4 ms·

Under normal circumstances, a merger between railroad giants would be so outlandish that they would never consider publishing an announcement like this. Anythin

Under 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.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
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?
- vonneumannstan 1y ago
  Seems to be ~20x the value of the BNSF merger(~10x accounting for inflation). So yeah its pretty outlandish?
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    OK, but why does that make it "outlandish", as opposed to just "really big"? It's smaller than Pfizer buying Warner-Lambert in 1999. It's smaller (at least inflation adjusted) than Exxon-Mobil or Citicorp-Travelers. It's a lot smaller than AOL-Time Warner in 2000. It's smaller than Dow-duPont in 2015. Why is it outlandish? Because it involves railroads?
    - lelandbatey 1y ago
      In short, "yes, because it's railroads". There's not much else that requires so much public resources (land) and capital; yet for that railroads deliver a broad capability (hyper thermodynamically efficient over land transport) that is not replicable via any other technology or practice. If we don't develop/improve that capability, we give up a tremendous amount of ability. If we let it consolidate and then atrophy, we regress to a huge degree. It'd be like privatizing the roads and then allowing the closure of the small farm roads because they're "not profitable". It'd be massively short sighted and would cause problems for decades, maybe over a century as we sort things out and get back on track. It's what we're in the middle of with railroads.
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        A couple of nits: Land I might give you, but capital? I cited a bigger bank merger and a bigger telecommunications/broadcasting merger. Both of those involve enormous amounts of capital. Second, railroads are more efficient at hauling stuff longer distances. They are not more efficient at local pick up and delivery, though. Letting trucks take over that part makes things more efficient, not less. Your "closure of small farm roads" analogy is therefore off base.
    - vonneumannstan 1y ago
      You yourself were comparing it to other rail mergers. Not in the context of any corporate mergers ever.

Under 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.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

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?

vonneumannstan 1y ago
Seems to be ~20x the value of the BNSF merger(~10x accounting for inflation). So yeah its pretty outlandish?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  OK, but why does that make it "outlandish", as opposed to just "really big"? It's smaller than Pfizer buying Warner-Lambert in 1999. It's smaller (at least inflation adjusted) than Exxon-Mobil or Citicorp-Travelers. It's a lot smaller than AOL-Time Warner in 2000. It's smaller than Dow-duPont in 2015. Why is it outlandish? Because it involves railroads?
  - lelandbatey 1y ago
    In short, "yes, because it's railroads". There's not much else that requires so much public resources (land) and capital; yet for that railroads deliver a broad capability (hyper thermodynamically efficient over land transport) that is not replicable via any other technology or practice. If we don't develop/improve that capability, we give up a tremendous amount of ability. If we let it consolidate and then atrophy, we regress to a huge degree. It'd be like privatizing the roads and then allowing the closure of the small farm roads because they're "not profitable". It'd be massively short sighted and would cause problems for decades, maybe over a century as we sort things out and get back on track. It's what we're in the middle of with railroads.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      A couple of nits: Land I might give you, but capital? I cited a bigger bank merger and a bigger telecommunications/broadcasting merger. Both of those involve enormous amounts of capital. Second, railroads are more efficient at hauling stuff longer distances. They are not more efficient at local pick up and delivery, though. Letting trucks take over that part makes things more efficient, not less. Your "closure of small farm roads" analogy is therefore off base.
  - vonneumannstan 1y ago
    You yourself were comparing it to other rail mergers. Not in the context of any corporate mergers ever.