Prototype News

Caltrain’s Diridon Station Steering Committee has hired Bill Sirois as the Director to lead the implementation of the Diridon Station Program, which is expected to “transform and modernize San Jose Diridon Station to enable future growth and mark its significance as a major regional transit hub in the statewide rail network, as well as support the transit-oriented expansion and growth of downtown San Jose.” The program is being led by a partnership of five agencies: Caltrain, the city of San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

Sirois will serve a three-year term in the position, where he is charged with advancing the program through environmental review. He will lead the program team, as well as set up a long-term governance entity that will ultimately deliver the program and obtain funding for the next phases of work. 

Sirois will report to the Diridon Station Steering Committee comprised of voting members from the five partner agencies and ex officio member Rod Diridon Sr. and a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) representative.

Sirois spent more than 20 years at the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver, and was instrumental in advancing the Denver Union Station project, which has been built and is operating. The project is nationally recognized as a marquee of what future transit stations should be. 

“Caltrain and its partners are investing in more than a transportation hub; Diridon will be a catalyst for regional connectivity and growth,” said Caltrain Board Member and Santa Clara County Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga. “This project will deliver lasting benefits for the city of San José, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.”

“I’ve had a lot of personal experience in that area [Denver Union Station] and just seeing the renaissance of that particular area, pulling in the sport franchises, private sector, retail, is commensurate of what we want for Diridon,” said Diridon Steering Committee Chair and San Jose Councilmember Michael Mulcahy. “I’m excited to have unanimous approval for someone that has had experience directly applicable to our project.”

Duos has appointed Doug Recker as CEO, effective April 1, 2026, as the company “accelerates its transformation into a focused Edge AI and digital infrastructure platform.”

Recker succeeds Chuck Ferry, who will continue to serve as a member of the Board of Directors. He will lead Duos’ next phase of growth focused on “scaling modular EDCs, expanding GPU hosting capabilities, and executing a disciplined capacity expansion strategy.”

Under Recker’s leadership, Duos and its operating subsidiaries, including Duos Edge AI, Inc., are entering into a commercial partnership with Hydra Host to provide GPU hosting and GPU-as-a-Service solutions. The partnership includes structured hardware financing arrangements designed to “accelerate deployment and support growing demand for distributed AI compute.”

“We are thrilled to partner with the Duos team on this opportunity,” said Aaron Ginn, CEO & Co-Founder of Hydra Host. “Their ability to deliver immediate access to power combined with an industry-leading deployment speed makes them a standout in the market. We see significant runway ahead as we look to expand our collaboration around colocation and Duos’ High-Power EDC model, which we believe is purpose-built to address a market where demand for AI compute capacity is fundamentally outpacing the speed at which traditional data center supply can be delivered.”

“This initial customer marks a pivotal step in accelerating the buildout of Duos Edge AI and strengthens our ability to execute on our distributed infrastructure strategy,” said Recker. “We are now entering an exciting phase of execution, further reinforced by our recently announced LOI with Hydra Host, which underscores growing third-party demand for our distributed AI infrastructure model and validates the scalability of our platform. With secured power, rapid deployment capabilities, and expanding strategic partnerships, we believe Duos is well positioned to pursue high-value infrastructure opportunities. Our focus remains on disciplined expansion, capital-efficient growth, and delivering sustainable long-term value for our shareholders.”

HNTB on Feb. 27 announced that it has appointed Carla Collins as Vice President and Office Sales Manager for the firm’s Northern California and Nevada offices. Based in Oakland, Collins leads strategy and client engagement efforts supporting highway, rail transit, aviation, and program and construction management services.

In this role, Collins works to “advance client relationships, guide strategic pursuits and align HNTB’s technical capabilities with agency priorities across the region,” the firm noted.

Collins has more than 20 years of experience in sales leadership and account management within the architecture, engineering and construction industry. Most recently, she served as Vice President of Corporate Business Development for a construction consulting firm, where she led sales and marketing teams, developed strategic growth plans and supported enterprise-wide business development initiatives. Her transportation experience includes projects with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain and Caltrans.

“Carla’s knowledge of the Northern California transportation market and her collaborative, client-focused approach strengthens our ability to support agencies delivering complex infrastructure programs,” said Shannon Gaffney, HNTB Vice President and Northern California and Nevada Office Leader. “Her leadership will play an important role in helping HNTB continue to grow while providing the highest level of service our clients expect.”

Collins holds a Bachelor of Science in business, management and marketing from the University of Phoenix. She has served on the Construction Management Association of America-Northern California board for 11 years, currently as Director-at-Large for Advocacy.

The post People News: Caltrain, Duos, HNTB appeared first on Railway Age.

The audit (download below) recommends that VIA Rail “improve its service offering by identifying and addressing the causes of service delays.” VIA Rail, the Crown corporation that operates the national passenger rail service on behalf of the Government of Canada, does not own most of the tracks and stations that it uses. Since these are outside VIA Rail’s direct control, “effective collaboration with track and station owners is necessary to understand and resolve delays.” The audit also identified opportunities for improvement in other areas, including corporate governance.

Under the Financial Administration Act, federal Crown corporations are subject to a special examination by the Auditor General of Canada at least once every 10 years. These examinations, the Office of the Auditor says, “focus on systems and practices that are key to providing the Crown corporation with reasonable assurance that its assets are safeguarded and controlled, its resources are managed economically and efficiently, and its operations are carried out effectively.”

The post New Report Concludes VIA Rail is ‘Well-Managed,’ Recommends Improvements appeared first on Railway Age.

The Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) on Feb. 27 released a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Union Pacific’s (UP) proposed approximately six-mile single-track rail line in Mesa, Ariz. The new line would link UP’s Phoenix Subdivision main line to industrial properties southeast of the Mesa Gateway Airport.

The Final EA (download below) responds to comments received on the Draft EA, released May 31, 2023, and sets forth OEA’s final recommendations, including final recommended mitigation measures, to the Board.  Issuance of the Final EA completes the Board’s environmental review for this project. The Board sad it will now consider the transportation merits and the entire environmental and historic record, including the Draft EA, Final EA, and all comments received as part of its final decision.

The STB’s Draft EA analyzed the potential environmental and historic impacts of the line. Comments on all aspects of the assessment (download below) were due by June 30, 2023.

UP on June 30, 2022, filed a petition with the STB seeking authorization to construct and operate the line. The aim of the Pecos Industrial Rail Access Train Extension (PIRATE) project (see map below) is “to meet the transportation and logistics needs of existing and future manufacturing businesses within the [4,000-acre] Pecos Advanced Manufacturing Zone (PAMZ) and adjacent areas,” according to the OEA. Currently, large industrial companies in the PAMZ—such as Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Bridgestone, Commercial Metals Company (CMC) and Fujifilm—manufacture chemicals, metals, plastics, rubber and electrical equipment, the OEA reported. “UP states that providing direct rail access within this area would remove approximately 30,000 truck trips off public roadways in its first year of operation,” the agency noted.

The proposed line also includes a new wye connection between the existing Phoenix Subdivision main line to the new single track. Additionally, UP would construct 2.5 miles of support tracks along the Phoenix Subdivision main line. The project would be funded solely by UP.

The OEA said it will prepare a Final EA “that responds to all comments received [on the Draft EA] and provides OEA’s final environmental analysis and recommended environmental mitigation.” The STB will then consider the entire record, including the Draft EA, Final EA, all public and agency comments, OEA’s recommendations, and the transportation merits when it makes its final decision on whether to authorize the construction and operation of PIRATE with appropriate conditions or deny it, the agency reported. 

Global real estate developer Trammell Crow Company, with a client of CBRE Investment Management, in April reported acquiring a 192-acre site in Mesa, which will be divided into industrial-use subsites to be served by UP’s PIRATE line.

UP at the time told Railway Age that it was “excited for the future growth prospects this new development site will mean for the Southeast Valley and the entire region’s economy. We are looking forward to helping move this project forward.”

The post STB Issues Final EA for UP’s Proposed Arizona Line appeared first on Railway Age.

According to CHSRA, it is required by Public Utilities Code Section 185033 to prepare, publish, adopt, and submit an updated Business Plan to the California State Legislature on May 1. The statute also dictates that, at least 60 days prior to submittal to the legislature, the Authority must publish a draft Business Plan for public review and comment (download the 2026 version below).

Business plans are published in even-numbered years (click here for the 2024 plan). They represent the status of the high-speed rail program at a point in time, and summarize the Authority’s approach to implementing the system. Business Plans include:

• A summary of progress over the last two years.
• A review of current challenges and how to address them.
• Updated capital cost and other estimates.
• Updated ridership and revenue forecasts.

“Through partnerships, proposed private financing, and legislative changes, the Authority has laid out a clear, cost-effective approach to taking travelers from San Francisco to Los Angeles,” CHSRA said upon the Feb. 28 release of the draft 2026 Business Plan (see map below). “The Authority also envisions creating new revenue streams through real estate development, ancillary projects, and initial fare service that will help pay for the delivery of transformative transportation.”

“This 2026 Business Plan sets out the path forward: completion of the [171-mile] Merced – Bakerfield segment [see map below], expansion to major population centers for revenue-positive service, and early asset commercialization to generate additional revenue to build out high-speed rail,” CHSRA CEO Ian Choudri wrote in the plan’s introductory letter. “The plan addresses various policies and implementation tools needed to help avoid construction delays experienced on the 119 miles [spanning Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties] where approximately 80 entities held rights of approval and/or permitting. It examines the [Phase I, 494-mile] San Francisco – Los Angeles/Anaheim corridor and lays out a strategy grounded in a realistic delivery schedule, market fundamentals, and disciplined sequencing. It explains how we build from progress under way, prioritize investments that produce early and durable commercial benefits, and create the conditions for long-term financial strength and private-sector participation as the system expands.”

The State of California last month dropped a lawsuit filed against the POTUS 47 administration over the federal government’s withdrawal last summer of $4 billion in funding for the high-speed line now under construction in California’s Central Valley.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that the federal government’s decision was illegal and described it as “a political stunt to punish California.” Speaking exclusively to Railway Age sister publication IRJ in November 2025, Choudri said “the impact of the funding withdrawal can’t be overstated.” However, he added that the withdrawal of federal capital would not create a funding gap for the 119-mile Central Valley Section.

Following the decision by California’s attorney general to abandon the lawsuit against the federal government, CHSRA said it will focus on other funding sources, including private-sector equity.

“Accelerating a revenue-positive system, as charted in this 2026 Business Plan, sets the foundation for meaningful public-private partnerships,” Choudri wrote in his introductory message. “With credible revenues to invest against, the private market can bring capital, innovation, and delivery capacity while taking on defined risks that would otherwise sit entirely with the public. Structured properly, these partnerships can accelerate schedules, strengthen cost discipline, and reduce the state’s long-term exposure by shifting defined construction, performance, and revenue risks to the parties best positioned to manage them.”

The total cost of completing Phase I’s 494-mile high-speed line between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim is estimated at $231.3 billion, according to the draft Business Plan.

The 171-mile Merced – Bakersfield segment—with construction under way on 119 miles spanning Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties—will serve the Central Valley and form the spine of the Phase 1 alignment. The estimated capital costs for the Merced – Bakersfield segment, as reported in the draft business plan, have been revised to $34.76 billion, which is a net reduction of approximately $2.0 billion since the 2025 Supplemental Project Update Report cost estimate, according to CHSRA. The Authority said in the plan that it “will release results of its ongoing procurement of high-speed trains and has thus updated the M-B schedule, which estimates a completion date of 2032.” This one-year extension, it noted, “accounts for additional time for optimization and concepts identified in Transforming California’s Future; however, it remains within the Authority’s schedule window.”

A total of $60.34 billion in capital investments is needed to deliver the San Francisco – Bakersfield segment by 2039, according to CHSRA. “A coordinated state solution, in partnership with regional agencies, will also be required to access and improve the Union Pacific rail line between San Jose and Gilroy,” it reported. “Building on past investments in Caltrain electrification, and in partnership with regional agencies, a joint improvement and electrification of the rail line will be necessary to enable high-speed rail service to reach San Jose and San Francisco. The Authority is prepared to work with state and regional partners to define the extent of the improvements and the additional costs not included in the scenarios, which may range from $2.0 billion to $5.0 billion.”

CHSRA reported that “[o]ptimization efforts show tremendous potential savings of an early-build incremental solution compared to the eventual full Phase 1 buildout as specified in the 2024 Business Plan. The Authority used methods from bottom-up cost estimating to re-estimate the full Phase 1 buildout at approximately $231.3 billion in today’s dollars. The optimized approach … lowers threshold capital investment necessary to reach the Los Angeles basin to approximately $126.2 billion while preserving strong ridership and positive revenue results. This represents $105 billion in program-wide savings, including previously identified savings presented in the 2025 Supplemental Project Update Report.”

According to CHSRA, work continues daily on the project. Nearly 80 miles of guideway are complete, along with nearly 60 fully completed major structures, and 29 more structures under way across Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties. The project continues to advance statewide, with 463 miles of the 494-mile Phase I system fully environmentally cleared and construction ready, according to CHSRA. (See construction status maps by structure package above.)

The comment period for the Draft Business Plan runs through April 29. There are four ways to provide comment:

• Online comment form at: 2026 Draft Business Plan Comment Form.
• By email at: BusinessPlan2026@hsr.ca.gov.
• By U.S. mail to the Authority: California High-Speed Rail Authority Attn: Draft 2026 Business Plan 770 L Street, Suite 1180, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• At the March 4, 2026, Board of Directors meeting during the public comment section.

• California completes high-speed tracklaying base
• Mission Possible says the CEO of California high-speed

The post CHSRA Issues Draft 2026 Business Plan appeared first on Railway Age.

Reading Company 4-8-4 2100 successfully passed a steam test observed by the Federal Railroad Administration on February 26 and 27 in Cleveland, Ohio. The stationary steam test, which saw the engine brought up to its full operating steam pressure of 240 psi, is yet another major leap forward for the restoration by the American Steam Railroad Preservation Association. 

ASRPA officials said that, with the steam test now out of the way, they’ll turn their attention to finishing running gear work and reassembling the locomotive. Once the engine is fully restored, it will be renumbered 250 and painted into the American Freedom Train livery worn by sister locomotive 2101 in the 1970s. 

The safety valve on Reading 2100 pops off during a steam test on the weekend of February 26. Photo by Nick Martin. 

Reading 2100 was built in the railroad’s own shops in September 1945 by essentially expanding an existing Baldwin 2-8-0. The locomotive ran into the 1960s. In 1975, it and its sister locomotive, 2101, were purchased by Ross Rowland. Locomotive 2101 was restored for the American Freedom Train, while 2100 served as a parts source. Locomotive 2100 was briefly restored in the 1980s, then moved to Ontario and Washington State, where it ran briefly in the 2000s. In 2015, the locomotive was moved to Ohio for restoration by ASRPA. 

Donations can be mailed to the American Steam Railroad Preservation Association, 2800 W. 3rd St, Cleveland, OH 44113, or made online at www.americansteamrailroad.org.

—Justin Franz 

American Steam Railroad Preservation Association crew members pose with Reading 2100 following the steam test. Photo by Nick Martin. 

The post Reading 2100 Passes FRA Steam Test appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

One of the basic principles of legal or historical research is to locate source documents: those which contain the words from the original proponents of an idea or a program, and which serve as the basis for future discussions concerning such proposals. One of the hot topics on the rail scene today is a potential restructuring of Amtrak. Advocates for Amtrak’s riders, rail labor, and managers from concerned companies have reacted to a recent alleged proposal from the FRA, but the agency itself denied having an official source document that would serve as a basis for all the discussions that have been the talk of the Amtrak scene during the second half of February. In this article, I will describe what I know about the purported proposal to restructure Amtrak’s business lines, highlight some of the reactions that have appeared regarding it, and take a brief look at some related issues.

There are close ties between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak: a sensible situation, considering the FRA’s concerns with railroad safety and with appropriately developing the efficient use of the nation’s railroads as assets. The FRA is represented on Amtrak’s Board of Directors by Paul Nissenbaum, Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, who spent much of his career at Amtrak before coming on board at the FRA. Ron Batory, who served as Federal Railroad Administrator during the POTUS 45 Administration, is also on the Amtrak Board, although he is no longer affiliated with the agency.

Instead, it appears to have started with Deputy Administrator Drew Feeley and remarks he delivered on Feb. 11 at a conference sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), an organization primarily concerned with highways, but with some interest in rail. In his 12-minute speech (access below), Feeley mentioned the agency’s grant program (including issues concerning grade crossings and CRISI grants), streamlining applications to less than 40 pages, and grants for the NEC. He also mentioned a strong push toward deregulation, with 57 deregulatory actions so far, and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

Regarding potential Amtrak restructuring, Feeley said: “In addition to trying to revamp a lot of the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor, we’re looking at doing a much broader, bigger kind of Amtrak restructuring. I’m sure some of you have heard kind of a little bit about that, again, making it operate more efficiently and effectively, no, not doing anything that’s cutting routes or cutting jobs, or doing anything like that. But again, I feel that it’s something that’s been a long time coming. It’s something I can do without needing extra money or extra Congressional approval, which is great, and hopefully, soon, you should be hearing more about something we’ll be doing there. Hopefully you’ll all be very supportive of that, as well. It’s a big deal, and it’s something that, as we’ve kinda (sic) started to kinda (sic) talk about, it’s very bipartisan and usually the responses are, you know, ‘what took you so long?’ or even ‘why aren’t you going harder? You should go further.’” Feeley continued by reporting on Surface Transportation Reauthorization, with one further mention of “Amtrak reform” without specific details.

I contacted the FRA, whose spokesperson told Railway Age that Feeley’s remarks were preliminary, that the agency was is not suggesting an official policy change yet, and that an official proposal would be published in the Federal Register. There was also nothing to be found on the agency’s website. So, at least for now, it appears that the roughly 60 seconds of Feeley’s remarks at the AASHTO conference that I quoted here are as close to a “source document” as anyone will get.

The biggest reaction came on Feb. 20 from the Rail Passengers Association (RPA), and many more followed during the next several days. At this writing, more are expected, all from Feeley’s brief comments and without an official “source document” from the FRA. The ones I know about came from rider-advocates, rail labor, and management representatives who have also expressed concerns.

The RPA statement was treated as a primary source document in a report from another publication, even though it did not come from the FRA, which would be the issuing agency for any official proposal. RPA’s document began by saying: “The Rail Passengers Association issued a statement on early reports that the U.S. Department of Transportation is directing Amtrak to undertake a significant organizational restructuring” and included details that Feeley did not mention. However, RPA mentioned: “Rail Passengers has received an initial briefing on the proposed restructuring from FRA officials, with more in depth briefings scheduled. The outline of the proposal, which will presumably be fleshed out through a public process over the coming months, involves the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC), currently doing business as Amtrak, acting as a holding company for three distinct and separate subsidiaries: an infrastructure management entity, a rolling stock management entity, and an operational entity.” RPA also said: “The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has revealed that it is directing Amtrak to undertake a dramatic organizational restructuring, breaking itself into three distinct operational entities within an umbrella holding company, focusing on operations, rolling stock management and leasing, and infrastructure management and construction. The FRA teased the restructuring at an event held by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Council on Rail Transportation last week. Additionally, Bloomberg covered expressions of concern from a leading labor organization that the potential restructuring could lead to the eventual privatization of Amtrak’s operations.”

According to RPA’s overview, NRPC (Amtrak) would act as a holding company, essentially an umbrella organization, with three component entities. The Infrastructure Management Entity (IME) would manage all of Amtrak’s infrastructure assets, including the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Amtrak-owned infrastructure in Michigan and other places. It would also manage assets that Amtrak currently manages on belalf of State partners. The Rolling Stock Management Entity (RSME) would manage rolling stock and maintenance for Amtrak, and State partners could opt in to have the RSME maintain the rolling stock they own. According to RPA: “As envisioned, the OE [Operational Entity] would continue to reflect Amtrak’s current divisional structure: NEC, State-Supported, and Long Distance Routes—with the potential to operate more regional rail service in the future.”

Regarding the OE, RPA also commented: “This subsidiary raises the most questions. Given the current federal and state-level funding structure, it’s difficult to see how this introduces more, rather than less, operational stability. Cross-subsidization of operational subsidies for LDR and State-Supported routes with infrastructure subsidies for NEC capital investment has been a core component of the grand political bargain between rural and metropolitan politicians and has been a key element to keeping Amtrak going in difficult funding environments. Creating an incentive structure wherein the operations arm becomes the main profit center for the other two subsidiaries—through equipment and maintenance contracts for the RSME and access fees for the IME—could very well lead to negative outcomes for service levels and on-board service quality” (emphasis in original).

RPA expressed other concerns, as well. Jim Mathews, the organization’s President and CEO said: “When done correctly, there are potential benefits to a structural reorganization. However, the experiences of European and Asian railways tell us there are clear and present dangers to this kind of restructuring. If done incorrectly, it can lead to service reductions, elimination of routes, increased fares for passengers, and even degradations in infrastructure and safety” and “Critically, in the absence of predictable and sufficient public funding, this restructuring is certain to fail. To the extent that this is an attempt to reduce public investment in the national passenger rail system, it will have predictable results: privatization of profits, socialization of losses, deferred investment in infrastructure, and the degradation of frequencies and service quality—particularly for routes that serve rural and small-town America.” Mathews also called for approval from Congress and the States for any proposal of this sort, adding “any restructuring that isn’t done in conjunction with the Congressional debate over the shape of the surface transportation reauthorization and state-level network planning will be DOA.”

Rail labor also weighed in. The subject of the Bloomberg Government article cited by RPA was a memo by Partrick Darcy, Chair of the General Committee of Adjustment for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), a Teamsters-affiliated union. Darcy said on Feb. 13: “Many of us have experienced similar discussions previously, including federal level conversations concerning operational restructuring and long rumored privatization initiatives, many have not. But we all understand such discussions can generate uncertainty and concern. While undoubtedly speculation will circulate during these periods, it is essential we remain properly informed, grounded within governing Agreements and established facts, and continue to stay aligned within our commitment to protect the work, rights, and professional standing of Amtrak Engineers” and “So, I am unequivocally clear: any effort to restructure, segment, outsource, or otherwise modify operations in a manner which affects Amtrak Engineers will be carefully scrutinized and vigorously addressed. The Organization will continue to steadfastly insist all Agreements, practices, and craft specific protections remain fully intact and will be strictly enforced. Any operational change which may impact the work of this Organization must comply fully with the Railway Labor Act and terms of our negotiated Agreements and will not be permitted to circumvent or erode those established rights.”

Anthony Sessa, General Chairperson of the United Passenger Rail Federation of the BMWED (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, also a Teamsters-affiliated union) said on Feb. 11, the day Feeley made his statement at the AASHTO conference: “[During] the past few weeks, I have attended multiple meetings concerning Amtrak’s reported consideration of restructuring into multiple companies. Much of this discussion hinges on potential Board approval and related government involvement. At this time, we do not have definitive answers. As soon as reliable information becomes available, we will immediately update the membership.” Sessa’s letter raises the question of how much discussion had been held out of public view regarding any potential Amtrak restructuring, despite the FRA not having any official documents to present and Feeley’s statement at AASHTO being regarded as “preliminary.” Sessa also expressed concern about privatization, saying: “We are already seeing examples of privatization efforts in certain areas, including the privatization of stations such as Union Station, New York Penn Station, and the contracting out of operations at 30th Street Station. Additionally, the structure surrounding Moynihan Train Hall has created complicated maintenance responsibilities. These developments demonstrate that discussions regarding labor, privatization, and operational control are very real and ongoing.” Sessa also said “any attempt to restructure, divide, or privatize operations that impact on our members will be closely monitored and addressed accordingly.”

One management group, at least, came out in favor of the sort of restructuring that Feeley mentioned. ALLRAIL, which represents independent rail operating companies, mostly in Europe, said in a statement: “ALLRAIL represents independent passenger rail operators, rolling stock investors, and ticketing companies active in competitive rail markets worldwide. Several of our members operate in the United States or are U.S.-owned companies” and “As stakeholders in the future of passenger rail, we welcome reports that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is exploring structural reform of Amtrak into separate infrastructure, rolling stock and train operations entities.” ALLRAIL disputed RPA’s concerns that plans along the lines of what Feeley mentioned have not worked well in Europe, saying: “International evidence is clear: where infrastructure management is genuinely separated from train operations—and markets are opened under transparent, nondiscriminatory rules—passenger numbers grow, fares fall and taxpayers receive better value. But reform must be real” (emphasis in original).

ALLRAIL advised: “True structural reform means separate control, separate management and separate funding for infrastructure, equipment leasing and train operations. It does not mean renaming internal departments while leaving all three activities under the control of Amtrak Holdings. If infrastructure, leasing and operations continue to be funded through the same holding company, governed by the same board and with decisions authorized by the same executive leadership, the incentives will remain unchanged” and added: “Without independent governance and independent balance sheets, there is no real separation—only administrative relabeling.”

Regarding the NEC, ALLRAIL said: “The Northeast Corridor, linking Washington D.C., New York and Boston—is one of the most commercially promising rail corridors in the world. Yet it remains structurally constrained by a vertically integrated model. Reform would not weaken the corridor. It would strengthen it.” The statement concluded: “Genuine separation of infrastructure, fleet management and train operations is not an end in itself. It is the foundation for transparency, fair access and sustainable growth. ALLRAIL encourages USDOT, FRA and Congress to pursue reform with clarity and competitive neutrality—ensuring that America’s passenger rail system can reach its full economic and mobility potential.”

Advocates independent of FRA have also made their voices heard lately. Richard Rudolph, Chair of the Rail Users’ Network (RUN), said in a message to Board members: “Needless to say we haven’t learned much. The Brits tried this approach and ultimately failed. We already have a slew of officials and VPs causing decision bottlenecks, stalling projects, and hoarding authority, which leads high performers to leave within 12-18 months. Unfortunately, leaders often fail to provide direction, act as, or create bottlenecks, and often refuse to take ownership.” Rudolph also told Railway Age: “The idea is preposterous. It will make communication more difficult, and managers will have less authority, so it will be more difficult for them to do their jobs.” Other RUN Board members posted statements in their personal capacities. David Tomzik, whose advocacy experience includes activity in Chicago and Florida said: “Regardless, to make any of this work we need a reliable and robust funding stream. The devil is in the details. Imagine the ‘operating’ division blames the ‘equipment’ division for a late consist released from yard, shortage of equipment or break down on the road. ‘It’s not our fault talk to the next guy.’ If the root causes of problems are not solved, there will be more finger pointing and terrible customer service. At least now, Amtrak has no one to blame yet [but] the organization. Now this can be tripled. Passengers will never get an answer why their train is late. Hopefully these discussions will come out as details emerge.” J.W. Madison, head of Rails, Inc. in New Mexico, said: “Speaking as a general/electrical contractor: David T’s points remind me of the widespread overuse of subcontracting and outsourcing in my and other businesses, perfect gambits for spreading blame and dodging accountability. Screw all that. Those deserving either praise or blame must be easy to find and reach.”

Albert L. Papp, a longtime advocate based in New Jersey, often analogizes discussions that ultimately will not make a significant difference to “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” Whether there will be genuine efforts to restructure Amtrak in a meaningful way remains to be seen. I also don’t know if the FRA will propose a significant change in the way Amtrak actually works, whether Feeley was sending up a “trial balloon” to obtain reactions to the basic idea of such a restructuring before going further with a proposal, why advocates and other concerned persons outside of various unnamed organizations in addition to RPA that received “private briefings” to which Amtrak riders and other persons and organizations were not informed of any plans that the FRA might have, or any details of how Amtrak would operate the railroad or secure funding for it under such an FRA-proposed plan.

None of this is currently known, and the introduction of the idea in such a secretive manner is a matter of concern to the millions of Amtrak riders and other persons who want to know how “America’s Railroad” is being financed, managed, and operated, and how that will be accomplished in the future. The speculation assumes that the FRA will propose a plan that will make significant changes in Amtrak funding, management, and operations that will either deliver a benefit or a detriment to Amtrak’s riders.

Given the historical record, it is unclear how much difference a future restructuring process would make, given other restructuring plans that were implemented in the past. A source familiar with Amtrak’s history provided a list of five efforts to restructure Amtrak since its founding and commented: “Amtrak has a long history of using variously named business subdivisions. Name changes have neither changed Amtrak’s trajectory nor resulted in transparency” and “As long as Federal grants flow through Amtrak as a single corporate entity, neither operational clarity nor financial transparency will improve.” According to the analysis that Railway Age obtained, in the beginning under Roger Lewis (1971-75), Amtrak had short-haul, long-haul, state-supported §403(b), international, and semi-fixed routes. Under Paul Reistrup (1976-78), Amtrak was divided into the NEC, short-distance, and long-distance routes. The short-distance and long-distance dichotomy began under Alan Boyd in 1977 and continued until 1994. “Business units” were not specifically named during those periods. That started in 1994 under Tom Downs, when Amtrak introduced the NEC, Amtrak Intercity, and Amtrak West as business units. “Corporate” was added in 2001, and that model lasted until 2008. Then in 2009, under Joseph Boardman, there were a plurality of business lines, rather than named business units. Through all these formatting changes, Amtrak has always been a single corporate entity, and nothing that has been reported so far would disturb that status. However Amtrak was organized and reorganized in the past, I know that the long-distance network it operates now is as small and skeletal as it has ever been and has not recovered from cuts made in the late 1970s. This list of changes is far from complete, but it is illustrative. State-supported routes, including corridors, have grown in the past, but the only route that has been added recently is the Mardi Gras Service between New Orleans and Mobile, running along the Mississippi Gulf Coast with two daily round trips. Those trains started running last August, after the four-year “Second Battle of Mobile” that was fought before the STB.

A market analysis obtained by Railway Age seems to indicate that owning and managing infrastructure assets along the NEC and elsewhere is costing Amtrak money, which could hinder its efforts to operate trains both there and elsewhere. These diagrams illustrate that contention:

The FRA proposal, as best understood “pre-tweaking,” indicates grant requests and actual grants flowing between all proposed Amtrak entities, except between the Infrastructure Entity and the Rolling Stock Entity. Triple dollar signs indicate large amounts of money, while single dollar signs indicate smaller amounts of money. There are dashed-line connections between Amtrak’s proposed entities and non-Amtrak operations. Today, those consist solely of “transit railroads” that run on NEC tracks.

The proposed “tweak” in that analysis would make the infrastructure entity independent from Amtrak, which would reduce costs (all amounts represented as single dollar signs). The proposed independent infrastructure entity would also have similar relationships with Amtrak and with non-Amtrak operators. The “post-tweaking” diagram shows this. Under the “Follow the Money” principal of market and other business analysis, proponents of removing the infrastructure entity from Amtrak claim that such an act would save money by bringing private-sector capital into the infrastructure management component of running the railroad, while promoting competition between Amtrak and non-Amtrak train operators.

One proponent of such a separate infrastructure entity is Robert Serlin, an internationally recognized expert in railroad finance engineering, who told Railway Age: “For many years, stakeholders have talked about reforming Amtrak, Administrator [David] Fink is doing something about it and showing real leadership. The FRA’s proposal appears to be a valuable step in the right direction towards enabling the Administration, Congress, and Amtrak itself to understand Amtrak’s cost structure.”

As I have reported, there are now two proposals for injecting the private sector into Amtrak service through public-private partnerships (P3s), a topic mentioned at the Amtrak Board meeting held in New Orleans in December 2025. RAILnet-21 proposes an independent Infrastructure Management Organization (IMO) instead of the FRA’s proposed IME within Amtrak. That organization says: “RAILnet-21: the only immediately implementable program protecting stakeholders. It fully funds Amtrak’s infrastructure needs. It creates a solid foundation for improved safety, reliability, increased ridership, and long-term development.” The other comes from AmeriStarRail (ASR), which proposes operational changes on the NEC and elsewhere. ASR COO Scott Spencer has said that his company is “agnostic” about who owns and manages the railroad, if ASR can lease trackage rights to operate, so the “proposal” at issue would probably not affect ASR directly. Still, it demonstrates that bifurcation or trifurcation is a good way to allow managers of the different components to focus on the organization’s core competencies. Nonetheless, the issue of core competency isn’t that an organization can’t be competent in multiple areas, but it’s a cultural trait usually associated with one area of expertise. In other words, the FRA’s proposed trifurcation of Amtrak would simply be another exercise of “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

The public and private sectors sometimes cooperate on a project, as has been suggested here. This is different from full privatization, where a private-sector entity replaces a public-sector entity to perform the same function or a similar one. While “privatization” can be an emotionally charged word and the above-quoted RPA report criticized the privatization of British Rail (as have others), privatization is not currently at issue. Serlin told Railway Age: “There is no indication anywhere that the likely FRA proposal is a prelude to privatization.” In addition, FRA spokesperson Danna Almeida was quoted as saying: “The [POTUS 47] Administration is considering ways to strengthen and modernize Amtrak for the future, but privatization is not under consideration.”

Everything about the “proposal” at issue from the FRA raises more questions than it answers, both procedurally and substantively. Clearly, this has become an important issue, even though the customary procedure of publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and inviting comments from interested persons and organizations as not yet been followed in the present case.

With no personal disrespect expressed toward Drew Feeley, why he used the AASHTO conference to mention a proposed change at Amtrak seems to raise new issues. At this writing, the FRA has not clarified his intentions. With only an informal reference, he sparked a discussion among stakeholders that the FRA should now take seriously. In short, the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and the FRA should either state unequivocally that the issue is off the table or proceed with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and initiate discussion. If Feeley was launching a “trial balloon,” he and the FRA got their answer: that he raised an important issue that deserves to be reviewed by stakeholders ranging from Congress to rider-advocates (who, except for RPA, are seldom considered true stakeholders), who should be given an “official” opportunity to comment on a concrete proposal submitted in writing.

It appears that RPA and other members of an elite and privileged group of “insider stakeholders” were allowed private briefings with information that was withheld from other organizations and individuals who would also have reason to be concerned. Such selectivity appears questionable, because it denies the same information to other people who would be affected by any decision that might be made. While RPA deserves credit for reporting something about what Feeley or the FRA had in mind, telling a few private organizations about an otherwise-undisclosed plan does not appear to act as a proper substitute for a robust public discussion. It also seems unfair to the many persons and organizations who advocate for better service on Amtrak, both in terms of expanding (or, if worse comes to worse, preserving) routes and frequencies of service on those routes, and in terms of the quality of on-board and other services furnished to Amtrak’s riders, to give it to a single advocacy organization and not give it to other advocates who are equally knowledgeable, committed, and concerned.

Then there is the age-old issue of the relationship between the NEC and the rest of Amtrak. Feeley did not call for Congressional approval of such a restructuring plan for Amtrak, but it is difficult to see how a meaningful change could be implemented without Congressional debate and approval. Amtrak is a political entity, and everybody knows it. It is also known on the rail scene that Amtrak gets much of its funding through a tricky political balance. Members from the Northeast, most of whom are Democrats, support funding for Amtrak. That makes sense, because the NEC has more trains, on both Amtrak and the transit railroads, than any other region in the country. Still, it’s expensive for Amtrak to operate on the NEC, because it must also bear the costs of owning and maintaining the infrastructure there.

As for the rest of the country, there are very few long-distance trains today, there has been no expansion of the network, it has shrunk since the 1970s, and it faces total elimination if new equipment is not ordered, built, and placed into service relatively soon. It might already be too late, but maybe not. In its Feb. 20 statement, RPA mentioned having new long-distance equipment running by 2030 as a goal. That now appears impossible, as ASR’s proposal, the most-ambitious one suggested so far, does not propose that any cars be delivered before 2031. The network of state-supported corridors and other routes grew during the 1970s and 80s, but not recently. Out of all the routes proposed in Amtrak’s 2021 Connects US plan, only one has begun operation. It’s the Mardi Gras Service route, which enjoys strong support from Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, but it also required a battle of several years’ duration before the trains began to run last summer.

Amtrak does not acknowledge a rivalry between the NEC and the rest of the network, but advocates, especially those who come from outside the Northeast Region, do. They claim that “NEC” stands for “Nothing Else Counts” and that the long-distance trains outperform the NEC on economic metrics, but the Northeast still gets more than its share of Amtrak funding. Whatever the numbers reveal, members of Congress from outside the region know that their constituents do not want to lose their train, which might be the only one running in their state. So, the Democrats from the states served by the long-distance and state-supported trains, along with enough Republicans from those regions to keep Amtrak funding going, vote to fund it. If the idea of a “profitable” NEC and “money-losing” trains elsewhere is truly a myth, would the present-day voting customs in Congress that keep Amtrak going continue to do so? I don’t know, but Amtrak doesn’t seem willing to take the risk that they would not.

In any event, it’s now up to the FRA and Amtrak to level with all of us about what sort of proposals, if any, are under consideration for restructuring Amtrak. We also have a right to know why the FRA believes that any restructuring would benefit Amtrak’s riders, who should be considered the primary stakeholders, but have never been respected to that extent, at least not in the past 55 years.

Regarding Amtrak itself, I reached out to them and got this answer: “Hello—Thanks for your inquiry. Please reach out to DOT.” At this writing, that was all Amtrak had to say on the matter. So, clearly, Amtrak could not furnish a source document, either.

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

The post FRA’s ‘Kind of a Little Bit’ Amtrak Restructuring appeared first on Railway Age.

This edition of Rail Group On Air features Trinity Industries Inc. Chief Financial Officer Eric Marchetto, Railroad Financial Corporation President and Railway Age Financial Editor David Nahass, and Railroad Financial Corporation Senior Vice President Will Geiger. It’s a companion to Nahass’s “Financial Edge” column in the March issue of Railway Age.

“The abundance of capital chasing investment opportunities in rail spans the industry from railroads to maintenance and repair to—what else?—railcars and locomotives,” notes Nahass. “However, for industry veterans, the current era’s investment patterns differ from historical investment interest. Formerly, highly structured tax-affected (often leveraged) leases and Equipment Trust Certificates (ETCs, a sophisticated word for a well-collateralized loan) were the investment products of choice for asset acquisition and finance. During this time, shorter term operating leases were the province of a handful of investors taking above average risk and receiving above average, but occasionally slightly erratic, returns that followed the cyclicality of the rail equipment marketplace.

“Eric Marchetto notes that today’s capital ‘stack’ looks very different. One difference is the types of capital coming into the rail market today, including long horizon passive capital from infrastructure funds and insurance companies. These are potentially very large investors that can use one billion in equity to buy three to four billion in railcar assets. Furthermore, there are shorter-term investors repackaging rail asset backed loans as collateralized debt obligations parsing out portfolios into credit-rated tranches.This is all in the shadow of an industry expected to build 25,000 railcars in calendar year 2026.

“What do these investors love about rail? Marchetto notes that ‘rail assets represent an attractive risk-adjusted investment.’ There is low default risk, and the long-lived nature of railcars represents an inflation hedge. Marchetto sees, directly and anecdotally, more funds looking to get into the rail equipment leasing business. He sees growing demand from these investors looking for attractive returns. Investors see an opportunity for steady and consistent returns in the railcar leasing space. Think of it this way: While many railcar owners may feel that post-COVID railcar prices have risen dramatically, Marchetto notes that new railcar prices have risen 3% to 4% annually over the past 20 years. Contrast this against lease rates that have risen 1% to 2% over the same 20-year period. This gives conviction in the long-term returns and the opportunity for lease rates to continue to increase to match the rise in asset value. Couple that with the abundance of liquidity available in today’s market, which when it gets deployed will have to assume that lease rates will rise in the future to justify paying today’s prices.”

The post Ocean of Capital Chasing Trains, With Eric Marchetto, David Nahass and Will Geiger – Rail Group On Air appeared first on Railway Age.

This Financial Edge column from the March 2026 issue is a topic recommended by Eric Marchetto, Chief Financial Officer of Trinity Industries Inc., and is a companion to a Railway Age Rail Group On Air podcast with Marchetto (below).

Pick up a newspaper today that devotes itself to any business coverage and you’re going to be quickly overwhelmed by two topics. The first is AI and the second is the world’s obsession with the availability of and need to deploy what feels like an ocean of capital that seems to exist in the world’s markets today.

In the 2026 Railroad Financial Desk Book, the correlation between availability of capital and increasing asset valuations was drawn. If anything, the correlation for rail assets is just one piece of a larger puzzle that includes stocks, companies and fixed income investments (bonds). One doesn’t have to reach very far to see how the abundance of capital is impacting business. There’s Google’s 100-year bond (following in the steps of Norfolk Southern, Ford and Motorola), the currently limitless appetite for high yield bond debt, and the surge in private lending. 

This leads us to North American rail. The abundance of capital chasing investment opportunities in rail spans the industry from railroads to maintenance and repair to—what else?—railcars and locomotives. However, for industry veterans, the current era’s investment patterns differ from historical investment interest. Formerly, highly structured tax-affected (often leveraged) leases and Equipment Trust Certificates (ETCs, a sophisticated word for a well-collateralized loan) were the investment products of choice for asset acquisition and finance. 

During this time, shorter term operating leases were the province of a handful of investors taking above average risk and receiving above average, but occasionally slightly erratic, returns that followed the cyclicality of the rail equipment marketplace.

Eric Marchetto notes that today’s capital “stack” (to use an I-bank word) looks very different. (Yes, this is not your father’s capital stack.) One difference is the types of capital coming into the rail market today, including long horizon passive capital from infrastructure funds and insurance companies. These are potentially very large investors that can use one billion in equity to buy three to four billion in railcar assets. 

Furthermore, there are shorter-term investors (think PE firm Apollo) that are repackaging rail asset backed loans as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) parsing out portfolios into credit-rated tranches.

This is all in the shadow of an industry expected to build 25,000 railcars in calendar year 2026. At the Railroad Financial Corporation and FTR Intel Houston Railcar Symposium in November 2025, Marchetto asked a room full of companies that move freight by rail if they intended to grow their railcar fleets in 2026. Very few rail shippers saw a need for that. Contrast that against the investment community, where every railcar lessor and investor is looking for more growth in a year where new builds are contracting. 

What do these investors love about rail? Marchetto notes that “rail assets represent an attractive risk-adjusted investment.” There is low default risk, and the long-lived nature of railcars represents an inflation hedge. Marchetto sees directly and anecdotally, especially after the GATX / Brookfield acquisition of the Wells Fargo fleet, more funds looking to get into the rail equipment leasing business. He sees growing demand from these investors looking for attractive returns. Think of the HALO (Heavy Assets Limited Obsolescence) trade that is currently a theme with investors looking for AI disruption alternatives.

Additionally, investors see an opportunity for steady and consistent returns in the railcar leasing space. Think of it this way: While many railcar owners may feel that post-COVID railcar prices have risen dramatically, Marchetto notes that new railcar prices have risen 3% to 4% annually over the past 20 years. 

Contrast this against lease rates that have risen 1% to 2% over the same 20-year period. This gives conviction in the long-term returns and the opportunity for lease rates to continue to increase to match the rise in asset value. Couple that with the abundance of liquidity available in today’s market, which when it gets deployed will have to assume that lease rates will rise in the future to justify paying today’s prices. 

Also add the uplift in railcar investment from the 100% bonus depreciation made available to investors in the 2025 tax bill. This makes for a rather compelling investment thesis when you are looking to deploy capital and generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. 

Expectations are that more capital will move into railcars. This topic will be on the forefront of investor mindsets throughout 2026. Listen to the podcast for additional insight!

Got questions? Set them free at dnahass@railfin.com. 

The post Ocean of Capital Chasing Trains appeared first on Railway Age.

Progress Rail in September 2023 filed a lawsuit against Wabtec in U.S. federal court in Delaware accusing the latter of abusing its market power for diesel-electric main line locomotives, equipment and services. The court dismissed the suit’s antitrust portion in June 2025. Now, the two companies have settled their dispute out of court. Settlement terms were not disclosed.

In a joint statement containing zero details, and released after the market closed on Thursday, Feb. 26 at 4:30 pm EST, Progress Rail, a Caterpillar company, and Wabtec Corporation announced that “the two parties have reached a settlement in Progress Rail v. Wabtec. The parties agree that this settlement is best for both companies, customers and consumers, and the prospect of additional litigation is not in anyone’s interest. There is no admission of liability. The two companies acknowledge that they have been and remain suppliers of long-haul freight locomotives and cab components, including Tier IV long-haul locomotives, to Class I railroads and other customers.”

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware in June 2025 dismissed all antitrust claims filed in a lawsuit challenging the merger between Wabtec and GE Transportation. “The Court said no harmful effects on competition resulting from the merger had been shown and also dismissed remaining antitrust allegations,” Wabtec said. “The Court did not grant Wabtec’s motion to dismiss alleged breach of contract and other claims, which Wabtec intends to vigorously defend.”

Kyra Yates, Vice President of Investor Relations for Wabtec said: “We are pleased with the Court’s ruling, which affirms the value and integrity of the Wabtec-GE Transportation merger for the industry and all its stakeholders.”

The 66-page, 326-point lawsuit (download below), PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES CORP., and PROGRESS RAIL LOCOMOTIVE INC., Plaintiffs, v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORP., and WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, INC., was unsealed Sept. 6, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Progress Rail had been pressing for Wabtec to divest General Electric’s former Transportation unit, which it acquired in 2019 in an $11 billion deal during GE’s corporate restructuring and was seeking triple damages under U.S. antitrust law. Wabtec, Progress Rail alleged, “has profited, and continues to profit, from its unlawful, exclusionary conduct, to the detriment of consumers … Such unchecked conduct will make the freight locomotives that drive this country’s economy more expensive, less safe, and worse for the environment.”

The U.S. Justice Department in 2019 reviewed Wabtec’s acquisition of GE Transportation but did not move to block the then-pending merger. Wabtec and Progress Rail on Feb. 7 of that year signed a “Joint Development, Compatibility, Interchangeability and License Agreement ” with Progress Rail in which Wabtec said it would “continue the current open marketplace for locomotive cab electronics and other products in furtherance of open competition.”

On June 5, 2020, Wabtec entered into the “Wabtec Railway Electronics Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) License Agreement” with Progress Rail. This agreement, Progress Rail said, “specifically references the 2019 Interchangeability Agreement and states that it shall be coterminous with the 2019 Interchangeability Agreement, which continues until Feb. 25, 2034. Wabtec professed its desire to ‘facilitate the integration’ of its PTC system to allow Progress Rail’s EMS system to remain compatible and integrated with the PTC system.”

“[T]he competitive balance critical to the freight locomotive industry was disrupted when Wabtec acquired GE Transportation,” Progress Rail said in its lawsuit. “That combination merged the sole supplier of certain key freight locomotive inputs, Wabtec, with the dominant supplier of finished freight locomotives and other cab technologies, GE Transportation. It created a vertically integrated entity with dominant positions in multiple products and the incentive and ability to engage in anticompetitive exclusionary conduct to harm the competitive process and consumers.

“Wabtec, a conceded monopolist, is one of the only or leading manufacturers of a long list of equipment used in the U.S. freight rail network. It is the dominant supplier of freight locomotives, having manufactured and sold approximately 75% of active diesel long-haul freight locomotives in North America, and approximately 90% of new long-haul freight locomotives that comply with Tier IV rail industry standards and the Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent emissions regulations … Wabtec also commands substantial market power over many inputs that are incorporated into freight locomotives: (a) it is the dominant supplier of Energy Management Systems (EMS), with its Trip Optimizer product holding approximately 79% of the market; (b) it is the dominant supplier of Positive Train Control systems, with its I-ETMS product installed on virtually all freight locomotives, and (c) it is the dominant supplier of distributed power systems, with its LOCOTROL product holding nearly 100% of the market.

“Wabtec’s professed commitment to ‘open competition,’ ‘integration,’ and ‘compatibility,’ however, was hollow and instead it has used its dominant market position to engage in anticompetitive exclusionary conduct that has harmed and continues to harm competition and consumers.”

“Wabtec uses its market power to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the design and effect of which is to build upon and cement its monopoly by deterring customers from freely switching providers, stifling the ability of existing competitors from effectively competing and reaching scale, and stopping new competitors from entering the market.

“The exclusionary tactics Wabtec uses both individually and in combination to harm the competitive process and consumers include, but are not limited to, using its dominant position to:

• “Reduce rail industry required cross-product compatibility with complementary products through, among other things, restricting the flow of critical data and information.
• “Impose unnecessary costs and delays on competitors with the goal of impairing and forcing competitors out of business and obtaining even greater power to control prices.
• “Make knowingly false statements to consumers about the viability of its competitor.

“Wabtec’s anticompetitive tactics have been, and continue to be, effective in extending and maintaining its monopoly power in the markets for diesel long-haul freight locomotives, Tier IV long-haul freight locomotives, and EMS systems by, among other things, fortifying existing and creating artificial barriers to entry.

“Progress Rail competes against Wabtec in the development, manufacture, and sale of diesel long-haul freight locomotives, Tier IV long-haul freight locomotives, EMS systems, and other equipment used in the U.S. freight rail network. For example, Progress Rail has produced most of the non-Wabtec diesel freight locomotives in the U.S. during the past ten years, and after Wabtec, Progress Rail is the second-largest producer of Tier IV locomotives in the U.S. Progress Rail also develops and sells related solutions and technologies that enhance the safety and efficiency of locomotives, like its next generation EMS system called Talos and its event recorder called PowerView Event Recorder.

“Progress Rail is a direct target of Wabtec’s anticompetitive conduct. For example, Wabtec abuses its complete control over federally mandated PTC systems to cause Progress Rail unnecessary integration issues that are costly and time consuming to rectify. These integration issues are designed to place Progress Rail at a competitive disadvantage with current and potential customers.

“On top of interfering with the interoperability of products and freight locomotives, Wabtec has falsely and publicly stated that Progress Rail is ‘exiting’ the Tier IV locomotive business … ‘won’t be competing going forward’ … and ‘would not be an option for a customer for “anything that’s new in the U.S. from here on out.’

“Such knowingly false public statements directly harm competition and improperly strengthen Wabtec’s existing monopoly over Tier IV locomotives because they intentionally mislead countless exist ng and potential customers to believe that Progress Rail has left or will soon leave the market, and Wabtec is their only choice. Because of Wabtec’s anticompetitive conduct, Progress Rail has lost existing and potential customers for its products. Absent Wabtec’s anticompetitive conduct, Progress Rail’s revenues would be substantially greater, and its competitive influence would have a downward effect on pricing, provide more consumer choice, and enhance innovation and safety in the relevant markets.”

Progress Rail pointed to remarks made by Wabtec Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer John Olin at the May 9, 2023 Goldman Sachs Industrials Conference to support its allegation that Wabtec has publicly stated Progress Rail is exiting the U.S. Tier IV locomotive market.

Caterpillar, which owns Progress Rail and its EMD (Electro-Motive Diesel) unit, is not a party to the lawsuit. “Since the enactment of Tier IV in 2015, only about 1,200 units have been built, with more than 1,000 of these Wabtec units,” Railway Age Contributing Editor Bob Cantwell noted in a recent article on locomotive emissions. “Developing Tier IV locomotives has been a long, expensive journey with little payback to date. In fact, Caterpillar, parent company of Progress Rail/EMD, took a $935 million write-down at the end of fiscal year 2022 on its rail business in large part due to the slow adoption of Tier IV locomotives.”

Progress Rail on Sept. 11, 2023 responded to Railway Age’s request for comment, saying the company “does not comment on ongoing litigation.” Wabtec spokesperson Tim Bader provided the following statement:

“We believe that Progress Rail’s recent complaint against Wabtec at its core is an unsupported attack on the merger of Wabtec and GE Transportation, which was completed more than four years ago. The merger has provided benefits to the entire industry, as well as Progress Rail itself. Progress Rail actively participated in the U.S. Government’s review of that transaction and benefitted by entering into agreements with Wabtec that transferred Wabtec technology to it as part of the United States Department of Justice and global merger clearance process. We also firmly believe that Progress Rail’s assertions that Wabtec breached agreements or engaged in other illegal conduct are wrong. We intend to aggressively defend the case in court.” 

The post Progress Rail Suit Against Wabtec Over ‘Anticompetitive Conduct’ Settled Out of Court (UPDATED Feb. 27, 2026) appeared first on Railway Age.

The first section of the D (Purple) Line Extension will open May 8, LACMTA announced Feb. 26 (see map below). Service along the 3.9-mile Section 1 corridor includes three new stations: Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire/Fairfax—which bookend Los Angeles’ Miracle Mile—and Wilshire/La Cienega in Beverly Hills. Each station will have a landscaped plaza at street level, elevators and escalators, and wide platforms, and are fully ADA accessible, according to the transit authority. There will be bike parking and connections to local bus lines, it noted.

LACMTA added that safety was key to the D Line Extension project. It said the three new stations and the plaza will have “enhanced lighting and have been designed with clear sight lines”; the stations will be staffed by its Metro Ambassadors and Transit Security Officers, and contract law enforcement and Care-Based Division members will also be present; cell phone service will be available in each of the new stations; and the stations will have taller faregates that improve fare compliance.

“With the Santa Monica Freeway and other Westside roads chronically congested, the debut of Section 1 provides immediate benefits to commuters,” LACMTA said. Travel times between Wilshire/La Cienega and Union Station in downtown L.A. will be about 20 minutes with no transfers required. That same trip today typically takes double that time on the bus and D Line, according to the transit authority. Many other transit trips in the D Line corridor will see similar time savings. 

While the D Line Extension delivers immediate benefits to current riders, LACMTA noted, it will also make it easier for future riders and visitors to get around, including those coming to Southern California to see the World Cup in 2026, the Super Bowl in 2027, and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2028.

According to LACMTA, Sections 2 and 3 of the D Line Extension are currently forecast to launch next year. Section 2 will bring the subway to downtown Beverly Hills and Century City, while Section 3 extends the subway to a station serving Westwood Village (with access to UCLA) and a station next to the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center.

The original D Line opened to Wilshire/Western Station in 1996. Plans to continue the line further west were scuttled due to two big hurdles: the challenge of tunneling through a methane gas zone and bans on local and federal funding due largely to concerns about the agency’s ability to safely build the project, according to LACMTA.

Momentum shifted in the early 2000s, the transit agency noted. First, LACMTA convened tunneling safety experts who determined advances in tunneling made it safe to excavate subway stations and tunnels. Then, in 2008, more than two-thirds of L.A. County voters approved the Measure R sales tax measure to provide local funding for the project. In 2016, 71% of county voters approved the Measure M sales tax measure to accelerate Section 3 of the D Line Extension.

Local funds, in turn, were used to attract $1.25 billion in a New Starts grant from the Federal Transit Administration, $66.4 million in supplemental New Starts funds, and a $749.3 million loan from the federal TIFIA program in 2014.

Separately, the LACMTA Board last month selected rapid transit for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project.

SEPTA on Feb. 26 awarded a contract to Korman Communities, Inc. and Benchmark Real Estate, LLC for the long-term ground lease of the 3.4-acre parking lot at Ambler Station along the Lansdale/Doylestown Regional Rail Line.

Under this agreement, the developer will pay SEPTA $402,500 per year with annual increases of 3% for a total contract value estimated to be $236 million over a term of 99 years.

The Korman and Benchmark proposal includes ground floor commercial; high quality open space and stormwater management; commuter and development parking; and multi-family housing with an affordable component (see rendering, top).

The developer will be responsible for all aspects of financing, zoning, permitting, design, construction, and maintenance of the project, and redevelopment of the parking lot is subject to SEPTA’s approval, according to the transit authority.

SEPTA said it is ”building on the success of its Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Program by pursuing joint development opportunities to secure better returns on its real estate assets.” Dedicated revenue from ground leases and new ridership revenue is projected to grow to $10 million annually within the next decade, it noted.

“SEPTA is committed to strict fiscal discipline and finding innovative ways to generate new revenue streams beyond the farebox,” SEPTA General Manager Scott A. Sauer said. “Building housing and commercial space near our stations will boost ridership and bring economic activity to the communities that SEPTA serves.”

Other SEPTA projects under way are at the Conshohocken, Germantown and Langhorne stations.

In other news, SEPTA on Feb. 24 rolled out its newest CBTC digital signaling system upgrade on the Media–Sharon Hill Line, according to Hitachi Rail, which provided the system that will help modernize one of the last remaining interurban trolley systems in the United States.

The Sound Transit Board on Feb. 26 formally adopted the 2026–2030 Sustainability Plan (see above). According to Sound Transit, the plan outlines how it “integrates sustainability into every stage of planning, designing, building, and operating,” and the adopted motion “further strengthens these commitments by sunsetting the purchase of fossil fuel-powered revenue vehicles and equipment by 2030.”

The new plan establishes objectives and implementation strategies in the following areas:

• “Advancing equity. Expanding civil rights, equity, and inclusion trainings for employees; increasing fare affordability and access; and providing support and resources for small and disadvantaged businesses.
• “Building sustainable infrastructure and operating resiliently. Building agency resilience to climate change and other natural hazards, ensuring safe and reliable service during power outages, and reducing the environmental impacts and GHG emissions associated with material use and construction.
• “Continuously improving agency governance and business practices. Attracting, developing, and retaining talented employees and contractors; improving safety compliance and reducing the environmental impacts of agency procurements; and strengthening the agency’s sustainability funding portfolio to support long-term goals.
• “Growing ridership and strengthening communities. Advancing community development, strengthening, and formalizing community engagement vision and priorities, and expanding multimodal access to Sound Transit stations.
• “Protecting and restoring the environment. Protecting native habitats and wildlife, reducing environmental impacts from agency facilities, and minimizing surface water impacts on agency-owned and maintained properties.
• “Reducing air pollution and GHG emissions. Reducing emissions across operations, transitioning key fleets to zero-emission technologies by 2030, and achieving zero-emission fleets and facilities by 2050.”

According to Sound Transit, the plan establishes “clear, time-bound, and enforceable climate goals and embeds sustainability across every stage of project delivery and operations.” Additionally, it advances decarbonization by committing the agency to greenhouse gas neutrality for rail and facilities by 2030 and zero-emission operations by 2050, while grounding fleet and infrastructure decisions in cost, reliability, and service performance. 

Plan implementation will be overseen by agency leadership and tracked through annual reporting to the Board. Clear performance metrics will measure progress toward agency targets, while ensuring transparency for riders and regional partners, according to Sound Transit.

“The 2026–2030 Sustainability Plan—implemented through our nationally and internationally recognized sustainability program—reflects that vision by defining how we embed sustainability into every aspect of our work as we design, construct, and operate our regional transit system,” wrote Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine in a letter introducing the plan. “As our system grows to connect more people, it is also shaping how people live, work, and move around the region, and our 2026–2030 Sustainability Plan ensures we will support that progress for generations to come.”

• Sound Transit Readies for ‘Crosslake Connection’
• Meet Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, Transit Advocate
• Sound Transit Launches Federal Way LRT Extension

Starting Fall 2026, Metro is proposing two U-Pass options:

• Universal model: $1 per day with full student participation
• Opt-In model: $1.75 per day with a 33% minimum participation requirement

More flexibility for universities = More affordable transit for students pic.twitter.com/59k3Qg2ACn

The WMATA Board on Feb. 26 voted to approve a major expansion and modernization of the University Pass (U-Pass) program, which is described as an initiative “designed to give more college students affordable, unlimited access to transit while supporting ridership growth and institutional partnerships.”

Approved as part of WMATA’s Strategic Transformation Plan, the expanded program introduces new pricing and participation options that make it easier for colleges and universities to join and for more students, such as part-time, community college, and graduate students, to benefit from accessible transportation.

Since launching as a pilot in 2016 with American University, U-Pass has grown into a regional mobility program serving more than 35,000 students and generating roughly 4.6 million trips in fiscal year 2025.

Regionwide, 43 colleges and universities are eligible to participate, representing a potential reach of about 360,000 students across the National Capital region. The new program changes will be implemented during the fall 2026-2027 school year.

“U-Pass is a win for students, universities and the entire region and another example of continuous improvements for our customers,” WMATA General Manager and CEO Randy Clarke said. “By expanding the program and introducing flexible options, we’re opening the door for more institutions to participate, giving more students affordable, reliable access to transit every day.”

“As the largest non-Federal employers serving over 300,000 students in the region, I am glad that WMATA continues to evolve their U-Pass program to allow more of our universities to participate,” said Andrew Flagel, President and CEO of the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.

Separately, WMATA and Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. earlier this month resolved their 7000-Series railcars disputes.

The post Transit Briefs: LACMTA, SEPTA, Sound Transit, WMATA appeared first on Railway Age.

OmniTRAX on Feb. 26 reported launching a multi-modal logistics hub in the city of Blue Island, just south of Chicago, that offers access to all Class I’s through Chicago Rail Link, one of the 30-plus small roads managed by OmniTrax, an affiliate of The Broe Group.

OmniTrax signed a long-term lease for the 90-acre parcel, which borders 119th and Division streets within The City of Blue Island Commercial Center. The site features bulk commodity rail-to-truck transloading, secure truck and trailer storage, and secure container storage.

“This is an extremely rare rail-served industrial site in the heart Chicago that offers unparalleled market access,” OmniTRAX Senior Vice President Chris Tecu said. “The City of Blue Island has a proud industrial and rail heritage that makes this partnership a perfect fit. This is fantastic public-private partnership that is the model for shared success.”

According to OmniTrax, Chicago Rail Link first served the Blue Island Yard in 1992.

“This project will bring new jobs and new investment to the City of Blue Island,” Mayor Fred Bilotto noted. “We are excited to partner with an experienced infrastructure company like OmniTRAX that brings national relationships and industry leading service to help our community attract new partnerships that build long-term community value.”

Separately, OmniTRAX last August signed an agreement with a second soda ash producer to provide exclusive third-party rail switching in Green River, Wyo. In addition to serving the Tata Chemical Soda Ash Partners mine, which was announced earlier in August, OmniTRAX is serving WE Soda’s Westvaco mining facility.

The post OmniTRAX Launches Chicago Logistics Hub appeared first on Railway Age.

The Railroads for National Defense (RND) Program within the U.S. Army Transportation Command has submitted comments in response to the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) decision last month proposing what it called “a significant pro-competitive action” to repeal 49 C.F.R. part 1144, which governs the prescription of reciprocal switching, through routes, and through rates.

The STB’s Jan. 7 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “would promote market forces in the freight rail industry.” According to the Board, the NPRM “would remove regulatory barriers that limit options for American businesses critical to our economy, including both shippers, such as manufacturers, utilities, and agricultural companies, and railroads seeking to innovate and compete.” In removing these regulations, the Board said it “would employ reasoned case-by-case approaches.”

The RND Program in its Feb. 24 comments (download below) requested “consideration of military equities in the application of reciprocal switching agreements on a case-by-case basis.”

It explained that on behalf of the Department of War (DoW) and U.S. Transportation Command, the RND Program “has an ongoing interest in America’s rail network to ensure that it supports military readiness capability requirements for both defense deployment and peacetime needs.” Rail transportation, it said, “is extremely important to DoW. Heavy tracked vehicles, high-volume movements of wheeled vehicles, and other defense materiel rely on rail to meet contingency deployment timelines between inland installations and seaports of embarkation (SPOEs). The economy of scale offered by domestic freight rail transportation is a strategic advantage.”

According to the RND Program, “[w]ith the current reciprocal switching rules under 49 C.F.R. § 1145 now vacated [by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals], the additional repeal of the anticompetitive conduct standard under 49 C.F.R. § 1144 would empower the Board to consider a prescription of reciprocal switching agreements on a case-by-case basis under the applicable statutory standards.” This “flexibility,” it said, “would allow the Board to evaluate petitions based on authority under 49 U.S.C. § 11102(c)(1), which permits the Board to require rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements when such agreements are ‘practicable and in the public interest’ or ‘necessary to provide competitive rail service.’ Establishment of competitive rail service through the application of reciprocal switching orders is necessary for the public interest and safeguarding of national defense by increasing flexibility and resiliency to deploy critical military units via rail during peace and wartime.” The RND Program told the STB that it “would strongly consider advocating for reciprocal switching agreements at critical defense activities which currently rely on a single rail carrier for service.” Such agreements, it said, “would provide DoW with necessary operational flexibility and network resiliency to proactively address any service challenges at rail dependent installations by enabling the choice of alternative carriers based on current performance, network capacity, operational efficiency needs per deployment requirements, or other constraints.” According to the RND Program, this “enhanced adaptability would significantly bolster the resilience of military operations and strengthen the homeland’s ability to project power, granting military commanders enhanced decision space in times of war or national emergency where hours in deployment delays could affect overall mission success.” Also, “the added resilience to network operations creates additional dilemmas for potential adversaries by adding infrastructure, routing, and service provider options that have been ideally exercised well beforehand,” it said. “Importantly, the RND Program would consider petition and implementation of such an order solely where it is reasonable, practicable and in the best interest of national defense. This would include an evaluation that potential service from an alternative rail carrier would be safe, reliable, and efficient to meet required timelines and other mission needs.”

The RND Program pointed out that under 49 U.S.C. § 11102(c)(1), “the Board has discretion to order reciprocal switching agreements when it determines such arrangements are either ‘practicable and in the public interest’ or ‘necessary to provide competitive rail service.’” Last July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit “determined that meeting the first statutory standard requires a finding of ‘inadequate service,’” the RND Program continued. “While traditional metrics for determining inadequate service may not apply to DoW’s varied and unscheduled shipments, the adequacy of rail service to a military installation could and should be defined by its overall reliability, resiliency, and flexibility to meet military needs during times of national emergency.”

The RND Program urged “the Board to consider the unique needs of national defense when evaluating reciprocal switching petitions under a ‘case-by-case’ basis pursuant to the applicable statutory standards or under future proposed rulemaking.” Ensuring rail service “flexibility, resiliency, and reliability,” it concluded, “is critical to safeguarding military readiness, national security, and the public interest.”

• Midtec’s Demise; Competition’s Rise
• Reregulation Hidden in Shipper Tapestry
• Clean Slate on Switch Rule. Now What?
• Reciprocal Switching: Not Quite Done
• STB Finalizes Reciprocal Switching Rule

The post U.S. Army to STB: ‘Consider the Unique Needs of National Defense’ appeared first on Railway Age.

CSX recently announced that it has reduced cargo theft incidents by more than 80% year over year through “a targeted task force and operational changes focused on the Memphis rail corridor.”

The task force was formed in 2024 after CSX identified a sharp increase in cargo theft in the Memphis area during the COVID-era surge in criminal activity. The rise in theft, the Class I says, “posed a growing concern for customer shipments, employee safety and surrounding communities, prompting the company to take a more focused, localized approach.”

“Cargo theft is both a security issue and a policy issue,” said CSX Assistant General Counsel Drew Sutter. “On the ground, it requires tactical solutions. Over the long term, it requires sustainable policies that address the broader impact on communities, employees and customers.”

The Memphis effort brought together multiple groups, including local law enforcement and CSX operational teams, in what company leaders described as “a highly collaborative process.” The focus centered on activity near CSX’s Leewood Yard, where trains were particularly vulnerable when stopping for extended periods.

To reduce risk in high traffic areas, CSX upgraded security around its Memphis facilities “with enhanced fencing, lighting, and access controls, including roughly 14,000 feet of high security fencing and an additional 5,000 feet east of Leewood Yard.” The company also added 30 surveillance cameras to support real time monitoring and investigations, “strengthening security without disrupting operations.”

One of the task force’s key challenges was finding ways to keep trains moving through the area without unnecessary stops. To address that risk, CSX implemented two major operational changes. The company introduced two direct trains running from its Leewood Yard in Memphis to Fairburn, Ga., “reducing dwell time in high-risk areas.” CSX also coordinated arrival and departure windows to limit exposure when trains entered and exited facilities.

Those changes, the Class I says, “produced immediate results, contributing to the year-over-year reduction in cargo theft incidents,” according to Sean Douris, CSX Chief of Police, Public Safety, and Infrastructure Protection.

CSX leaders said the Memphis initiative has become “a blueprint for addressing similar issues elsewhere on the network.”

“As we see incidents like this start to develop into trends, we’ll be able to apply this template going forward,” Douris said. “The goal is to address these problems early, before they reach a larger scale.”

Cargo theft has been an ongoing concern across the transportation industry, with impacts extending beyond financial losses to include employee safety and community well-being, the Class I noted. CSX said its Memphis task force “demonstrates how coordinated operational and policy-driven approaches can deliver measurable results.”

NS has expanded the Thoroughbred Trading Post, a mobile application that “modernizes how surplus assets are documented, reviewed, and sold while helping teams maintain safer and more orderly yards and field locations.” The platform was designed and developed in-house, which, the Class I says, “sets it apart as a unique and innovative solution within the rail industry.” It supports equipment, machinery, tools, facility items, and other operational materials.

With a quick photo and brief description, NS employees can initiate a disposition request to remove, auction, recycle, or reassign items from anywhere.

Key benefits include:

• “Safety: Removing unused equipment reduces hazards, keeps yard areas clear, and supports safer daily operations.
• “Automation: Faster response times and consistent data make asset disposition more accessible and efficient.
• “Transparency: No more email chains or spreadsheets. All information lives in a single and easy-to-use app.
• “Stewardship: Responsible handling ensures assets are credited, managed, and routed appropriately, including direct-to-auction for high value items.
• “Revenue Generation: Larger assets route directly to auction partners, improving returns for NS.”

“We built the Thoroughbred Trading Post in-house because we wanted a solution that truly fits the way our teams work. It empowers employees, streamlines asset disposition, and helps us all work safer by removing what is no longer key to our operations or necessary. This is NS problem solving at its best,” said NS Senior Manager, Agile Business Solutions Jonathan Anthony.

This new solution reflects the culture of ingenuity across Norfolk Southern. It ensures every asset is handled responsibly and supports the safety, efficiency, and orderliness of our work environment. It shows how NS is leading with practical and innovative solutions in an area where many railroads face the same challenges,” said NS Sr. Category Specialist, Asset Disposition Paris Stroud.

“The app makes the asset disposition process go smoother and acts as a one‑stop shop instead of having to go through multiple steps. It also keeps me in the loop in real time on where an item is in the process, which is a tremendous value‑add,” said NS Sr. Supervisor Work Equipment – Engineering Teddy Lowry.

The post Class I Briefs: CSX, NS appeared first on Railway Age.

Ports of Indiana has appointed Joshua Webb as Director of Government Affairs to lead legislative strategy and advocacy efforts at the state and federal levels.

Webb brings more than a decade of experience in Indiana politics, public policy, and government operations. Most recently, he served as State Director for Americans for Prosperity-Indiana, where he led grassroots advocacy efforts, political operations, and government affairs. His career also includes service as Deputy State Director for United States Senator (now Governor) Mike Braun and work for former Congressman Luke Messer, where he held positions as both policy advisor in Washington, D.C., and District Director in Indiana.

“We’re pleased to have someone with Josh’s extensive experience lead our government affairs efforts at this critical time for the maritime industry,” said Jody Peacock, CEO of Ports of Indiana. “As we strive to expand our economic value to the state and advance critical infrastructure priorities, Josh’s leadership will be instrumental in building strong relationships and advancing new policy initiatives involving America’s Maritime Action Plan, shipbuilding, economic development, and global trade.” 

“I am excited to join the extraordinary team at Ports of Indiana and build upon the critical mission the organization serves for the people of Indiana. I look forward to helping advance key policies and developing strong partnerships that bolster Indiana’s world-class port system, generate sustained economic growth and enhance trade connectivity for Hoosiers,” said Webb.

A native of East Central Indiana, Webb earned his bachelor’s degree in political science and government from Ball State University and completed a graduate certificate in Public Management from Indiana University Indianapolis. He currently resides in Noblesville with his wife, Natalie, and their two sons and daughter.

Congresswoman Nanette Barragán recently honored Otis Cliatt II, President of PHL, with the Black History Month Trailblazer of the Century Award “in recognition of his leadership and commitment to a more sustainable San Pedro Bay region.” The award was presented during the Congresswoman’s Annual Black History Month Commemoration, celebrating 100 years of Black History Month.

Under Cliatt’s leadership, PHL piloted the first zero-emission locomotive in the San Pedro Bay port complex, which is part of its commitment to lower emission technology. For almost three decades, PHL says it has “consistently demonstrated its focus on modernizing operations through cleaner, lower-emission solutions that strengthen sustainability and drive regional innovation.”

The recognition event took place on Saturday, Feb. 21, at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library in Long Beach, where community leaders gathered to honor trailblazers making a lasting impact.

“Otis’s leadership reflects a deep commitment to innovation, operational excellence, and environmental responsibility,” said Peter Gilbertson, CEO of Anacostia Rail Holdings, PHL’s parent company. “He is a key member of a team at PHL that has not only transformed rail operations within the port complex but has also delivered meaningful environmental benefits to Long Beach and Los Angeles.  We are incredibly proud of his commitment.”

This recognition, the company says, “underscores PHL’s continued dedication to building a more sustainable future while also strengthening the economic and environmental vitality of the San Pedro Bay region.”

Monica Deoras has been appointed, effective Feb. 9, as an attorney-advisor to Thomas Jayne, the Management Member of the U.S. RRB, an independent federal agency headquartered in Chicago. In this role, she will advise and counsel on a variety of financial, management, and legal issues affecting the RRB’s benefits and programs.

Prior to her appointment, Deoras was the Senior Counsel for Nuclear, Security & Environmental at the Bechtel Corporation for three years. In this capacity, she worked on business and project development involving nuclear plants in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, as well as the United States. She was also involved in key support activities for the Terrapower Natrium advanced-reactor project.

Before working for Bechtel, Deoras was Assistant General Counsel at True Commerce, a private equity firm specializing in cloud computing applications, for 11 months, and more than 12 years at Westinghouse Electric Company. At Westinghouse, she served in a Senior Counsel capacity for about nine years, working on various domestic and international projects dealing with nuclear energy. She then spent her last three years at the company as Assistant General Counsel, serving as lead attorney for global compliance issues.

Earlier in her legal career, she served as General Counsel for two information technology firms, worked as an associate at international law firm Reed Smith LLP, and served as a judicial clerk for two Pennsylvania state court judges.

Deoras earned a Master of Laws degree from Chicago-Kent College of Law and her Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Her undergraduate degree was a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance from the University of Texas. She has also served as an adjunct instructor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and is currently a board member for the Western Pennsylvania Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel.

She replaces Erin Brandenburg, who left the RRB after almost two years to accept a position with the Judicial Conference of the United States.

The post People News: Ports of Indiana, PHL, RRB appeared first on Railway Age.

TETL on Feb. 25 announced that it has completed a 2,000-foot track expansion at its Big Spring, Texas, transload terminal, “increasing terminal capacity and strengthening its rail-served logistics infrastructure to support continued growth in energy and industrial commodity volumes.”

The expansion, TETL says, brings the terminal’s total rail footprint to more than 37,000 feet of track. The facility is served by UP and operates 24/7 with in-house switching and material handling capabilities. The additional track capacity increases throughput for pipe and oversized materials while maintaining flexibility to handle a diverse mix of commodities, the company noted.

“With this expansion, we are increasing our ability to efficiently manage higher car volumes, improve velocity through the terminal, and provide our customers with more reliable, scalable transload capacity,” said TETL President Andy Branaugh. “Big Spring is a strategic location for our network, and this investment positions the terminal to support long-term customer growth.”

The expanded infrastructure, TETL adds, “provides customers with greater flexibility for transloading, reducing congestion, and improving coordination across first- and last-mile logistics.” The project is part of TETL’s broader strategy to “invest in rail infrastructure, expand terminal capacity, and enhance service reliability across its network.”

UP’s partnership with Heartland Co-op reached recently reached a major milestone as the new grain shuttle facility in Millerton, Iowa, is now fully operational and handling its first train loads. This state-of-the-art site, the Class I says, “strengthens service for farmers in south central Iowa and expands access to key domestic and export markets across UP’s network.”

This achievement reflects close collaboration between Heartland Co‑op and UP teams across Operating, Marketing and Sales, Service Design, Network Economic and Industrial Development, Real Estate and Public Projects, the Class I noted. “The Millerton facility represents a shared, long‑term investment in Iowa agriculture and continued growth across the region’s grain market,” UP said.

“Heartland Co‑op’s investment alongside Union Pacific underscores our shared commitment to long‑term growth,” said UP Director, Marketing and Sales Emily Peters. “This new site strengthens our presence in the region and deepens our grain origination foundation.”

The NCRR announced Feb. 26 that it will invest up to $600,000 to build critical rail infrastructure for US Forged Rings Inc.’s new manufacturing facility in Hertford County. The company plans to invest $875 million for the three-phase project and create 625 full-time jobs with an average annual wage of $80,500.

The project, NCRR says, will connect the site to freight rail through a newly constructed spur designed for the company’s daily operations and long-term growth. US Forged Rings will focus on large-scale metal fabrication for the energy industry, producing steel piping and specialized components for industrial customers across the country.

“This investment is about more than track. We’re building opportunity in Hertford County, we’re strengthening North Carolina’s manufacturing footprint and we’re making sure this state is ready for long-term growth driven by freight rail,” said NCRR President and CEO Carl Warren.

The rail project will include ballast, ties and rail turnouts along with engineering, drainage, signal work and other improvements necessary to serve the site. Once operational, US Forged Rings will use the rail line to receive and distribute at least 1,825 rail cars each year.

Through NCRR Invests, the NCRR uses private revenue, not taxpayer dollars, to fund rail projects that attract new employers and expand existing industry to keep North Carolina competitive.

In addition to the Office of Governor Josh Stein, the NCRR supports this project along with the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, the North Carolina General Assembly, the North Carolina Community College System, the North Carolina Departments of Transportation and Environmental Quality, CSX Transportation, Dominion Energy, Hertford County and its Board of Commissioners and the Hertford County Economic Development Department.

The post Industrial Development Briefs: TETL, UP/Heartland Co-op, NCRR appeared first on Railway Age.