Feed aggregator

Burkhardt, a third-generation railroader based out of Fairchild, Washington, continues a nearly century-long legacy of railroading in his family. His story is more than a career. It’s a tribute to fathers and sons, and the tracks they lay for each other. 

Robert Burkhardt’s grandfather, William Burkhardt Sr., worked as a section foreman for BNSF predecessor Northern Pacific (NP) in Cleveland, North Dakota. In 1922, after about 12 years of railroading, he bought 400 acres of land and transitioned to full-time farmer.  

But his work as a railroader had a lasting impact on his son, William Burkhardt Jr., who was fascinated by steam engines and began his railroading career in 1938 in Billings, Montana.

William Burkhardt Jr. found work at a Billings roundhouse, where he repaired and maintained steam engines. Son Robert Burkhardt recalls that as a kid, his father shared deep insights and knowledge of steam engines, claiming that all of them sound different.  

Later in his railroading career, William Burkhardt Jr. served as a fireman, keeping the fire hot on the steam locomotive, and as an engineer. But his fondness for his roundhouse days never wavered. During family vacations, Robert Burkhardt said his dad always planned a stop to see a roundhouse for a moment of nostalgia. 

Through the transition from steam to diesel, William Burkhardt Jr. remained an engineer, evolving with emerging technology. His son would often take train rides with him as a kid.  

When his father retired in June 1977, Robert Burkhardt followed a natural calling to railroading. In 1978, he was hired by BNSF predecessor Burlington Northern (BN) as a carman apprentice in Seattle repairing boxcars.

Robert Burkhardt also worked as a trainman before relocating to St. Paul, Minnesota, for training in 1980. It was the start of him replicating his father’s railroading experiences, and he vividly remembers the first day he became an engineer.  

“On my first solo ride, my dad saw me off,” he said. 

Today, Robert Burkhardt travels the same route from Everett to Auburn, Washington, that his father did all those years ago.

He also met his wife Debbie in 1988 while she was working as a clerk on the crew desk in Seattle.   

Today, his routes take him past the neighborhood beach he played on as a kid, where he watched many trains pass by.  

“The area has changed from when I grew up, but the tracks are the same,” he admits.

After 47 years, he is the No. 1 fireman and engineer on the roster and is the last engineer with fireman seniority. He also holds the highest seniority as a conductor in BNSF’s Northwest Division.

“I still enjoy going to work,” he shared. “At this point in my career, I just have fun looking back at the mile-long train behind me.”

The post BNSF Locomotive Engineer Carries On Family’s Century-Long Legacy appeared first on Railway Age.

“Contingent on sufficient, long-term funding,” CHSRA said, the plan “will achieve commercial success at the earliest possible stage, ensuring the system begins generating compelling economic return and maximizing the value of California’s investment.”

As part of the 2025 Supplemental Project Update Report’s “Letter from the CEO,” Ian Choudri wrote that over the past six months, CHSRA has “deliberated over input from stakeholders and the [California] Legislature and ha[s] systematically re-evaluated project design criteria requirements to right-size the program from the bottom up.” He noted that the Authority has “implemented difficult but necessary trade-off decisions to focus on the essential elements to deliver a high-quality, cost-effective rail system.” According to Choudri, the process included “[c]ompleting design reviews to minimize costs”; “[m]aking trade-off decisions for greater efficiency”; “[s]equencing construction and making funding go further”; and “[r]eviewing estimating methods for greater reliability (bottom-up).” (Download complete report below.)

In the 112-page report, CHSRA said that it has “$28.16 billion in capital funding, which includes an estimated $5.5 billion from Cap-and-Invest through 2030 and retention of federally awarded funds. The Governor’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to 2026 budget proposal includes extending the Cap-and-Invest program through 2045 with at least $1.0 billion in annual funding for the Authority. This would provide at least $15 billion in additional funding for the program, bringing the Authority’s total capital funding to $43.16 billion … For purposes of this report, the Authority included the $4.0 billion in federal funding, currently the subject of litigation, as part of its total capital funding figures.”

This report proposes several potential scenarios to advance the high-speed rail program, including the work already under way in the Central Valley and beyond, to connect in the south to Northern Los Angeles County at Palmdale and in the north to the electrified Caltrain system via Gilroy. Cost estimates, funding needs, construction completion schedules, and ridership and revenue projections are included for each scenario: 

• Scenario 1: Merced – Bakersfield (project under way): The Authority said it would complete, as required by statute, the 171-mile Merced – Bakersfield early operating segment. This segment is now estimated to cost $36.75 billion. “Through resequencing work, refining design criteria, and adopting innovative engineering methods, the Authority was able to offset $14.28 billion in cost increases, which is approximately a 30% cost-savings,” CHSRA reported. “Without the program reassessment, scope increases, inflation (bringing prices from 2022 to 2024) and added cost and contingency for the Central Valley would have increased the Merced – Bakersfield segment costs to approximately $51 billion. Despite these management improvements, there are new risks impacting cost estimates, including ongoing tariff and trade wars. … The 2024 Business Plan estimated the cost to deliver the Merced – Bakersfield segment at $35.3 billion at a confidence level of 65%. It’s important to note the 2024 Business Plan carried over numbers from the 2023 PUR [Project Update Report] without any updates.” The Authority said it is set to complete the 119-mile Central Valley Segment (CVS) currently under construction and the Merced and Bakersfield extensions “within the original schedule envelope and prior to 2033, with an updated revenue service start date of Jan. 1, 2032.” Recent ridership and revenue modeling, it said, shows 1.6 million to 2.2 million in ridership annually based on eight round-trips per day of high-speed rail only service. According to CHSRA, this service would generate passenger revenue of $39.28 million to $55.6 million; ancillary revenue (e.g., parking, retail, advertising, and broadband) is projected to be approximately $16 million to $34 million. The Authority noted, however, the operation and maintenance costs are forecasted to be between $120.6 million and $122.1 million annually. “These estimates indicate that this specific scenario would not achieve a positive profitable outcome as it would result in a recovery ratio of 45% to 74% annually,” CHSRA reported. “Based on these projections, the Merced – Bakersfield corridor operating as a stand-alone high-speed rail line with transfer connections to other rail services would not be able to cover its total operational expenses. The Authority will continue to explore contracting for service by a third-party, such as the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, which provides service in the Central Valley, as an alternative option. Assuming a baseline of at least $1.0 billion per year in Cap-and-Invest program funding through 2045, as contained in the Governor’s proposal, the Merced – Bakersfield segment will no longer have a budgetary funding gap. However, the Authority will need to work with the [POTUS 47] Administration and Legislature to solve the timing of future cash receipts with capital expenses to maintain its proposed schedule.”

• Scenario 2: Connecting San Francisco to Bakersfield (Gilroy – Bakersfield): This segment is estimated to cost $54.4 billion and would be operational by early 2038. CHSRA said it would sequence construction to leverage Central Valley infrastructure while extending the high-speed rail system north and west to Gilroy. “High-speed trains would continue to San Francisco, utilizing existing Caltrain infrastructure and a coordinated state solution to connect to the section from San Jose to Gilroy,” the Authority reported. “Construction can be started on this extension while work on the section from the Central Valley Wye to Bakersfield is under way. Direct high-speed rail service to San Francisco will have substantial ridership and revenue impact, providing the opportunity for commercial success, and based on feedback through industry engagement, would be a transformative opportunity to engage the private sector through potential public-private partnership (P3) delivery models.” The Gilroy – Bakersfield scenario includes building high-speed rail infrastructure to Gilroy and Bakersfield. This scenario would also rely on improvements between Gilroy and San Jose and on Caltrain electrification to run hourly through service to San Francisco, according to the Authority. The Gilroy – Bakersfield scenario is expected to attract ridership ranging from 8.71 million to 11.83 million, which would bring in $623.72 million to $882.93 million in passenger revenue each year; ancillary revenue is projected to be around $89 million to $196 million. Based on operating and maintenance costs of $419.19 million to $435.47 million, CHSRA said, the recovery ratio is estimated to be between 164% and 257%. “To help fund this segment, the state could re-sequence the Merced extension,” CHSRA reported. “These savings could be reallocated toward building the system to Gilroy.”

• Scenario 3: Connecting  San Francisco to Los Angeles County via the Central Valley (Gilroy – Palmdale): The Gilroy – Palmdale scenario is estimated to cost $87.12 billion and would be operational in early 2038. “This scenario would increase the scale and impact of the system with a further extension of high-speed rail infrastructure to Palmdale,” CHSRA reported. “As with the second scenario, the Authority would leverage Central Valley infrastructure, extend the high-speed rail system to Gilroy, and rely on other improvements between Gilroy and San Francisco. Two hourly high-speed trains would operate from San Francisco to Palmdale, one as a limited-stop express. With the High Desert Corridor, one train per hour would continue to Victor Valley, where passengers could connect with Brightline West service to Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas. At Palmdale, trains could connect with a Metrolink/ Surfliner express service to Los Angeles and San Diego, transforming the system from a regional corridor into a truly statewide service.” With enhanced service and connectivity to both San Francisco and Los Angeles, CHSRA said modeling shows ridership would increase to 12.46 million to 17.94 million, “significantly increasing” passenger revenue to $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion annually; ancillary revenue is projected to be around $110 million to $254 million. The operating and maintenance costs would be between $602 million and $635 million, CHSRA said, resulting in a recovery ratio of 191% to 314%. “This revenue stream would be instrumental to the state’s efforts to fund and complete the full Phase 1 high-speed rail system,” the Authority noted. “To help fund this segment, the state could resequence the Merced extension. These savings could be reallocated toward building the system to Gilroy. In addition, there may also be opportunities to pursue mutually beneficial operational upgrades with existing rail operators—such as potential improvements along the Union Pacific corridor in the north and with Metrolink and LOSSAN services in Southern California—that could enhance current service for existing riders while creating infrastructure that the Authority could leverage in the future.”

CHSRA also generated financial outlooks for both Gilroy – Bakersfield and Gilroy – Palmdale that include construction of the full Merced extension. While ridership and revenue figures for each outlook are slightly higher, it noted, operating and maintenance costs increase more than revenue. With the delivery of the Merced extension under the Gilroy – Bakersfield scenario, the Authority reported that it expects ridership to range from 8.77 million to 11.91 million annually, which would result in similar passenger revenue of $626 million to $886 million; ancillary revenue is projected to be around $92 million to $202 million. Operation and maintenance costs, is said, increase to $441 million to $457 million, reducing the recovery ratio to between 157% and 246%. This segment is estimated to cost $58.1 billion and would be operational by early 2038. With the delivery of the Merced extension under the Gilroy – Palmdale scenario, the Authority said it expects ridership to range from 12.52 million to 18.02 million annually, resulting in similar passenger revenue of $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion; ancillary revenue is projected to be around $114 million to $260 million. According to CHSRA, the operation and maintenance costs increase to $625 million to $658 million, reducing the recovery ratio to between 186% to 304%. This segment is estimated to cost $90.85 billion and would be operational by early 2038.

The report outlines several opportunities for the State of California “to support the project, including stable, long-term funding, environmental streamlining, actions to address permitting and third-party coordination, and updates to state law to provide needed construction flexibility, among others,” according to CHSRA.

In the report’s conclusion, the Authority noted that it is “statutorily obligated to prioritize delivery of the Merced – Bakersfield segment and plans to do so unless otherwise directed by the Legislature.” Nonetheless, it said, “completing the Gilroy – Palmdale segment would provide statewide rail service to a majority of Californians and promises the highest return on investment for the state; and completing the Gilroy – Bakersfield scenario is a cost-effective way to achieve profitable commercial operations at the earliest possible opportunity with less additional funding needed.” The Gilroy – Bakersfield scenario, it said, ”would attract substantial ridership and generate positive net proceeds. A profitable operation could create considerable opportunities for engaging with the private sector through a P3 delivery model.”

With “more constrained state funding,” the Authority recommends the state “prioritize subsequent expansions to areas with greater population, ridership, and revenue potential—supporting long-term system sustainability.” CHSRA said its analysis “finds that extending the high-speed rail system northward to connect with the Bay Area offers comparative advantages—including strong origin-destination markets, significant potential to bolster ridership and revenue, and opportunities to capitalize on existing and planned infrastructure enhancements along the Caltrain corridor, including electrification, which has received substantial financial support from the Authority.” CHSRA efforts, it added, should “continue to build on strategic investments already made (Caltrain) while pursuing new, mutually beneficial opportunities with existing operators. This could include potential partnerships to advance Union Pacific corridor improvements in the north, as well as partnerships in Southern California with Metrolink and LOSSAN to support infrastructure upgrades that the Authority could utilize in the future. This approach benefits both the Authority and existing operators, along with the riders and communities they serve today, while laying the groundwork for future high-speed rail operations.”

“I see clearer now more than ever the potential for this transformational project, one that can reshape the state and our society for the better,” Ian Choudri said in the announcement of the report’s release. “I see a future—by 2038 to 2039—when operations are already connecting the Central Valley to population centers and innovation hubs, offering new career opportunities, economic mobility, affordable housing, and a cleaner environment. A system that is efficient, sustainable, and equitable. A system that connects us to each other and to the world around us.”

• FRA Revokes California High-Speed Rail Funding, CHSRA Fires Back
• CAHSR: ‘Building a Dream’ to Nightmare?
• CHSR: USDOT Drives Another Coffin Nail
• New York Times Editorial: There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Wrecking Ball
• CHSRA to Release RFEI for Potential Public Private Partnerships
• CHSRA Provides 2025 Project Update Report
• Whither (Wither?) California High-Speed Rail (Reprise)
• Will Duffy Deep-Six CHSR?
• 2025 Passenger Rail Outlook: ‘Murphy Was an Optimist!’

The post CHSRA: ‘Right-Sizing the Program’ appeared first on Railway Age.

Michigan-based Class II Lake State Railway Company (LSRC), Railway Age’s 2021 Regional of the Year and 2018 Short Line of the Year, has rolled out a locomotive in a heritage scheme inspired by the Pere Marquette Railway, one of its antecedents,

Redone at LSRC’s Saginaw shops, No. 6437, a former Union Pacific SD70M, was rechristened “Spirit of Pere Marquette” with a tribute livery conceived by second-generation LSRC railroader Travis Vongrey, former conductor, engineer, yardmaster and now supervisor of yard operations. Vongrey’s concept art was based on E7 locomotives that pulled the Pere Marquettes, streamlined passenger trains that made daily trips serving Detroit, Lansing and Grand Rapids. Vongrey’s designs were given to LSRC consultants who developed technical specifications based on historical research. Southern Pride Equipment Painting of Sharpsburg, Ga., performed the painting and detailing.

CEO Mike Stickel embraced Vongrey’s concept as a spirited tribute to LSRC’s history, remarking, “Travis has created something really special that reflects the pride and satisfaction all our people share in shaping the future of rail transportation in Michigan, while staying mindful of our rich heritage. We’re all thrilled to see his design come to life as part of our modern fleet.”

A significant portion of the LSRC network was built and operated by the Pere Marquette Railway, primarily segments of the original corridors between Saginaw, Midland and Ludington.

Established in 1992, LSRC operates on a route structure of approximately 375 track-miles with six connecting railroad interchanges. The company maintains headquarters and shop facilities in Saginaw and terminals in Plymouth, Flint, Midland, Bay City, Gaylord and Alpena. Annual freight volume is approximately 60,000 carloads and serves a diversified mix of end markets, including automotive, aggregates, cement, agriculture, forest products, metals, chemicals and others. Antin Infrastructure Partners, a private equity firm focused on infrastructure investments in Europe and North America with offices in New York, London and Paris, acquired LSRC in 2022.

The post LSRC Debuts Pere Marquette Heritage Locomotive appeared first on Railway Age.

Canada’s Rocky Mountaineer will introduce a new limited service in 2026 called “Passage to the Peaks” that will link Jasper and Banff, Alberta, via Kamloops, B.C.

The service will operate in June and July of next year while the FIFA World Cup takes place in Vancouver, allowing passengers to seek a “quieter experience” away from the major sporting event. While Rocky Mountaineer offers this “new” service, its regular routes are expected to run as usual, including First Passage to the West (Vancouver to Banff), Journey Through the Clouds (Vancouver to Jasper), and Rainforest to Gold Rush (Vancouver to Jasper via the former BC Rail through Whistler). 

Visit Rocky Mountaineer’s website for more information. 

—Railfan & Railroad Staff

The post Rocky Mountaineer to Offer New Jasper-Banff Service in 2026 appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

Same vecchie stronzate stanche, different railroad. This time, it’s CSX. In my humble opinion, it’s non funzionerà, because we’ve seen these tactics before, at Norfolk Southern. Circle the target, buy a bunch of shares, then proceed to buttarci addosso della merda, trashing the CEO and twisting or fabricating numbers while you’re at it.

Yes, folks, Ancora Holdings, the endless-loop tape (like those junky telephone answering devices I used to sell at Radio Shack back in the 1970s), has resurfaced at CSX with basically the same playbook. I’ll give Ancora credit for placing four solid board members—Gil Lamphere, Sameh Fahmy, William Clyburn Jr., Richard Anderson—at Norfolk Southern. But that’s about all they managed to do, thankfully. The way they distorted the CSX vs. NS operating comparisons during the 2023 NS proxy battle was “extremely unprofessional,” one highly respected analyst remarked to me. As for the CEO they trashed and failed to oust, Alan Shaw, he sadly wound up opening and falling out his own exit door. Nothing to do with Ancora.

It appears there are two other hedge funds interested in CSX. TOMS Capital Investment Management (which as far as I know is not affiliated with Tom’s of Maine, purveyor of environmentally friendly, aluminum-free deodorant and other personal hygiene products), has taken a small financial position in CSX, as did Third Point Capital. I don’t know much about either, nor do I know their intentions. According to Reuters, “Unlike some activist investors, [TOMS Capital] prefers to stay in the background and push for changes out of the limelight, rather than launching public and noisy campaigns.” According to Institutional Investor, “Once famed for [Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer] Dan Loeb’s blistering activist letters, Third Point is now quietly reshaping itself into more of a credit-driven manager.”

Now it’s Joe Hinrichs Ancora is trashing. Here are a few slimy, silly, fundamentally fabricated, intrinsically insulting samples:

• “According to statistics from the Surface Transportation Board and Ancora’s analysis, Mr. Hinrichs has literally overseen CSX going from first to worst in terms of operational performance among Class I rails.”
• “Aside from bolstering employee engagement, making use of the Company’s private planes and manicuring his social media footprint, we are hard pressed to find any real accomplishments tied to Mr. Hinrichs.”
• “In recent years CSX, has seen a massive increase in Operating Ratio, from 58% when Mr. Hinrichs joined in 2022 to 67% year-to-date 2025.”
• “Mr. Hinrichs seems to have built a leadership team of junior varsity executives. For example, we believe COO Mike Cory is a mediocre operator and was likely pushed out of his prior role at [CN].” 
• “Regulators will have a much easier time reviewing multiple rail mergers at once. From a practical perspective, they will be able to compare competitive considerations and the impact on customers on a side-by-side basis to determine how the respective combinations benefit all stakeholders. From a timeline perspective, getting something done as early as possible during the pro-business [POTUS 47] Administration should also be a priority.”

The STB will not have an easier time dealing with two mergers. If anything, it will complicate things, potentially dragging them out.

Care to read Ancora’s entire now-not-so-private letter? I’ve attached it below. Download and read it if you have nothing better to do with your valuable time. Spoiler alert: It’s mostly, as my Uncle Alberto used to say, a bunch of malarky. You may find it maddening. You may laugh out loud. You may want to have an airline “barf bag” handy. The only maddening thing is that some people will actually believe Ancora’s stronzate.

Think I’m just blowing smoke here, or letting off steam? Here’s what Citi has to say about the situation (bold emphasis mine):

“The Ancora letter to CSX strikes us as unnecessarily aggressive, possibly counterproductive: Ancora Holdings released a letter to CSX’s Board on Aug. 19 urging the company to pursue a merger and/or consider terminating its CEO Joe Hinrichs. We find this letter a bit confounding, given: 1) its aggressive tone, which we believe is largely unwarranted; 2) its timing, as CSX has been showing improvement on the service issues that impacted the company earlier this year; 3) Ancora’s relatively small holdings, which we calculate as less than 0.2% of CSX shares outstanding; 4) what appears to be a misrepresentation of certain facts; 5) its suggestion that CSX faces ‘permanent impairment of value’ if it does not act imminently; and 6) the suggestion that CSX has not been open to strategic alternatives.

“By pushing CSX to be a forced seller, we worry that Ancora risks deteriorating CSX’s negotiating position. We believe a patient approach is likely more prudent. Ancora claims are somewhat difficult to reconcile with reality As part of its letter, Ancora claimed that CSX has delivered “anemic shareholder returns,” but we calculate CSX as tied for the best share-price performance among Class I rail peers since September 2022 when current CEO Hinrichs joined the company. While we recognize that part of these gains have come in recent months as speculation has increased that CSX could be a takeout candidate, its shares have performed in-line with peers for much of the past few years. Meanwhile, underperformance for rails vs. the S&P 500 has largely been due to a broader freight recession that has impacted transports broadly, as we view CSX and other transport companies as well positioned for when macro conditions inflect.

“Additionally, whereas Ancora expresses ‘great respect’ for CSX Vice Chairman Paul Hilal, it is concerned with the Board’s ‘poor judgment … and undermining shareholders best interests,’ We find these claims somewhat contradictory, as we believe Mr. Hilal (an experienced investor whom we also hold in high regard) would likely have good intuition on the best avenues to maximize shareholder value.

“On its most recent earnings call, CEO Hinrichs explicitly noted: ‘We are absolutely focused on delivering shareholder value and are always open to anything that can help us achieve this objective.’ This leads us to believe that the reason CSX has not publicly announced an exploration of strategic alternatives is because it needs a willing ‘dance partner,’ and alternatives are limited—with its principal merger alternative (BNSF) and a second, less likely partner (CPKC) making limited public comment, even as we remain highly confident the companies are considering their strategic options behind closed doors.

“Patience may be the better approach. With a merger process that is expected to take about18 months, we are inclined to disagree on the immediate urgency of CSX pursuing strategic alternatives. CPKC CEO Keith Creel has already committed to be a ‘loud voice’ in the STB review of UP+NS, noting regulatory approval is far from certain, with myriad concessions and carveouts potentially on the table. Additionally, if the STB does approve UP+NS, it would likely trigger a wave of further rail industry consolidation, in which CSX would be a desirable asset. Post-merger, CSX would continue to own highly valuable land and track, which would continue to hold appeal to BNSF.

“We believe rail shippers would be highly incentivized to ensure that CSX remains a viable competitive alternative in the East. As such, we believe an equally prudent course of action for CSX may be to bide its time and see what concessions it can extract as part of the STB review process and/or observe the extent to which the STB is even open to transcontinental mergers (a proposition that remains untested). Whereas pursuing a merger may ultimately prove the right course of action, we are struggling to see how turning CSX into a forced seller would be the best course of action, other than perhaps for investors with very short-term investment horizons.”  

“Short-term investment horizons” indeed. Our industry is at a critical point. Some would call it a tipping point. Those of us who truly care about it—not the Ancoras of the world—must unite and stay focused. Tune out the noise. Avoid drowning in the swamp, or getting snared in prickly hedges.

Much of this smells, badly. So what’s Ancora’s point? Driving up the stock price? Lining its pockets? Satisfying some primitive urge, expanding its territory by marking it, like a dog?

Woof!

The post Ancora Drops Rusty Anchor at CSX appeared first on Railway Age.

The move—which some analysts and industry observers might infer as a pre-merger-announcement strategy—follows Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern’s July announcement that they plan to merge and create the first U.S. transcontinental railroad.

BNSF and CSX said they will introduce direct domestic intermodal services between Southern California and Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla.; service between Phoenix, Ariz., and Atlanta, Ga., in an aim to convert over-the-road freight to rail; and direct international intermodal services between the Port of New York and New Jersey, and Norfolk, Va., and Kansas City.

These new services “will offer immediate value for customers by increasing flexibility and optionality,” according to the railroads, which noted that further details will be announced soon.

Between Phoenix and Flagstaff, Ariz., two new 10,000-foot sidings will be added “enabling more efficient meet/pass operations on the route connecting to BNSF’s Southern Transcon,” the railroads noted.

“This collaboration between BNSF and CSX demonstrates the power of partnership, delivering greater flexibility, efficiency and value for our customers,” BNSF Group Vice President of Consumer Products Jon Gabriel said. “We are looking forward to these offerings providing immediate, streamlined service to the supply chain across key markets nationwide.”

“Through this new connectivity, CSX and BNSF are connecting Western and Eastern U.S. markets, creating faster, more reliable service,” commented Drew Johnson, Vice President, Intermodal Sales and Marketing at CSX. “Together, we’re opening access to key markets and strengthening options for our mutual customers.”

Separately, Schneider, CSX, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City reported last December that they would offer a new intermodal service “providing continuous rail service between points in Mexico and Texas and points in the Southeastern United States.”

The post BNSF, CSX Teaming on Intermodal Services appeared first on Railway Age.