SD70 that N contract sures sounds a monopoly action. No wonder RRs have such a bad name ?.
SD70 that CN contract sures sounds like a monopoly action. No wonder RRs have such a bad name ?.
blue streak 1SD70 that CN contract sures sounds like a monopoly action. No wonder RRs have such a bad name ?.
If the shipper signed that contract, we can presume they felt there was a benefit to them for doing so, despite the restrictions. Trucks should provide the competition to keep rates reasonable, though without knowing what they are shipping (or receiving), trucks may not necessarily be a practical or desirable alternative.
adkrr64 If the shipper signed that contract, we can presume they felt there was a benefit to them for doing so, despite the restrictions.
If the shipper signed that contract, we can presume they felt there was a benefit to them for doing so, despite the restrictions.
They are not next to a CP line, and even monopolized rail service is still cheaper than trucking in this case.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
beaulieu SD60MAC9500 CN must be scared? Hardly... Even if CP ends up with KCS. CN still has the superior network. CN-UP can offer faster more efficient interline service in the NAFTA Corridor than CP+KCS. Aside from that point. CN+KCS is a better fit in my opinion. Not to mention CN and KCS interchange a sizable chunk of IM traffic at Jackson, MS. However whether CP or CN get KCS. Both systems will have a major gap in their network. That gap is the CANAMEX Corridor running between the gateways of Nogales, AZ, EL Paso, TX, through Sweet Grass, MT, and Blaine, WA. BNSF has the best CANAMEX route between El Paso-Sweet Grass. If we ever get a rail line constructed between Las Vegas and Phoenix, UP between Nogales and Eastport can become a more direct transit routing. And to what Canadian railway company does UP at Eastport and BNSF at Sweetgrass connect to?
SD60MAC9500 CN must be scared? Hardly... Even if CP ends up with KCS. CN still has the superior network. CN-UP can offer faster more efficient interline service in the NAFTA Corridor than CP+KCS. Aside from that point. CN+KCS is a better fit in my opinion. Not to mention CN and KCS interchange a sizable chunk of IM traffic at Jackson, MS. However whether CP or CN get KCS. Both systems will have a major gap in their network. That gap is the CANAMEX Corridor running between the gateways of Nogales, AZ, EL Paso, TX, through Sweet Grass, MT, and Blaine, WA. BNSF has the best CANAMEX route between El Paso-Sweet Grass. If we ever get a rail line constructed between Las Vegas and Phoenix, UP between Nogales and Eastport can become a more direct transit routing.
CN must be scared? Hardly... Even if CP ends up with KCS. CN still has the superior network. CN-UP can offer faster more efficient interline service in the NAFTA Corridor than CP+KCS. Aside from that point. CN+KCS is a better fit in my opinion. Not to mention CN and KCS interchange a sizable chunk of IM traffic at Jackson, MS. However whether CP or CN get KCS. Both systems will have a major gap in their network. That gap is the CANAMEX Corridor running between the gateways of Nogales, AZ, EL Paso, TX, through Sweet Grass, MT, and Blaine, WA. BNSF has the best CANAMEX route between El Paso-Sweet Grass. If we ever get a rail line constructed between Las Vegas and Phoenix, UP between Nogales and Eastport can become a more direct transit routing.
What Mexican Railway connects with UP at Nogales, AZ and El Paso, TX? what Mexican Railway Company connects with BNSF at El Paso? Not KCSM.. The point stands whoever gets KCS will not have a CANAMEX Corridor...
Here is the Ferromex system map from their website.
https://www.ferromex.com.mx/ferromex-lo-mueve-eng/sistema-ferromex.jsp
Here is the BNSF system map from their website.
http://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/ship-with-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/bnsf-network-map.pdf
BNSF has their own track into both Winnipeg and Vancouver, so could claim some limited "Canamex" corridors with Ferromex interchange at El Paso.
But of course, in Canada the big ballgame is the corridor stretching from Windsor through Toronto to Montreal to Quebec City, and CPKC definitely would have the edge there.
If we ever get a rail line constructed between Las Vegas and Phoenix, UP between Nogales and Eastport can become a more direct transit routing.
Which is geologically, monetarily, and environmentally impossible.
Based on what is being publicized in Newswire and other trade press, it appears CP is the more concerned party. There is no guarantee of anything of course, with the STB, but the $50 per share, $4+ billion higher offer of CN is a big, big difference. Using a WWII naval metaphor CP showed up for the battle with a heavy cruiser and CN showed up with a battleship.
kgbw49Based on what is being publicized in Newswire and other trade press, it appears CP is the more concerned party. There is no guarantee of anything of course, with the STB, but the $50 per share, $4+ billion higher offer of CN is a big, big difference. Using a WWII naval metaphor CP showed up for the battle with a heavy cruiser and CN showed up with a battleship.
The STB will be the aircraft carrier with air wings that determine the winner.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Years ago I kicked myself for not buying Wisconsin Central sooner when it was still an independant, publicly traded company. I waited too long then the CNR stepped it to buy it and I was too late !
So I looked around and the only other takeover target I could see was KCS. So, I bought 100 shares of that. That was in the early 2000s, around 2001 or 2002, I think.
So, I was actually thinking that this would've happened much sooner that it has. But that's O.K. I bought my shares at $16. I think the CNR is now offering over $300. In the end, that's quite a run up, don't you think?
I'll add just this: KCS annual stockholder's meeting is May 20. Expect directed mailings and propaganda, leading up to what I expect to be reconsideration of the CP arrangement and, at some point, a proxy fight over the deal.
But speculation before then.
BaltACD, right on!!! :-D
SD70Dude And yet Teck still jumped at the first opportunity to route their coal trains off CP.
And yet Teck still jumped at the first opportunity to route their coal trains off CP.
Well, actually, what Teck jumped at was the opportunity to ship from different port facilities, one of which they own. Both of which are served by CN.
Greasemonkey SD70Dude And yet Teck still jumped at the first opportunity to route their coal trains off CP. Well, actually, what Teck jumped at was the opportunity to ship from different port facilities, one of which they own. Both of which are served by CN.
Still doesn't explain why the interchange point for coal trains was moved to Kamloops from Vancouver.
The two railways have interchanged whole trains in Vancouver for decades. No reason the coal trains couldn't be operated this way.
azrail If we ever get a rail line constructed between Las Vegas and Phoenix, UP between Nogales and Eastport can become a more direct transit routing. Which is geologically, monetarily, and environmentally impossible.
It's ONLY impossible simply because it happens to be a railroad. If it were a highway it would be a whole 'nother ball of wax. Plans are to build I-11 betweem Vegas and Phoenix. I think they've already built the bridge over the gorge on the Colorado River.
SD70Dude Still doesn't explain why the interchange point for coal trains was moved to Kamloops from Vancouver. The two railways have interchanged whole trains in Vancouver for decades. No reason the coal trains couldn't be operated this way.
Wouldn't make much sense to route trains to Vancouver to interchange when one of the ports is in Prince Rupert. Couple that with the fact that CN gave them a better price to move them from Kamloops to the coast, and most will be able to see why the switch occurred. It's about money, not getting away from CP.
Most of I-11 would be built over existing US 93 which has already sections of divided highway
Greasemonkey SD70Dude Still doesn't explain why the interchange point for coal trains was moved to Kamloops from Vancouver. The two railways have interchanged whole trains in Vancouver for decades. No reason the coal trains couldn't be operated this way. Wouldn't make much sense to route trains to Vancouver to interchange when one of the ports is in Prince Rupert. Couple that with the fact that CN gave them a better price to move them from Kamloops to the coast, and most will be able to see why the switch occurred. It's about money, not getting away from CP.
Teck has been sending some southeastern B.C. trains to Prince Rupert for at least several years, this change involving the Vancouver-bound trains is far more recent. Their Prince Rupert trains used to keep all 4 CP units for the whole run, now they usually run with CN power and only three units.
The port Teck owns (Neptune terminals) is in north Vancouver, not Prince Rupert.
Is anyone following up with Melinda Gates on how she feels about CN - KCS now that she is a significant shareholder in CN?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/05/07/melinda-gates-billionaire-after-stock-transfer-bill-gates/4986298001/
BaltACD Is anyone following up with Melinda Gates on how she feels about CN - KCS now that she is a significant shareholder in CN?
JPS1 she will have approximately 2 percent of CN’s outstanding shares. How much Melinda knows or cares about CN or railroads in general is problematic. My guess is not much!
she will have approximately 2 percent of CN’s outstanding shares.
Um, why? It's 2%. That's hardly an influential voting stake. Does it matter whether anyone owning 2% of a company really knows much about the company other than it makes money?
Another 75% or so (WAG) is probably owned by various trusts, funds, and individual investors that know as much or less as well...
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
cv_acr JPS1 she will have approximately 2 percent of CN’s outstanding shares. How much Melinda knows or cares about CN or railroads in general is problematic. My guess is not much! Um, why? It's 2%. That's hardly an influential voting stake. Does it matter whether anyone owning 2% of a company really knows much about the company other than it makes money? Another 75% or so (WAG) is probably owned by various trusts, funds, and individual investors that know as much or less as well...
In the world of vulture capitalism - 2% is not a inconsequental ownership position. With the right leverages and proxies that 2% stake can be worked to attain control. Very few individual stockholders of companies as large as CN have their holdings stated in whole percentage points.
BaltACDIn the world of vulture capitalism - 2% is not a inconsequental ownership position. With the right leverages and proxies that 2% stake can be worked to attain control. Very few individual stockholders of companies as large as CN have their holdings stated in whole percentage points.
Leaving out the words, "vulture capitalism", I agree.
It is important to know how someone who owns 2% of a company's stock feels about certain issues. That 2% may represent a huge voting swing on some decisions.
York1 John
York1 BaltACD In the world of vulture capitalism - 2% is not a inconsequental ownership position. With the right leverages and proxies that 2% stake can be worked to attain control. Very few individual stockholders of companies as large as CN have their holdings stated in whole percentage points. Leaving out the words, "vulture capitalism", I agree. It is important to know how someone who owns 2% of a company's stock feels about certain issues. That 2% may represent a huge voting swing on some decisions.
BaltACD In the world of vulture capitalism - 2% is not a inconsequental ownership position. With the right leverages and proxies that 2% stake can be worked to attain control. Very few individual stockholders of companies as large as CN have their holdings stated in whole percentage points.
When The Childrens Fund began their 'take over' attempt of CSX I believe they owned about 3% but with shmoozing and other leverage among the Institutional owners of stock they attained control until the bottom fell out of the financial markets in 2007-2008 and they had to liquidate their holdings in CSX and a number of other venture to cover their direct financial obligations.
TCF was a vulture looking for a 'free meal'.
cv_acr Um, why? It's 2%. That's hardly an influential voting stake. ....... Another 75% or so (WAG) is probably owned by various trusts, funds, and individual investors that know as much or less as well...
Even after the divorce settlement, Bill still owns far more CN shares than Melinda. In fact, he is CN's largest shareholder.
https://financialpost.com/news/melinda-gates-now-among-largest-cn-shareholders-after-marital-split-stock-transfer
Both are still minority shareholders.. can't do much more than jump up and down until you own 51%. TCI, to their credit, are activist..inspite of their 3% or whatever it is they're voicing legitimate concerns on behalf of all of us. That's not a bad thing..
Legally no one can own that much of CN.
Bill Ackman and Paul Hilal both managed to effectively take over their respective railways with a lower ownership stake than Gates has in CN.
UlrichTCI, to their credit, are activist..inspite of their 3% or whatever it is they're voicing legitimate concerns on behalf of all of us. That's not a bad thing..
It's too bad they didn't have concern for others when they scorched the earth in their past dealings.
What I find interesting is that CN shareholders will not have a vote on this acquisition/merger. Mr. Pace and Mr Ruest are spending $33 billion USD of the shareholder's equity and they won't have a say.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.