Railway Age magazine

BNSF’s second-quarter and first-half 2025 financials saw the Berkshire Hathaway-owned Class I post healthy operating income gains and operating ratio and operating expense decreases, with essentially flat revenues and modest volume gains. The 2Q25 operating ratio dropped 340 basis points to 64.8% from 68.2% in 2Q25. It dropped 240 basis points to 66.4% from 68.8% for this year’s first half, compared to the prior-year period. Operating income saw respective gains of 10% and 8%. Operating expenses fell 5% and 3% in 2Q25 and 1H25, respectively.

Volumes and Revenues

Total revenues for BNFS’s second quarter and first six months of 2025 increased slightly compared with the same periods in 2024. Volumes increased 1% and 3% in the second quarter and the first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to 2024. Average revenue per car/unit declined 1% in the second quarter and 3% first six months of 2025, resulting from lower fuel surcharge revenue and “unfavorable business mix, partially offset by core pricing gains,” BNSF said. Revenue changes also resulted from the following:

• Consumer Products volumes increased 1% and 5%, respectively, in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024 “primarily due to higher intermodal shipments resulting from increased West Coast imports, along with an increase in automotive volume from higher vehicle production.
• Agricultural and Energy Products volumes increased slightly in both the second quarter and first six months of 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024 “primarily due to slightly higher grain exports, partially offset by lower domestic grain, feed and renewable fuel volumes.”
• Industrial Products volumes decreased 4% and 5%, respectively, in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024 “primarily due to lower demand for construction products and lower petroleum products shipments.”
• Coal volumes increased 14% and 7%, respectively, in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024 “primarily due to the competitive effects of higher natural gas prices.”

Expenses

BNSF operating expenses for the second quarter and first six months of 2025 decreased 5% and 3%, respectively, compared with the same periods in 2024. A “significant portion” of the decline was due to the following factors:

• Fuel expense decreased 15% and 12% in the second quarter and first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2024, “primarily due to lower average fuel prices, partially offset by higher volumes.” Locomotive fuel price per gallon decreased 14% and 13% in the second quarter and first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2024.
• Compensation and benefits expense increased 4% and 1% in the second quarter and first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2024. The increase in both the second quarter and first six months of 2025 “were primarily due to wage inflation, partially offset by increased employee productivity.”
• Materials and other expense decreased 32% and 20% in the second quarter and first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2024. The declines “were primarily due to litigation accruals in the second quarter of 2024 and ongoing cost management efforts.”
• Income tax expense decreased 13% and 5% in the second quarter and first six months of 2025, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2024, “primarily due to lower deferred state tax expenses arising from changes in enacted rates during the second quarter of 2025.”
• There were no significant changes in purchased services, depreciation and amortization, equipment rents, or interest expense.

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE UPDATE

“Frequent extreme weather across our network has caused some negative impacts on service over the past two weeks,” BNSF said Aug. 1. “As a result, overall car velocity decreased compared to both the previous week and the monthly average. Terminal dwell increased from last week but remains lower than the previous month and is still at record low levels. Our local service compliance measure decreased slightly, but has improved compared to last month, averaging above 89% for the week.

“In the Chicago Division, crews recently completed a significant project at our Galesburg classification (hump) yard in Galesburg, Ill. Our crews worked on key mechanical components to improve efficiency and terminal throughput within the hump yard. A key part of the project involved replacing two retarders, which are crucial for safe and efficient operations at hump yards. They help control the transit and speed of railcars into the bowl.

“Other significant accomplishments include:

• “Nearly 8,900 feet of track lift undercutting.
• “More than 19,000 feet of shoulder ballast cleaning.
• “Nearly 22,000 feet of rail replacement.
• “Nearly 1,700 ties replaced.”

Merger Movement?

In the wake of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announcing their intent to merge, with UP as the acquiring railroad, there has been much speculation on whether BNSF and CSX would announce a similar transaction, eventually resulting in two U.S. transcontinentals, transnational/Canadian transcontinental CPKC, and Canadian transcontinental CN, whose U.S. footprint reaches all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. BNSF has been basically silent on that prospect, with the exception of Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffet denying reports that BNSF is working with Goldman Sachs on a possible merger with an eastern Class I. CSX President and CEO Joe Hinrichs said at the company’s 2Q25 earnings call that “there are all kinds of opportunities to work together to make it better for our customers, and we’re open to talking about all those possibilities.

The post BNSF 2Q25, 1H25: Revenue Essentially Flat, Operating Income Up, OR Down appeared first on Railway Age.

(Courtesy of CPKC)

According to the Class I, key achievements in the 2024 Sustainability Data Report (download below) include:

• Expanding its hydrogen locomotive fleet.
• Advancing biofuel usage.
• Achieving “industry leading” safety performance.
• Improving emergency response training.
• Supporting communities through charitable investments and food-bank donations.

CPKC 2024 Sustainability Data ReportDownload

The report also contains sustainability metrics from the railroad’s first full year as CPKC. (Canadian Pacific in April 2023 completed its merger with Kansas City Southern to form the first single-line, transnational railway connecting Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.)

Following are among CPKC’s metrics for 2024:

(All Courtesy of CPKC) Further Reading:

• CPKC Publishes Low Carbon Transition Update
• CPKC 2Q25: ‘Strong Growth, 2H25 Momentum’; UP+NS Perspective
• CPKC’s Strategic Vision for Growth, Innovation and Sustainability 
• CPKC Fuel Center of Excellence Earns 2025 CEO Award for Excellence
• CPKC 1Q25: ‘Solid Demand, Precision Execution Resilient Network’

The post CPKC Releases Sustainability Data Report appeared first on Railway Age.

MDOT 2026-2030-5YTPDownload

MDOT’s draft 2026-2030 Five-Year Transportation Program (5YTP) and interactive map have been approved by the State Transportation Commission and are ready for public comment through Sept. 1 (see above and watch overview below).

The 5YTP contains a list of planned projects for the MDOT Highway Program (state-maintained roads, bridges and facilities), as well as information on the public transportation, rail, and aeronautics programs, according to MDOT. The document’s aim is to help MDOT connect its long-range goals and strategies for asset management with project programming and monitoring of performance measures and budget targets.

According to MDOT, the 5YTP is required to be delivered to the Michigan Legislature by March 1 each following calendar year; serves as a foundation for the biennial State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and aids in the development of the annual state budget.

(Courtesy of MDOT)

Highlights of this year’s 5YTP include:

• $15.2 billion in anticipated state and federally funded investments with $10.6 billion in Highway Program projects focused primarily on repairing and rebuilding MDOT roads and bridges, with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s $3.5 billion Rebuilding Michigan program contributing $31 million to that total in 2026; $3.7 billion for the Public Transportation Program, covering local bus, intercity bus, marine passenger, vanpooling, port, freight rail, and passenger rail programs; and $900 million for the Aeronautics Program, including federal, state and local aviation programs.
• A list of trunkline Highway Program construction projects by county planned for state and/or federal funding over the next five years.
• Highlights on MDOT initiatives that relate to transportation equity and inclusion, transportation resiliency, complete streets/mobility, and upcoming enhancements to the capital program development process.

(Courtesy of MDOT)

As part of the 5YTP, MDOT’s Passenger, Freight Rail and Port Program is estimated at approximately $809 million. “This reflects state and federal funds to preserve and enhance Michigan’s intercity passenger rail services and safety at railroad crossings as well as promote economic development,” MDOT said. Programs rely primarily on CTF revenue as federal rail funding is available only through competitive opportunities, it noted. Specific investments include:

• Amtrak operating support and equipment for three Michigan routes.
• Maintenance and capital investments in the Kalamazoo-Dearborn corridor to facilitate and maintain passenger train speeds of up to 110 mph.
• Capital projects, including track curve modification and signal work; the study of a new intercity passenger connection in Battle Creek; and preliminary engineering and environmental review for the replacement of four bridges.
• Plans for the existing Wolverine, Blue Water and Pere Marquette corridors and a potential new corridor serving Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit.
• Local crossings with 40-60 surface improvements and warning device enhancements at 30-40 locations, as well as state trunkline crossing improvements and/or device upgrades at 20-25 locations annually.
• Improvements on the 530-mile state-owned freight-only system, including capacity, safety and rail enhancements, support for new/expanding businesses, and replacement of the Manistee River Bridge.
• Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority administrative and marketing expenditures.

Following are the options for commenting on the Draft 2026-2030 5YTP:

Visit the 5YTP interactive map and leave a project-specific comment.

• Leave a general comment using the general comment form.
• Send a comment by email to MDOT-Five-Year-Program@Michigan.gov.
• Mail a comment to: Michigan Department of Transportation, Program Development Unit, Five-Year Transportation Program, 425 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909.

NCDOT (Courtesy of NCDOT)

The public comment period for what projects should be included in NCDOT’s next 10-year transportation plan (2028-2037) is open through Aug. 29.

With a goal of “increasing safety, reducing congestion and promoting economic growth,” NCDOT said it uses data and local input to determine which projects get funded in the 10-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) based on a specific formula created by the Strategic Transportation Investments law. It is also said to allow NCDOT to use its funding more efficiently to improve North Carolina’s infrastructure and support job creation and a higher quality of life.

The public can send project suggestions through a short, interactive online survey or attend one of the weeklong drop-in sessions at NCDOT offices across the state. The online survey and in-person meeting dates can be found on NCDOT’s website.

“Projects can be as large-scale as an interstate improvement or as small as a new turn lane or intersection improvement and can be for any of NCDOT’s six modes of transportation—highway, aviation, bicycle and pedestrian, ferry, public transportation and rail,” according to NCDOT, which noted that comments may not include maintenance-related projects, such as patching potholes, resurfacing, or ditches, since NCDOT uses a different method to prioritize those projects.

Projects can cover freight movement (such as improving the main routes used by trucks, trains, and ports so goods move smoothly and on time though better highway interchanges, safer highway/rail grade crossings, and upgraded port facilities); multi-modal options (such as expanding travel choices beyond driving alone—like bus and rail service, bike lanes, sidewalks, and rideshares); accessibility and connectivity; congestion relief; safety; and economic development.

NCDOT said it will also collect input from local transportation planning organizations and its own staff throughout the state as it puts together the list of potential projects.

Project scores and a draft list of projects identified for funding at the Statewide Mobility level—the first of three tiers in the project prioritization process—are expected to be released by spring 2026. Additional public comment periods regarding Regional Impact- and Division Needs-level projects will be held later in 2026.

NCDOT said the 2028-2037 draft STIP is expected to be released in early 2027, followed by adoption by the Board of Transportation that summer.

CTDOT cx-action-plan-annual-progress-report—july-2025-finalDownload

CTDOT has published its second-annual Customer Experience (CX) Action Plan Progress Report (see above). Actions are categorized into three areas: “improved service”; “easier to use”; and “enhanced accessibility and comfort.”

According to CTDOT, progress made in the past year includes notable improvements on the following action items:

• New microtransit options to fill the gaps in fixed-route local bus service and rail service improvements that can get riders from New Haven to Grand Central in under 90 minutes.
• More than 6,000 trips using contactless fare technology during the pilot of Tap & Ride on select transit buses.
• Rail station ADA accessibility improvements for eight stations statewide, including the start of construction at the relocated Naugatuck Rail Station.

(All Courtesy of CTDOT)

CTDOT unveiled its first CX Action Plan in June 2023, which was drafted after statewide public outreach throughout 2022. The Action Plan outlines programs, policies, and investments to improve bus and rail services for all of Connecticut. In the CX Action Plan, CTDOT committed to providing annual updates on progress.

The post DOT Roundup: Michigan, North Carolina, Connecticut appeared first on Railway Age.

Transportation is among the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. In 2023, the federal government announced an ambitious plan to eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by 2050. Rail, a carbon-efficient mode of ground transportation, is not exempt from regulatory pressure to decarbonize.

This article evaluates the case for a zero-emission rail network—particularly for Class I railroads—through a cost-benefit lens. I quantify current emissions, assess the value of those emissions, and analyze whether full or partial zero-emission transitions make economic and operational sense.

While I do not focus on a particular technology, the analysis assumes that operators will choose the best-fit solution, whether battery-electric, hydrogen, or overhead electrification.

Rail Emissions: By the Numbers

In 2022, Class I railroads burned 3.144 billion gallons of diesel. About 90% of that fuel powers linehaul locomotives (long-distance freight), while the remaining 10% is used in switching operations (sorting and rearranging cars in yards). Each gallon of diesel emits approximately 10.19 kilograms of CO₂, yielding an estimated 32 million metric tons (MT) of CO₂ annually (see Table 1).

Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), two key criteria pollutants regulated by the EPA, are measured from engine power output rather than fuel volume. To convert gallons to emissions, I used weighted brake horsepower-hour per gallon (20.24 bhp-hr/gal) and federal emissions factors (6.05 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.116 g/bhp-hr PM2.5) based on Tier 2 linehaul and Tier 1 switcher locomotives. The resulting emissions estimates were 384,989 MT of NOx and 7,382 MT of PM2.5 annually.

The Price Tag on Pollution

While current guidance from the Department of Transportation suggests that cost-benefit analyses should not include a monetary value for CO₂ reductions, carbon markets and previous guidance suggest $50 per MT is reasonable. DOT’s current values for criteria pollutants are: $19,000 per MT of NOx and $928,000 per MT of PM2.5.

Using these figures, the total annual pollution cost of Class I rail operations is approximately $15.8 billion, with switching operations alone responsible for $2.3 billion of that total.

Is Full Electrification Worth It?

Catenary electrification—the use of overhead wires to power electric locomotives—is often cited as the cleanest option. But electrifying the entire U.S. freight rail network would cost between $870 billion and $1.1 trillion, with a payback period of 55 to 63 years based solely on avoided pollution costs. That assumes no discounting or inflation and no operational disruption.

Given that other sectors can reduce CO₂ emissions at much lower costs, this approach appears economically inefficient. Resources would be better directed to emissions abatement strategies with a quicker return and lower capital intensity.

Switching Locomotives: A Better Bet

Transitioning switcher locomotives—of which there are 4,854 on Class 1 railroads, accounting for 10% of diesel consumption and $2.3 billion in annual pollution costs—is a more promising option. Switcher locomotives often operate in rail yards near dense population centers, where NOx and PM2.5 emissions have disproportionate public health impacts.

Unlike linehaul electrification, switcher conversions can be incremental, allowing railroads to phase in new technologies over time without network-wide infrastructure changes. Moreover, switcher operations are relatively isolated from the broader freight network, reducing risk and complexity.

Battery-electric switchers are currently being tested. Assuming a cost of $5 million per zero-emission switcher, a full conversion would cost about $24 billion. Manufacturing capacity will take years to scale, but the emissions cost savings justify meaningful investment today.

Smart Policy, Not Mandates

California has considered a mandate requiring all locomotives operating in-state to be zero-emission. This approach risks driving freight off rail entirely and increasing overall emissions by shifting to trucking. A federal mandate for full rail electrification would be similarly misguided, with a price tag near $1 trillion and limited return.

A smarter policy would encourage phased adoption of zero-emission standards in switcher locomotives, only after the technology matures and production scales: 5% of switchers to zero-emission by 2040, 10% by 2045, and so on

This structure would offer flexibility for railroads to choose technologies, adapt operations, and retire aging switchers gradually. It would also align public health and climate goals with industry investment cycles.

The Way Forward

The rail sector remains a leader in freight efficiency. But the costs of diesel emissions, especially in NOx and PM2.5, can no longer be ignored. Electrifying the entire rail network is not cost-effective, but targeting switcher locomotives presents a pragmatic opportunity for decarbonization.

Class I railroads, regulators, and policymakers should prioritize this segment. It’s where the costs are concentrated, the benefits are local, and the pathway forward is both technically and economically viable.

Alex Scott is an associate professor of supply chain management and the Gerald T. Niedert Professor in the Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and a founding member of GSCI’s Transportation and Logistics Collaborative. He has spent the past two decades researching and working in the transportation industry. If you have inquiries about his research, contact him at ascott79@utk.edu.

The post Pathways to Decarbonizing the Rail Industry appeared first on Railway Age.

The Union Station Joint Management Council invites qualified firms to submit proposals for property management services at Los Angeles Union Station.

Proposal Deadline: September 10, 2025, by 3:00 PM PST Pre-Proposal Conference: August 13, 2025, at 1:00 PM PST RFP Available at: https://bit.ly/LAUSRFP

For questions, contact: unionstation@metro.net Subject: RFP 20250804

Issued by: Union Station Joint Management Council C/O LACMTA

The post REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP No. JMC-20250804 Union Station Property Management Services appeared first on Railway Age.

Don’t make me take you to the watershed: During Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern’s July 29 presentation announcing the proposed combination, the piece we found most interesting (beyond the audacity of attempting a transcontinental merger in the face of STB rules specifically designed to prevent a transcontinental merger) was the market share opportunity from trucks around the Ohio Valley and Mississippi river, which they’re calling the “Watershed,” because there’s lots of water in the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, presumably.

Anyway, the basic idea seems to be this: The current industry structure discourages service offerings to customers on mid-haul East-West routes that cross interchange points. For example, Memphis is a UP-NS interchange point, and let’s say there’s a 1,000-mile length of haul opportunity with Memphis in the middle. For Union Pacific, it’s an unattractive 500-mile short haul with an interchange coordination headache with NS, and for Norfolk Southern it’s an unattractive 500-mile short haul with an interchange coordination headache with UP. Therefore, it remains an untapped opportunity able to be exploited by a unified system running single-line service with no interchange.

It’s a good idea that makes logical sense, and UP and NS are using it as a carrot to the STB as one of their strategies to satisfy the public interest test (trucks off the highway). Comments by Hub Group management on its earnings call also suggested this Watershed opportunity is real and material. What immediately struck us as we listened to the presentation was, why haven’t they done it already?

The merger rules only give weight to service benefits “that cannot otherwise be achieved,” as we underline below. § 1180.1(a): General: “Although mergers of Class I railroads may advance our nation’s economic growth and competitiveness through the provision of more efficient and responsive transportation, the Board does not favor consolidations that reduce the transportation alternatives available to shippers unless there are substantial and demonstrable public benefits to the transaction that cannot otherwise be achieved. Such public benefits include improved service, enhanced competition and greater economic efficiency.” So, the question becomes: Can truck conversions to rail in the Watershed “otherwise be achieved” without a merger?

UP and NS are waiting for a green light from the STB before they try, but what about BNSF and CSX? If UP and NS see opportunities here, those same or similar opportunities no doubt exist for BNSF and CSX. Have they also relegated them to the too-hard-basket given the challenges of coordinating resources and negotiating contentious revenue splits on mid-haul moves? That’s not unreasonable, but things have now changed.

Whether they like it or not, BN and CSX may soon be heading for an arranged marriage (unless Berkshire tries to outbid UP for NS, of course). On July 29, NS effectively transitioned from a BNSF service partner to a competitor, and UP transitioned from a CSX service partner to a competitor. If BNSF and CSX did attack the Watershed prior to any combination of their own by coordinating schedules, sharing power and only changing crews at interchange points, all of the potential outcomes would be interesting. For example, they might find that:

• UP and NS are correct. BNSF and CSX may discover there are indeed underserved lanes worth hundreds of millions in annual revenues, with single-line service the key to unlocking them. However, collaborating on them now is a good way to engage early with customers and nail down the key routes for when they’ll be able to offer single-line service of their own.

• There’s no “there” there. Alternatively, they might conclude these mid-haul Watershed markets are more fantasy than reality, which would be good ammunition in the event BNSF and CSX decide to try to spike the UP-NS merger in the 2026 STB hearings.

• Exists, but underwhelming. Another potential outcome is that, yes, there are some commercial opportunities here, but truck competition remains too fierce and customers too reluctant to switch to rail on these lanes to warrant more than a handful of additional train starts. We’re obviously just spit-balling here and the commercial teams at BNSF and CSX have no doubt thought long and hard about these things in the past. But, like we said earlier, the East-West competitive dynamics just changed, and it’s much easier for two railroads to collaborate on new service offerings if there’s an expectation they will later merge, so maybe it’s time for a fresh look.

The post Should BNSF and CSX Focus on the Watershed Now? appeared first on Railway Age.

According to recently published statements made by Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena, we need a transcontinental rail merger to dramatically improve rail service by eliminating what Vena claims are the allegedly “inefficient and time-consuming interchanges (or hand-offs) that occur in Chicago between east and west networks.” Vena’s merger solution would (in his words) “eliminate the inefficient and time-consuming interchanges that occur at Chicago between Eastern and Western railroads.” He subsequently defined the problem as one of taking “24 to 36 hours to hand off freight cars in Chicago,” which is down somewhat from his original estimate of 2-3 days.

However, for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the current figure of 31 hours terminal transit time has been officially endorsed by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) for use in its 2050 Comprehensive Long-Range Plan (originally released in 2018). According to CMAP, “The Plan’s targets reflect a return to 2016 conditions by 2025, and cutting the remaining transit time, less yard dwell time, in half by 2050. The amount of time trains spend in classification yards is beyond the control of any CMAP policy recommendations, so the targets focus solely on decreasing the time spent traveling to and from them. 2025: 27.0 hours or shorter carload transit time; 2050: 24.5 hours or shorter carload transit times.”

In my opinion, terminal yard dwell time could be dramatically reduced by simply pre-blocking interchange cars at outlying yards before they got to Chicago vs. “unloading” so much interchange work onto the heavily used (perhaps overworked) classification yard operated by the Belt Railway Company of Chicago. Pre-blocked cars could then be interchanged shortly after arrival in Chicago, saving a considerable amount of time over the current cumbersome, time-consuming process.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, when one goes on to objectively examine the recent actual history of Chicago terminal operations, one will discover reports of its demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated by Mr. Vena, among others.

First, may we respectfully suggest that things are not nearly as bad here in the Chicago Terminal as previously reported. As we all know, according to the Association of American Railroads, we already have a solution to “the Chicago problem” called CREATE (Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program). The CREATE Program has made enormous progress over the past 25 years in improving Chicago’s rail infrastructure. Ironically, much of this progress directly benefits Union Pacific’s rail operations in the Terminal.

Second, not everyone may realize it, but CMAP has integrated the CREATE Program, and the issues of rail congestion and grade crossing delays, into the Chicago region’s comprehensive long-range plan. The current version of this plan, released in 2018, is commonly referred to as ON TO 2050 to reflect its planning horizon of the year 2050. (I had the privilege of helping develop the original comprehensive plan, referred to as GO TO 2040, as a member of the original CMAP Citizens Advisory Committee.)

According to the CMAP website, “the Plan is designed to help northeastern Illinois communities address transportation, equity, environmental and other quality-of-life issues.” Since its creation by the Illinois General Assembly in 2005, CMAP has become one of the nation’s premier regional planning agencies as well as an integral part of the Chicago Region’s always fascinating political fabric.

Finally, the proposed merger, if approved, may provide the ultimate solution to the issue of rail congestion in the Chicago Terminal. For that we may all owe Mr. Vena an enormous debt of gratitude.

According to its website, “The CREATE Program is improving the way passengers and goods move over rail. We’re modernizing the Chicago region’s rail network to add capacity, reduce travel times and improve safety … We’re untangling our rail system to improve regional mobility, promote economic growth and address environmental impacts. Fixing Chicago’s railroads is a significant endeavor, requiring close coordination and partnership between the railroads and city, state and federal governments.”

I think everyone agrees that one of the most beneficial results of the CREATE Program has been the creation of The Chicago Integrated Rail Operations Center (CIROC). According to the AAR website, “Effectively managing the heart of the rail network takes more than just new infrastructure; it takes meticulous, coordinated planning across all railroads to manage operations efficiently. It is the brain that helps make that possible.”

They have also created The Common Operational Picture (COP), an integration of railroad dispatch systems into one display so operators and staff can communicate more efficiently and respond to problems quickly. 

Completion of key infrastructure projects has been slow but steady over the past 25 years. (This is not that long a time period when one considers that the original O’Hare International Airport Modernization Program (OMP), fully funded and managed by the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA), took 16 years to fully complete before CDA started the current terminal expansion phase called O’Hare 21.)

• Virtually all eleven of the Beltway Corridor Projects (along the Indiana Harbor Belt main line) have now been completed. This is a route used heavily today by Union Pacific and presumably would be a primary main line through the terminal for any transcontinental railroad. (With completion of Project P7 in Chicago Ridge, the IHB has the potential to become a serious bypass route in its own right for all carriers to utilize.)
• Four of the eight Western Avenue Corridor projects have been completed. The north end of this Corridor connects UP’s Global I Terminal with the UP main line.
• With a significant package of infrastructure and operational improvements now in place on Norfolk Southern and CSXT at Pine Junction in Gary, Ind., the only remaining bottleneck located anywhere on the IHB main line is the Dolton Interlocking, which is also the subject of CREATE project WA-11.

It should also be noted that CREATE and the state of Illinois have helped fund three projects along 44 miles of UP’s Geneva Subdivision from the Ogilvie Transportation Center to Elburn, Ill. that will significantly increase its operating capacity. Completion of these projects will provide Union Pacific with a level of operational flexibility comparable with BNSF’s famed triple-track Chicago to Aurora main line.

Chicago is the largest inland port in the U.S. Ten interstate highways crisscross the region. According to one online database, as of May 2025, there are 5,989 trucking companies operating in Illinois. Most of these are single-driver operations but 619 are part of larger corporate organizations with multiple driver counts. The region contains more than one billion square feet of industrial space.

CMAP estimates that 50% of all intermodal trains in the U.S. pass through Chicago (including those that either originate or terminate here). It also remains the intermodal hub of North America, with 18 Class I intermodal terminals that are switched daily. Scattered across the Chicago Region, half of these terminals currently belong to either UP or Norfolk Southern. This merger may provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rationalize the somewhat haphazard placement of existing intermodal terminals, most of which are located in the City’s predominantly African American southside neighborhoods.

An early update on the progress of the Chicago Planning Group was written in July 2003 by my friend Mike Blaszak: “Three years of cooperation through the Chicago Planning Group and its CTCO showed substantial improvements.” Mike’s article went on to observe, “In late 2002 the average car was moving through Chicago in 30 hours” (approximately 1.5 days vs. Mr. Vena’s 2-3 days). This was one-third faster than in 1990, and the average car was sitting in Chicago yards for 23 hours per trip, down from 41 hours. The percentage of Metra delays caused by freight interference dropped from 30% to 10%.”

“These figures represent 75 to 80% of perfection,” said Greg Garrison, CTCO director and Union Pacific’s representative at the time. (It should also be noted that 2003 was well before any of the 70 CREATE component projects had been completed.)

As an aside here, one of the most congested of these interlockings was located in the Chicago South Side neighborhood known as Englewood. This was one of the very first “big problems” that CREATE solved with the now famous Englewood Flyover (Project P1) completed in 2014. It cost $142 million to complete with only $3 million of that coming from the railroad industry. As a result of this project, Norfolk Southern got back six hours of track time per day by not being blocked by the morning and evening Metra fleet on the Rock Island District.

Operating conflicts between freight and passenger trains in the Terminal is a serious issue. Metra is one of the largest commuter rail operations in the U.S. Chicago is the hub of Amtrak’s long-distance network and home to three evolving high-speed passenger corridors linking Detroit, Milwaukee and St. Louis with Chicago. State-funded Amtrak trains link the Chicago area with three of the state’s largest public universities. CREATE already offers a real-world mitigation solution here that should be of interest to anyone actively considering mergers to solve existing delay problems in the Chicago terminal.

The CREATE Program includes seven passenger flyover component projects specifically designed to reduce if not eliminate passenger vs. freight delays all together. Project P1 in Englewood is already complete (and appears to be working exactly as planned). Projects P2 and P3 are included as part of the 75th Street improvement Project. Project P5 is designed alleviate delays and conflicts at the Brighton Park crossing, one of the busiest rail crossings in the U.S. The project will increase freight train speeds from 30 mph to 45 mph. Metra and Amtrak delay due to freight conflict will be alleviated with the Brighton Park Flyover. Project P7 is located on the IHB main line in southwest suburban community of Chicago Ridge, at the intersection with Metra’s SouthWest Service route. P7 is designed to reduce delays on the IHB Corridor a busy connection route used extensively by Union Pacific.

One of the more absurd and truly ridiculous situations that CREATE has uncovered (and is aggressively dealing with) was the absurdly high number of hand-thrown main line switches still in use in the Terminal (in 2000). The companion problem here was the extensive amount of main line trackage not signalized. That is right, miles of dark territory in the middle of the busiest rail terminal in the world.

My favorite quote on this is from Chuck Allen, the retired general manager of the IHB. In a 2023 article, he said, “I know it’s nuts, but NS runs trains from North Jersey to Chicago on CTC and BNSF does the same from Los Angeles to Chicago, but here in Chicago they were on an unsignaled railroad trying to reach each other.”

As Exhibit A, we offer CREATE Project WA1, Westside Gateway/Ogden Junction. This project includes Union Pacific’s Rockwell Subdivision, a critical piece of infrastructure that connects UP’s Global I intermodal terminal with its east-west main line a few miles away. In 2021, Global I was UP’s third-busiest Chicago area intermodal terminal by lift count. The CREATE website indicates that WA1 is an “active” project (which should be good news for Union Pacific):

“The area between Kedzie Interlocking (north end of project) and Ogden Junction (south end of project) currently is not signalized and actual train speed is often much less than the maximum authorized timetable speed of 15 mph. In addition, the trains are required to be able to stop within half the range of vision (restricted speed), but in many locations along this section, when a train occupies the adjacent track this range of vision is very limited. The slow train speeds result in poor train flow, delay, congestion, and limited capacity.

“Additionally, the freight trains operating daily in the WA1 Project area use radio control and navigate seven hand-thrown switches. A train experiences 15 to 30 minutes of delay for every switch the conductor is required to hand operate. Currently, most trains spend up to one hour to traverse the limits of this project.”

Three of the most significant projects on the Beltway Corridor directly involved Union Pacific (and presumably directly benefit UP operations). Project B2, Union Pacific Third Main Line – Proviso Yard, now provides freight trains with an additional track for mobility during Metra rush hour and circumventing standing delays of 3 to 4 hours.

Project B3, the Melrose Connection, added new track on a new bridge to create a second connection between the IHB and Union Pacific’s Proviso Yard. The second connection on the new rail bridge allows trains to maintain active operation on the IHB at the same time trains are entering and departing Proviso Yard, which greatly increases capacity.

Project B4/B5, La Grange/Broadview Signalization. Prior to completing the this, most trains spent up to 2 hours traversing the limits of this project due to the hand-thrown switches and restricted speeds. These signal improvements and powering of hand-thrown switches now allow trains to pass through this segment in as little as 20 minutes. Trains now can operate up to 30 mph, a significant increase from a “restricted speed” (between 1 and 20 mph) prior to the project.

BNSF will directly benefit from Project B6, the McCook Connection, which upgraded its Chillicothe Subdivision-IHB connection at McCook from a 10 mph to 25 mph speed limit.

The most congested location in the entire Chicago terminal is the infamous 75th Street Corridor. Located at the southern end of the Western Avenue Corridor (and the eastern entrance to the BRC’s Clearing Yard) this mess directly involves trains operated by CSX, NS and Union Pacific. My friend Fred Frailey describes this as “a textbook case of what happens when you try to squeeze too much railroad into too little space.” It remains a dubious monument to the almost complete lack of planning and foresight collectively exhibited by the Class I’s in the Chicago Terminal prior to 1995. Metra CEO Jim Derwinski has called it “the biggest chokepoint in the region if not the nation.”

CREATE’s solution is called the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project. It calls for building two flyovers identified as Project P2, Rock Island Connection and Project P3, Forest Hill Flyover. The first will carry the north-south CSX Blue Island Subdivision over the BRC, Metra and NS tracks at Forest Hill. The other will carry Metra’s tracks of the BRC and NS tracks east of Belt Junction. This project will eliminate the most congested rail chokepoint in the Chicago Terminal.

The Chicago Terminal remains a critical piece of national railroad infrastructure. It requires active management and oversight by a qualified staff of professional railroaders on a 24/7 basis. On Jan. 31, 2015, the Chicago region got its sixth largest snowfall in recorded history. The CTCO Team led by BRC’s Stephen Hoye, who ran the coordination office at the time, initiated what is known as an “Operation Condition Red.” This is a CTCO emergency protocol designed specifically to keep the Terminal fluid and operating during Chicago winters. Moreover, it worked quite well. According to published reports quoting Mr. Hoye, “Chicago trembled but didn’t crumble.”

CMAP Public Oversight

ON TO 2050 is the comprehensive plan that guides regional priorities and transportation investments in northeastern Illinois. The plan was adopted in October 2018 and updated in October 2022. CMAP was created by the Regional Planning Act (70 ILCS 1707/1 et. seq.) (the “Act”), and the agency’s Policy Committee is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for northeastern Illinois as detailed in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 [23 U.S.C. § 134]. The Act provides for a consolidated regional planning agency to plan for the most effective public and private investments in the northeastern Illinois region, to better integrate plans for land use and transportation, program transportation funds, and serve as the region’s data hub.

CMAP was created to address the development and transportation challenges in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties. The agency also provides research on transportation system safety and equity, freight, housing, economic development and environment and natural resources through the federally required metropolitan planning process. ON TO 2050 is the latest edition of the master plan to fulfill this purpose.

CMAP also is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for northeastern Illinois. MPOs are federally designated bodies responsible for allocating federal transportation funds and managing the transportation planning process. In the Chicago Region, this makes CMAP in effect the gatekeeper for all federal funds being allocated for transportation improvements in the Region, including the public’s share of CREATE.

One of the Plan’s specific recommendations contained in its Mobility section calls for actions to mitigate the negative impacts of freight on adjacent areas, particularly Economically Disconnected Areas. The Plan goes on to say “that while providing broad economic benefits, freight activity can have adverse impacts on communities. Truck and rail traffic can cause noise, congestion, air quality, and other negative impacts. Trucks cause heavy wear and tear on locally maintained roads, and at-grade rail crossings can cause delays for motorists as well as difficulty in routing emergency services. Many freight and industrial facilities also generate low returns from the property taxes and other fees that municipalities can enact, creating a gap between the cost to provide supportive infrastructure or services and the revenues generated. This can in turn lead to a lag between infrastructure needs and local investment that would reduce negative impacts on adjacent communities. These cumulative factors often make freight a locally unwanted land use.”

CMAP Indicators

According to CMAP, “ON TO 2050 indicators are intended to serve as benchmarks for monitoring the progress of plan implementation. Where possible, each plan recommendation is tracked by one or more indicators. The targets should not be viewed as projections or forecasts, but rather as desired outcomes that represent the optimistic range of achievable outcomes assuming implementation of the recommendations of ON TO 2050. To track progress on improving the nation’s freight network, ON TO 2050 provides an indicator on and sets a target of reducing Chicago terminal carload transit time.

“Indicator: The indicator measures the fluidity of the Chicago Terminal, which is important to the economic strength of the region’s rail industry. This measures the annual average time carload freight takes to get through the core of Chicago’s rail freight hub, the Chicago Terminal, extending from the City of Chicago to roughly the IHB in the near-west suburbs. Much of the carload freight needs to pass through classification yards in the Chicago Terminal, where the interchange is made between predominantly eastern railroads, predominantly western railroads, Canadian railroads, and smaller regional and industrial railroads. The measure also indicates how fast trains are moving. A slow train will block a highway-rail grade crossing longer than a fast train. Related recommendation: Maintain the region’s status as North America’s freight hub.

“Methodology: Data is provided to CMAP for the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office by the Association of American Railroads’ data provider, RailInc. The information is also provided to and posted by the Surface Transportation Board. The terminal transit time includes both dwell time in the classification yards, totaling about 22 hours, and the time spend traveling to and from those yards. Carload freight excludes containerized and single-purpose, through-routed unit trains.

“Targets: The targets reflect a return to 2016 conditions by 2025, and cutting the remaining transit time, less yard dwell time, in half by 2050. A fixed yard dwell time of 22 hours, consistent with recent observations, is assumed. The amount of time trains spend in classification yards is beyond the control of any CMAP policy recommendations, so the targets focus solely on decreasing the time spent traveling to and from them. 2025: 27.0 hours or shorter carload transit time 2050: 24.5 hours or shorter carload transit times.”

It should be noted there is a separate target that addresses grade crossing delays in the Chicago Region. As the primary solution to the delay issue, the ON TO 2050 Plan calls for the remaining 17 proposed CREATE grade separations to be completed by 2050.

Unintended Consequence

Jim Vena may not realize it, but he may have inadvertently provided the ultimate solution to the congestion problem for all of us. Just about any anecdotal list of rail industry suggestions for improving the Chicago Terminal includes a recommendation for as much rail traffic as possible to avoid the City altogether. This was the genesis behind the ill-fated Great Lakes Basin Railroad proposal.

CN achieved this goal of solving its Chicago problem with the acquisition of the EJ&E in 2009. Former CN CEO Claude Mongeau undertook the EJ&E project when he was the railroad’s Chief Financial Officer. That is why we call this the “Mongeau Approach.” As part of a published discussion about the impact of the EJ&E acquisition on the CREATE Program, Mongeau was quoted as saying, “We created capacity for other railroads to use in Chicago.”

Assuming Union Pacific goes ahead with reported plans to construct and operate its own Chicago bypass, presumably using portions of the former Wabash main line between Kansas City and Fort Wayne, Mr. Vena would be in effect creating new capacity for other railroads to use in the Chicago Terminal. This would presumably also improve access to the remaining UP-NS intermodal terminals in Chicago.

This would certainly be a very interesting “downstream effect” of the proposed UP+NS merger.

James A. Giblin has more than 40 years’ experience in rail, truck and intermodal freight transportation, warehousing and logistics, much of it in the greater Chicago area. He has lived in the Chicago area most of his adult life and is intimately familiar with the region’s freight and passenger rail infrastructure. For six years he is proud to say, “He made his run and made his pay on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe.” In recent years, his professional experience has expanded and diversified to include numerous public sector clients and projects in communities and municipalities across Chicago’s south suburbs. He submitted written testimony as regional rail industry expert in favor of CN/EJ&E merger to the Surface Transportation Board and testified at the STB’s September 2008 Chicago hearing in favor of transaction. Jim is a former multi-year Chair of the Education Committee of the Traffic Club of Chicago.

The post What’s Really Going on in Chicagoland: A Contrarian View appeared first on Railway Age.

Hitachi Rail announced Jan. 17 that it had agreed to acquire Omnicom, a digital rail monitoring business, from Balfour Beatty, “marking a key strategic pillar for Hitachi Rail’s new digital asset management business, known as HMAX.” The acquisition was reported as complete on Aug. 1.

Omnicom provides software and hardware for surveying, inspecting and monitoring rail infrastructure assets, including its Infrastructure Monitoring System, gauge clearance measurement, line visual inspection and scanning infrastructure. Its monitoring systems can be installed on trains and uses edge computing and machine learning to provide near real-time anomaly detection on rail tracks. The technology can enhance the decision making for maintenance planning and the asset lifecycle.

With a more than 25-year track record in railway technology, Omnicom’s monitoring and geometry measurement solutions are deployed by a number of its largest customers, Hitachi Rail reported in January. The technology is said to collect trillions of bytes of images per day, allowing its customers to optimize their trackside maintenance.

The acquisition by Hitachi Rail will support Omnicom’s growth strategy to expand beyond the UK into the U.S. and European markets. Balfour Beatty’s UK Rail business will continue to focus on its “core capability of managing, enhancing and maintaining thousands of miles of railways and supporting rail infrastructure across the UK, crucial for community connectivity and economic growth,” Hitachi Rail noted.

“In order to capitalize on its unique technological solutions to the Rail market, Omnicom requires an owner with a truly global reach and a complementary culture,” Mick Rayner, Managing Director of Balfour Beatty’s UK Rail business, said in January. “Hitachi’s acquisition will further enable Omnicom to leverage its capabilities and apply its expertise in the rail and digital technology sectors in both the U.S. and European markets.”

Omnicom’s remote monitoring and measurement solutions will feed into Hitachi Rail’s new HMAX suite, “enabling the pioneering technology to be brought to the global market,” according to Hitachi Rail. HMAX, launched at InnoTrans in September 2024, is a comprehensive digital asset management solution that, Hitachi Rail said, “seamlessly integrates a vast array of live data from the train and the surrounding rail infrastructure into a single platform.” The platform uses AI and machine learning to process the data and extract knowledge and apply it to achieve operational and service enhancements, including traffic optimization, energy consumption reduction, and an on-condition/predictive maintenance process.

HMAX, Hitachi Rail said, also enables huge volumes of data to be processed at the “edge” (on the trains or infrastructure) in real time, with only relevant information sent back to the operational control centers. This, the company said, “enables an unprecedented improvement in the speed that actionable insights reach transport operators, as previously it could take days for data to be processed in maintenance locations.”

“This is a strategic acquisition for Hitachi Rail,” Hitachi Rail CEO Giuseppe Marino said in January. “Plugging Omnicom’s pioneering track monitoring tools into our digital asset management platform, will further strengthen our global offer to optimize customers’ rail services and the surrounding infrastructure. New technological solutions such as our HMAX platform demonstrate the power of AI to enhance the performance of our railway infrastructure and systems.”

“This acquisition strengthens Omnicom’s ability to collaborate, innovate and deliver AI-enabled systems and services whilst further enhancing the safety, efficiency, and reliability of rail infrastructure, building on our proven data driven solutions which help predict and prevent railway asset failures,” Omnicom Managing Director Sanjay Razdan said in January. “I look forward to Omnicom’s continuing success as part of the Hitachi brand.”

On Aug. 1, Hitachi Rail reported that with HMAX already installed on more than 2,000 trains globally, Omnicom solutions will now feed into the platform’s bespoke offering for Hitachi Rail’s customers around the world. The ”new solutions and proprietary technology” it acquired include software and hardware for surveying, inspecting, and monitoring rail infrastructure assets including the overhead line and track. The monitoring technology, it said, can be installed on trains and uses ”edge computing and machine learning to provide near real-time anomaly detection on rail tracks”; additionally, the technology can enable the collection of trillions of bytes of images per day, allowing customers to optimize their trackside maintenance planning and the asset lifecycle.

“This strategic acquisition complements our existing cutting-edge proprietary technology, backed by the digital power of the Hitachi Group,” Hitachi Rail Executive Director and CTO Koji Agatsuma said. “Our HMAX platform is driving the digital transformation of rail, and the addition of Omnicom’s track monitoring tools further strengthens our global offer to optimize our customer’s railway systems.”

Commented Sanjay Razdan of Omnicom: “From today our technology will complement Hitachi Rail’s existing digital asset management solutions, enabling HMAX to deliver even more for customers around the world. This acquisition will also enable us to benefit from the unique digital capabilities of the wider Hitachi Group, enabling us to continue to innovate and deliver AI-enabled systems that can optimize the management of railway infrastructure.”

Railway Age Executive Editor Marybeth Luczak contributed to this report.

The post Hitachi Rail Acquires Omnicom (UPDATED 8/1) appeared first on Railway Age.

LA Metro recently agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a lawsuit over alleged violations of state and federal law and its own manufacturing policy related to a multi-million-dollar contract with South Korean Hyundai Rotem to update railcars ahead of the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

According to the report, advocacy and research group Jobs to Move America sued the transit agency last year after LA Metro awarded a contract to Hyundai Rotem, part of Hyundai Motor Group, to build at least 182 railcars that would replace much of its aging fleet.

The group, Los Angeles Times reports, “alleged that LA Metro violated public contract laws and its own manufacturing policy by not disclosing required details about worker pay and benefits, and omitting commitments to hire a workforce of at least 10% ‘disadvantaged workers’ for the project,” which could include homeless people, single parents, veterans and others struggling in the workforce.

LA Metro, Los Angeles Times reports, settled the lawsuit last week for $250,000, which would cover the cost of legal fees, and agreed to modify terms of the $730-million order with Hyundai, according to records, to include the requirements. The deal means that the transit agency can go forward with its initial plans, according to the report.

LA Metro said “the delivery timeline has not been impacted” by the lawsuit, according to the report. The transit agency says it still expects to receive 42 cars ahead of the Games, as was laid out in the original proposal. Those cars are planned for use on the D Line, formerly known as the Purple Line. The route is currently undergoing an extension project beneath Wilshire Boulevard and is expected to be completed by 2027. An additional 140 cars are expected to be delivered by May 2030.

The agency’s policy, which includes penalties for noncompliance, was adopted in 2022 “to ensure that federal and state dollars provided livable wages to blue collar workers.” LA Metro originally tried to update the contract with Hyundai when it learned of the violations, but Jobs to Move America believed the revisions were “not satisfactory,” according to the Los Angeles Times report. The group sued the agency and pushed for LA Metro to rebid the contract entirely.

“This procurement was an example of something that wasn’t done well,” said Jobs to Move America Co-Executive Director Madeline Janis.

The settlement, Jobs to Move America says, “serves as a compromise” and, according to the group, “is a win for transparency.” In addition to revising the contract with the requirements, LA Metro also agreed to hire an outside consultant “to improve future procurement strategies and to broaden public record access around its contracts,” according to the Los Angeles Times report.

“It’s really important that the nature of the things like public contracting and the business of government be done openly, transparently and with the highest ethics and integrity,” Janis said. “We’re very confident now that Metro will have the tools in place to spend our dollars wisely, to build out our transportation system in a way that gets the most for our money and also gives us the best results.”

According to the report, the next step will be to see if Hyundai complies with the new agreement. A major concern for Jobs to Move America over the contract’s lack of stipulations, Los Angeles Times reports, was related to Hyundai’s recent issues with U.S. employment standards.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the motor company after finding that a 13-year-old girl had worked up to 60 hours a week along an assembly line in Alabama, according to the report. The suit, which also named auto parts supplier SMART Alabama and a staffing service, alleged child labor law violations.

Hyundai said that it “took immediate action” and that its suppliers cut ties with the staffing agency, according to the Los Angeles Times report.

“What this [settlement] does is it ensures that Hyundai is held accountable for spending the money—about three-quarters of a billion dollars—in a way that’s going to maximize the creation of good jobs and opportunities for Americans and Angelenos,” Janis said, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Further Reading:

• Hyundai Rotem USA, KILLC Sign Contract for Final Assembly of New LA Metro Railcars
• Hyundai Rotem Wins $664MM LA Metro Order
• Transit Briefs: LACMTA, PATH, WMATA, HDR
  
  

The post Report: LA Metro Settles Lawsuit, Moves Forward With Hyundai Contract appeared first on Railway Age.

For second-quarter 2025, international containers were up 3.9% and domestic containers improved 2.6%, while trailers fell 25.4% (see chart, top).

(Courtesy of IANA)

According to IANA, five of the seven highest-density trade corridors, which collectively handled more than 60% of total volume, were up in the second quarter. The Trans-Canada was by far the leader, it said, at 18.3%. The Intra-Southeast gained 6.8%, followed by the South Central-Southwest at 4.6%. The Midwest-Southwest and the Northeast-Midwest, the two highest volume corridors, came in at 3.0% and 2.9%, respectively. The Midwest-Northwest fell 7.6%, and the Southeast-Southwest declined 8.7%.

Total IMC volume fell 9.7% year-over-year in second-quarter 2025, with intermodal traffic down 8.2% and highway loads were 11.9% to the negative, IANA reported.

Intermodal Outlook

“Imports drove North American intermodal loadings in the first quarter, and they continued to propel intermodal traffic in Q2,” IANA said in its report (scroll down to download). “While future volumes will likely be reduced as a result, higher prices from tariffs have not yet impacted goods and consumer spending, and thus total 2025 import traffic should still be solid. Overall intermodal network volume is forecasted to rise 2.1% in 2025 on the heels of an 8.5% gain in 2024. International container loadings are expected to increase 2.8%, and domestic container traffic is predicted to notch 3.0%, feeding off transloaded imports and incrementally better position vis-à -vis trucking. Trailers, however, have seen more accelerated declines than originally anticipated and are now projected to dip 21.7% this year.”

(Courtesy of IANA)

IANA also reported on trucking performance and provided intermodal implications. “For the moment, trucking companies appear to have removed as much driver capacity from the market as they can to bring stability to both the employment and for-hire carrier populations,“ the association noted. “Nevertheless, very small operations, the same ones used by intermediaries, have been highly resilient, and their capacity remains elevated. Tariffs might be the catalyst for a purge of weak trucking firms within their ranks, but so far that severe hit to freight has not materialized. The weakness in truck orders offers some hope of a tighter truck freight market down the road, but it is difficult to pinpoint when that factor might come into play. Likewise, consumer-driven stress on trucking that will boost intermodal does not seem to be in the cards for the near term.”

Summed up IANA President and CEO Anne Reinke: “Imports and solid consumer spending continued to buoy intermodal in the second quarter. While domestic U.S. manufacturing is providing additional support, the longer-term impact of tariffs and trade policy on overall volume remains to be seen.”

IANA_Q2_2025_IQDownload

Further Reading:

• IANA: ‘Tariff Deadlines’ Drove Up 1Q25 Intermodal Traffic
• IANA: Intermodal Closes 4Q24 ‘Strong’
• IANA: Intermodal ‘Pushes Ahead’ in 3Q24
• IANA: Intermodal ‘Maintains Momentum’ in 2Q24
• IANA: ‘Intermodal Makes Gains’

The post IANA: Intermodal ‘Stays Strong’ in 2Q25 appeared first on Railway Age.

BNSF, in partnership with Patriot Rail and the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA), on July 31 announced the official opening of the Class I’s new intermodal facility in Salt Lake City.

The 43-acre site, located five miles from Salt Lake City International Airport, will be utilized in conjunction with BNSF’s new intermodal service between California and Salt Lake City, announced earlier this month. The service operates in close coordination with Patriot Rail, which will provide terminal operations and infrastructure support at the Salt Lake facility.

(Photo Courtesy of BNSF via X)

“This new facility is an exciting opportunity to improve our capacity and efficiency as the industry’s intermodal leader, providing more flexible, competitive options for our customers,” said BNSF Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer Tom Williams. “We are grateful for Patriot Rail and UIPA’s partnership, as this new facility will strengthen our supply chains from the West Coast to Utah and beyond.”

(Photo Courtesy of BNSF via X)

“This partnership reflects our shared commitment to smart, scalable infrastructure,” said Patriot Rail CEO Brandy Christian. “By working together with BNSF and UIPA, we’ve delivered a project that not only meets the demands of today’s economy but also positions Utah for long-term success in the global logistics arena.”

(Photo Courtesy of BNSF via X)

“This is a game changer for Utah’s economy,” said Abby Osborne, UIPA Board Chair and Chief of Staff for the Utah House of Representatives. “By increasing intermodal capacity and introducing new competition, we’re unlocking more opportunity for Utah manufacturers, shippers, and communities. This expansion supports our broader vision to make Utah a national leader in resilient, efficient, and forward-thinking logistics.”

This strategic launch, BNSF says, “reflects a shared vision for a more connected, sustainable, cost-efficient and resilient future for the nation’s supply chain.” Governor Spencer Cox, legislative leaders, and public-private partners gathered Thursday to celebrate the milestone with a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The post BNSF Opens New Salt Lake City Intermodal Facility appeared first on Railway Age.

CN’s 2025–2026 Grain Plan demonstrates a “commitment to delivering high-performance service through disciplined planning, targeted infrastructure investments, and proactive supply chain collaboration,” the railroad reported July 31, when it released the plan (download below).

2025-26-Grain-Plan-enDownload

This past crop year, CN delivered a “record volume” of grain to both domestic and international markets, it pointed out. Current projections suggest Western Canadian movement for 2024-25 will total approximately 31 MMT, roughly one million metric tons higher than the previous record, it noted. That figure includes bulk and processed grain by carload.

“This achievement, which included robust movement of canola and wheat, was delivered despite significant headwinds including prolonged port labor disruptions and early‑onset extreme cold weather,” CN President and CEO Tracy Robinson noted in her published Grain Plan Message. “Our success is a testament to the resilience of our team and the strong partnerships we have built across the supply chain.”

This year’s plan, Robinson wrote, “reflects the strength of our scheduled railroading model, our long‑term capital investments, and the commitment of our CN team.” The railroad, she said, “continue[s] to invest in the resilience and capacity of our network through double tracking, yard expansions, modernized locomotive and hopper car fleets to ensure we can meet the evolving demands of grain movement across all seasons.”

Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada Projections for the 2025–2026 Crop Year (Courtesy of CN)

Highlights from the CN 2025–2026 Grain Plan include:

• Capacity to Meet Demand: CN anticipates moving 27.0 MMT to 29.5 MMT of grain and processed grain products during the 2025–2026 crop year. The railroad said it has “sufficient resources in place to meet demand under normal operating conditions.”
• Supply Chain Coordination: CN said it is changing the way it distributes empty hopper cars originating from West Coast ports to improve visibility and planning with customers. Instead of distributing cars from major rail hubs in the Prairies, CN said it will distribute cars as they depart Vancouver. Customers will also have “enhanced visibility” on tracking their rail shipments through CN’s rail shipment tracking tool.
• End-to-End Transparency: According to CN, stakeholders will have access to weekly updates on car orders, supply chain conditions, and system fluidity through the railroad’s Western Canadian Grain Report and operational dashboards.

“These maximum end‑to‑end grain supply chain capacity levels on CN assume that multiple conditions will be in place to help achieve them. These conditions include, but are not limited to: grain supply chain fluidity, capacity utilization and corridor balance; sufficient customer demand to meet these levels; seven‑day continuous operations at all major grain export facilities; grain railcar unloading and vessel loading during inclement weather at all grain facilities; normal winter rail operating conditions; extended interswitching not being in place; no significant labour disruptions; no main line or other major supply chain disruptions.” (Courtesy of CN) (Courtesy of CN)

CN’s Robinson reported in the Grain Plan that while the railroad has “made important strides in insourcing core engineering work, and improving operational flexibility,” it continues to face “structural headwinds.” Federal labor regulations enacted in 2023 “have led to a measurable reduction in productivity, requiring more people to move the same volume of freight,” she said. “Extended interswitching, if reintroduced, would further reduce network capacity and disincentivize investment. The supply chain operates most effectively when customers fully utilize all available rail corridors. Traffic that moves through our network to eastern markets, via Thunder Bay, Montreal, Quebec City or Halifax, helps relieve pressure on Western corridors and improve the overall flow of goods. This corridor balance is essential to unlocking capacity and delivering for farmers. Government policy plays a critical role in this ecosystem. The government of Canada can enable economic growth by encouraging investment through competitive tax measures and avoiding disincentives that hinder progress. A shared vision for a resilient, efficient, and competitive grain supply chain will benefit all Canadians.”

(Courtesy of CPKC)

CPKC during its Grain Plan release said that it “remains dedicated to safely and efficiently transporting Canadian agricultural products for export to global markets.”

The railroad expects to conclude the 2024–2025 crop year having transported in excess of 27 MMT of Canadian grain and grain products, “despite multiple supply chain labor disruptions, tariff uncertainty, and nearly double the number of days when safety-critical train length and speed restrictions were required this past winter compared to Winter 2023–2024.” This will be the” highest volume transported since the 2020–2021 crop year,” it said, when Canadian Pacific broke its “all-time, single-year volume record.” (CP merged with Kansas City Southern in 2023.)

“Our powerful North American rail network is enhancing safety, competition, and resiliency, and expanding route options and market access for Canada’s grain shippers,” said Keith Creel, CPKC President and CEO. “With grain and other customers looking to diversify their end markets amid trade policy uncertainty, CPKC is uniquely serving as a land bridge between Canada and Mexico.”

Key highlights of the CPKC 2025–2026 report (download below) include:

• Safety: In 2024, for the second consecutive year, CPKC said it had the lowest Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reportable train accident frequency among Class I’s, “building on CP’s legacy of the previous 17 consecutive years of industry leadership.”
• Crop estimates: “On June 20, 2025, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) estimated the total size of the upcoming crop to be approximately 94 million metric tons (MMT), with a crop in Western Canada of approximately 70 MMT,” CPKC reported. “Grain customer estimates currently suggest an average of approximately 73 MMT for Western Canada.”
• Collaboration: “Precise and accurate demand forecasts are essential to CPKC’s resource planning,” the railroad reported. “CPKC is working with grain customers to obtain a firm understanding of their specific demand forecasts for the upcoming crop year so that CPKC can effectively plan capacity across all lines of business. Creating or shifting railway capacity cannot be done in a short period of time in response to dramatic shifts in customer demand. Large variability in grain transportation impacts the supply chains of other commodities.”
• CPKC capacity: “Based on CPKC’s understanding of current customer forecasts, and subject to market demand, CPKC plans to supply the capacity required to move up to 685,000 metric tons (MT) of Canadian agricultural products on average each week when the Port of Thunder Bay is open (generally from August through early January, and from April to July),” the railroad said. “During the winter months when the Port of Thunder Bay is closed, CPKC plans to supply the capacity required to move up to 525,000 MT of Canadian grain and grain products on average each week, subject to market demand.” If the grain supply chain uses this available weekly capacity “effectively,” CPKC said, then the railroad expects to supply the capacity required to transport up to 34 MMT of Canadian grain and grain products throughout the crop year, subject to market demand. “This performance target is contingent on all elements of the supply chain, including grain customer terminals, ports, and vessels operating with maximum efficiency, reliability, predictability, and balance throughout the duration of the crop year,” it noted. “The railway is only one part of a complex, integrated grain supply chain. The grain supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”
• CPKC people, equipment and infrastructure: CPKC said it continues to invest in the people, equipment and infrastructure needed to move Canadian grain and grain products. In addition to CPKC’s more than C$500 million investment in high-capacity hopper cars, the company said it is investing in and taking delivery of 100 new Tier 4 diesel-electric locomotives in 2025 “to help reliably and sustainably serve customers across its three-nation network.” Combined with “robust hiring, efficient operational solutions, and other network investments,” CPKC said it is “delivering significant capacity gains for Canada’s grain supply chain.”

“The federal government can help enhance Canada’s grain supply chain through the adoption of smart public policy to stimulate trade-enabling infrastructure investment and diversify Canadian trade,” CPKC reported. “For example, the government of Canada should introduce 100% immediate depreciation for supply chain capital investments to become competitive with U.S. policy, adopt and advocate for policies to grow Canadian grain and other exports to Mexico, address the challenge of frequent labor disruptions, and finally improve loading of grain onto vessels during periods of inclement weather at terminals located at the Port of Vancouver. Extended interswitching should not be resurrected because it is a policy antithetical to economic growth, competitiveness, and productivity. It is also contrary to the government’s stated objectives to improve Canada’s investment climate and diversify Canada’s trade.”

Grain-2025-26_WEBDownload

The post CN, CPKC: Ready for 2025-26 Grain Service appeared first on Railway Age.

Amtrak

The Amtrak Board of Directors on July 31 approved Costin Corneanu as Executive Vice President, CFO, effective Aug. 4. Corneau will succeed Tracie Winbigler, who will retire from Amtrak on Jan. 1, 2026. Until then, Winbigler will remain in her EVP role as Chief Transformation Officer, leaing the Procurement and Real Estate teams. In his new role, Corneanu will be responsible for planning, directing, and overseeing all financial activities for the organization. 

According to Amtrak, this appointment has been a planned transition. Corneanu has been serving as Deputy Chief Financial Officer since January. The position serves as a key member of the company’s Executive Leadership Team and reports to the President. The current Finance team will report to Corneanu in his role as CFO, responsible for preparing finance reports, forecasting, and strategic planning for future business growth and economic outlooks. The team, the company says, also “sets the long-term strategic vision, priorities, and budgets within the context of Amtrak’s strategic plans and oversees accounting, treasury, grants, audit, risk and controls, and capital portfolio governance functions.”

Prior to Amtrak, Corneanu spent eight years at Spirit Airlines and four years at US Airways, where he earned a series of promotions with increased responsibilities. Throughout his career, Corneanu has excelled at partnering with internal stakeholders to improve performance and efficiency. 

“Since joining Amtrak in 2020, Costin has been a cornerstone of our financial leadership, bringing deep expertise and strategic insight to the table,” said Amtrak President Roger Harris. “As we navigate this historic surge in demand, he’s exactly who we need to guide our finance team as we reimagine what modern rail travel can be.”

Trinity Metro

Trinity Metro announced July 31 that Reed Lanham has been named COO following a nationwide search. Previously Vice President of Rail, he has held a variety of leadership roles since joining the agency in 2015. As COO, Lanham will oversee Trinity Metro Bus, Trinity Metro On-Demand ridesharing, Trinity Metro On-Demand Paratransit, safety and security.

“Reed’s nearly 20 years of transportation expertise, leadership abilities and track record of delivering results make him a natural fit for this role,” said Trinity Metro President & CEO Richard Andreski. “He fosters a culture of high performance, teamwork, innovation and efficiency. As a collaborative leader, he excels at building partnerships and has negotiated and executed $469 million in contracts.”

Under his leadership, Trinity Metro TEXRail has experienced a 12-13% annual growth rate and has rebounded most quickly post-pandemic among all commuter rail lines in the nation, according to the agency. During his tenure, Lanham played key roles in the start-up of TEXRail, led the implementation of regional positive train control, and partnered with Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) on the development of Trinity Railway Express.

“Trinity Metro TEXRail, along with the Orange Line and Blue Line, are great springboards to introduce public transportation to non-riders,” Lanham said. “Giving people the opportunity to ride for the first time is a great way to encourage ridership across all of our service lines.”

Urban Engineers, Inc.

Urban, a multidiscipline firm specializing in planning, engineering design, environmental, and construction services, announced July 31 that Jim Bilella, PE, has been named by the Board of Directors as CEO. Additionally, Christopher Bobrowski, CPA, has been promoted to CFO. Bilella and Bobrowski are both veterans of the firm, having served for more than 30 years and six years, respectively.

“Jim has all the engineering and leadership experience to meet the moment for Urban and lead us forward into the years to come,” said Dianne Semingson, Chair of the Board of Directors for Urban. “In partnership with Chris as the new CFO, the Board is confident they will continue to build on the strong foundation that has been put in place in the past year. The Board extends its appreciation to Pat McCormick, our previous CEO, for his leadership during the past year, and we are pleased to share that he will continue to serve on Urban’s Board of Directors.”

Bilella previously served as Vice President and Market Leader for Rail and Transit at Urban. In this role, he led complex infrastructure/facilities projects and oversaw projects covering light rail, heavy rail, subway, and other public transit systems, focusing on design, construction, and maintenance.

With more than 32 years in the industry, he has collaborated with both external partners and internal teams to develop innovative solutions that “enhance the efficiency, reliability, and sustainability of public transportation networks,” the firm noted. During his time at Urban, Bilella has held a variety of leadership positions, starting as an inspector in the Construction Management and Inspection Department on the New Jersey Turnpike. He worked across traffic, intelligent transportation systems, and streetscape design, including for the City of Philadelphia, and played a key role in developing the firm’s Streetscape Department. Bilella later led the transition and integration of the Marvin Waxman MEP firm, acquired by Urban.

Bilella holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Drexel University and is a licensed Professional Engineer in 38 states. He serves on the Board of Directors for Historical Fort Mifflin in Philadelphia, Pa. He previously served as Mayor of Berlin Borough, N.J., and has also served as an Engineer Officer in the U.S. Army Reserves.

“In August, Urban celebrates its 65th anniversary, and I have been extremely fortunate to have been part of this incredible company for almost half of its storied history,” said Bilella. “Before joining Urban, I served in the military, where the mission was, ‘mission first, people always.’ That resonates deeply with me and reflects our values at Urban. Our success comes from the technical skills, relationships, and work ethic of our people. My primary focus as Interim CEO will be to support each other as employee owners and help the company grow together.”

Bobrowski, the newly appointed Interim CFO, has more than 20 years of experience. He joined Urban in 2019 and has been instrumental in strengthening the firm’s financial systems and controls, according to Urban. As CFO, he will oversee the firm’s financial strategy and operations, contributing to Urban’s continued growth and success. He holds certifications as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), bringing a strong background in audit, financial operations, and compliance.

The post People News: Amtrak, Trinity Metro, Urban Engineers, Inc. appeared first on Railway Age.

During my sophomore year as a Mechanical Engineering student at Florida International University, I was invited to Washington, D.C., to speak on a panel hosted by a major U.S. railroad company. The opportunity was made possible by my academic background and involvement in mentorship programs – specifically, the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project founded by U.S. Congresswoman Frederica Wilson that aims to equip the youth of Miami-Dade County with the knowledge, skills and confidence they need to succeed.  

This panel opportunity served as my first real look into the rail industry and sparked my interest in how engineering and transportation converge. I connected with multiple leaders after the panel, including James Carey from Union Pacific, who later became my mentor and encouraged me to explore his company’s internship opportunities. 

Thanks to that recommendation, I was able to spend my summer as an intern with Union Pacific’s Mechanical Department in Omaha. My work focused on real-world projects that directly impact the reliability and performance of Union Pacific’s freight operations. 

For example, I spearheaded a data collection experiment that tracked the performance of our refrigerator cars’ temperature, humidity and light exposure during transit. Interfacing with contractors, vendors and customers helped me better understand their needs while developing my leadership skills.

I also learned how effective standard work processes for things like preventive maintenance drive long-term reliability improvements. This helped reinforce my goal of ensuring my contributions remain impactful at Union Pacific long after my summer internship ends.

Additionally, I was encouraged to see the railroad in action by visiting places like the Downing B. Jenks Locomotive Repair Shop in North Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Refrigerator Car Maintenance Track in Council Bluffs, Iowa. This hands-on learning experience is how I learn best.

I highly value the real-world exposure Union Pacific provides its interns – we’re encouraged to ask questions, make decisions and take initiative on problems that matter. The leadership, data analytics and organizational skills I learned enabled me to make meaningful contributions toward solving real-world problems that support Union Pacific’s mission of Building America.

Looking ahead, I’ve grown an interest in reliability engineering thanks to the challenges I faced during my Union Pacific internship. As I start my junior year, I look forward to applying my newfound knowledge and experience to both my studies and the real world.

Thank you to everyone who guided and supported me throughout my time at Union Pacific, including my supervisor, Selva Karunakaran, and the many talented individuals on the Freight Car Engineering and Reliability team – you helped create a foundation for my future success.

The post A Summer Well Spent: Building America by Tackling Real-World Projects appeared first on Railway Age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These highlights and more can be found in Railway Age’s August 2025 digital edition:

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

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

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

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

Meet Barbara M. Schroeder, P.E., P.M.P.

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

Program Highlights

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

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

Key sessions will focus on:

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

Supporting Organizations

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

Learn More

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

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

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

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

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

Building a Dream? Rod Diridon

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

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

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

Conventional Alternatives?

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

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

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

Getting to L.A. Oct. 10, 1939: Southern Pacific 4419 on train No. 76, the Lark, approaching Glendale, Calif. Photo by Richard H. Kindig, courtesy Oklahoma Historical Society, Preston George Collection. 

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

Southbound Spirit of California at Glendale station in August 1982. Wikimedia Commons/Hikki Nagasaki 

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

The Coast Starlight in the Cuesta Hills above San Luis Obispo in 1985. Roger Puta/Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

Fallacy of “Sunk Cost” in California?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING TIMING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

KB Signaling Expands WSDMM
KB Signaling Showcases QuEST Rail Software-Based LCP at Railway Interchange 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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