Eastern Railroad Discussion > Greg Abel comments about BNSF in letter to BRK shareholders

This statement was in the BNSF section (p12) in Greg Abel's letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. Abel was referring to the UP/NS merger.“BNSF’s focus on the proposed merger has been to ensure BNSFcan continue to offer customers a compelling value proposition, including full and competitiveaccess to Eastern rail markets.”
interested in hearing comments as to what this could mean.

GN1969 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This statement was in the BNSF section (p12) in
> Greg Abel's letter to Berkshire Hathaway
> shareholders on Saturday. Abel was referring to
> the UP/NS merger.“BNSF’s focus on the proposed
> merger has been to ensure BNSFcan continue to
> offer customers a compelling value proposition,
> including full and competitiveaccess to Eastern
> rail markets.”
> interested in hearing comments as to what this
> could mean.

I'm sure at some point Katie Farmer has convinced Berkshire that the STB will just bow down to BNSF by granting "full" access all of the way to the East Coast as a merger condition! 🤣 Yeah, that flat-out isn't happening. This is the same STB that wouldn't even grant trackage rights to CN on just the old Gateway Western between Springfield and KC during the CP-KCS hearings! It's laughable BNSF thinks getting to the coast is even a remote possibility.

Note to Katie, this isn’t CSX here that your company has bullied into granting BNSF access to Atlanta and North Baltimore over the years. Sorry BNSF but STB isn't going to rehash the Conrail split for your benefit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/26 21:30 by AaronJ.

It would be interesting to know what is in the BNSF "gimme" list.  And where they see a strategic need to access over the next five years.

AaronJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GN1969 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This statement was in the BNSF section (p12) in
> > Greg Abel's letter to Berkshire Hathaway
> > shareholders on Saturday. Abel was referring to
> > the UP/NS merger.“BNSF’s focus on the
> proposed
> > merger has been to ensure BNSFcan continue to
> > offer customers a compelling value proposition,
> > including full and competitiveaccess to Eastern
> > rail markets.”
> > interested in hearing comments as to what this
> > could mean.
>
> I'm sure at some point Katie Farmer has convinced
> Berkshire that the STB will just bow down to BNSF
> by granting "full" access all of the way to the
> East Coast as a merger condition! 🤣 Yeah, that
> flat-out isn't happening. This is the same STB
> that wouldn't even grant trackage rights to CN on
> just the old Gateway Western between Springfield
> and KC during the CP-KCS hearings! It's laughable
> BNSF thinks getting to the coast is even a remote
> possibility.
>
> Note to Katie, this isn’t CSX here that your
> company has bullied into granting BNSF access to
> Atlanta and North Baltimore over the years. Sorry
> BNSF but STB isn't going to rehash the Conrail
> split for your benefit.

Posted from iPhone

> Note to Katie, this isn’t CSX here that your
> company has bullied into granting BNSF access to
> Atlanta and North Baltimore over the years. Sorry
> BNSF but STB isn't going to rehash the Conrail
> split for your benefit.

I’m intrigued, what are referring to by saying BNSF bullied CSX into access at those locations?

CFI_85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Note to Katie, this isn’t CSX here that your
> > company has bullied into granting BNSF access
> to
> > Atlanta and North Baltimore over the years.
> Sorry
> > BNSF but STB isn't going to rehash the Conrail
> > split for your benefit.
>
> I’m intrigued, what are referring to by saying
> BNSF bullied CSX into access at those locations?

Do you really think CSX was giddy about handing BNSF the intermodal keys to Atlanta for traffic from points west??? You sure don't see them interchanging much intermodal at the normal east/west transition points of Memphis or New Orleans! Once NS got on the Meridian Speedway and began to cozy up to UP, BNSF told CSX to let them into Atlanta... or they'd just terminate traffic at Birmingham. CSX at that point was in a no-win situation as either they got the crumbs off of the short mileage haulage rights (and nothing else)... or just gave up on their Atlanta hub having any BNSF oriented traffic. Those are horrible choices but BNSF played that bully card to their advantage.

AaronJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CFI_85 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Note to Katie, this isn’t CSX here that
> your
> > > company has bullied into granting BNSF access
> > to
> > > Atlanta and North Baltimore over the years.
> > Sorry
> > > BNSF but STB isn't going to rehash the
> Conrail
> > > split for your benefit.
> >
> > I’m intrigued, what are referring to by
> saying
> > BNSF bullied CSX into access at those
> locations?
>
> Do you really think CSX was giddy about handing
> BNSF the intermodal keys to Atlanta for traffic
> from points west??? You sure don't see them
> interchanging much intermodal at the normal
> east/west transition points of Memphis or New
> Orleans! Once NS got on the Meridian Speedway and
> began to cozy up to UP, BNSF told CSX to let them
> into Atlanta... or they'd just terminate traffic
> at Birmingham. CSX at that point was in a no-win
> situation as either they got the crumbs off of the
> short mileage haulage rights (and nothing else)...
> or just gave up on their Atlanta hub having any
> BNSF oriented traffic. Those are horrible choices
> but BNSF played that bully card to their
> advantage.


So you have no clue, got it. 

I predict that Keith Creel will be running BNSF by this time next year.

GN1969 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I predict that Keith Creel will be running BNSF by
> this time next year.

That's a pretty assertive prediction.  Do you want to share your reasoning?

Mr Creel is locked down with layers of non-compete, etc contract agreements, And BNSF isn't known for buying out other company's liabilities

Buffett and Abel have been pretty clear they are not satisfied with BNSF's financial performance vs other railways. I think there will be a management change. Creel is the best one out there.

Buffet was ok with BNSF spending a lot of money on it's plant  pre Katie Farmer

No argument on Keith Creel being a top notch manager. My question is more aligned to whether Greg Abel will pay the big bucks necessary to bring him on board.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So you have no clue, got it. 

Believe whatever you want chief. You obviously think BNSF is an angel, but then it makes CSX look like a pathetic pushover to remove itself from a profitable lane. Admittedly, they basically did the same recently with CN by short hauling Nashville oriented traffic via Memphis instead of Chicago. No wonder UP went toward NS instead of CSX since CSX management has a history of looking like a bunch of moronic clowns that cave to pressure when the bullys are on the playground.

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buffet was ok with BNSF spending a lot of money on
> it's plant  pre Katie Farmer

More likely pre Greg Abel.

Jim

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Buffet was ok with BNSF spending a lot of money
> on
> > it's plant  pre Katie Farmer
>
> More likely pre Greg Abel.
>
> Jim

Yes.  While Mr Buffett paid a lot of money for insurance company Allegany, one benefit was to bring aboard insurance exec Joe Brandon. Along with Todd Combs, he is ably assisting Ajit Jain in Berkshire's sprawling insurance empire. Whether he would OK that kind of money for Mr Creel alone since he can't buy CP, that's another question.

AaronJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > So you have no clue, got it. 
>
> Believe whatever you want chief. You obviously
> think BNSF is an angel, but then it makes CSX look
> like a pathetic pushover to remove itself from a
> profitable lane. Admittedly, they basically did
> the same recently with CN by short hauling
> Nashville oriented traffic via Memphis instead of
> Chicago. No wonder UP went toward NS instead of
> CSX since CSX management has a history of looking
> like a bunch of moronic clowns that cave to
> pressure when the bullys are on the playground.

CSX Memphis-Nashville is capacity constrained by siding length and spacing, without signals from east of Bruceton to Memphis, yet still sees 8-12 trains a day over much of it.  Adding 2 to 4 more from BNSF didn't make the most sense when their line from Memphis to Birmingham had plenty of capacity.  One crew Memphis-Birmingham on BNSF versus 2 or 3 via CSX, and JB Hunt surely wanted the faster transit times of via BNSF. 

While not as bad, Nashville-Cartersville also has some suboptimal sections of siding length/spacing issues, and with more trains.  Memphis-Chattanooga-Fairburn would still require 1 or 2 more crews than via BNSF Memphis-Birmingham, and still be much slower.  In the past Fairburn-Chicago trains were routed west, in part, due to crew district issues that made via Birmingham cheaper and easier, so possibly another factor.  The shortest, fastest route for BNSF Memphis-Atlanta, by far, is via Birmingham interchange.  BNSF cruises through Memphis, but via New Orleans takes longer, involves more congestion, and similar siding length issues in west Texas and across Louisiana.  CSX still makes money on these movements. 

CSX and CN share an intermodal yard in Memphis.  Interchange is faster, cheaper, and far easier there than in Chicago.  CSX still makes money on these movements.  

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/26 11:07 by baretables.

I wonder how much more capacity could be squeezed out of some of these southeastern lines with smaller and more focused dispatcher territories?  You know, like they had in the 1970s-1990s?  Able to plan meets, work around siding limitations, etc

See comments below...

baretables Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> CSX Memphis-Nashville is capacity constrained by
> siding length and spacing, without signals from
> east of Bruceton to Memphis, yet still sees 8-12
> trains a day over much of it.  Adding 2 to 4 more
> from BNSF didn't make the most sense when their
> line from Memphis to Birmingham had plenty of
> capacity.  One crew Memphis-Birmingham on BNSF
> versus 2 or 3 via CSX, and JB Hunt surely wanted
> the faster transit times of via BNSF. 
>
> While not as bad, Nashville-Cartersville also has
> some suboptimal sections of siding length/spacing
> issues, and with more trains. 
> Memphis-Chattanooga-Fairburn would still require 1
> or 2 more crews than via BNSF Memphis-Birmingham,
> and still be much slower.  In the past
> Fairburn-Chicago trains were routed west, in part,
> due to crew district issues that made via
> Birmingham cheaper and easier, so possibly another
> factor.  The shortest, fastest route for BNSF
> Memphis-Atlanta, by far, is via Birmingham
> interchange.  BNSF cruises through Memphis, but
> via New Orleans takes longer, involves more
> congestion, and similar siding length issues in
> west Texas and across Louisiana.  CSX still makes
> money on these movements. 
>

In summary you are saying, instead of improving this route, CSX just handed BNSF access to another route along with an intermodal terminal in a major hub!?!? That is some major clown show decision making that reeks of desperation applied by BNSF. Of course CSX makes some crumbs of money via minimal haulage rights between Fairburn and Birmingham. However, compare that to what NS makes in this lane and you quickly realize how pathetic CSX has become in this corridor.

> CSX and CN share an intermodal yard in Memphis. 
> Interchange is faster, cheaper, and far easier
> there than in Chicago.  CSX still makes money on
> these movements.  
>

Time to toss the BS flag on this comment as you just got through explaining how bad Memphis-Nashville is on the CSX but now it's not a problem!?!? Sorry chief, but as you know Nashville to Chicago is a part of CSX's north-south premium intermodal corridor to the Atlanta/Jacksonville markets and is WAY faster compared to running back southwest to Memphis along with navigating slowly through Memphis for interchange/dumping cars for CN to attach to their trains (there is no run through). Any interchange delay in Chicago is offset by adding another 270+ miles of slower track, plus CSX doesn't have to share any portion of that business with CN. This move smells of CSX desperate to find a dancing partner at the merger table last year but once the merger dust settles, if CN isn't in the equation then this agreement will be tossed aside.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/26 10:02 by AaronJ.

Calm down.  Th CN traffic from Canadian ports is more sensitive to price than time, and is a block of cars, not a full train's worth.  So it is more cost effective to exchange at the Memphis intermodal facility (and time wise, too, unless it grows into a through train).  The cut is added to an existing train.  For Memphis-Nashville it is less of a problem to handle 1 longer existing train each way per day than adding 2 to 4 additional trains.

baretables Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calm down.  Th CN traffic from Canadian ports is
> more sensitive to price than time, and is a block
> of cars, not a full train's worth.  So it is more
> cost effective to exchange at the Memphis
> intermodal facility (and time wise, too, unless it
> grows into a through train).  The cut is added to
> an existing train.  For Memphis-Nashville it is
> less of a problem to handle 1 longer existing
> train each way per day than adding 2 to 4
> additional trains.


Oh chief, you are contradicting yourself. You said "faster" - but way wrong there. Further, you don’t add mileage and make it "cheaper" as you stated...hence wrong again. Finally, "easier" is open to who you are talking about...CSX maybe...CN no way. Believe what you want but your first statements contradict your new references about price instead of time but even that has a hole a mile wide in it. There is near zero chance in a modern class 1 environment that uses GTM for profit evaluations that CN or CSX is donating those extra 270+ miles. Zero.