Breaking...Canadian Pacific looking to buy Norfolk Southern

I don't know, but it bumped NS stock up by 10%.

 

Jeff C

I hope that Norfolk Southern doesn't let Canadian Pacific purchase them!!!.............rogerw.

 

Canadian Southern?

 

And, the new logo for the railroad:  change the monkey to a beaver, and change the dog to a horse .......

 

 

Interesting... two of my favorite railroads!

And after Norfolk-Southern did all of those nice heritage units. Should be interesting to see if the ICC stands in the way of this one like they did with SPSF back in the 1980's. I'm thinking they might given the size of Norfolk-Southern and potential Canadian ownership.

 

The article says that CSX and United Pacific stock also jumped with the news of the possible takeover.  For all of my life I have been calling it Union Pacific. Proven wrong again by the news media!  United Pacific... I saw it on the internet, it must be true?

 

Tom

Hasn't this been done before?

 

Seriously, I don't see this one actually happening. Though I have been wrong once or twice.

What is it with CP wanting to buy other roads??

Hasn't this merger been an on again/off again rumor for quite some time now? Maybe the share holders just needed the stock price increase for some extra Christmas money? Tis the season... 

Indeed.  This is not the first time I'm reading about it.  Sometimes when I've gone to Phillies games, a drive down Delaware Ave. (Columbus Blvd.) toward the ballpark will sometimes yield a look at CP units on the line along the waterfront.

 

While it wouldn't completely be impossible, I don't know how true it is.

ICC was abolished in 1995.  That's why the big mergers happened in 96-98.

 

All the articles say is CP is exploring a NS purchase.  They also explored a CSX purchase just a few months ago.  Truth is they are just exploring growth options.  Likelihood of a purchase or merger in this consolidated era of 7 Class 1 railroads is slim. 

Bloomberg is mentioning that right now it's in very early stages, with CP raising finances should it get to that point.

 

But right now, these are very early talks that may not go any further or reach a deal.

the canadians should stay in canada !!!!

These things scare me.  All through the years, nothing good seems to happen in these mega-mergers.  Management generally ends falling into the hands of lawyers and accountants, not in the hands of real railroad people.  Lines get cut back, service gets changed and lots of people get laid off.

 

Paul Fischer

If this is indeed true, I would be quite leery of Bill Ackman's (Pershing Square Capital) motives. LBO folks are quite good at making acquisitions, loading up the acquired company with debt, pocketing all the dough produced by selling the debt, then dumping the stock back on the market, so as to pick the pockets of the "sheeple". Oh, and dumping a lot of employees and "rationalizing" the business. And leaving a debt-laden company to limp on. But we shall see. Maybe Norfolk has enough capitalization to fight off a take-over attempt.

       And, steam program?  Seen Canadian Pacific 4-6-4 #2816 recently?

CP/NS merger is never going to happen.........................

 

Regards,

Swafford

 

Surface Transportation Board Issues New Rules Governing Major Railroad Mergers & Consolidations: https://stb.dot.gov/newsrels.n...050e630?OpenDocument

 

Surface Transportation Board (Board) Chairman Linda J. Morgan announced today that the Board has issued new rules for major railroad mergers and consolidations involving two or more "Class I" railroads (railroads with annual revenues of at least $250 million, as indexed for inflation).  The new rules substantially increase the burden on rail merger and consolidation applicants to demonstrate that a proposed transaction would be in the public interest.  The new rules require applicants to demonstrate that, among other things, a proposed transaction would enhance competition where necessary to offset negative effects of the transaction, such as competitive harm, and to address fully the impact of the transaction on service, including plans for service reliability.



Overall Approach.  The new rules reflect a significant change in the way the Board will apply the statutory public interest test to any major rail merger application.  The Board stated that, because of the small number of remaining Class I railroads, the fact that rail mergers are no longer needed to address excess capacity in the rail industry, and the transitional service problems that have accompanied recent rail mergers, future merger applicants will be required to bear a heavier burden to show that a major rail combination is consistent with the public interest.  This shift in policy, the Board noted, will place greater emphasis in the public interest assessment on enhancing competition, while ensuring a stable, balanced, and reliable rail transportation system in a way that accounts for smaller railroads, ports, and passenger and commuter services.



Enhancement of Competition.  The new rules reflect the Board's intent to offset, through the adoption of proposals made by merger applicants and as necessary through adoption of conditions for competitive enhancements, merger-related harms that cannot be directly or effectively mitigated.  The Board indicated that such competitive enhancements could include, but would not be limited to, reciprocal switching arrangements, trackage rights, and efforts to eliminate restrictions on interchanges by shortline railroads.  The Board also indicated that the quantity and quality of competitive enhancements that would be required relative to a particular transaction would depend upon a variety of factors, such as merger-related competitive harms for which feasible and effective remedies could not be devised, and the amount of public benefits that could be expected to flow from a particular transaction.



Benefit Assessment.  The new rules also reflect the Board's view that, because the realization of benefits in recent mergers has been delayed or frustrated by transitional service problems, future merger proposals should be met with a more skeptical, "show me" attitude towards claims of merger benefits and towards claims that transitional service problems will not occur.  The Board said that it will also consider the extent to which various claimed merger benefits can be achieved, short of merger,  through cooperative agreements among railroads.  The Board further indicated that, given the size of the transactions that may be proposed in the future, and, given the dangers involved should such transactions fail, the benefits claimed by future merger applicants will be very closely scrutinized.



Service Assurance Plans.  The Board's new rules require merger applicants to submit a Service Assurance Plan with their initial application and operating plan.  The Board stated that, given the importance of service to shippers and that implementation of any merger plan necessarily has an element of uncertainty, applicants' Service Assurance Plan for each major merger proposal must provide certain essential information, such as plans to deal with any potential adverse service effects during implementation and plans to accommodate such less-than-optimum operations.  The Board indicated that, in particular, a Service Assurance Plan must include information about proposed operational integration, training, information technology systems, customer service, freight and passenger operations coordination, yard and terminal operations management, service disruption contingency plans, how traffic-level changes or increases will be accommodated by the combined system, infrastructure improvement, labor issues, service benchmarking, and timetables for the completion of implementation activities, as appropriate.  The Board stated further that the Service Assurance Plan must provide for the establishment of problem resolution teams and describe specific procedures to be used towards problem resolution.



Downstream Effects.  The new rules reflect the Board's determination to "look down the road" to ascertain whether approving not just the immediate proposal that may be before the Board, but also others like it, would ultimately result in a rail industry structure that would continue to provide at least the existing level of competitive options for shippers.  The Board stated that merger applicants will not be required to present alternative benefit calculations based on specific alternative possible responses that could be filed by other railroads; yet, merger applicants will be required to initiate a commentary, to which other parties may respond, that would give the Board the information needed to rule on what would likely be the first step in an end-game situation in which only two or three competing transcontinental railroads would remain in North America.  The Board made clear that it is also prepared to use its power to apply conditions to a transaction to repair conditions previously imposed on rail mergers that might be substantially impaired by a new major rail merger.



Employee Concerns.  The Board indicated that it is extremely pleased with the privately negotiated "historic settlement agreement" on the issue of collective bargaining agreement (CBA) overrides recently signed by most of the Class I railroads and by unions representing most rail employees.  The Board stated that, to the extent there is still any live issue relative to CBA overrides, the new rules, which reaffirm that the Board supports negotiated agreements wherever possible, respects the sanctity of CBAs, and looks with disfavor on overrides, properly implement the Board's statutory mandate concerning overrides.



Transnational Issues.  The Board stated that, because future major transnational mergers are likely to raise novel jurisdictional, national interest, and public interest issues, it will be necessary to gather information about relevant facts, laws, and policies important to an accurate and comprehensive understanding of such merger applications.  The new rules therefore provide that, in addition to full-system competitive analyses and operating plans required of applicants with transnational operations, all applicants will be required to address any ownership restrictions (by law or corporate initiative) and any pertinent governmental restrictions or preferences.



Kansas City Southern.  The Board, with Chairman Morgan dissenting, granted a waiver to The Kansas City Southern Railway Company from the application of the new major rail merger rules.  Parties may attempt to show in a particular case that this waiver should not be allowed.



Oversight and Monitoring.  The new rules codify the Board's recent practice of formal oversight for a period of no fewer than 5 years following each merger.  With respect to operational monitoring, the Board noted that, because its monitoring of previous transactions has proven vital to identifying and correcting operating deficiencies during implementation, the new rules also provide for expanded post-approval monitoring of the implementation of mergers to help ensure that adequate service is provided during the crucial transitional period, and beyond.  The Board further indicated that, if substantial service disruptions occur as the result of a merger's implementation, the Board will consider alternative service arrangements.



The Board issued its new rules today in the case entitled Major Rail Consolidation Procedures, STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1).  Chairman Morgan issued a separate expression commenting and dissenting in part, and Vice Chairman Clyburn and Commissioner Burkes also issued separate expressions.  A printed copy of the decision is available for a fee by contacting D~-To-D~ Office Solutions, Room 405, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC  20006, telephone (202) 293-7776, or via http://Da_To_Da@Hotmail.com.    The decision also is available for viewing and downloading via the Board's website athttp://www.stb.dot.gov.



###

 

 

I'll believe it when Pigs fly.

Swafford - Thank you for the post. I will gladly take your word for it - all the legalize is too ghastly to read! Hope it will absolutely be blocked.

We now have about 3 "trunk " airlines, higher fares, and something like about one square foot to stuff your body into, in your "seating allocation" !!    As regards airline service, cattle heading to the rendering plant have a more enjoyable travel experience!

While the STB has rules in effect, I'm pretty sure the CP has more than one room full of attorneys that have already found almost every loophole in what was posted above.

 

There is a loophole in everything.

Interesting……………..There is no news from the Norfolk Southern Media Department, Public Relations Department, Executive Management Team or their Investor Relations Department about a CP/NS merger. The only news out there is from CP.    Interesting!

Here's a blurb from Bloomberg Business.

 

I wouldn't get all in a tizzy about it, it's early days...

 

...and there's nothing we can do about it either way.  CP and NS aren't going to seek approval from the OGR boards.

 

Rusty

Frank, most likely you would only get the same as what the CP statement said "We don't comment on rumors and speculation."  Or some version thereof.  (From my professional experience!)  

 

If they did merge, I would love to be there when the CP executive team walked into NS offices as in the Direct TV commercial...

 

 

 

 

"This is going to be fun....firing everyone!!"  

In my mind this is far less likely than the restoration of a Big Boy, when it comes to "never happen". So, this week they're trying the NS thing. A few months back they tried the CSX thing. When this one fails, which of the remaining four is next into the rumor mill?

 

• BNSF
• KCS
• UP
• CN

Betting starts now. I'll put my money on CN, as they might have a better chance with the new Canadian government. Then they could have a national railroad.

 

If this thing actually does progress past the "see if it will stick" stage, I would imagine shipper organizations will be lined up against it.  I also have to believe the "Surf" Board would take a dim view of it as well, not so much from the perspective of this particular merger but, the fact it would likely set off the Class 1 merger "end game".

The railroads are already anti-competitive enough.  Unless shippers were given economic access to any railroad they choose along with regulatory safeguards that would more or less ensure the "last men standing" actually do compete with each other; I don't see either shippers or regulators agreeing to more mergers.

Curt

 

No Doubt. Perhaps people should be looking at the why.  Of the 7 class 1 railroads in North America, only 1 does not have Gulf Port access.  I wonder which one that is?  

 

 

yuck,no ,make that double yuck....-Jim

CP just sold the southern half of the Delaware & Hudson to NS...this would bring the D&H back under one owner! (Maybe CP is missing the southern half already, and this is the only way they can get it back.)

CP has not invested enough into their existing railroad operations if they keep having derailments.

 

Andrew

Yes, poor CP. Late to the party and without a date.

Derailments are a fact of life in railroading. You are making an assumption that trackwork was at fault in Watertown, WI. It only takes one of a number of potential failures to cause a derailment. A bad wheel or bad axle is a more likely cause. I don't think CP is any more accident prone than any other railroad.

 

What about the BNSF derailment in Alma, WI on the same day? Do they not maintain their track either?

It's not like the other guys don't have derailments...

 

Rusty

It's a global world (is that a redundant statement?) and international borders mean something to only to politicians and populations. They are meaningless to corporations these days.

Wouldn't be the first time. Canadian National merged with Illinois Central Gulf in 1998 and is now a north-south North American railroad.

Hunter Harrison, the CEO of ICG became CN CEO, and is now CEO of CPR, and he's also from the USA, so no paranoia about Canadian invasions required.

P.S. If you see "Canadien National" and not "Canadian National", then you're looking at the French side of the boxcar,  and yes, there's a ton of ICG cars in Canada.

 

Railroads these days have become beholden to their shareholders. To me, this smells like a stock manipulation by CP. 

 

But if CP is serious, everyone needs to head for the hills.

Canadian Southern?????  I thought that was a whiskey????

 

Rick

CP is a penny pincher...if this happens say goodbye to the 611 and Heritage Fleet.   However I have also heard rumors that CSX is still on the table too.  Understanding all of these companies are financially strong (despite reduced coal, these companies are solid performers.)  I would vote on which networks fit better.   Maybe Bill Ackman just owns stock in CSX and NS and likes to have CP say they want to buy them so he can sell.  Of course that would be illegal.

A bit late for that.  CPR expanded its rail network in 1990, taking full control of the Soo Line in the U.S. Midwest – a company it had a majority interest in since the 1890s. The Soo Line had already absorbed the Milwaukee Road in 1985. Three years before, in 1982, the Soo Line bought the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern (MNS). In 1991, CPR bought the bankrupt Delaware and Hudson Railway (D&H) giving it access to ports in the U.S. Northeast. 

CPR's 14,000-mile network extends from the Port of Vancouver in the Canada's West to The Port of Montreal in Canada's East, and to the U.S. industrial centers of Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia, Washington, New York City and Buffalo. ​