William Ackman said he wanted changes at Canadian Pacific, specifically at top Management and the Board of Directors. Today the first changes were announced as two new men were appointed to the Board of Directors. Both are familiar to Trains readers;
First is Mr. Tony Ingram, most recently with CSX, and before that with Norfolk Southern.
The second is Mr. Ed Harris, he was serving as a Consultant to CP which ends with his appointment to the BOD, briefly before that he was Executive Vice President of Operations at CP, and has held the same position at CN.
CP Announcement of changes in BOD
Sounds like there will finally be a major reality check round the boardroom table. But their challenge will be to find and move fully competent people into the critical positions. I know they do already exist within the railway ranks, if not necessarily in the present circle of senior managers. Being right can be a career limiting move if it contradicts somebody's pet theories.
Railroads have often suffered from two solitudes. The operating department wants to just run trains and the demands of customers for good service get in the way of a simple operation. Meanwhile Marketing is busily making idealistic promises to get more business, without understanding whether those promises can be achieved. The two sides need to be balanced; the sweet spot will be different for each road and territory.
The two solitudes also exist in the relationship between union labor and management. Perhaps adversarial is too strong a word, but often mutual respect is lacking. But after several days digging out a freight because a distant manager insisted on using the power for it rather than the planned snowplow it is hard to retain respect. Or how about a manager who demanded the train crew had to set out only the single car with a warm bearing from a loaded CWR rail train. I understand after much argument the crew eventually complied with the demand, but of course it took many hours to fix the resulting mess.
With Mr. Ingram - Safety will become of paramount importance on CP.
I have no idea of CP's present culture - but with Tony Ingram on the board I am certain employee safety will become item #1. Important to the extent the supervisor heads will roll if they don't buy into the culture of safety.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
From what I've heard about Tony Ingram, I have great faith in what he can do to help CP. I don't think he'll try to do things that are detrimental to any part of the company.
Ed Harris, however...I have a distrust of anyone who was part of CN's culture of fear and incredible operational failngs in the past decade.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Being the majority of shareholders of CP stock are not Canadians, we up here in Canadaland are wondering just when the word "Canadian" will be removed from it's name, as we have all seen in the past with hundreds of "Canadian " companies, the minute the word Canada accompanies a brand name it is no longer in Canadian hands, how soon in the future will we see CANADIAN PACIFIC (CANADA) roaring by on trains of potash and coal, sooner than we think.
Somehow PACIFIC (CANADA) doesn't just sound right.
Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
coborn35 Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris.
And now Bill Ackman wants Canadian Pacific to hire E. Hunter Harrison as the CEO of Canadian Pacific. "Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your Seat Belts we are about to encounter some turbulence."
tatans Being the majority of shareholders of CP stock are not Canadians, we up here in Canadaland are wondering just when the word "Canadian" will be removed from it's name, as we have all seen in the past with hundreds of "Canadian " companies, the minute the word Canada accompanies a brand name it is no longer in Canadian hands, how soon in the future will we see CANADIAN PACIFIC (CANADA) roaring by on trains of potash and coal, sooner than we think. Somehow PACIFIC (CANADA) doesn't just sound right.
Tatans, noted:
"...Somehow PACIFIC (CANADA) doesn't just sound right.."
From time to time there has been mention of another marriage partner, Kansas City Southern and( de Mexico). Not to mention their line across Panama(?) .
Would they paint their locomotives in another modified 'Southern Belle' scheme (?) or could they advertise Vancouver ( or Toronto, or Harrisburg) to Lorenzo Cardenas(?). Interesting !
They could call it anything BUT "Nafta Rwy..."
beaulieu coborn35: Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris. And now Bill Ackman wants Canadian Pacific to hire E. Hunter Harrison as the CEO of Canadian Pacific. "Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your Seat Belts we are about to encounter some turbulence."
coborn35: Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris.
Not sure how it works at these large publicly traded companies, but if someone owns a 16% stake then how is it that they have so much say in it? If someone owned 16% of my own business they may as well own nothing...they could urge and suggest changes until the cows come home...it wouldn't matter. 51% ownership gives you control.
About E Hunter Harrison coming to CP, I'd wait to hear that from the man himself. He's 68 years old with a heart attack or two behind him. He is set for life financially and may not want the headaches...furthermore wouldn't there be some kind of non compete clause with CN?
Ulrich beaulieu: coborn35: Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris. And now Bill Ackman wants Canadian Pacific to hire E. Hunter Harrison as the CEO of Canadian Pacific. "Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your Seat Belts we are about to encounter some turbulence." Not sure how it works at these large publicly traded companies, but if someone owns a 16% stake then how is it that they have so much say in it? If someone owned 16% of my own business they may as well own nothing...they could urge and suggest changes until the cows come home...it wouldn't matter. 51% ownership gives you control. About E Hunter Harrison coming to CP, I'd wait to hear that from the man himself. He's 68 years old with a heart attack or two behind him. He is set for life financially and may not want the headaches...furthermore wouldn't there be some kind of non compete clause with CN?
beaulieu: coborn35: Oh dear God why would they bring back Ed Harris. And now Bill Ackman wants Canadian Pacific to hire E. Hunter Harrison as the CEO of Canadian Pacific. "Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your Seat Belts we are about to encounter some turbulence."
16% is the largest single stake in CP history I believe. Do you have any idea how much 51% would be?
Hunters non compete clause expires tommorow. I fear for the safety and health of all the CP employees in the coming years...
Ulrich Not sure how it works at these large publicly traded companies, but if someone owns a 16% stake then how is it that they have so much say in it? If someone owned 16% of my own business they may as well own nothing...they could urge and suggest changes until the cows come home...it wouldn't matter. 51% ownership gives you control. About E Hunter Harrison coming to CP, I'd wait to hear that from the man himself. He's 68 years old with a heart attack or two behind him. He is set for life financially and may not want the headaches...furthermore wouldn't there be some kind of non compete clause with CN?
Having 16% means you don't have to line up as many other shareholders to support you. In this case all he needs is to get a majority of the Directors to agree with him. Fred Green would likely have to recuse himself.
Winnipeg Free Press story
The Globe and Mail first broke the story. E. Hunter Harrison's non-compete agreement expires at midnight tomorrow night.
I was lying down before I read this story. Boy! This is a frightening thing to wake up to. Nightmares seem preferable.
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic is not quite the correct metaphor because nobody says the ship is going down, but I'm just not sure what any executive hotshot thinks they can change. The Calgary-Vancouver line is crucial to the functioning of the Canadian economy, and historically the key to success was to own enough other railway to pay for the mountain line.
Now, with this obsession with Operating Ratio's, you have to own a bunch more railway to drive the expense to revenue number down. I don't see how you can make enough changes across the rest of the system to really impact the Operating Ratio. Raising Net Income with improved techniques and technology can be done, but how big a change on O.R. will there be.
This KCS & KCS de M idea is interesting. You would be adding a railway that traverses a comparatively easier terrain, thereby adding to revenue without a corresponding increases in expenses. Although, I believe they are in a Capital Expansion mode themselves. Pursuing an idea like this, with this group, or another might be a viable way of knocking down that O.R.
Maybe though, this reporter was just killing time before knocking off for the New Years Eve holiday.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
AgentKid The Calgary-Vancouver line is crucial to the functioning of the Canadian economy, and historically the key to success was to own enough other railway to pay for the mountain line. Now, with this obsession with Operating Ratio's, you have to own a bunch more railway to drive the expense to revenue number down. I don't see how you can make enough changes across the rest of the system to really impact the Operating Ratio. Raising Net Income with improved techniques and technology can be done, but how big a change on O.R. will there be. Bruce
The Calgary-Vancouver line is crucial to the functioning of the Canadian economy, and historically the key to success was to own enough other railway to pay for the mountain line.
Bruce,
I accept your statement that the Calgary to Vancouver main is crucial to the Canadian economy, but I do not understand what you are saying about needing a bunch of other line to support this one. If your second statement is true, what you mean is either rates on traffic moving between Calgary and Vancouver are too low OR the operating cost of the CP route is substantially higher than the CN route between Edmonton and Vancouver.
I suspect that CP's costs are higher than CN's over their respective segments. A comparison of the profiles shows less redundant grade via CN. I know CP has cut westward ruling grades to 1%. I think CN's ruling grade may be less but I do not know, do you?
CP's grade is scattered over two mountain ranges, and IIRC two hills. That means trains must be powered for the 1% grade for some 300-400 miles on CP vs. far less via CN. The redundant grade means that a lot of locomotive hours and fuel are consumed lifting export traffic up and down the mountains.
Taking these "facts" as true for the sake of discussion, does CP have the ability to raise prices on the traffic at issue. If I were running CP I would look at grain, coal, potash, sulfur and any other high volume export traffic. Grain is impossible due to a Canadian Grain Rate regulatory system that is complex in the extreme. To the best of my knowledge CP is reasonably unregulated as to price. Coal rates could be raised, assuming they are not restrained by long term contracts. Given where the coal is, it is captive to CP. I do not know my geography well enough to know about potash, but suspect that it is at least source competitive with CN. As I recall, sulfur is a byproduct of sour gas wells and originates in Alberta not far east of the Rockies, so again we have at least source competition with CN.
At first glance under either regulated or competitive rates it looks like CP can never handle the export commodity traffic west of Calgary as cheaply as CN can west of Edmonton. If that is so, then CP can never have as low an operating ratio as CN on that traffic.
These line segments generate a hefty portion of each carriers revenue, so assuming equal Operating Ratios on the balance of the systems, CP will always have a higher OR than CN. The current discrepancy is so large however, that I strongly suspect that CP is not as tightly run as CN. If that is true, then the stockholders need a management team that will take unnecessary costs out of the CP.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNMIf that is true, then the stockholders need a management team that will take unnecessary costs out of the CP.
And there's the rub...EHH has a history of viewing maintenance and safety as 'unnecessary costs'. Of course, that's in addition to the culture of fear that persisted during his time at CN. I doubt you could find one person affiliated with CN who isn't simply a shareholder who could say one positive thing about him.
PNWRMNM the operating cost of the CP route is substantially higher than the CN route between Edmonton and Vancouver.
the operating cost of the CP route is substantially higher than the CN route between Edmonton and Vancouver.
That is correct. There are 3 passes involved. The Kicking Horse, Rogers Pass and Eagle Pass. And with new Coal and Potash contracts coming on line, you run into capacity constraints due to both simple tonnages involved, and climactic issues (winter).
Historically, CP has been incredibly lucky as the locations of their lines has always made them first choice as shipper for both metallurgical coal and potash. Both railroads have access to all of the big four commodities as they are known here; grain, coal, potash and sulphur. so there is rate competition.
EHH viewed Repairs to Load and Empty compensators as UNNEEDED on Bulkhead Flat cars also Dynamic Brakes were UNNEEDED ALSO. Then the Accident happened in BC werre the Entire Crew was Wiped out in a Saftey Cab Equipped GP-40-2 on a Grade. What Happened there a Broken adapter that said if the Car had a load on it was Broken well the car was Loaded. Then they were sent on a local on a train without Dynamic Brakes to get that car. The OPTPB were something like 3X the limit on a line with 25 MPH curves the Event recorder showed them leaving the tracks at 80 MPH. One crew Member survived and he did say We said someone would be killed thanks to EHH and his RULES ON SAFTEY. EHH said either run the train or I WILL FIND SOMEONE that will.
The Canaditon Saftey Board Placed the Blame Squarely On EHH and his Culture of FEAR where if someone spoke out against him they were afaird to LOSE their JOBS. An OTR side Equivalent would have to be the Idiot in Charge of my Second Company now where even with the FMCSA and State DOT AUDITING the Company he wanted me to RUN and Load to CHICAGO ILLEAGLY when I was OUT OF HOURS the Trailer was Tagged OOS with a Cracked Axle Hub. I refused and In Front of the FMCSA INSPECTOR HE SCREAMED I WILL BREAK YOUR$1***$2AND STRAVE YOU OUT. That Company Finally Just Got Rid of a UNSAT Saftey Score How he is NO LONGER Directly In Charge of the Drivers.
Here is an Example of what can Happen under EHH Leadership Do you want this kind of thinking on Rodgers and Kicking Horse where he Demands No DB trains.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/r06v0136/r06v0136.pdf
AgentKid PNWRMNM: the operating cost of the CP route is substantially higher than the CN route between Edmonton and Vancouver. That is correct. There are 3 passes involved. The Kicking Horse, Rogers Pass and Eagle Pass. And with new Coal and Potash contracts coming on line, you run into capacity constraints due to both simple tonnages involved, and climactic issues (winter). Historically, CP has been incredibly lucky as the locations of their lines has always made them first choice as shipper for both metallurgical coal and potash. Both railroads have access to all of the big four commodities as they are known here; grain, coal, potash and sulphur. so there is rate competition. Bruce
PNWRMNM: the operating cost of the CP route is substantially higher than the CN route between Edmonton and Vancouver.
That being true, and everything else being equal, then CP can never have as low an Operating Ratio as CN. With that established as a working hypotheses, the question that anyone agitating for change should ask is how much of the difference is due to the differences in operating cost of the respective Western main lines, how much to any other structural imballances that are or are not fixable, say dead weight branch lines, and how much to better/tighter operations and cost control on the CN?
I am not suggesting to know the answers, just provide a framework for thought. Whether or not the persons involved will analyse the situation this way I have not the least idea either. The bottom line question is "Is it reasonable to think than another management will do substantially better than the current one?"
Mac
This just in:
CP pushes back at Ackman over CEO
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2289656.html
More later.
Sounds like the question 'at this time' is Harrison's continued association with CN and a non-compete clause in his 'retirement'. Beware of hedge funds being the largest stockholder!
AgentKid This just in: CP pushes back at Ackman over CEO http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2289656.html More later. Bruce
There has been some interesting reading on some of the Canadian RR forums this last few days.
I've learned a few new things, but unfortunately no answers. The reality is sinking in that there is something seriously awry at the management level of the company. The continuing increase in O.R. can't continue to be explained by the company being the victim of outside circumstances, like the weather.
I still believe the problems originate within the confines of CP's head office in Calgary's Gulf Canada Square, but a very good case is being made that you can't run a railroad, without a railroad (infrastructure) There is a lot of revisionist history floating about, but if you consider the modern era of railroading started with the arrival of the SD40 in 1966(SD40 and SD40-2 still being EMD's best selling model type ever) mistakes have definitely been made. As the company got more of these units, more effort should have been made increasing the capacity of sidings, yards, and ROW to deal with the increased capability of the motive power. If operating capacity had been increased, fluidity may have increased, enabling to company to have been able to purchase fewer units in each subsequent order.
This has lead to the current situation where many commentators have said the only way to decrease O.R. is to increase revenue, as there is no room to cut infrastructure, and yet the infrastructure they have to work with is going to make increasing revenue exceedingly difficult. It seems as though the company has always been waiting for that next "one big thing" (a new commodity, a new tax break, or a new O/D pair) which will provide them with all the cash necessary to deal with everything on their to-do list. Meanwhile, it seems like they have let the railroad they have crumble around them.
I was distressed to read that issues my Dad used to raise when he was dispatching from 1965 to 1985 have still never changed. You can't get many trains over the road if you can't get them there quickly. You need both a good ROW, and sidings of the right size, at the right locations, so the trains can pass each other.
In an earlier post I had mentioned that there is rate competition. That turned out to be another disappointment. When it comes to unit train size shipments, that still may be so. And CP has apparently been trying to follow a policy of; all unit trains, all the time. But at some point you have to deal with single-car loads. And it seems CP has been both pricing themselves right out of the game, and not providing value for the service they do offer. CN's big gains in this area seem to have a great deal to do with CP abandoning the field. Increasing revenue in the less than unit train size class is going to be very difficult.
All in all a very surprising last few days, and I'm really no longer sure what is coming next.
BRUCE: (wrote and commented):
"... still believe the problems originate within the confines of CP's head office in Calgary's Gulf Canada Square, but a very good case is being made that you can't run a railroad, without a railroad (infrastructure) There is a lot of revisionist history floating about, but if you consider the modern era of railroading started with the arrival of the SD40 in 1966(SD40 and SD40-2 still being EMD's best selling model type ever) mistakes have definitely been made. As the company got more of these units, more effort should have been made increasing the capacity of sidings, yards, and ROW to deal with the increased capability of the motive power. If operating capacity had been increased, fluidity may have increased, enabling to company to have been able to purchase fewer units in each subsequent order..."
It sure sound like what was evident on the ICRR back in the '70's to the 90's. To a certain extent it was sacrificing the railroad to save the Corporation and its other non- rail pieces(?).
Based on an earlier post of an article referencing the CPR apparently posturing for a fight with the Investor Group ( Wm. Ackman, et. al.) Seems like it is going to be another Children's Investment Fund (TCI) vs. CSX. all over again(?) Surely at the very least," a game of my lawyers can whip your lawyers."
Hunter Harrison would be parachuting into a pretty adversarial position within the Corporation. He would have to institute a blood bath in order to move out "obstructionists" (?) to install individuals who would be loyal to him and his plan. It would be a pretty ugly management situation, but necessary in order to change the apparent current company culture at CPR.
If you read Fred Frailey's recent piece on CP you will find, as near as I can tell, the hedge fund owns about 15% of the stock and there are 15 directors. All of the directors are outsiders, which means that Mr. Green has relatively little influence over them.
Ackerman of the hedged fund has evidently talked to Harrison about coming to CP. It looks like Ackerman put that story out, presumably as a shot across the bow of Green and the CP board.
As near as I can tell Ackerman has no seats on the board. Most big companies have board members stand for election about every three years, which would be an average of 5 seats per year at CP. Big company Boards routinely support reelection of those who wish to contine, and find "their" candidates to fill anticipated vacancies. Stockholders then vote to affirm the Board's slate.
If Ackerman really wants Harrison, he must either convince the board that is a good idea. Failing that he will have to mount a proxy fight in support of board candidates who will presumably do his bidding. To get the votes he will have to make a case to institutional shareholders, most of whom know relatively little about the goodness or badness of Ackerman's plans.
Harrison may know if he is interested, but we do not. At 68 years old, and having retired at the top of his game, does he really want to get back in? Why would he? The point is Harrison may be a shadow man that Ackerman has conjured up.
The point is, whatever will happen, we are just at the begining and it is far from certain much will happen. Remember the hedge fund affair with CSX which in the end turned out to be nothing.
Bring a BIG bag of popcorn!
Would also be interesting to know if Fred Green was grooming a successor. One reason I think CN has done so well over the years since its privatization is that the management team was able to take the long view in terms of who would be running the Company. Tellier groomed Hunter Harrison for the job..and Hunter groomed Claude Mongeau. Surely CP too must have some bright lights waiting in the wings who are ready to take on the top job. Would be interesting to learn more about those people.
Its amazing to see so many brainwashed people on this forum.
Mr. Ackman has replied to Mr. Cleghorn.
Well, one of them is lying or has a very bad memory... not good.
coborn35 Its amazing to see so many brainwashed people on this forum.
Why do you think some (most?) commentators on this forum are Brainwashed? Is it because they feel that changes are needed at CP? Or is it because you feel some people are championing Mr. Harrison as the saviour for CP? My own opinion is that what is most important is not who replaces Mr. Green, but rather that some one is needed who won't make excuses, he will chose a person for EVPO whom he has confidence in, and whom he knows has the knowledge and experience to operate the railroad. When he finds that person he must back them fully until that person proves that they cannot handle the job. Mr. Harris left the EVPO position saying that he did not have the full backing of Mr. Green. Here are my questions, where was Mr. Franczak when Mr. Green decided he needed to look outside the company for a EVPO, why did Mr. Winter get sidetracked to the Engineering & Mechanical side? Mr. Winter was positioned to be the next EVPO , when Mr. Foot retired, then Mr. Harris was hired for the position and he was sidetracked.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
beaulieu ......Mr. Harris left the EVPO position saying that he did not have the full backing of Mr. Green. Here are my questions, where was Mr. Franczak when Mr. Green decided he needed to look outside the company for a EVPO, why did Mr. Winter get sidetracked to the Engineering & Mechanical side? Mr. Winter was positioned to be the next EVPO , when Mr. Foot retired, then Mr. Harris was hired for the position and he was sidetracked.
......Mr. Harris left the EVPO position saying that he did not have the full backing of Mr. Green. Here are my questions, where was Mr. Franczak when Mr. Green decided he needed to look outside the company for a EVPO, why did Mr. Winter get sidetracked to the Engineering & Mechanical side? Mr. Winter was positioned to be the next EVPO , when Mr. Foot retired, then Mr. Harris was hired for the position and he was sidetracked.
I think this goes to the heart of the problems at CP. The years of marketing at the helm have left similar types at the immediately lower levels. They may know marketing and power point presentations, but not necessarily the nitty gritty of running a railroad. In other words, a good succession plan does not exist because there isn't any obviously qualified body in the wings. I suspect that was also the situation when Fred Green took over from Ritchie. It may have been more a lack of better alternatives within the company than knowing he was the perfect person for the job. And that hasn't changed.
John
beaulieu Mr. Ackman has replied to Mr. Cleghorn.
From Mr. Cleghorn's letter:
[snip]"...Contrary to your statement in the letter that we "acknowledge" that we have no plan to improve Canadian Pacific's operating performance, we do have a plan, and we have made that plan clear both in our initial meeting and in subsequent communications with you. Our plan is to transform Canadian Pacific from the worst performing railroad in North America into one of the best by effectuating a cultural and operational transformation of Canadian Pacific which begins with a new leader.
Hunter has successfully implemented Precision Scheduled Railroading at Canadian National, which has continued to be the best performing North American railroad since his retirement. We believe there is tremendous untapped operating potential at Canadian Pacific, a company with irreplaceable assets and hardworking and highly talented employees. We and, we expect, the vast majority of the company's own employees, shareholders, analysts, and other stakeholders believe that Hunter can realize this potential if given the opportunity to instill a disciplined operating plan and performance-oriented culture with no excuses. We believe it is the senior-most leadership of the company that must be changed, namely Fred Green, in order for this potential to be unlocked..."[snip]
As happens with so many of these corporate battles they start by playing out their scenarios in the public press; a part posturing and part gamesmanship? This is going to be a drawn out affair for the struggle of the CPR and the value and assests it represents. An interesting watch? Anyone's guess.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.