https://www.producer.com/news/cns-abrupt-end-to-freight-forwarding-surprises-shippers/
Interesting timing. Profitable, but not profitable enough?
And of course we have the usual excellent customer service and notification that railroads are known for.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
It's not officially public yet, but Great Lakes Fleet crews have been informed they're for sale. Another quick move in the wake of their failure to acquire KCS and the subsequent attack by TCI.
I'd suspect this is related to the current issues involving ocean transportation as well as trying to defend against TCI.
About the only way to provide added value as a freight forwarder in ocean transport right now would be to charter a couple of container ships and lease a bunch of containers. One can imagine the howl from Chris Hohn at TCI were CN to spend money on something like that.
CW
Leo_Ames It's not officially public yet, but Great Lakes Fleet crews have been informed they're for sale. Another quick move in the wake of their failure to acquire KCS and the subsequent attack by TCI.
Saw this move coming. Hopefully American Steamship Company or Interlake take over the fleet.
Juniata Man is correct about CN Worldwide, and how the current supply chain situation helped to foster its demise. I always thought is was a great idea. CN is forward looking in many regards.
However... Short term notices of termination along with stranded bookings is a no no...
I would not be surprised if the Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company and the Bessemer & Lake Erie railroads are put up for sale. Without Great Lakes Fleet there is nothing really tying them together to the rest of the CN system. Why keep step 1 and step 3 in your supply chain but sell step 2? Sure it's profitable, but so is the freight forwarding company and look what's happening.
Michael Vomvolakis I would not be surprised if the Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company and the Bessemer & Lake Erie railroads are put up for sale. Without Great Lakes Fleet there is nothing really tying them together to the rest of the CN system. Why keep step 1 and step 3 in your supply chain but sell step 2? Sure it's profitable, but so is the freight forwarding company and look what's happening.
Paging Genesee & Wyoming. Your prescription is ready for pickup at the pharmacy.
What exactly is "freight forwarding" in this context? CN was acting as agent for the shipments (and made all the arrangements) for shipping by sea to overseas locations?
Still in training.
SD60MAC9500 Leo_Ames It's not officially public yet, but Great Lakes Fleet crews have been informed they're for sale. Another quick move in the wake of their failure to acquire KCS and the subsequent attack by TCI. Saw this move coming. Hopefully American Steamship Company or Interlake take over the fleet.
Backshop SD60MAC9500 Leo_Ames It's not officially public yet, but Great Lakes Fleet crews have been informed they're for sale. Another quick move in the wake of their failure to acquire KCS and the subsequent attack by TCI. Saw this move coming. Hopefully American Steamship Company or Interlake take over the fleet. With most of the Great Lakes Fleet being less than thousand footers, if American was to purchase them, they'd probably end up with Rand Logistics partners Grand River Nav or Lower Lakes Towing.
With most of the Great Lakes Fleet being less than thousand footers, if American was to purchase them, they'd probably end up with Rand Logistics partners Grand River Nav or Lower Lakes Towing.
I can see that. I think ASC though would keep the; Edwin H. Gott, Edgar B. Speer, Roger Blough, Presque Isle, and the Great Republic. With the others being dispersed to the other lines you mentioned.
The Great Republic would also probably be transfered as the other 2 companies already roster 5 of the 7 River Class boats.
PS-River Class is kind of the informal name for the 7 self unloaders in the 630ft range that were constructed in the 1970s. They were made to navigate the Cuyahoga and other smaller waterways when the thousand footers were the rage.
I'm not so sure about ASC being a potential suitor.
Rand Logistics, the owner of Lower Lakes Shipping, bought them just ~18 months ago. For instance of one big effect of the sale, all of ASC's "River Class" ships have been sailing under the Grand River Navigation banner throughout 2021 which is the US arm of Lower Lakes. Only the footers have been sailing under the ASC name this season.
Rand might see an opportunity to expand here, but might see this as a step too far and too soon and not want to potentially overextend themselves. Plus, the fleet has several limitations. A potential buyer will like the Munson and Great Republic, but many of the others have issues.
The Roger Blough isn't versatile for several reasons, was damaged by fire last winter, and her future doesn't look secure. The Anderson had a lot of steel work recently but still has her aging steam power plant. The Callaway needs a lot of steel renewal and still has her original steam plant. With emission standards set to become much stricter later this decade, potentially only the Munson will be able to avoid a repowering.
And the three footers in the fleet are facing major change in the steel industry around the Great Lakes and the rapid disappearance of coal (And the Speer's short shuttle boom limits her options as well with where she can unload). US Steel for instance is investing in mini-mills and wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Doesn't bode well for the future of plants like Gary Works. We're going to see some loss among the 13 1000' freighters on the Great Lakes by the time the decade is out, I'm sure.
The future is in smaller and more versatile hulls like Interlake's upcoming Mark W. Barker that will be finished and joining the fleet next season (The first new US flagged freighter on the Lakes since the Paul R. Tregurtha back in about 1983).
Leo_Ames I'm not so sure about ASC being a potential suitor. Rand Logistics, the owner of Lower Lakes Shipping, bought them just ~18 months ago. For instance of one big effect of the sale, all of ASC's "River Class" ships have been sailing under the Grand River Navigation banner throughout 2021 which is the US arm of Lower Lakes. Only the footers have been sailing under the ASC name this season. Rand might see an opportunity to expand here, but might see this as a step too far and too soon and not want to potentially overextend themselves. Plus, the fleet has several limitations. A potential buyer will like the Munson and Great Republic, but many of the others have issues. The Roger Blough isn't versatile for several reasons, was damaged by fire last winter, and her future doesn't look secure. The Anderson had a lot of steel work recently but still has her aging steam power plant. The Callaway needs a lot of steel renewal and still has her original steam plant. With emission standards set to become much stricter later this decade, potentially only the Munson will be able to avoid a repowering. And the three footers in the fleet are facing major change in the steel industry around the Great Lakes and the rapid disappearance of coal (And the Speer's short shuttle boom limits her options as well with where she can unload). US Steel for instance is investing in mini-mills and wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Doesn't bode well for the future of plants like Gary Works. We're going to see some loss among the 13 1000' freighters on the Great Lakes by the time the decade is out, I'm sure. The future is in smaller and more versatile hulls like Interlake's upcoming Mark W. Barker that will be finished and joining the fleet next season (The first new US flagged freighter on the Lakes since the Paul R. Tregurtha back in about 1983).
Thanks for the update Leo. I forgot all about Rand buying ASC from GATX. You're correct about the future of great lakes vessels. Spot on about the scrappings coming later in the decade. Some intergrated mills still have a future for certain items such as plate steel. Though you'e right about US Steels focus on Mini-mills going forward.
CN is of course at liberty to make whatever changes it needs to, but no notice to customers strikes me as a poor way to go about it. Customers should have received at least a couple of months notice so that they could make alternative arrangements. Even better, CN might have offered to help with the transition.. i.e. set their customers up with other vendors. Just to shut it down with almost no notice is not the way to go and will come back to bite them.
Ulrich CN is of course at liberty to make whatever changes it needs to, but no notice to customers strikes me as a poor way to go about it. Customers should have received at least a couple of months notice so that they could make alternative arrangements. Even better, CN might have offered to help with the transition.. i.e. set their customers up with other vendors. Just to shut it down with almost no notice is not the way to go and will come back to bite them.
Railroads exist to serve large shareholders. Customers are irrelevant.
SD70DudeRailroads exist to serve large shareholders. Customers are irrelevant.
That has become the mantra for all business.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Per this mornings news wire about CN's upcoming investor meeting in March of 22. Rumblings of selling off TransX is what I feared. Unfortunately this looks to be an option they'll exercise. TransX brought some good paying retail business to CN..
Hopefully they come to their senses before its too late..
Lithonia Operator What exactly is "freight forwarding" in this context? CN was acting as agent for the shipments (and made all the arrangements) for shipping by sea to overseas locations?
Yes LO. Not only that.. CN Worldwide purchased some 40' ISO boxes to increase capacity.
SD60MAC9500 Per this mornings news wire about CN's upcoming investor meeting in March of 22. Rumblings of selling off TransX is what I feared. Unfortunately this looks to be an option they'll exercise. TransX brought some good paying retail business to CN..
yes, it would be stupid to sell TransX.. Through the purchase of TransX they've effectively acquired direct access to thousands of shipper accounts, big and small. Sure their OR isn't 40%.. but.. they're profitable nonetheless (and that "competitive moat" is that much wider and deeper).
Ulrichyes, it would be stupid to sell TransX.. Through the purchase of TransX they've effectively acquired direct access to thousands of shipper accounts, big and small. Sure their OR isn't 40%.. but.. they're profitable nonetheless.
If there is a way to put more money in the investor's pockets, that's the way they'll go...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Ulrich yes, it would be stupid to sell TransX.. Through the purchase of TransX they've effectively acquired direct access to thousands of shipper accounts, big and small. Sure their OR isn't 40%.. but.. they're profitable nonetheless. If there is a way to put more money in the investor's pockets, that's the way they'll go...
Ulrich yes, it would be stupid to sell TransX.. Through the purchase of TransX they've effectively acquired direct access to thousands of shipper accounts, big and small. Sure their OR isn't 40%.. but.. they're profitable nonetheless.
Absolutely.. I'm all for that. I'm against anything that will diminish the value of the business and shareholder value. Likely that last move.. shutting down CN Worldwide with almost zero notice and stranding customers... will manifest itself negatively in the price of the stock.
UlrichAbsolutely.. I'm all for that. I'm against anything that will diminish the value of the business and shareholder value.
True that, except I was being sarcastic - sell off the operation and put the money in my pocket. Who cares about the customer or long-term return?
tree68 Ulrich Absolutely.. I'm all for that. I'm against anything that will diminish the value of the business and shareholder value. True that, except I was being sarcastic - sell off the operation and put the money in my pocket. Who cares about the customer or long-term return?
Ulrich Absolutely.. I'm all for that. I'm against anything that will diminish the value of the business and shareholder value.
Ultimately how well the shareholders does is tied directly to how well the customers are served. That may not often hold true in the short term, but it does over the long term as customers tend to move away from vendors who don't have their best interests at heart. In my opinion they're making too many big changes too quickly.. and that suggests that the company has perhaps lost its direction, and that not enough thought has been given to proposed changes.
Ulrich tree68 Ulrich Absolutely.. I'm all for that. I'm against anything that will diminish the value of the business and shareholder value. True that, except I was being sarcastic - sell off the operation and put the money in my pocket. Who cares about the customer or long-term return? Ultimately how well the shareholders does is tied directly to how well the customers are served. That may not often hold true in the short term, but it does over the long term as customers tend to move away from vendors who don't have their best interests at heart. In my opinion they're making too many big changes too quickly.. and that suggests that the company has perhaps lost its direction, and that not enough thought has been given to proposed changes.
TCI, exerting pressure for changes, doesn't really care for long term. I read somewhere that their criticism of current management is that it hasn't been as profitable as it could be for the last 5 years. Which seems to be about the time CN had to start spending money to undo what EHH had done, or not done, to start growing the buisiness again.
It seems all businesses are now viewed only in terms of stockholder or shareholder value. (Despite occasional PR talk to the contrary.) That a business provides or produces a vital product or service is at best secondary, if even considered at all. Primary concern is that a business is only a "cash cow" for investors, especially the largest investors, to be milked until it's virtually dry. Then grind it up into hamburger, wringing every last cent possible.
Jeff
CN fired back at TCI the other day:
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/cn-to-tci-weve-had-enough-of-your-chest-beating-empty-posturing-and-obvious-conflict-of-interest/
Not enough is being said about TCI's conflict of interest here, as they are also Canadian Pacific's largest shareholder.
I think this is more than just an activist shareholder trying to squeeze $$$ out of a company, Hohn is mad that CN made his other favourite toy overpay for its hot new accessory (KCS), and now he's throwing a tantrum.
SD70Dude CN fired back at TCI the other day: https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/cn-to-tci-weve-had-enough-of-your-chest-beating-empty-posturing-and-obvious-conflict-of-interest/ Not enough is being said about TCI's conflict of interest here, as they are also Canadian Pacific's largest shareholder. I think this is more than just an activist shareholder trying to squeeze $$$ out of a company, Hohn is mad that CN made his other favourite toy overpay for its hot new accessory (KCS), and now he's throwing a tantrum.
I don't think there's any conflict of interest as TCI's stake in either company is far less than 50%, and there's nothing unethical in owning shares in companies that compete on some business. Like them or not, TCI is an activist investor..most businesses would prefer shareholders who don't vote and who don't express an opinion, which is pretty much what most shareholders are. TCI was correct to expess reservations about CN's sudden interest in acquiring KCS, especially when it was clear to almost everyone from the get-go that the merger had zero chance of being approved.
kgbw49 Michael Vomvolakis I would not be surprised if the Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company and the Bessemer & Lake Erie railroads are put up for sale. Without Great Lakes Fleet there is nothing really tying them together to the rest of the CN system. Why keep step 1 and step 3 in your supply chain but sell step 2? Sure it's profitable, but so is the freight forwarding company and look what's happening. Paging Genesee & Wyoming. Your prescription is ready for pickup at the pharmacy.
Maybe if B&LE was still serving what ARMCO is called now, but that's been a B&P customer for years now. Is there any remaining online customer north of Butler? Northbound coal is dead and buried. The only real traffic left is southbound ore. Is that enough for G&W to want?
That said, I can't exactly figure out how you'd get ore to Braddock without North Braddock and thus B&LE. There's no connection from any B&P partner (W&LE or AVR) that can connect to the Union.
1.Armco is now called AK Steel.
2. I believe you mean North Bessemer, not Braddock.
Ulrich SD70Dude CN fired back at TCI the other day: https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/cn-to-tci-weve-had-enough-of-your-chest-beating-empty-posturing-and-obvious-conflict-of-interest/ Not enough is being said about TCI's conflict of interest here, as they are also Canadian Pacific's largest shareholder. I think this is more than just an activist shareholder trying to squeeze $$$ out of a company, Hohn is mad that CN made his other favourite toy overpay for its hot new accessory (KCS), and now he's throwing a tantrum. I don't think there's any conflict of interest as TCI's stake in either company is far less than 50%, and there's nothing unethical in owning shares in companies that compete on some business. Like them or not, TCI is an activist investor..most businesses would prefer shareholders who don't vote and who don't express an opinion, which is pretty much what most shareholders are. TCI was correct to expess reservations about CN's sudden interest in acquiring KCS, especially when it was clear to almost everyone from the get-go that the merger had zero chance of being approved.
Among other things, the combined CP-KCS system will provide single line service between western Canada and the Texas-southwest Louisiana region. It has the potential to take a lot of the chemical and oil traffic that CN currently has, but must hand off to KCS or another railway for final delivery.
CN realized, belatedly, that their arch rival had stolen a march on them, and took action. It is also worth noting that CN was not the only one to make an unsolicted offer for KCS around this time.
Was CN's offer too high? Yes, but the analysts say that CP's initial offer probably was too, and CN had to top it.
If TCI was so against CN's offer for KCS and CN management in general, why did they vote in favour of CN's current directors at the AGM, which as the article states was held one week AFTER CN's bid for KCS was announced? Why wait so long to complain?
Yet again I find myself surprised that you support activist shareholders while simultaneously criticizing the service cuts and other actions that are required to meet their demands.
I've always supported an independent KCS as this would maintain flexibility.. i.e. any of the other railroads could decide to partner with KCS on some business...other railroads could more readily make their own deals with an independent KCS. Where KCS is merged with another railroad that flexibility is diminished.. where before both CN and CP could partner with KCS on various lanes, that option goes away when KCS is nolonger independent. Let's say that the KCS-CP merger does go through.. how likely will it be that CPKC will partner with CN on anything? I would say much less so than before..
Apart from the above, I'm not in favor of the merger (either with CN or CP) as the money to purchase KCS could be put to better use to improving the current plant...double tracking out west.. more efficient terminals etc are real improvements.. a merger is alot of money for a name change and some minor operational efficiencies that could more easily be realized by simply working together more closely on selected business via marketing and operational agreements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.