KCS/CP Merger Discussion

Well volks, for better or worse, it certainly looks as if the KCS-CP combination will soon be a done deal.

Noted earlier in the topic is the "reshoring" of manufactured goods. The manufacturing "base South of the Border" appears to be centered around Monterrey, NL. which is exclusively served by KCSM, or soon-to-be KCS-CP. I continue to hold, even if the "crisis" confronting ocean shipping from inadequate maritime port berths has abated, if security issues can be addressed, the Port of Lazaro Cardenas, Mich could become a "world class" facility. It's a very safe assumption that the costs to handle a vessel there, are considerably less than at, say, LA or Savannah, and, again, KCSM "owns it".

Now what "countermeasures" will our "two Uncles" attempt? "Pete" already serves Mexico with his substantial ownership interest in the Ferromex lines, which are largely comprised of the one time Southern Pacific-Mexico system, and through Mexicali, can interchange to his UP system.

But what will "Warren" do? He appears now to be shut out of X-border traffic. Yes, he has very tenuous trackage rights into Laredo over MP/UP (the "Mop-up" ) and does make rates with KCSM there, but will he be even more disadvantaged than he presently is?

I would not put it past Uncle Warren to seek trackage rights (his own trains) into the Monterrey industrial area.

All told for me, personally, is to note that the "hulk of a railroad" to which claimed eleven years of my life, will now become a player in providing transportation through the Midwest (100 car Container trains through Stillman Valley, Davis Jct, and Kirkland? who would ever dream that). So far as the Chicago area communities that claim to be adversely affected by the prospect of increased freight traffic, "sorry 'bout that". The railroads were there first; the communities built up lineside.

All told, this KCS-CP combination will benefit the railroad industry.

disclaimer: author held position KSU; sold out much too early.

Thank you, Mr. Shortline, for your insightful comments.

Lest we forget, Uncle Warren does not think "short term" and even if he is not around (likely same for myself) to see the '27 expiration of the Mexican concession, he is grooming successors to further enhance BH-BNSF interests.

Looking at a map, the Brownsville-Matamoras gateway provides the same utility to access the Monterey industrial area. Should the day come when security concerns can be lessened, two roads making rates at Lazaro Cardenas, Mich (caught you Mr. Google; I was addressing the Mexican state of Michoacan, and not the US state of Michigan ) will only enhance the Port with the maritime companies. These companies are rather accustomed to having two roads accessing the ports at which they call (my concerns regarding Miami - including my observation a week ago of all cranes skyward- are noted at FEC topics).

So as you apparently hold, Mr. Shortline, the consummation of KCS-CP is likely not the end of the story with regards to Inter-American railroad transportation.

Shortline614 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:11 pm My idea for BNSF de Mexico is quite similar to yours Mr. Norman. It would consist of trackage rights from Brownsville down through Monterrey, San Luis Potosi, Mexico City, to Veracruz.

Veracruz, Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave?

To what extent is the maritime port there any kind, real or potential, of a "player"?

Secondly, looking through some past TRAINS, the ride to Veracruz could easily be considered one of North America's "scenic gems". I doubt if any present-day enthusiast could either affirm or refute that claim, but spectacular scenery usually means spectacular grades and curves - and a Container's lading is not too concerned about looking out at such!!

There is of course no "Mextrak"; both KCS and UP conditioned their opening the checkbook on that point. Even if there were, I must wonder how comfortable anyone would feel riding about in a "lawless state".

I think you are "on mark", Mr. Lurker.

New York Dock implementing agreement is simply "part and parcel" for any Agreement affected employee and simply notes that if such employee's position (or seniority) is being "reloed" for Carrier's convenience, he will be paid necessary and reasonable moving expenses. I doubt if either road ever thought they have a leg to stand upon obviating such payments. I think they know they had best extend same to their non-Agreement workforce as well.

New passenger train routes such as the so-called Meridian Speedway; someone just threw some "slop in the trough" for the consultants to feed upon.

Even if CN gets trackage rights over KCS Springfield to KC over former GM&O, have they really got a competitive routing with their "music clef" route to handle auto parts manufactured in the Detroit area to assembly plants near KC?. They will still be confronted with the bridge over Ol' Man River at Louisiana, MO over which a train of tonnage likely must be "doubled", thence maybe FRA Class 2 X-Missouri. They'd be up against Topper with his "straight shot Wabash Cannon Ball" routing (just got a one second glance at it from the 57 near Tolono yesterday) and his Conrail Shared Assets access to any facility in the Detroit area. Auto assembly plants all rely upon "just in time" deliveries. Lest we also note that CP has CRSA access.

So far as METRA concessions, the MILW always blocked freights during the rush hours, but I guess such practices went by the wayside. Something will be done, but doubt if more than "lip service".

signed: "Anxious"