Feed aggregator

MXV RAIL R&D, RAILWAY AGE MARCH 2026 ISSUE: Under the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Strategic Research Initiatives (SRI) program, MxV Rail developed and evaluated improved techniques for measuring wheel/rail (W/R) vertical impact forces using a combination of onboard and wayside systems. The study compared three key measurement technologies: 1) high‑accuracy instrumented wheelsets (IWS), 2) a new bearing adapter (NBA) that blends force measurement with acceleration compensation, and 3) a high‑accuracy in‑track bi‑circuit (HAC). So-called portable rail bumps (PRBs) were manufactured and placed on the rail to produce controlled impact loads. The study objective was establishing a benchmark method for validating Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD) systems.

Previous work demonstrated that PRBs could reliably generate repeatable impact loads, enabling the direct comparison of onboard and wayside measurements (references 1-3). This work resulted in the expansion of the dataset and the gathering of simultaneous measurements to support statistical validation of measurement accuracy and repeatability. Existing WILD calibration practices (AAR Standard S‑6101, reference 4) primarily address strain‑gage‑based detectors and lack provisions for alternative systems. The integrated HAC–NBA–IWS approach offers a generalizable framework suitable for emerging technologies.

The in‑track HAC uses two full‑bridge strain‑gage circuits per crib to measure vertical loads and contact locations across the crib. Installed on MxV Rail’s High‑Speed Loop, the system consists of six bi‑circuits across seven concrete ties with synchronized automatic location devices (ALDs). Similarly, the NBA incorporates four load cells and an accelerometer on each bearing adapter, enabling force estimation with acceleration compensation. One axle uses eight load cells and two accelerometers across both adapters. Each IWS uses strain gages to produce continuous vertical, lateral and longitudinal W/R forces, plus lateral contact location. Two high‑accuracy IWS units (on axles 1 and 4 of a loaded 110‑ton hopper car) were used and paired with an NBA unit for direct comparison. Four PRB types (different thicknesses) were installed to generate controlled impact forces. Two PRBs were placed on each test run (one on each rail) to minimize crosstalk and ensure stable impulse generation.

A locomotive, an instrumentation car and a loaded hopper car were operated through the test site at speeds from 5 to 40 mph with various PRB thicknesses. The HAC, NBA, and IWS systems were synchronized via ALDs. A total of 162 valid impact events were recorded, with IWS‑measured peak forces ranging from 46.5 to 97.7 kips—exceeding the AAR “actionable” limit (90 kips) in some cases.

The difference between IWS and HAC measurements remained within ±5%, with only one outlier across all tests. Although NBA performance varied between wheelsets, the NBA–IWS differences were within ±10%, indicating a need for improved stability. The impact force magnitude increased with PRB thickness and operating speed, following an approximately linear trend. The PRBs effectively controlled force magnitude and location, validating their use for repeatable impact generation in WILD system testing. The HAC and high‑accuracy IWS provide consistent, benchmark‑quality W/R impact force measurements. The NBA shows potential as a low‑cost, onboard alternative, but it will require stability refinements. The combination of IWS and PRBs offers a practical verification strategy for WILD systems. 

As a result of this work, AAR Standard S‑6101B Industry Data Validation: Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD) was implemented in April 2025. The specification calls for the use of PRBs to generate impact loads measured by an IWS and a wayside detector to facilitate accurate evaluation.

The Technology Digests this article is based on can be found in the MxV Rail eLibrary along with more than 1,000 other publications describing the railway research, testing and analysis available from the AAR SRI program. Explore www.mxvrail.com to learn more about MxV Rail and to register for the 31st Annual AAR Research Review, to be held April 28-30, 2026. 

Witte, M, Y. Zeng. 2023. “Measuring Wheel Impact Force through the Bearing Adapter.” Technology Digest TD23-014. AAR/MxV Rail.

Stoehr, N, Y. Zeng, and M. Witte. 2024. “Wheel/Rail Impact Force Measurement Validation.” Technology Digest TD24-023. AAR/MxV Rail.

Stoehr, N, Y. Zeng, and T. Sultana. “Wheel/Rail Vertical Impact Force Measurement Comparisons.” Technology Digest TD25-003. AAR/MxV Rail.

Association of American Railroads. 2025. Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices (MSRP). Section F. Standard S-6101B: Industry Data Validation: Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD). AAR. 

The post Wheel/Rail Vertical Impact Force Measurement Comparison appeared first on Railway Age.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for approximately $686 million in competitive grants for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP). Applications are due May 1, 2026, via Grants.gov.

“This is an initial announcement for the FY 2025 and FY 2026 rounds of this program,” FTA reported earlier this month. “As required by Federal public transportation law, funds will be awarded competitively for any purpose eligible under Division J of the [2021] Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) for capital and planning projects to upgrade the accessibility of legacy [i.e., pre-Americans With Disabilities Act] rail fixed guideway public transportation systems for people with disabilities.”

According to FTA, eligible projects include:

• “Capital projects to repair, improve, modify, retrofit, or relocate infrastructure of stations or facilities for passenger use, including load-bearing members that are an essential part of the structural frame.

• “Planning projects to develop or modify a plan for public transportation accessibility projects; accessibility assessments; or assessments of planned modifications to stations or facilities for passenger use.”

Eligible applicants include: State governments; county governments; and city or township governments; and transit operators that are “designated recipients for FTA funds that operate or allocate funds to legacy rail public transportation systems.” FTA noted that all States, including territories and Washington, D.C., must operate or financially support legacy rail public transportation systems and corresponding legacy stations or facilities.

The maximum Federal share is 80%, and applicants must include a description of their financial commitment to the proposed project, according to the FTA.

The post FTA: Applications Welcome for All Stations Accessibility Grants appeared first on Railway Age.

This is the fourth in a five-part series about railroad growth coming from truck conversions focused on the criticality of rail-to-rail competition to achieve Union Pacific’s growth outcome stated in the Dec. 19, 2025 merger application sent to the STB.

In Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of this series, we established the challenges and probabilities of truck conversions from the new proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern network. In short, we see a myriad of challenges ahead to drive modal conversion against the industries’ proverbial “easy button”—trucks. It is our opinion that, of the 2 million trucks, it’s reasonable to see about 25% or 500,000 truckloads convert to rail over a seven-to-ten-year time frame. Though these conversions can be achieved, they will take significant new capital investment in customer rail infrastructure, railcars, 53-foot containers and chassis, and most critical, rail rates that justify the risk inherent with modal conversion. The “juice” needs to be worth the “squeeze” for customers to make the switch from truck to rail. Without new rail-to-rail competition, we’re pessimistic freight will meaningfully convert.

In addition to the new truck conversions, not talked about but relevant is that the new UP-NS entity should convert between 3% to 5% of existing BNSF and CSX freight to the new UP-NS using a variety of techniques. Through Week 52 of 2025, BNSF moved 9.6 million units. CSX through the same period moved 6.3 million units. Therefore, in three years, UP-NS should be able to capture and shift 500,000 to 800,000 units from BNSF and CSX to the new UP-NS network.

How, may you ask? To paraphrase many war historians, quantity (size) is a quality all its own. The new transcontinental UP, a single carrier connecting the east and western U.S., will have unprecedented rail market power and leverage CSX and BNSF will be unable to match separately. Any open or jump ball freight, interline or local, will be taken from CSX and BNSF onto the new UP-NS network. It’s in day one of railroad commercial training—exert your market power with leverage.

How does that work? In 2025, UP and BNSF moved almost 18 million loads. CSX and NS combined for almost 13 million loads. Relating carloads to gorilla size, let’s say UP and BNSF are two 900-pound “gorillas” in the West. Let’s say CSX and NS are roughly 650-pound “gorillas” in the East. Allow UP and NS to become one railroad creates a 1,550-pound gorilla competing against a 900-pound gorilla in the West and a 650-pound gorilla in the East. Who’s going to dominate who? If you’re the 1,550-pound gorilla, who do you go after first? Does it make sense now why CSX has been so quiet about UP-NS relative to BNSF, CN and CPKC? CSX may get a new 1,550-pound gorilla in their cage, the East. Ouch!

Why does size matter in rail? Rail is an interesting business model—part transportation, part utility and part real estate. The resulting contiguous franchise and market reach is what matters: which routes, to which markets connecting which origins and destinations without head-to-head rail competition. How many closed options can be provided to customers? UP-NS left unchecked will go beyond dominant in terms of extracting price from customers, long-term. Intelligent and financially motivated professionals at the new organization, left unchecked without new guiderails or ceilings, will leverage every element available to them to pull as much profitable business onto their network and extract as much price from other business to fund it as they can. Little jump ball business will remain at competitive returns on CSX or BNSF. UP will extract price at above market levels. Ultimately U.S. consumers will pay the price. Why? Lack of adequate direct rail competition.

What is competition? Competition is crucial in business because it drives innovation, forces efficiency and keeps prices competitive while improving product quality. It acts as a catalyst for excellence, encouraging companies to differentiate their offerings, enhance customer service and adapt to market changes. Ultimately, competition benefits businesses and consumers by ensuring better value and greater choice, and preventing complacency.

I recently moved from Omaha to Bucks County Pa. I RFP’d my move to four competing moving carriers. I evaluated their proposals, their people and their processes and chose a mid-priced provider. United Van Lines did a great job. Be it the Super Bowl, the recent Winter Olympics or my move from Omaha, competition brings out the best outcomes in most elements of business and life.

My point? I can’t do that as a carload rail customer. In most carload cases (~80%), I’m “closed” (captive) to one railroad, the only company in town free to charge what they want, provide me whatever service they deem adequate and perform when it suits them best. Welcome to railroading. People understand what the term being “railroaded” means in our culture. It’s well-earned. Without adequate rail competition, we get where we are today with an unhealthy rail industry whose only path to growth is to consolidate and further reduce competition.

In 2010, at the beginning of the domestic intermodal turnaround, we transitioned our messaging at Union Pacific to the “competition is trucks, not rail.” Though was some signaling to other railroads in that message—”we aren’t investing in our intermodal franchise to come after your business—the truth is the intent was to grow the entire domestic rail intermodal market, not just on UP. All the railroads adopted some form of this positioning by 2013. And business was good until 2018, when the proverbial spigot filling the trough we all drank from ran dry. Penetration of truck share stopped. Why?

Early in my career in the Finance department, there was a saying: “Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.” While being a “pig” (taking reasonable profits) is acceptable, being a “hog” (excessive greed or overextending) leads to deadly outcomes. From 2003 till about 2018, 80% of the Class I railroads’ value growth came from pricing, and the ability to extract price from the market. For the sake of completeness, 10% came from volume growth and another 10% from operational efficiency. Pricing, and the ability to extract price from customers because they have no alternative, has rewarded the rail industry financially in the short term but led to a position where we are today: Prices are too high, and businesses aren’t converting to rail.

Based on recent real-life scenarios, rates for closed carload and intermodal lanes are on average 25% to 100% higher than lanes open to two or more rail carriers. The rail industry has beat the price drum so hard that business is moving away from rail. Though all business doesn’t need to be open to benefit, there needs to be meaningfully more direct rail competition than today.

As the railroads have gotten to the point of the four mega-systems we have across the U.S., prices continue to rise while local service has never been worse per shippers and receivers. Yes, “over the road” service in the post-PSR world hasn’t been better. But local service, once 5-6 days a week, is now 2-3 days a week and more difficult and expensive than ever for customers using rail. Rail competition would enable competitive pricing, better service, and rail organizations designed to put new business on the rails and not simply hit the easy button of “how much price can I extract before my customer is incented to put together a $2 million rate case?”

But what about Committed Gateway Pricing (CGP)? The merger application says CGP will enhance competition. CGP is a disingenuous way to maintain competition at best. To be clear, CGP does not in any way enhance competition. A deeper dive on CGP and how it falls short in maintaining competition will be addressed in Part 5.

We’ve had three years of stagnant truck rates, while rail rates increased at above-inflation levels. The North American rail industry has not grown since 2017 and has consistently lost share to truck and other modes since 2018. Why? I offer there’s not enough intrarail competition nor enough affordable oversight by the STB. Customers don’t have enough options. Railroads have too much leverage. Customers have been bitten by years of irregular service reducing their competitiveness, faced unchecked rail pricing vs. competitive rates in other modes, and are faced with one of the most non-customer-friendly transportation business processes.

Railroads have significant market power. Many would argue, eloquently, too much. The railroads can’t self-correct when they get out-of-market on prices. The feedback loop is 3-5 years for a captive customer to move away from rail. Lost business to price is not seen or is dispensed as noise as the leadership team works to secure this quarter’s earnings, so they retain their jobs. Checks and balances were to be put in place with the STB. Many argue the STB hasn’t acted enough, given the industry has stalled out on growth. STB rate cases are too expensive for customers to argue against a railroad’s incentives and therefore the railroads’ sizeable investments in legal departments to not lose them. Ultimately, the railroads have gotten too big. Now, the industry wants to make an even bigger railroad.

Rail is a precious commodity, and the benefits of rail (e.g. transportation savings, access to capacity, environmental benefits and better jobs) are without dispute. Generating new rail competition is critical for this industry to alter its course. Adding competition through reciprocal switching among the Class I’s, like in Canada with interswitching, could make this transaction a win-win for all parties. Regardless, we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.

Rob Russell, Managing Partner, Russell-Kroese Partners (RKP), is a seasoned transportation executive who operates fluidly from the boardroom to the shop floor. A certified six sigma black belt and a LEAN champion, Rob is a proven business leader who has a track record of strategy development, financial planning, business development, operations and performance management to accomplish an organization’s desired goals. RKP partners with railroads, ports, shippers and land developers on growth strategy, market development, competitive positioning and operational execution. They help clients translate complex transportation dynamics into clear, execution-ready business decisions.  You can learn more about RKP at www.russellkroese.com.

The post The 1,550-Pound Gorilla – Part 4 of 5 appeared first on Railway Age.

An Amtrak F40PH, or at least what remains of it, has been donated to the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Boulder City, south of Las Vegas. Amtrak 315 was donated by its previous owner, Western Rail near Spokane, Wash., to the museum in March. The locomotive, which no longer has a prime mover, will be moved to Nevada in the coming months. 

The timing of the donation is good: March marks the 50th anniversary of the first F40PH locomotive being delivered to Amtrak. The engines were essentially a passenger version of EMD’s popular GP40 freight locomotive, and became synonymous with passenger railroading in North America during the final decades of the 20th century. 

The museum said it plans on putting the locomotive on display and using the interior as a display space for an exhibit about the F40PHs and Amtrak in Nevada. 

—Justin Franz 

The post Amtrak F40 Donated to Nevada Museum appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

WATCHING WASHINGTON, RAILWAY AGE MARCH 2026 ISSUE: For Surface Transportation Board (STB) Vice Chairperson Republican Michelle A. Schultz, preparation and persistence paved what likely was an already preordained career path. 

Serving a second and statutorily final five-year term ending Nov. 11, 2030, Schultz will be in place to vote on a Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern (UP-NS) merger application if a revised version is submitted, as expected, by April 30.

Only Republican Chairperson Patrick J. Fuchs (profiled in March 2025) is similarly assured a vote. Democrat Karen J. Hedlund, whose first term expired Dec. 31, is in a maximum 12-month holdover and must then depart if not renominated and Senate confirmed for a second term. Of the two vacant seats on the five-member board, POTUS 47 nominee and Republican Richard Kloster awaits Senate action. A Democratic seat is open after the court-challenged firing by POTUS 47 of Robert E. Primus. 

Never during Schultz’ high school years—where band, cheerleading, field hockey, student council, track and volleyball filled her days, and studying her nights—did she imagine someday being nominated for a federal post by the President of the United States and having her qualifications evaluated by the United States Senate. 

Nor did such thoughts occur to this human version of the Energizer bunny when studying economics, English, government administration and public policy at Penn State University—or at Widener University Law School, or later in private law practice, or subsequently working her way to deputy general counsel of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) while simultaneously earning a master’s degree in government administration at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Schultz’ post-law school judicial clerkship at the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania strongly suggests career preordination. It’s the very courthouse where Penn Central filed for bankruptcy on June 21, 1970, some two years before Schultz’s birth. The echoes remain.

Even today, there is discussed in legal circles the Penn Central autopsy revealing an infamous confluence of poor management, culture clash, unrealistic projections and operational chaos compounded by STB predecessor Interstate Commerce Commission ordering an already bankrupt New England railroad, the New Haven, into the ill-fated marriage. 

Might the unanimous January STB decision rejecting the UP-NS merger application, without prejudice for refiling with improved data and cured of other deficiencies, echo the wreck of Penn Central? Didn’t President Ronald Reagan counsel, “Trust, but verify?” 

Schultz was Senate-confirmed in 2020 to occupy in January 2021 a new and still vacant seat created by the 2015 Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act.

In reviewing cases ahead of voting, Schultz is known for persistently questioning STB staff experts on economics, environmental science and agency precedent. Where Government in Sunshine laws and the 2015 Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act permit, she is known to prod peers aggressively to reveal the thought process and logic underpinning their concerns or likely vote. 

Schultz’s capacity to appreciate and integrate opposing viewpoints flows from lessons learned lobbying the Pennsylvania legislature for SEPTA funding. To overcome rural Republican skepticism of transit subsidies, she employed data and logic to demonstrate that public transit’s statewide economic benefits far exceed subsidy costs.

While some allege Schultz’s voting record mirrors that of fellow Republican Fuchs—she has penned only 11 dissents—the claim lacks factual support. The similar voting record can be explained by Fuchs’ brand of pre-vote consensus building. Hedlund has penned fewer dissents. 

Where Schultz has written some 25 separate expressions, pro and con, attorneys on both sides acknowledge they are cogent and well-reasoned. As with many attorneys, writing skill is attributable to studying styles of revered judges. In 2022, her dissent to a majority decision preserving Final Offer Rate Review was cited multiple times by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated it. 

Most remarkable at this STB is the collegiality among Schultz, Fuchs and Hedlund—a chemistry the White House and Senate should seek to preserve ahead of filling out the agency’s five seats. Those occupants could decide the most consequential railroad merger application in U.S. history.

Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner is author of “Railroads & Economic Regulation,” available from Simmons-Boardman Books, www.railwayeducationalbureau.com/product/ railroads-economic-regulation-an-insiders-account/, 800-228-9670. 

The post STB’s Preordained ‘Energizer Bunny’ appeared first on Railway Age.

Caltrain on March 5 reported that its Board of Directors has voted to adopt a new Corridor Right-of-Way Safety Strategy (CROWS).

“Caltrain and its partners have implemented safety improvements at specific locations in response to known risk conditions, operational needs and available funding since the agency’s founding,” the commuter railroad said. “While these investments have delivered meaningful benefits, the corridor continues to face serious challenges including repeated trespassing incidents and vehicle incursions onto the right-of-way, events that can result in death or serious injury, trauma to employees and the public, and significant service disruptions.”

The CROWS Strategy combines education, outreach, enforcement, engineering improvements, and standards/procedure updates, organized around “data-driven risk analysis and national best practices for trespass and suicide prevention,” Caltrain said.

According to the railroad, the strategy includes:

“1. Hazard and Risk Assessments (data-driven prioritization)

• “Update a corridor-wide threat and Vulnerability Assessment (TVA) that explicitly addresses trespass, suicide risk and grade-crossing hazards, incorporating applicable Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) tools and Caltrain data.
• “Update the Grade Crossing Hazard Assessment using FRA accident prediction inputs and local collision/trespass history to support prioritization for separation, closure or improvements.

“2) Enforcement (targeted deterrence and rapid response)

• “Recurring, data-driven enforcement blitzes at high-risk crossings and trespass locations, providing opportunities to educate the public as well as citations for egregious behavior.
• “Coordinated operations with cities and local police to increase presence at peak-risk times.
• “Training and coordination with law enforcement on crisis intervention and rail-specific hazards, including appropriate 988 referral pathways.
• “Expanded data collection and analytics (including heat maps by location/time) to deploy resources effectively and measure results.
• “Potential license plate recognition pilot to deter grade-crossing violations, identify unauthorized vehicles, and support coordinated enforcement with local partners.

“3) Education and Outreach (shared responsibility and safer behavior)

• “A corridor-wide Safety Communications Strategy with consistent messaging: stay off the tracks, follow grade-crossing rules, and increase 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline visibility in appropriate locations and formats.
• “Targeted outreach in communities near high-risk crossings and stations (e.g., schools, senior centers, businesses, and service providers).
• “Seasonal and event-based campaigns using earned media, social media and station announcements.
• “Partnerships with organizations such as Operation Lifesaver and local jurisdictions for ongoing joint education and enforcement events.

“4) Engineering and Technology (physical and operational risk reduction)

• “A corridor-wide plan to reduce access to the tracks (barriers, fencing, channelization, and design integration for grade separations and station rebuilds).
• “Pilot and standardize treatments such as anti-trespass panels at high-risk access points.
• “CCTV Master Planning for a unified system across crossings, stations, yards, and high-risk areas, including analytics/intrusion detection and defined monitoring/response protocols.
• “Vegetation management focused on safety sightlines, fire risk, and limiting informal access paths into the ROW.
• “Copper theft mitigation measures to protect critical signal and grade-crossing infrastructure and reduce service impacts.

“5) Standards and Procedure Updates (consistency and accountability)

• “A Grade Crossing Design Standard incorporating current best practices (signage, lighting, channelization, barriers, CCTV expectations, and other treatments).
• “Updated internal controls requiring TVA and hazard assessment use in scoping capital and third-party projects.
• “Enhanced ROW access procedures and strengthened internal reporting systems to improve visibility, tracking, and corrective action.
• “Ongoing transparency through quarterly safety reporting.”

Caltrain said the CROWS Strategy is designed “to standardize and scale effective improvements, in order to accelerate deployment at identified high-risk locations, and strengthen ongoing maintenance and monitoring to ensure safety improvements remain effective over time.” Staff, it noted, are also seeking additional funding to expand “proven measures” to more locations throughout the corridor.

Caltrain said it will continue to provide regular safety reports to the Board and share similar information with employees to support a stronger safety culture and continuous improvement. Reports include both lagging indicators reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (which can reveal hazards after incidents occur), and leading indicators that help identify risk earlier and enable preventive action before incidents happen, according to Caltrain.

“Safety is Caltrain’s core value, and the need to make our right-of-way safer is reflected in everything we do,” Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard said. “After years of targeted improvements, this strategy establishes a comprehensive approach to reducing risk, strengthening accountability, and delivering the most effective treatments where they are needed most throughout the entire Caltrain corridor to keep the people and communities we serve safe.”

• Success Story
• For Bay Area Transit, a $590MM ‘Fiscal Bridge’
• Caltrain: ‘Cuts to Come’ Without External Funding
• Caltrain Implementing Asset Monitoring Tech at Crossings

UTA will transition to the UTA FAREPAY Card as its recommended fare payment method beginning April 12, the transit agency reported this month. The move to more electronic forms of payment is part of the transit agency’s efforts to modernize its fares system and simplify the payment process for riders. The UTA FAREPAY Card is a reloadable card that allows riders to tap the card on the payment validator when getting on and off any UTA vehicle. FAREPAY Cards are available at UTA customer service locations, online, and at participating retailers.

The UTA FAREPAY Card tracks customer rides on UTA and automatically applies daily and weekly fare capping to ensure riders always pay the lowest possible fare, according to the transit agency. The more customers ride, the more they save with UTA fare capping. The transition to FAREPAY Cards is the latest step in UTA’s Fare Payment System Upgrades project to improve and simplify the fare payment process. This project includes the installation of new ticket vending machines, new tap on/tap off validators, and upgraded online fare payment tools. UTA’s fare system modernization program will continue throughout 2026 with the launch of debit and credit card payment capabilities later in the year, UTA said.

UTA said its Reduced Fare customers are encouraged to visit UTA customer service locations to obtain a free FAREPAY Card, while supplies lasts.

“This change is another step forward as UTA works to modernize and improve the customer experience,” said Jay Fox, UTA Executive Director. “As we standardize and streamline our fare payment system, customers see further savings and convenience through fare capping, automatic transfers, and easy ways to reload their FAREPAY Card.”

UTA in 2023 selected Scheidt & Bachmann Inc. to implement its “next generation” fare collection system.

Separately, professional services firm STV was recently selected to support UTA’s FrontRunner 2X Project.

Be My Eyes and Amtrak last August launched a pilot to make it easier for blind and low vision travelers to navigate train stations in real time. According to Be My Eyes, its app allowed riders “to connect instantly with trained visual interpreters” who could help with such tasks as:

• Finding the correct track or gate.
• Reading departure boards and signage.
• Navigating large or unfamiliar stations.

Users downloaded the app from the App Store and Google Play, selected the Service Directory, navigated to Travel and Transportation, and chose the Amtrak support profile. They then connected live with an Amtrak agent for assistance “on the go,” according to Be My Eyes.

“The service helped reduce stress, supported independent travel, and proved its value in real-world journeys,” Be My Eyes reported late last month. As a result, it said, Amtrak has decided to expand the program to 50 train stations across the United States.

Live visual support is now available at stations including:

Albany-Rensselaer, NY; Alexandria, VA (ALX); Austin, TX; Bakersfield, CA; Baltimore, MD (BAL); Boston, MA – Back Bay (BBY); Boston, MA – South Station (BOS); Buffalo (Exchange Street Station), NY; BWI Marshall Airport, MD (BWI); Charlotte, NC; Chicago (Union Station), IL; Denver (Union Station), CO; Emeryville, CA; Eugene (Amtrak), OR; Fredericksburg, VA; Fresno, CA; Greensboro, NC; Harrisburg, PA; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City (Union Station), MO; Los Angeles, CA; Martinez, CA; Metropark, NJ (MET); Milwaukee (Downtown), WI; Moynihan Train Hall + NY Penn Station (NYP); New Carrollton, MD; New Haven, CT (NHV); Newark, NJ – Penn Station (NWK); Oakland (Jack London Square), CA; Philadelphia, PA (PHL); Pittsburgh (Union Station), PA; Portland (Union Station), OR; Providence, RI (PVD); Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA – Staples Mill Road (RVR); Rochester (Louise M. Slaughter Station), NY; Route 128, MA (RTE); Sacramento, CA; San Diego (Downtown), CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle (King Street Station), WA; Springfield, IL; Springfield, MA; St. Louis, MO; Stamford, CT (STM); Stockton (San Joaquin Street Station), CA; Trenton, NJ; Vancouver, WA; Washington, DC (WAS); Wilmington, DE (WIL).

“For blind and low vision passengers, accessibility isn’t optional—it’s essential,” said Bryan Bashin, Vice President of Be My Eyes. “Seeing this partnership grow from a pilot into a nationwide expansion shows what’s possible when accessibility is built into the travel experience.”

“Very excited to expand Amtrak’s partnership with Be My Eyes bringing this live visual interpretation service to 50 stations across the route network nationwide,” noted Anna Brophy, Program Manager for Amtrak Digital Technology-Real Estate in a LinkedIn post. “I am incredibly proud of the team’s hard work to make this happen. Part of our Beyond Compliance program, this will help blind and low vision passengers with in station navigation and real time assistance. An excellent use of adaptive technology!”

• FRA’s ‘Kind of a Little Bit’ Amtrak Restructuring
• Amtrak Revises its Long-Distance Fleet Replacement Strategy
• Amtrak Releases Video on Fleet Maintenance Facility Program
• Watch: Amtrak Debuts Airo

The post Transit Briefs: Caltrain, UTA, Amtrak appeared first on Railway Age.

FROM THE EDITOR, RAILWAY AGE MARCH 2026 ISSUE: I’ve been wanting to write this column  for a very  long time. Recently I came across a Wall Street Journal article by News Editor Demetria Gallegos: “The Corporate Jargon We Hate the Most.” “We pinged our readers for the terms that really annoy them,” she wrote. “The list is long.”

In my nearly 34 years at Railway Age, I’ve rolled my eyes and popped Pepcid pills while deciphering press releases polluted with conniption-causing corporate-speak. Here’s a sampling of euphemistic words and phrases—some of which I’m guilty of using:

• • “_____ is our number one priority” (fill in the blank)
• • “360-degree-view” (makes my head spin)
• • “10,000-/50,000-foot view” (nosebleed)
• • “Asset allocation” (this goes where?)
• • “Bandwidth” (AM? FM? VHF? UHF?)
• • “Circle back” (boomerang)
• • “Core competency” (incompetency?)
• • “Cost control” (Wall Street favorite)
• • “Customer-centric” (just circling around?)
• • “Deep dive” (until you drown?)
• • “Deliverable” (to the wrong address?)
• • “Drill down” (how deep?)
• • “Dumpster fire” (filled with press releases?)
• • “Five-alarm response“ (to a dumpster fire?)
• • “Hard stop” (derailment?)
• • “Judicious use of capital” (cheap)
• • “Cutting edge” (until it’s dull)
• • “Lean in” (without falling over)
• • “Leverage” (fancy word for “use”)
• • “Low-hanging fruit” (maybe putrid?)
• • “Move the needle” (off the scale?)
• • “New normal” (until it’s old)
• • “Pivot to growth” (yeah, ok …)
• •  Raise the bar” (how high?)
• • “Rationalize” (sometimes irrational)
• • “Right-size/downsize” (fire people)
• • “Shareholder value” (ugh!)
• • “Solution” (to a challenge?)
• • “Solve challenges/issues” (grammar!)
• • “Stakeholder” (to kill Dracula?)
• • “Synergy” (cooperation)
• • “Targeted” (for right-sizing?)
• • “Touch base” (you’re out!)
• • “Thought leader” (someone with ESP?)

Had enough? No? Try to decipher this “press release boilerplate BS text” I wrote in this column a while back:

“We’re executing best-in-class service, and we’re extremely confident that substantial opportunities exist to leverage our service product offering, capture growth and deliver superior financial returns. Our 360-degree view, which incorporates, where appropriate, rationalized right-sizing and/or downsizing initiatives, is focused on strategically deploying disciplined capital investments. We’re working aggressively to implement a remarkable rate of positive organizational change, developing and implementing customer-centric operating strategies by engaging and communicating proactively through frequent interactions with both our internal and external stakeholders about our processes for tighter procedural coordination. In a challenging environment filled with persistent headwinds, we are fully committed to deploying the streamlined resources necessary to address our capacity constraints, while raising the bar on our customer service metrics. Safety is our top priority, followed closely by our commitment to enhancing shareholder value.”

After reading this column in the Digital Edition, Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner sent me a congratulatory note of similar gobbledygook*:

“Hands down, and taking a 360-degree look while drilling down into the customer-centric judicious use of typically low-hanging fruit, your March hard stop column demonstrates from a 10,000-50,000 foot view the cutting edge core competency of your raising the bar for knowledge-based, cutting edge, right-sizing, creating both reader value synergy and circle-back thought leadership for a targeted new normal stakeholder audience similarly invested in a rationalized moving the needle leveraged joint objective.”

Yogi Berra was right: You can observe a lot by just watching! Now, about that fork in the road …

*Gobbledygook (or gobbledygook) refers to wordy, convoluted or jargon-filled language that is nonsensical or difficult to understand. The term was created by Texas politician Maury Maverick in 1944. He reportedly used the term to describe the “activation” and “implementation” of pompous, technical government-speak memos, saying it sounded like a, turkey “gobbling.” Synonyms are ”gibberish,” “doubletalk,” “mumbo jumboÆ and “nonsense.”

The post Don’t Have a Conniption. It’s Just  Corporate-Speak appeared first on Railway Age.