Prototype News

Sound Transit

Sound Transit announced Aug. 28 that passenger service will begin on the Link 1 Line to Federal Way on Dec. 6. The 7.8-mile Federal Way Link Extension includes three new stations in South King County, serving Kent Des Moines, Star Lake and Federal Way Downtown. During peak hours, trains will operate every eight minutes. 

The Federal Way extension will serve the following stations, all of which will include multiple transit connections:

• Kent Des Moines Station. Located east of I-5 at S 236th Street on the border of Kent and Des Moines, Kent Des Moines is an elevated station that serves Highline College, includes a 500-space parking garage, and features transit-oriented development opportunities including a 233-unit affordable housing project from Mercy Housing Northwest set to break ground this winter.
• Star Lake Station. Located at S 272nd St and 26th avenue, Star Lake station will serve as a key interchange for Link, St Express, King County Metro, and park-and-ride commuters. The elevated station features a new bike and pedestrian access path to the station plaza, connects to the existing freeway station, and will add 1,100 parking spaces in a new garage that replaced surface parking.
• Federal Way Downtown. Located at the Federal Way Transit Center, this elevated station serves one of the busiest transit centers in the region from the heart of Downtown Federal Way. The station features 400 new parking spaces in addition to existing garages, public restrooms, and a rebuilt street grid with pedestrian and bicycle improvements and opportunities for affordable housing and sustainable transit-oriented development.

The new Federal Way bus loop, which opened earlier this year, connects King County Metro, ST Express, and Pierce Transit buses directly to the station, “providing fast and reliable light rail connections to South King and Pierce County,” the agency noted.

“Today’s announcement on Federal Way shows that the region continues to make significant progress toward our mass transit goals,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. “This is one more step in completing the spine and providing relief from gridlock and more travel options for our residents. I look forward to the day we open Everett, and Tacoma, and the other key elements of the Sound Transit 3 package.”  

“It’s exciting to see trains out there running on the tracks as we continue to prepare for the opening of this crucial extension, further knitting our region together with clean, traffic-free light rail,” said Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine. “Thank you to our partners at the Washington State Department of Transportation and the local jurisdictions who have accommodated years of project activity, and to our hard-working contractors and staff.”

According to a KIRO 7 News report, Sound Transit staff recently said they are “facing a 20-25% increase in costs compared to what’s currently outlined in the Long-Range Financial Plan, unless cost-saving measures are applied.

Voters approved the Sound Transit 3 (ST3) System Plan in 2016; however, according to the report, the agency says, “much has changed since then, citing challenges including lower-than-expected revenues, rising costs and uncertainty surrounding tariffs and federal funding commitments.”

On Aug. 28, staff reported a need for an additional $14 to $20 billion in today’s dollars “to cover capital program costs to complete the major, voter-approved ST3 light rail projects,” including West Seattle, Ballard, Tacoma Dome, Everett, Tacoma Community College and South Kirkland-Issaquah Link extensions.

The agency, KIRO 7 News reports, also says it will need a few billion dollars more to cover service delivery costs, including new and replacement light rail vehicles, investments to improve light rail system resiliency and other maintenance and operations costs.

On top of growing costs, staff expect revenue to fall, according to the report.

For the last few months, the Board has been focused on implementing an action plan, deemed “the Enterprise Initiative,” which the agency describes as a “comprehensive effort that helps identify affordability gaps and tools available to cut costs.”

The initiative, KIRO 7 News reports, “aims to update the system plan, while staying in line with the original voter-approved ballot measure.”

Some of that increase can be tied to industry-wide issues, while other cost issues are related to “agency process, procedure, and delays since ST3 adoption,” according to Sound Transit documents and as reported by KIRO 7 News.

According to the report, “Phase 1 of the Enterprise Initiative calls for analyzing how the region has changed since 2016, building a deep understanding of the scale of the problem and understanding how to use available tools to solve these challenges (or coming up with new tools to fix them).

“Phase 2, which the agency has previously said will begin in 2026, calls for identifying approaches for updating the ST3 System Plan and adopting a new long-range financial plan.

“It also calls for conducting more public engagement about the initiative. During this phase, the Board is set to take action to amend the ST3 System Plan and adopt the new long-range financial plan.”

Board members on Thursday, according to the KIRO 7 News report noted that “the cost increases are unprecedented, but that Sound Transit is not the only agency in the country dealing with challenges out of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Sound Transit staff believe there are some cost-saving measures that can be applied to future projects, but it’s not clear at this time exactly how Sound Transit will make up the gap, according to the report.

The process, KIRO 7 News reports, “is expected to be finished by the middle of next year, but the deadline is not set in stone.”

Once complete, the agency will release an updated System Plan and a new Long-Range Financial Plan.

Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx

Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx announced Aug. 28 that they have selected Trillium Rail Partners (TRP), a consortium comprised of WSP Canada Inc.; Amico Major Projects Inc.; Alberici Constructors, Ltd.; and Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc., to deliver the Stations, Rail and Systems (SRS) package for the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension. The team has signed a Development and Master Construction Agreement with Metrolinx.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

According to Infrastructure Ontario, the team was selected following an evaluation of proposals. The selection of TRP “is the result of an open, fair and competitive procurement process overseen by a third-party fairness monitor,” the agency noted.

The Development and Master Construction Agreement (DMCA) marks the start of the development phase, part of a progressive design-build procurement model. The DMCA, Infrastructure Ontario says, enables TRP to begin construction of early works and for them to collaborate with Metrolinx to further develop the design scope, risk allocation and pricing of various elements as part of the development phase.

The scope of work for the project’s SRS package includes design and construction of seven stations and installation of rail and systems for the 9.2-kilometer (5-7-mile) extension and works at the existing Mount Dennis Station to connect the ECWE with future Line 5 Eglinton LRT service.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

The overall Eglinton Crosstown West Extension project is being delivered through various Public-Private-Partnership (P3), progressive design-build and traditional procurement contracts.

“The Eglinton Crosstown West Extension is a vital east-west transit connector for Toronto, one that will significantly reduce commuting times for people throughout the city. We are proud to be part of a project that, once complete, will make it easier for thousands of people in the Greater Toronto Area get to the places and people they value most,” said Corina Moore, Executive Vice President, Transportation and Infrastructure at WSP in Canada, which will lead the design as part of the TRP consortium.

The post Transit Briefs: Sound Transit, Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx appeared first on Railway Age.

Now based in Dunwoody, Ga., the company says it is “reinforcing its presence within Atlanta’s logistics ecosystem through a new, state of the art facility.” The location, IntelliTrans adds, supports hybrid work and ongoing product innovation as demand increases for its transportation management system (TMS).

Replacing the company’s former Midtown Atlanta office, the new headquarters “unites executive leadership, product, marketing and technical teams under roof to foster closer collaboration and align around the company’s next phase of growth,” IntelliTrans said. “The new headquarters continues a transformative growth period for the company, with new leadership, expanded operations in Conway, Ark., and continuing to provide more advanced TMS offerings.”

“This move is about focus,” said IntelliTrans CEO. “Ongoing supply chain disruption and rising pressure to optimize freight operations have bulk and breakbulk shippers demanding better visibility and smarter tools. Together with our operations hub in Conway, Arkansas, this new Atlanta headquarters gives our team the space to accelerate product innovation and scale the infrastructure our customers depend on. This headquarters is just as much about empowering our people as it is about scaling our platform—we’re building a space where teams can do their best work to serve our valued customers.”

“By being headquartered in Atlanta, we’re scaling strategically—growing our product and engineering teams in one of the country’s strongest logistics and tech talent markets,” added IntelliTrans Chief Technology Officer Jim Bell. “We’re building a team that understands the complexity of freight and brings the technical depth needed to turn that understanding into scalable solutions for today’s challenges.”

The post IntelliTrans Opens New Atlanta Headquarters appeared first on Railway Age.

Earlier this month, we profiled Brightline, the only private-sector railroad that operates passenger trains (not counting tourist excursions) in the United States. The story—Brightline: Something Different on the Rails, which posted online and in Railway Age’s August issue—featured an overview of Brightline and its current plans for Florida and for Brightline West, which will serve Las Vegas, Nev., with high-speed trains when it is complete. Since then, more issues have arisen concerning this unique railroad. One is a court battle with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR for purposes of the case and the official corporate name) over the capacity of the part of the FEC main in the Sunshine State’s three southern counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. That is the area where Brightline began service in 2018, and which comprised its entire operation until the extension to Orlando International Airport opened in September 2023 (see map below).

Brightline Map. Download Fact Sheet Here (Courtesy of Brightline)

Railway Age has often reported on battles between Amtrak and its host railroads, including Union Pacific and CN. We covered the “Second Battle of Mobile” between Amtrak and host railroads CSX and Norfolk Southern regarding new train service between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. That conflict included an 11-day trial before the Surface Transportation Board, but the parties settled their differences, and Amtrak’s Mardi Gras service is now running two daily round trips on the route.

The situation between FEC and Brightline is not the same. Things were different years ago, when All Aboard Florida, which became Brightline, proposed running passenger trains on the FEC for the first time since 1968. It started as a component of the railroad’s ownership. Part of the deal included selling yards and other real estate and infrastructure that the railroad no longer needed and developing that real estate—a plan similar to transit-oriented development, which is practiced along regional passenger rail lines that serve major cities.

FEC sued Brightline on July 11, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami, and was assigned Case No. 2025-013297-CA-01, captioned FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C. v. BRIGHTLINE TRAINS FLORIDA, L.L.C.  

Joshua Ceballos and Aaron Leibowitz first reported the litigation on Aug. 5 in the Miami Herald. They began by saying: “In a move that could derail plans for a long-awaited commuter train service, Florida East Coast Railway is suing Brightline for ‘clandestinely’ negotiating with county governments to add more trains to its rails. FECR claims the move violates a contract agreement between the two companies.” They also reported: “Plans have been in the works for Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to run a version of Tri-Rail commuter trains through South Florida’s urban corridor east of Interstate 95 along the Florida East Coast Railway tracks that Brightline uses. The private, luxury-train company and FECR entered into a series of agreements in 2016 and 2017 giving Brightline exclusive rights to run passenger trains on the rail corridor—with specific limitations.”

FECR’s Complaint, As Reported

According to Ceballos and Leibowitz, the complaint filed by FECR said: “The cooperation and transparency between FECR and Brightline that made Brightline’s passenger service a reality has, unfortunately, long disappeared … Desperate to salvage some of its investors’ funds, Brightline has covertly engaged in a years-long campaign to stave off its own financial problems by loading FECR’s tracks with more passenger trains.”

The original FEC was founded by Henry M. Flagler, an oil magnate and real estate developer, in 1895. Today, it is owned by Grupo México, and there is no longer such commonality of interest between the passenger (Brightline) and freight (Grupo México) operators whose trains run on FEC tracks.

(Courtesy of Tri-Rail)

The dispute apparently focuses on efforts by Brightline to develop local passenger service along the line. The present service to Orlando International Airport carries local passengers between Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, West Palm Beach, and intermediate stops. In a sense, it is a luxury service, offering food and beverages on board, as well as a “Premium” class. It also runs faster than Tri-Rail, which operates a service for commuters and other riders that is typically associated with “transit railroads” that serve other cities (see map above). Brightline also charges significantly higher fares than Tri-Rail in the region.

Coastal Link Map (Courtesy of Miami Dade County)

As we have reported over the years, Brightline is also planning Coastal Link, a similar service on its own line, which is located in coastal areas (see map, right). Most of Tri-Rail operates along the historic Seaboard Railroad’s line, which is several miles inland from the FEC route for most of the length of its line. Brightline and Tri-Rail both run service from Brightline’s Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, and both railroads have stations in West Palm Beach, which are a few blocks apart. Miami-Dade County described the Coastal Link project, which would provide a full, seven-day span of service, this way: “The Northeast Corridor marks the first segment of the 85-mile Coastal Link commuter rail, designed to seamlessly connect Miami-Dade with Broward and Palm Beach counties. This 13.5-mile project will establish a new rapid transit route from Miami Central Station in downtown Miami to West Aventura Station, utilizing the existing railroad corridor shared with Brightline and freight services. The goal is to provide residents, businesses, and visitors with a reliable and efficient transportation option.” The line is not to be confused with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, but the service pattern would be similar to Amtrak’s NEC: trains every 30 minutes at peak-commuting periods and every 60 minutes at other times, including on weekends. There would be new stations at Wynwood, Design District, Little Haiti, North Miami Beach, and FIU North Campus. There are also other plans to introduce that type of service in Broward and Palm Beach counties. That plan was revealed in 2023. FECR alleged that Brightline planned to run 54 “commuter” trains daily under the plan, the Herald reported.

According to the Herald, FECR’s complaint says: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” The Herald also reported: “FECR contends that it only found out about these talks ‘by chance’ and that when it approached Brightline with its concerns, Brightline accelerated its negotiations without bringing FECR to the table.”

According to Caballos and Leibowitz: “FECR alleges those plans were made without its approval, which is required through its agreement with Brightline, and that the plans threaten to create a logistical nightmare for South Florida.” While the line is double-tracked in the area at issue, Brightline already runs essentially hourly service on it to a place beyond the northern boundary of Palm Beach County. There is also FECR’s freight operation. As well, Brightline trains run faster than the proposed local passenger trains would. The Herald report noted: “The Florida Legislature removed funding for the commuter rail from this year’s budget cycle, prompting worries about the project’s future”—an event that could render the case moot, if no further progress is made on the Coastal Link proposal.

What We Don’t Know About the Complaint—Yet

Railway Age has not obtained the entire complaint or contracts that FECR submitted as exhibits, despite efforts to contact both parties to obtain them. In a paper filed with the complaint on July 11, the railroad claimed that 12 paragraphs of it (out of at least 145), along with two documents submitted as exhibits, contain confidential information, and requested that they be shielded from public view. If there is a redacted version of the complaint (presumably there is, because the Herald reported on it), we have not yet seen it, despite a diligent effort so far.

In effect, the Herald reported that FECR alleged that Brightline did not follow the rules of the parties’ Joint Use Agreement (JUA) for the railroad, which requires either party to present proposals for changes to a joint committee, that Brightline negotiated with the counties about Coastal Link starting in 2020, that FECR found out about these talks “by chance,” and that Brightline kept negotiating “without bringing FECR to the table.” Ceballos and Leibowitz also reported that FECR alleged: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” In addition, there have been questions raised about Brightine’s finances, which we will cover in a separate report. The JUA and other contracts between the parties are also part of the court papers. If and when we obtain them, we will review them and report on their relevant provisions.

(Brightline Photograph) Brightline Moves to Dismiss Case, Calls for Arbitration

Brightline on July 29 filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of the dispute with FECR. We obtained those motion papers. If a defendant does not believe that the plaintiff has stated a cause of action in the complaint and exhibits submitted with it that would justify relief, the defendant can move to dismiss the case before filing an answer, which the defendant would only need to file if the judge denies the motion. Brightline on July 31 filed its motion papers, acknowledging the JUA and passenger service easements, which Brightline alleged “are integrally related, independent and constitute … a single, unitary, and indivisible agreement.”

Brightline also alleged: “Under that agreement, Brightline has an express contractual right [emphasis in original] to operate passenger rail service along the FEC Corridor, either itself or through one or more ‘designees’ … This includes both higher-speed ‘intercity’ passenger service and ‘commuter’ service.” Also alleged: “Nevertheless, FECR’s Complaint asserts that Brightline ‘violat[ed]’ the JUA by working with Miami-Dade County and others to develop a badly-needed commuter rail service in South Florida. The Complaint seeks a series of declarations which are supposedly necessary to set at rest the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties as they pertain to the JUA and the continued shared use of the FEC Corridor.”

FECR’s primary argument is that the judge should dismiss the action because the contracts between FECR and Brightline require a binding arbitration proceeding to resolve disputes of this sort, rather than a court decision. FECR described a three-step procedure that (first) would present the dispute to a Service Standards Committee comprising representatives from both parties for investigation, (second) referring the dispute to the Presidents of FECR and Brightline for them to attempt to resolve the matter (the original agreement named All Aboard Florida, but Brightline is its successor), and (third) either party can submit the dispute to binding arbitration.

In the “Argument” section of its motion, FECR argued that arbitration is the only proper forum for resolving the dispute under both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Florida Arbitration Code, and that the court should submit it to arbitration.

The Issue of Following the Rules

FECR complained that Brightline was negotiating with the affected counties about local trains but did not follow the rule that required arbitration of such disputes. In response, Brightline alleged: “FECR is well aware of those contractual requirements, as it is currently pursuing claims against Brightline unrelated to commuter service in a separate arbitration under the JUA and associated agreements … In this instance, however, FECR chose to flout [emphasis in original] those contractual requirements and file its claims in court. It knew that one of Brightline’s parent entities was preparing to issue a bond offering to help finance the commuter rail project, and it sought to thwart that effort by asserting specious claims in a public forum” and “FECR publicly sought to harm Brightline by making gratuitous factual allegations it knew not to be true and pursuing baseless causes of action which can only be pursued, if at all, through ‘binding arbitration.’” FECR also called on the judge to submit the case to arbitration.

Setting the arguments about Brightline’s financial interests aside for the moment, it appears that FECR was aware of Brightline’s efforts to establish local service, so the question arises of why this issue has become so hotly disputed at this time. We have reported on the Coastal Link proposal before (most recently in March 2025), and a report from Miami-Dade County indicated that the project is in design stages and is not scheduled to begin service until 2032. With the State pulling funding, though, it will probably take longer, if service runs at all.

A bill before the Florida Legislature, CS/SB 916, is concerned with indemnifying victims of accidents involving “commuter” trains in the State. The Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement from March 20, 2025, said: “CS/SB 916 provides for the indemnification of commuter rail transportation providers on the Coastal Link Corridor. The bill creates the Coastal Link Commuter Rail Service Act and establishes parameters related to the indemnification of and insurance related to an agency providing commuter rail service on the corridor. The bill … Names Brightline, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR), South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), and an agency as parties operating rail service the coast link corridor.” SFRTA operates Tri-Rail. The provisions of the bill relate to a fund for compensating accident victims with a cap on liability, a self-insurance retention, allocation of liability, and other aspects of insurance law. We mention it here to clarify how much FECR would have known about Brightline’s efforts to establish local train service along the line. Without having the complaint and exhibits to review, we cannot speculate any further on that issue at this time.

(Jonathan Chalon Photograph) A Dispute Over a Process Leading to Arbitration

In its motion to dismiss, Brightline called on FECR to follow a three-step process for resolving disputes, using a Service Standards Committee, the presidents of the two railroads, and, finally, to arbitration if the other steps do not provide a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties.

Courts usually favor sending disputes to arbitration, because the process is simpler than litigation and referrals to arbitration get cases off the court calendar. Arbitration is usually faster, less formal, and less expensive than litigating a case in court. The American Arbitration Association sets rules for arbitrating cases, and arbitrators act as “professional neutrals” in deciding cases, but the process of selecting them is far less formal than that for selecting judges, who are chosen by a political process and assigned to cases. Typically, the parties select a single arbitrator or a panel of three. In the latter situation, each party chooses one member of the panel, and those two select the third. In all likelihood, these processes are set out in the JUA between the parties, but only a review of that agreement would confirm this.

Why are FEC, Brightline Fighting?

We don’t know all the details, but it appears that the parties have a dispute concerning how many passenger trains can fit onto the affected segment of the line, along with FEC’s anticipated freight use. For almost 50 years, there were no passenger trains at all running anywhere on FEC. Then Brightline came along, and now there is a train essentially every hour between Miami and Orlando International Airport, with intermediate stops in South Florida and more planned further north along the coast.

With local service coming, which would act as if it were “Tri-Rail East” as a parallel railroad for local service in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, it would require at least relatively careful scheduling to be sure the line could accommodate all that freight and passenger service. While the line is double-tracked in the region at issue, there are limits to the capacity of any rail line. We don’t know precisely what those limits might be in the present case.

This is the sort of case that often lends itself to arbitration, especially if the arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) have enough familiarity with the railroad to assess capacity intelligently and make a decision with which both parties can live.

Whether that happens is now up to a judge in Miami. We will keep an eye on the case as it proceeds, because capacity issues can arise whenever a new service is introduced on a railroad line. We remember the “Second Battle of Mobile” over Amtrak trains between that city and New Orleans, and we are also aware that trains are running there today, despite that battle. If and when we obtain the original complaint, we will report on it more thoroughly. We are also prepared to report the result of the present case. At this juncture, it appears reasonably likely that the judge will refer it to arbitration, especially if the JUA specifically calls for that. Still, in a litigation, nobody can be sure about a result.

The post FEC, Brightline Fight in Court Over Rail Capacity appeared first on Railway Age.

According to the STB’s receipt of the two Class I’s prefiling notification (download below), UP and NS have indicated that 2023 will be the base year for their impact analysis and that they anticipate filing their application on or before Jan. 29, 2026.

52704Download

The post UP, NS Notify STB of Intent to File Merger Application appeared first on Railway Age.

Canadian Minister of Transport and Internal Trade Chrystia Freeland on Sept. 2 will host the “Made in Canada: Ferries and Rail Summit” in Hamilton, Ontario, which Transport Canada said would help the country’s ferry services, railways, and steel and aluminum industries “remain strong and resilient.”

At the Summit, key industry leaders, suppliers, and governments will “discuss how, by working together, Canada’s rail and ferry industries will use Canadian steel and aluminum to build,” Transport Canada reported Aug. 28. Discussions are slated to address future needs for ferry and rail projects, capacity constraints, and barriers to building in Canada, as well as actions governments could take to support industry.

Prioritizing the use of Canadian steel and aluminum “will help build more resilient supply chains and create new, long-term jobs,” according to Transport Canada. Additionally, this “focus on domestic production ensures that our investments in critical transportation infrastructure—like trains and ferries—directly benefit the people and businesses that form the backbone of our economy,” the government agency noted. “At a time when these industries are facing intense pressure from tariffs, the Summit helps foster a more self-sufficient and stronger industrial base in Canada.”

“Canada’s ferries, railways, and steel and aluminum industries are the engines that keep our economy moving,” said Freeland, who in March was sworn in to her dual roles. “This discussion will bring these sectors together to ensure we’re building with Canadian steel and aluminum, protecting Canadian jobs, and charting the course for the strongest economy in the G7.”

For more information and contacts, click here.

The post Canadian Summit To Bring Together Rail, Ferry, Steel/Aluminum Industries appeared first on Railway Age.

As reporters checked in at the Metropolitan Lounge at the Moynihan Train Hall adjacent to Penn Station New York Aug. 27 for the inaugural ride on the NextGen Acela, they were asked whether they were only taking the train ride or attending the press conference. The two events happened almost simultaneously. While it was possible to do both, as I chose, they were only tangentially related, if at all.

The press conference featured U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Andy Byford, New York’s beloved “Train Daddy,” who has returned to the City as a special advisor to Amtrak’s Board of Directors for the redevelopment of Penn Station.

Byford endorsed some ideas that had been championed by rider-advocates in the region, even though they were not part of previous plans for the Gateway Program, a series of projects ranging from Penn Station westward into New Jersey, almost to Penn Station Newark. Byford said that he plans to use money for station improvements efficiently, rather than rushing into station expansion. He called for through-running to be considered, and he placed plans for Penn South,  a twelve-track expansion of Penn Station, “on hold.”

Those suggestions have gained support of those who believe that through-running between New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Rail Road, eventually including Metro-North, will make more-efficient use of Penn Station capacity than the current use of the facility as a stub-end terminal for local trains on NJT and the LIRR. Metro-North is slated to start using the station relatively soon, for access to a line to the Bronx now under construction. There has also been opposition to Penn South, a component project of the Gateway Program that would build new tracks south of the existing Penn Station, south of 31st Street and heading toward 30th Street. Advocates have objected to Penn South, saying that it would be inconvenient for riders, and that if the existing station tracks can be used more efficiently, there would be no need for Penn South, and money could be saved.

Byford announced a competition for designs for Penn Station development, which will take place next year. A “master developer” will be selected late this year, with preliminary design and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) activities coming next year, according to USDOT’s New York Penn Station Transformation Schedule. Construction is supposed to begin by the end of 2027. Amtrak is now the lead agency on the project, since the Administration took the $7 billion project away from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in April and pulled grant funding.

More specifically, Byford said, “The transformation of Penn Station must be much more than bricks and mortar. It must be about making the station operationally sound, safe, clean and easy to navigate.” He also assured attendees that he could handle a project of this magnitude, mentioning the London Bridge Station project in the U.K., which he managed. “Customers need to feel like they know where to go” he said. Regarding the station as it exists today, he acknowledged: “Everybody recognizes that this is not good enough.”

Local advocates generally agree, including Samuel Turvey, President of ReThinkNYC. Before he took that position, Turvey had advocated for replicating as closely as possible the original 1910-vintage Penn Station designed by McKim, Meade & White for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Byford also said that whether sports and concert venue Madison Square Garden (MSG) stays at its current location above Penn Station or moves will be determined after the competing entries have been reviewed. A proposal by the Grand Penn Alliance would move MSG across Seventh Avenue.

Danny Pearlstein, Policy and Communications Director for the Riders’ Alliance, was quoted as saying: “New public investment in Penn Station must deliver better service for riders, not a monument to greed or arrogance. The real test of success will be in time savings and better access to basic needs and new opportunities across the region, not in gold-plating or mall development.”

FRA quoted Duffy as saying: “Crumbling infrastructure, bleak and dirty architecture, unnavigable hallways, and no inviting spaces for families with kids: The current state of Penn Station is unacceptable … We will transform Penn Station into a world-class transit hub that is beautiful, safe, and clean. The aggressive schedule we’ve outlined will ensure we are back on track to deliver a gleaming monument worthy of New York City.” He also called for increased safety on the city’s transit: “You deserve better.”

While some New Yorkers would say that Penn Station is nowhere near as horrible as Duffy describes it—a visit to Moynihan Train Hall will support that—many would agree that the older station under Madison Square Garden can use improvement. Toward that goal, FRA said, “To jumpstart this aggressive schedule, the Department of Transportation will provide Amtrak with nearly $43 million in federal grant funding … [to] support project development and solicitation of a master developer, as well as permitting and preliminary engineering work.”

Moynihan Train Hall. William C. Vantuono photo Moynihan Train Hall. William C. Vantuono photo

Duffy also addressed one of his political pet peeves: the Congestion Pricing program that is still in operation in the southern portion of Manhattan—despite his nonsensical objections. While he acknowledged that litigation is ongoing, he said, “To drive a car, you shouldn’t have to be elite. You shouldn’t have to be wealthy. We don’t think that elites are the only ones who can afford to drive in the city. I think the streets should be open to everybody. Not just those who can afford to pay the congestion pricing. Roads should be free.” He did not call for transit to be free, nor did he mention that motorists could take transit for one-third of the cost of the congestion toll, which is currently $9.00 during the day and early evening and $2.25 at night. The base fare for New York City Transit is now $2.90 and is slated to rise a whopping ten cents to $3.00.

Meanwhile, the Congestion Pricing toll is producing the desired effects of reducing vehicular traffic south of 60th Street in Manhattan, speeding traffic flow for all vehicles including buses, improving the local environment, and helping pay for the capital program that finances needed improvements in NYCT infrastructure (90%), with some of the proceeds going to the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North (10% each).

Duffy concluded his remarks by saying, “We care about New York City. The President cares.”* Few New Yorkers would believe that assertion, but few would dispute that Penn Station can use some improvement, which has been a long time coming. Construction should start slightly more than two years from now. As for completion, one date mentioned, whether realistic or not, is Jan. 19, 2029.

*Andy Byford cares. Duffy and POTUS 47 couldn’t care less. – William C. Vantuono

The post Byford Pushes PSNY as Duffy Trashes Congestion Toll appeared first on Railway Age.

Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s “Pulse of the Continent” film about the historic, nearly 10,000 mile, three-nation journey of 2816, The Empress, on the Final Spike Steam Tour, is set to premiere Sept. 20 at the 2025 Calgary International Film Festival in Canada. The epic round-trip tour from Calgary to Mexico City spanned 76 days in 2024.

See the story of the 2816, the “remarkable 93-year-old icon brought back to life” after two years of restoration, plus her crew filmed along their journey from Calgary to Mexico City and back, CPKC reported Aug. 28, the day tickets went on sale for the 6 p.m. event taking place at the Globe Cinema in downtown Calgary. The runtime is 52 minutes.

The film (watch trailer below) will highlight:

• Final Spike Steam Tour stops from Calgary to Chicago to Kansas City to Mexico City connecting an entire continent. Public events were held in multiple cities across the network, kicking off in Calgary on April 24, 2024. Steam tour events were held in Moose Jaw, Minot, St. Paul, Franklin Park, Davenport, Kansas City, Shreveport, Laredo, Mexico City and Winnipeg. At these stops, the public had the opportunity to see the 2816 up close, learn more about the locomotive and CPKC’s history, and enjoy the Puffer Belly Express mini-train, a quarter scale steam locomotive model.

Thousands came out to see The Empress at the June 7, 2024, public event in Mexico City, as CPKC celebrated the culmination of the Final Spike Steam Tour’s three-country, cross-continental journey, which set off from Calgary, Alberta, on April 26, 2024. The crew returned home July 10, 2024. (CPKC Photographs)

• “North America’s diverse landscapes, seen from the best seat in the house—the rails stretching between cities, mountains, and endless horizons,” CPKC said.

• Behind-the-scenes exclusives. “Hear from the passionate team of railroaders who made this tour a reality,” according to the railroad.

• Community moments. “Feel the enthusiasm and spirited welcome of the thousands who welcomed the 2816 all along the way,” CPKC noted.

(Courtesy of CPKC)

The journey began in Calgary on April 24, 2024, to mark the one-year anniversary of the official merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern to form CPKC. The train, led by The Empress, H-1b Hudson-type 4-6-4 2816, built by Montreal Locomotive Works in December 1930, delighted thousands who gathered trackside to see it go by and participate in special events along the way.

Behind 2816, whose primary tender carried 4,600 gallons of fuel oil and 12,000 gallons of water, were two auxiliary water tenders, each holding 23,000 gallons; two EMD FP9A locomotives, 1401 and 1407, as protective power; a tool car with a fully equipped machine shop; and 14 cars. 

Inside The Empress: Fireman Justin Tracy, CPKC Senior Manager, Heritage Mechanical and Steam. (William C. Vantuono Photograph)

Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono spent two days on board with his wife, Sabina Di Risio, riding from Kansas City to Shreveport as part of the historic trip, which CPKC CEO Keith Creel shared first with Railway Age in September 2021 when CP and KCS signed the papers to create (with Surface Transportation Board approval pending) North America’s first and only single-line transnational railroad. “We of course do not want to get out in front of the STB, but if all goes as anticipated, 2816 will be on the head end, in full steam,” he told Vantuono at that time.

“It was worth the wait!” Vantuono said after the tour, which he covered for the magazine as a photograph-packed feature article and special video with footage from on board, including inside 2816’s cab, and trackside, plus photographs and run-by footage from Bishop Taylor of Louisiana Rail Productions (watch below).

Learn more about the Final Spike Steam Tour here.

Vital Statistics on The Empress

• Locomotive Number: 2816
• Class: H1b
• Builder: Montreal Locomotive Works
• Date built: December 1930
• Last revenue run: May 26, 1960
• Type: Hudson
• Wheel arrangement: 4 – 6- 4
• Tractive effort: 45,300 lb. (20,548 kg)
• Driving wheel diameter: 75 in. (190.5 cm)
• Total operating weight (including tender):  643,000 lb. (291,665 kg)
• Extreme length (including tender): 91 ft. 2 in. (27.8 meters)
• Extreme height: 15 ft 3 in (4.6 meters)
• Original cost: $116,555
• Converted from coal to oil: March 1999

“Allan Parris (standing, second from right) and his Royal Canadian Pacific staff provided a memorable experience on board,” Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono reported in 2024. Seated from left: CPKC Senior Vice President Operations Tracy Miller, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Redd, and Chief of Staff Chad Becker; Vantuono’s wife, Sabina Di Risio and Vantuono. (William C. Vantuono Photograph)

The post Coming to the Big Screen: CPKC’s ‘Pulse of the Continent’ appeared first on Railway Age.

One year after Knorr-Bremse’s acquisition of KB Signaling, the Control, Command, and Signaling (CCS) business unit based in Grain Valley, Mo., the company has been integrated into Knorr-Bremse Group. In the course of a successful first business year with strong profit, KB Signaling has further optimized its operations, portfolio, and further strengthened customer focus—becoming an even more comprehensive partner for rail signaling solutions worldwide. Fully in line with Knorr-Bremse’s BOOST strategic program, KB Signaling is thereby making a key contribution to the sustainable growth and long-term development of Knorr-Bremse.

KB Signaling was acquired from Alstom in 2024, including the unit’s complete North American conventional signaling portfolio, sales, service, and manufacturing operations. It joined the freight and transit groups to round out Knorr-Bremse’s rail business units in North America. In total, approximately 700 employees work on solutions for customers in the passenger and transit as well as rail freight segments and deliver long-term service for KB Signaling’s large installed base of products worldwide.

“Rail mobility is increasingly driven by the seamless interaction of two safety-critical elements: rail vehicles and infrastructure,” says Dr. Nicolas Lange, Member of the Executive Board of Knorr-Bremse AG with global responsibility for the Rail Division. “So, it was entirely logical that we should enter the rail signaling business. By providing solutions for trains and trackside, we continue to make a major contribution to improving and accelerating rail traffic while enhancing safety and reliability in rail networks. The move represented a well-thought-out diversification of our business—a significant step in our global intent to transform from a vehicle system supplier to a leading platform partner for the entire rail ecosystem.”

KB Signaling Managing Director Jeff Baker says: “The progress we’ve seen at KB Signaling over the past year reflects the strength of our people, the relevance of our technologies, and the clarity of our long-term direction. Our successful transformation is making a difference every day. By combining deep engineering expertise with a renewed customer-first culture, KB Signaling is helping to drive Knorr-Bremse’s vision of delivering safety-critical and mission-critical systems to the rail ecosystem worldwide.”

Integrated Solutions to Enhance Rail Safety, Efficiency

KB Signaling’s products are divided into track-based and train-based solutions. The former includes electronic signaling elements on or alongside railway tracks including solutions for interlockings, level crossings and track circuits, as well as systems for the intelligent condition monitoring of tracks and switches, complete with data analytics (Wayside Intelligence) and automated solutions for making railroad crossings even safer. Vehicle-based solutions include train control, Automatic Train Protection (ATP), and train monitoring functions.

With its integration-friendly approach, KB Signaling is focusing on best-in-class solutions that are compatible with existing infrastructure. This model makes KB Signaling an ideal collaborator for rail operators, system integrators, and transit agencies seeking modular solutions that work within broader project scopes. Many of KB Signaling’s new offerings are powered by the company’s Wayside System Data Management Module (WSDMM), which greatly extends digitalization and data intelligence of rail networks. Recent product highlights include:

• Rail TempEst, a groundbreaking software application that leverages existing rail infrastructure to estimate rail temperature and longitudinal force in real time—helping operators reduce the risk of buckling and rail break-related derailments without installing new sensors.
• IXC-R20, the rail industry’s first redundant solid-state crossing controller, providing seamless failover functionality and thus offering even greater safety, reliability and maximum compatibility with existing systems.
• Electro Code 6 (EC6), an advanced digital track circuit that enables precise train detection and data-driven insights into ballast condition and rail integrity—particularly effective in challenging environments like coastal or contaminated track beds.
• The KB Signaling Certified Developer Program, which is expanding the WSDMM software ecosystem with partner-built applications—replacing legacy local components with software-based solutions already deployed on thousands of fielded WSDMM devices.

On Course for Global Expansion

KB Signaling’s already strong position in the North American marketplace provides the opportunity to expand its focus and renew alignment with customers worldwide—specifically, in regions that have immediate applicability for existing technology.

“We see major opportunities to serve markets beyond our home base in North America that comply with the AAR (Association of American Railroads) standards,” says KB Signaling’s Jeff Baker. “In particular, we see operators in Australia, South America, and parts of Europe exploring how KB Signaling’s solutions can complement or enhance their existing infrastructure. Many of these customers are seeking alternatives to rigid turnkey packages and want to incorporate solutions that provide greater scalability and flexibility and utilize local expertise.”

The entry into international markets reflects Knorr-Bremse’s broader approach to deliver customized CCS offerings worldwide. In the mid-term, Knorr-Bremse has set its sights on Europe and Asia, where the company aims to benefit from the dynamic growth of local rail markets through, for example, partnerships and possible acquisitions.

In European markets, such as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which operate according to CENELEC standards (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization), Knorr-Bremse is already implementing KB Signaling products in customer projects—generating new business opportunities and synergies with the ongoing activities of its European signaling technology brand, Zelisko. The total volume of the rapidly growing global CCS market, to which Knorr-Bremse has gained access with KB Signaling, is estimated at up to € 20 billion.

Further Reading:

• KB Signaling Showcases QuEST Rail Software-Based LCP at Railway Interchange 2025
• KB Signaling Expands WSDMM
• Knorr-Bremse, Nexxiot to Launch Suite of Smart Products for Improving Rail Connectivity
• Alstom Sells North American ‘Conventional Signaling’ Business to Knorr-Bremse AG

The post One Year of KB Signaling appeared first on Railway Age.

New trainsets have come to Amtrak for its Acela higher-speed service on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The NextGen Acela trains manufactured by Alstom made their debut in a ceremonial run with trainset no. 14, which left Penn Station New York at 2:00 on Aug. 27, with intermediate stops at New Haven and Providence, and a scheduled arrival time at Boston’s South Station at 6:47. Amtrak called the first trip the “Acela-bration!”

New Trainsets at Last Amtrak President Roger Harris. William C. Vantuono photo

Amtrak announced Aug. 7 that the new trainsets would be placed into revenue service on Aug. 28. The announcement proclaimed: “NextGen Acela is the all-new, premium ride from Amtrak, running between major city centers from Washington, D.C. to New York to Boston and destinations in between. Designed with innovative features and amenities, you can experience First Class and Business Class travel on America’s only high-speed rail service.” While Acela trains reach “high-speed rail” velocities of 150 mph for only about 40 miles of the 457-mile route, and 160 mph for a smaller portion, more of the run is accomplished at “high-performance rail” speeds, which are faster than those at which conventional trains operate.

Amtrak says that the top speed will be 160 mph, and there will 28 new trainsets, with 27% more capacity than the current Acela consists: 386 seats, compared to the 304 on the consists that will be replaced. In 2016, Amtrak said: “By adding 40% more trainsets than the current Acela Express fleet, we are providing you with more travel options. Upon delivery of the new trainsets, Acela Express service will be offered every half-hour between Washington, D.C. and New York City during peak times, and every hour between New York City and Boston throughout the day. This expanded fleet will give you even more departure options during peak travel times.” The new consists will replace the current fleet of 20 six-car sets.

The new equipment has been a long time coming, nine years in fact. It was 2016 that Joe Biden, then Vice President, announced a $2.45 billion package of federal loans to purchase the equipment and perform a few upgrades to the NEC. At the time, the new trainsets were expected to be phased in during 2021 and 2022. Now, four years after the original expected start date, the new equipment is entering service. Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono offered a preview of the new trainsets one week before service began. He described some of the technical difficulties that the project encountered, as well as a tour he took with Railway Age Publisher Jon Chalon of one trainset in at Philadelphia 30th Street Station. He gave the design high marks.

Amtrak touted the “U.S. Economic Impact” in a fact sheet distributed for the event. It notes that the new equipment uses “95% domestically sourced components” made by “180+ suppliers in 29 states” with “15,000 jobs that support manufacturing nationwide,” and that “1,200+ Alstom employees contributed to NextGen Acela” based on a 2020 economic analysis by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Café Car staff. William C. Vantuono photo First Day Revenue Schedule

I checked the schedule for Thursday, Aug. 28, the first day that the NextGen trains would run in revenue service. From New York to Boston, NextGen would leave at 10:02 AM and arrive at 1:55 PM, and 6:02 PM for a 9:58 PM arrival, both with a 3:53 running time). They would leave Boston at 5:55 AM for a scheduled arrival at 9:50, and 4:12 PM with a scheduled arrival at 8:01, with 3:55 and 3:49 running time, respectively. From New York to Washington, D.C., the new trains leave at 10:00 AM, scheduled to arrive at 1:00 PM for a 3:00 running time, and 8:12 PM, scheduled to arrive at 11:16, for a 3:04 running time. From Washington to New York, trains leave at 6:50 AM, scheduled arrival 9:50 AM and 2:50 PM, scheduled arrival 5:48 PM. All trains using the new equipment travel between Washington and Boston, with a running time within a few minutes of seven hours, end to end. That compares with conventional trains, which take about 75 to 90 minutes longer. Within a few minutes, the NextGen trains are scheduled for the same running time as other Acela trains, at least for now.

The Trainsets Business Class car. William C. Vantuono photo

In his Aug. 21 article, Vantuono described the consists for the new trains this way: “The 28 TGV-based trainsets will be phased into service through 2027, sharing duties with their now 25-year-old predecessor …  The NextGen Acela is articulated, offers axle loads much lower than the first-generation equipment, and is equipped with Alstom’s Tiltronix active-tilt system. It also offers 27% higher passenger capacity … The power cars are constructed of carbon steel, the coaches of aluminum. The trainsets meet FRA Tier III ‘Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets.’ Certified for operations at up to 186 mph (300 kph), they will operate at a maximum speed of 160 mph on the NEC.” There are nine articulated cars in the consist, with a café car at the center of the train.

Amtrak engineer Paul Polombi in the cab, which features a center seating position. William C. Vantuono photo

A few of the NextGen trains are now on the rails and can be seen along the NEC. They are propelled by power cars at each end, sporting the elongated noses typically associated with high-speed rail (HSR) units in Europe or Asia, and identified only as NextGen Acela units. The cars themselves are sleek, sporting a red, white, and blue livery, although the blue is lighter than the color of the canton in the American flag. It gives the appearance of a fast train, much more so than the original Acela cars.

Opinions on passenger comfort will, of course, vary. Vantuono finds the seats “comfortable and supportive” and the design changes and materials from the original Acela “a marked improvement, very intuitive and high-tech.”

My take is a bit different, and bear in mind that my passenger train experiences date back to well before Amtrak’s arrival in 1971. To use an old expression, the seats are not “built for comfort,” even in the First Class car with 2-1 seating. Business Class seats are similar, in 2-2 configuration. There is no Coach Class. The upgraded Amfleet coach that a group of us rode from New Haven to New York seemed more comfortable, in part because of the softer and deeper cushioning of the seats on the older cars.

A rough measurement of the NextGen Acela seats showed that they are 22 inches wide, and the pitch (distance between rows) is 42 inches. There was a small footrest like some bus seats have, but there is not enough room to stretch legs, even though there is more apparent legroom without using the footrest, such as it is. The seats are fixed and do recline, albeit differently in that the seat cushion slides forward, bringing the bottom of the seatback with it. Vantuono says this feature “prevents a reclined seatback from intruding into the passenger space behind it—a much better design.”

Since the seats are fixed and don’t need to be turned—which Vantuono says “reduces moving parts and maintenance costs as well as the time needed to prep a trainset at the end of a run for a trip in the opposite direction”—half face “backwards” always. Longtime New Jersey advocate Albert L. Papp, a civil engineer who is familiar with European equipment, said the design is a hybrid of Alstom’s AGV. The “half facing backward” configuration is standard for trains in Europe. To me, that does not necessarily mean that Americans will be as open to riding backwards for hours as riders in Europe.

The washrooms are ADA-compliant and feature touchless sink controls and electronic pushbutton door controls and locks that “talk,” telling patrons that the door is locked. William C. Vantuono

The trainset has nine passenger cars, although “sections” might be a more appropriate term, because all the cars are articulated. (The power cars at either end are not). In essence, that means the consist is fixed. Seven sections are configured for Business Class, while a section at one end of the train (with a red exterior door instead of a white one) is First Class, a space where an attendant can arrange food to serve to passengers. One positive note is that, unlike on some other equipment, the seats line up with the windows, two rows of seats for each window, so only the very ends of the sections have bits of windowless bulkhead.

Self-service Café Car. William C. Vantuono photo.

There is a café car in the middle of the train, but it is different from other such cars on Amtrak. Foods like sandwiches and salads are available in a refrigerated storage compartment, not unlike other food-service cars. The difference is that there is no seating. The railroad tradition of having tables where riders can enjoy sips or snacks with fellow travelers and engage in conversation is not observed on the NextGen Acela trains.

Overall, the cars themselves to me do not seem to constitute an improvement in comfort or camaraderie over the older equipment. The congeniality of the café car tables is gone, the seats are stiff and not particularly comfortable, and half the riders must face backwards and look at where they have been, rather than where they are going, throughout the entire trip. To make matters worse, Amtrak charges a premium fare on Acela trains, some fares exceeding $500 for departures planned.

The Ride Alstom Americas Region President Michael Keroullé has many reasons to smile. William C. Vantuono photo

Amtrak called the occasion an “Acela-bration” and the name fit. Amtrak employees, from high-level officials to lower-level managers, were on hand, and the Amtrak Board was represented. There were several reporters, some rider-advocates and a variety of other guests. Alstom was represented at a high level, too. The train was given a special number, 880. It was not particularly crowded, as a count between New York Penn Station and New Haven revealed 123 riders, including the crew and other Amtrak employees. Still, it was a special train, replete with conversation about the train, the occasion, the railroad, various technical subjects, and the understanding that NextGen trains are finally running.

Automatically extending bridge plates “close the gap” between car and platform. William C. Vantuono photo

The ride between Penn Station and New Haven was not have been a particularly fair test of the new equipment, because most of it took place on Metro-North, the slowest part of the NEC. The ride took about as long as Amtrak’s conventional trains to get from New York to New Haven and only a few minutes longer than it takes Metro-North to get there from Grand Central Terminal, even with all the stops east of Stamford. Still, the train did not ride particularly well, which was probably more a function of the track structure and its state of good repair. It was difficult to tell whether the tilting mechanism was in use, because speeds on Metro-North do not rise to the level of “high-performance” rail, so the tilting feature might not have been useful, under the circumstances. Nonetheless, the cars did not ride particularly smoothly, and it appeared that the ride in the Amfleet I cars on Train 55 (the Vermonter) was smoother over the same stretch of railroad.

While I and several others got off at New Haven to return to New York, Railway Age Publisher Jon Chalon got on there and rode to Providence, a segment that allows much faster running, with a tangent section containing 18 miles cleared for up to 160 mph. He told me about his impression of the ride: “The new Acela is unlike any other train in the U.S. The interior is elegant and feels very sophisticated. I felt like I was on a European or Asian high-speed train.” On the high-speed segment, “the train flies,” he said. “I clocked it on my iPhone at 155 mph. Bravo Amtrak and Alstom.”

A Train by Any Other Name?

The “Acela” brand is the successor to the Metroliner, the first high-performance trains in the NEC, which started running between New York and Washington, D.C. in 1969 under Penn Central with Budd Company electric multiple-units , continuing with Amtrak, transitioning to electric-locomotive-hauled Budd Amfleet coaches until the first-generation Acela debuted in the early 2000s. The northern portion of what is now the NEC to Boston was not electrified yet. When Amtrak was looking toward its new line of high-performance trains that would run between the Nation’s Capital and Boston, a New York consultant/branding firm came up with “Acela,” described as a combination of “acceleration” and “excellence”—two words seldom heard together. At the time, rider-advocates questioned the name, saying it was a synonym for “basement” (”a cellar”), pronounced with a Boston or New York City accent. Others said it sounded like “ascella,” Italian for “armpit.” Former Amtrak head David Gunn did not like the name either, but he didn’t change it.

Papp suggested “Metroliner 21” to indicate the progression into the new century, but Amtrak did not take his suggestion. Vantuono also commented in his August 21 report, previously cited: “By the way, do you think it should be renamed Metroliner? I’ve always liked that name. It sounds more like a train …” This writer remembers Metroliner, too, and also likes that name.

There is also another alternative that has been proposed. Scott R. Spencer, Chief Operating Officer at AmeriStarRail, which wants to run more trains on the NEC and its branches than Amtrak does, has suggested “Liberty Liner 250” as an alternative proposal, perhaps even as an alternative that Amtrak could support. He also called for higher-speed trains with “triple-class service” that would include Coach passengers, along with Business and First Class. He told Railway Age: “When the Amtrak conductor yells ‘All Aboard,’ that should mean everybody, including coach passengers.” He also said the “250” in his proposal stands for not only the 250th anniversary of the country and the events connected with its founding and the War for Independence that took place in the region, but also for the 250 kph speed (actually 256 kph, which is equal to 160 mph).

In the meantime, Amtrak is moving forward with trains that will run under the NextGen Acela flag. They have a fast and snappy look, and Amtrak is counting on them to succeed with riders who are looking for an upscale rail travel experience on the country’s busiest stretch of passenger railroad.

Your intrepid reporter in the First Class car. William C. Vantuono photo

The post NextGen Acela Inaugural Run Impressions appeared first on Railway Age.

The firing by POTUS 47 of outspoken Surface Transportation Board (STB) member and Democrat Robert E. Primus Aug. 27 leaves the five-member agency short two members as it awaits a formal merger application from Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS). By early morning Aug. 28, Primus’ name was removed from the STB website’s listing of members.

The three remaining members are Chairman Patrick J. Fuchs, Michelle A. Schultz and Karen J. Hedlund. Fuchs and Schultz are Republicans; Hedlund a Democrat.

Significantly, there is no statutory quorum requirement at the STB. It may function with even just a single member, as it did for a 54-week period between mid-May 2003 and late May 2004 when two vacancies caused Chairperson Roger Nober to become the lone STB member. There was a recurrence of a one-person STB for 16 days in January 2019 when Chairperson Ann D. Begeman awaited the arrival of reinforcements. At the time, the STB was a three-member agency. The 2015 Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act increased its size to five.

This is the first time in the 138-year history of the STB and its Interstate Commerce Commission predecessor that a member has been fired by a President. The STB’s statute provides for dismissal for cause—misconduct, poor performance, or other substantial breaches of job duties—but carries due process protection allowing the terminated official to hear the allegations and respond. No such allegations were made against Primus by POTUS 47.

Robert E. Primus (Screen Grab from Government Hearing)

Primus, age 55 and a former House of Representatives staff member, told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the firing, that he intends to challenge his removal in federal court. He is not alone. Just days ago, POTUS 47 fired Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who is pursuing legal action. In her case, POTUS 47 alleged misconduct related to conduct outside her official duties.

Both the STB and Federal Reserve are independent (from the Executive Branch) regulatory agencies—STB members nominated by the POTUS for five-year terms; Federal Reserve Board members for 14 years, with Senate confirmation required for each of the agency’s members.

Earlier this year, POTUS 47 fired Gwyne A. Wilcox, a member of the independent (from Executive Branch) National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). She was a President Joe Biden nominee. A three-judge federal appellate court panel ruled the termination could stand pending finality of her legal challenge as to the constitutionality of the firing. A full-court panel reversed that decision, only to have the U.S. Supreme Court issue an emergency stay, keeping her sidelined while her case proceeds through lower courts.

In February, POTUS 47 fired Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, also a Biden nominee. As with Wilcox, an appellate court reinstated her, and the Supreme Court blocked the reinstatement pending lower court determination as to the constitutionality of the firing.

In 2020 (Seila v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), the Supreme Court ruled the President has authority to dismiss an independent agency’s single director, but drew a distinction with multi-member boards such as the NLRB and STB. In 2021 (Collins v. Yellen) the Court held that restrictions on the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency violate the Constitution.

Previously controlling was a 1935 Supreme Court decision (Humphrey’s Executor), holding that the President may not dismiss independent agency members without showing cause and allowing for due process. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired Republican Humphrey, who died while his case was under judicial review, because of policy differences and not misconduct. The Court held that members of independent agencies do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do members of Executive Branch agencies such as the Cabinet level Department of Transportation and its Federal Railroad Administration.

How long Primus’ challenge to his firing may take to move through the judicial system is unknown, and likely will be tied to other such challenges that will ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

Primus, who was nominated in 2020 by POTUS 47 during the President’s first term, was renominated by President Joe Biden to his second (and final by statute) term that was to expire Dec. 31, 2027. Since his arrival, Primus has been a frequent outspoken critic of railroad service, operations and hiring practices.

Martin J. Oberman (Screen Grab from Government Hearing)

During his time as a Board member—and eight months as a President Joe Biden-named Board chairperson, following the retirement of Democrat Martin J. Oberman—Primus never advanced a regulatory reform initiative (a priority of POTUS 47). He preferred a soapbox from which to admonish railroads at the expense of missing numerous statutory deadlines.

In December, Primus challenged the “quality” of data provided the STB by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) as “substandard,” with AAR President Ian Jefferies responding by calling out Primus as choosing to “forego information gathering, fact checking, and basic courtesy and cooperation in favor of publicity.”

Previously, while chairperson, Primus, without consultation with other STB members, summoned rail officials to Washington for a public hearing at which he excoriated them over hiring practices and implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading (a strategy to improve productivity and lower costs, and opposed by rail labor). Days earlier, Primus was hosted by the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD), telling its leadership, “Thank you for letting me represent you.”

Primus was the lone “no” vote when the Board approved the merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern to form CPKC. He cited market-power concentration and concern that mergers “degrade working conditions, depress wages and impair or eliminate organized labor.”

STB Chairman Patrick Fuchs. (Photograph Courtesy of STB)

Upon election to his second White House term in January, POTUS 47 demoted Primus from the chairpersonship and elevated Fuchs. That likely would have occurred regardless of Primus’ record as chairperson, as STB chairpersons serve at the pleasure of the President and typically are changed out when Presidential administrations change. Being fired is another matter.

Notably, while Primus has had testy exchanges with railroad CEOs, his exchanges with UP CEO Jim Vena have been cordial, with Vena recently paying a personal visit to Primus.

Currently, the STB has a Republican vacancy awaiting POTUS 47 nomination. Whether courts allow a nominee to fill Primus’ now vacant Democratic seat, ahead of a judicial determination on his firing, is to be seen.

Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner is author of “Railroads & Economic Regulation,” available from Simmons-Boardman Books, 800-228-9670.

The post Did Primus Engineer His Own Ouster? appeared first on Railway Age.

CSX President and CEO Joe Hinrichs, Railway Age’s 2025 Railroader of the Year, appeared on CNBC’s “Mad Money” on Aug. 27. He and host Jim Cramer talked about the rail industry’s current environment, and how CSX was recently targeted by activist investor Ancora Holdings—which the famously glib, animated Cramer referred to as “some fund I don’t know jack about.”

Hinrichs, a frequent “Mad Money” guest, responded to Cramer’s questions about the Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern proposed merger, and CSX’s response to calls for it to explore a combination with BNSF. Cramer also said Ancora’s personal attack on Hinrichs was unfair and uncalled for—prefacing his remark by saying, “First, just so people know, Railway Age is the most important publication in this industry, and you are the railroad man of the year.”

We appreciate the shoutout, and reiterate that Ancora’s criticisms of CSX and Hinrich’s leadership is purposely based on distortions and fabrications

Hinrichs highlighted the importance of “collaboration over consolidation,” stating, “The biggest problem that needs to be solved is interchanges.” He also pointed to CSX’s “strong position” in the industry, citing the railroad’s “robust network, best-in-class margins, and high employee engagement … Our focus is on creating value for shareholders and serving customers better so that we can profitably grow the business. That involves people working effectively together.”

Despite problems like Hurricane Helene disrupting one of CSX’s four north-south routes and ongoing work overhauling and double-stack clearing the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore, the company achieved a 550-basis-point operating margin improvement in 2025’s first half.

“Even with all that going on, we still have some of the best operating metrics in the business because of our people,” Hinrichs said. “And we’re still focused on doing what’s right for shareholders, profitably growing the business, and serving our customers better. We can do all of those by working with other railroads effectively.” He stressed that it doesn’t require waiting for an STB merger approval to accomplish that. “Wait until you see what we do over the next couple of years!” he said.

Way to go, Joe! 

The post Hinrichs to Cramer: ‘Wait Until You See What We Do Over the Next Couple of Years! appeared first on Railway Age.

NS

Thanks to the craftmanship and skill of NS’s railroaders at the Juniata Locomotive Shop, the Class I’s Illinois Terminal heritage unit has been newly restored.

According to a LinkedIn post, it took 95 gallons of primer, paint, and clear coat, plus 750 hours of grit blasting, prepping, painting, and decal work to bring #1072 back to life.

Separately, NS delivered nearly 160 massive wind turbine components to Timbermill Wind, a 1,933-acre renewable energy project in Chowan County, N.C. The site will feature 45 turbines generating clean energy for thousands of homes.

(NS photo)

According to the Class I, Timbermill Wind is the largest project between NS and wind turbine leader Vestas, “and a major step toward a more sustainable energy future.” According to Vestas, every 24 hours, wind generates enough kinetic energy to produce 35 times more electricity than is used each day.

The route spanned 10 states, ending in Morehead City, where trains ran down the center of a four-lane highway. City crews removed signs and coordinated traffic to guide components the size of buildings to the port. Most parts—including tower sections, nacelles, and drive trains—moved by rail, according to NS.

Delivering these massive clean energy components safely took a full NS team effort, the Class I noted. This included:

• Engineering & Clearances – teams mapped the route with LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology.
• Commercial, Logistics, and Network Operations Center (NOC) – kept operations flowing.
• Short line partner Carolina Coastal Railway – helped coordinate final delivery to the Timbermill site.

“If it’s big and complicated, we’ll move it as long as it’s safe to do so. We love the opportunity to show how fluid we are at moving big, heavy shipments,” said Kristie Riddle, Industrial Products Account Manager.

NS Says it is exploring future wind collaborations to create additional clean energy solutions.

CSX

CSX announced Aug. 26 that it has been recognized as Maersk’s Intermodal Supplier of the Year in North America for 2025, “a prestigious honor that highlights the strength of the partnership between the two companies and CSX’s commitment to service excellence.”

The award, the Class I says, “reflects CSX’s instrumental role in building resilient, customer-focused supply chains across the region.” Maersk, one of CSX’s most valued intermodal customers, commended the company’s “dedication to improving on-time performance and delivering industry-leading reliability.”

(CSX photo)

“CSX’s continued focus on improving on-time performance has been a key factor for delivering industry-leading reliability to Maersk customers, and I’m grateful for the collaboration and shared commitment to excellence,” said Angel Mavares Bermudez, Maersk’s Regional Head of Procurement, Logistics and Services.

The award criteria included customer experience, ease of doing business, service reliability, competitiveness, and strategic alignment.

CSX’s Commercial and Operations teams, including Customer Solutions, Intermodal Terminal Teams, Intermodal International Marketing and Sales, Intermodal Network Operations Center, Service Design, and Service Planning and Transportation, were instrumental in achieving this recognition, the Class I noted.

“Our Intermodal Operations teams are the best in the industry, and we take tremendous satisfaction in delivering innovative solutions that drive results, build strong relationships, and offer superior service,” said Carrie Crozier, CSX Vice President of Intermodal Operations.

The award was presented during a recent executive performance review, where CSX and Maersk also discussed ongoing initiatives in technology, innovation, and sustainability—key focus areas for both companies in today’s logistics landscape.

“Congratulations to the entire ONE CSX team. Everyone should be incredibly proud of this recognition and celebrate their contributions to our shared success. Maersk highlighted the great work from our organization across the board—this truly is a ONE CSX award,” said CSX Vice President of Intermodal Sales and Marketing Drew Johnson.

This recognition, the Class I says, “underscores CSX’s dedication to delivering exceptional service and fostering strong partnerships. The company continues to prioritize innovation and collaboration to meet the evolving needs of its customers.”

In related news, CSX on Aug. 27 released its 2024 Sustainability Report, “highlighting the company’s progress and initiatives across its four core pillars: Safety, Service, Sustainability, and Stewardship.”

(CSX photo)

Central to this year’s report is the introduction of “Service with Purpose,” a comprehensive platform that “reflects CSX’s commitment to delivering long-term value for employees, customers, communities, and stakeholders,” according to the Class I.

“Service with Purpose represents our deep belief that doing business the right way not only strengthens the company’s foundation but also helps create stronger communities and mutually beneficial relationships,” said CSX President and CEO Joe Hinrichs. “From the people we serve to the freight we move; we know that purpose-driven performance creates lasting value. Our 2024 Sustainability Report unpacks how our teams brought these pillars to life.”

The 2024 Sustainability Report (download below) “underscores CSX’s leadership in integrating sustainability, safety, and social responsibility into its business strategy,” the Class I noted. Key highlights from the report include:

Safety

• “Achieved the lowest lost workdays recorded in CSX history.
• “Provided SAFE CSX training and in-field coaching to 100% of operations managers.
• “Trained more than 8,200 first responders and law enforcement personnel to protect community safety.”

Service

• “Completed 82,580 hours of training through the ONE CSX Academy.
• “Advanced over 550 industrial development projects in the pipeline.
• “Distributed $664,000 in hurricane relief to employees in need.”

Sustainability

• “Achieved 528 revenue ton-miles per gallon fuel efficiency.
• “Helped customers avoid over 10 million tons of CO2 emissions.
• “Improved fuel efficiency by 4% year-over-year.”

Stewardship

• “CSX employees contributed more than 24,000 volunteer hours across 800+ communities.
• “Anne Chow and Ann Begeman joined Board of Directors, in 2024 and 2025, respectively.
• “91% of information security team credentialed with industry-recognized cybersecurity certification.”

The report also highlights innovations such as CSX’s first hydrogen-powered locomotive, the deployment of industry-leading safety technologies, and record customer satisfaction scores. These achievements, the Class I says, “reflect the company’s commitment to purpose-driven performance that benefits all stakeholders.”

“As we look ahead to celebrating our 200th year as a company, 2024 reaffirmed that when we work together—united by a shared vision and values—we can navigate unforeseen challenges and build a better future for all,” Hinrichs added.

2024-CSX-Sustainability-ReportDownload UP

UP’s infrastructure investments are expanding intermodal capacity to deliver time-sensitive freight faster for Southern California customers, the Class I recently reported. With nearly $10 million invested daily across its 23-state network, UP says it is “enhancing infrastructure, technology and network reach to safely deliver the service it sold.”

The latest upgrades span nine miles of main line track from Bon View to South Fontana, Calif., where Engineering teams installed double track, rebuilt two bridges and a culvert, and reinforced sidings, “enabling more trains to move through the area and improving network connectivity,” according to UP.

Engineering teams safely completed a series of track projects, expanding intermodal freight capacity adjacent to its Inland Empire Intermodal Terminal in California. (UP photo)

“Adding track increased velocity and network fluidity for freight entering Inland Empire Intermodal Terminal,” said Paul Ivey, Senior Manager-Track and Civil Construction. “It’s a key part of Union Pacific’s intermodal facilities expansion plan in the LA area.”

The Los Angeles Basin is a vital hub for international intermodal traffic. With five intermodal ramps strategically located across the region, UP says it is “uniquely positioned to provide customers with fast, reliable access to domestic and international markets.”

UP recently launched a truck-competitive domestic intermodal service connecting Inland Empire Intermodal Terminal to Chicago’s Global 2 Intermodal Terminal. With a three-day transit, customers will see up to 20% faster service compared to current industry offerings between these key locations, according to the Class I.

“By delivering consistent service for our customers, we’re encouraging continued growth in the region,” said David Pratt, Senior Manager-Resource Planning.

Union Pacific’s new nonstop double track to Inland Empire Intermodal Terminal bolsters intermodal service routes connecting Los Angeles ports to national markets. (UP photo)

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

In a way, the rail scene in New Orleans and on the Mississippi Gulf Coast has come full circle, within a few days of the 20th anniversary of one of the worst disasters in the history of the region. On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near the Mississippi-Louisiana border on the Gulf Coast. It was one of the most deadly and costly storms in history, causing an estimated death toll of 1,392 persons (including many New Orleanians) and costing $125 billion 2005 dollars. Much of the Crescent City and the towns along the coast were flooded. The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, west of Pass Christian (which is now a stop on Amtrak’s Mardi Gras Service trains) told National Public Radio that 90% of the town’s buildings were severely damaged or destroyed. New Orleans itself would have survived the storm with less damage than it sustained, if a levee had not failed. Because it did, most houses in the Lower Ninth Ward were destroyed. Many New Orleanians were missing after the storm, including musicians Pete Fountain and Fats Domino, who later resurfaced. Others suffered together in the Superdome, which was the shelter of last resort. Non-motorists, who comprise a sizable percentage of the city’s population, were particularly hard-hit, due to a lack of means of escape.

Katrina affected the rail scene, too. Amtrak service was suspended as the storm approached. So was transit in the Crescent City, including the legendary streetcars that ran on St. Charles Avenue and Canal Street. Eventually the streetcar lines came back, and the system is now bigger than it was at the time.

Streetcar suspension and recovery

Katrina knocked out all streetcar service. That included the historic St. Charles Avenue line (which started as a horsecar line in 1835 and was electrified in 1893), the recently restored Canal Street line (1861-1964 and 2004-present), and the Riverfront Line, which had opened for service in 1988.

The St. Charles Avenue line was refurbished after the storm, which included replacing wire that had blown down. Service was restored in phases, beginning with buses in October 2005. As streetcar service was restored, it started as a loop in the city’s Central Business District with street-running track on Carondolet Street and St. Charles Avenue, and along one block of Canal Street (the only block that hosted streetcars continuously) and using a tail track on Howard Avenue near the former Lee Circle for turnarounds. That service began on Dec. 19, 2006. The line was extended to Napoleon Avenue on Nov. 10, 2007, and on the rest of St. Charles Avenue on Dec. 23. The far end of the line, along Carrollton Avenue, reopened on June 22, 2008—nearly three years after the storm. Because of that hiatus, Dayton, Ohio, now claims to operate the longest continuous service of any electric transportation in the nation. Trolleybuses have operated in that city since 1933.

Part of the Canal Street line came back in December 2005, even though the Mid-City car barn flooded severely, damaging all of the cars that were stored there. Reports from the time indicated that water was five feet deep and reached above the tops of the fareboxes, but the cars were eventually repaired and returned to service, beginning in 2009. Brookville Equipment Corp. repaired the trucks, motors and electrical equipment, while other work was performed at the historic Carrollton Barn in the Riverbend neighborhood, which did not flood. Cars from the St. Charles Avenue line, which had been stored at Carrollton, ran again on Canal Street during the recovery period. Brookville Equipment Corp. repaired the trucks, motors and electrical equipment, while other work was performed at the Carrollton Barn.

The Riverfront Line came back on Dec. 22, 2007. A line between the Union Passenger Terminal (UPT) along Loyola Avenue, and along Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenues on the other side of Canal Street, opened for service in 2016. Those lines, or parts of them, have come and gone since then. Still, the streetcar system not only recovered from the storm’s knockout blow but has grown since then.

Some Amtrak trains came back too

For about six weeks, through September and early October, there were no trains running to or from New Orleans, as rail lines surrounding the city were repaired. The trainless Union Passenger Terminal was used as a temporary jail in early September, as reported by KOMO-TV on Sept. 6. Eventually the rail lines were returned to service, and the passenger trains came back. The trains from New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles were cut back to terminating at Atlanta, Memphis, and San Antonio. They later resumed operation into New Orleans. The City of New Orleans was first extended to Hammond, Louisiana (about one hour north of New Orleans) and returned to the Crescent City on Oct. 8, 2005. The Crescent train from New York returned the next day, after temporarily terminating at Meridian, Miss. The Sunset Limited returned to New Orleans later in October.

The Gulf Coast segment of the Sunset Limited, which had been part of a transcontinental operation between Los Angeles and Florida since 1993, did not. While the tracks were repaired by January 2006 according to a Jan. 26 report by Gary Holland in Biloxi’s Sun Herald, the tri-weekly service that had run for the previous 12 years did not come back. Amtrak officially listed the route between the Crescent City and Jacksonville (the train actually ran to Orlando for most of its 12-year incarnation and briefly ran all the way to Miami, but that mileage was served by New York trains) as “suspended.” East of Mobile, it still is, and it appears unlikely that passenger service will return to that part of the line.

Still, there are trains running along the Mississippi Gulf Coast to Mobile again, after a 20-year absence. It took the “Second Battle of Mobile,” which we have covered for years, to get that service back, but the trains are running.

The streetcar network in New Orleans is running, too, and is still considered an icon of the city. The legendary Perley E. Thomas cars that made their debut in 1923 are still running every day, to the delight of locals and tourists alike. So are the red cars with yellow trim designed by streetcar legend Elmer VonDullen. It was only shortly before Katrina struck that streetcar service returned to Canal Street after an absence of nearly 40 years.

New Orleans has lost some of its pre-Katrina population, but it remains an active and vibrant city, with strong civic pride and a uniqueness that tourists still can’t resist sampling. As Amtrak and transit everywhere in the U.S. generally face new and possibly unprecedented challenges, New Orleans appears ready to meet them. Time will tell if the city succeeds in that endeavor, as well as how long Amtrak trains will continue to serve it.

The post Remembering Hurricane Katrina and Rail: 20 Years Later appeared first on Railway Age.

The Washington Metrorail Safety Commission (WMSC) recently performed an audit of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrorail’s control center and operations through in-depth interviews, site visits, and document and data reviews conducted in October and November of 2024, with additional follow-up and document reviews through March 2025.

The scope of the audit (download below), which was released on Aug. 27 and based on WMATA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP), effective Dec. 31, 2023, included the assessment of Metrorail operations both on the mainline and in rail yards, as well as station managers and station operations, and the control center operations. This includes personnel such as interlocking operators, rail vehicle operators (train operators), station managers, rail supervisors, and other associated management, as well as training personnel, and quality assurance personnel.

To meet the audit objectives, the WMSC reviewed operational practices, procedures, equipment, modifications, and associated training in relation to rules, procedures, regulations, and best practices. The WMSC also verified the forgoing against Metrorail’s safety plans governing policy and procedure development, implementation and compliance, management structure, planning and governance, and associated training for the control center and rail operations generally.

The audit also focused on Metrorail corrective action plans including corrective action plans as a result of WMSC findings, WMATA-recommended corrective actions that are overseen by the WMSC, and other corrective actions previously closed by entities such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The audit identified the following nine findings:

• “Finding 1: Metrorail does not have a sufficient number of rail traffic controllers and turnover is increasing.
• “Finding 2: Rail traffic controller written assessments, final assessments, and certification tests present conflicting data regarding an individual’s aptitude.
• “Finding 3: Metrorail does not provide refresher training to rail vehicle operators on incidents and emergencies.
• “Finding 4: Metrorail’s Train the Trainer (T3) program for Rail Training is not defined by Metrorail’s procedures.
• “Finding 5: Metrorail revised ATC local control procedures without first informing all affected staff including rail traffic controllers.
• “Finding 6: Rail traffic controller consoles have been manipulated without their knowledge.
• “Finding 7: Metrorail uses Microsoft Teams chats during safety events but has not demonstrated a review of these records when determining the facts of these events.
• “Finding 8: Metrorail documents have not been updated on the required cadence.
• “Finding 9: Metrorail personnel are not following Metrorail radio transmission rules such as for train identification and location information.”

WMSC issued the following three recommendations:

• “Recommendation 1: Metrorail ‘Service Disruption calls during safety events are led by personnel who are actively managing the event rather than the designated role (Metro 1).
• “Recommendation 2: Rail traffic controllers Advanced Information Management (AIM) system alarms are not standardized across rail traffic controller desks and personnel are not trained on how to arrange their alarm screens.
• “Recommendation 3: Metrorail does not evaluate the effectiveness of Line Platform Instructors (LPI).”

Metrorail is required to propose corrective action plans to address each finding no later than 30 days after the issuance of this report, according to WMSC.

As part of the audit, WMSC conducted 69 in-depth interviews with personnel who work in WMATA’s Metro Integrated Command and Communications Center (control center), Office of Rail Transportation, or Technical Training and Development.

The WMSC also conducted the following observation activities:

• Observation of pre-trip inspection at Greenbelt Rail Yard.
• Observations at the control center including rail traffic controllers, Car Maintenance Desk, Power and Maintenance Desks.
• Observation of Rail Training class.
• Observation of rail traffic controllers in the course of their duties at the control center.
• Observation of rail vehicle operator certification activities.
• Observation of rail traffic controllers in the course of their duties at the control center.
• Observation of Power Desk activities at the control center.
• Observation of quality assurance personnel performing compliance and testing activities.

WMSC-ControlCenterRailOperations-FINALDownload

The post WMSC Issues Audit of Metrorail’s Control Center and Rail Operations appeared first on Railway Age.