Prototype News

New ways to pay: New Jersey Transit says it working “to transform the customer experience through innovation and technology,” showcasing fare collection modernization efforts during an event at its Secaucus Junction Station:

• New, high-tech fare gates from Conduent Transportation equipped with advanced 3D sensors and imaging technology, to be installed at Secaucus Junction and Newark Liberty Airport stations. The nearly eight-foot-tall gates use advanced sensors and 3-D technology to enhance security and revenue protection.
• In September, NJT expanded its “FARE-PAY” card to customers traveling all NJT buses statewide as well as the Newark Light Rail, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and River LINE systems. The reusable cards allow customers to purchase and store monthly passes, 10-trip bus tickets or cash value on them to enjoy the convenience of tap-and-go. The new, reusable FARE-PAY fare cards make it easier for customers to travel the system by allowing them to register their card to protect their stored value from loss, manage their accounts online, view fare card activity and current value, auto-reload online, at ticket windows, TVMs and at select retail locations. A credit/debit card is not required.
• New Bus Fare Box/Registers “will be more efficient and improve reliability of onboard fare collection. The new fare boxes will also accept additional bill denominations giving customers more flexibility with payments.”
• New mobile validation devices used by train crews for scanning rail tickets. These devices are currently being piloted and will be deployed systemwide in the coming months and will provide enhanced capabilities such as acceptance of the FARE-PAY card, which is not possible with the first generation of mobile validation devices.
• Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) have been upgraded throughout the state to accept tap-and-go payments from credit/debit cards as well as sales of the new FARE-PAY cards.  The machines also have modern capabilities to accept mobile payment systems such as Apple Pay and Google Wallet. This latest generation of TVMs also feature additional customer information display boards.
• A Web Ticketing Platform allows customers to purchase rail tickets from their web browser and display or print the QR code without having to download the mobile app. This provides electronic ticketing options to infrequent users of the system who may not have the mobile app installed.

Conduent Transportation

“Our fare modernization program is focused on making every step of the customer journey more seamless, efficient, and secure,” said NJT President and CEO Kris Kolluri, a featured speaker at Railway Age’s Oct. 29-31 Next Gen Rail Systems Conference. “From advanced 3D fare gates to expanded contactless payments, we’re improving the way customers move through the system with greater ease and reliability while protecting revenue.”

The post NJT Accelerates Fare Modernization Program appeared first on Railway Age.

CN and Congebec, a Canadian logistics provider of distribution services for the food, retail and packaged goods industries, are collaborating on a “state-of-the-art” cold storage facility at CN’s Calgary Logistics Park in Alberta.

“Strategically located within CN’s integrated logistics hub, the facility will be designed to be in better proximity, accelerating the conversion of temperature-sensitive goods between rail and warehouse,” CN said. “Customers will benefit from a more reliable, timely and efficient service to get their perishable cargo to domestic and international markets. Developed with CN’s construction partner Matthews Tribal, the new Congebec facility will seamlessly integrate cold storage, cross-docking, transloading, and first- and last-mile services with CN’s established refrigerated programs. The proximity to rail of this new facility will also help streamline transfers, reduce dwell times, and ensure temperature-sensitive goods move more efficiently.”

“This innovative solution addresses long-standing challenges in the cold supply chain by enabling faster container flows, flexible on-demand capacity, and more reliable delivery schedules,” CN added. “This initiative will connect producers, retailers and logistics providers in Alberta and across the cold chain, reinforcing Canada’s food distribution network and global competitiveness. With this project, CN and Congebec are redefining cold chain logistics in Western Canada—giving customers greater speed, reliability, and confidence in moving their products across North America and into global markets.”

“This initiative with Congebec reflects CN’s commitment to building smarter, more sustainable supply chains, said CN Vice President, Intermodal Dan Bresolin. “This new hub will give our customers new options to move their temperature-sensitive products with greater efficiency, reliability, and reach, helping them compete in markets across North America and globally.”

“Working with CN on this new Calgary facility is a natural extension of our mission to provide reliable, sustainable cold chain solutions,” said Congebec Transport President Richard Patenaude. “By combining Congebec’s expertise in temperature-controlled logistics with CN’s expansive rail network, we’re giving customers the confidence to move their products anywhere they need to go, with efficiency and care.”

“We are proud to contribute our development expertise to a project that sets a new standard for cold chain logistics,” said Matthews Tribal Vice President, Development Carleigh Oude-Reimerink. “This facility represents the kind of genuine partnership Matthews Tribal believes in—built on trust and creating lasting value. By combining our Calgary presence with CN’s network and Congebec’s cold chain expertise, we’re helping customers overcome real challenges while supporting long-term growth in Western Canada.”

The post CN, Congebec Forge ‘Chilly’ Partnership appeared first on Railway Age.

The potential merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern has stirred up lots of talk and speculation around its possible impact, from safety issues to job opportunities and other likely scenarios impacting the railroad industry. However, what a lot of folks are not discussing is the major disruption this merger will cause to local communities along its route, including one major city that’s played a central role in the nation’s connection of freight railroad–Chicago.

Throughout the course of my 54 years of experience in transportation and rail, including 37 years with CSX, I’ve witnessed or been directly involved in nine freight rail mergers, and the most common theme among each one can be summed up in one word: disruption.

Merging railroads of this scale brings significant impact and complexity. On one hand, it can lead to long-term cost efficiencies for suppliers and manufacturers that rely on rail to transport goods across the country, and the short-term effects are often positive with job creation to support construction and integration efforts. On the other hand, the most lasting impact and disruption of these mass-scale mergers will be felt by the communities located along the expanded or newly built rail lines and tracks.

Increased traffic on some lines that will create congestion that is felt by local communities in the form of increased gate down times at crossings, noise impacts of additional horns where there are no quiet zones in place, locomotive noise impacts, and an increase in slowed or stopped trains at congested locations such as entrances to yards or at-grade crossings with other railroads. Not to mention the potential impacts to commuter and intercity passenger service that shares the tracks with the freight railroads of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.

In taking a close look at local communities along this rail network across the U.S., there’s a variety of factors that can impact residents and neighborhoods ranging from environmental damage, safety concerns, noise pollution, traffic congestion and disruption, as well as socioeconomic displacement. In working in Chicago during the CN acquisition of the EJ&E, the impact on communities such as Barrington or Lynwood, in Illinois, created traffic pattern changes that increased train traffic by up to 400%. These communities and others alike were able to secure some concessions from the railroad through the STB process that allowed them to construct rail grade separations, thereby easing some of the impacts on their communities.

One metropolitan area with numerous surrounding communities that will feel the effects and disruption the most from this merger is Chicago. This merger will mean even more trains passing through already one of the major transportation hubs in the Midwest. The merger has the potential to also cause further disruption to residents and commuters who are already waiting sometimes more than 10 minutes for a freight train to cross a track—despite Illinois law prohibiting the blocking of crossings for this amount of time. The influx of freight trains through Chicago has the potential to cause substantial delays in local commuters’ schedules and inconvenience their daily lives.

This combined merger will also interfere with commuter rail, leading to delays for passengers on Chicago’s Amtrak and Metra rail lines, even though by federal law Amtrak passenger trains must be given preference over freight trains.

One initiative that resulted from the multiple mergers in the 1990s and culminating with a record snowstorm in January 1999—the Chicago CREATE program—is a great example of how a public-private partnership worked to improve the way passengers and goods are transported via rail. In my experience working on the CREATE program, I learned firsthand from meetings with local communities what impact freight trains had on them. In this case, the Union Pacific Geneva Subdivision and the Norfolk Southern Chicago Line are both expected to see additional train traffic.

During my experience as the Director of the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CTCO) in Chicago from 2003-2008, an incident at any point in the Chicago terminal had an almost immediate effect on trains not only in Chicago but a domino effect on trains enroute to Chicago. While the merger may eliminate some interchanges between railroads in Chicago, it will create new interchanges and modify others, resulting in changes to every railroad operating plan in Chicago. In addition, shippers that today use a specific railroad or multiple railroads will look to improve their costs and transit times, which will create more disruption that will take months to sort out.

During the CSX/NS acquisition of Conrail in 1999, when I was the Director of Train Operations in Chicago for CSX, up until the actual date of the split, it was unknown which railroad any shipper was going to use, and many shifted multiple times afterwards to avoid what I termed at the time “rolling congestion” where shippers would transition to the less-congested railroad, only to find out that the shift impacted both railroads, and the level of congestion would ebb and flow for up to one year afterwards. While the UP+NS merger is different than when CSX and NS “carved” up Conrail, shippers still have the ability stick with their current options or look elsewhere.

Before this merger gains approval, municipalities in its path should start planning sooner rather than later. One way to do so is to commission a study to better understand how the extended, enhanced or new railroad line will impact its community. For example, a detailed operating and infrastructure study can show whether infrastructure that needs to be built, such as a bridge to allow trains to travel under or over major streets and highways to reduce the amount of impact to residents from a traffic perspective. At the same time, any crossing closures can assist in the development of a Quiet Zone, which would also improve the quality of life for a community. This type of knowledge will also help in negotiations with the rail giants to help potentially offset the infrastructure costs to the municipality.

What I’ve learned in my tenure working for some of the nation’s biggest freight rail companies, like CSX, and on projects with other Class I railroads including CN, CPKC, NS and UP, is that it typically gets significantly worse before it gets better for the communities involved. My best advice for municipality leadership is to act early, stay informed and advocate consistently for your community’s interests.

Earl Wacker is a Director in RINA North America’s Rail & Transit Practice and has been with the firm since 2020. He has been involved in the railroad industry in North America for more than 50 years. With 37 years’ experience at CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and its predecessors, he worked in every aspect of the railroad business. In 2008, Wacker retired from CSXT and took a position at AECOM (URS), where he was responsible for all railroads in North and South America. He retired from AECOM in 2019 and formed his own company to consult with railroads and other entities on issues ranging from operating coordination, capital project management, rules compliance, etc.

The post A Tectonic Shift on the Tracks: The Disruptive Potential of a Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger appeared first on Railway Age.

On Oct. 14, 2025, the 45th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 signing, the Association of American Railroads launched a new website, “Harley Explains,” hosted by a folksy, bearded, ponytailed, blue jeans-and-leather-jacket-clad animated character named—who else—Harley, who looks like he just hopped off his Harley Davidson at a railroad crossing. Named after the late Rep. Harley Orrin Staggers, for whom the Staggers Rail Act was named out of respect, this Harley doesn’t gesture with his hands very much, like the late Jim Florio, the Italian-descent New Jersey congressman who actually authored and near single-handedly managed the legislation, probably did.

“I’m here to help you know what’s going on in rail policy and to get an idea of how freight railroads work,” Harley says in a Western-brogue-free baritone reminiscent of Sam Elliott. “Think of me as your guide through the nuts and bolts of the industry, minus the jargon and the snooze (I hope he’s not referring to Railway Age). I’m a true rail guy and I get pretty jazzed (remember that expression?) about all this stuff. I’ll drop new videos regularly, so subscribe to AAR’s YouTube channel and check out their newsletter The Signal to stay in the loop.”

Cowboy hats off to the AAR for doing this. It’s a great idea, presenting rail “stuff” in a simple, easily digestible way, like pork and beans straight out of the can, heated just a tad on a campfire. John Q. Public—who last I heard don’t know nuthin’ ’bout railroads ’cept that when them bells start ringin’ and lights start flashin’ and them gates come down, is gonna be waitin’ a real long time for a real long train to pass—could use some learnin’ ’bout all the good things railroads do.

Come to think of it, most of them folk up on Capitol Hill could use some learning, ’specially since none were around when President Jimmy Carter signed Staggers into law.

President Jimmy Carter signing the Staggers Rail Act into law on Oct. 14, 1980. Representative Harley O. Staggers (D-W.Va.), sponsor of the bill, stands to the President’s right. AAR President William H. Dempsey, who led the railroad lobbying effort in support of the Staggers Rail Act, is at far left. Staggers (1907-1991) was chair of the House Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee. But directly behind Carter is the person most responsible for crafting the actual legislation, Rep. James J. Florio (D-N.J.) chair of the House Transportation Subcommittee. White House photo.

But let’s be clear folks. Florio got it done, as Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner points out in his book, Railroads and Economic Regulation (An Insider’s Account): “Sensing strong opposition, Florio flashed remarkable political savvy, seizing on an announcement by House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee Chairperson Harley O. Staggers (D-W.Va.) that he (Staggers) would retire after 16 House terms. To attract additional votes for H.R. 7235—and cement Staggers’ support—Florio renamed the Rail Act of 1980 as the Staggers Rail Act, calling it ‘a fitting tribute [to Chairperson Staggers’] years of service and dedication to a sound rail transportation system in America.”

Wilner’s book also chronicles Staggers’ opposition to early economic deregulation, such as a railroad-sought “zone of rate freedom.” So, Harley Staggers was not a deregulator in any sense of the word. Jim Florio was the squeeze and the juice behind the Staggers Rail Act—which was bipartisan legislation, somethin’ we don’t hear too much about ’round these parts anymore.

But that’s OK. All water under the railroad trestle. What matters, AAR tells ya’ll, is that since Staggers, “rail rates are 44% lower than in 1981 (adjusted for inflation). Railroads have reinvested $840 billion—$1.4 trillion in today’s dollars—into their own networks. Railroads move one ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel, and make $23 billion each year in private investment, not taxpayer dollars. The legacy of the bipartisan partial economic deregulation continues to deliver results for railroads, customers and everyday consumers. Preserving this landmark legislation will help drive the investment necessary to continue enhancing safety and keep our economy growing. Bottom line: The Staggers Rail Act turned a failing industry into a global leader. [This] anniversary is a moment to reflect on the power of smart policy—and the importance of protecting it.”

Now, for railroaders, all them facts amount to making the obvious less obscure. But for political types and the public, well, heck, we need to keep hammerin’ away, drivin’ that spike into that crosstie—rather than into our own coffin.

The post ‘Harley’ Explains it All appeared first on Railway Age.

A wood trestle on the Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad was damaged by fire on October 8, and the cause of the blaze is still under investigation. 

The trestle, owned by the Port of Tillamook Bay and leased to OCSR along with the rest of the former Southern Pacific branchline along the Oregon Coast, is located near Tillamook. It is not used by OCSR’s regular excursions and is not expected to impact the tourist road’s daily operations. However, it sits on a section of track connecting the excursion route with OCSR’s main restoration facility. Until the bridge is repaired or rebuilt, all equipment moving between the two sites will need to be transported by truck. 

As this story went to press, the railroad was seeking the help of a bridge inspector to determine if the structure was a total loss and whether it would need to be rebuilt from the ground up. The local sheriff’s office is currently investigating the cause of the blaze, and the railroad has been in contact with state and federal law enforcement agencies since the railroad is federally regulated, making a targeted act a federal crime. 

This is the second excursion railroad in the Pacific Northwest to be affected by a bridge fire this year. In late April, a bridge on the Mount Rainier Scenic was also destroyed by fire. The cause of that fire is still under investigation. 

—Justin Franz 

The post Oregon Coast Scenic Bridge Damaged in Fire appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

New York, Susquehanna, & Western SY 2-8-2 142 has returned to service at the Belvidere & Delaware River Railway in New Jersey. The locomotive is owned by the New York, Susquehanna, & Western Technical Historical Society and was last used on regular excursions in 2017, when it was taken out of service for an overhaul. 

Since then, crews have slowly but surely rebuilt the locomotive, firing it up for the first time in seven years in 2024. The engine returned to service in late September and will be leading Delaware River Railroad Excursions throughout October. 

NYS&W 142 is one of a half-dozen Chinese steam locomotives exported to the United States. It was built in 1989 for Connecticut’s Valley Railroad, where it ran into the 1990s. The Susquehanna purchased its own SY locomotive, but it was lost at sea when the ship it was on sank. The NYS&W then purchased the Valley locomotive (then numbered 1647) and gave it the number 142, two numbers above the last Susquehanna 2-8-2 (140) and one number above the one that sank (141). It ran in excursion service on the railroad for more than a decade before being sold to the historical society. 

The other Chinese-built steam locomotives in the U.S. include Valley Railroad SY 2-8-2 3025 (built for the Knox & Kane in 1989), JS 2-8-2 8419 at the Boone & Scenic, Iowa Interstate QJ 2-10-2s 6988 and 7081, and R.J. Corman QJ 2-10-2 2008 (now owned by Kentucky Steam Heritage Corp.). 

The post NYS&W 142 Returns to Service appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

“A continued downward trend in import volumes, which is driving tighter assessment of accessorial fees as ports seek to capture revenue during peak season,” has been confirmed by ITS Logistics’ recently released October forecast for its US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index. “Outside the ports, the evolving regulatory situation surrounding non-domiciled CDLs is driving lower-cost capacity out of the market, increasing the risk of financial insolvency for some carriers. These compounding factors are placing a downward squeeze on an already soft drayage market, which could cause problems for shippers in both the short and long term.”

(ITS Logistics)

ITS Logistics, a Nevada-based third-party logistics (3PL) firm, releases each month an index forecasting port container and dray operations for the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf regions; ocean and domestic container rail ramp operations are also highlighted for both the West and East inland regions.

“Terminals and rail ramps should not face any major challenges due to inbound or export volumes,” said ITS Logistics Vice President of Global Supply Chain Paul Brashier. “There are, however, some storm clouds on the horizon that could negatively impact trucking and, by extension, terminal and port operations upstream.”

On Sept. 26, following the review of findings from a nationwide audit of CDL licenses, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued an emergency interim ruling restricting eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs. In response, several states have implemented enforcement efforts to verify CDL compliance and English language proficiency (ELP) at weigh stations, ports of entry, and along major transportation routes, according to ITS Logistics. “Industry experts warn that non-domiciled CDL holders account for a significant portion of the lower-cost capacity market and that regulatory crackdowns will likely result in a surge in bankruptcies across small and mid-size carriers. This is especially true for the drayage market, which has seen multiple major providers close their doors throughout 2025. It is anticipated that stricter enforcement of non-domiciled CDLs and ELP requirements will exacerbate financial challenges, pushing out capacity and ultimately impacting terminal and port operations.”

“In the near term, these new regulations will remove capacity from the ecosystem and cause market disruption,” Brashier continued. “In the long term, it could drive many carriers out of business as they struggle to withstand both evolving regulatory pressures and the ongoing freight recession that has pushed rates down to or below operating levels. Vetting service provider health will become even more important as shippers begin late 2025 and early 2026 RFP activity.”

U.S. September import volume is projected at 2.12 million TEUs, down from 2.28 million TEUs in August and representing a 6.8% year-over-year decrease, according to ITS Logistics report. “The National Retail Federation anticipates that monthly import volumes will continue to drop for the remainder of the year, citing tariffs and frontloading activity in the first half of 2025. In response to low container demand and declining per-container revenue, ocean carriers are strictly enforcing their accessorial schedules to maintain profitability. With minimal exceptions beyond clear operational failures, ITS Logistics recommends shippers review their supply chains for any inefficiencies that could be exposed and penalized under this renewed focus.”

“Shippers should take this opportunity to confirm that accessorial dispute processes and documentation requirements are clearly defined in their SOPs,” Brashier said. “If your supply chain utilizes rail for ocean container movement, it’s also important to ensure you understand items like chassis pool flip policies and which parties to engage with to resolve issues within free time.”

The post ITS Logistics Issues October US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index appeared first on Railway Age.

Expanding storage capacity at the rail yard, the agency says, “is a key component to delivering more frequent service that better serve existing, changing and new travel markets” as outlined in the MARC Growth and Transformation Plan (download below).

The project scope includes increased storage capacity for MARC Trains at the Martin Maintenance Yard (located near Martin State Airport), new tracks with catenary electrification, crossover tracks, a new inspection pit, and equipment that includes water hydrants, air piping extensions and light fixtures to support train car maintenance. The yard and shop improvements are needed to support the MTA’s future commitment to operate electrified trainsets on the Penn Line following the completion of Amtrak’s Frederick Douglass Tunnel. The Martin Maintenance Yard project also supports Amtrak’s redevelopment of Penn Station—plans that require an alternative to Penn Station as a storage area, where many MARC trains are currently located when not in service.

The $35 million investment in improvements and increased capacity for the Martin Maintenance Yard is set to begin later this fall, with completion slated for summer 2027, according to the agency. It is supported by a discretionary grant from the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program.

“Investing in our rail infrastructure today ensures we can deliver improved service in the future,” said Maryland Transit Administrator Holly Arnold. “It is a critical element in our goal to transform MARC Train from a commuter rail to a regional rail service.”

MARC Growth Plan_Final Report_20250624_redDownload

The post MDOT MTA to Expand, Modernize MARC Storage Facilities at Martin Maintenance Yard appeared first on Railway Age.

Before the M 

The area surrounding the M Ocean View was largely undeveloped farmland until well into the 20th century. Since the 1860s, passenger trains to and from San Jose stopped nearby but service was infrequent and slow. In the early 1900s, electric streetcar lines skirted today’s Oceanview on San Jose Avenue and Ocean Avenue. This helped drive growth in the area: streets, housing and other infrastructure. The core area now served by the M remained without service. 

This 1910 map shows the area surrounding the M Line. Red lines show streetcar lines. Two steam train lines are shown as solid black lines. Most of the streets seen here were only plans on a map and remained unpaved for decades. (Map: David Rumsey Map Collection, David Rumsey Map Center, Stanford Libraries, Courtesy of SFMTA) The M Line Proposed and Built 

Muni opened the K Ingleside in 1918 and the L Taraval 1919, its first lines west of Twin Peaks. With the K and L in operation, Muni was looking to further expand service in the southwest part of the city. The M was proposed as an extension with two different plans. One plan charted it from the K Line terminal on Brighton and Grafton. The route would snake downhill through mostly empty lots to Randolph Street. This proposal was rejected due to high cost and slow travel times along the steep route. 

A second proposal placed the M on a path west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. This route would be cheaper to build and provide faster service to downtown. This proposal envisioned the M as a branch off a future rapid transit line to the peninsula. 

Construction on the M began in early 1924. The M Line split off St. Francis Circle to what would become 19th Avenue. After almost a mile, it wound eastward to Randolph and ended at Broad Street and Plymouth Avenue. 

This Feb. 13, 1924 photo shows just how empty the area served by the M was. (Courtesy of SFMTA) A Slow Start 

The M Line opened Oct. 6, 1925 with little fanfare. In the beginning, it ran only as a shuttle from Broad and Plymouth to the end of West Portal Avenue at St. Francis Circle. Initially, only two streetcars were assigned to the line. For trips downtown, people would transfer to the K Ingleside. 

In 1927, Muni partially expanded M Line service through the Twin Peaks Tunnel. Downtown service was only provided on four trips per day, at the beginning and end of the two cars’ runs. Full downtown service was not established for nearly 20 years. 

A decade after opening, the M Ocean View rolled through empty land along most of its route. This 1936 view shows the desolate intersection of 19th Avenue and Junipero Serra Boulevard. (Courtesy of SFMTA) 

Development of the area was slow to take hold and ridership remained low on the M Line. Revenues failed to cover operating costs, and the Great Depression compounded the problem. After 14 years, streetcar service was replaced with the 10 Ocean View bus route in August 1939. Buses were cheaper to operate and were already in use as feeder routes in other areas. 

Post-War Growth Along the M 

Demand finally increased during WWII, and Muni brought streetcars back to the M in 1944. Service was restored along the entire line to downtown. After the war, the M Line helped drive development of the Lakeside, Stonestown, Parkmerced and Oceanview neighborhoods. 

This 1957 photo shows construction of a “wye” track at Broad and Plymouth to improve the M Line terminal. (Courtesy of SFMTA)

In 1952 Stonestown Mall and hundreds of adjacent apartments opened. A year later, San Francisco State University opened its new main campus along 19th Avenue. The M quickly became a staple for shoppers and students. 

This March 1979 photo shows people boarding an M Line streetcar near St. Francis Circle. Soon, these cars would be replaced with Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs). (Courtesy of SFMTA) Muni Metro Extends and Modernizes the M 

Between 1974 and 1978, service on the M was again replaced by buses. This time, it was for track reconstruction in the Twin Peaks Tunnel and along the M Line for the Muni Metro system. 

With the Muni Metro system nearing completion, new ideas to improve the M surfaced. Muni’s 1979 5-year plan included a proposal to interconnect the M with the J Church. This plan would extend tracks on San Jose Avenue to Broad Street and along the Embarcadero to 4th and King. While this exact plan was never implemented, the M Line was extended to Balboa Park along San Jose Avenue that year. 

M Ocean View track construction on Broad Street and San Jose Avenue in 1979. (Courtesy of SFMTA)

Muni Metro opened in early 1980. By December, the M Ocean View ran on weekdays from Balboa Park to Embarcadero using new LRVs.

One of Muni’s first LRVs runs on new tracks over I-280 along the M Line extension on San Jose Ave. in 1982. (Courtesy of SFMTA)

In 1990, the M was Muni’s second-busiest rail line with close to 32,000 weekday boardings. In 1995, Muni built two new high-level platform stations at the Stonestown and SF State stops. 

Mayor Frank Jordan (center) and Muni General Manager Philip Adams (left of Mayor) at ribbon cutting ceremony for the new SF State platform. (Courtesy of SFMTA)

Opened on March 1, 1995, the stations improved both safety and accessibility at these two heavily used stops. 

An M Line LRV stops at SF State in this 1995 shot, just two weeks after the station opened. (Courtesy of SFMTA) The Future of the M Ocean View 

100 years after its opening, we are making more improvements to the M Ocean View. Read all about these and the future of the M in Part Two of our series, which debuts soon. 

This article first appeared on the SFMTA website.

The post Celebrating 100 Years on the M Ocean View! appeared first on Railway Age.

We are on the cusp of what has the potential to be one of the most transformational times in the history of U.S. railroading. On July 24 of this year, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announced what had been rumored for a few weeks prior: The two would seek the first-ever transcontinental U.S. railroad merger, uniting lines connecting both coasts under a single banner.

While this has the potential to be groundbreaking in the railroads’ abilities to compete more directly with major nationwide trucking companies, it comes under the shadow of significant uncertainty, including integration challenges with combining two massive operations, the concerns of shippers and labor unions, and regulatory concerns—chiefly, the Surface Transportation Board’s significantly more complex and untested 2001 merger rules adopted after the denied merger of BNSF and CN from 1999-2000. While I intend to touch on all these issues, I’m primarily focused on what will likely be necessary to obtain approval under the new rules, focusing especially on the competition enhancement—an STB requirement.

Of foremost importance for railroad growth and relevance in the 21st century is the ability to compete with as well as compliment major U.S. trucking company networks. A significant drawback of the current eastern and western duopolies is lack of a transcontinental corridor under a single banner. This creates interchange issues that are often based on the railroads’ internal desire to not “short-haul” themselves—in other words, wanting to maximize the mileage (and thus revenue) for freight hauled. One result has been making Chicago, already a significant freight origin and destination point, into the main interchange point between the East and West (significant alternatives including St. Louis, Kansas City, New Orleans and Memphis). These routings are often more circuitous, with transit times bogged down by unavoidable interchanges between carriers (these handoffs necessary, even if using some of the less-busy interchanges).

The Midwest is particularly affected by this problem, due to the railroads’ natural competitive advantages with higher freight volumes over longer distances (500+ miles), essentially creating a freight rail “service desert” in the Midwest whose void is filled by trucks. As examples, many customers served solely by UP trying to move their freight east or by NS trying to move their freight west find they aren’t well-served (or served at all) by rail for those routings due to the shorter-haul distances the eastern carriers would need to haul their freight before handing it off to a western carrier, or vice-versa. This is uneconomical, resulting in trucks taking much of this traffic.

The STB must take a broader approach in how it views enhancing competition: Railroads currently suffer a competitive disadvantage due to geographical constraints not suffered by other modes of freight tfrom ransport such as trucking and air freight. To quote rail industry veteran Nate Clark, “Major railroads have a recurring problem with wearing blinders that trick them into forgetting that the real competition rides on rubber tires.” I encourage the STB to avoid wearing those same blinders as it considers the UP+BS merger.

Having a nationwide network with complimentary overlap to major trucking companies isn’t enough, though. One can look to Canada, where the two primary rail carriers, CN and CPKC, under similar regulatory, operational and market conditions as their U.S. Class I counterparts, operate transcontinental networks, and yet find themselves losing volume to trucks due to abandonments and service cuts. Canadian rail service has seen recently experienced some growth following rollbacks of certain negative PSR aspects.

In the U.S., under pressure from Wall Street and activist investors (hedge funds) and pressing on with extreme applications of Precision Scheduled Railroading, some railroads have pursued staff reductions and curtailed investment in capacity improvements and other capital projects—all in the name of driving down the operating ratio. Meanwhile, railroaders and customers have suffered, both consistently saying these cuts have been too large, making railroaders’ lives miserable and customers’ service levels unsustainable.

Among additional cautionary tales in the history of consolidation and resource reduction without sufficient planning, often accompanied by what’s best described as “us vs. them syndrome”:

• The ill-fated Pennsylvania Railroad-New York Central merger in 1968, resulting in the Penn Central bankruptcy, which led to the 1976 creation of government-owned Conrail, requiring decades to repair the damage to the eastern rail network.
• The two-year operational meltdown following the 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger, whose effects were acutely felt in the Houston region.
• The operational meltdown of former Conrail territory after the 1999 Conrail split.

One of the best ways for the STB to manage and account for downstream merger effects will be to give shippers and rail labor a say in creating minimum staffing and capex spending requirements as a condition, based on mileage operated, anticipated freight traffic growth and worker needs.

The final and possibly most important focus of my observations is related to route optimization through competition-enhancing line transfers. With the duopolies in the eastern one-third (NS and CSX) and western two-thirds (UP and BNSF) of the U.S., there are significant regional service gaps where one of the two carriers has successfully blocked the other out of the market, creating Class I monopolies within those regions. Major metropolitan regions such as Salt Lake City, Seattle, Nashville, Tampa, Indianapolis, Boston and San Antonio, among others, are served by one Class I. A few technically have limited service from a competing carrier via trackage rights. These situations have often been created due to perceived intentional anti-competitive behavior, such as the CSX predecessor Chessie System abandoning parallel routes into Tampa to prevent NS predecessor Southern from accessing Tampa, today the highest-tonnage U.S. port served by a single Class I.

As part of the approval process of a UP+NS merger, potentially followed by BNSF+CSX, the STB must mandate sale of certain routes to enhance competition where regional monopolies currently exist. I propose the full sale of certain routes and partial sale of others (such as in cases where there is only a singular route), where partial sales would result in each railroad owning an equal share, similar to the creation of Conrail Shared Assets in the North Jersey, South Jersey/Philadelphia and Detroit regions.

Such key transfers would give the other carrier access to regions currently served by only one Class I. In the case of routes being sold outright, the selling railroad would retain full trackage rights at predetermined access rates. In the case of partial ownership transfers, the lines involved would be jointly owned by each railroad and operated similar to Conrail Shared Assets. These proposed changes (as seen on the maps) would enhance competition by providing unhindered (i.e. not requiring trackage rights) dual-railroad access to the Seattle region, Salt Lake City, Boston, Tampa, San Antonio, the Mexican border, and other places. BNSF owns its own route to the Mexican border at El Paso, but it connects only with Ferromex on the Mexican side, of which UP owns 26%. CPKC has its own route to the Mexican border, crossing at Laredo, Tex., but requires significant stretches of trackage rights over UP—which has full or partial control of all routes between the U.S. and Mexico.

Mandating trackage rights access for captive Class II and Class III railroads to interchange with other Class I’s as a merger condition could also provide competitive enhancements. Additionally, the STB could require fast-track rebuilding of key abandoned routes, such as:

• The ex-PRR Pittsburgh-Dayton-Indianapolis line.
• Lines down the west side of Florida to Tampa.
• The ex-Milwaukee Road across Washington State.
• The ex-CRI&P (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific) Memphis-Amarillo line.
• The ex-Illinois Central Meridian-Mobile line.

The STB could also require freight railroads improve passenger train priority or give passenger rail agencies an option to purchase partial widths of rights-of-way to enable the construction of passenger-only lines parallel to existing freight lines as a more sustainable long-term solution. In all cases of lines designated for full sale, partial sale, parallel right-of-way access or trackage rights access, the selling and purchasing railroads would be able to negotiate prices, with mandatory arbitration for unresolvable disputes. The purchasers would maintain the right to opt out of purchasing designated routes. To enhance competition, the selling railroads would maintain full trackage rights on routes sold. Railroads would be encouraged to keep directional operation arrangements (such as on routes across Arkansas and Nevada), even with line transfers, to help maintain network fluidity.

In summary, freight railroads have a significant opportunity to expand their footprint and competitive edge if they play their cards right. This will require:

• Significant STB oversight.
• Concessions from all parties, including transfers of key routes.
• Input from employees and customers.
• Commitments to merger integration plans that minimize or prevent service meltdowns.
• Willingness to better accommodate passenger trains on shared or parallel routes with freights, or to sell redundant routes outright as passenger-only lines.
• Rollback on the harmful impacts of PSR on safety, service quality and competition.

Transcontinental mergers may be necessary for U.S. Class I’s to compete in the 21st century, provided they’re done properly. Like UP and NS, Berkshire Hathaway/BNSF and CSX should pursue a merger, not because they believe there’s no other alternative, but because they believe it’s the right thing to do.

Top: Current UP and NS. Proposed lines to transfer full or partial ownership in white. Bottom: Hypothetical post-merger UP+NS. Top: Current BNSF and CSX. Proposed lines to transfer full or partial ownership in white. Bottom: Hypothetical post-merger BNSF+CSX. Map Key

• White: Lines currently owned by the railroad in the “Current” map designated for either full or partial ownership transfer; or trackage rights access when competitor does not desire ownership.
• Pink: Lines to be jointly own between the combined UP+NS and BNSF+CSX systems. The receiving railroad can obtain trackage rights and retain the option to purchase partial ownership.
• Dark Green: Sold by UP, to be jointly owned by BNSF and CPKC as route to the Mexican border.
• Light Green: Partial ownership sold by NS, to be jointly owned by NS and CPKC.
• Light Blue: To be jointly owned by UP+NS, BNSF+CSX and CPKC. In Texas, this is the HB&T (Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, jointly owned by BNSF and UP), whose service limits would be extended from Beaumont to Rosenberg. In Indiana, Genesee & Wyoming’s CF&E (Chicago, Fort Wayne & Eastern) short line operates on CSX-owned tracks, which would be owned by all three.
• Orange: Current or proposed future BNSF-owned lines.
• Yellow: Current or proposed future UP-owned lines.
• Black: Current or proposed future NS-owned lines.
• Blue: Current or proposed future CSX-owned lines.
• Red: Current or proposed future CN-owned lines.
• Brown: Current or proposed future CPKC-owned lines.
• Purple: Current short lines or passenger rail routes on which Class I’s have trackage rights.

Jim Dodds is an industry observer who likes to think outside the box and approach ideas from a different angle than other observers, offering a fresh perspective. A 2018 graduate of Southeast Missouri State University with double majors in International Business and Spanish, he is currently a Talent Acquisition Coordinator at investment firm Edward Jones. While Jim’s primary focus is North American freight and passenger rail, he is also knowledgeable about the airline industry, having developed network strategy ideas. He additionally has significant knowledge along with first-hand observation of transportation systems around the world, giving him an international perspective on changes and enhancements that could be made to U.S. transportation. Jim’s longer-term professional goal is a career in freight rail, public transportation or airlines. The opinions expressed here are his alone, not those of Railway Age.

The post Mergers: Proceed With Caution appeared first on Railway Age.

Ricardo operates in more than 20 countries across Europe, Australia, North America, Asia, and the Middle East. It works on projects in the air quality, water management, energy resilience, policy strategy, and advisory services and Rail and Mass Transit (Rail) business segments, as well as the automotive and Industrial (A&I) and Performance Products (PP) business segments.

WSP operates in 50-plus countries and manages projects in the transportation, infrastructure, environment, building, energy, water, and mining and metals sectors.

“In keeping with WSP’s 2025–2027 Global Strategic Action Plan, the acquisition both accelerates growth in advisory, energy transition, water solutions and rail, and strengthens WSP’s presence in key markets such as the UK, Australia and the Netherlands,” reported WSP, which announced reaching agreements to acquire Ricardo in June.

Following shareholder approval and the successful sanctioning of the transaction at a UK court hearing on Oct. 7, the acquisition became effective Oct. 9. 

“We are pleased to bring Ricardo into WSP and welcome new colleagues across the globe,” said Alexandre L’Heureux, President and CEO of WSP. “The team’s deep, differentiated expertise in areas that are increasingly critical to our clients—air quality, water management, energy resilience, policy strategy and rail—enhances our offering and accelerates our momentum toward our strategic ambitions in high-growth sectors and markets. We will now focus on integrating our teams and building on our combined strengths. Our complementary capabilities and shared passion for technical excellence position us to drive greater innovation and deliver added value as we support our clients through complex transitions.”

“Today [Oct. 9] marks a significant milestone for Ricardo as we proudly join WSP,” commented Graham Ritchie, CEO of Ricardo. “WSP’s belief in our strategy and support for our continued journey reflects the strength of what we have built over the past few years since we launched our strategy focused on sustainable growth in key markets. Ricardo and WSP share values and a purpose-led culture, so this acquisition accelerates our ability to deliver a broader, more impactful offering to our clients. It also opens up exciting new opportunities for our talented teams—opportunities that would not have been possible without this partnership. We are committed to supporting WSP’s dynamic strategic vision and look forward to shaping the future together.”

Gleacher Shacklock served as financial adviser to Ricardo in connection with the transaction with WSP. Investec plc acted as the company’s broker, while Ashurst LLP provided legal counsel throughout the process, according to Ricardo.

The post WSP Expands its Portfolio appeared first on Railway Age.

(Courtesy of G&W)

King Milling used a Freight Economic Development Program grant and G&W subsidiary Grand Rapids Eastern Railroad (GRE) used a Michigan Rail Enhancement Program grant to upgrade rail infrastructure that G&W reported via social media “supported increased freight rail traffic for King Milling’s recent flour milling expansion project” in Lowell, part of Kent County. GRE’s $2.5 million grant went toward tie and ballast replacement, track surfacing, and bridge improvements.

(Courtesy of G&W)

The event included a tour of the flour mill, which the short line holding company said was  “impressive”—both in terms of technology and “meticulous cleanliness.” The partners also discussed how their investments “are strengthening supply chains, providing jobs, supporting local businesses, and enhancing freight efficiency across the region.”

Also participating were representatives from the Michigan DOT, local government, and the Michigan Agri-Business Association.

(Courtesy of G&W)

According to G&W, the flour mill was constructed in 1890 and linked to rail in 1899. The rail line was originally part of the Pere Marquette Railroad (an antecedent of CSX and Lake State Railway), “a legacy of rail supporting Michigan industry for over a century.”

“Thank you to everyone who helped make this celebration a success!” G&W concluded in its social media post.

The post G&W, King Milling Celebrate Partnership appeared first on Railway Age.