CANADIAN NATIONAL ENTERS BIDDING WAR WITH CANADIAN PACIFIC FOR KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN

Fishrrman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:59 pm I agree, the name "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" doesn't make sense -- too hard to say.

Alternate names:
Canadian Pacific, Kansas, & Southern
Canada, Kansas & Southern
CP-Kansas Rail

Of those four the one CP/KCS has chosen is the best. I suspect we will just call it "CPKC" --- northerners may fall back to "CP" if they ignore the southern expansion of the system. The "KCS" portion will be an important part of the combined operations. It would not be good for that identity to be lost south of KC.

"Burlington Northern Santa Fe" is also a mouthful ... easier said "BNSF". "CPKC" can easily follow that pattern.

What about Canadian Southern?

It remains to be seen what environmental action entity opposition will materialize, not unlike with respect to the Keystone Pipeline opposition, for many of the same reasons. A large percentage of the oil may be sent by this route for export. https://futureforfreight.com/wp-content ... gy-Map.pdf

Somehow, I think Warren will "get in on the action" for the Mexican lines.

How? Ferromex is owned 26% by UP, the remainder being held by Grupo Mexico.

It has been suggesged on the CP site that maybe there will some money left over and maybe they could buy the Pan American Railways name if it was available. Would be interesting to see what happens.

roberttosh wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 2:34 pm What about Canadian Southern?
RT: Sounds similar to the "Canada Southern" or "CASO" that once ran across
southern Ontario...
"Southern" is too vague - not only being the name of another unrelated fallen flag
railroad this does not describe enough the CP's US and Mexico segments of the former
KCS/KCS De Mexico System.

justalurker66 wrote:

Fishrrman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:59 pm I agree, the name "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" doesn't make sense -- too hard to say.

Alternate names:
Canadian Pacific, Kansas, & Southern
Canada, Kansas & Southern
CP-Kansas Rail

Of those four the one CP/KCS has chosen is the best. I suspect we will just call it "CPKC" --- northerners may fall back to "CP" if they ignore the southern expansion of the system. The "KCS" portion will be an important part of the combined operations. It would not be good for that identity to be lost south of KC.

"Burlington Northern Santa Fe" is also a mouthful ... easier said "BNSF". "CPKC" can easily follow that pattern.

Everyone: How About "Canadian Pacific North America" or "CPNA"?

The name makes sense because the CP System will be the first railroad to serve Canada, the US AND Mexico.

I thought of this new name remembering "Canadian National North America" after the Illinois Central takeover.

In the CN Forum I came up with a name that more reflects geographically and historically what CN now is:
"CENTRAL NORTHERN" first keeping the CN logo and colors.
CENTRAL for "Illinois Central" and with the heart of the current CN System in the middle of North America.
NORTHERN for the portion of the CN system across Canada once known as the "Canadian Northern Railway".

A new name for the CP-KCS system reflecting the heritages of both railroads would be interesting.
Could a geographic-based name such as "Canadian Pacific North American Railways" be the answer?

MACTRAXX

Mr. Cowford, I'm thinking Warren is not going to sit idly by while CP controls traffic - the Mexican traffic - that KCS had been giving him at, say, KC.

Another point; lest we forget, the Mexican government still owns a good chunk of NdeM/KCSM as well.

There will be nothing "open and shut" about this KCS-CP combination; much too early to be thinking about branding.

Finally, I'm happier knowing that KCS, which I think was inevitable "would be in play", will hopefully end up as part of a railroad, and not some private equity outfit.

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:23 pmEveryone: How About "Canadian Pacific North America" or "CPNA"?

Since CP has already announced the new name it is a rather moot point. But people can fantasize about the future naming if they have nothing better to do.

As I look at the three railroad bridges in KC
- Armour/Swift/Burlington (single track)
- Mark Twain (double track)
- Lewis and Clark (single track)

I come to the conclusion there won’t be enough capacity for the through traffic CP/KCS can expect to generate.

Anyone care to bet STB will mandate CP/KCS create more trans Missouri River train capacity as a condition of merger?

ASB bridge appears to have room to accommodate a 2d track

Volks, This is UUGE

It's front page lead article in The Journal;

http://ereader.wsj.net/?

Here's the article in case you cannot open the above:

Wall Street Journal

It was simply inevitable that KCS would be "in play". However, most of the "play" was coming from one "private equity" outfit or the other. All too many businesses have simply been "wrecked with the carcass left to rot" by those. So it's gratifying to see a play coming from within the railroad industry.

But there will be nothing open and shut with this acquisition; approval must be attained from three sovereign regulatory agencies. Putting that aside, I guarantee Warren (BNSF) will not sit there like a bump on the log. BNSF will surely be seeking access into Mexico as well (UP is already there with 25% of the FCM, or Ferromex nowadays), with authority to make rates out of the major industrial centers such as Monterrey.

I still hold that the Port of Lazaro Cardenas, Mich could become a major West Coast maritime port, if greater political stability down there could be attained. The maritime companies have clearly shown that they want competitive rail anywhere they call; and by and large they have it, save Prince Rupert, BC.

Now with the possibility of traffic from Mexico consigned to the East, staying on CP rails anywhere to the Northeast, Topper (NS) Chessie (CSX) will have a "neigh" and a "meow", as well as hind quarters and claws, to say about this.

But all told, I think for this to have a chance, BNSF will need access, including trackage rights, into Mexico.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:18 pm

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:23 pmEveryone: How About "Canadian Pacific North America" or "CPNA"?

Since CP has already announced the new name it is a rather moot point. But people can fantasize about the future naming if they have nothing better to do.

Messrs. Lurker, TRAXX, et al, that name CPKC simply represents a "moniker" to use as the proposal moves forth, which as I noted immediately will "be a long, long time".

Lest we forget RAILPAX?

Branding for a combined entity is way, WAAAY, down the track.

Without ns or csx, how does cp serve the northeast? They can get to Detroit, Toronto and Montreal. They pass through Buffalo- not sure if they have facilities there for intermodal etc. Anyway, I think the closest cp gets to Nyc, Boston, philly, etc is Mohawk yard outside of Albany. I bet they wish they’d not sold d&h south about now

Everyone:

Both GBN and JP made mention that transport regulators of three nations have to sign off on the CP-KCS deal.
The CP press release specifically says that any proposed purchase of KCS will have to be approved by the U.S.
Surface Transportation Board. With STB approval will Canada and Mexico's counterparts follow suit?

The mention of the proposed new name was one sentence in the first paragraph under "Board Management
and Headquarters" which is "The combined entity will be named Canadian Pacific Kansas City or "CPKC".
This could easily be overlooked unless one read the entire press release.

GBN: Your thought suggest a lengthy process to any CP-KCS takeover or merger.
Will there be significant opposition and/or lawsuits brought against this proposal?

I agree with you - a new name is a long way off for this railroad conglomerate.

Interesting mention of "Railpax" - which was the original name of the legislation creating the "National Railroad
Passenger Corporation" back in 1970-1971. (for those who are unaware) which became "Amtrak" with a name
coined by a PR firm for "America, Travel and (rail) Track". "Pax" was an interesting abbreviation for "passenger".
Amtrak turned out to be a much better name than "Railpax" ever would have been - now 50 years later...

MACTRAXX

F74265A wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:50 am Without ns or csx, how does cp serve the northeast? They can get to Detroit, Toronto and Montreal.

Mr. F7, let's start with Detroit and the extensive "captive rail" auto msnufacturing facilities there - and same in the State of Nuevo Leon, mostly around Monterrey. In such moves - two way traffic comprising US made parts, Southward, and finished autos North, is not traffic that will find Topper rolling in his paddock while it moves on some Beaver's rails.

Presently, KCS has to give or receive that traffic to somebody at Kansas City as "that's the end of the line". Topper (NS) enjoys the most favorable line he got from the WAB (Route of "The Wabash Cannon Ball") as it completely bypasses Chicago and all that represents to the delay of traffic.

With CP's 49% ownership of The Harbor (by grace of "my MILW"), traffic will move "fairly expedient" through Chicago, on to their "Iron Clad" trackage on NS, thence delivery/orign anywhere in Detroit on Conrail CRSA.

It is further my understanding that with CP access to CRSA and Chessie's NYC West Shore, plus the D&H, the Beaver is in NY and Philly (Ironclad trackage over the CNJ and RDG).

I think there will be MUCH heat on the Surfboard to ensure KC become an open Gateway, obviated only by "Shipper's Routing" to inordinately keep traffic on the "new CP".

Finally, let me again reiterate, I foresee Warren wanting trackage for his own trains over KCS-M at least to Monterrey- and maybe even to Lazaro Cardenas, assuming "The Federales" can provide proper security and maritime companies are comfortable calling there. Lest we forget, "Estibador José" works for far less than does "Longshoreman Joe".