Should the Government Breakup Union Pacific?

[Anonymous]

A much as i don't like U.P. I "DO" understand that we do need U.P......alot. no the gov,t should,t break up the UNION PACIFIC..........as for tresspassing the RAILROADS "DO" have a right to arrest anyone ,that i do idmit ...any smart railfan should no this.I have never been bothered by the r.r. or the cops.mrlove.

[Anonymous]

I worked for SP. UP was always our enemy. However, I have to admit that perhaps they were the best managed if not the more romantic of the two railroads. Unfortunately they gobbled up the SP after boasting for decades that they would some day. Maybe they know how to run a business better than most other railroads did. They still have to compete against all the truckers around the country. If they can hold their own in a society that demands next day delivery and do their part in keeping a strong economy, then I say let them be.

[dharmon]

Where's ole KPH been anyway?????? We've had plenty of controversy lately but no good old fashioned paraniod conspiracies........Did he need to get back home before Mars and Earth got too far apart again? [;)]

[espeefoamer]

Make UP spin off the SP/D&RGW,and C&NW.Split BNSF into Santa Fe & Burlington Northern.Split CSX into Chessie System & Seaboard System.NS should be left as it is as it is not too large to manage efficiently.

[StillGrande]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

Make UP spin off the SP/D&RGW,and C&NW.Split BNSF into Santa Fe & Burlington Northern.Split CSX into Chessie System & Seaboard System.NS should be left as it is as it is not too large to manage efficiently.

Then they can all duplicate the same work, drive the prices into the ground, and all fold up and rust away when they can't afford to compete with trucking. All the railroads selected the mergers as a way to survive and MAKE MONEY. If the mergee was strong enough, there wouldn't have been any desire to merge (or they would have been able to fight off a hostile merger). Get over it.

As far as UP enforcing their trademarks, get over it. In one of the recent TRAINS articles they mention that most of the rail corps license their trademarks for use and control who uses it. Some are more lax with tracking down every jo schmo who uses it. Try selling a coffee mug in stores with Norfolk Southern on it and see how long it is before their happy lawyers come calling.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

NO! There are no grounds for breaking up the Union Pacific!

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

didnt SP manage themselves into bankruptcy?

Not really. A lot of SP's problems came from the ill-fated SPSF merger. Santa Fe and SP went under a holding company (because they couldn't merge "yet") and then when the ICC said no -- make that NO -- SP was sold off, minus their non-RR assets. So yeah, it was a management problem, but the SP wasn't bankrupt. Just a dirty poor offspring of a failed merger.

...And then they dragged Rio Grande into it. [:(][banghead]

Corporate-entity-speaking, according to a message I got from another forum, the SP that UP merged with was actually the former Rio Grande corporation, and the UP assumed this corporation and dissolved the "old" UP when they merged with SP... [banghead][banghead]

I don't support any breakup of UP, even though I don't really like to see C&NW, SP, and Rio Grande disappear under gray and yellow... [:(]

[2c][2c],
-Mark Hintz
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[oltmannd]

Splitting a RR is a hard thing to do - much harder than putting two together. For some good evidence, look at how hard it was to split Conrail up. One of the hardest parts would be splitting the computer systems that run the RR. Not so much the dispatching systems, but the systems that route the traffic and record the movement of the cars.

UP is guilty of poor planning. They did not properly plan for enough crews to handle the train service plan they put in place to handle their traffic. This is a major blunder for which they are paying a heavy price. I'd guess that the basic problem is lack of communication and/or trust between marketing, crew managment, and service design and is indicative of a vertically integrated management structure - typical "old way" of managing a RR.

[Anonymous]

The bigger question is the lack of competitive rail access most shippers deal with these days due to the unfortunate megamergers of the 1990's. The STB under Linda Morgan was simply a hack agency run vicariously by the Class I giants, and the result was a major squashing of rail competition in the West and East. Only a narrow strip in the Midwest has more than two carriers to access. The UP/SP and BN/SF mergers should never have been allowed, at least not without some captive rail issues dealt with firstly.

So should UP, BNSF. et al, be broken up? Yes, if the breakup is VERTICAL. If the operating divisions are separated from the infrastructure divisions, then the problem of captive shippers is solved. Then UP and BNSF's operating companies can merge for all I care, because it would be relatively easy for a new operating company to provide competition for such a conglomerate. With such an AT&T style breakup, a shipper in Montana could access any of the Class I operators for rate quotes, be it NS, CSX, KCS, CP, CN, UP, or BNSF, or any combination thereof. If no Class I operators want to provide such competition, then that would open the door for a DM&E or MRL to step into the void.

That is the true essence of a capitalistic society. Leaving the quasi-monopolistic status quo as is will only lead to more shipper complaints and eventual government action, thence a sorry trip back in time to an era of re-regulation via the typical knee jerk government response.