http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0UR22S20160113 Seems a bit odd, after all their acquisitions, but....
Seems to me that says, 'Now that we're top dog we suddenly don't want there to be any changes to the situation at all.' Did I read it right...?
Yeah. Seems like that is what they are saying. None of these mega-mergers should ever have been allowed. Once they began, it was down hill all the way. But, they have been helpful to the trucking industry, trail fans, etc.
I'm thinking either it's a lock in the status quo kind of plea or, perhaps, they have a fear of being subsumed by someone (speculative for sure, but)
Many of these modern mergers should have never been allowed. And that goes far beyond the railroads. Teddy Roosevelt is probably spinning in his grave!
Mergers? What's left to say. Canadians wouldn't allow any American railroads into their territory however we've allowed some extensions of Canadian Rails as far south as Louisiana. Personally I'd like to see the Class 1's in America stay as they are. However, nobody's asked me what I think. Wait and see how this turns out.
Now that we basically have four railroads, what possibilities are left? We could go Canadian, with two coast-to-coast systems. Or we could wind up with a monopoly east of the Mississippi and another monopoly out west. Seems to me a nation as big as the U.S. can support four railroads. Also seems to me that each of the four is big enough that they can't plead 'too small to be efficient'.
We still have five "Class 1" companies in the USA: BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, UP. Plus, on paper as Class 1 are GT Corp and Soo Line, which still survive as the umbrella under which CN and CP operate in the USA. (A long time friend who started with the MILW, and retired less than two years ago, was still receiving a Soo Line paycheck to the end.) CN and CP are not actually Class 1, as that classification is USA only. Although if that title could be applied, they both quite clearly fit. The problem is that with Ben Heineman, the focus switched. Prior to his era, railroads acquired control of, or fully merged, to enhance their competitive stance against rivals. Afterward, that it changed to more nearly just elimination of enemies and vacuuming up asset dollars. From railroads operated as businesses by experienced railroaders, to 'managed assets' which are just money pumps for investors; run by people who can barely even tell you how to spot a railroad. Not good for jobs, tax base, shippers and.....
It was indeed tough. There were US companies barely into Canada. GN in British Columbia, NP in Manitoba. These days there are US operators, (mostly spinoff short line type scenarios), in Canada. But I wonder how operations and ability to succeed are, compared to regulated opportunity in the US.
Wow.. I thought railroad monopolies were not allowed a long time ago. What has happened to cause all these mergers? We BN bought up ATSF, I thought that would be the end of it. U.P. is probably trying to stop a BNSF coast to coast rail service. Not that it's happening, but it's plausible. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Boy...folks I know in BNSF have talked for years about a BNSF/NS merger. What caused the severing of the old GN line north from Wenatchee to Canada? Still goes to Oroville, used to go past Nighthawk and up into Canada. Was that traffic related or Canadian related?
