Prototype News

The last F40C locomotive on the Metra roster has been donated to Railroading Heritage of Midwest America in Silvis, Ill. RRHMA, which is assembling an impressive fleet of diesel locomotives along with two Union Pacific steam engines, said it plans to restore the rare six-axle passenger unit to operation. 

Metra 611 was spotted being moved around Chicago on March 18, and is now en route to Silvis. 

“Metra has a deep appreciation for its history, and we are grateful they have chosen RRHMA to receive this unique locomotive,” said RRHMA President Steve Sandberg in a press release. “Our collection includes Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 261, along with several Milwaukee Road passenger cars, including a Skytop observation car, Super Dome, and sleeping car. Adding this locomotive — one that also once wore Milwaukee Road lettering — advances our mission of preserving significant artifacts of Midwest railroading.”

Last year, Meta’s other surviving F40C, No. 614, was donated to the Illinois Railway Museum. 

Metra 611 was built in April 1974 as Milwaukee Road 54. The F40C design was unique to the North Suburban and North West Suburban Mass Transit Districts, which supported commuter service over the Milwaukee Road lines north and west of Chicago to Fox Lake and Elgin. The F40C is a six-axle, six-motor locomotive with a “cowl” design intended purely for passenger service. The locomotives’ sides were largely covered in stainless steel to match the Milwaukee Road’s bi-level commuter coaches. They were also equipped with head-end power (HEP) as built. Only 15 F40C locomotives were built, all in 1974 by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors at the EMD plant in McCook, Illinois.

Metra 611 was used in daily service on the Milwaukee Road North and West lines until 2004, when it was removed from active service. It and identical F40C 614 were returned to service in 2009. In 2012, Metra permanently retired both units and put them into storage at Western Avenue. 

RRHMA owns the former Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad shop complex in Silvis and plans to turn it into the largest historic railroad equipment restoration facility in the country. The non-profit is presently restoring UP 4-6-6-4 3985 and 2-10-2 5511. 

The post Metra Donates F40C to Railroading Heritage of Midwest America appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

There was a legal maxim in England during the Middle Ages that “The King can do no wrong.” That ancient doctrine has come down to us today as the concept of “Sovereign Immunity,” that a sovereign government cannot be sued for its acts or wrongdoing, unless it consents to such suits. Many states in this country today have a Tort Claims Act that allows plaintiffs to recover damages against that State.

On March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States set limits on Sovereign Immunity by consolidating two cases where New Jersey Transit (NJT) was the defendant. The Court’s case is captioned Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, 607U.S. ___ (2026) (Slip Op.). The plaintiffs in both cases were injured in accidents involving NJ Transit buses, and both occurred in states other than New Jersey. Cedric Galette was injured in an accident in Philadelphia when the automobile in which he was riding was struck by an NJT bus on Market Street. The Court consolidated his case with that of a New York plaintiff, Jeffrey Colt, who was crossing a street in Midtown Manhattan when he was knocked down by an NJT bus and injured.

The Court of Appeals of New York (equivalent to the Supreme Courts of other states) in Colt’s case held that NJT was not “an arm of New Jersey” and therefore could be sued. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Galette’s case that NJT was an arm of the State, which was not subject to suit, and dismissed Galette’s action. As the Court opinion noted, the states used different criteria for determining whether a state agency could assert the defense of Sovereign Immunity, which is an absolute defense.

When the highest courts of different states (or different Circuit Courts of Appeals in the Federal Court system) differ on legal results in cases with similar facts, it is up to the SCOTUS to resolve the differences, usually by deciding to agree with only one of the lower courts. That happened in the present case, and the Court clarified the differences between an “arm of the State” that can assert the Sovereign Immunity defense, and a different type of state agency that can be sued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. She began by saying: “States are generally entitled to immunity from being sued in another State’s courts without their consent. That sovereign immunity is personal to the State and thus extends only to arms of the State itself, not to legally independent entities that the State creates.” She then summarized the cases: “This pair of cases arises out of two accidents, one in New York City and one in Philadelphia, in which New Jersey Transit buses struck and injured people. Both victims sued New Jersey Transit, a corporation created by the New Jersey Legislature, in their respective home courts in New York and Pennsylvania. The highest courts in those States diverged as to whether New Jersey Transit is an arm of New Jersey. The Court granted certiorari to resolve whether New Jersey Transit is an arm of New Jersey and thus entitled to the State’s sovereign immunity. It is not. Accordingly, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is reversed.”

Thus, NJT became an example of the sort of agency where the State exercises a great deal of control. But the question is whether the agency at issue is controlled directly by the State or has enough independent authority that it can be considered an entity separate from the State itself and, therefore, it can be sued. Early in the Court’s opinion, Sotomayor described NJT’s structure since it was founded: “The Legislature in 1979 created the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit). The State structured the entity as a ‘body corporate and politic with corporate succession.’ The ‘corporation’ was ‘constituted as an instrumentality of the State exercising public and essential governmental functions.’ It was ‘allocated within the Department of Transportation,’ but ‘the corporation’ was ‘independent of any supervision or control by the department or by any body or officer thereof’” (citations omitted). The opinion then described the “significant authority” that NJT has, as described by its enabling statute: “For instance, it has the power to: make its own bylaws; sue and be sued; enter into contracts; acquire or deal in and with real or personal property; raise funds from fares, gifts, grants, or loans; own and control any corporate entity acquired or formed to carry out its objectives; adopt rules and regulations as necessary; and exercise eminent domain powers. Moreover, NJ Transit’s organic statute provides that ‘[n]o debt or liability of the corporation shall be deemed or construed to create or constitute a debt, liability, or a loan or pledge of the credit of the State.’ It also states that ‘[a]ll expenses incurred by the corporation . . . shall be payable from funds available to the corporation’ and that ‘no liability or obligation shall be incurred by the corporation beyond the extent to which moneys are available’” (citations omitted).

The opinion then described the powers and authority that the State had granted to NJT by statute and described the facts of the two cases at issue. That included an analysis of how the New York and Pennsylvania Courts examined the status of NJT as a State agency, which resulted in the New York Court holding that it is not an “arm of the State” and the Pennsylvania Court holding that it is.

The next topic was the development of doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, where the Opinion said: “Sovereign immunity, however, is ‘personal’ to the State itself. It does not extend to ‘lesser entities,’ such as ‘municipal corporation[s] or other governmental entit[ies]’ that are not ‘arm[s] of the State.’  Whether an entity is ‘an arm of the State . . . is a question of federal law’ that ‘can be answered only after considering the provisions of state law that define the agency’s character’” (citation omitted). The opinion then developed the history of the doctrine, including citing cases that were decided more than 100 years ago. Citing an 1890 case, the Court said: “The Court applied the same reasoning to cities and counties that were created as municipal corporations. The Court explained that the corporate form of such entities, which included the power to ‘sue and be sued,’ likewise made them legal persons separate from the sovereign and thus not entitled to share in the State’s sovereign immunity” (citation omitted). More recently, as the opinion said: “the analysis remained focused on discerning whether the State had structured the entity to be legally separate, and corporate status remained central to that analysis.”

The Court went on to use counties as an example of how a political subdivision is not an arm of the State, citing Moore v. Alemeda County, 411 U.S. 693, 719, 720-21: “It explained that the county was also created as a ‘body corporate and politic,’ which meant, ‘[m]ost notably,’ that the county was given ‘corporate powers,’ such as the ability to ‘sue and be sued,’ to ‘deal in property,’ and to make contract[s].’ Financially, moreover, the county alone would be ‘liable for all judgments against it’ and could issue bonds without creating an ‘obligation on the part of the State.’ Finally, the Court observed that, given the county’s corporate status, the California Supreme Court had held that counties could be sued by the State.’ The Court thus concluded that the county was not an arm of the State because the county had a ‘sufficiently independent corporate character’” (citations omitted). The opinion then examined the status of counties in Mount Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280-81 (1977): “Resting on the firmly established rule that municipal corporations and counties are not arms of the State, the Court in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), framed the arm-of-the-State inquiry as asking whether an entity is ‘more like a county or city’ than ‘like an arm of the State.” Id., at 280. In answering that question for the entity at issue, a local school board, the Court examined the characteristics of the board under state law. It observed that the board was created as a ‘political subdivision’ distinct from the ‘State,’ that it had powers to issue bonds and levy taxes, and that it received money and guidance from the State. Those characteristics led the Court to conclude that the board was ‘more like a county or city’ and thus not entitled to immunity. Id., at 280–281.”

The opinion also cited Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (regarding the entity that operates PATH trains between Manhattan and New Jersey), saying: “The Court acknowledged that the States exerted significant control over the Authority—they had appointment and removal power over the commissioners, the Governors could veto the Authority’s actions, and the States’ legislatures could determine what projects the Authority would pursue—but rejected control as a ‘dispositive; factor in its overall analysis. Id., at 47-48. In the end, after considering the above facts and the underlying purposes of sovereign immunity, the Court concluded that the Authority’s status as a ‘discrete entity’ that ‘generates its own revenues’ and ‘pays its own debts’ ultimately rendered it not an arm of the State. Id., at 52.”

The next section of the opinion began with a summary: “Although the Court’s arm-of-the-State cases have accounted for various considerations over time, those precedents have consistently, and predominantly, examined whether the State structured the entity as a legally separate entity liable for its own judgments.” It continued: “The clearest evidence that a State has created a legally separate entity is that it created a corporation with the traditional corporate powers to sue and be sued, hold property, make contracts, and incur debt.” Further, “The corporate form is particularly salient because it has “long [been] settled as a matter of American corporate law that separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations. …  “[s]eparate legal personality has been described as ‘an almost indispensable aspect of the public corporation’” (citations omitted). The analysis continued: “In fact, a State might choose to create a corporation, rather than an unincorporated government agency, precisely because of its independent legal status. This move allows the State to distance the entity from burdens that apply to the State itself or to distance the State from the burdens that the corporate entity may incur.”

Sotomayor’s opinion then focused on reasons why a State would want to form a separate entity, rather than act directly. An example is when a state does not want to assume risk concerning a project, so the agency, as a separate entity would act as the contracting party, rather than the State itself. The lengthy analysis is beyond the purview of this report, but the Court said: “In fact, this Court has never once found a corporation that was liable for its own judgments to be an arm of the State, even when the State had significant control over the entity.” An exception to the rule is when the State is the “real party at interest” but the “real party at interest” analysis is different from the “arm of the State” analysis, such as when an official acting on behalf of the State is the named party, or when a suit would run against the interests of the State itself. The opinion concluded on that issue: “Under the principles articulated above, NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey.”

NJT’s enabling statute calls the agency “an instrumentality of the State,” but the Court said: “The term ‘instrumentality,’ however, lacks the historical weight the corporate form does and says little about whether an entity is an arm of the State.” The Court added: “Moreover, other aspects of New Jersey law undercut any inference that the term ‘instrumentality’ favors NJ Transit’s position. The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, for instance, excludes entities with sue-and-be-sued authority, like NJ Transit, from its definition of the ‘State.’ §§59:1-1, 59:1-3 (2026). The New Jersey Contractual Liability Act also specifies that entities with sue-and-be-sued authority are not part of the State. §59:13–2. All told, NJ Transit is therefore structured as a legally separate entity under state law.” The opinion also noted that the State is not formally liable for NJT’s debts or liabilities, and that, despite the level of State control over the agency, “This level of control does not meaningfully affect NJ Transit’s status, given the fact that it is a legally separate corporation and is responsible for its own judgments.”

NJ Transit argued in its Brief (at 22) that the agency is serving “public and essential governmental functions” and possesses “substantial plenary public powers,” such as the power to operate a police force, exercise eminent domain power, and promulgate regulations. The Court’s response was: “The arm-of-the-State analysis, however, focuses not on whether the entity serves public functions, but rather on whether the State has chosen to serve those public functions through its own apparatus or through that of a legally separate entity. That is why the Court has long recognized that cities and counties are not arms of the State despite serving public functions and exercising police powers.”

The Court’s opinion included a level of detail beyond what we could present in this article (it would be more appropriate for a Law Review article, which can require hundreds of hours of effort), but it also included an example of inconsistency in State control: “Hinging an entity’s arm-of-the-State status to the practical realities of state funding also risks arbitrary distinctions and inconsistent treatment of the same entity. These cases illustrate the problem: In the [past] 35 years, New Jersey’s funding of NJ Transit’s annual operating budget has oscillated anywhere from 15% to 46% of the budget. (Brief for NJ Transit, at 35.) Although NJ Transit maintains that it is and has always been an arm of New Jersey, it offers no meaningful way to decide how much funding is enough to prove it is ‘financially integrated with the State and financially dependent on it.’ Id., at 34. The more apt question instead is whether the State would be formally obligated to pay the entity’s judgments” (citation omitted).

The opinion noted that 23 states had urged the Court to accept a State’s own characterization of its agencies as dispositive, but the Court declined to do that, opting instead for a national standard: “One problem with the States’ position is that it focuses on the label a State places on an entity, rather than assessing whether the State structured the entity as legally separate.” As the Court also noted: “To the extent New Jersey, and other States, created such corporate entities intending that they would remain part of the State and that the State would formally assume their liabilities, the States are always free to amend their laws.” The Court concluded: “NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity. The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is affirmed, the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Sotomayor’s discussion of the issues was thorough, and her opinion for a unanimous Court appers to settle the issue of which components of the government of a State are protected by Sovereign Immunity and which are not.

For its part, NJT did not issue a press release concerning the Court’s ruling, but an agency spokesperson told Railway Age: “We have received the Court’s decision and are reviewing the opinion to assess its implications and will evaluate our next steps. We respect the Court’s ruling and will take appropriate actions in accordance with the opinion.”

What does this mean for transit providers and similar State agencies?

It is now time for this writer to “change hats” metaphorically and comment in a personal capacity, as a supplement to the description of the Court’s opinion. This commentary stems in part from this writer’s long experience dealing with NJ Transit as an advocate for the agency’s riders, particularly on its rail lines, and as a member of one of the agency’s advisory committees. It is purely coincidental that the cases before the Court happened to concern this writer’s home transit provider. There might be some fortuity in that, because other commentators would not be as familiar with NJT as an agency.

There are some facts that were not discussed in the Court’s opinion. That is not to imply that the Court was not thorough in its analysis of the legal issues, or that Justice Sotomayor did not make the Court’s position clear. The Court did not need to discuss them, but they add some useful background for decision-makers considering where transit providers and other State agencies fit into a State’s governmental picture.

NJT itself was founded in 1979 to assume the operations of a failing bus company, Transport of New Jersey, as successor to Public Service Coordinated Transport, which followed the historic structure of an electric utility also operating streetcars within its service area. NJ Transit Rail was not established until 1983, after Congress relieved Conrail of its obligation to operate local passenger trains in the Northeast Region of the country. Politics and political necessity played a role in these events, as it always does when State government is concerned. We have reported on these historic events: the 40th anniversary of the founding of NJT as a corporate entity and the 40th anniversary of the establishment of NJT Rail at the beginning of 1983. The latter coincided with the 40th anniversaries of SEPTA and Metro-North.

Before NJT Rail was founded, Conrail operated the trains in New Jersey. Before Conrail was founded in 1976, Penn Central (successor to the Pennsylvania Railroad), the Erie-Lackawanna (formed by a merger of those two railroads in 1960) and the Central Railroad of New Jersey ran the trains directly. The Commuter Operating Agency (COA), a sub-agency within the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) assisted and subsidized the railroads, but the State did not engage in operating the trains until NJ Transit Rail was formed to take over from Conrail. Presumably, NJDOT could have operated the trains directly through the COA, but declined to pursue that alternative, and chose instead to add a railroad component to NJT under its previously established corporate identity.

NJT has its own legal department, headed by a General Counsel. This writer has dealt with NJT staff attorneys during the past several years on matters unrelated to the subject matter of this article. Still, the present case was argued not by NJT’s lawyers, but by the Solicitor General of New Jersey. It is clear, at least to this writer, that the State argued the case to demonstrate its contention that NJT has acted as an “arm of the State,” an understandable strategy under the circumstances. That distinction apparently did not make a difference to the Court. As the opinion said: “NJ Transit … is a corporation that has all the hallmarks of separate legal personhood, such as the power to sue and be sued, make contracts, and hold property in its own name, which all indicate that it is not an arm of the State and does not share in its immunity from suit. This Court has not previously found a similarly structured corporation to be an arm of the State.”

Given the Court’s newly articulated standard for determining which State agencies will be immune from suit from now on, it is essential that decision-makers at the State level draft statutes and administrative regulations to avoid creating quasi-independent agencies with their own corporate identities if they wish to immunize those agencies from claims that potential plaintiffs could assert. The Court’s opinion clarified the distinction between an “arm of the State” and an agency with independent identity, such as NJ Transit. Other transit agencies, such as New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) are also instruments of the State, and it appears that the states have generally chosen corporate identities, rather than direct “arm of the State” identities for transit providers and other agencies. As the Court made clear, there are tradeoffs between the benefit of immunity from suit and the benefits of the quasi-independent corporate form for State agencies, including transit providers.

The Court has also clarified the distinction between State agencies and those operated by subdivisions of the state, including counties and municipalities. It is now clear that county and municipal agencies are not State agencies. This writer is familiar with an instance in New Jersey where County-level officials have claimed to be included in an organization as representatives of a State agency, a bootstrapping effort that the Court now clearly appears to disfavor.

So, it appears that the Court has clarified rules for how states and their agencies must proceed in the future. The decision might not affect how transit is operated in practice, but it puts officials on notice that Sovereign Immunity is available only for agencies whose connection to the State is a direct one.

David Peter Alan has been reporting on passenger trains and rail transit in the United States and Canada since 2004. A long-time passenger rail advocate, he came to reporting after gaining two decades of advocacy experience. He is a member and has previously served as Chair of the Senior Citizens and Disabled Residents Transportation Advisory Committee (SCDRTAC) at New Jersey Transit, the Lackawanna Coalition (which concentrates on New Jersey), and the Essex County (New Jersey) Transportation Advisory Board. Nationally, he belongs to the Rail Users’ Network (RUN) and has been a member of its Board of Directors since 2005. Admitted to the New Jersey and New York Bars in 1981, he is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and a Registered Patent Attorney specializing in intellectual property and business law. Alan holds a B.S. in Biology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1970); M.S. in Management Science (M.B.A.) from M.I.T. Sloan School of Management (1971); M.Phil. from Columbia University (1976); and a J.D. from Rutgers Law School (1981). He has ridden the entire Amtrak and VIA Rail networks and nearly all rail transit in the United States and Canada.

The post Using NJT, SCOTUS Sets Limits on State ‘Sovereign Immunity’ appeared first on Railway Age.

Three iconic railroaders who spent much of their careers at Norfolk Southern or one of its predecessor companies—David Goode, the late Jim McClellan and the late Bill Brosnan—have been inducted into the National Railroad Hall of Fame.

David R. Goode, Railway Age’s 1998 and 2005 Railroader of the Year, is best known for his role as Chairman, President and CEO of Norfolk Southern during the late 1990s split of Class I Conrail with CSX. The eastern giant, established via the 1974 Regional Rail Reorganization Act (3R Act) from the bankrupt Penn Central and five other failing railroads, was the subject of a protracted battle between NS and CSX following CSX’s attempt to acquire 100% of it. Goode led NS to an outcome resulting in a 58% NS/42% CSX division. For that, he was selected as 1998 Railroader of the Year.

“David Goode, though he does not offer many direct comparisons with other railroads, is eager to point out what he feels sets NS apart,” Railway Age noted in its January 1998 issue “‘I would say that we have a tradition of pride and trying hard to excel,’ he says. ‘I think you’ll see it throughout the organization. It has to do mostly with our tradition of believing we have to work harder than the other guy. It’s also a tradition of really being focused on safety, almost as a tenet of our company. It affects everything we do, and it’s something on which everyone here has worked together.’

“Are these characteristics unique to NS? Not really, says Goode: ‘I think these are the elements I see among railroaders in general. It‘s a tradition in this industry.’ But one thing is certain, he says: ‘The people that succeed in our company are the ones who make a commitment to put themselves on the line for our goals.’ And that’s where the difference may lie.

“It may also stem from being, in a sense, the underdog. ‘We have a history of success,’ says Goode, ‘but we’ve always been the smallest guy around—the little kid on the block with something to prove. We’ve proved it by trying to push hard and run a good organization. We’re geographically limited, so we’ve worked hard to find ways to build out of that, to develop partnerships … We’ve always thought we had to work a little harder, to execute a little better. We’ve competed head-to-head with CSX for many years, and we don’t begin to have the revenue base CSX has, so we’ve had to work harder with what we’ve got.’

“The Conrail acquisition is without a doubt Norfolk Southern’s biggest, most important growth opportunity. NS has pursued Conrail several times in the past, without success. This time, however, the situation was almost tailor-made. Here was NS, cast in the role in which it feels most comfortable: the underdog, battling with its much larger eastern competitor, fighting the good fight for better service and enhanced competition. NS, and David Goode, played that role to the hilt.

“‘From our own standpoint,’ says Goode, ‘we believed that we needed to be a complete eastern rail provider in order to provide the right basis, the right critical mass, to serve our shippers effectively. We wanted to be in a position to develop innovations in logistics and distribution. That’s why Conrail was so important to us. The acquisition was the next step we needed to take. That’s why 1998 will be a pivotal year for us—completing this transaction and forming a competitive balance in the East.”

Jim McClellan (1939-2016) was represented by his son, Norfolk Southern Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer Mike McClellan. “Throughout a career in the railroad industry that spanned almost a half-century, McClellan worked at Southern Railway, New York Central, Penn Central, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the U.S. Railway Administration, the Association of American Railroads and Norfolk Southern in marketing, planning and policy roles,” Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono wrote in a 2016 obituary. “He retired from NS in 2003 as Senior Vice President Planning.

“McClellan is best known for his strategic behind-the scenes work in the mid-1990s during the split of Conrail between NS and CSX. He is credited with NS’s so-called ‘go crazy’ strategy that ultimately prevented CSX, whose Chairman at the time was John Snow, from acquiring 100% of Conrail.

“McClellan was among the core group of people in the U.S. Railway Administration who created Amtrak and laid the groundwork for Conrail, and later was a part of the teams that created Norfolk Southern from a merger of the Norfolk & Western and the Southern, in addition to his later involvement in the split of Conrail between NS (58%) and CSX (42%). Executives and planners relied on his railroading knowledge and interpretations of railroad system maps and rail traffic flows.

“McClellan is the focal point of several chapters in Rush Loving Jr.’s 2006 book The Men Who Loved Trains: The Story of Men Who Battled Greed to Save an Ailing Industry. Loving, a long-time friend of McClellan, referred to him as ‘The Forrest Gump of Railroading.’ He was honored with Railway Age’s W. Graham Claytor Jr. Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation and was named one of 75 People You Should Know in the November 2015 issue of Trains magazine. McClellan’s own book, My Life with Trains: Memoir of a Railroader, [was published in 2017].

“A self-professed life-long rail enthusiast, something that began at age five (the Atlantic Coast Line ran next to his backyard), McClellan was a rail photographer for almost 60 years. Post-retirement from NS, he joined Woodside Consulting as a Vice President. He gave numerous speeches dealing with railroading’s past and future. He was also a painter, a model railroader and a passionate boater (both sail and power). He spent much of his time traveling the world, ‘photographing people, places and animals, and trains,/ in his own words.

Dennis William “Bill” Brosnan (1903-1985), Railway Age’s first Railroader of the Year honoree in 1964, was “a railroader whose impact is still felt every single day across Norfolk Southern and across our industry,” NS President and CEO Mark George, who accepted on Brosnan’s behalf at the induction ceremony. “Bill began his career where railroading is most fundamental. As a young apprentice track engineer, he learned the railroad by tamping ties, working alongside section crews and understanding that nothing moves without a strong foundation beneath it. That ‘learn it from the ground up’ mindset never left him. It shaped a leadership philosophy rooted in fundamentals but driven relentlessly toward progress.

“Brosnan brought urgency, imagination and execution to an industry that desperately needed all three. He rose through the ranks of Southern Railway, ultimately becoming its President and CEO during a period of existential pressure for railroads. Regulation constrained innovation. Costs rose faster than rates. Competition intensified. Southern itself stood on the brink of financial crisis. Bill Brosnan did not manage around those challenges. He attacked them. He believed survival required fundamental change, and he acted accordingly, modernizing operations, mechanizing maintenance, centralizing functions, and demanding faster, better, more disciplined execution. And while his leadership style was famously demanding, the results were undeniable: a solvent, competitive, forward-looking railroad that helped power the post-war growth of the American South.

“Bill helped build one of the most advanced engineering organizations in the industry. He understood that innovation didn’t always come from vendors or regulators. Sometimes it had to be invented in your own shops. When the machines he needed didn’t exist, he built them. That spirit lives on today in Norfolk Southern’s engineering and infrastructure teams.

“Bill reimagined how railroads go to market. From unit trains to 100-ton cars to the revolutionary Big John hopper, he understood that growth came from deeply understanding customers and designing solutions around their needs. He was willing to challenge regulators, competitors and even his own organization to unlock new value. That customer-first mindset remains—core to Norfolk Southern today as we develop new service offerings and work to make rail a more intuitive, responsive partner for American industry.

“Few legacies are as enduring as Brosnan’s role in creating what has become Norfolk Southern’s industrial development organization, helping communities attract jobs, investment and economic prosperity across our network. Norfolk Southern remains a leader in rail-served industrial development today, connecting businesses to markets and opportunity.

“If Bill Brosnan were with us tonight, he would likely have strong opinions about the modern railroad, some approving, some impatient. But I believe he would recognize something familiar: an industry once again being asked to evolve and deliver more for the customers and American economy we serve. And he might remind us, as he did throughout his career, that progress does not come from comfort. It comes from discipline, imagination, and the courage to act.”

The post Goode, McClellan, Brosnan Inducted into National Railroad Hall of Fame appeared first on Railway Age.

Metra on April 6 will start a pilot program asking riders to launch their Ventra electronic ticket on their smart phone or show their paper ticket before boarding selected trains at downtown stations. A goal of the pilot is to test the speed, functionality, and durability of new handheld devices to scan Ventra and paper tickets, the commuter railroad reported March 19. Boarding riders will be stopped at the entrance to the platform and asked to present the QR code of a launched Ventra ticket or a valid paper ticket for scanning.

The test is being conducted initially with off-peak trains to avoid logjams during boarding and if it goes smoothly, it may be expanded to peak trains, according to Metra.

“The test could be helpful for the Northern Illinois Transit Authority (NITA), the new public transportation governance body that will be formed later this year,” the railroad reported. “NITA is required to integrate Metra, Chicago Transit Authority, and Pace bus fares, and many potential integration solutions involve the use of handheld scanners. The pilot also will collect data on how many riders are using paper tickets vs. Ventra tickets on specified trains, when and where riders purchase their tickets, and their destinations. This information could also be useful to NITA.”

According to Metra, a secondary benefit of the ticket checks is to assist with fare collection on the trains. Conductors will still validate tickets, but they won’t have to wait for riders to launch their Ventra tickets, speeding collection, the railroad noted. To further help with that process, during the pilot riders who do not have a ticket will be asked to purchase one before boarding, it added.

• RTA Board Approves 2026 Regional Operating Budget and Capital Program
• Gov. Pritzker Signs NITA Act Into Law
• Chicagoland Transit Gets Reprieve

SacRT on March 16 reported that it is hiring 10-20 additional Transit Ambassadors (TA), with a goal of building a team of 55. Alongside security guards and the contracted Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department personnel, these new TA positions are said to support the transit agency’s vision of having a safety staff member on every light rail train and improving the overall customer experience.

TAs are described as “customer-focused team members who help ensure riders feel safe, supported, and welcomed on light rail trains.” Transit Ambassadors do not get physically involved in incidents, according to SacRT; they observe situations and report any safety or security concerns to local law enforcement through the SacRT Security Operations Center. Those selected for the role participate in a three-month Transit Ambassador Training Academy, including scenario-based instruction led by former law enforcement professionals.

According to SacRT, TAs receive a “comprehensive and competitive benefits package designed to support their health, financial stability, and work–life balance.” This includes medical, dental, and vision coverage, access to flexible spending accounts, vacation and sick leave, paid holidays, and a free SacRT transit pass for employees and eligible dependents. Retirement benefits include either a defined benefit pension plan or a 401(a) defined contribution plan depending on bargaining unit, with the option to participate in a voluntary 457(b) savings plan, the transit agency reported. Additional benefits include company-paid life insurance, optional supplemental life insurance, an Employee Assistance Program, education reimbursement, and discounted theme park tickets. SacRT also provides all required uniforms and safety boots at no cost to Transit Ambassadors.

SacRT is offering recruitment events on March 20 and April 8. This is the first time, it said, that such events are dedicated exclusively to a single position; they will give prospective applicants a “hands-on opportunity to explore the role and meet the team.”

“These recruitment events offer a unique, firsthand look at what it means to serve as a Transit Ambassador,” SacRT General Manager/CEO Henry Li said. “Safety is our top priority, and expanding our Transit Ambassador team is a key part of our commitment to ensuring riders feel supported on every train, every day.”

“Transit Ambassadors play an essential role in creating a safe, welcoming environment for our riders,” SacRT Board Chair and Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen added. “These events allow applicants to understand the importance of the position, the training and support they receive, and the meaningful impact they can have on our transit community.”

• California Investing $97MM in Rail Transit Projects
• SacRT Invests $1MM in Safety, Security Program (part of Transit Briefs)
• SacRT Launches Transit Connect App (part of Transit Briefs)

Denver RTD engaged with more than 375 customers traveling for spring break on Friday, March 13, helping them navigate the 23-mile “A” commuter rail line between Denver Union Station and Denver International Airport and learn about the new fare payment option, Tap-n-Ride, according to the agency.

RTD said it teamed with airport staff at Denver Airport Station and Northeast Transportation Connections (NETC) at Central Park Station, while RTD employees also greeted customers at Denver Union Station. Staff answered questions about schedules, fares, and trip planning as an estimated 5,000 people made their way to and from the airport ahead of spring break on Friday afternoon, RTD said.

A key focus of the outreach was Tap-n-Ride, which launched last November, and allows customers to purchase train and bus fares by tapping a contactless credit or debit card, or a mobile wallet such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay, directly on a validator when boarding.

RTD said the in-person outreach was designed to help customers “feel confident using the A Line during one of the busiest travel periods of the year.”

“It was important for members of the RTD Impact Team to be onsite, supporting customers as spring break travel commenced,” RTD Business Program Manager Betsy Hinojosa said. “When customers choose RTD, we want to give them the best customer experience possible. Part of that is being available to answer their questions in real time and help those taking RTD for the first time. Our presence was coupled with debut of RTD’s latest educational video, Take RTD to and from Denver International Airport, which highlights both bus and rail options to the airport.”

The A Line provides rail service and a direct connection between downtown Denver and Denver International Airport. RTD also offers several specialized motorcoach services to the airport, known as Skyride. These buses feature extra space for luggage, overhead and under-coach space for carry-ons, and driver assistance with loading and unloading luggage.

• Denver RTD Releases 3Q Financial Results (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Increases Rail System Fare Checks (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Earns ‘Stable Outlook’ From Three Credit Agencies (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Tabs Tran as CPO
• For Denver RTD, FY26 Budget Tops $1.5B

The post Transit Briefs: Metra, SacRT, Denver RTD appeared first on Railway Age.

STV on March 16 announced the opening of its new office located in the Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta, Ga., “expanding its footprint in one of the nation’s fastest-growing infrastructure markets. The modern workspace, the company says, “enhances STV’s presence in the Southeast and strengthens the firm’s ability to deliver complex projects across the region.”

The new office supports a multidisciplinary team delivering transportation, transit, water, buildings and community infrastructure projects. Partnering with state and local agencies, transit authorities and municipal clients, the team focuses on “improving mobility, protecting water resources and promoting economic growth across metropolitan Atlanta and the broader Southeast,” STV noted.

“Opening this new office in Midtown Atlanta gives us a strategic base in one of the country’s most vibrant infrastructure markets,” said Chris Haney, PE, President of the Water Operating Group at STV. “By expanding our presence in Midtown, we’re able to deliver innovative, future-focused solutions for clients and communities across the rapidly growing region.”

Since 2024, the firm has opened or expanded offices in Dallas, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, Lake Mary and New York City. These investments, STV says, “align with the firm’s strategic plan through flexible workspace environments, modern delivery tools and cross-disciplinary collaboration.”

The Timken Company, a global technology firm specializing in engineered bearings and industrial motion, announced March 18 that it has acquired the assets and related businesses of North Carolina-based Bijur Delimon International (BDI), a global designer and manufacturer of automated lubrication systems.

“The acquisition of Bijur Delimon aligns with our near-term strategic priority to accelerate growth in key market verticals,” said Timken President and CEO Lucian Boldea. “Timken has built a leading automated lubrication systems platform, that benefits from strong secular tailwinds, including a shortage of skilled labor and shifting demographics. BDI elevates our existing capabilities, deepens our presence in attractive market sectors and regions, and creates meaningful synergy opportunities that strengthen our ability to serve customers more completely as one Timken.”

Since entering the lubrication business in 2013, Timken has grown its position into a leading provider of industrial automated lubrication systems, which, the company says, “extend equipment life and lower total costs for machine owners.” BDI’s strong customer relationships in key market verticals like rail, power generation and mining “enhance and expand Timken’s established position in automated lubrication systems, creating a more comprehensive offering for these key industries.”

Founded in 1872, BDI operates manufacturing locations in the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific. The business is expected to generate more than $60 million in sales in 2026.

Timken funded the transaction with cash on hand and existing committed facilities. Other terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The post Supply Side: STV, Timken appeared first on Railway Age.

The company’s pharmaceutical-grade sodium bicarbonate production facility was built in 1968 and produces the world-renowned baking soda right where the trona ore is mined. Wyoming is home to 90% of the world’s trona ore deposits.

The new switching agreement marks OmniTRAX’s third Green River operation added in the past year. The infrastructure affiliate of the multi-billion-dollar Colorado-based parent The Broe Group, OmniTRAX operates 32 railroads, serving ports, industrial parks, and industry leaders across the country.

“Arm & Hammer is an iconic American brand and OmniTRAX is proud to provide the safe and reliable rail service to keep Church and Dwight’s Green River facility moving smoothly,” said OmniTRAX CEO Colby Tanner.   

Church and Dwight is the United States’ largest baking soda producer and parent company of many household name products, including Arm & Hammer, used in a variety of industrial, institutional, medical, food and specialty cleaning applications. OmniTRAX will provide dedicated switching service for the Green River facility which operates 24 hours a day.

The post OmniTRAX Adds Arm & Hammer to Rail Network appeared first on Railway Age.

Short line railroads are always working to attract new business, but expanding partnerships with current customers can be just as effective in driving economic growth for multiple stakeholders, ASLRRA noted. ASLRRA Business Development Award Winner LSRC proved exactly that through its recent work with longtime customer Specification Stone, “reshaping how aggregates move across Michigan.”

Though this project was 10 years in the making, recent completion of upgrades and a high throughput facility “have positioned LSRC and Specification Stone to grow significantly in the future,” according to ASLRRA. Already the customer has expanded the loading capacity in Alpena, diversified the stone types shipped and opened a new terminal near Flint, Mich.

LSRC leveraged its “strong relationships, local presence and entrepreneurial spirit to help move the project to completion.” As a result, ASLRRA says, “customers will have more competitive and reliable options for stone delivery in central and southern Michigan.” This will benefit large-scale aggregate customers like road construction companies, which further supports economic development in the region. LSRC expects stone volumes to increase significantly over the next several years.

Not satisfied with the status quo, LSRC turned a long-term customer relationship into a greater success story through grit and determination. Bringing its equipment and infrastructure into the 21st century “positioned LSRC to support shipper growth, resulting in significant benefits for the railroad, the customer and communities across Michigan.”

TGS Cedar Port earned this year’s award for development of a new railcar cleaning and transloading rack bringing together multiple ancillary railcar services, including cleaning, de-gassing, nitrogen padding, repairs, requalification, storage and transloading. This facility, ASLRRA says, “enables customers to eliminate multiple off-site moves per car, lowering costs, reducing dwell time and improving asset utilization.”

The TGS Cedar Port team recognized the inefficiencies its customers were experiencing, having to incur costs moving cars between different cleaning shops, repair facilities and storage yards. The completed project now offers customers complete vertical integration. Trans-Global Solutions (TGS), the railroad’s parent company, owns the industrial park and operates the cleaning and transloading rack. The park hosts repair companies and has more than125 miles of internal track served by TGS Cedar Port. There are also approximately 6,000 on-site railcar storage positions.

While taking advantage of these streamlined offerings sounds like a no-brainer for shippers wanting more efficient car services, TGS Cedar Port still needed to convince wary customers to shift their business, ASLRRA noted. To do so, TGS Cedar Port had to demonstrate “a superior economic value with lower costs and faster turnaround.” The marketing and operations teams worked together closely to bring in initial customers, offering introductory pricing and building strong relationships.

Once these early customers were on board, demand for services grew quickly. To date, the operation has cleaned more than 2,800 railcars and supported more than 3,000 associated truck movements. TGS Cedar Port has also added new full-time positions, as have the on-site repair companies. These services have attracted new tenants to the industrial park, “increasing local investment and tax revenue for the community while improving productivity for businesses.”

The post Lake State Railway, TGS Cedar Port Railroad Earn ASLRRA Business Development Awards appeared first on Railway Age.