If at all, it sounds like he messed up an above rail operating policy. Im not sure how this would equate to a below rail operating policy? Also, perhaps the strategy at the time was the right one to take, as the LCL (im assuming less than container loads), may have been too costly to handle and therefore may have incurred losses?
In this role, his interests are maximising profit from selling train paths, which can really only come from additional volumes.
Also, don't forget, there is a whole board there and an executive team there to help drive strategy, if he is as bad for rail as suggested, they should counterveil (or at least dilute) his influence.