What happened to antitrust? We were making great progress and then a few months ago this admin totally flipped?
Can you really call it a new Gilded Age without railway barons?
Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's pretty much indisputable that the FTC was making huge progress in consumer rights and antitrust work. What, specifically, are you talking about in your comment. It's easy to make comments like this based on general 'feelings' without saying anything at all.
What great progress was made under the previous administration?
Among many others:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ftc-accuses-intuit-decep...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/08/...
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absurd and easily and trivially disputed. Having a nationwide network absolutely lets you compete with networks that are more regional "If you want to use our western routes you have to use us in the east too." > larger network would make things more efficient for shippers LOL > goods can travel coast to coast without changing trains They already can.
>They already can. I'm not a railroad expert, but here's the exact quote from the article, which cites a consultancy: >Going from coast to coast is a greater prize. Avoiding interchanges between networks would mean faster trains and fewer delays. According to Oliver Wyman, a consultancy, the share of intermodal goods in America that travel by rail on journeys longer than 1,500 miles increases from 39% to 65% when ser…
"Interchange" means the train going from one company's tracks to another. It does not involve changing trains. It involves a phone call.
Additionally, it probably still wouldn't be possible for most origins and destinations from going coast to coast without interchange because will probably have to use shortline tracks at some point, like the Chicago Belt Railway.
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#24What happened to antitrust? We were making great progress and then a few months ago this admin totally flipped?
My money says this will get regulatory approval to compete with the CPKC which goes both east-west and north-south from Canada to Mexico. In this climate a rail network from coast to coast entirely in the continental US is probably viewed as "national security".
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#25Shortening “Norfolk Southern” to “Norfolk” makes this confusing to read. Norfolk is a city (and former HQ of Norfolk Southern). “Union” isn’t shortened the same… Also, railroads are already monopoly, it’s not like anyone can lay down new tracks, and operators aren’t required to allow 3rd parties on their networks…
Only confusing if you think it’s more likely that a railroad company is buying a town instead of another large railroad company… They may be a monopoly in their regions but this would be the first time in a long while we had the same name coast to coast.
yes, railways don't buy towns, they build them from scratch!
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#26Under normal circumstances, a merger between railroad giants would be so outlandish that they would never consider publishing an announcement like this. Anything is possible these days, it seems.
No, why? Is it (much) more outlandish than the merger that created BNSF? Is it much more outlandish than CP and KCS? What makes this more outlandish than the previous mega-mergers?
Seems to be ~20x the value of the BNSF merger(~10x accounting for inflation). So yeah its pretty outlandish?
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What great progress was made under the previous administration?
Among many others: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ftc-accuses-intuit-decep... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/08/...
FTC sues, FTC proposes, FTC accuses.
I see no actual change here.
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absurd and easily and trivially disputed. Having a nationwide network absolutely lets you compete with networks that are more regional "If you want to use our western routes you have to use us in the east too." > larger network would make things more efficient for shippers LOL > goods can travel coast to coast without changing trains They already can.
>They already can. I'm not a railroad expert, but here's the exact quote from the article, which cites a consultancy: >Going from coast to coast is a greater prize. Avoiding interchanges between networks would mean faster trains and fewer delays. According to Oliver Wyman, a consultancy, the share of intermodal goods in America that travel by rail on journeys longer than 1,500 miles increases from 39% to 65% when ser…
Very hard to believe freight trains can't go coast to coast in the US and they get unloaded to load on a new train on the same gauge rail.
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#29US rail currently operates with shocking rates of derailment causing toxic releases and critically strained labor relations. There is business potential in this deal, but also a strong likelihood of continued disintegration.
Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They already can. I'm not a railroad expert, but here's the exact quote from the article, which cites a consultancy: >Going from coast to coast is a greater prize. Avoiding interchanges between networks would mean faster trains and fewer delays. According to Oliver Wyman, a consultancy, the share of intermodal goods in America that travel by rail on journeys longer than 1,500 miles increases from 39% to 65% when ser…
Very hard to believe freight trains can't go coast to coast in the US and they get unloaded to load on a new train on the same gauge rail.
The loaded cars can go coast to coast, but trains are broken up and reorganized often in yards, especially in places like Chicago. this is efficient because two cars from LA headed to Toronto and NYC can travel together until Chicago and only then be split into two new trains. Even within a single railroad this is commonly done.