Feed aggregator

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on March 3 reported that it will invest $100.3 million into public transit systems within the 11 cities hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup to ensure they can meet increased demand.

The international men’s soccer tournament will take place from June 11 to July 19, 2026, and will be hosted by 16 cities in the United States (11), Mexico (three), and Canada (two).

According to the FTA, the 2026 FIFA World Cup funding is made possible through the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, and will go to the following Urbanized Areas (UZA): Atlanta, Ga.; Boston, Mass.-N.H.; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Tex.; Houston, Tex.; Kansas City, Mo.-Kans.; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif.; Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; New York-Jersey City-Newark, N.Y.-N.J.; Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.-Del.-Md.; San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.; and Seattle-Tacoma, Wash.

It said the funding will:

• “[S]upport planning, capital, and operating expenses supporting matches and other public events held in U.S. host cities.
• “[B]e apportioned by a formula accounting for stadium capacity and number of matches in each host city.
• “Allow for 100% Federal share for these funds.
• “Require transit agencies to obligate these funds within one fiscal year of the close of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.”

FTA has prepared a frequently asked questions fact sheet and a grant-making toolkit (download both below) to help transit agencies/other transit stakeholders and “support the effective use of these funds.” Also available are guidance videos for 2026 FIFA World Cup host cities.

FTA will also hold a 2026 World Cup Funding Webinar on March 11, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. ET.

“This funding is about more than moving fans—it’s about preparing our communities to host the largest sporting event in history and ensuring the world sees America at its best,” said Andrew Giuliani, Executive Director of the White House Task Force on the FIFA World Cup 2026. “These investments will help create lasting memories for visitors and residents alike, and reinforce our commitment to safety, hospitality, and operational excellence.”

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA, which is hosting eight World Cup games at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, is receiving $9,603,284. (Click here to see all apportionments.)

“LA Metro is grateful for the leadership of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, and the advocacy of our LA County Congressional Delegation in securing federal funds to provide transit services for the 2026 FIFA World Cup games set to be held in southern California,” said Stephanie Wiggins, CEO of LA Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), which offers rapid transit and light rail, bus, and micro transit services. “We are also deeply appreciative for the outstanding work of the Federal Transit Administration in allocating this funding so quickly. LA Metro will continue our positive work with our transit partners across southern California to make sure fans can use transit services whether they are going to the World Cup games at Los Angeles Stadium, or enjoying the fan zones that will be held across the county.”

With Los Angeles-area residents being joined by fans from around the world and with limited parking availability at the stadium, LA Metro and more than 10 regional transit partners, including Long Beach Transit, will provide direct service from key rail stations and locations throughout the region including:

• Crenshaw Station
• Downtown Long Beach
• El Camino College
• Harbor Gateway Transit Center
• Hawthorne/Lennox Station
• LA Union Station
• LAX/Metro Transit Center Station
• North Hollywood Station
• Pierce College

Additional locations will be announced in the coming months.

LA Metro said it will also be enhancing rail service on key routes during the World Cup, plus it has developed enhanced multilingual wayfinding and plans to deploy extra Ambassadors, volunteers and security.

The San Francisco-Oakland UZA, which is hosting six World Cup games at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, is receiving $8,807,888.

“After successfully delivering record-breaking transit service to Levi’s Stadium for Super Bowl 60, [Santa Clara] VTA [Valley Transportation Authority] is grateful for Senator Padilla’s efforts to secure critical federal funding to enhance safety and security as we prepare to welcome the world for the FIFA World Cup 2026,” added Carolyn Gonot, General Manager and CEO of VTA, which provides light rail, bus, and paratransit services. “These investments will help ensure a seamless, secure, and successful experience for fans and our community alike.”

Boston will receive $8,671,598 to support the World Cup matches at Gillettte Stadium. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) “has committed to moving roughly 20,000 passengers per match in and out of Foxboro Station, using up to 14 commuter rail trains per game—a major increase compared to past events,” according to a Boston 25 News report following a Feb. 25 Massachusetts DOT Board meeting.

“Transit officials said the agency typically runs one train for Patriots games and runs four trains for the Army–Navy game,” the media outlet reported.

“Going up to 14 is monumental if you think about it,” said Phil Eng, MassDOT interim Transportation Secretary and MBTA General Manager, according to Boston 25 News, which noted that “Eng said the expanded service is being designed not only for the World Cup, but also to create a blueprint for future large-scale events.”

Public transportation will be important, the media outlet noted, because parking will be significantly reduced “due to expanded security perimeters and the setup for vendors.”

Meanwhile, TransLink in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada has unveiled its game plan for FIFA World Cup 2026 (click here for an interactive system map). “With temporary road closures, controlled areas, and traffic management measures near venues, transit will be the fastest and easiest way to reach BC Place Vancouver and the FIFA Fan Festival Vancouver,” the agency said. Vancouver is expected to see significant surges in travel demand over a four-week period, with match days bringing the highest volumes. To meet this demand, TransLink said it will deliver service increases across bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus, and the West Coast Express commuter rail, supported by more frontline staff to manage crowds, support safety, and keep people moving efficiently.

“This region knows what it takes to host the world, and our transit system has been part of that success every step of the way,” TransLink CEO Kevin Quinn said. “Vancouver is the only 2026 host city with this track record: a World Expo, the Olympic Games, the FIFA Women’s World Cup—and now the FIFA Men’s World Cup. TransLink will leverage that experience to scale up service and move large crowds safely and reliably. Our system was built for major events, and it’s ready for the world’s biggest.”

The post FTA: $100MM for 2026 FIFA World Cup Public Transit appeared first on Railway Age.

Calgary-based CPKC has become the first Class I railroad to unveil a specially painted unit in tribute to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. 

KCS Tier 4 ET44AC 1776 was unveiled on March 2, after being constructed by Wabtec in Fort Worth, Tex. (while the engine is lettered for CPKC, it had KCS reporting marks under the cab window because “CPKC” is not an official reporting mark. Most of CPKC’s new Tier 4 units have arrived with CP reporting marks). CPKC officials said KCS 1776 would be the first of five units to celebrate the Semiquincentennial. 

“This locomotive, built and painted in Fort Worth, Texas, honors the remarkable and proud history of America as we prepare to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary,” said Keith Creel, CPKC President and Chief Executive Officer. “As a U.S. Army veteran, I am proud to join my 6,000 fellow railroaders living and working across America in celebrating the contributions of all Americans throughout our history. Together, we join the nation in looking forward with vision and hope to the accomplishments of generations yet to come.”

Union Pacific and Canadian National have either painted or announced plans to paint engines to celebrate the anniversary, but neither railroad has actually released one. Norfolk Southern and BNSF Railway have both been mum about their plans to paint special units. Numerous short lines and regionals have painted engines in advance of the anniversary.

—Justin Franz 

The post CPKC Becomes First Class I to Unveil 250th Unit appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

On Monday, March 2, BART rolled out new fare gate tones that it says are “more pleasing and audible” over station background noise, making stations more welcoming and simpler to navigate, especially for blind and low-vision riders.

The new “chime” tones play when riders hold their fare media (Clipper card, contactless bank card, or mobile payments) on the reader for an additional second and are intended to inform blind and low-vision customers that the fare gate is open to pass through. An ascending chime plays on entering and a descending chime plays on exiting. The chime tone is also easier to distinguish from the beep sound the fare gates generate for errors, such as insufficient funds. This chime tone, BART says, does not play automatically every time someone taps their fare media as this would create “a cacophony in the station and make it difficult to know if a specific fare gate were open.”

BART’s old fare gates previously used beeps to indicate the fare gates were open because they were among the few sounds the dated technology could produce. BART’s new fare gates, which were installed at all stations in August 2025, can produce a wider range of tones.

Seizing this opportunity, BART staff developed the new chime tone and collected feedback from the BART Accessibility Task Force (BATF), BART Station Agents, and an online survey during a pilot period at three stations. 

Ryan Greene-Roesel, BART Director of Customer Access and Accessibility, is a musician and developed the distinctive chime chords on her piano. BART’s sound engineers then input the chords into a digital program that let the team generate various iterations before the final iteration was selected. 

“We hope customers and station staff enjoy the new tones as we continue to work hard to improve the BART experience for all of our riders,” Greene-Roesel said.

In related news, BART is inviting members of the blind or low-vision community to a sensory orientation event on March 25.

This free public event presents two unique opportunities to: 

• “Leisurely explore an out-of-service ten-car train. BART staff will demonstrate features such as Braille car identification numbers, inter-car barriers, and the location of train intercoms aboard the Fleet of the Future train.
• “Practice getting to safety in the event of an accidental fall onto the track with a set-up mimicking the crawl space under the platform next to the trackway.”

Another focus of the event will be navigating the vending machines, fare gates, and platforms with plenty of staff on hand to answer questions and provide information. BART has an online accessibility guide that provides additional information.

Some service providers, like Lighthouse for the Blind and Clipper, will table at the event to provide more information and resources. 

More information is available here.

Omaha Streetcar construction will close more downtown lanes this week as crews prepare for rail delivery, according to a KETV NewsWatch 7 report.

Beginning Monday, March 2, lane closures will start on Farnam between 10th and 13th Streets. 11th Street at Farnam will fully close, the City of Omaha says, for rail offloading and welding, according to the report.

“Completing this deep-utility work now is essential to maintaining the overall streetcar project schedule,” the City of Omaha said, acknowledging the challenges the closures cause.

Track construction in this area starts in April, according to the report.

A full timeline for streetcar construction is available here.

Further Reading:

• CAF Wins Omaha Streetcar Order
  

The MBTA recently debuted the third of its three heritage units —all F40s—that have been updated and repainted in legacy schemes.

The New York Central Railroad scheme is now in service, honoring the legacy railroads that shaped the MBTS’s current operations.

The New York Central Railroad unit joins the New Haven unit, which was debuted last month, and the Boston & Maine Railroad unit, which was introduced last September, representing the last of 37 MBTA locomotives that originally entered service between 1987 and 1991 and were recently overhauled and upgraded with remote monitoring and diagnostics, forward-facing and cab cameras, and modern brake and control systems, according to the agency.

The post Transit Briefs: BART, Omaha Streetcar, MBTA appeared first on Railway Age.

Roco announced today that the demand for the French SNCF BB 26005 has far exceeded their original production schedule of these locomotives. At present they are oversold, however, they are considering a 2nd production run of this highly-anticipated locomotive.  Based on new orders, they will make their decision March 27th. 

If you have been considering this locomotive, now is the time to place an order. Reserve yours’s now to avoid disappointment!

CPKC in February moved 2.232 million metric tons (MMT) of Canadian grain and grain products, beating its previous February tonnage record set in 2021, the railroad reported March 3. Last month’s 23,088 carloads also set a new February monthly record, surpassing the previous high also set in February 2021, it noted.

“This is the second straight monthly Canadian grain record and it continues a strong start to 2026 as our railroaders work safely and efficiently with our supply chain collaborators to move a record grain crop across Western Canada,” CPKC Vice President Sales and Marketing Bulk Elizabeth Hucker said. “Our investments in the grain supply chain, combined with our customers’ new and upgraded grain-handling capacity, are moving more Canadian grain for export to markets around the world.”

To begin 2026, CPKC set a new January monthly Canadian grain record moving 2.395 MMT; the previous record was set in January 2023. January 2026’s 24,688 carloads surpassed the previous high also set in January 2023.

Through the first 30 weeks of the 2025-26 crop year, CPKC reported transporting more than 17.1 MMT of Canadian grain and grain products. “These are the largest Canadian grain totals since the record-setting 2020-21 crop year,” the railroad noted. “In addition, February 2026 also set a February carload and monthly tonnage record for the most total grain moved in Canada and the United States on the CPKC network with 46,896 carloads and approximately 4.501 MMT transported last month, exceeding the prior monthly records from 2024.”

The volumes of Canadian grain and grain products moving on CPKC in multiple weeks exceeded the average supply chain capacity targets outlined in the railroad’s annual grain service plan (download below). “It is critical that all supply chain participants, including customer loading facilities and terminal operators loading grain into vessels at ports, operate at full capacity to sustain this strong momentum,” CPKC said.

Separately, CN recently reported that January 2026 was its “second-best” January on record for grain movement. It shipped more than 2.72 MMT of grain from Western Canada, down slightly from the 2.85 MMT “all-time record” set in January 2020. Despite extreme cold weather across its 20,000-mile rail network, CN said it “adjusted its operations to safely and efficiently move Canadian grain to market supporting farmers, along with supply chain and agriculture partners.” The railroad noted that it continues to execute its winter operations plan.

• CPKC: ‘Exceptional Execution in Challenging Market’
• CTA Releases Annual Maximum Grain Revenue Entitlements for CN, CPKC (part of Class I Briefs)
• CN, CPKC: Ready for 2025-26 Grain Service
• CTA Sets CN, CPKC 2025-2026 VRCPIs

“Our teams work tirelessly to ensure the highest levels of safety so that they and their teammates go home in the same condition as when they came to work,” BNSF wrote recently in the RailTalk section of its website. “This teamwork resulted in 2025 being BNSF’s best-ever in safety in the 177-year history of our railroad.”

BNSF’s injury frequency rate (IFR) in 2025 “was about a 16% improvement from 2024,” according to the railroad reported, which also saw a 13% decrease in rail equipment incidents, “surpassing our target for 2025.”

“These levels of safety success deserve recognition, which is why we have a Safety Bell Award program,” BNSF said. “The Safety Bells are brass bells preserved from steam locomotives of yesteryear that remain a symbol of our industry. They are awarded annually to operations teams with the best safety performance.”

In 2025, seven BNSF teams earned Safety Bells for “outstanding safety performance”:

• Best Transportation Team – Powder River Division, Denver
• Best Engineering Team – Powder River Division, Denver
• Best Mechanical teams – Northwest Division, Vancouver, Washington; California Division, Barstow; Topeka, Kans., Diesel Shop; Lincoln, Neb., Diesel Shop; Twin Cities Division, Minneapolis, Minn. (Northtown).

Additionally, BNSF’s Powder River Division took home the bell for Best Overall Safety, which the railroad said “considers the safety success of all three crafts (Transportation, Engineering and Mechanical) in each division.”

“I’m tremendously proud of these teams for their commitment to keeping each other safe day-in and day-out,” BNSF Vice President of Safety Chad Sundem said. “They are truly modeling the way in striving to achieve our vision of operating a railroad free of accidents and injuries.”

According to BNSF, the Safety Bell trophies are held for the year by the Safety Bell honorees in “Stanley Cup-style,” and each team is recognized with their own nameplate affixed on the trophy base. All members of the teams are honored with a commemorative Safety Bell challenge coin, it noted.

Eight BNSF teams earned Safety Bells in 2024.

NS Senior Product Owner Katelyn Brammer is a third‑generation railroader. Her maternal grandfather, Billy Coyne, worked in the traffic department at Norfolk & Western. “His experience in the Merchant Marines during World War II, where he helped move critical cargo in support of the war effort, shaped his appreciation for logistics and transportation and inspired him to pursue a career working in rail after returning home,” NS reported recently in the Story Yard section of its website.

Katelyn’s father is former NS Product Manager Ken Brammer.

After her family moved several times around the East Coast with her father’s career at NS, Katelyn and her family settled in Atlanta. “At a time when Katelyn was going through a career change and considering a new industry, she started thinking about joining the railroad herself and leaned heavily on her dad’s expertise,” according to the railroad.

“I talked to him a lot before I started,” Katelyn said. “I was nervous. I felt like I needed to really understand how the railroad works before I was ready to make that change.”

According to NS, those conversations helped as she stepped into her role at NS, first in HR scaling internal platforms and tools systems, then moving to support customers and their experience. “What she brought with her wasn’t just family history, but family habits,” NS said. “That mindset came from watching her dad navigate a career that involved constant movement, change, and flexibility.” Also key: hard work, staying organized, taking responsibility, and most of all, NS said, solving problems. “When something comes up in our family, we don’t just sit there,” Katelyn said. “We go into action. We figure it out.”

Katelyn carries that same approach into her work, according to NS. “Her role may look different from the ones her grandfather and father held, but the purpose feels familiar,” the railroad noted. “Show up. Support others. Keep things moving.”

• NS Extends Georgia Tech Partnership (part of Class I Briefs)
• NS Expands Thoroughbred Trading Post Mobile App (part of Class I Briefs)

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

Berkshire Hathaway-owned BNSF posted total revenue and volume that for 2025 were relatively unchanged from 2024 and that for fourth-quarter 2025 saw declines. In a letter to shareholders, Berkshire CEO Greg Abel, who succeeded Warren Buffett at the end of last year, noted “more progress is needed to translate operational improvements into stronger financial results”; he also addressed the potential Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger.

Total revenues for the fourth quarter decreased 3% and were relatively flat for full-year 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024, according to BNSF. The fourth quarter decrease, it said, “was primarily due to a 4% decline in unit volumes, partially offset by a 2% increase in average revenue per car/unit resulting from higher yield.” The railroad reported that revenues for the full year reflected a 1% decline in average revenue per car/unit “resulting from lower fuel surcharge and unfavorable business mix, partially offset by higher yield.”

BNSF said that revenue changes also resulted from the following:

• Consumer Products volumes fell 6% and rose 1%, respectively, for fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 vs. the same periods in 2024. The fourth-quarter volume decrease was “primarily due to lower intermodal shipments impacted by the global market environment and excess capacity in the trucking market,” according to the railroad. The full-year increase, it said, “was primarily due to higher intermodal shipments resulting from higher west coast imports and a new intermodal customer, and an increase in automotive volume from higher vehicle production.”

• Agricultural and Energy Products volumes were up 5% and 2%, respectively, for fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 compared with the same periods in 2024. The fourth-quarter volume increase was attributed primarily “to higher grain exports and domestic shipments and petroleum fuels, partially offset by lower volumes of soybean shipments.” The full-year increase, BNSF said, was “primarily due to higher grain exports and petroleum fuel shipments, partially offset by lower domestic grain and feed shipments.”

• Industrial Products volumes dipped 7% and 5%, respectively, for fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 vs. the same periods in 2024. BNSF said the volume decreases were “primarily due to lower demand for construction products and lower shipments in plastics and petroleum products.”

• Coal volumes fell 6% and rose 1%, respectively, for fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 vs. the same periods in 2024. The fourth-quarter volume decrease was “primarily due to plant retirements and mine production challenges,” and the full-year increase was “primarily due to the competitive effects of higher natural gas prices.”

BNSF reported that operating expenses fell 8% and 4%, respectively, for fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 vs. the year-earlier periods, predominantly due to the following factors:

• Compensation and benefits expense decreased 21% and 6% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, compared with the same periods in 2024, “due primarily to a one-time payment of approximately $290 million included in the agreement with the SMART-TD labor union in December 2024 that allowed BNSF the ability to redeploy brakepersons to conductors and engineers, as well as increased employee productivity, partially offset by wage inflation.”

• Fuel expense decreased 3% and 8% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, vs. the same periods in 2024. BNSF said the decrease during the fourth quarter was “primarily due to improved fuel efficiency, partially offset by higher average fuel prices.” The full-year decline, it noted, was “primarily due to lower average fuel prices and improved fuel efficiency.” Locomotive fuel price per gallon increased 5% and decreased 6% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, compared with the same periods in 2024.

• Depreciation and amortization expense increased 5% and 4% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, compared with the same periods in 2024. “The increase was primarily due to a larger asset base,” BNSF said.

• Materials and other expense decreased 2% and 13% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, compared with the same 2024 periods. The decrease was attributed primarily to “ongoing cost management efforts, as well as lower litigation accruals for the full year.”

• Income tax expense increased 32% and 5% in fourth-quarter and full-year 2025, respectively, compared with the year-ago periods. “The increases were primarily due to higher pre-tax income and an unfavorable state return to provision adjustment as a result of apportionment rates after return time, partially offset by the favorable law change in Kansas,” BNSF reported. The effective tax rate, it said, was 23.7% and 24.3% for the years ended Dec. 31, 2025, and 2024, respectively. “The effective tax rate decreased due to lower deferred state tax expense arising from changes in enacted rates during the second quarter of 2025,” the railroad noted.

• There were no significant changes in purchased services, equipment rents, interest expense or other (income) expense, net, according to BNSF.

BNSF’s 2025 capital program was $3.8 billion. The 2026 planned capital program, announced earlier this year, is $3.6 billion and “continues to demonstrate our dedication to handle the anticipated needs of our customers while operating a safe and reliable network,” the railroad reported. The largest component of the 2026 program, $2.83 billion, is devoted to maintenance. “Investing in BNSF’s existing infrastructure results in fewer unscheduled service outages that can slow down the rail network and reduce capacity,” the railroad noted. The maintenance projects will consist of 13,100 miles of track surfacing and/or undercutting work and the replacement of approximately 2.5 million rail ties and 409 miles of rail.

“Warren is obviously a very hard act to follow,” Greg Abel said in his first annual letter to shareholders (download below). “Stepping into any leadership role begins with understanding the organization—why it exists, how its culture shapes its people, and what values guide its decisions. While you will see similarities and differences between Warren, Charlie [Munger], and me, we share the view that Berkshire is shareholder-oriented to an unusual degree.”

Abel noted that during each shareholder meeting, for more than 25 years, the company has “played a clip from Warren’s 1991 Salomon Brothers Congressional testimony: ‘Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding; lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless.’” He noted that the company has a “steadfast and uncompromising” commitment to integrity. “We will encounter business successes and setbacks,” he wrote. “When we fail, we will say so. Doing the right thing also means rectifying our errors. A great example of both is BNSF’s resolution in 2025 of a longstanding dispute with the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community over crude oil shipments across Tribal lands. The BNSF decisions that sparked the dispute were made long ago, but the current BNSF leadership built a partnership rooted in communication, understanding, and respect. BNSF acknowledged its past mistakes and apologized, paving the way for mutually beneficial agreements that allow it to meet customer needs while operating safely on Tribal lands.”

Abel discussed Berkshire’s businesses, and for BNSF he addressed financials, as well as the potential Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger.

“As one of the six major freight railroads in North America, BNSF is a key part of the transportation backbone of the U.S. economy,” Abel wrote. “Berkshire acquired this iconic business in 2010 with an equity value of $34.5 billion. In 2025, BNSF produced $8.1 billion in net operating cash flows and returned $4.4 billion of that cash to Berkshire through dividends. For context, its average annual dividend over the past five years was $4.1 billion.

“Safe operations, reliable service, and a competitive cost structure ultimately determine a railroad’s success—and accordingly how we assess management’s performance. BNSF has focused on improving each of these. Safety remains the top priority, and BNSF has been the industry leader for the past decade. In 2025, shipments spent less time idling at terminals and moved through the network faster than in nearly any year in the company’s history.

“These gains matter, but they are not enough; more progress is needed to translate operational improvements into stronger financial results. We view operating margin (the inverse of the industry’s operating ratio) as the best measure of performance. In 2025, BNSF’s operating margin improved to 34.5% from 32.0% in 2024. It remained only modestly above its five-year average.

“The gap to the industry’s best remains too wide and closing it will require continued improvements in efficiency and service. Each one-percentage-point improvement in operating margin generates approximately $230 million of incremental operating cash flow for our owners. The team recognizes the significance of this opportunity, and we will be disappointed if we do not deliver a substantial improvement over the next few years.

“Alongside BNSF’s own improvements, there is also potential consolidation in the rail industry with the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger. Berkshire has been clear that it is not interested in acquiring one of the other Class I railroads, since the current economics would not work in our shareholders’ favor. BNSF’s focus on the proposed merger has been to ensure BNSF can continue to offer customers a compelling value proposition, including full and competitive access to Eastern rail markets.”

• One Merger at a Time, Please
• BNSF, CSX Teaming on Intermodal Services
• Report: Buffett Busts BNSF/Goldman Sachs Confab Rumors

The post For BNSF, 2025 Revenue, Volume Flat appeared first on Railway Age.

NCVA, a subsidiary of G&W, will serve a new $875 million specialty steel-manufacturing facility for USFR in Cofield, N.C., the short line railroad holding company recently announced.

Once operational, the plant, which is adjacent to a Nucor Steel plant that has been served by NCVA since 2000, will manufacture forged rings, tubular components and large-scale steel fabrications for construction, power generation, nuclear, offshore wind, oil and gas, defense and aerospace industries across the U.S. It is expected to bring more than 600 jobs to the area, according to G&W.

NCVA is providing track design consultations to USFR “to enable safe and efficient rail service at their facility and anticipates hauling inbound steel plate and slab, as well as outbound components, for the company.”

“NCVA welcomes the opportunity to support USFR and such a critical project that strengthens the U.S. industrial sector and expands the manufacturing backbone of eastern North Carolina,” says G&W CEO Michael Miller. “With new rail infrastructure and strong public-private partnerships, Hertford County is a prime location for manufacturing and is bolstered by dependable freight-rail service from NCVA, which has longstanding roots in the area economy and offers customers a connection to the broader North American freight-rail network via CSX.”

OmniTRAX announced March 3 that it has completed the comprehensive restoration of a rarely seen class PV-79-E business car.

Originally built in 1959, the transformed National Steel Car has been named Savannah Sunrise. Following a meticulous years-long restoration process to return the parlor car to Amtrack rail ready service, the Savannah Sunrise took its maiden voyage to Washington, D.C. for Railroad Day on the Hill. The rail industry’s largest annual engagement with members of Congress, Railroad Day attracts hundreds of rail operators, stakeholders, and partners “to collaborate on the legislation and public policy that shapes domestic rail investment, innovation, and safety.”

“America’s freight lines have powered our nation’s growth for decades,” said OmniTRAX CEO Colby Tanner “As we commemorate forty years of service to communities across the country, it’s fitting to celebrate this milestone in our nation’s capital at the annual event that has shaped decades of public policy for the rail industry.”

The fully restored car is Amtrak network compliant and can be positioned in markets throughout the OmniTRAX Rail Network. This unique piece of history, the privately held rail and infrastructure operator says, creates a mobile venue to host prospects, partners, and public officials. The OmniTRAX Rail Network is comprised of 32 rail operations serving industry leaders, industrial parks, and ports across the country. 

“The newly restored Savannah Sunrise is the flagship engagement car for OmniTRAX, designed to host company, customer, and industry events,” said OmniTRAX President and COO Sergio Sabatini.

The post Small-Road Briefs: G&W, OmniTRAX appeared first on Railway Age.

The era of the bi-level, long-distance passenger car is coming to a close. Or at least it will be within the next decade. That’s according to Amtrak, which announced on February 26 that it plans to switch to a universal single-level fleet, replacing the current mix of bi-level and single-level cars. Amtrak had previously indicated it wanted to keep using bi-level equipment, like the Superliners, as it currently does on some routes, especially in the west.

In a press release, Amtrak stated that standardizing everything to a single-level fleet would boost competition among manufacturers and speed up the replacement process. Amtrak has indicated it plans to replace the Superliners and other long-distance equipment in the early 2030s. Officials said they decided not to purchase the bi-levels after receiving feedback from various car makers.

“This new approach will deliver a more consistent and accessible customer experience across the Amtrak network while maintaining our commitment to introduce the first new long-distance cars in the early 2030s,” said Amtrak President Roger Harris. “Thanks to support from FRA Administrator David Fink and the entire Federal Railroad Administration team, Amtrak’s long-distance fleet replacement is moving forward more effectively and efficiently than originally planned.” 

Amtrak officials said they would soon issue a formal request for proposal for the new single-level cars. 

—Justin Franz 

The post Amtrak Scraps Plans for Long-Distance Bi-Levels appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

Amtrak is now repairing the East River Tunnels between New York Penn Station and Queens, as we have been reporting. That project has brought service reductions, including on the Empire Service trains in New York State, some of which go as far as Montreal, Toronto, or Chicago. Most Empire Service trains originate or terminate at Rensselaer Station near Albany, and Amtrak has eliminated some of those runs to accommodate the tunnel project.

We recently reported that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul had planned to use Metro-North, a railroad owned by the State, to help fill the gap by running one daily round trip between Rensselaer and Manhattan’s Grand Central Terminal, the first scheduled trains to run between those endpoints since 1991. The northern terminus for Metro-North’s Hudson Line trains is Poughkeepsie, half-way between New York City and the Albany area. The proposed Metro-North trains would also stop at Rhinecliff and Hudson, similarly to the Amtrak trains, and they were slated to start running in March. More recently, as we also reported, Amtrak now plans to restore the previous and more-robust schedule and Hochul backed off from the Metro-North plan. Was it a coincidence that Amtrak suddenly planned to restore its previous schedule during that month? Was it also coincidental that Hochul backed off from the plan to add a Metro-North round trip from GCT instead?

Metro-North is a component of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). On Feb. 2, MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber appeared on Capitol Pressroom, a current affairs program produced by WCNY, the NPR station in Syracuse. Regarding the proposed, but now shelved, plan for Metro-North to run Rensselaer (Albany) service, he said: “Even though Amtrak has now backed out of the agreement for MTA to run a train or two to Albany on a regular basis, we’re interested in continuing to explore that and, as the governor said, we got a lot of positive response from people because they’re interested in the idea of a train that suddenly doesn’t cost a hundred bucks, or even more, on a holiday or summer weekend. They’re interested in more-affordable options,” He described the exchange between Hochul and Amtrak, and said that Amtrak had agreed to Metro-North running some trains. Regarding Amtrak, he added: “Once they saw how enthusiastic people were about Metro-North, it seemed like they feared the competition and they backed away, and the governor got what she wanted, which is the restoration of full service, but she also heard clearly that people are interested in having us come north of Poughkeepsie, and we’re going to explore it.” Lieber also acknowledged that Metro-North would need the approval of Amtrak and CSX, which owns the line, to operate the service.  

Lieber raised the issues of capacity and fares. Regarding the former, he said that a Metro-North train could hold two or three times as many passengers as an Amtrak train. Today, most trains on the Empire route, including the Toronto and Montreal trains, run with five cars, which limits capacity. The New York section of the Lake Shore Limited to and from Chicago is slightly longer. Still, reducing daily frequencies results not only in less convenience for riders, but also in less overall capacity.

According the Law of Supply and Demand, reducing capacity results in higher fares. Amtrak fares vary according to airline-style “fare bucket” calculations, which raise fares as riders reserve seats and trains fill up. At this writing, fares between those stations on Monday, February 9 range from $44 to $79, while fares for Sunday, March 8 range from $38 (the lowest fare) to $68. In a strange anomaly, the Rensselaer fare on the Toronto-bound Maple Leaf (Train 63) is $38, while the fare on the Montral-bound Adirondack is $59, even though the trains now run combined as far as there. The same evening, southbound passengers on Train 64 from Toronto are charged $51, while riders on the Montreal section of the combined train (Train 68) are charged $68, the only train charging such a high fare that day.

Seniors and persons with disabilities receive a discount on Amtrak, but only 10% (it used to be 15%).

In contrast, Metro-North had planned to charge a flat fare of $40 between Grand Central Terminal (on Manhattan’s East Side, where other Metro-North trains originate or terminate) and Rensselaer. That is only $2.00 more than Amtrak’s lowest fare, and Amtrak fares during busy times have run as high as $108 (which this writer saw, but they could have been higher). Amtrak agreed to cap its fare at $99, but few fares exceeded that amount, so Amtrak did not lose much by offering that apparent concession.

One benefit that some riders going south or west of the Capital District will get when the previous schedule returns is a shorter wait at Rensselaer, but still a relatively long one while the two sections are split or joined. Passengers going toward Toronto have a standing time of only 20 minutes (reasonable for the station work), but those going toward Montreal must wait for one hour and 55 minutes, only five minutes short of two full hours! From Toronto, the scheduled standing time is one hour and 35 minutes, while it’s 40 minutes for riders coming from Montreal, as of now. There isn’t much to do near the Rensselaer station, although there is food available (at Jean’s restaurant in a former firehouse when it’s open, or two long blocks away at Stewart’s Shops, a convenience store with locations in Upstate New York and Vermont that sells good hot dogs, chili, and ice cream). There is not much else nearby. We don’t know why Amtrak did not make a deal with the host railroads to reschedule Trains 64 and 69 to reduce the standing time, an undesirable feature of the trip that probably discourages potential riders.

We can conjecture all we want as we ponder recent events surrounding the Hudson River portion of the Empire route, but there is another question to consider: In backing away from the Metro-North run, did the governor take the easy way out at the expense of the riders? Going beyond New York State, did she miss an opportunity to establish a precedent that would have raised a policy issue that could become more important as the next several years (and maybe more) go by? While the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is unique on the American rail scene, there are other corridors scattered throughout the country. Many of them are run by Amtrak, but some could be operated by regional “transit railroads” affiliated with local transit providers. Some of these railroads are already running corridor-length lines, as well.

When Amtrak eliminated the northern portion of the Silver Star Florida train along the NEC and combined it with the Capitol Limited in November 2024, one of its rationales was that increased crowding in New York City that necessitated cutting the number of moves between Sunnyside Yard and Penn Station also required truncating the Star. With the return to the former schedule for the Empire trains later this month, that should count as an acknowledgment by Amtrak that there will be enough capacity to run the schedule that ran through Nov. 9, 2024. In that event, Amtrak will be able to run some through coaches and sleeping cars between New York and Florida with switching at Washington D.C., even if the through-running section between Chicago and Miami though Pittsburgh keeps. Running that way. In essence, if Amtrak refuses to restore the convenience the riders north of the nation’s capital enjoyed on the old Silver Star, it would constitute an admission by Amtrak that making more Superliner cars available by eliminating the Capitol Limited was the sole relevant reason for the change, and that both trains can be operated with Amfleet II equipment.

Corridor-length routes are the mainstays of rail travel in many places, and they account for most of the trains that Amtrak runs outside the NEC today. There are only 13 long-distance routes that are open to non-motorists and motorists alike (the Auto Train does not welcome “foot passengers”), so most of Amtrak’s non-NEC trains run on corridor-length routes, that offer several daily frequencies. Some of them take more than three hours end to end, like the Cascades service in the northwest and the corridors in Illinois, while others take less time. The shortest is the Hiawatha route between Chicago and Milwaukee, with a 90-minute running time. Others take three hours or less and operate where there is a regional “transit railroad” in the area that could run the trains as an alternative to Amtrak. There is some competition between Amtrak and the transit railroads along the NEC. For example, between New York and Philadelphia, riders have the choice between a faster ride at a higher fare on Amtrak or a longer ride and a lower fare using NJ Transit and SEPTA, with a change of trains and a wait at Trenton.

For this article, i’ll focus on corridors in other places. There are several Amtrak-run corridors that could be operated by transit railroads instead. Metro-North could run between New York and Rensselaer, as discussed previously. The running time on the Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and Harrisburg is about 1:45. Instead of Amtrak, SEPTA could run it, and such an operation was proposed in the past. Metra, Chicagoland’s regional railroad, is talking about running a corridor-type operation to Rockford and could also run the Milwaukee service under an agreement with Wisconsin. It could also extend its trains that go as far as Kenosha to Racine and Milwaukee, another long-standing proposal that has gotten nowhere so far, but remains feasible. The Downeaster trains between Boston and Brunswick, through Portland, are operated by Amtrak under contract with the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA). As an alternative, NNEPRA could choose the MBTA (the “T”) in Boston to run the service, as long as the T can add a food service car to the consist. Since the agency does that for the Cape Flyer, which runs between Boston and Hyannis on summer weekends, the Downeaster service could change into a larger scale, but similar, operation on the T.

A model of that sort could work elsewhere, too. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner corridor runs for about three hours south of Los Angeles on the historic Sante Fe Surf Line (now BNSF) to San Diego and about three hours north of the city on the historic Southern Pacific line (now UP) to Santa Barbara. Regional railroad Metrolink could run the Santa Barbara service, while Metrolink and the North County Transit District, which operates Coaster trains between Oceanside and San Diego, could run that route jointly. The Capitol Corridor runs between San Jose and Sacramento, with a few trains continuing east of the capital city. The segment of the line running south of the Bay Area runs parallel to the Caltrain line. The segment between Emeryville and Sacramento takes slightly less than two hours’ running time. Since the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) participate in running that line, it should be feasible to create a non-Amtrak operation on that part of the corridor, possibly by negotiating directly with UP. The line could possibly go to the current Caltrain station in San Francisco, which would eliminate the need for a shuttle bus to take passengers across the Bay. There is one other corridor with a similar running time: the Piedmont trains between Charlotte and Raleigh, supported by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). There is currently no regional transit operator in the area, but the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is planning to run trains north of its home city to Mooresville (the proposed Red Line), so that situation could change.

The idea of transit railroads running corridor operations is not far-fetched. Several of these railroads have lines that take more than two hours end-to-end, and some of them have three-hour running times. NJ Transit runs trains between Hoboken, NJ and Port Jervis, NY by agreement with Metro-North, with running times up to 2½ hours, or more. The Long Island Rail Road’s trains to Greenport (on the North Fork of the island) take three hours, and the ones to Montauk (on the South Fork) take up to 3½ hours. Trains on five lines on Metrolink in the Los Angeles area take two hours of longer to go end to end, and a few trains on the Inland Empire – Orange County Line, which bypasses the city, take up to 2:40. So some transit railroads operate trips comparable to corridor runs on Amtrak, which means there is no operational reason why Amtrak should always be the only potential operator for any specific corridor.

During his interview on WCNY, Lieber addressed that issue, asI quoted above. Competition might be the central issue, not only north of Metro-North’s Hudson Line that goes halfway to Albany, but also potentially in other places where a transit railroad could run trains whose outer endpoints are further from the city of origin than commuters would want to travel on a frequent basis. If a transit railroad runs express trains on long lines of that sort, the running time would be about the same as for an Amtrak train, or only slightly longer. In that event, Amtrak would not be able to offer a time advantage.

Amtrak used to offer an advantage in terms of comfort, but that is disappearing quickly. Cars on transit railroads have seats that are functional, but not particularly comfortable. They do not recline, there are no footrests, and half of the seats face backwards, except on older cars that still have walkover seats (until that equipment is taken out of service, anyway). New Amtrak equipment has seats that are not cushioned, do not actually recline (the bottom of the seat moves forward an inch or two, but that does not offer a significant change in the angle of the back of the seat), there are no footrests, and half of the seats face backwards, as on the transit railroads. So, the new Amtrak equipment does not present a material comfort advantage over the cars running on the transit railroads. The Bombardier multilevel cars that run everywhere except along the NEC and in Chicagoland offer cushioned seats and some seating with tables, so they might be more comfortable than the new cars running on Amtrak.

Not counting frequency of service, which either Amtrak or a transit railroad could offer equally unless Amtrak prohibits such equality, the other major issue is fares. As Lieber pointed out, Amtrak charges more than Metro-North proposed charging for a trip between Grand Central and Rensselaer, except for the lowest Amtrak fare, which would have been $2.00 less. It costs more than that to ride most Amtrak trains between Penn Station and Rensselaer, and the one-way Amtrak fare can still be as high as $99.

That appears to be where the real difference lies. Amtrak’s capacity is limited, which means that fares are higher than on Metro-North, which can offer more seats per train, as Lieber mentioned. That would be the case with any transit railroad, which almost always charges less than Amtrak for the same O/D pair. The most direct comparison would be the fares between New York and Philadelphia. There are three ways of traveling between those two cities by rail, and two of them use the identical route: the NEC between New York Penn Station and 30th Street Station. The base fare on NJ Transit between New York and Trenton is $19.80 and on SEPTA between Trenton and Philadelphia is $10.00, for a total of $29.80. At this writing fares the next day in coach (not Acela or business class) mostly range from $48 to $95, although some trains have a $34 fare, and it’s possible to ride on a few trains that run during evening or overnight hours for $25 or less, and as little as $10. Fares for Sunday, March 8 were generally a bit lower, with more trains in the low-fare buckets, but mostly posted fares that ranged between $48 and $95. Four trains posted fares higher than $100, with two requiring fares of $179.

For seniors and persons with disabilities, the fare difference is even more stark. Amtrak offers only a 10% discount for those classes of riders, while NJ Transit and SEPTA allow them to ride for half-fare. There is another way to get from Trenton to Philadelphia on NJ transit: using the River Line, a diesel light rail line between Trenton and Camden and then taking a bus to Center City (most of them turn near City Hall and do not go to 30th Street Station, which has only limited service). The fare for that trip is $4.10, for a base fare from New York of $23.90, but the trip takes longer. So it would cost less if the local railroads ran the corridor trains, which could explain why Amtrak would oppose such a service.

There is one place where Amtrak and the local transit agency cooperate on providing enhanced and relatively frequent service along a route that did not have it until comparatively recently. It runs between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts, through Hartford. Historically that line ran on the New Haven Railroad, which later became part of Penn Central, Conrail, and shared between the Connecticut Department of Transportation and Amtrak for passengers. Historically, there were trains running from Grand Central Terminal, through New Haven and Hartford, to Springfield, and sometimes to Vermont or Montreal. Today Amtrak runs the Vermonter between Washington, DC and St. Albans, Vermont, as well as two other trains that run between Springfield and Washington, DC. The other trains are shuttles.

Until the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) opened its Hartford Line, Amtrak offered corridor-level service, about five to seven daily trains, most of them operating as shuttles between New Haven and Springfield. Now the Hartford Line trains supplement the Amtrak service, so there are about twice as many frequencies as Amtrak alone offered and continues to offer, along with some Hartford turns. According to the Hartford Line website, the line does not follow Amtrak’s variable-fare policy. The base fare between New Haven and Springfield is $14.00 and between New Haven and Hartford it’s $8.75 on every train, whether the State agency or Amtrak operates it, with the except for Amtrak’s Vermonter. There is also a $3.00 surcharge for on-board purchases. Fares for seniors and persons with disabilities are $7.00 and $4.25 respectively, following the transit practice of half-fare for those classes of riders, rather than Amtrak’s less-generous 10% off.

While there is no other place in the country that demonstrates this level of cooperation between Amtrak and a local railroad operation, the Hartford Line still serves as proof of concept that such cooperation is possible, so it could serve as a “best practice” that other transit railroads and Amtrak could adopt.

This level of cooperation is vastly different from the situation between Amtrak and some transit railroads elsewhere, although the relationship between the two seems more strained in and around New York City than other places, with the current political and legal fight over funding for the Gateway Program, the transfer of future Penn Station development away from the MTA and toward Amtrak (although Andy Byford remains a popular figure in the region and on the rail scene generally), and the recent friction between Amtrak and Metro-North that provided the inspiration for this article.

It seems supremely ironic that, if Amtrak were to disappear, it will be the regional railroads (usually under state auspices) that could continue to operate every corridor mentioned here, at least as long as there is such a regional operation or if local transportation officials can establish one. That happened at the beginning of 1983 when Conrail stopped operating local passenger trains in the Northeast because Congress required that action. Three new passenger railroads were formed at that time: Metro-North, NJ Transit Rail, and SEPTA Regional Rail. They picked up where Conrail left off and are still running.

In the previous two commentaries on the Passenger Rail Outlook here in Railway Age, I predicted a grim future for much, if not all, of Amtrak, although such a scenario would be disastrous for many folks, especially the riders. Without Amtrak, or a totally different scenario for running long-distance trains and longer-distance corridors, it appears that the existing corridors will become a set of isolated lines, with no long-distance routes to hold them together. In the meantime, then, it appears to benefit Amtrak to work amicably with the transit railroads, and perhaps even turn more corridors over to them. At this writing, Amtrak has its hands full on many fronts. Operating relatively short corridors when local transit railroads can do it just as well or better, is a headache that is probably not worth the hassle.

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

The post Who Should Operate Corridors? appeared first on Railway Age.

The BART Board on Feb. 26 adopted an alternative service plan outlining specific budget balancing details to solve a $376 million deficit for the next fiscal year if no new funds become available, according to the transit agency (see documents above and presentation below). BART said it is facing a structural deficit of $350 million to $400 million because ridership is still down 50% compared to pre-pandemic levels and BART’s current funding model relies heavily on passenger fares. 

The plan includes specific cuts and financial strategies needed to balance both the FY27 (July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027) and FY28 (July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028) budgets. It includes service cuts, station closures, fare increases, a 40% reduction in system support services, laying off 1,200 employees, and a series of deferrals and one-time resources, according to BART. The agency said the plan does not name specific stations to be closed and makes clear the BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station closures.

“BART has already made budget cuts across all departments and instituted a series of cost controls, including rightsizing service, labor savings, operational efficiencies, and reducing BART’s office space footprint,” the transit agency noted. “At the same time, BART has also worked to increase revenue by installing new fare gates, leasing out BART parking lots, and offering new fare products such as Clipper BayPass.”

To take place in January 2027: 

• “Three-line service (Yellow, Blue, and Orange line service only, with limited peak service in only the peak commute direction on the Red and Green lines). 
• “30-minute frequencies on every line.
• “Closing at 9 p.m. seven days per week.
• “This service plan represents a 63% reduction in train hours.
• “30% fare and parking fee increases (the estimated average fare would increase from $4.98 to $6.38).
• “Target approximately $30 million in savings over six months from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
• “Continue deferrals of priority capital allocations and retiree medical contributions.
• “Balance remainder of FY27 with one-time resources and financial deferrals.”

“Following the January 2027 cuts, staff will continuously assess ridership and revenue impacts and the performance of all District functions to determine if further reductions can be safely and legally implemented,” BART reported.

To take place in July 2027 “if feasibly safe”:

• “Target more than $175 million in annual cost reductions through a cumulative 70% reduction in service hours.
• “Maintain three-line service, 30-minute frequencies on each line, closing at 9 p.m.
• “Close up to 15 stations and/or up to 25% of system track miles.
• “The BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station or line segment closures.
• “Increase fares and parking fees up to a cumulative 50%. The estimated average fare would increase to $7.26.
• “Target annual operating expense savings of more than a cumulative $130 million from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
• “Continue to defer retiree health contributions; defer most remaining capital allocations.”

Contingency:

• “If at any point it is determined BART can’t safely or legally operate with available resources, stop passenger service.
• “Use existing District tax revenues to secure system assets.
• “Work to determine system’s future.”

“BART can’t use state loan money to avoid station closures and service cuts if no new revenue becomes available because without new revenue, there is no way to pay the loan back,” the transit agency reported. “The [recently reported] state loan primarily helps with cash flow if a November 2026 transit funding measure is successful. It is a bridge loan that gives BART reassurances money will be available to continue to deliver the best service possible until the sales tax dollars from the successful ballot measure become available for BART’s use. This is projected to happen in July 2027 but could take longer. If a funding measure succeeds, BART will use $97M in loan funds to help balance the FY27 budget.”

Separately, California’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission and partner San Francisco Bay Area transit agencies, including BART, have approved standardized sign designs.

MBTA on Feb. 26 reported developing an updated regional rail strategy. The Rail Modernization Plan will identify near-term investments and long-term needs, and consider how the transit authority can “enhance frequency, reliability, and accessibility across the communities served by rail while advancing decarbonization strategies,” according to the transit authority.

“Almost three quarters of Massachusetts residents live within the MBTA service area, and more frequent and reliable Regional Rail service will have major benefits for the residents and businesses of Massachusetts, as well as those of surrounding states,” the transit authority reported. “In fact, 64% of Commonwealth residents and 39% of Rhode Island residents live with three miles of an MBTA station. Not only can reliable train service address travel time challenges today, a more robust network enhances the Commonwealth’s goals for commercially viable developments near transit stations spurring future housing production.”

MBTA said it will need to make investments in the coming years to:

• “Improve Frequency, such as through the elimination of legacy bottlenecks in our single-track, at-grade system.
• “Increase Reliability, by investing in new locomotives for our riders while also modernizing our layover and maintenance facilities for current and future fleets.
• “Enhance Accessibility, by introducing level-boarding at inaccessible stations throughout the system.
• “Pursue Decarbonization, by developing an electrification plan and through the strategic installation of discontinuous overhead catenary wire, charging, and transmission infrastructure.” 

“Transportation has no boundaries, and as MassDOT Secretary and MBTA General Manager, I know how important it is that we create a robust and complete transportation network across the Commonwealth that facilitates access to jobs, homes, economic opportunities, and more,” said Interim MassDOT Secretary and MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng. “Working with the highway system, municipal roadways, and regional transit authorities, rail modernization—bidirectional travel, shorter trips, and tackling congestion through mode shift—is a key piece in making all movement both viable and appealing. None of this would be possible without the leadership of the Healey-Driscoll Administration and support of the Legislature, and I thank the entire MBTA team for their dedicated work in continuing to move this forward and make the Rail Modernization Plan a reality.”

MBTA will launch a series of public meetings, tabling events, targeted conversations with stakeholders, and virtual engagement strategies. More information can be found at MBTA.com/RailModernization. 

Separately, MBTA, in coordination with the Maryland Transit Administration under a consortium framework, on Feb. 25 issued a Request for Proposals for new battery electric and low-emissions locomotives. The transit authority is also advancing a major signal modernization on the Red Line at Columbia Junction near JFK/UMass station while crews complete testing and cutover to the new, digital signaling system in this area.

BLET members on Feb. 26 voted unanimously to ratify a new four-year contract with Alstom, the union reported in the latest edition of its weekly newsletter. Ballots were due Feb. 20. The contract covers locomotive engineers who operate MARC (Maryland Area Rail Commuter) trains in the Washington-Baltimore area.

“The agreement covers the period from Jan. 1, 2024, through Dec. 31, 2027, and addresses work rule improvements along with health and welfare benefits,” BLET reported. The contract also provides general wage increases of 3.25% in 2024, 3.0% in 2025, 4.0% in 2026, and 3.0% in 2027, the union noted.

Members governed by this agreement belong to BLET Division 97 in Baltimore and the CSXT-Northern Lines General Committee of Adjustment. The negotiating team consisted of CSXT-NL General Chairman Brian Farkas and National Vice Presidents Randy Fannon and Jeff Thurman.

MARC is administered by the Maryland Transit Administration and operated under contract by Alstom and Amtrak. The tracks are owned by CSX and Amtrak. MARC reports about 19,300 passenger boardings per weekday.

Metra will conduct Operation Lifesaver Safety Blitzes at 41 train stations across the six-county region in 2026, it reported Feb. 26. (See list above.)

During a safety blitz, Metra employees will visit one of the railroad’s 243 stations during the morning rush hour, distributing educational materials about train and grade crossing safety, answering questions, and listening to riders’ safety concerns, according to the commuter railroad. A short video about grade crossing safety will also be available for riders to view while they wait for their trains. Local police, fire and other public officials are invited to participate.

“Illinois has the nation’s second-largest rail system with more than 7,300 miles of railroad track and 10,264 public rail crossings,” Metra reported. “In 2025, Illinois ranked fifth in the nation in train vs. vehicle collisions at highway rail crossings and third in the nation in trespassing fatalities. Preliminary statistics compiled by the Federal Railroad Administration show that in 2025, 25 people died and 43 people were injured in grade crossing incidents in Illinois and another 44 people were killed and 24 people were injured trespassing along railroad right-of-way.”

The safety blitz program’s primary purpose is educational, and while station blitzes primarily target commuters, Metra said it is also planning this year to implement a new safety blitz program targeting schools located near Metra tracks. These events will feature tables set up outside of schools staffed by volunteers distributing safety materials and directly interacting with students. Metra Police will also conduct additional enforcement blitzes at locations throughout the region, where citations and warnings will be issued to pedestrians and drivers who ignore gates and warning devices.

Metra also promotes safety through its annual Safety Competition for the region’s students and conducts hundreds of free Operation Lifesaver presentations annually to schools, community groups, school bus drivers, professional truck drivers, emergency responders, and other organizations throughout the region, according to the railroad.

“Safety is always Metra’s highest priority,” Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski said. “Safety blitzes allow us to reach our customers directly to ensure that they understand the need to stay vigilant about safety anytime they’re around the railroad. This year we’re focusing on stations that we’ve deemed ‘high risk’ due to the number of reports of near misses and incidents at these locations.”

The safety blitz schedule subject to change. For more information, please visit the safety page of the Metra website.

• RTA Board Approves 2026 Regional Operating Budget and Capital Program
• Gov. Pritzker Signs NITA Act Into Law
• Chicagoland Transit Gets Reprieve

The post Transit Briefs: BART, MBTA, MARC, Metra appeared first on Railway Age.

“Easing inflation, early-year warehouse tightening, a resilient supply chain job market, and shifting import behavior as frontloading fades” are among the highlights of ITS Logistics’ February 2026 Supply Chain Report. The strike down of POTUS 47 tariffs by the U.S. Supreme Court, it noted, has “significant implications for the global market.”

“January import volumes signaled a potential return to normalized behavior—only to be disrupted by the latest rulings on global tariffs,” ITS Logistics, a Nevada-based third-party logistics (3PL) firm, reported Feb. 26. “Trucking capacity remains unseasonably tight, and warehousing has shifted rapidly from post-holiday softness to early-cycle tightening. Despite downward revisions to 2025 job numbers, January’s labor market was unexpectedly strong, though consumer sentiment in the overall economy continues to decline.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 struck down POTUS 47’s IEEPA tariffs, resulting in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency halting duty collections and deactivating all tariff codes as of Feb. 24, according to ITS Logistics. “Immediately following the ruling, [POTUS 47] announced he would be implementing a blanket 10% tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the President to enact ‘temporary import surcharges’ without Congressional approval for up to 150 days,” the 3PL firm said. “The new so-called global tariffs went into effect on Feb. 24, and the White House stated it is working on a formal order to increase the rate to 15%. The fresh wave of geopolitical uncertainty forces shippers to reevaluate their sourcing strategies following months of large-scale shifts in global supply chain trends.”

“Similar to mid-year 2025, we will likely see a split in behavior between shippers who repeat frontloading activity to seize potential cost-saving opportunities and those who pause and wait for clarity in the coming months,” ITS Logistics Chief Commercial Officer Josh Allen said. “This stop-and-go supply chain traffic will contribute to ongoing volatility. As it relates to warehousing, this month’s report shows conditions shifted quickly from post-holiday softness to early tightening in January, as inventory drawdowns reversed and utilization rebounded into expansion territory. While excess capacity was briefly absorbed faster than typical seasonal patterns, warehousing prices and inventory carrying costs remained firmly expansionary, highlighting persistent structural cost pressure across the sector.”

As the industry looks ahead, ITS Logistics reported, expectations point to “continued pricing pressure and constrained capacity growth.” Despite marginal cooling in mid-February for the trucking sector, it continued, “capacity remains unseasonably tight, with volumes and rates significantly above recent historical averages in both the dry van and reefer markets.”

Noted Allen: “Newly announced non-domiciled restrictions will continue to place strain on the capacity pool over the coming months, converging with peak produce seasons and likely downstream effects from the new global tariffs ruling.”

The report also highlighted that U.S. container import volumes totaled 2,318,722 TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) in January. While down 6.8% year over year, ITS Logistics said, this was “slightly above” the six-year average for the month and posted “modest gains” from December. The early-year dip in U.S. container import volumes, it added, “may indicate that import behavior is returning to normal after a year disrupted by frontloading.”

Concerning the nation’s economy, in January 2026 the U.S. economy “maintained steady momentum as inflation continued to ease, with headline and core measures cooling to their lowest levels in months,” according to ITS Logistics.

“The labor market saw stronger than expected job gains and a stable unemployment rate offset by signs of softer underlying momentum and sector specific weakness,” said Josh Allen. “Consumers demonstrated mixed behavior, and spending held up. However, confidence fell sharply amid lingering concerns about jobs and prices. While January showed resilience, overall momentum remained moderate and uneven across sectors. Employers added about 130,000 jobs, well above the consensus expectations, and the unemployment rate decreased to 4.3% from 4.4% in December 2025.”

Last December, in a 2026 supply chain employment projection, Supply Chain 24/7 reported that “companies need to focus as much on developing their people as they do on adopting new technology in this current AI-driven environment,” according to ITS Logistics. “As more schools offer supply chain programs with strong admission rates for students with the necessary academic attributes, turnover in the industry continues to add to the strain. A survey found an average turnover rate of 11.6%, with only about one in five participants reporting no departures.” ITS Logistics noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 17% employment growth for logisticians from 2024 to 2034, which is “almost five times faster than the average for all occupations” and equates to approximately 26,400 job openings annually between new positions and replacement hiring as professionals retire or change careers.

Separately, ITS Logistics recently released its February 2026 US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index, which identified a “return to seasonal Lunar New Year demand patterns layered over weather and regulatory-related disruption impacting inland transportation.” While overall port and rail ramp operations remained at normal levels, it noted, “downstream rail and trucking networks are facing elevated concern in select regions.”

• ITS Logistics Publishes January U.S. Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index
• ITS Logistics Issues December Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Publishes November Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Issues November US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index
• ITS Logistics Issues October US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index
• ITS Logistics Releases September Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Publishes September US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index 
• ITS Logistics Issues August Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Releases August US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index 
• ITS Logistics Publishes July Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Issues July US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index

The post ITS Logistics Issues February Supply Chain Report appeared first on Railway Age.

FTA is making competitive funding available through the Fiscal Year 2025 and 2026 budgets to transit agencies for financing capital projects to “repair, improve, modify, retrofit, or relocate infrastructure of stations or facilities to make all public areas of the station more convenient for families as well as Americans with disabilities, including those using strollers and wheelchairs.”

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) focuses on several priority considerations for funding, including:

• “Benefits for Families and Communities: how a project will improve the accessibility of transportation for families with young children, including those with strollers, and will improve access to jobs, healthcare facilities, recreational activities, and commercial activity. 
• “Wayfinding Improvements: how a project will include universal wayfinding tools and signage to support individuals with disabilities (including persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with sensory disabilities, and who use wheelchairs), such as: plain language instructions using large print and simplified language; directional pathways and floor markings; synchronized visual and audio announcements; and real-time information displays that are easy to interpret and located throughout passenger waiting areas.
• “Reduce Project Costs and Improve Project Delivery (capital projects only): how a project prioritizes efficiency and speed in project implementation, including strategies that provide longer work windows that allow time for concentrated and consistent work that shortens the project schedule and reduces costs.”

Instructions for applying and eligibility information are available here. Complete proposals must be submitted electronically by May 1, 2026.

The post FTA: $686MM Available to Modernize Transit Stations appeared first on Railway Age.

CPKC recently introduced Schiller Park, a multi-commodity transload facility and the latest addition to the Class I’s network.

The site, CPKC says, “features state-of-the-art equipment, custom-engineered on-site to provide premium transloading solutions shippers can rely on.” Schiller Park specializes in agricultural products while adeptly managing a wide array of commodities like steel, lumber and free-flowing goods.

Strategically located next to CPKC’s Bensenville intermodal facility with on-site USDA and FGIS inspection services, Schiller Park “provides customers with seamless access to major transportation routes. Leveraging rail, highway and port gateways, this site creates competitive logistics solutions from the heart of the Midwest,” the Class I said in a LinkedIn post.

As CPKC moves goods south, east and west to ports on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, customers get the “fastest single-line rail connection” to the export terminals at port in Vancouver, Montreal, Saint John and Lazaro Cardenas.

UP says it is investing in “cutting-edge technology to deliver unmatched service, safeguard people and communities, and enhance operations—and tech tools like PTB are helping reimagine what’s possible.”

PTB uses advanced physics modeling to simulate the movement of thousands of trains traveling across hundreds of miles of track every day, “recommending the safest, most efficient train builds,” UP said. By optimizing weight, car position, grade and locomotive placement, PTB helps create “strong, fuel-efficient trains ready to tackle steep mountain grades and winding urban routes before freight ever leaves the rail yard.”

Along with being a valuable training tool for employees, PTB also serves as a real-time safety monitoring system, the Class I noted. It issues alerts to Operating experts, who radio locomotive engineers with guidance on adjusting trip plans and track speeds “to help ensure employees and customer freight arrive safely at destination.”

“PTB gives me clear information I can share with crews and managers,” said Steven Terrell, Senior Manager-Operating Practices. “When I recommend a speed change or check a train build, it’s backed by simulation results, not just opinion. That builds trust and speeds up decision-making.”

Insights are then sent back into the system, increasing its detailed capabilities with every trip.

“Having a tool that can quickly analyze risk in detail is a game changer. Before PTB, we relied on a vendor and waited weeks for results,” Terrell said. “Now we do it in-house in minutes, which means faster learning and quicker corrective action.”

Across UP, PTB, the Class I says, is helping teams work safer and smarter by using real-time modeling “to agilely adjust to changing business needs when traffic increases or routes shift; issue alerts to reduce potential risk in daily operations; and pair locomotive engineer feedback with analytical insights to strengthen outcomes.”

“PTB has streamlined many processes,” said T.J. Weisbeck, Senior Director-Operating Practices. “We can now finish root-cause analysis in about five minutes, and predictive analysis in a day—and it’s an easy tool to use. We can be far more efficient.”

Additionally, UP recently announce, via LinkedIn, that its Shreveport, La., team reached one year injury-free “by slowing down, staying vigilant and holding each other accountable.”

“Every day is an opportunity to keep learning,” said Eugene Stephens Jr., locomotive engineer. “I try to stay safe and keep the people around me safe.”

CSX welcomed more than 130 short line partners to its annual Short Line Conference, held February 22–24, continuing a tradition that spans 35 years. The conference, the Class I says, “underscored CSX’s commitment to strong partnerships, shared performance and long-term growth across the rail network.”

Structured to foster “meaningful, personal engagement,” the event provided short line leaders with direct access to CSX executives and subject matter experts from across the company. These touchpoints reinforced a central message: “CSX values its short line partners and is focused on growing together,” the Class I noted.

“This conference is about alignment, growing together, performing together and building the future together,” said CSX President and CEO Steve Angel. “When rail works, supply chains work, and our customers experience CSX and our short line partners as one connected railroad.”

The agenda highlighted “operational excellence, commercial strategy and collaboration.” Angel opened the conference with a keynote address, followed by a leadership panel focused on service improvement and operational innovation. Additional sessions covered market outlook, legal and government affairs updates, industrial development and a short line success story, culminating in the annual CSX Short Line Awards.

By bringing partners together for open dialogue and shared learning, CSX says it “continues to strengthen relationships that are essential to delivering safe, reliable and efficient service. The conference reaffirmed the company’s belief that strong partnerships are the foundation of a connected railroad and a resilient supply chain.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Justin Franz 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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