Voting trust prior to assumed approval of merger with Cp.
Don't know anything about traffic.
That being said, I just noticed that KCS (trade symbol KSU) is no longer showing as being traded on my stock 'ticker'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
kgbw49Intereating take on the whole Canadian rail situation in the 12/23/21 Toronto Globe & Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-a-clear-and-present-danger-for-the-continued-efficiency-of-rail/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-a-clear-and-present-danger-for-the-continued-efficiency-of-rail/
TCI again. Playing both ends of the game.
Intereating take on the whole Canadian rail situation in the 12/23/21 Toronto Globe & Mail:
Closing is to happen Tuesday December 14th, 2021. After that CP will own KCS subject to a voting trust, pending a final STB decision on the merger, expected late next year.
Looks like both sets of shareholders have voted in favor of the merger.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_pacific/news/Canadian-Pacific-shareholders-vote-for-KCS-merger-plan--65402
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/kansas_city_southern/news/KCS-stockholders-vote-yes-on-CP-merger-plan--65416
Excellent idea, me ol' mucker!
kgbw49 I wonder if "Murdoch Mysteries" will become popular south of the Texas border?
I wonder if "Murdoch Mysteries" will become popular south of the Texas border?
Have to ask Crabtree!
I'll be watching closely to see what happens next.
Well today CP's shareholder's voted to merge their US subsidiaries with KCS. They also voted to change the name of the holding company to "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" contingent upon receiving final approval to dissolve the Voting Trust and take full control of KCS. The next step is for KCS shareholder's to vote on accepting CP's offer, which they will do on Friday December 10th, 2021.
BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty. The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories. What are the distinctions between Porvince and Territories? Is one disenfranchised in comparison to the other?
CSSHEGEWISCH kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty. The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories.
kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories.
What are the distinctions between Porvince and Territories? Is one disenfranchised in comparison to the other?
The three territories are not sovereign states.
kgbw49 een the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867. Prior to 1818, the United States claimed a significant part of what is now British Columbia, and the 49th parallel treated enacted in 1818 set the boundary as we know now. However, as we all know, boundaries changed a lot in the 1800s and even the early 1900s. There is nothing to say that the British Empire would not have sold the wild, untamed, and lightly settled Western Canada at some point to the United States as Russia did Alaska, particularly as it needed revenues to garrison its empire around the globe in the latter half of the 1800s and early 1900s. The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
een the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867.
Prior to 1818, the United States claimed a significant part of what is now British Columbia, and the 49th parallel treated enacted in 1818 set the boundary as we know now. However, as we all know, boundaries changed a lot in the 1800s and even the early 1900s. There is nothing to say that the British Empire would not have sold the wild, untamed, and lightly settled Western Canada at some point to the United States as Russia did Alaska, particularly as it needed revenues to garrison its empire around the globe in the latter half of the 1800s and early 1900s.
Well there is 54-40 or fight!! Can it be revived ?
Fifty-four Forty or Fight—The U.S./Canada Boundary (thoughtco.com)
And you would be correct! Brain-lock on my part. I know better. Apologies to any Canadian friends out there!
Earlier I suggested Canada America Mexico, CAM. (Nouns, not adjectives.) But I think I might like your version better.
Still in training.
Lithonia Operator kgbw49 Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history. I think that's a real possibility. I'd prefer a name that incorporates Canda, US and Mexico. But I'd prefer Canadian Pacific to CPKC.
kgbw49 Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history.
Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history.
I think that's a real possibility. I'd prefer a name that incorporates Canda, US and Mexico. But I'd prefer Canadian Pacific to CPKC.
Could very well end up - CAM - Canadian American Mexican.
Had CP not been built so close to the 49th parallel between the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867.
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador in the east would probably have still joined Canada, but at the time there was a lot of consideration as to whether everything west of Ontario north of the 49th parallel to the Alaska Territory border (purchased from Russia in 1867) might in fact become part of the United States instead.
CMStPnPI have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.
CP has leased space in Canadian Pacific Plaza in downtown Minneapolis as the current US headquarters. I don't know for sure if dispatchers are still there. But I seem to recall they were. It used to be Soo Line Plaza but CP sold it for $68.8 million in 2015.
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/real_estate/2015/11/artis-reit-buys-canadian-pacific-plaza-minneapolis.html
Downtown Minneapolis is a shell of what it used to be, with significant vacancy rates and many companies relocating out. Perhaps CP will vacate downtown Minneapolis completely.
St. Paul yard is the only hump yard left on the CP system and has a large diesel shop, so operationally it should remain a key point on the CP system. They still have a turntable and a portion of the roundhouse in operation.
44.9403282, -93.0468588
Kansas City is probably no more than a 3-hour Gulfstream flight from almost any point on the proposed system. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out as to the official headquarters in Calgary and the de facto headquarters where the CEO resides.
I seem to recall stories printed about EHH running CP from his ranch in Florida.
I have the full merger application and it states that Kansas City will be US headquarters and that a small number of employees will be moved there. The rest will have to find other positions at Minneapolis or find other employment.
jeffhergertI received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper. Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations. Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.) Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN * = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages. One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W. Jeff
For those that do not know d.b.a means "Doing Business As". It is a Corporate term that is used by Secretary of States that a business operates in to change the spoken name of the company but not the contractual name. So agreements and contracts all have to use d.b.a terminology until the name is officially changed via the various State paperwork.....via Secretary of State offices in which the firm does business in.
Officially the definition is in the link below:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/doing-business-as-dba
Without the d.b.a. a company could claim they never had a valid contract with a contract claimant as the name on the contract is not the name the company is registered under. That is the legal basis for using it. Though I am not sure any company in the past attempted to manipulate the law in such a way.
I received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper.
Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations.
Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.)
Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN
* = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages.
One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W.
Jeff
Agree with CMStPnP. The name Canadian Pacific carries the same prestige, weight, and historical connotation in Canada as Union Pacific does in the US. Ultimately the railroad will be Canadian Pacific.
And Canadian Pacific is just fine. After all, the lines from the original 1867 confederation provinces to the west and the south both end at the Pacific Ocean.
CMStPnPI just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
KC will just be the HQ of the US operations. I'm sure they will answer to Calgary.
AjsikHmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9. This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub. Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism? Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?
Yeah. Chicago to Twin Cities via former Milwaukee Road is shorter and faster than Twin Cities to Bensenville via Marquette sub. So it stands to reason they will use Twin Cities to Bensenville for traffic headed East of Twin Cities. Specifically intermodal trains......and that traffic is increasing currently for CP.
Specifically CP is targeting Ohio Valley, Columbus, Dayton, etc. They are also attempting to expand their intermodal offerings to include acquiring refrigerated containers for hauling perishables.
Also, I think you will find that not all the Oil trains are going to be bound for the Gulf Coast, some are headed East. There are refineries on the East Coast. Last but not least, stay tuned on rail haulage of LNG. Still being debated with AAR pushing for it.
I just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
On another page it says the initial name will be CPKC after the merger, it also states that CP will be the Parent company and KCS a wholly owned subsidiary of CP. So that to me says the CPKC name is not a permanent one and will be along the lines of Lake States Transportation, IMHO. Time will tell I guess but I have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.