Railroad Forums 

  • US - Mexico Trade Accord

  • Discussion related to the past and present operations of Kansas City Southern Lines, including affiliates Texas Mexican Railway, Grupo Transportation Ferroviaria Mexicana (TFM), and Panama Canal Railway Co. Official web site can be found here: KCSOUTHERN.COM.
Discussion related to the past and present operations of Kansas City Southern Lines, including affiliates Texas Mexican Railway, Grupo Transportation Ferroviaria Mexicana (TFM), and Panama Canal Railway Co. Official web site can be found here: KCSOUTHERN.COM.

Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM

 #1484207  by Gilbert B Norman
 
So far, there has been no reports how the tentative bilateral US-Mexico trade accord has affected the KCS.

Maybe "to early to tell", but at the moment KSU is trading "flatline". I would think with so much of KCS at stake with a free flow of US-MEX commerce, there would be a measurable impact. Perhaps that Canada is not party at present is a big question mark.

Nevertheless, stay tuned. "No comment" (author does not hold any FINCA licensure) whether it's time to call your broker.

Finally, while ancient history of sorts,Slate posted an article shortly after the Inauguration suggesting KCS could have played their cards better. Let's see how this shakes out.
 #1484997  by Backshophoss
 
Believe this "agreement" will need to be reviewed by the Congress critters as this reportedly replaces NAFTA,it's a "NEW" Treaty.
The BLE now understands what Truck Drivers have said from the beginning of NATFA,the Mexican crews don't have the same training as what is done
in the US and Canada.(Both Union and non union drivers)
Mexican Drivers are allowed 50 mile access(from Border) to deliver to a forewarder or US Trucking Company's yard.
Can understand a Mexican T&E crew operating to the 1st yard in the US from the Border,but not farther inland.
 #1485018  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Backshophoss wrote:Believe this "agreement" will need to be reviewed by the Congress critters as this reportedly replaces NAFTA, it's a "NEW" Treaty.
Mr. Backshop, any successor NAFTA agreement, be it bi or tri lateral, is a treaty, or an agreement between sovereign nations. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, so empowers the President. However such treaty requires "Advice and Consent" of presently 67 US Senators.
 #1487279  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Although I've only heard it reported on CBS Radio News, there is now a trade agreement in place with Canada. A trilateral or a separate bilateral from that with Mexico. I know not.

Somehow, I think the US Senate presently has "hotter pots on the stove" than this treaty, and will quickly ratify it - just to be rid of it.

Either way, I'm certain the sigh of relief will be heard in Kansas City (Col. Perkowski, are you listening?) - and on Wall Street. Even though KCS serves no further North than Kansas City, a CP-Portal-SOO-Kc-KCS routing certainly represents a "friendly" routing for Canadian agriculture either to the Gulf and, subject to greater political stability to the Pacific through Lazaro Cardenas and its considerably lower steveidorage costs.

Also, a sigh from Montreal is also heard, for CN's "Anywhere Canada to the Gulf (IC)" strategy is also secure for the length of the treaty.
 #1487485  by Gilbert B Norman
 
This New York Times does address the Trilateral trade agreement and is known as the USMCA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/busi ... ences.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use:
...There’s a lot to digest in the new trade agreement that the United States, Mexico and Canada finalized in deadline-beating fashion on Sunday, starting with a name change: If the new deal is adopted by all three countries, the North American Free Trade Agreement will give way to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement or U.S.M.C.A.

It’s a cosmetic change for an otherwise consequential set of revisions.

“It’s not Nafta redone, it’s a brand-new deal,” President Trump said at the White House on Monday...It guarantees Canadian and Mexican manufacturers expanded access to some large American markets, such as cars and light trucks, but leaves lingering questions about their ability to avoid tariffs on steel and aluminum exports to the United States..
Unanswered is will there be a favorable effect for the KCS.
 #1572754  by Gilbert B Norman
 
I realize this site isn't maritimeshipping.com, but whenever I read something like this column appearing in today's Journal, I'm remimded how "hand in glove" the railroad and shipping industries find themselves.

Fair Use:
Global supply chains are buckling, driving up prices, creating shortages and frustrating consumers. If at any point in the past seven months you looked out to sea from the Los Angeles-Long Beach container port complex, the largest in the U.S., you would see the problem: up to 40 container ships anchored, with nowhere to go. There’s no space in the clogged ports. To put it another way, you’re looking at as many as 100,000 containers—holding everything from running shoes and home electronics to frozen seafood and furniture—waiting to be unloaded and then shipped to factories, stores and homes across the country.
It just seems as if the immediate "relief valve" to the conditions noted by the columnist lay 1200 miles South of LA in the Mexican State of Michoauiuan at the Port of Lazaro Cardenas. Only the KCS-M serves it, and Mexican political instability presents an "anything goes" world.

The Port is reportedly "world class" and stevidorage costs substantially less than Stateside. There is this 1200 mile "captive" rail line haul for whichever Class I calls KCS their own.

Now it is inevitable that for shipments to arrive safely and intact at "El Fronterizo", palms will likely need be "greased". Private security may also be needed - with all this added to the cost of the land transportation.

But there is a $$$ value to the delayed cargo held by the vessels off LA awaiting a berth. Proposals such as lighterage are simply no longer workable. So all told, I leave it others to decide at what point does a trade off come into play.