CPKC Reaffirms Stance Against Further Rail Consolidation, Emphasizes Focus on Service and Growth
Canadian Pacific Kansas City, better known as CPKC, has made it clear that it does not see a need for further consolidation within the North American rail industry at this time. While some analysts and industry observers have speculated about potential mergers or acquisitions among the continent’s six major freight railroads, CPKC has confirmed that its priority is not expansion through consolidation but rather delivering value through its unique three-nation rail network.
The company stated that it is fully committed to maximizing the benefits of the system it already operates. This integrated network, formed through the 2023 merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern, connects shippers across Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It provides interline service options that allow freight customers to move goods more efficiently across borders and regions without needing additional consolidation to create value.
CPKC’s Position on the Risks of Mergers
According to CPKC, the risks of pursuing another wave of mergers in the rail sector significantly outweigh the benefits. The company argues that the current competitive structure among the six Class I railroads is sufficient to deliver high-quality service to customers. Introducing further consolidation, particularly in the form of large-scale transcontinental mergers, could lead to outcomes detrimental to customers, employees, and the broader supply chain.
“Any major rail merger poses unique and unprecedented risks,” the company noted, emphasizing that once a single merger occurred, it would almost certainly trigger a chain reaction. Rival companies would feel pressure to respond by merging themselves, potentially leading to a domino effect across the industry.
Keith Creel, President and CEO of CPKC, was direct in his comments:
“We believe that a transcontinental merger would trigger permanent restructuring of the industry and result in a disproportionately large railway whose size and scope would require others to take action. This will likely result in an unnecessary wave of railway mergers that today is not the best way to support American businesses nor the public interest, and has the potential to create more issues than it solves.”
Creel’s remarks underline the company’s belief that industry stability and customer-focused service improvements are more important than speculative mergers.
The Value of Cooperation Over Consolidation
CPKC points to recent examples of cooperation among railroads as evidence that growth and innovation do not require mergers. For instance, CPKC and CSX have built successful network alliances in the Southeast United States, enabling shippers to enjoy smoother services without either company needing to consolidate ownership. Similarly, BNSF and CSX recently announced their own partnership aimed at improving service, reinforcing the idea that alliances and interline agreements can unlock many of the same benefits proponents of mergers claim.
These kinds of cooperative agreements give shippers greater flexibility and preserve market options. A merger, on the other hand, could eliminate competitive alternatives and reduce customer choice. CPKC argues that partnerships and alliances strike the right balance by improving connectivity while keeping the market dynamic and competitive.
A prime example of this approach is CPKC’s collaboration with CSX on the Southeast Mexico Express, a service designed to link the Southeastern U.S. directly with Mexico. This project enhances efficiency, creates faster delivery options for cross-border trade, and demonstrates that industry players can generate significant value through partnership-driven innovation rather than consolidation.
Industry Structure: Strong Enough as It Is
The North American freight rail industry is already highly consolidated. Today, just six Class I railroads dominate the market: CPKC, BNSF, Union Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Canadian National. This limited number already ensures large, well-capitalized networks with significant reach and scale.
CPKC maintains that these six railroads are capable of offering customers near-seamless transportation across the continent, especially when cooperation and interline agreements are fully utilized. The company sees no pressing need for consolidation to achieve service improvements, arguing that existing network capacity and operational efficiency provide ample opportunity for growth.
The public interest, according to CPKC, is best served by the railroads focusing on core responsibilities:
- Delivering reliable, truck-like service that shippers can depend on.
- Investing in infrastructure to expand capacity and meet future demand.
- Supporting national economic growth by enabling safe, sustainable freight transport.
Consolidation, the company believes, distracts from these goals and introduces more risks than benefits.
Long-Term Growth Without Mergers
Rather than pursuing mergers, CPKC intends to concentrate on strategies that deliver organic growth. These include capturing market share from the trucking industry by offering competitive rail solutions, improving the resilience of supply chains, and promoting sustainability by reducing emissions through rail-based transport.
The company emphasized that the U.S. rail network already has the capacity to support many years of growth. By driving service improvements and expanding partnerships, railroads can achieve volume growth and convert freight from highways to rail—without resorting to another round of mergers.
For CPKC, this means enhancing the efficiency of its unique three-nation network, particularly as trade between the U.S. and Mexico continues to expand. The company sees significant opportunities in cross-border freight and plans to invest in innovations that strengthen these trade corridors.
Balancing Competition and Stability
A key element of CPKC’s argument is that consolidation could threaten the delicate balance of competition in the industry. With only six Class I railroads, any merger would quickly reduce that number and leave fewer players competing for business. This would not only shrink customer choice but could also lead to regulatory challenges and public pushback, particularly if shippers perceived the mergers as harmful to competition.
By contrast, alliances maintain both competition and cooperation. Railroads can share resources or coordinate service on specific corridors without permanently restructuring the entire industry. This keeps the playing field flexible and responsive to customer needs while avoiding the risk of systemic upheaval.
CPKC’s Commitment Moving Forward
CPKC reiterated that its focus remains firmly on the customer. The company’s goal is to build on the strengths of its three-nation network, improve service reliability, and create new opportunities for shippers. By emphasizing efficiency, innovation, and sustainability, CPKC intends to show that growth and customer value do not depend on further rail consolidation.
In closing, the company highlighted the importance of investing in network improvements and expanding capacity. This, it believes, will ensure the U.S. rail system continues to serve as a backbone of the national economy, providing shippers with reliable options and supporting economic growth without unnecessary consolidation.
While speculation about mergers often grabs headlines in the freight rail industry, CPKC has made its stance clear: further consolidation is not necessary. The company sees greater value in building partnerships, innovating service options, and investing in its existing network.
With six strong Class I railroads already operating across North America, CPKC believes the industry is well-positioned to support shippers, drive growth, and strengthen supply chains for decades to come—without triggering another wave of disruptive mergers.