Prototype News

The Surface Transportation Board on March 13, 2026, responding to separate letters filed Sept. 30, 2025 by Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific about “specific concerns with respect to service commitments made by CPKC (Canadian Pacific Kansas City) regarding the 320-mile Meridian Speedway in the CP/KCS merger proceeding, decided “there is no need for it to intervene at this time.”

In STB Docket No. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 6), CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED; CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY; CENTRAL MAINE & QUEBEC RAILWAY US INC.; DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION; AND DELAWARE & HUDSON RAILWAY COMPANY, INC. —CONTROL— KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN; THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; GATEWAY EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; AND THE TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY COMPANY (GENERAL OVERSIGHT) (download below), the Board denied requests from Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific “related to alleged service issues on the Meridian Speedway between Meridian, Miss., and Shreveport, La.”

“In its Sept.30, 2025 letter, NS requests that the Board direct CPKC to provide a Service Action Plan to detail its plan for restoring Meridian Speedway haulage service to acceptable levels,” STB summarized. “According to NS, since CP’s acquisition of KCS, there has been a substantial deterioration in intermodal train service provided by CPKC over the Meridian Speedway and at the Shreveport gateway, which has affected multiple intermodal customers, some of whom have diverted their traffic from rail service to trucks. NS contends that the service degradation is inconsistent with representations that CP and KCS made to the Board in the merger proceeding, and that it is within the Board’s authority to direct CPKC to take immediate action to restore service to acceptable levels and to provide a Service Action Plan. NS states that CP and KCS specifically represented in the merger docket that ‘[n]either NS nor the Board has any reason to be concerned that CPKC will be a good steward of service on this route’ and that CPKC would take steps ‘to increase train frequency and improve service, to the benefit of both NS and intermodal shippers’ over the Meridian Speedway, and that service in general would be ‘as good as or better’ than service pre-merger. NS argues that CPKC’s performance has not matched the promises it made in the CP/KCS merger approval proceeding. According to NS, over the [past]six months, transit times on Meridian Speedway haulage trains to and from Shreveport have ballooned and the Meridian Speedway has seen a marked decrease in traffic, which is attributable in large part to CPKC’s poor service.”

“In its letter, UP requests that the Board investigate the deterioration in CPKC’s service over the Meridian Speedway and hold CPKC to what UP argues are CPKC’s commitments it made in the CP/KCS merger proceeding,” STB said. “UP states that before the CP/KCS merger, it delivered intermodal trains of up to 11,000 feet in length to KCS at Shreveport, for movement to NS at Meridian via the Meridian Speedway. According to UP, shortly after the Board approved the merger, CPKC imposed an 8,500-foot length limit on trains it would accept at Shreveport for movement over the Meridian Speedway. UP states that it agreed to abide by the restriction with the understanding that CPKC would provide additional resources to move the larger number of trains required as a result of the length restriction. UP argues, however, that CPKC has failed to provide those additional resources, and, as a result, UP and its customers are experiencing unacceptable delays, and the delays are increasing.”

CPKC, STB said, submitted a letter on Nov. 13, 2025 “arguing that the issues raised by NS and UP are not matters that fall within the ambit of the Board’s oversight, and, in any event, lack merit as a matter of fact. CPKC contends that the gateway condition imposed in the CP/KCS approval decision does not apply because the traffic at issue is not ‘affected traffic.’ CPKC states that the NS haulage traffic at issue was not affected by the merger, as it is intermodal traffic which CP does not serve today and did not serve pre-merger.”

“CPKC also defends the 8,500-foot train length restriction, noting that this limit was chosen because only three sidings out of the 20 in the 300 miles between Shreveport and Meridian can accommodate trains longer than 8,500 feet,” STB noted. “Furthermore, CPKC argues that since instituting the train length restriction, transit times for all trains on the Meridian Speedway improved markedly as soon as over-length NS haulage trains were shortened to fit within available sidings. According to CPKC, the increased dwell time in UP’s Hollywood Yard at Shreveport is a consequence of UP’s decision to continue to push overlength trains toward the Speedway despite knowing that those trains will have to be shortened at Hollywood Yard before moving onto the Speedway.”

Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific, when contacted by Railway Age, declined to comment.

This case was part of STB’s efforts to clear a large backlog.

“This was a case of Union Pacific insisting that CPKC allow 11,000-foot trains on the Speedway in spite of what the long-standing agreement made between Kansas City Southern and UP in 2006 established,” an industry observer told Railway Age. “It angered UP that CPKC decided to eliminate over-siding trains to run an 8,500-foot maximum for all trains on the corridor. In the STB filing, UP misrepresented the delays and tried to paint CPKC as violating CPKC’s merger commitments on gateways and service. UP CEO Jim Vena more than once publicly criticized CPKC, stating CPKC would not allow them to run 11,000-foot trains ‘the way the railroad was supposed to be run.’ He also made attempts to use the dispute as evidence that partnerships don’t work. As a lead up to the STB dispute in Fall 2023 , in response to CPKC’s 8,500-foot restriction, UP retaliated and imposed an arbitrary 8,000-foot-train restriction on CPKC on the trackage rights it uses to get to Mexico south of Houston, Tex., despite that years before, KCS invested heavily to extend numerous sidings across a roughly 70-mile line segment to accommodate 10,000-foot trains—the details of which are in two CPKC STB filings. This can be inferred as anti-competitive behavior and gives the very strong impression that UP will not hesitate to waste the STB’s time creating a dispute when it doesn’t get its way—the type of behavior that will become a customer problem if UP does not live up to any of the conditions imposed to have its merger with NS approved.”

The post STB Dismisses NS-UP Meridian Speedway Petitions appeared first on Railway Age.

Wabtec on March 13 reporting landing multiple contracts to supply more than 680 pantographs for six major commuter rail and metro projects across India, including Chennai Metro Phase II; Mumbai Metro Lines 4, 5, and 6; Indian Railways’ MEMU (Mainline Electric Multiple Unit) and Vande Bharat Sleeper programs. The pantograph systems, it said, “will improve overall fleet availability for the projects providing more reliable, efficient, and sustainable rail operations.”

Wabtec will manufacture the systems at its Transit facility in Hosur, Tamil Nadu, with deliveries scheduled to begin in late 2026.

“India continues to make substantial investments in modernizing and expanding its commuter rail infrastructure,” said Ajay Mani, Managing Director for Wabtec Transit India. “These orders underscore the trust our customers place in Wabtec and our longstanding commitment to the country’s rail ecosystem. Our proven pantograph technology is designed for modern mobility needs and capable of operating in even the most demanding service conditions.”

Wabtec’s pantograph technology is said to feature “lightweight, high stiffness frames and optimized linkages that ensure stable current collection across varying speeds and overhead equipment conditions.” According to the company, “precision controlled contact force, aerodynamic collector heads, and low-wear carbon strips help reduce arcing and wire wear, improving power collection efficiency.” The pantographs are equipped with “advanced damping for consistent performance,” and meet EN and IEC international rail standards, it noted.

“While the invention of the ‘diamond shaped’ pantograph traces back to John Q. Smith and commuter train travel in the San Francisco Bay of 1903, the perfection of the panto is widely attributed to Wabtec forebear Louis Faiveley,” according to Wabtec. “Not only did he improve upon the diamond style panto with his own enhanced design in the early 1920s, he eventually broke the mold entirely with the invention of the single-arm panto. Faiveley’s step-change design went on to set the world speed record (331 kmh/206 mph) for an electric powered train that same year, 1955, and is the industry standard to this day.”

Wabtec in 2016 acquired a majority stake in Faiveley Transport of France, a manufacturer and supplier of pantographs, as well as products ranging from braking systems and couplers, passenger access systems and platform screen doors, air conditioning, and passenger information systems. It acquired the remaining shares in 2017.

• Wabtec: ‘Strong’ 4Q25, Full-Year Results
• For CSX, $670MM Power Upgrade Order
• Wabtec Lands $1.2B UP Locomotive Overhaul Order
•  CPKC, NS Advance Locomotive Modernizations
• Wabtec Acquires Frauscher
• Wabtec Expanding Brazilian Footprint
• Wabtec Lands $4.2B Kazakhstan Locomotive Contract
• Driving the Future of Rail: A Conversation With Wabtec’s Eric Gebhardt

Four Alstom Innovia R APM vehicles began serving riders at Tampa International Airport (TPA) on March 13 as part of a modernization project, according to the manufacturer.

TPA has ordered a total of 16 cars to replace 30-year-old cars, which have logged more than 1 million miles each and were produced by Bombardier Transportation, which Alstom acquired in 2021. The third-generation model is “quieter, easier to maintain, and more energy efficient,” according to Alstom, which noted that interiors feature improved lighting, updated video information screens, and doors with obstacle-detection systems. In addition, Alstom is installing its Urbalis Flo automatic train control system, which it said “allows trains to run more frequently, increasing the system’s capacity and reducing passenger wait times.”

The first four Innovia R vehicles are serving as the Blue shuttles to and from the A and C concourses (known as “airsides”). By the end of the year, the APM connections to three of the airport’s four airsides will be equipped with new vehicles and the new signaling system, according to Alstom. Alstom said it is also building the guideways, signaling system, and vehicles for the future Airside D, which is expected to open in 2028.

All the APM vehicles are being manufactured at Alstom’s plant in West Mifflin, Pa., near the site where the first APMs were developed and tested in the 1960s.

TPA opened in April 1971 with a Bombardier Transportation-made APM system to connect riders from its central terminal to four airsides. Bombardier, and now Alstom, has also maintained the APM system at Tampa since its launch.

“Since 1971 Alstom has worked with the Tampa airport to keep passengers moving swiftly and reliably; some of the cars we’ve provided have logged over 1 million miles,” Alstom America President Michael Keroullé said. “Today we’re proud to celebrate a new milestone in this decades-long partnership, introducing our latest and most advanced APM vehicles into service, designed and manufactured in the United State. This is an important part of our broader commitment to support the improvement of the airport’s shuttle system.”

“TPA’s signature shuttles go back to our opening in 1971, and were the first of their kind at any airport in the world when they debuted,” TIA CEO Michael Stephens said. “Now we are proud to offer another first, with TPA being the first airport in the world to offer these brand-new shuttles coupled with the new technology and operating system that will be guiding them.”

Separately, last May Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport took delivery of the first of 29 Innovia APM 300R vehicles from Alstom.

• Toronto Orders New Subway Train Fleet
• IAM Alstom Members Ratify First Contract
• Mexico Awards $1B Passenger Fleet Contract
• From Expo 86 to Everyday Essential: SkyTrain Marks 40 Years
• Finch West LRT Opens
• Alstom, CTDOT Unveil Commuter Railcar Mockup
• Montreal REM Segment 2 Launches
• NJT Slates $917MM Multilevel I, II Overhaul

FRA Administrator David Fink and key staffers on March 10 visited the Jacksonville headquarters of Duos, which is described as a developer of “intelligent vision-based solutions using Machine Vision and AI to analyze fast-moving freight, passenger, transit trains, and trucks.”  

During the visit, Duos executives demonstrated the company’s Railcar Inspection Portal (RIP®), Mobile Railcar Inspection Portal (m-RIP), centraco® and other patented technologies that the company said are “designed to enhance rail safety, operational efficiency, and real-time monitoring across the U.S. rail network.”

Administrator Fink and FRA representatives toured the facility and reviewed how Duos’ inspection technologies help railroads detect mechanical defects, identify safety risks, and improve monitoring across freight and passenger rail operations, according to the company.

“Hosting Administrator Fink provided an opportunity for us to demonstrate how our RIP can identify potential mechanical issues, significantly enhancing rail safety,” said Adrian Goldfarb, President of Duos Technologies rail subsidiary. “Our technology can inspect every railcar passing through the system at speeds up to 125 mph, and within 60 seconds, alert the operator to potential safety issues, including a potential derailment.”

According to Duos, the visit also “highlighted the importance of collaboration between industry innovators and federal regulators in modernizing rail inspection technologies.” By combining AI-powered inspection and “actionable” intelligent data with real-time analytics, Duos said it supports “the broader mission of the Federal Railroad Administration to improve rail safety, strengthen infrastructure oversight, and promote innovation across the U.S. rail system.”

• Duos Appoints Doug Recker as Corporate Officer, President (part of People News)
• Next-Level Safety and Efficiency
• Duos Secures 11th Railcar Tech Patent
• Duos, CN Ink Five-Year Strategic Agreement

The post Supply Side: Wabtec, Alstom, Duos appeared first on Railway Age.

CSX on March 16 reported that 21 rail-served properties across 10 states have received its “Select Site” program designation, bringing the total to 80.

“CSX worked with more than 30 communities to gather information and identify top candidates for the CSX Select Site program, which connects expanding companies with highly desirable rail-served properties,” the Class I said. “Of the more than 1,110 sites served by CSX, only 6% are designated as a CSX Select Site.”

Each of the 21 new properties, it noted, earned a gold, silver, or bronze rating based on an evaluation of a range of characteristics—from rail access and zoning to utilities and more.

The newly added CSX Select Sites are:

Gold Level

• I-80 Logistics Park – Minooka, Ill.

Silver Level

• Fort Meade Rail Ready Industrial – Fort Meade, Fla.
• First Florida Tradeport – Wildwood, Fla.
• Wiley Connell Site One – Crawfordsville, Ind.
• Enterprise Industrial Park – Defiance, Ohio
• Franklin Logistics & Development – Letterkenny 29 – Chambersburg, Pa.
• Hwy 321 Greenfield Rail Site – Gaston, S.C.
• Southbound Road Greenfield Rail Site – Gaston, S.C.
• Stonecrest Farm Rail Site – Greenwood, S.C.
• Gibbs Rail Site – Sumter, S.C.
• Enterprise Center at VA Port Logistics Park – Suffolk, Va.

Bronze Level

• Pioneer Park – Dade City, Fla.
• Georgia Breakbulk Logistics Park – Brunswick, Ga.
• Kingsbury Industrial Complex – La Porte, Ind.
• Washington CSX Industrial Rail Site – Washington, Ind.
• Massachusetts Life Sciences Logistic Park and Transloading Facility – Bellingham, Mass.
• CSX-Owned East Brookfield MA Site – East Brookfield, Mass.
• Mshiké Industrial Complex – Holland, Mich.
• Kileville Site – Dublin, Ohio
• Dan Rogers Site – Dillon, S.C.
• Willoughby Site – Marion, S.C.

“Each CSX Select Site highlights the power of preparation and partnership,” CSX Senior Director of Industrial Development Kellen Riley said. “These sites give manufacturers confidence to move forward while helping communities translate readiness into real economic growth and job creation.”

Commented Jake Weir, Senior Director of Industrial Development at R.J. Corman, whose 219-acre Willoughby Site earned bronze status: “A site of this caliber doesn’t just show up on the market overnight. It requires significant time, often years, and commitment from key stakeholders to get it to a position where it can be effectively marketed to potential rail users. This Bronze Select Site designation from CSX is an acknowledgment of all the work that has been put into this property by the entire team, and the value that short line partners, such as R.J. Corman, bring to the table for Class I railroads like CSX. We sincerely appreciate everyone who has played a role in this process and CSX’s willingness to include this property in their Select Site Program this year. We’re excited to see what the future holds for this incredible property as we continue our site preparation initiatives.”

According to CSX, since the last round of candidate site designations in April 2025, Owens Corning announced a “major investment” at South Industrial Park, a Silver CSX Select Site in Prattville, Ala. The project, it said, will create 100 “skilled manufacturing jobs and strengthen Prattville’s local economy while further expanding CSX’s industrial footprint across the region.”

Separately, earlier this month BNSF broke ground on its sixth Logistics Center, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City and Norfolk Southern announced the certification of more industrial development sites along their lines.

• Building Successful Industrial Development Spaces
• CSX Adds Eight Rail-Served Properties to ‘Select Site’ Program

The post CSX Adds 21 Properties to ‘Select Site’ Program appeared first on Railway Age.

NJ Transit and Amtrak on March 16 placed the first track on the new Portal North Bridge into service.

A ceremonial first train over the new bridge, a fixed span, operated March 13, marking a “major milestone for service reliability on the Northeast Corridor,” said NJ Transit, as it begins transferring service. The ceremonial train consisted of MultiLevel coaches and an NJT ALP45-DP locomotive wrapped in graphics celebrating America’s 250th (YouTube video below). The second and final track will be placed into service on the new bridge in the fall. The original Portal Bridge, a moveable span more than 100 years old, will be demolished.

In October 2021, a $1.6 billion construction contract was awarded to Skanska/Traylor Bros PNB Joint Venture (STJV), making it the “single largest construction award in NJ Transit’s history.” Skanska said its work includes the bridge superstructure, approaches, and supporting rail infrastructure.

Recently, RT&S reported on the progress and construction photos. The project spans 2.44 miles of the NEC. NJ Transit and Amtrak shared the estimated quantities of materials used. These include 45 million pounds of steel, 219,000 cubic yards of concrete, 185,000 linear feet of pipe piles, 20,000 linear feet of drilled shafts, 4,850 linear feet of retaining walls, and 3,289 linear feet of construction access platforms. Crews have worked to construct retaining walls, concrete piers, structural steel bridge spans, foundations, and are scheduled to demolish the existing bridge in 2027. The project is part of the Gateway Program, which seeks to double rail capacity between Newark and New York.

“The segment of the Northeast Corridor between Newark and New York is the busiest stretch of rail in the country, carrying more than 400 trains and 200,000 NJ Transit and Amtrak riders every weekday,” said NJT President and CEO Kris Kolluri. “The first train over the new Portal North Bridge marked a major milestone toward completing one of the most consequential infrastructure projects in the nation and delivering the reliability our customers expect and deserve.”

“The Portal North Bridge represents the first major bridge project cutover completed on the Northeast Corridor, and we’re proud to celebrate this tremendous milestone with our partners at NJ Transit, [New Jersey] Governor [Mikie] Sherrill, and the US DOT,” said Amtrak President Roger Harris

“Completion of the Portal North Bridge is a landmark achievement for the Northeast Corridor, replacing a century-old structure with a modern, fixed network tied arch bridge that enhances reliability, reduces delay, and reinforces the resilience of one of the nation’s busiest rail corridors,” said Brian Reilly, Portal North Bridge Project Director, Skanska USA Civil. “Delivered with our joint venture partner Traylor Bros., this project provides safer, more efficient travel for the millions of passengers who rely on it each year and represents a significant step forward in building stronger, future-ready rail infrastructure for generations to come.”

Editor’s Commentary: “The old Portal Bridge was completed just a few months after Mother Theresa was born. Infrastructure that old creates delays. Delays ruin birthday parties, preclude family dinners and create stress for someone just trying to get home after a long day at work. The growth of New Jersey relies on finishing projects like the Portal Bridge and the Gateway Tunnel. Because New Jersey will only keep growing if we keep moving,” said Congresswoman Nellie Pou (D-N.J., pictured). Pardon me, but Mother Theresa? Seriously? How many people know who Mother Theresa was, and why is she relevant to Portal North Bridge? Just sayin’. – William C. Vantuono

The post Portal North Bridge First Track in Service appeared first on Railway Age.

Multiple organizations including the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), BNSF Railway Company, the Freight Rail Customer Alliance (FRCA) and National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), have provided comments on the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) Jan. 7, 2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to repeal its regulations on 49 C.F.R. Part 144, “Intramodal Rail Competition,” and to restore reciprocal switching.

On July 8, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an STB Final Rule allowing for reciprocal switching, which was opposed by railroads and drew criticism from shippers.

In a letter (download below), dated March 10, 2026, to the STB, the NITL commended the Board on its proposal to repeal Part 1144, which will “modernize its regulatory framework by removing burdensome and ineffective regulations,” according to the League.

“Part 1144 imposes unreasonable burdens on shippers whose facilities are captive to a single railroad and who seek to use the reciprocal switching statute to access a second railroad to obtain competitive, efficient, and reliable freight rail transportation. Removing Part 1144 will create new opportunities for competition in the rail industry to be a key mechanism to improve rail service and solve freight rail challenges for the benefit of U.S. manufacturers, farmers, distributors of raw materials, and the American economy,” NITL wrote in the letter.

In a letter (download below), dated March 10, 2026, to the STB, BNSF explained that it “does not oppose the repeal of competitive access rules (CARs).”

“The statutory scheme that will guide future cases is consistent with BNSF’s long-held belief that Board intervention should be limited to instances of market failure, while also ensuring that in those instances where Board regulation is warranted, the remedies must be accessible, well-tailored, and effective for all stakeholders,” the Class I wrote. “Moreover, this statutory focus on market dynamics makes it imperative that the Board consider all relevant competitive forces when considering future requests for competitive access. BNSF further notes that this proposal comes at a pivotal moment for competition in the railroad industry, as Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) seek to consolidate an unprecedented amount of market power through their proposed merger. For reasons that BNSF will address in the merger proceeding, the long- 2 term competitive harms of that transaction pose a significant threat to the U.S. economy and the American consumer. Nothing in the NPRM alters the Board’s responsibility to prevent those harms in addressing the proposed merger.”

The FRCA and NCTA in a March 10, 2026, letter to the STB, commended the Board for issuing its proposal.

“The requirement in the regulations to demonstrate anticompetitive conduct before being able to obtain reciprocal switching and through route prescription to attain the benefits of competition has proved insurmountable in practice, so much so as to have a profound chilling effect on efforts to pursue what could prove to be a very valuable form of competition. Enhanced competition is needed for the benefit of not only for shippers, who have on average faced real rate increases (as measured against the GPD-IPD) for over two decades, but also for the railroads, whose excessive exploitation of their market power has led to stagnating and falling volumes over the past two decades,” the organizations wrote in the letter (download below).

Notwithstanding these concerns, FRCA and NCTA said that they welcome the proposal as a “much needed and long-awaited correction to the harm inflicted by the Midtec approach.” While there may be challenges, the proposal, the organizations wrote, “adheres to the statutory language and has the potential to result in meaningful competition, lower rates, and improved service, none of which can be said of the status quo.”

SMART-TD, in its March 10, 2026, letter to the STB (download below), provided comments in strong support of the Board’s NPRM to repeal 49 C.F.R. Part 1144 and to restore reciprocal switching determinations to a “case-by-case analysis consistent with the Staggers Rail Act.”

“Competition strengthens industries. It strengthens service. And it strengthens the workforce that keeps the nation’s freight and passenger rail systems operating safely and efficiently. The existing regulatory framework has shielded rail monopolies for the past 4 decades. It is time to remove that shield.

“SMART-TD urges the Board to finalize this rule and restore reciprocal switching to its proper statutory footing,” wrote the union, which represents approximately 100,000 transportation employees, including active rail members working in all railroad operating crafts such as engineers, conductors, trainmen, switchmen, hostlers, and yardmasters.

“Repealing Part 1144 is the right first step in making statutory relief available and finding solutions that better serve the public interest, or that correct for inadequate competition,” the organization wrote in a March 10, 2026, letter to the STB (download below). “Without any replacement regulation, petitions would be evaluated case by case. Such an approach may work well, provided the Board makes all relevant information public and places any necessary evidentiary burdens on the party most able to meet the burden. However, USDA encourages the Board to continue judicious monitoring of shippers’ use of reciprocal switching. If, for example, shippers continue to cite high rates or poor service—and still do not bring cases before the Board—STB may need to provide additional regulatory clarity as to eligibility, such as the guidelines it proposed in 2016.”

The Anticompetitive Conduct standard adopted in Part 1144, the ACC wrote in its March 10, 2026, letter to the STB (download below), “stands as an outdated and unwarranted barrier to competition in the freight rail industry. The conditions that led to the adoption of the standard no longer exist; its repeal is not only permissible, but necessary. ACC strongly supports the Proposed Rule to fully repeal Part 1144 and allow the Board to consider requests for reciprocal switching, through routes, and through rates on a case-by-case basis under its statutory authority.”

The post Organizations Provide Comments on STB’s NPRM to Repeal ‘Intramodal Rail Competition’ Regulations appeared first on Railway Age.

The government of Ontario in Canada on March 13 announced the acquisition of 127 miles (205 kilometers) of CN rail line between North Bay and Washago.

The C$138 million investment is a milestone in bringing back Northlander passenger rail service between Timmins and Toronto, with a rail connection to Cochrane. The acquisition was completed back in February and secures a dedicated rail corridor, according to the Ontario government, thereby creating jobs and improving on-time performance and reliability. It represents more than 25% of the corridor where the Northlander will operate.

Passenger service on the rail corridor will be prioritized; however it also supports freight traffic with “freight revenues directed back to the provincial Crown corporation Ontario Northland,” the government said. Additionally, freight operations will be streamlined in North Bay, where freight trains were previously disassembled, transferred onto CN track and reassembled before continuing south. Along the corridor from North Bay to Washago, nearby communities will be connected with this investment in infrastructure.

Previously, the Ontario government marked other milestones in its support of the return of Northlander service. In September 2025, it competed constructing 1,074 yards (982 meters) of new track for the passenger service. In January 2026, the first of three Siemens Venture trainsets arrived for the service. Later that same month, the government announced it was investing more than C$100 million in infrastructure upgrades.

“[W]e’re taking a pivotal step towards bringing back the Northlander and better connecting Northeastern Ontario families and workers to the opportunities and services they rely on,” said Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation. “This investment will prioritize passenger service by supporting fast, reliable service along the line.”

Ontario Northland CEO Chad Evans said of the acquisition: “Today [March 13] marks a significant step forward as we prepare to usher in the new era of the Northlander service. The acquisition of the Newmarket Subdivision between North Bay and Washago will support on-time performance and a more dependable travel experience for passengers. Ontario Northland is proud to work with the province to deliver a transportation network that better serves people, businesses and communities across the region.”

“CN was pleased to work with the Government of Ontario and Ontario Northland on this agreement to transfer ownership of this section of the Newmarket Rail Subdivision,” CN Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Ghislain Houle said. “By securing its own corridor for passenger operations, the province is taking an important step toward restoring the Northlander and strengthening transportation connections across Northern Ontario. CN remains committed to working collaboratively with partners to support reliable passenger service while continuing to deliver safe, efficient freight transportation for our customers.”

• Ontario’s Northlander Service Revival Advances
• Northlander Service Revival Advances With Contract Award, Train Design Unveiling
• North Bay Rail Bypass Construction is Completed

The post Ontario Invests C$138MM For Future Northlander Service appeared first on Railway Age.

Henry, who will transition into the role from his current position as Director of Rail Operations at VRE, will be the first COO for the commuter rail service since 2019, when the role was vacated upon Rich Dalton’s appointment as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), a position subsequently held by Dalton until October 2025.

As COO, Henry will serve as a key strategic partner to VRE CEO Katie Choe, with a primary charge of “ensuring operational readiness to increase service in accordance with the recently adopted System Plan 2050.” Working collaboratively with other senior leadership, Henry will be responsible for the delivery of safe and reliable commuter service for all passengers and stakeholders, day-today rail operations, mechanical operations, and promoting and ensuring a positive customer experience. He will also provide oversight and guidance to the departments of Rail Operations and Mechanical Operations.

Henry first joined VRE as Director of Operations in 2010. In this previous role, he was responsible for “ensuring reliable daily operations of rail service, the management of operating contracts, incident response coordination, and partnering with mechanical leadership to align mechanical priorities with operating needs.” Henry also led the customer service teams and operational communications to passengers. In total, Henry brings more than 40 years of experience in providing multi-site operations management and customer support. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Central Florida in Orlando and an MBA from Rollins College.

VRE says it is “poised for a dramatic transformation” over the next several years, with capital projects under way throughout the system that will “improve reliability, enhance the passenger experience, and allow for significant increases in the level of service provided.” The projects are coordinated in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia’s multi-billion-dollar investment into rail infrastructure through the “Transforming Rail in Virginia” initiative. Henry will provide “critical support to liaise across departments and agencies to plan and activate service adjustments throughout the life of these projects, and implement service increases as enabling projects are completed.”

The post Chris Henry Tapped as VRE COO appeared first on Railway Age.

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has officially launched a public input survey, now open through March 27, to help guide the development of the 2026 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan. The agency is seeking feedback to ensure the updated plan “reflects the needs and priorities of passengers, freight partners, and communities across the Commonwealth.”

The Statewide Rail Plan, DRPT says, “establishes a vision for the future of rail in Virginia, outlining both short-term (six-year) and long-term (20-year) investment horizons.” To help shape this vision, the survey gathers public input on potential improvements to passenger rail service as well as freight rail considerations, including impacts at highway rail crossings. Respondents are also invited to share their perspectives on key strategies identified by DRPT to enhance passenger and freight rail service statewide.

Residents, business owners, farmers, and commuters are encouraged to participate in the survey, which takes approximately five to 10 minutes to complete.

In the coming months, DRPT will partner with the University of Virginia’s Institute for Engagement and Negotiation to host a series of public meetings. These meetings, the agency says, “will provide an opportunity to review survey findings and gather additional feedback on how Virginians would like to see the rail system evolve.”

The post Virginia DRPT Launches 2026 Statewide Rail Plan Survey appeared first on Railway Age.

UP in June 2022 filed a petition for exemption to allow the rail line’s launch in connection with the Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension Project or the PIRATE project. The line would connect the Pecos Advanced Manufacturing Zone (PAMZ) to the UP main line west of the project area and provide rail service for Commercial Metals Company (CMC)—said to be largest manufacturer of steel rebar in North America and Central Europe, as well as a leading producer in the steel long products market—as well as an alternative mode of freight transportation to future shippers (see maps below). According to UP, the line will allow CMC to receive raw materials and ship products to customers by rail more efficiently from two facilities in Mesa, eliminating an estimated 35,000 trucks per year.

“Construction and operation of the Line will introduce a new freight transportation option in the PAMZ for both current and potential future shippers,” the STB said in its decision (download below).

“It will also facilitate the diversion of traffic from truck to rail, thereby increasing overall energy efficiency,” the STB continued. “With OEA’s [the STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis] final recommended mitigation, there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Line.” After considering the transportation merits and environmental issues, the Board, considering the entire record, said it approved Alternative 1 in the Draft and Final Environmental Assessments (EAs), subject to compliance with the environmental and historic mitigation measures set forth in its decision Appendix (see Alternative 1 details below). “This action, as conditioned,” it noted, “will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.”

OEA in August 2023 delayed issuance of a Final EA after discovering that “there had been significant ground disturbance and damage to National Register of Historic Places-eligible archaeological resources within the proposed right-of-way,” according to the STB. “Following briefing on the issue, the Board was unable to reach a majority decision on whether a violation of NHPA had occurred, and the historic review process under NHPA resumed.” OEA on Feb. 27, 2026, issued a Final EA updating the environmental analysis and responding to the comments received on the Draft EA. “In the Final EA, based on that analysis, OEA determined that the conclusions in the Draft EA remain valid,” STB reported. “The Final EA also recommended conditions to the Board to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the project’s potential impacts on the environment and historic properties.”

While this project “satisfies the criteria for exemption,” the STB noted, “UP’s failure to adequately protect the identified National Register-eligible archaeological sites in the APE from disturbance during the pendency of the proceeding was deeply troubling. UP represents that it has instituted several new practices to ensure that, going forward, cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the pendency of the NHPA Section 106 process for a construction project … UP acknowledges that failures in communications and lack of awareness of the historic review process by various UP personnel are ‘unacceptable’ and ‘in need of correction’ … Should a future lapse in awareness or communications by UP personnel (or agents acting on UP’s behalf in connection with a construction project) result in impermissible disturbance or damage to cultural property, the Board will closely scrutinize UP’s conduct and consider whether significant consequences are appropriate. The Board expects UP to take all necessary steps to ensure that cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the Section 106 process in future construction cases.”

According to the STB, petitions for reconsideration must be filed by April 2, 2026.

• STB Issues Final EA for UP’s Proposed Arizona Line
• STB Directs UP to Correct ‘Deficiencies’ in Arizona Rail Line Project Proceeding

The post STB OK’s UP Arizona Rail Line Project appeared first on Railway Age.

The Izaak Walton Inn, a historic railroad lodge at the edge of Glacier National Park in Montana, has been listed for $18 million. The sale comes just two weeks after it closed due to financial troubles.

The lodge is situated along BNSF Railway’s former Great Northern Railway main line through northwest Montana and has long been a favorite among railroad enthusiasts. The GN partnered with the Addison Miller Company to build the hotel in 1939 to accommodate the crews needed to keep its main line over Marias Pass open during winter. In recent years, the mountain hamlet has become a popular spot for cross-country skiers, although the railroad still housed crews at the inn to support winter operations. Along with the historic hotel, several cabooses and an EMD F45 have been converted into cabins on the grounds. Amtrak’s Empire Builder also stops near the inn.

LOGE Camps bought the inn in 2022, and it underwent a major renovation before reopening in late 2024. But earlier this year, it was revealed that LOGE Camps was experiencing “significant” financial issues and shuttering all of its operations, including the Izaak Walton. The inn and the almost 90 acres it sits on have been described as a “turnkey resort” to potential buyers.

—Justin Franz 

The post Montana’s Izaak Walton Inn For Sale appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

When the federal government created Consolidated Rail Corporation in the mid-1970s, it set out to weld several bankrupt Northeastern railroads into one viable system. To railfans, “Conrail” became synonymous with the disappearance of storied and colorful names. To many communities that depended on those lines for employment and tax revenue, it meant the shutdown of local yards and car shops and the ripping up of underperforming branch lines. In different ways, both rail enthusiasts and the communities those railroads served experienced a sense of loss that went beyond balance sheets and timetables.

Little of this lends itself to the kind of endearing romance with which many of us regard earlier railroads. It may therefore seem odd to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Conrail’s creation. Yet the reality is this — without Conrail, there might not be a viable railway industry today.

The history of North American railroading is a lesson in overexpansion. For most of the 19th century, railways were seen by investors as a transformative enterprise that would make them rich. To small-town dreamers and big city boosters, this was a technology that would funnel trade and influence to their communities. To company executives, rapid growth was the key to dominance — claiming lucrative territory before the other guy did, or diverting traffic from whoever got there first. In the Northeast, the result was “irrational exuberance,” good money after bad, and too many places served by too many lines.

Such duplication could foster competition and lower rates for shippers, but it also rendered profit margins perilously thin. The rise of publicly funded highways beginning in the 1910s, followed by the growth of subsidized airports in the 1930s, further eroded railroads’ competitive position. By the mid-20th century, lines that had long been marginal were firmly in the red, and routes once justified as “loss leaders” were draining their parent companies dry. When Conrail took over on April 1, 1976, its broader mandate was to preserve rail service in the Northeast and Midwest — and, by extension, to stabilize the North American rail network itself.

Achieving that goal required what battlefield medics call “triage.” Conrail concentrated its limited resources on maintaining, repairing, and upgrading the strongest segments of the network, while allowing less economically viable facilities to close. While most jobs were protected under Conrail, drastic and often brutal cuts elsewhere were needed to make the new railroad competitive. Decisions made in the decades prior were influenced by investors looking for quick returns and a public that quickly turned to the auto and the airplane for their shipping and travel needs. Rationalization, alongside various forms of regulatory relief and government aid, allowed Conrail to reach profitability and return to the private sector in 1987.

What might the railway industry have looked like had Conrail never been created? One can imagine the eastern main lines parceled out to state governments or simply left to wither, industries relocating farther south and west, and a deindustrialized landscape more severe than even the bleakest Bruce Springsteen ballad.

Conrail was unsentimental, rationalizing the excesses of a romantic, yet often imprudent, past. But it was also a hopeful creation — one that halted a systemic collapse and preserved rail service in the most densely populated and industrialized region of the U.S. Conrail saved what it could. In doing so, it saved railroading in the East — and we are all better off for it.

—Alexander Benjamin Craghead is a transportation historian, photographer, artist, and author.

The post Conrail’s Legacy 50 Years Later appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

by Tim Doherty/photos by the author

In 1976, everything about Conrail was big — biggest railroad employer, biggest passenger carrier, biggest railroad in terms of revenue, and along with it, big problems. Big Blue inherited the underinvested physical plant of its bankrupt predecessors as well as their service problems and a declining Northeast manufacturing base.

The former New York Central Boston & Albany route over the Berkshire Mountains gave Conrail a near monopoly on southern New England rail traffic, compared to the parallel Boston & Maine to the north. Renamed the Boston Line, it became the primary gateway rail route in and out of New England. By comparison, very little of the former New York, New Haven & Hartford to the south remained in Conrail by the 1990s.

Prior to World War II, rail traffic in New England was centered on the movement of high-value manufactured goods and passengers, both of which were disrupted by new highways being built in the 1950s and the flight of manufacturing to lower-cost locations. The prospects were bleak for the New Haven as the decimated railroad went into receivership for the last time in 1961.

ABOVE: In the early 1960s, New York Central launched “Super Van” service on the former Boston & Albany. Conrail later expanded the service to six intermodal pairs at its peak in the late 1990s. Eastbound TV-6 rounds the famed curve at East Chatham, N.Y., on February 7, 1999.

Facing challenges from declining market share, New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad agreed to merge in 1962 — a move regulators would approve only if the ailing New Haven was included. Despite its massive scale and apparent resources as the sixth-largest corporation in the U.S., Penn Central was doomed from the outset by hasty merger planning, poor implementation, and questionable investments. Internal conflicts led to operational disruptions that clogged terminals and resulted in lost shipments. Revenues collapsed, and the railroad declared bankruptcy in June 1970, less than two years after the merger was completed.

The collapse of Penn Central also pulled down connecting systems, and by the mid-1970s, the Northeastern rail network was in crisis. Conrail was created to provide “adequate and efficient rail service” at the lowest cost to taxpayers. To do this, thousands of miles of excess track and facilities would be eliminated as a stronger, unified system would emerge from the ashes. Conrail’s success as planned by its creators was “heavily dependent on future projections of uncertain events.” Service would improve and traffic would return as Conrail’s track and facilities were rehabilitated. Further, and likely more problematic, was that the plan for Conrail was developed in the middle of the energy crisis where embargoes by foreign oil producers caused massive shortages and drove up prices. Planners expected new traffic to emerge as oil-fired power plants converted to coal, which at the time was less expensive.

ABOVE: At Selkirk Yard’s east end, the Boston Line to New England diverges from the River Line to New Jersey. On May 28, 1999, SEAL (Selkirk, N.Y.–Allentown, Pa.) departs with Worcester TrailVans lifted from westbound TV-7. At Kearny, N.J., the cars would connect with TV-213 for Norfolk Southern at Lynchburg, Va., and Atlanta.

By 1977, the coal conversion did not materialize as oil prices stabilized, and Conrail had a massive hole in its expected bottom line. Despite the thorough analysis of freight traffic and projections for the future, the resulting system included too much track for the business that Conrail had by the late 1970s. New England already had twice as much track as the national average. Thanks to legislation passed in the early 1980s, Conrail began a further round of rationalization, handed off its passenger operations to the states paying for the trains, and began to use the tools of deregulation to reach profitability relatively quickly.

New England was the birthplace of American heavy manufacturing in the 19th century, and to serve these new industries, some of the earliest railroads in America were chartered between 1832 and 1833. Running southwest from Boston, the New Haven — often in fiscally dubious fashion — acquired nearly every line in southern New England by the beginning of the 20th century, creating a dense web of main lines and branches. North of Boston, Boston & Maine and Maine Central operated routes into New Hampshire and Maine, as well as a western gateway to Albany, N.Y., that included the 4.75-mile-long Hoosac Tunnel. Guilford Transportation Industries consolidated these two lines into a single system in 1983.

ABOVE: Conrail NESE bursts from State Line Tunnel at Canaan, N.Y., on May 28, 1999, three days before takeover by CSX, led by four 3,000-hp B30-7As. These unique 12-cylinder GE units were prized for fuel efficiency.

Positioned between these two systems, Boston & Albany Railroad was built due west from Boston, linking the three largest cities in Massachusetts with the Hudson River. Its route and construction reflected the combined business and political ambitions of Massachusetts interests seeking a direct western outlet to the interior of the U.S. that bypassed New York City. Built and operated initially as two separate railroads, the Boston–Worcester, Mass., line opened in 1835, followed by Western Railroad from Worcester to the Hudson River opposite Albany in 1841. The two lines did not initially connect at Worcester, nor did they get along well, frequently disputing rate divisions.

Construction of the Western posed a far greater engineering challenge, requiring the railroad to cross two summits at Charlton and Washington, Mass. Fewer than eight miles of the route were level, and deep rock cuts were blasted to climb from 72.5 feet above sea level at Springfield, Mass., to a summit of 1,460 feet at Washington, just 38 miles to the west. The ruling grades lie between mileposts 128 and 138, where the railroad ascends 1,000 feet while crossing the Westfield River 15 times on a succession of sharp curves.

ABOVE: Conrail’s Lawrence to Selkirk freight LASE passes the shuttered GE complex in Pittsfield, Mass., on Feburary 13, 1999. With traffic off of Guilford from Eastern New England this train was one of two originating on Guilford (B&M) and handed off to Conrail at Worcester.

Leased to New York Central in 1900 — which served as its principal connection in Albany — B&A provided the longest single line route to New England. Early entrance into industrialization did not provide a lasting benefit. As early as the 1910s and 1920s, the textile industry shifted production to less expensive locations in the southern and western U.S. The precision manufacturing industry that developed surrounding Springfield in the Connecticut River Valley faced competitive challenges in the 1950s and 1960s, and it also relocated to reduce labor costs. Newer, less rail-dependent technology and scientific industries emerged in New England. The silver lining in this economic transition was that the workers in and around this growing sector would become consumers of automobiles and other goods.

In the 1970s, the freight arriving by rail in New England included perishable and non-perishable food, beer, newsprint, paperboard, tissue, flour, animal feed, fertilizer, plastics, cement, structural steel, plywood, building products, auto parts, and finished automobiles. Conrail inherited widely scattered customers located on different lines that required costly switching for limited carloads. Conrail served multiple grocery distributors, printing plants, and the few heavy manufacturers that continued to hang on. The initial freight schedules reflected the need to serve all these customers with small local yards across southern New England…

The post Conrail’s Boston Line appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.