Prototype News

Also in the August issue, you’ll find these feature stories:

• Winter Weather Warm-Up: In Railway Age’s annual Winter Prep Report, Senior Editor Carolina Worrell covers the innovative technologies railroads use to counter the effects of sub-zero temperatures.

• Stable Market—For Now: North America’s tank car fleet is relatively young. Regulations, though tricky and challenging, should benefit carbuilders, component suppliers and lessors, according to Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono.

• Freight Rail AI Evolution: Artificial intelligence is a controversial subject—though not for railroads when it comes to safety, if used properly. Railway Age Contributing Editor Joanna Marsh provides this Advanced Technology Report.

• Brightline—Something Different on the Rails: Railway Age Contributing Editor David Peter Alan spotlights Brightline, Florida’s popular higher-speed passenger rail system, and Brightline West, the true high-speed (200 mph) electrified system that is in early construction to connect Las Vegas and Southern California.

• Derailment Investigation, Prevention, Detection: ENSCO’s Gregory Holtman and Matthew Dick address investigation fundamentals and advancements in derailment prevention in this TTC Operated by ENSCO Report.

Plus, Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner addresses the UP-NS merger and provides a “Handicappers’ Guide” to the Surface Transportation Board members if you wager on “who votes how.” Also, William C. Vantuono examines who may be the fifth-appointed STB member, on whose blessing the UP-NS marriage will partially rest, in his From the Editor column; Railway Age Financial Editor David Nahass discusses UP and NS (and the “real news”: if six Class I’s become five, how long will it be before there are four or even three?), as well as railcar operating lessor consolidation; and American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association President Chuck Baker stresses the importance of short lines working to “meet the moment” during today’s “political tsunami.”

The post Railway Age: August 2025 Digital Edition On Line appeared first on Railway Age.

Among the list of reasons to attend the much-anticipated 2025 Light Rail Conference is Embracing Sustainability & Resiliency Through Education & Professional Development, a presentation by Barbara M. Schroeder, P.E., P.M.P., Rail Transit Project Manager at Benesch. This year, Railway Age and RT&S are pleased to venture to Pittsburgh on Oct. 1-2 with a packed lineup of LRT professionals who are significantly influencing today’s rail transit industry.

“The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) Board of Directors approved an implementation strategy and approach for Sustainability and Resiliency in June 2023,” notes Schroder. “By incorporating sustainable design elements focused on construction, operation and maintenance of assets, AREMA further demonstrates alignment to the railway industries’ infrastructure investments that improve the productivity and sustainability of their operations. Led by AREMA Technical Committee 13, Environmental, outreach to AREMA functional groups and committees was conducted to educate, engage, and empower AREMA members to embrace sustainability and resilience. AREMA Committee 24, Education and Professional Development is currently reviewing the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to determine how we can embrace Sustainability and Resiliency through our committee activities. Committee 24 is also considering how we can support AREMA technical committees and functional groups to deliver education and professional development avenues to enhance their work on recommended practices to align with the UN SDGs. My presentation will summarize a quantitative and qualitative process to collaborate and evaluate the UN SDGs with respect to education and professional development. This is a call within AREMA and to sister organizations, transit agencies big and small, and railroads to collaborate, educate, engage, and empower our members to embrace sustainability and resiliency in practice and action.”

This edition of our annual in-person Light Rail Conference will be filled with dynamic panels and the chance to network with a wide-reaching group of like-minded professionals. This event will offer a comprehensive review of the specialized technical, operational, environmental, and socio-economic issues associated with light rail transit (LRT) in an urban environment. All this will take place at the Fairmont Pittsburgh. Plus, don’t miss a special tour of the Pittsburgh Regional Transit PRT light rail system. The 26.2-mile network runs from the North Shore and Downtown Pittsburgh areas, through Pittsburgh’s southern neighborhoods and many South Hills suburbs. With 80 light rail vehicles in its fleet, PRT aims to be the “region’s transportation mode of choice by delivering an innovative network that is clean, sustainable, and equitable; a network that enables individuals, businesses, and economies to thrive.”

Barbara M. Schroeder offers several decades of experience managing and executing rail and transit projects both nationally and internationally. Her extensive expertise extends to the planning, environmental, engineering and construction aspects of transit projects. She excels in managing stakeholder concerns and overseeing project quality, with experience in geometric, structural and systems design oversight. Schroeder has developed and implemented numerous quality management plans, ensuring compliance with ISO 9001, FTA and CTA guidelines. She has served as a project and quality manager across all phases of rail and transit development, including planning, conceptual, preliminary and final design, installation and construction. Schroeder is actively involved in AREMA as an Environmental Liaison and Vice Chair of the APTA Power, Signals and Communications working group.

Presented Oct. 1-2 at the Fairmont Pittsburgh, the 2025 Railway Age and RT&S Light Rail Conference is a must-attend premier conference on LRT for transportation professionals in planning, operations, civil engineering, signaling, and vehicle engineering. Students at the undergraduate and graduate levels are also welcome.

In addition to Barbara M. Schroeder, transit leaders on the program include Andy Lukaszewicz and  Justin Selepack of Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT), Bryan K. Moore and Casey Blaze of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), Henry Posner and Ida Posner of Railroad Development Corporation (RDC), Harry Skoblenick of Alstom, and many more.

Key sessions will focus on:

• Strategic insights into major new-builds and expansion projects.
• Engineering sessions illustrating how to best support long-term efficiency and safety.
• Capital program oversight, risk mitigation, and performance tracking.
• Resilience planning, sharing adaptive strategies for extreme weather events.
• Improvements to customer-facing technologies such as fare collection, communications and security.
• The viability and scalability of alternative propulsion technologies.
• Confronting funding challenges.

Industry support for the Railway Age / RT&S 2025 Light Rail Conference is already strong, including sponsorship from 4AI Systems, Piper Networks, Benesch, and RDC.

• View the confirmed speakers and take advantage of the early bird rate for Railway Age / RT&S 2025 Light Rail >>
• To inquire about sponsorship opportunities, contact Jonathan Chalon at jchalon@sbpub.com or (212) 620-7224.

The post Benesch’s Barbara M. Schroeder Featured at 2025 Light Rail Conference appeared first on Railway Age.

“They used to tell me I was building a dream, and so I followed the mob.” Thus began the song that became the anthem of the Great Depression. It was about an unemployed construction worker and WWI veteran named Al, who recalled: “Once I built a railroad, made it run, made it race against time.” He was given life by Yip Harburg’s words in 1932, and his plaintive plea started as “Brother, can you spare a dime?” and ended as “Buddy, can you spare a dime?” Could Al, who received so little in return for his labor and service have more in common with the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) project than appears at first glance? In this column, I’ll look at some alternatives that CAHSR’s proponents did not pursue, alternatives that might have changed the history and outcome of the project.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the future of the project. Executive Editor Marybeth Luczak reported on July 18 that the POTUS 47 Administration is clawing back the money that had previously been granted for the new railroad, much as it also managed to convince Congress to rescind the grants that had been authorized for noncommercial TV and radio, and as POTUS 45 (the same person, in case you forgot) had done to the same California rail project in 2019. This is still a developing story and appeals and/or litigation appear likely. The FRA report that started the process noted nine key reasons why the agency does not expect CASHR to complete the segment between Merced and Bakersfield by the end of 2033. Luczak also reported that CAHSR is fighting back, and her report included statements form CASHR management and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Although the right-of-way is flat enough to accommodate Class 9 track (rated for 200 mph), the project itself has faced ups and downs that more closely resemble a roller coaster. It appeared dead in 2019, recovered to a “limited clear” indication during the Biden years, and is now slated to lose its federal grant again. We still don’t know what the future will hold. Will California or some other entity find the money to fill the gap? Will politics change enough during the next few years to restore the project? Will it be reduced in scope so there will still be a new railroad where the HSR line had been planned? Could a P3 (public-private partnership) work? I don’t know, but let’s see how it got to where it is today.

One person in particular had a dream and was in a position to make the pitch to have that dream built, or at least to get construction started. He was Rod Diridon, for whom the train station in San José is named. He wanted to build a railroad that would truly “race against time” and on a much grander scale. The railroad he envisioned would allow trains to zoom between Los Angeles and San Francisco in as little as 2 hours and 40 minutes, and charge sufficiently low fares to compete effectively with airlines for speed and get travelers between Northern and Southern California onto trains and off the highways.

Slightly more than 20 years ago, I caught Diridon’s pitch at two national conferences. One was sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the other by the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), now RPA. The idea sounded great, but personally, I was skeptical. I did not see how California, with whatever help the State could have gotten from elsewhere, could have come up with the money to complete such an ambitious and costly project. I also believed, and still do, that upgrading the existing railroads (the Coast Line, which hosts Amtrak’s Coast Starlight and some corridor-length trains, and the San Joaquin Line, which runs in the Central Valley, but only as far as Bakersfield, and then buses go the rest of the way to L.A.) to “high-performance rail” standards (110 mph, or even 125) would be significantly less expensive, making that option more cost-effective than shooting for true HSR. It seemed that not many others shared my skepticism at the time.

To be sure, Rod Diridon has had an illustrious career in politics and management, along with other civic positions and some time on the railroad. I have no doubt that he believed in his vision and had the credibility to persuade others to believe in it, too. He has done many good things, and I was not disrespecting him by being skeptical in this case. My concern was that his predictions appeared overly optimistic, given the uncertainties and delays that accompany any project, especially a mega-project.

As things turned out, Diridon’s predictions were overly optimistic. Sadly, his hopes for a high-speed line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with branches to Sacramento and Anaheim (in Orange County, the home of Disneyland) melted into a sad reality of politics, delays and escalating costs that all seemed to combine to push the project further into the future, in terms of both money and a date for service to start. Today, there is construction in the Central Valley, with the hope that the railroad will connect Merced and Bakersfield by the end of 2033, but the FRA does not believe that. As for Los Angeles, building a true HSR line south of Bakersfield will take even longer. So will getting to the Bay Area, even though electrifying Caltrain, a regional rail line between San Francisco and San José with a few diesel shuttle trains further south to Gilroy for commuters, came with the HSR project. According to Caltrain, the electrification has reduced running time and increased ridership.

I don’t have the numbers on the cost of upgrading the Coast Line and San Joaquin Line to high-performance rail standards, including the cost of constructing a relatively fast railroad between Bakersfield and Los Angeles that would not meet FRA Class 9 standards but would still run fast enough to meet the “high-performance” standard. There are cost estimators who could come up with such numbers, but I also know that, the higher the speed, the steeper the slope (or the slopes of increments of the curve getting steeper) of the line on a graph depicting marginal increase in cost relative to the marginal increase in top speed.

Today’s Acela trains between Washington, D.C. and Boston on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) travel 457 miles in 6:45 (405 minutes), for an average speed of slightly less than 68 mph. According to historic Southern Pacific schedules for both lines between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the Coast Line is 470 miles long, while the San Joaquin Line is 482 miles long, similar to the length of the line used today on the historic Santa Fe (now BNSF) route, which runs parallel to it. If a railroad could be built and operated on lines of that length and at the average speed of the Acela trains, it would take about seven hours for a trip between L.A. Union Station and the Caltrain station in San Francisco. That time would be competitive with an automobile trip on the highway from end to end (or somewhat faster) and not much longer than it would take by air, considering the amount of time needed to travel to and from the airports on transit and required airport waiting time at the airport itself.

Today, the only through train between Los Angeles and the Bay Area (Emeryville and Oakland in the East Bay, not San Francisco itself) is the Coast Starlight, which takes about 11 hours for the trip. It’s interesting and it’s scenic, but it’s also an all-day ride. The last time an overnight train ran between the two cities was the SP’s Lark, which ran for the last time in 1968. Amtrak’s Spirit of California ran on a 13-hour schedule between Los Angeles and Sacramento through the East Bay for 23 months during the early 1980s. There has never been an overnight train on the route since, although a “sleeper bus” that looked more like a tractor trailer than a bus, with its “sleeping pods,” ran briefly about ten years ago.

The lack of multiple (or even two) frequencies between California’s largest metropolitan areas says a lot about non-automobile mobility (or lack of same) in the Golden State. The situation is even worse on the San Joaquin route. There are no trains south of Bakersfield, only buses that take 2:20 to get to the City of Angels, three hours with a suburban stop, and that’s on top of the transfer time at Bakersfield, which can take up to an additional 30 minutes.

Is the delay necessary? Maybe not. Is it necessary to terminate all trains at Bakersfield to avoid the Tehachapi Pass and other mountains south of there? Again, maybe not. Few of us can remember riding on the historic SP San Joaquin route. Like many other trains, it rolled into history on April 30, 1971. Due to a trackwork project in April 2011, a version of the “San Joaquin Daylight” lived again for three days, running as a detoured Amtrak Train 11 over the old SP route. I was aboard one of those days as part of an itinerary that required considerable effort and careful planning. The track was in good condition, and the train ran well. Significantly, even though the train had operated on a foreign railroad all day, it reached L.A. Union Station only about 30 minutes past the advertised arrival time for its regular route.

An argument that has been used to justify the lack of passenger trains between Los Angeles and Bakersfield is that the Tehachapi Pass route is too slow. A look at the 1971 SP timetable renders that argument questionable, though. In its last days, it took the train approximately 2:30 to run between Lancaster and Bakersfield (92 miles) and about the same time to run between Lancaster and Los Angeles (77 miles). Today’s Metrolink Antelope Valley trains on the southern “half” of that line run somewhat faster: 2:09 inbound and 2:12 or 2:13 outbound, making all Metrolink local stops. This raises the question of whether some modest improvements could speed up service on the Tehachapi Pass portion of the line, so that overall travel time to and from Northern California would equal, or at least come close to, the current time with the relatively long bus ride and the transfer time at Bakersfield.

Our discussion of conventional alternatives has highlighted other ways to provide train service between California’s two hubs, even if the HSR project is not completed. At this point we don’t know, but it also does not make sense to act on a “one or the other” attitude. HSR and conventional trains serve different stops and different constituencies. One question that has not been considered, and I can’t answer it here, is what will happen to the current conventional service in the Central Valley if and when the high-speed trains start running. Time will tell, but that will not happen soon.

It is a common, but mistaken, strategy to build the least-expensive segment of a project until the original allocation is all spent. The argument then goes that it would be wasteful not to continue construction, because the sunk costs would be wasted. Almost everyone who has a business degree or significant management training knows that the preferred method of decision-making is to ignore sunk costs and to look only at projected future costs and benefits when making decisions. The analogy to gambling is not to be like the unlucky gamblers who keep spending money at the table to get back the money they have already lost. Even today, the literature contains articles about how improper thinking about sunk costs can cause errors that range from lost profits to the U.S. getting into situations like the Iraq War. Could that be part of the problem that California’s HSR managers are facing today?

Longtime Chicago advocate and journalist F. K. Plous has been suggesting for years that, rather than build a new line in the flat Central Valley, parallel to the line that now hosts several conventional trains each day in both directions, it would have made more sense to build the first segment between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. His argument makes sense. A rail line through the mountains that would accommodate passenger trains at HSR speeds would create an asset with independent utility that could replace an unpleasant and time-consuming bus ride and transfer with a one-seat ride to Bakersfield and points north. He told Railway Age than a sufficiently fast train could bring Bakersfield within commuting distance of Los Angeles, at least based on the time required to get there. During overnight hours when passenger trains are not running, it could be used for fast freight, which would bring in some additional revenue. There is no reason why such a plan would not work for a conventional rail line, too, preferably one that would run at “high-performance” speeds. Trains running at such speeds might not deliver all the benefits of true HSR, but the line would cost less and still deliver a significant improvement over having to take a bus part of the way, complete with transfers.

I can’t resolve these issues here, because I don’t have the time and information to do that at this time. Still, I can raise issues that the managers and politicians who pushed for HSR might have missed by omitting a somewhat slower alternative of building a more-affordable project.

I can also hope that, somehow, the decision-makers in California come up with a viable plan to build a railroad that can provide frequent service between the state’s two transportation hubs, with their strong networks of supporting transit and their catchment areas where millions of people live. The recent bouts of “on again” and “off again” for federal funding have not been good for California, its residents or visitors to the state. (That never occurred in France with the TGV, Germany with the ICE, China with its massive HSR network, etc.) A line that can host trains that take people to their destinations in a quick, smooth and auto-free manner would suit everybody’s needs, especially if California can afford to build it without help from the feds or work out a deal with host railroads.

It would be especially sad if the folks promoting the new railroad for California end up like Al in the song, left without the result of his labors and begging for funds. Still, they need to come up with some innovative ideas that will get a useful railroad built and running within a reasonable number of years, true HSR or not. No one knows what will happen, but I, through Railway Age, will keep an eye on the story and keep hoping to ride on a line someday that provides frequent trips between California’s regions.

The post CAHSR: ‘Building a Dream’ to Nightmare? appeared first on Railway Age.

BNSF Railway donated a historic SD70MAC to the Illinois Railway Museum. Locomotive 9400 was built in 1993 and is notable for being the first production locomotive (i.e., non-demonstrator) to feature modern AC traction, making it the precursor to thousands of units with this groundbreaking technology. 

BNSF made the donation earlier this summer, and IRM announced it on July 31. IRM plans to eventually restore the unit to its as-delivered appearance, Burlington Northern’s green and cream “Executive” livery from the early 1990s. 

Following testing of freight diesels equipped with AC traction motors in the early 1990s, BN ordered the first production run of AC motor-equipped diesels from EMD in 1993. The order, for 350 locomotives numbered 9400-9749, was built from November 1993 to mid-1996. These 4,000-horsepower locomotives were innovative not only because of their AC traction motors but also due to their radial trucks, computerized control systems, sound-deadened wide cabs, and “desktop” engineer’s control layout. Locomotive 9400 participated in a dedication ceremony at Fort Worth, Texas, in January 1994. During that event, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy E5 9911A “Silver Pilot,” on loan from IRM, was also present, representing some of EMD’s early groundbreaking diesels. 

BNSF 9400 is not the only historic diesel to have recently been acquired by IRM. Earlier this year, two former Amtrak locomotives were donated to the museum.

—Railfan & Railroad Staff

The post BNSF Donates Historic SD70MAC to IRM appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

More than two and a half years after Amtrak called on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to initiate an investigation into “substandard” customer on-time performance for Sunset Limited service between Louisiana and California, citing host freight railroad Union Pacific (UP) as “likely the prime focus of the investigation,” Amtrak and UP have settled their differences.

“Amtrak and Union Pacific are pleased with a settlement regarding customer on-time performance for Amtrak’s Sunset Limited service,” UP and Amtrak told Railway Age in a joint statement. “As a result, Amtrak requested the STB close its investigation. Union Pacific is committed to improving customer on-time performance for the Sunset Limited, as well as continuous training and education for employees with responsibilities to Amtrak under federal law. Amtrak and Union Pacific express their gratitude to the STB for its time and attention to this matter.”

This development came a mere two days after UP and Norfolk Southern announced their proposed merger and filed a notice of intent with the STB.

The basis of the Amtrak-UP Sunset Limited dispute can be traced back roughly 15 years. In November 2020 under PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008), the Federal Railroad Administration adopted a final rule establishing metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality of Amtrak’s intercity passenger trains. FRA’s action followed nearly 10 years of a contentious battle involving Amtrak and its host freight railroads that twice reached the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“Amtrak in December 2022 reported that in every quarter since the standard became applicable, the westbound Sunset Limited, Train 1 ‘has failed to meet the applicable standards by wide margins,’” Railway Age Executive Editor Marybeth Luczak reported in early January 2023. “’Customer On-Time Performance (COTP) was 40% in the first fiscal quarter of 2022. That figure was even lower in subsequent quarters, declining to 24% in the second fiscal quarter of 2022, 10% in the third fiscal quarter of 2022, and 11% in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2022.‘ Additionally, Amtrak said the eastbound Sunset Limited, Train 2, ‘has demonstrated poor and deteriorating COTP. COTP for the Sunset Limited 2 was 40% in the first fiscal quarter of 2022. That figure declined to 35% in the second fiscal quarter of 2022, 11% in the third fiscal quarter of 2022, and 7% in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2022.’ Amtrak said the substandard on-time performance of these trains ‘is due largely to causes that can and should be addressed by UP.’ These include the ‘extraordinary amount of freight train interference … that Sunset Limited trains encounter on lengthy segments of the Sunset Limited service hosted by UP; the use of enterprise-wide dispatching algorithms, policies, and/or practices that deny Sunset Limited Trains their statutory right to preference; and other UP operational practices that result in systemic violations of Amtrak’s rights. As a result of these practices, and over the recently concluded fiscal year, UP imposed on the average Sunset Limited train more than 15 instances of FTI [freight train interference] per trip, resulting in more than 4 hours of delay for Amtrak passengers per trip. UP has routinely prioritized freight trains over Sunset Limited trains, including when resolving meets and passes, when determining access to main lines, and when otherwise failing to ensure that tracks are available for the scheduled and infrequent transit of Sunset Limited trains. Due in large part to these unlawful practices, the Sunset Limited is currently the worst-performing route for customers on Amtrak’s network.’”

UP asked the STB on Jan. 27, 2023, to order mediation for Amtrak, UP and the other Class I railroads that host the Sunset Limited. Six months later, STB reported that the standard had been met for initiating an investigation into the on-time performance of the Sunset Limited under PRIIA Section 213, and one month later set a procedural schedule that was to include STB-led fact-finding interrogatories and document production requirements, as well as party-led discovery.

“How shocking is it that, at the same time that Union Pacific is going before the Surface Transportation Board seeking approval for its merger with Norfolk Southern, UP would suddenly reach a settlement with Amtrak over the Sunset Limited, when, coincidentally, Karen Hedlund, one of the STB voting members, has a special interest in passenger rail?” comments Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner.

The post Amtrak, Union Pacific Settle Sunset Limited Dispute appeared first on Railway Age.

Ten months after completing its $690 million purchase of Alstom Signaling North America’s conventional product portfolio, Knorr-Bremse North American subsidiary KB Signaling has introduced the IXC-R20 Integrated Crossing Control Module, described as “the rail industry’s first redundant solid-state crossing controller.”

The IXC-R20, the newest offering in KB Signaling’s ElectroLogIXS platform, is engineered as a direct replacement for the outgoing IXC-20S module portfolio, “offering backward compatibility alongside new capabilities,” with “streamlined maintenance, greater resilience, and improved data access, without the need to replace existing systems,” the company said. “designed to maintain safe operations, reduce emergency service calls and help railroad maintainers meet regulatory requirements, its introduction supports KB Signaling’s broader strategy of delivering technology that adapts to evolving needs while preserving the investments customers have already made in proven systems.”

“At the core of the IXC-R20 module is its high-availability design: a fully solid-state configuration supporting redundant operation,” KB Signaling noted. “The module can be paired in active/standby mode, automatically transferring control to the standby unit in the event of a fault. That failover process occurs without user intervention, maintaining full crossing functionality while minimizing disruption. The IXC-R20 module also addresses a critical operational challenge: meeting federal maintenance requirements efficiently. With Federal Railroad Administration rules mandating 30-day inspections at active crossings, the module includes a one-touch automated test feature that triggers a full crossing activation sequence and simultaneously records all operational metrics.”

The IXC-R20 module is fully compatible with the existing ElectroLogIXS XP4 platform and “supports direct, plug-and-play replacement of the IXC-20S,” KB Signaling noted. “No rewiring or application reprogramming is required. Customers can retain their existing personality modules and software configurations, helping streamline deployment and validation. The module also eliminates the need for a previously required external interface panel, reducing space and complexity inside the equipment bungalow. This update helps reduce system cost and improve enclosure layout, particularly for customers upgrading legacy installations. Each module supports multiple gate, lamp and bell outputs, with up to four IXC-R20s installable per chassis, delivering up to 80 amps of lamp drive capability and up to 16 gate positions across entrance and exit paths.”

Although not required in North America, the IXC-R20 “is on track to receive Safety Integrity Level 4 (SIL 4) certification by the end of 2025,” KB Signaling added. “This globally recognized benchmark is increasingly included in American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) guidelines and supports the module’s readiness for international deployment. Final validation and testing are now under way, with general product availability targeted for Q3 2025. KB Signaling has prepared launch volumes for initial customer evaluations and continues to align the system with the evolving safety and connectivity requirements of the domestic and global rail markets.”

“These are the kinds of tools that make a real impact for the people maintaining the system,” said KB Signaling Product Manager, Highway Crossing Systems Paul Harper. “With the IXC-R20 module, they can test the entire crossing, get the data they need, and instantly walk away with a comprehensive report. Everything about it was designed to make migration easier. Whether supporting new construction or replacing aging equipment, it’s a solution built to meet railroads where they are.”

“This is the first solid-state redundant crossing controller in the industry,” said Director of Products Aric Weingartner. “That redundancy changes the conversation for a lot of railroads, especially those that have continued to use interface relays because of system availability and reliability concerns. This architecture is already drawing attention from Class I railroads that had not previously adopted solid-state crossing controllers. With electromechanical relay systems becoming more difficult and expensive to maintain, the IXC-R20combines enhanced reliability with reduced long-term cost. And, certification is just one part of the picture. What really matters is the everyday performance: uptime, ease of use, and ability to make more informed decisions with better data. That’s what the IXC-R20 module delivers.”

“Troubleshooting crossings has often required guesswork or time-consuming simulations,” said J Product Solutions Engineer Johnathan Arends. “Now we have exponentially more information for every train move: speeds, states, activation data. If something fails, we can pinpoint the cause far faster and more accurately.”

See also:

The post KB Signaling Launches IXC-R20™ appeared first on Railway Age.

Eco Material Technologies, a North American producer, marketer and distributor of ash-based SCMs (Supplementary Cementitious Materials) and “Green Cement” products, has opened a new Lakeview Plant in southern Oregon, its “first sustainably built manufacturing hub” in the Pacific Northwest.

Rail-served by Nexxt Rail LLC subsidiary Goose Lake Railway, Eco’s Lakeview Plant is engineered to produce up to 300,000 tons of low‑carbon cement replacements annually. “By replacing 25% to 100% of traditional Portland cement in concrete mixes with Eco Material’s advanced SCMs and proprietary green cement blends, producers can reduce the carbon footprint of the cement portion of their concrete by up to 80%—the component responsible for the majority of embodied CO₂ in typical concrete formulations,” the company said. “The Lakeview Plant is expected to create 30 permanent jobs, including skilled manufacturing roles and logistics positions in a historically underserved region. Approximately 75% of shipments will be distributed by rail using existing infrastructure.”

The facility rollout “continues Eco Material Technologies’ national expansion, including a recently opened terminal in Queens, N.Y., supplying 50,000 tons of harvested fly ash annually to the New York City metro market,” the company noted. “With the Lakeview Plant coming online,we’re on track to deliver more than 10 million tons of environmentally beneficial materials per year across 40 metro areas in North America.”

“Opening of the Lakeview Plant demonstrates our commitment to sustainable innovation and marks a significant step forward in expanding access to domestically produced, low-carbon cement alternatives,” said Eco Material Technologies CEO Grant Quasha.

Eco Material Technologies describes itself as “an environmentally focused, near-zero carbon cement producer in the United States. SCMs are the most impactful, environmentally friendly alternative materials to Portland cement that significantly reduce the CO₂ footprint and improve the performance and longevity of cement’s end-product, concrete. Coal ash and natural pozzolans are used to replace a portion of carbon intensive Portland cement in concrete and can be further upgraded to higher-performance Green Cement products. The company also supplies services to electric utilities related to management of coal ash and other coal combustion products, and recycles more than 10 million tons per year of material into beneficial use, reducing emissions and avoiding landfilling of material.”

Class III Goose Lake Railway LLC (GOOS) has since September 2017 been managed and operated by parent company Nexxt Rail, LLC through a contractual agreement with railroad owner Lake County, Ore. GOOS runs 55 miles from Lakeview, Ore., to Alturas, Calif., and an additional 50 miles to Perez, Calif., where it connects with Union Pacific’s Black Butte Subdivision main line to Klamath Falls, Ore. Up to two trains operate weekly.

The post Eco Opens First Pacific Northwest Low-Carbon Cement Plant appeared first on Railway Age.

MTA has released its July Financial Plan (above). It said it has narrowed the deficit by $198 million over the past year; that “robust” summer ridership on the subway and commuter railroads has resulted in higher fare revenue projections this year; and overall operating expenses are below the amount that had been budgeted. According to MTA, the July Financial Plan reaffirms its previously forecasted $500 million annual cost savings beginning in 2025.

“This July Financial Plan remains broadly in line with budget details announced in November and approved by the MTA Board in December,” MTA said July 30. “The July plan forecasts approximately $50 million less in deficits for Fiscal Year 2027 and 2028, totaling $98 million. This is in addition to the $100 million announced in November, totaling $198 million less in deficits than this time last year. The projected deficit for Fiscal Year 2029 is $428 million. These funding shortfalls are in large part due trip growth in Paratransit.”

MTA also said that it has proposed a series of fare and ticket policy changes for New York City Transit’s (NYCT) subways and buses, Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), and Metro-North Railroad. These changes are pursuant to the 2025 Budget approved by the MTA Board in December 2024. “Updates are designed to simplify the fare structure and allow customers to automatically receive the best possible value,” MTA reported. “They accompany modest proposed fare and toll rate increases that keep pace with inflation, as they have every other year since 2009.“

If approved by the MTA Board this fall, the changes would go into effect in January 2026.

As part of the proposed fare policy changes for NYCT subways and buses:

• The seven-day rolling fare cap, which allows customers to pay for 12 rides in a seven-day period and automatically ride free for the rest of the week with no pre-payment required, would become permanent. At the proposed base fare, no rider would pay more than $36 for subway and local bus rides in a week; reduced-fare customers would pay no more than $18 in a week. Fare capping would also be extended to the express bus network on a promotional basis. During this promotion, express bus riders would never pay more than $67 for unlimited express bus, local bus, and subway rides in any seven-day period. “With fare capping available to all subway, bus, and express bus customers, the 7-Day, 30-Day, and Express Bus Plus Unlimited Ride MetroCards will no longer offer substantial financial savings and will no longer be sold,” MTA reported. Riders will still be able to pre-load funds onto an OMNY card for unlimited travel using the fare cap. “Unlike with MetroCards, any unused funds will roll over,” said MTA, noting that more than 75% of subway and bus riders are already using their contactless debit/card, mobile wallet or OMNY card to pay their fare.   
• Tap-and-go would be required for all subway, local bus, and express bus rides once MetroCards are no longer accepted as fare payment. Cash and coins would continue to be accepted at card vending machines in subway stations and at one of the 2,700 local businesses that sell OMNY cards, according to MTA. It said that “coin collection on local buses is inefficient and if it continues, would cost the agency $14 million annually to operate and maintain.” Eliminating coin collection, it noted, “would also allow teams to fully deploy proof-of-payment on buses and conduct thorough fare enforcement.”  
• Under the fare rate proposed, the base fare for subways, local buses, the Staten Island Railway and Paratransit would rise 10 cents to $3.00. Express bus fares would rise to $7.25, from the current $7.00. The reduced-fare would remain at half-off the base fare, rising from $1.45 to $1.50. Single-ride tickets on subways and buses will increase to $3.50 from the current $3.25. The fee for a new OMNY card would increase to $2 when the MetroCard is no longer accepted for fare payment later in 2026, MTA said.

As part of the proposed fare policy changes for LIRR and Metro-North Railroad:

• A new promotional Day Pass for unlimited travel would replace the Round-Trip ticket. The Day Pass would be valid on the day of purchase until 4 a.m. the following day. On weekdays, the Day Pass would cost 10% less than two one-way peak tickets; on weekends, it would cost the same as two one-way off-peak tickets. Unlimited Day Passes are also available for CityTicket and Far Rockaway ticketholders, priced at $14.50 in the peak and $10.50 in the off-peak.
• A new promotional discount would be available for mobile customers. After 10 peak or off-peak trips in 14 days, mobile customers would get an 11th peak or off-peak one-way trip for free in the same zone combination in the same 14-day period. Unlike today’s 10-Trip, which would be eliminated, MTA said, this new fare product would not require customers to pre-pay for 10 tickets to receive a discount and introduces a new discount for 10-Trip peak customers. According to MTA, 71% of customers already purchase their tickets via the TrainTime mobile app.   
• A promotional reduced fare product would be available all day, every day for seniors, people with disabilities, and Medicare recipients, even in the morning peak period.  
• MTA is eliminating the need for LIRR and Metro-North riders to activate tickets after purchasing. All One-Way mobile tickets would auto-activate upon purchase, and the ticket would expire after four hours. Paper tickets would also expire four hours after purchase. Additionally, the surcharge for tickets purchased onboard, whether from a conductor or the TrainTime app, would increase by $2. Riders who repeatedly purchase mobile tickets onboard would be penalized after an escalating series of warnings, according to MTA.   
• A proposed increase of up to 4.4% would apply to monthlies and weeklies. All other ticket types would increase up to 8%, with no fare increasing more than $2. To view the full LIRR proposed fare table click here. To view the full Metro-North fare table under the proposal, click here. Given a 10% discount applied to monthly tickets in 2022 and suspension of the fare increase in 2021, the current cost of a monthly ticket is about the same price of a monthly ticket in 2019 when adjusted for inflation, MTA said. Monthly ticket fares will not exceed $500.   
• The Off-Peak CityTicket would go from $5 to $5.25 and the Peak CityTicket from $7 to $7.25 for LIRR and Metro-North. These proposals also apply to the Far Rockaway ticket. The Peak CityTicket and Far Rockaway ticket, which are currently promotional, would become permanent fare products.   
• Base fares for Metro-North’s West-of-Hudson services, the Pascack Valley Line and Port Jervis Line would increase by 4.4%.

Increases are also proposed for all nine Bridges and Tunnels facilities for both E-ZPass and Tolls by Mail rates, according to MTA. For the RFK, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Verrazzano Bridges and the Queens-Midtown, Hugh L. Carey Tunnels the proposed toll would go from $6.94 to $7.46. The Henry Hudson Bridge would go from $3.18 to $3.42 and Cross Bay and Marine Parkway Bridges would go from $2.60 to $2.80.

A series of hybrid public hearings will be held Aug.19-20. Additional opportunities for the public to comment in-person in September will be announced at a later date, according to MTA. After considering public comments, the MTA Board will vote on the proposed fare and toll changes.

Meanwhile, MTA has approved Jonathan Rose Companies’s development of 265 units of mixed-income housing at a parking lot adjacent to the Beacon Metro-North Station. The agency said the project will complement the City of Beacon’s efforts to foster greater connectivity between the waterfront, Beacon Station and Main Street. Residents will be able to access midtown Manhattan via Metro-North’s Hudson line in just 78 minutes, it noted.

Made possible through the Governor of New York’s Redevelopment of Underutilized Sites for Housing (RUSH) program, funding will support a structured parking garage to replace an existing Metro-North commuter parking area with new housing units, according to MTA.

Further Reading: MTA 2025–2029 Capital Plan Gets Greenlight

Denver RTD on July 30 reported that its Board has authorized General Manager and CEO Debra A. Johnson to enter into a successor three-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001 (ATU). (See below for the Board report authorizing the contract.)

Leadership teams from Denver RTD and ATU 1001, working with the assistance of a mediator, reached a tentative agreement for the successor CBA, which was subsequently ratified by ATU members and approved by the Board.

The agreement increases wages for ATU-represented employees, which comprise approximately two-thirds of the agency’s workforce, 16.3% over the term of the contract, starting with a 6.5% increase in the first year and 4.5% in each of the next two years. The hourly wage increases within the successor agreement are retroactive to Jan. 1, 2025. The successor CBA extends through Dec. 31, 2027.

The agreement includes a 6.5% increase for RTD’s bus and rail operators in the first year, raising the starting hourly wage from $25.96 to $27.65, with increases every six months. Other entry-level hourly wages include $34.85 for a general repair mechanic in Bus Operations, $41.08 for a signal/traction power maintainer in Light Rail Maintenance, $38.89 for an electromechanic in Light Rail Maintenance, $41.08 for a signal maintainer in Commuter Rail Maintenance, and $39.71 for a journeyman electrician in Facilities Maintenance. Additionally, the agreement will increase vacation accruals for tenured employees by lowering the number of years to reach designated time milestones.

“The collaboration demonstrated by the bargaining teams during negotiations amplifies a collective commitment to One RTD,” Johnson said. “This CBA ensures that employees within the ATU 1001 bargaining unit receive competitive, market-based wages.”

Earlier this year, Denver RTD promoted Brett Feddersen to Chief Information and Technology Officer and Timothy (Tim) Tyran as Director of Safety and Environmental Compliance and Chief Safety Officer.

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

MinhChau Corr will succeed Steve MacIsaac, who has served as VRE’s General Counsel since its inception. VRE, the nation’s 13th largest commuter rail service, connects Central and Northern Virginia with the District of Columbia. Its two lines, Manassas and Fredericksburg, serve 19 stations, including two in D.C. (L’Enfant and Union Station). VRE is co-owned and co-operated by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) and the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission.

MacIsaac, beginning in the mid-1980s, was General Counsel to VRE while also working in county government, and became its in-house, full-time General Counsel in 2021. He spent 21 years as Arlington County’s County Attorney, and previously served 18 years with the Prince William County Attorney’s Office. MacIsaac’s service with VRE concludes Sept. 12. Corr will take on her new role Sept. 15.

Corr brings to the General Counsel role more than two decades of legal experience, including 15 years with the Arlington County Attorney’s Office—five of which she served as County Attorney. In that position, Corr provided legal support to VRE and NVTC when the Arlington County Attorney’s Office served as general counsel for those agencies. Prior to her government service, Corr held roles in the private sector, including at Xerox.

Corr is a member of the Local Government Attorneys of Virginia and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s Council of Counsels. She has also served on the Board of Governors for the Virginia State Bar’s Local Government Section. She holds a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Florida and a J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law.

“MinhChau’s deep understanding of regional transportation law and her previous experience working with regional transportation partners and providers make her an exceptional choice for General Counsel,” VRE Operations Board Chair Sarah Bagley said. “We are confident her leadership will strengthen our legal and policy work as VRE’s system continues to evolve to meet the needs of our riders.”

“Steve has been a steadfast partner to VRE from the beginning,” Bagley noted. “His contributions providing legal expertise have been foundational to VRE’s establishment, as well as our continued growth and success, and we thank him for his decades of dedicated service.”

Earlier this year, VRE CEO Rich Dalton announced his intent to retire from the commuter railroad, effective Oct. 3, 2025.

Arup on July 30 reported naming Scott Russell as Managing Director of the firm’s Americas region. His appointment is said to be “part of a broader evolution in the region’s leadership team.” Joining Russell are Melissa Burton as Americas Total Design Leader and Jenny Buckley as Americas Business and Markets Leader, among others. Arup said these new appointments and roles reflect its “commitment to technical excellence and innovation through Total Design, Arup’s integrated approach to solving complex challenges and creating lasting impact.”

The new leaders, Arup said, will drive its “continued impact across the Americas, shaping key infrastructure and services for cities across the region.” With a focus on “growth and innovation,” the firm said it is expanding its presence across key sectors, including energy, water, transportation, healthcare, science, industry, technology, commercial real estate, arts, culture, entertainment, sports, leisure, and public works.

Additional members of the new Americas leadership team include:

• Nigel Nicholls, Americas Performance and Operations Leader
• Sarah Rosen, Americas People and Culture Leader
• Carolyn Poirier, Americas Chief Financial Officer
• Gillian Blake, Americas Transport Market Portfolio Leader (including Rail, Roads and streets, Aviation, and Maritime)
• Omid Nakhaei, Americas Property, Science and Industry and Manufacturing Market Portfolio Leader (including also Data centers, Healthcare, Arts and Culture, Sport, and Education)
• Brian Raine, Americas Energy, Water, and Resources Market Portfolio Leader
• Gregory Giammalvo, Americas East Leader (overseeing offices in New York, New Jersey, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Chicago)
• Alex Lofting, Americas West Leader (overseeing offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and Seattle)
• Sean Meadows, Canada Leader (overseeing offices in Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa, and Calgary)
• Federico Torres Jimenez, Americas South Leader (overseeing offices in Houston, Dallas, and Bogotá)

The post People News: VRE, Arup appeared first on Railway Age.

V6 Agronomy, in partnership with the Port of Johnstown, on July 29 broke ground on Canada’s first low-carbon, enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs) and commercial phosphate fertilizer terminal located in the Township of Edwardsburgh Cardinal (TWPEC).

The terminal, V6 Agronomy says, marks phase one of a broader national infrastructure strategy. The initial structure—building #1—will support vessel discharge capacity up to 18,000 metric tons and is the first of four planned buildings that will collectively store up to 150,000 metric tons of crop input materials on-site. From this facility, the V6 team says it will “efficiently receive, store, and distribute” a range of critical crop inputs, including EEFs and commercial phosphates—a nutrient essential to modern agriculture and one that Canada currently produces none of domestically.

Canadian farmers have long depended on U.S. imports routed through New Orleans and the Mississippi corridor, creating price and timing vulnerabilities, said the company, whose facility “will help reshore that dependency while connecting directly to the Canadian prairies by rail and local farms by truck, using a turnkey vessel-to-rail and rail-to-vessel configuration.”

“We’re doing more than building a structure—we’re building a supply chain solution,” said V6 Agronomy CEO Ryan Brophy. “This is a new chapter for Canadian agriculture—where resilience, efficiency, and international trade intersect in a circular, farmer-first corridor.”

In collaboration with CN, V6 is implementing a circular logistics model to reduce empty rail and vessel returns. Outbound phosphate shipments by rail will be paired with return loads of Canadian lentils, pulses, potash, grains, and sulphur—all high-demand commodities in the EU, Middle East, North Africa, and Asia.

“This is a priority benchmark for how we do things differently,” said Brophy. “We’re eliminating inefficiencies, reducing emissions, and leveraging assets that already exist. The Port is a jewel for the region—marine, rail, and storage in one place.”

The groundbreaking drew attendees from across the agricultural, investment, and political spectrum, including MP Michael Barrett, Mayor Tory Deschamps, and Port GM Leslie Drynan.

“This is an all-hands-on-deck success—built on leadership, local collaboration, and smart investment,” said Barrett, who previously served on the Port Management Board.

“TWPEC could give the upper levels of government a lesson in how to get these things done,” added Michael Jiggins, representing MPP Steve Clark.

With construction under way, V6 Agronomy is entering its next phase: securing strategic capital to accelerate infrastructure development and build national distribution capacity. A formal capital raise has been launched to attract mission-aligned partners seeking long-term, resilient investment returns in clean infrastructure and food systems.

The post Canada’s First Fertilizer Terminal Launches at Port of Johnstown appeared first on Railway Age.

“Currently, drivers of certain CMVs (e.g., buses transporting passengers and CMVs transporting certain hazardous materials) are required to stop before crossing a railroad track unless an exception applies, such as when the railroad grade crossing is controlled by a functioning highway traffic signal transmitting a green indication,” FMCSA said in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) announcement this spring. “The Agency proposes to add a similar exception for a railroad grade crossing equipped with an active warning device that is not in an activated state (e.g., flashing lights or crossing gates down, indicating the arrival of a train), provided that the driver has exercised due caution to ascertain that the course is clear before crossing and local law permits the CMV to proceed across the railroad tracks without stopping.”

While AAR and ASLRRA said in their comments on the NOPR that they “support moving towards ‘a more streamlined and risk-informed regulatory approach that is performance-based’” and “that ‘focuses on desired, measurable outcomes,’” they do not support FMCSA’s approach, “which will have the unintended consequence of reducing the safety of rail operations as well as the motoring public.”

The associations’ comments (download below) “rebut the assertion that the [proposed] rule would improve traffic flow and potentially reduce rear-end collisions,” ASLRRA told members in its most recent Views & News email newsletter. “Instead, the result of this rule would be more confusion for professional drivers and an increased likelihood of collisions.”

“Removing the requirement that CMV operators stop at all crossings,” ASLRRA continued, “increases the potential for danger because these operators are no longer exercising heightened awareness and caution in a situation where unexpected events, like a train approaching rapidly around a curve, may arise. CMV operators would also still be required to stop if local law requires it, potentially subjecting them to a patchwork of different rules as they complete their routes.”

If the FMCSA finalizes the proposed rule “as is,” ASLRRA and AAR provided recommendations in their comments, saying the government agency “should not adopt a blanket rule” for crossings, but should “evaluate every highway-rail public grade crossing with active warning devices to determine on a case-by-case basis if driving without stopping should be allowed,” according to the ASLRRA report. “Diagnostic teams already conduct such reviews to evaluate crossing danger factors when installing and maintaining active warning devices,” it noted.

The post ASLRRA, AAR Respond to Proposed Reg Change for Commercial Vehicles at Crossings appeared first on Railway Age.

Jaguar has sought to acquire Columbia Basin Railroad Company, LLC (CBRW) and Central Washington Railroad Company, LLC (CWAR), both existing Class IIIs, according to July 14 filings with the Surface Transportation Board. In July 30 decisions, the STB said the transactions may be consummated on or after Aug. 13, 2025.

CBRW, consisting of 86 track miles, is centrally located in the Columbia Basin region of Washington State (see map below). The main commodities hauled are agricultural goods, inbound fertilizer, chemicals, and processed potatoes and vegetables. CWAR includes 80 miles of track in Yakima Valley, Wash., and handles such commodities as cattle feed, propane, paper products, plastic pellets, cheese, juice concentrate, lumber, apples and other agricultural goods (see map below).

Jaguar—collectively OPSEU Pension Plan Trust Fund (OPTrust), Jaguar Transport Holdings, LLC (JTH), and Jaguar Rail Holdings, LLC (JRH)—submitted to the STB separate notices of exemption under 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(2). (Scroll down to download.)

OPTrust, JTH and JRH are non-carriers, according to Jaguar. “OPTrust indirectly controls JTH, which, in turn, directly controls JRH,” Jaguar reported in its STB filings. “JTH currently controls, indirectly, eleven Class III railroads. Of the 11 railroads currently under JTH’s indirect control, eight—Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (SWRR), Texas & Eastern Railroad, LLC (TERR), Wyoming and Colorado Railroad, Inc. (WYCO–which also does business under the name Oregon Eastern Railroad), Missouri Eastern Railroad, LLC (MER), Charlotte Western Railroad, LLC (CWRR), Kinston Railroad, LLC (KNR), Waterloo Railroad LLC (WTRL), and Kansas City West Bottoms Railroad, LLC (KCWB)—are controlled directly by JRH. JRH also indirectly controls two other railroads—Cimarron Valley Railroad, L.C. (CVRR) and Washington Eastern Railroad, LLC (WERR)—through WYCO. JTH indirectly controls West Memphis Base Railroad, L.L.C. (WMBR) through Jaguar Transport, LLC, a separate JTH subsidiary affiliated with JRH.”

According to Jaguar, JTH has entered into separate unit purchase agreements to acquire control of CBRW and CWAR. JTH is slated to close on the CBRW transaction and the CWAR stock transaction “upon or after the effective date” of the present class exemptions. The notices of exemption, Jaguar said, are expected to become effective as of Aug. 13, 2025.

Jaguar told the STB that the CBRW and CWAR transactions are not transactions where the short lines to be acquired would connect with any of the railroads already in Jaguar’s portfolio; where Jaguar plans to connect CBRW and CWAR to any of the railroads already in its portfolio, or to connect any of its railroads to one another; or where a Class I carrier is involved. Accordingly, Jaguar said, the proposed transactions satisfy the class exemption criteria at 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(2).

Jaguar noted that CBRW acquired the lines that comprise its railroad operation from BNSF. “The purchase agreement governing the sale contains a right of first refusal (ROFR) extending to BNSF the option to re-purchase CBRW’s lines in the event of a proposed transfer-of-control such as the one presented here,” Jaguar reported. “BNSF is aware of the proposed CBRW change of control, but has not yet indicated whether it will forego its ROFR rights. BNSF has requested that Jaguar acknowledge the existence of BNSF’s ROFR rights in this class exemption notice filing. Accordingly, closing on Jaguar’s proposed acquisition of control will depend upon BNSF’s (pending) response.”

The STB, in its July 30 decisions (download below), said that the transactions may be consummated on or after Aug. 13, 2025, the effective date of the exemptions (30 days after the verified notices were filed). It noted in each decision that “[u]nder 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.” Additionally, it said, petitions for stay must be filed no later than Aug. 6, 2025.

In a related development, Union Pacific on March 27 announced entering into an agreement with Jaguar Transport Holdings, LLC to provide short line rail service in the Central Industrial District in Kansas City, a move that the Class I said, “will enhance customer service and support regional economic growth.”

The post Jaguar to Acquire CBRW, CWAR (UPDATED 7/31) appeared first on Railway Age.

Applicants state that on July 28, 2025, they entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which UP, through a wholly owned subsidiary, would acquire all outstanding shares of NS for consideration consisting of shares of UP common stock and cash. The notice, STB says, “indicates that should the Board approve the forthcoming application, and upon receipt of approval by the shareholders of UP and NS and satisfaction of customary closing requirements, NS would become a directly wholly owned subsidiary of UP.” Applicants state in their notice of intent that they do not contemplate using a voting trust.

Under the STB’s major merger regulations, the notice of intent, also referred to as a prefiling notification, initiates a timeline for UP and NS to submit a merger application in three to six months. The STB received that notification on July 30, and Applicants state that they intend to file their application on or before Jan. 29, 2026. The STB must publish a notice of the prefiling notification in the Federal Register within 30 days. Should an application be timely filed, the Board says it will “determine its completeness and issue a procedural schedule for the review process.”

• Union Pacific + Norfolk Southern: It’s Official
• UP + NS: What Comes Next?
• UP+NS: An ‘Absolute Monster of a Railroad’
• Vena’s Art of the Deal With NS
• The Transcontinental Railroad Begins With UP+NS
  
  
  
  
  

The post STB Receives Notice of Intent for Proposed UP-NS Merger appeared first on Railway Age.