see that occuring.
Barrington is the NIMBY Illinois town I meant to name in my previous post (but couldn't remember its name then).
The more I think about this, the stupider it seems - or maybe Harrison knows better, and is just following orders from Ackman as part of a scheme to run up the CP price (compare Ackman and Herbalife).
The 2 articles in yesterday's (Tuesday, 14 Oct. 2014) Wall Street Journal echoed parts of what I posted above.
Imagine a hearing in front of the STB. First question: "Mr. Harrison, why are you and CSX spending even $1 on this scheme, when neither railroad is on track to fully meet the imminent 2015 deadline - in just 1 year from now - for implementing PTC as required by an Act of Congress and the FRA regulations ?" And it'll just go downhill from there . . .
WM7471 My question is this: Would a CSX + CP pairing also give the combined company control of BRC? How about CP+NS?
My question is this: Would a CSX + CP pairing also give the combined company control of BRC? How about CP+NS?
No, BNSF is the largest owner of the BRC, but all 6 Class I railroads have some ownership(KCS excepted). CP has the smallest share.
carnej1 BNSF attempted this some years ago (actually they wanted to buy CP and have the two railroads exist as seperate entities but under common ownership). That deal was nixed by regulators North of the Border. So the question is would the Canadian government feel differently if a Canadian railroad is buying a U.S one rather than the other way around?
BNSF attempted this some years ago (actually they wanted to buy CP and have the two railroads exist as seperate entities but under common ownership). That deal was nixed by regulators North of the Border.
So the question is would the Canadian government feel differently if a Canadian railroad is buying a U.S one rather than the other way around?
I didn't hear them complaining when CN bought the IC and EJ&E.
Norm
Agree with Mr. North -- a dream for lawyers, a nightmare for everybody else.
EHH doesn't remember the difficulties when CN - of which he was CEO at the time - bought just the EJ&E to get a route around Chicago about 10 years ago ? The epic environmental impact statement that the STB required (butterfly migrations) ? The grade crossing delay timing records scandal and penalties ? The NIMBY town in Illinois ?
And as the failed BNSF-CN merger showed us (pre-EHH), the STB is going to be really tough on these proposals - that one had an 18-month moratorium to start, which effectively killed it (per Rob Krebs/ BNSF and Paul Tellier/ CN). Remember there's a whole new set of STB rules for these large-scale mergers as a result of that. The shipper groups are going to sit still for this ?
So someone thinks it's a smart idea to go from 2 railroads - each with near-monopoly powers as a 'bottleneck' or sole-access carrier at one end of the move or the other, and commensurate opportunities to have larger revenues - on crude-by-rail (or other) moves, and reduce that to just 1 ? Sounds more like an advantage to the shippers to me.
And just how will putting a new sign up - name change only - fix the congestion problems ? What new track, route, or equipment would be added or revised that wouldn't happen anyhow ? What does this change for the better from an operational standpoint ?
Seems like a classic 1940's - 1980's dullard railroad management move - or a merger-and-acquisition banker's dream of large fees: "We don't know what else to do to solve our problems or improve the situation - so let's propose a merger !" Or another stock market manipulator's "pump-and-dump" scheme - maybe Ackman's fund isn't doing too well lately ? Studies have shown that the great majority of mergers/ acquisitions end unfavorably for the acquiring company . . .
Like those cultures are going to mesh real well ?!? CP's recent travails are well-known, and need not be repeated here. CSX is much better than it had been, so it would not be fair to make fun of it, but they've got their hands full for a while.
Where and how do I sign up to make a bunch of money betting against this ill-conceived fantasy ? (Compare ConRail split as first proposed.)
Or the start of the final countdown (mollified with trackage rights)?
I do not know what all the hub bub is about. The STB will NEVER allow the merger to of two Class I railroads as this will reduce competition.
CPSX, here we come.........
According to what I have read, CP owns 49% of IHB, and CSX and NS each own 25.5% each, so any deal between CP and either of the eastern roads will gain control of IHB.
Yes, I am aware that CSX supposedly said no....but the first shot rarely wins a war. Remember how the Conrail split went down.
EHH has been quoted more than once that he is a believer in the 2 railroad final merger solution.
If CSX says no, there is always NS, KCS, UP and maybe BNSF, although I doubt it. There is always time to stir the pot.
Perhaps this is a strategy by CP to extract IHB from CSX. Trade the D&H line from Binghamton to Albany area to NS for their share and then reach an agreement for the other portion from CSX and suddenly you have CREATEd your own route thru Chicago.
Of course a merger with CSX would allow a direct route for oil from Chicago to Albany, so either way CP would win. Now, the question is...does anyone in industry take this seriously?Ed
Earlier tonight I saw a blurb roll across the bottom of our local TV newscast. Looking on line I came across this.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/cp-rail-proposed-merger-with-rival-us-railroad/article21076568/
So maybe not, as it says CSX rebuffed the proposal. Maybe the beginnings of something interesting though.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.