Prototype News

The last F40C locomotive on the Metra roster has been donated to Railroading Heritage of Midwest America in Silvis, Ill. RRHMA, which is assembling an impressive fleet of diesel locomotives along with two Union Pacific steam engines, said it plans to restore the rare six-axle passenger unit to operation. 

Metra 611 was spotted being moved around Chicago on March 18, and is now en route to Silvis. 

“Metra has a deep appreciation for its history, and we are grateful they have chosen RRHMA to receive this unique locomotive,” said RRHMA President Steve Sandberg in a press release. “Our collection includes Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 261, along with several Milwaukee Road passenger cars, including a Skytop observation car, Super Dome, and sleeping car. Adding this locomotive — one that also once wore Milwaukee Road lettering — advances our mission of preserving significant artifacts of Midwest railroading.”

Last year, Meta’s other surviving F40C, No. 614, was donated to the Illinois Railway Museum. 

Metra 611 was built in April 1974 as Milwaukee Road 54. The F40C design was unique to the North Suburban and North West Suburban Mass Transit Districts, which supported commuter service over the Milwaukee Road lines north and west of Chicago to Fox Lake and Elgin. The F40C is a six-axle, six-motor locomotive with a “cowl” design intended purely for passenger service. The locomotives’ sides were largely covered in stainless steel to match the Milwaukee Road’s bi-level commuter coaches. They were also equipped with head-end power (HEP) as built. Only 15 F40C locomotives were built, all in 1974 by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors at the EMD plant in McCook, Illinois.

Metra 611 was used in daily service on the Milwaukee Road North and West lines until 2004, when it was removed from active service. It and identical F40C 614 were returned to service in 2009. In 2012, Metra permanently retired both units and put them into storage at Western Avenue. 

RRHMA owns the former Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad shop complex in Silvis and plans to turn it into the largest historic railroad equipment restoration facility in the country. The non-profit is presently restoring UP 4-6-6-4 3985 and 2-10-2 5511. 

The post Metra Donates F40C to Railroading Heritage of Midwest America appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

There was a legal maxim in England during the Middle Ages that “The King can do no wrong.” That ancient doctrine has come down to us today as the concept of “Sovereign Immunity,” that a sovereign government cannot be sued for its acts or wrongdoing, unless it consents to such suits. Many states in this country today have a Tort Claims Act that allows plaintiffs to recover damages against that State.

On March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States set limits on Sovereign Immunity by consolidating two cases where New Jersey Transit (NJT) was the defendant. The Court’s case is captioned Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, 607U.S. ___ (2026) (Slip Op.). The plaintiffs in both cases were injured in accidents involving NJ Transit buses, and both occurred in states other than New Jersey. Cedric Galette was injured in an accident in Philadelphia when the automobile in which he was riding was struck by an NJT bus on Market Street. The Court consolidated his case with that of a New York plaintiff, Jeffrey Colt, who was crossing a street in Midtown Manhattan when he was knocked down by an NJT bus and injured.

The Court of Appeals of New York (equivalent to the Supreme Courts of other states) in Colt’s case held that NJT was not “an arm of New Jersey” and therefore could be sued. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Galette’s case that NJT was an arm of the State, which was not subject to suit, and dismissed Galette’s action. As the Court opinion noted, the states used different criteria for determining whether a state agency could assert the defense of Sovereign Immunity, which is an absolute defense.

When the highest courts of different states (or different Circuit Courts of Appeals in the Federal Court system) differ on legal results in cases with similar facts, it is up to the SCOTUS to resolve the differences, usually by deciding to agree with only one of the lower courts. That happened in the present case, and the Court clarified the differences between an “arm of the State” that can assert the Sovereign Immunity defense, and a different type of state agency that can be sued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. She began by saying: “States are generally entitled to immunity from being sued in another State’s courts without their consent. That sovereign immunity is personal to the State and thus extends only to arms of the State itself, not to legally independent entities that the State creates.” She then summarized the cases: “This pair of cases arises out of two accidents, one in New York City and one in Philadelphia, in which New Jersey Transit buses struck and injured people. Both victims sued New Jersey Transit, a corporation created by the New Jersey Legislature, in their respective home courts in New York and Pennsylvania. The highest courts in those States diverged as to whether New Jersey Transit is an arm of New Jersey. The Court granted certiorari to resolve whether New Jersey Transit is an arm of New Jersey and thus entitled to the State’s sovereign immunity. It is not. Accordingly, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is reversed.”

Thus, NJT became an example of the sort of agency where the State exercises a great deal of control. But the question is whether the agency at issue is controlled directly by the State or has enough independent authority that it can be considered an entity separate from the State itself and, therefore, it can be sued. Early in the Court’s opinion, Sotomayor described NJT’s structure since it was founded: “The Legislature in 1979 created the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit). The State structured the entity as a ‘body corporate and politic with corporate succession.’ The ‘corporation’ was ‘constituted as an instrumentality of the State exercising public and essential governmental functions.’ It was ‘allocated within the Department of Transportation,’ but ‘the corporation’ was ‘independent of any supervision or control by the department or by any body or officer thereof’” (citations omitted). The opinion then described the “significant authority” that NJT has, as described by its enabling statute: “For instance, it has the power to: make its own bylaws; sue and be sued; enter into contracts; acquire or deal in and with real or personal property; raise funds from fares, gifts, grants, or loans; own and control any corporate entity acquired or formed to carry out its objectives; adopt rules and regulations as necessary; and exercise eminent domain powers. Moreover, NJ Transit’s organic statute provides that ‘[n]o debt or liability of the corporation shall be deemed or construed to create or constitute a debt, liability, or a loan or pledge of the credit of the State.’ It also states that ‘[a]ll expenses incurred by the corporation . . . shall be payable from funds available to the corporation’ and that ‘no liability or obligation shall be incurred by the corporation beyond the extent to which moneys are available’” (citations omitted).

The opinion then described the powers and authority that the State had granted to NJT by statute and described the facts of the two cases at issue. That included an analysis of how the New York and Pennsylvania Courts examined the status of NJT as a State agency, which resulted in the New York Court holding that it is not an “arm of the State” and the Pennsylvania Court holding that it is.

The next topic was the development of doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, where the Opinion said: “Sovereign immunity, however, is ‘personal’ to the State itself. It does not extend to ‘lesser entities,’ such as ‘municipal corporation[s] or other governmental entit[ies]’ that are not ‘arm[s] of the State.’  Whether an entity is ‘an arm of the State . . . is a question of federal law’ that ‘can be answered only after considering the provisions of state law that define the agency’s character’” (citation omitted). The opinion then developed the history of the doctrine, including citing cases that were decided more than 100 years ago. Citing an 1890 case, the Court said: “The Court applied the same reasoning to cities and counties that were created as municipal corporations. The Court explained that the corporate form of such entities, which included the power to ‘sue and be sued,’ likewise made them legal persons separate from the sovereign and thus not entitled to share in the State’s sovereign immunity” (citation omitted). More recently, as the opinion said: “the analysis remained focused on discerning whether the State had structured the entity to be legally separate, and corporate status remained central to that analysis.”

The Court went on to use counties as an example of how a political subdivision is not an arm of the State, citing Moore v. Alemeda County, 411 U.S. 693, 719, 720-21: “It explained that the county was also created as a ‘body corporate and politic,’ which meant, ‘[m]ost notably,’ that the county was given ‘corporate powers,’ such as the ability to ‘sue and be sued,’ to ‘deal in property,’ and to make contract[s].’ Financially, moreover, the county alone would be ‘liable for all judgments against it’ and could issue bonds without creating an ‘obligation on the part of the State.’ Finally, the Court observed that, given the county’s corporate status, the California Supreme Court had held that counties could be sued by the State.’ The Court thus concluded that the county was not an arm of the State because the county had a ‘sufficiently independent corporate character’” (citations omitted). The opinion then examined the status of counties in Mount Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280-81 (1977): “Resting on the firmly established rule that municipal corporations and counties are not arms of the State, the Court in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), framed the arm-of-the-State inquiry as asking whether an entity is ‘more like a county or city’ than ‘like an arm of the State.” Id., at 280. In answering that question for the entity at issue, a local school board, the Court examined the characteristics of the board under state law. It observed that the board was created as a ‘political subdivision’ distinct from the ‘State,’ that it had powers to issue bonds and levy taxes, and that it received money and guidance from the State. Those characteristics led the Court to conclude that the board was ‘more like a county or city’ and thus not entitled to immunity. Id., at 280–281.”

The opinion also cited Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (regarding the entity that operates PATH trains between Manhattan and New Jersey), saying: “The Court acknowledged that the States exerted significant control over the Authority—they had appointment and removal power over the commissioners, the Governors could veto the Authority’s actions, and the States’ legislatures could determine what projects the Authority would pursue—but rejected control as a ‘dispositive; factor in its overall analysis. Id., at 47-48. In the end, after considering the above facts and the underlying purposes of sovereign immunity, the Court concluded that the Authority’s status as a ‘discrete entity’ that ‘generates its own revenues’ and ‘pays its own debts’ ultimately rendered it not an arm of the State. Id., at 52.”

The next section of the opinion began with a summary: “Although the Court’s arm-of-the-State cases have accounted for various considerations over time, those precedents have consistently, and predominantly, examined whether the State structured the entity as a legally separate entity liable for its own judgments.” It continued: “The clearest evidence that a State has created a legally separate entity is that it created a corporation with the traditional corporate powers to sue and be sued, hold property, make contracts, and incur debt.” Further, “The corporate form is particularly salient because it has “long [been] settled as a matter of American corporate law that separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations. …  “[s]eparate legal personality has been described as ‘an almost indispensable aspect of the public corporation’” (citations omitted). The analysis continued: “In fact, a State might choose to create a corporation, rather than an unincorporated government agency, precisely because of its independent legal status. This move allows the State to distance the entity from burdens that apply to the State itself or to distance the State from the burdens that the corporate entity may incur.”

Sotomayor’s opinion then focused on reasons why a State would want to form a separate entity, rather than act directly. An example is when a state does not want to assume risk concerning a project, so the agency, as a separate entity would act as the contracting party, rather than the State itself. The lengthy analysis is beyond the purview of this report, but the Court said: “In fact, this Court has never once found a corporation that was liable for its own judgments to be an arm of the State, even when the State had significant control over the entity.” An exception to the rule is when the State is the “real party at interest” but the “real party at interest” analysis is different from the “arm of the State” analysis, such as when an official acting on behalf of the State is the named party, or when a suit would run against the interests of the State itself. The opinion concluded on that issue: “Under the principles articulated above, NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey.”

NJT’s enabling statute calls the agency “an instrumentality of the State,” but the Court said: “The term ‘instrumentality,’ however, lacks the historical weight the corporate form does and says little about whether an entity is an arm of the State.” The Court added: “Moreover, other aspects of New Jersey law undercut any inference that the term ‘instrumentality’ favors NJ Transit’s position. The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, for instance, excludes entities with sue-and-be-sued authority, like NJ Transit, from its definition of the ‘State.’ §§59:1-1, 59:1-3 (2026). The New Jersey Contractual Liability Act also specifies that entities with sue-and-be-sued authority are not part of the State. §59:13–2. All told, NJ Transit is therefore structured as a legally separate entity under state law.” The opinion also noted that the State is not formally liable for NJT’s debts or liabilities, and that, despite the level of State control over the agency, “This level of control does not meaningfully affect NJ Transit’s status, given the fact that it is a legally separate corporation and is responsible for its own judgments.”

NJ Transit argued in its Brief (at 22) that the agency is serving “public and essential governmental functions” and possesses “substantial plenary public powers,” such as the power to operate a police force, exercise eminent domain power, and promulgate regulations. The Court’s response was: “The arm-of-the-State analysis, however, focuses not on whether the entity serves public functions, but rather on whether the State has chosen to serve those public functions through its own apparatus or through that of a legally separate entity. That is why the Court has long recognized that cities and counties are not arms of the State despite serving public functions and exercising police powers.”

The Court’s opinion included a level of detail beyond what we could present in this article (it would be more appropriate for a Law Review article, which can require hundreds of hours of effort), but it also included an example of inconsistency in State control: “Hinging an entity’s arm-of-the-State status to the practical realities of state funding also risks arbitrary distinctions and inconsistent treatment of the same entity. These cases illustrate the problem: In the [past] 35 years, New Jersey’s funding of NJ Transit’s annual operating budget has oscillated anywhere from 15% to 46% of the budget. (Brief for NJ Transit, at 35.) Although NJ Transit maintains that it is and has always been an arm of New Jersey, it offers no meaningful way to decide how much funding is enough to prove it is ‘financially integrated with the State and financially dependent on it.’ Id., at 34. The more apt question instead is whether the State would be formally obligated to pay the entity’s judgments” (citation omitted).

The opinion noted that 23 states had urged the Court to accept a State’s own characterization of its agencies as dispositive, but the Court declined to do that, opting instead for a national standard: “One problem with the States’ position is that it focuses on the label a State places on an entity, rather than assessing whether the State structured the entity as legally separate.” As the Court also noted: “To the extent New Jersey, and other States, created such corporate entities intending that they would remain part of the State and that the State would formally assume their liabilities, the States are always free to amend their laws.” The Court concluded: “NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity. The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is affirmed, the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Sotomayor’s discussion of the issues was thorough, and her opinion for a unanimous Court appers to settle the issue of which components of the government of a State are protected by Sovereign Immunity and which are not.

For its part, NJT did not issue a press release concerning the Court’s ruling, but an agency spokesperson told Railway Age: “We have received the Court’s decision and are reviewing the opinion to assess its implications and will evaluate our next steps. We respect the Court’s ruling and will take appropriate actions in accordance with the opinion.”

What does this mean for transit providers and similar State agencies?

It is now time for this writer to “change hats” metaphorically and comment in a personal capacity, as a supplement to the description of the Court’s opinion. This commentary stems in part from this writer’s long experience dealing with NJ Transit as an advocate for the agency’s riders, particularly on its rail lines, and as a member of one of the agency’s advisory committees. It is purely coincidental that the cases before the Court happened to concern this writer’s home transit provider. There might be some fortuity in that, because other commentators would not be as familiar with NJT as an agency.

There are some facts that were not discussed in the Court’s opinion. That is not to imply that the Court was not thorough in its analysis of the legal issues, or that Justice Sotomayor did not make the Court’s position clear. The Court did not need to discuss them, but they add some useful background for decision-makers considering where transit providers and other State agencies fit into a State’s governmental picture.

NJT itself was founded in 1979 to assume the operations of a failing bus company, Transport of New Jersey, as successor to Public Service Coordinated Transport, which followed the historic structure of an electric utility also operating streetcars within its service area. NJ Transit Rail was not established until 1983, after Congress relieved Conrail of its obligation to operate local passenger trains in the Northeast Region of the country. Politics and political necessity played a role in these events, as it always does when State government is concerned. We have reported on these historic events: the 40th anniversary of the founding of NJT as a corporate entity and the 40th anniversary of the establishment of NJT Rail at the beginning of 1983. The latter coincided with the 40th anniversaries of SEPTA and Metro-North.

Before NJT Rail was founded, Conrail operated the trains in New Jersey. Before Conrail was founded in 1976, Penn Central (successor to the Pennsylvania Railroad), the Erie-Lackawanna (formed by a merger of those two railroads in 1960) and the Central Railroad of New Jersey ran the trains directly. The Commuter Operating Agency (COA), a sub-agency within the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) assisted and subsidized the railroads, but the State did not engage in operating the trains until NJ Transit Rail was formed to take over from Conrail. Presumably, NJDOT could have operated the trains directly through the COA, but declined to pursue that alternative, and chose instead to add a railroad component to NJT under its previously established corporate identity.

NJT has its own legal department, headed by a General Counsel. This writer has dealt with NJT staff attorneys during the past several years on matters unrelated to the subject matter of this article. Still, the present case was argued not by NJT’s lawyers, but by the Solicitor General of New Jersey. It is clear, at least to this writer, that the State argued the case to demonstrate its contention that NJT has acted as an “arm of the State,” an understandable strategy under the circumstances. That distinction apparently did not make a difference to the Court. As the opinion said: “NJ Transit … is a corporation that has all the hallmarks of separate legal personhood, such as the power to sue and be sued, make contracts, and hold property in its own name, which all indicate that it is not an arm of the State and does not share in its immunity from suit. This Court has not previously found a similarly structured corporation to be an arm of the State.”

Given the Court’s newly articulated standard for determining which State agencies will be immune from suit from now on, it is essential that decision-makers at the State level draft statutes and administrative regulations to avoid creating quasi-independent agencies with their own corporate identities if they wish to immunize those agencies from claims that potential plaintiffs could assert. The Court’s opinion clarified the distinction between an “arm of the State” and an agency with independent identity, such as NJ Transit. Other transit agencies, such as New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) are also instruments of the State, and it appears that the states have generally chosen corporate identities, rather than direct “arm of the State” identities for transit providers and other agencies. As the Court made clear, there are tradeoffs between the benefit of immunity from suit and the benefits of the quasi-independent corporate form for State agencies, including transit providers.

The Court has also clarified the distinction between State agencies and those operated by subdivisions of the state, including counties and municipalities. It is now clear that county and municipal agencies are not State agencies. This writer is familiar with an instance in New Jersey where County-level officials have claimed to be included in an organization as representatives of a State agency, a bootstrapping effort that the Court now clearly appears to disfavor.

So, it appears that the Court has clarified rules for how states and their agencies must proceed in the future. The decision might not affect how transit is operated in practice, but it puts officials on notice that Sovereign Immunity is available only for agencies whose connection to the State is a direct one.

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 Using NJT, SCOTUS Sets Limits on State ‘Sovereign Immunity’ appeared first on Railway Age.

Three iconic railroaders who spent much of their careers at Norfolk Southern or one of its predecessor companies—David Goode, the late Jim McClellan and the late Bill Brosnan—have been inducted into the National Railroad Hall of Fame.

David R. Goode, Railway Age’s 1998 and 2005 Railroader of the Year, is best known for his role as Chairman, President and CEO of Norfolk Southern during the late 1990s split of Class I Conrail with CSX. The eastern giant, established via the 1974 Regional Rail Reorganization Act (3R Act) from the bankrupt Penn Central and five other failing railroads, was the subject of a protracted battle between NS and CSX following CSX’s attempt to acquire 100% of it. Goode led NS to an outcome resulting in a 58% NS/42% CSX division. For that, he was selected as 1998 Railroader of the Year.

“David Goode, though he does not offer many direct comparisons with other railroads, is eager to point out what he feels sets NS apart,” Railway Age noted in its January 1998 issue “‘I would say that we have a tradition of pride and trying hard to excel,’ he says. ‘I think you’ll see it throughout the organization. It has to do mostly with our tradition of believing we have to work harder than the other guy. It’s also a tradition of really being focused on safety, almost as a tenet of our company. It affects everything we do, and it’s something on which everyone here has worked together.’

“Are these characteristics unique to NS? Not really, says Goode: ‘I think these are the elements I see among railroaders in general. It‘s a tradition in this industry.’ But one thing is certain, he says: ‘The people that succeed in our company are the ones who make a commitment to put themselves on the line for our goals.’ And that’s where the difference may lie.

“It may also stem from being, in a sense, the underdog. ‘We have a history of success,’ says Goode, ‘but we’ve always been the smallest guy around—the little kid on the block with something to prove. We’ve proved it by trying to push hard and run a good organization. We’re geographically limited, so we’ve worked hard to find ways to build out of that, to develop partnerships … We’ve always thought we had to work a little harder, to execute a little better. We’ve competed head-to-head with CSX for many years, and we don’t begin to have the revenue base CSX has, so we’ve had to work harder with what we’ve got.’

“The Conrail acquisition is without a doubt Norfolk Southern’s biggest, most important growth opportunity. NS has pursued Conrail several times in the past, without success. This time, however, the situation was almost tailor-made. Here was NS, cast in the role in which it feels most comfortable: the underdog, battling with its much larger eastern competitor, fighting the good fight for better service and enhanced competition. NS, and David Goode, played that role to the hilt.

“‘From our own standpoint,’ says Goode, ‘we believed that we needed to be a complete eastern rail provider in order to provide the right basis, the right critical mass, to serve our shippers effectively. We wanted to be in a position to develop innovations in logistics and distribution. That’s why Conrail was so important to us. The acquisition was the next step we needed to take. That’s why 1998 will be a pivotal year for us—completing this transaction and forming a competitive balance in the East.”

Jim McClellan (1939-2016) was represented by his son, Norfolk Southern Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer Mike McClellan. “Throughout a career in the railroad industry that spanned almost a half-century, McClellan worked at Southern Railway, New York Central, Penn Central, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the U.S. Railway Administration, the Association of American Railroads and Norfolk Southern in marketing, planning and policy roles,” Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono wrote in a 2016 obituary. “He retired from NS in 2003 as Senior Vice President Planning.

“McClellan is best known for his strategic behind-the scenes work in the mid-1990s during the split of Conrail between NS and CSX. He is credited with NS’s so-called ‘go crazy’ strategy that ultimately prevented CSX, whose Chairman at the time was John Snow, from acquiring 100% of Conrail.

“McClellan was among the core group of people in the U.S. Railway Administration who created Amtrak and laid the groundwork for Conrail, and later was a part of the teams that created Norfolk Southern from a merger of the Norfolk & Western and the Southern, in addition to his later involvement in the split of Conrail between NS (58%) and CSX (42%). Executives and planners relied on his railroading knowledge and interpretations of railroad system maps and rail traffic flows.

“McClellan is the focal point of several chapters in Rush Loving Jr.’s 2006 book The Men Who Loved Trains: The Story of Men Who Battled Greed to Save an Ailing Industry. Loving, a long-time friend of McClellan, referred to him as ‘The Forrest Gump of Railroading.’ He was honored with Railway Age’s W. Graham Claytor Jr. Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation and was named one of 75 People You Should Know in the November 2015 issue of Trains magazine. McClellan’s own book, My Life with Trains: Memoir of a Railroader, [was published in 2017].

“A self-professed life-long rail enthusiast, something that began at age five (the Atlantic Coast Line ran next to his backyard), McClellan was a rail photographer for almost 60 years. Post-retirement from NS, he joined Woodside Consulting as a Vice President. He gave numerous speeches dealing with railroading’s past and future. He was also a painter, a model railroader and a passionate boater (both sail and power). He spent much of his time traveling the world, ‘photographing people, places and animals, and trains,/ in his own words.

Dennis William “Bill” Brosnan (1903-1985), Railway Age’s first Railroader of the Year honoree in 1964, was “a railroader whose impact is still felt every single day across Norfolk Southern and across our industry,” NS President and CEO Mark George, who accepted on Brosnan’s behalf at the induction ceremony. “Bill began his career where railroading is most fundamental. As a young apprentice track engineer, he learned the railroad by tamping ties, working alongside section crews and understanding that nothing moves without a strong foundation beneath it. That ‘learn it from the ground up’ mindset never left him. It shaped a leadership philosophy rooted in fundamentals but driven relentlessly toward progress.

“Brosnan brought urgency, imagination and execution to an industry that desperately needed all three. He rose through the ranks of Southern Railway, ultimately becoming its President and CEO during a period of existential pressure for railroads. Regulation constrained innovation. Costs rose faster than rates. Competition intensified. Southern itself stood on the brink of financial crisis. Bill Brosnan did not manage around those challenges. He attacked them. He believed survival required fundamental change, and he acted accordingly, modernizing operations, mechanizing maintenance, centralizing functions, and demanding faster, better, more disciplined execution. And while his leadership style was famously demanding, the results were undeniable: a solvent, competitive, forward-looking railroad that helped power the post-war growth of the American South.

“Bill helped build one of the most advanced engineering organizations in the industry. He understood that innovation didn’t always come from vendors or regulators. Sometimes it had to be invented in your own shops. When the machines he needed didn’t exist, he built them. That spirit lives on today in Norfolk Southern’s engineering and infrastructure teams.

“Bill reimagined how railroads go to market. From unit trains to 100-ton cars to the revolutionary Big John hopper, he understood that growth came from deeply understanding customers and designing solutions around their needs. He was willing to challenge regulators, competitors and even his own organization to unlock new value. That customer-first mindset remains—core to Norfolk Southern today as we develop new service offerings and work to make rail a more intuitive, responsive partner for American industry.

“Few legacies are as enduring as Brosnan’s role in creating what has become Norfolk Southern’s industrial development organization, helping communities attract jobs, investment and economic prosperity across our network. Norfolk Southern remains a leader in rail-served industrial development today, connecting businesses to markets and opportunity.

“If Bill Brosnan were with us tonight, he would likely have strong opinions about the modern railroad, some approving, some impatient. But I believe he would recognize something familiar: an industry once again being asked to evolve and deliver more for the customers and American economy we serve. And he might remind us, as he did throughout his career, that progress does not come from comfort. It comes from discipline, imagination, and the courage to act.”

The post Goode, McClellan, Brosnan Inducted into National Railroad Hall of Fame appeared first on Railway Age.

Metra on April 6 will start a pilot program asking riders to launch their Ventra electronic ticket on their smart phone or show their paper ticket before boarding selected trains at downtown stations. A goal of the pilot is to test the speed, functionality, and durability of new handheld devices to scan Ventra and paper tickets, the commuter railroad reported March 19. Boarding riders will be stopped at the entrance to the platform and asked to present the QR code of a launched Ventra ticket or a valid paper ticket for scanning.

The test is being conducted initially with off-peak trains to avoid logjams during boarding and if it goes smoothly, it may be expanded to peak trains, according to Metra.

“The test could be helpful for the Northern Illinois Transit Authority (NITA), the new public transportation governance body that will be formed later this year,” the railroad reported. “NITA is required to integrate Metra, Chicago Transit Authority, and Pace bus fares, and many potential integration solutions involve the use of handheld scanners. The pilot also will collect data on how many riders are using paper tickets vs. Ventra tickets on specified trains, when and where riders purchase their tickets, and their destinations. This information could also be useful to NITA.”

According to Metra, a secondary benefit of the ticket checks is to assist with fare collection on the trains. Conductors will still validate tickets, but they won’t have to wait for riders to launch their Ventra tickets, speeding collection, the railroad noted. To further help with that process, during the pilot riders who do not have a ticket will be asked to purchase one before boarding, it added.

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

SacRT on March 16 reported that it is hiring 10-20 additional Transit Ambassadors (TA), with a goal of building a team of 55. Alongside security guards and the contracted Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department personnel, these new TA positions are said to support the transit agency’s vision of having a safety staff member on every light rail train and improving the overall customer experience.

TAs are described as “customer-focused team members who help ensure riders feel safe, supported, and welcomed on light rail trains.” Transit Ambassadors do not get physically involved in incidents, according to SacRT; they observe situations and report any safety or security concerns to local law enforcement through the SacRT Security Operations Center. Those selected for the role participate in a three-month Transit Ambassador Training Academy, including scenario-based instruction led by former law enforcement professionals.

According to SacRT, TAs receive a “comprehensive and competitive benefits package designed to support their health, financial stability, and work–life balance.” This includes medical, dental, and vision coverage, access to flexible spending accounts, vacation and sick leave, paid holidays, and a free SacRT transit pass for employees and eligible dependents. Retirement benefits include either a defined benefit pension plan or a 401(a) defined contribution plan depending on bargaining unit, with the option to participate in a voluntary 457(b) savings plan, the transit agency reported. Additional benefits include company-paid life insurance, optional supplemental life insurance, an Employee Assistance Program, education reimbursement, and discounted theme park tickets. SacRT also provides all required uniforms and safety boots at no cost to Transit Ambassadors.

SacRT is offering recruitment events on March 20 and April 8. This is the first time, it said, that such events are dedicated exclusively to a single position; they will give prospective applicants a “hands-on opportunity to explore the role and meet the team.”

“These recruitment events offer a unique, firsthand look at what it means to serve as a Transit Ambassador,” SacRT General Manager/CEO Henry Li said. “Safety is our top priority, and expanding our Transit Ambassador team is a key part of our commitment to ensuring riders feel supported on every train, every day.”

“Transit Ambassadors play an essential role in creating a safe, welcoming environment for our riders,” SacRT Board Chair and Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen added. “These events allow applicants to understand the importance of the position, the training and support they receive, and the meaningful impact they can have on our transit community.”

• California Investing $97MM in Rail Transit Projects
• SacRT Invests $1MM in Safety, Security Program (part of Transit Briefs)
• SacRT Launches Transit Connect App (part of Transit Briefs)

Denver RTD engaged with more than 375 customers traveling for spring break on Friday, March 13, helping them navigate the 23-mile “A” commuter rail line between Denver Union Station and Denver International Airport and learn about the new fare payment option, Tap-n-Ride, according to the agency.

RTD said it teamed with airport staff at Denver Airport Station and Northeast Transportation Connections (NETC) at Central Park Station, while RTD employees also greeted customers at Denver Union Station. Staff answered questions about schedules, fares, and trip planning as an estimated 5,000 people made their way to and from the airport ahead of spring break on Friday afternoon, RTD said.

A key focus of the outreach was Tap-n-Ride, which launched last November, and allows customers to purchase train and bus fares by tapping a contactless credit or debit card, or a mobile wallet such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay, directly on a validator when boarding.

RTD said the in-person outreach was designed to help customers “feel confident using the A Line during one of the busiest travel periods of the year.”

“It was important for members of the RTD Impact Team to be onsite, supporting customers as spring break travel commenced,” RTD Business Program Manager Betsy Hinojosa said. “When customers choose RTD, we want to give them the best customer experience possible. Part of that is being available to answer their questions in real time and help those taking RTD for the first time. Our presence was coupled with debut of RTD’s latest educational video, Take RTD to and from Denver International Airport, which highlights both bus and rail options to the airport.”

The A Line provides rail service and a direct connection between downtown Denver and Denver International Airport. RTD also offers several specialized motorcoach services to the airport, known as Skyride. These buses feature extra space for luggage, overhead and under-coach space for carry-ons, and driver assistance with loading and unloading luggage.

• Denver RTD Releases 3Q Financial Results (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Increases Rail System Fare Checks (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Earns ‘Stable Outlook’ From Three Credit Agencies (part of Transit Briefs)
• Denver RTD Tabs Tran as CPO
• For Denver RTD, FY26 Budget Tops $1.5B

The post Transit Briefs: Metra, SacRT, Denver RTD appeared first on Railway Age.

STV on March 16 announced the opening of its new office located in the Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta, Ga., “expanding its footprint in one of the nation’s fastest-growing infrastructure markets. The modern workspace, the company says, “enhances STV’s presence in the Southeast and strengthens the firm’s ability to deliver complex projects across the region.”

The new office supports a multidisciplinary team delivering transportation, transit, water, buildings and community infrastructure projects. Partnering with state and local agencies, transit authorities and municipal clients, the team focuses on “improving mobility, protecting water resources and promoting economic growth across metropolitan Atlanta and the broader Southeast,” STV noted.

“Opening this new office in Midtown Atlanta gives us a strategic base in one of the country’s most vibrant infrastructure markets,” said Chris Haney, PE, President of the Water Operating Group at STV. “By expanding our presence in Midtown, we’re able to deliver innovative, future-focused solutions for clients and communities across the rapidly growing region.”

Since 2024, the firm has opened or expanded offices in Dallas, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, Lake Mary and New York City. These investments, STV says, “align with the firm’s strategic plan through flexible workspace environments, modern delivery tools and cross-disciplinary collaboration.”

The Timken Company, a global technology firm specializing in engineered bearings and industrial motion, announced March 18 that it has acquired the assets and related businesses of North Carolina-based Bijur Delimon International (BDI), a global designer and manufacturer of automated lubrication systems.

“The acquisition of Bijur Delimon aligns with our near-term strategic priority to accelerate growth in key market verticals,” said Timken President and CEO Lucian Boldea. “Timken has built a leading automated lubrication systems platform, that benefits from strong secular tailwinds, including a shortage of skilled labor and shifting demographics. BDI elevates our existing capabilities, deepens our presence in attractive market sectors and regions, and creates meaningful synergy opportunities that strengthen our ability to serve customers more completely as one Timken.”

Since entering the lubrication business in 2013, Timken has grown its position into a leading provider of industrial automated lubrication systems, which, the company says, “extend equipment life and lower total costs for machine owners.” BDI’s strong customer relationships in key market verticals like rail, power generation and mining “enhance and expand Timken’s established position in automated lubrication systems, creating a more comprehensive offering for these key industries.”

Founded in 1872, BDI operates manufacturing locations in the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific. The business is expected to generate more than $60 million in sales in 2026.

Timken funded the transaction with cash on hand and existing committed facilities. Other terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The post Supply Side: STV, Timken appeared first on Railway Age.

The company’s pharmaceutical-grade sodium bicarbonate production facility was built in 1968 and produces the world-renowned baking soda right where the trona ore is mined. Wyoming is home to 90% of the world’s trona ore deposits.

The new switching agreement marks OmniTRAX’s third Green River operation added in the past year. The infrastructure affiliate of the multi-billion-dollar Colorado-based parent The Broe Group, OmniTRAX operates 32 railroads, serving ports, industrial parks, and industry leaders across the country.

“Arm & Hammer is an iconic American brand and OmniTRAX is proud to provide the safe and reliable rail service to keep Church and Dwight’s Green River facility moving smoothly,” said OmniTRAX CEO Colby Tanner.   

Church and Dwight is the United States’ largest baking soda producer and parent company of many household name products, including Arm & Hammer, used in a variety of industrial, institutional, medical, food and specialty cleaning applications. OmniTRAX will provide dedicated switching service for the Green River facility which operates 24 hours a day.

The post OmniTRAX Adds Arm & Hammer to Rail Network appeared first on Railway Age.

Short line railroads are always working to attract new business, but expanding partnerships with current customers can be just as effective in driving economic growth for multiple stakeholders, ASLRRA noted. ASLRRA Business Development Award Winner LSRC proved exactly that through its recent work with longtime customer Specification Stone, “reshaping how aggregates move across Michigan.”

Though this project was 10 years in the making, recent completion of upgrades and a high throughput facility “have positioned LSRC and Specification Stone to grow significantly in the future,” according to ASLRRA. Already the customer has expanded the loading capacity in Alpena, diversified the stone types shipped and opened a new terminal near Flint, Mich.

LSRC leveraged its “strong relationships, local presence and entrepreneurial spirit to help move the project to completion.” As a result, ASLRRA says, “customers will have more competitive and reliable options for stone delivery in central and southern Michigan.” This will benefit large-scale aggregate customers like road construction companies, which further supports economic development in the region. LSRC expects stone volumes to increase significantly over the next several years.

Not satisfied with the status quo, LSRC turned a long-term customer relationship into a greater success story through grit and determination. Bringing its equipment and infrastructure into the 21st century “positioned LSRC to support shipper growth, resulting in significant benefits for the railroad, the customer and communities across Michigan.”

TGS Cedar Port earned this year’s award for development of a new railcar cleaning and transloading rack bringing together multiple ancillary railcar services, including cleaning, de-gassing, nitrogen padding, repairs, requalification, storage and transloading. This facility, ASLRRA says, “enables customers to eliminate multiple off-site moves per car, lowering costs, reducing dwell time and improving asset utilization.”

The TGS Cedar Port team recognized the inefficiencies its customers were experiencing, having to incur costs moving cars between different cleaning shops, repair facilities and storage yards. The completed project now offers customers complete vertical integration. Trans-Global Solutions (TGS), the railroad’s parent company, owns the industrial park and operates the cleaning and transloading rack. The park hosts repair companies and has more than125 miles of internal track served by TGS Cedar Port. There are also approximately 6,000 on-site railcar storage positions.

While taking advantage of these streamlined offerings sounds like a no-brainer for shippers wanting more efficient car services, TGS Cedar Port still needed to convince wary customers to shift their business, ASLRRA noted. To do so, TGS Cedar Port had to demonstrate “a superior economic value with lower costs and faster turnaround.” The marketing and operations teams worked together closely to bring in initial customers, offering introductory pricing and building strong relationships.

Once these early customers were on board, demand for services grew quickly. To date, the operation has cleaned more than 2,800 railcars and supported more than 3,000 associated truck movements. TGS Cedar Port has also added new full-time positions, as have the on-site repair companies. These services have attracted new tenants to the industrial park, “increasing local investment and tax revenue for the community while improving productivity for businesses.”

The post Lake State Railway, TGS Cedar Port Railroad Earn ASLRRA Business Development Awards appeared first on Railway Age.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released a preliminary report for its ongoing investigation of the Feb. 22, 2026, collision involving a freight train (CN-subsidiary Illinois Central Railway Company or IC) and a stationary passenger train (Amtrak) during a switching operation near Memphis, Tenn.

At about 11:00 a.m. local time, an IC mixed freight train (Z19491-21) reversed on main track 1 during a switching operation and struck a stationary Amtrak passenger train (59-21) at milepost 9.6 on the Shelby Subdivision, according to the NTSB, which published its report on March 18 and noted that the information is “preliminary and subject to change.” The IC train comprised two head-end locomotives and 82 railcars and was crewed by a conductor and engineer. The Amtrak train comprised one locomotive and seven railcars; onboard were 118 riders and a crew of seven Amtrak employees.

“The IC train was shoving north about 10 mph on main track 1 when it struck the Amtrak train’s locomotive on the same track,” the NTSB reported. When interviewed, the government agency said, “the IC crew said that they interpreted the collision as resistance from an air brake problem, pulled forward, and reversed again. This movement ended about three minutes after the first collision in a second, lower-speed collision with the Amtrak locomotive.” The collisions resulted in minor injuries to two Amtrak employees and two riders, the NTSB said, noting that no other injuries were reported. Visibility conditions at the time of the collision were daylight and clear; the weather was 41°F with no precipitation, according to the agency.

The Amtrak train was southbound from Chicago to New Orleans, a route that includes other railroads’ track, the NTSB reported. The main track in the area of the accident is owned and operated by IC and was equipped with a PTC (positive train control) system; train movements were coordinated by CN dispatch in Homewood, Ill. “Shortly before the collision, the Amtrak train advanced past a restricting signal into the block where the IC train was switching,” the NTSB said. “A restricting signal allows a train to proceed at restricted speed, meaning the crew must be prepared to stop within one-half their range of vision and must not exceed 20 mph (see Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 236.812). The Amtrak crew stopped their train when they observed the IC train ahead.”

According to the NTSB, before the collision the IC crew obtained dispatcher permission to conduct switching operations in the accident area, set out 21 railcars on main track 1, moved south to enter an intermodal yard, and picked up 61 railcars. They then reversed northward and recoupled with the 21 railcars. The conductor directed this coupling movement from the ground, and after coupling, the crew kept shoving north to pick up the conductor with the lead locomotive but collided with the Amtrak train before the locomotive reached him, the NTSB reported.

All aspects of the collision remain under investigation, while the NTSB said it determines the probable cause “with the intent to issue safety recommendations to prevent similar events.”

Parties to the investigation include the Federal Railroad Administration; Tennessee Department of Transportation; Amtrak; CN; American Train Dispatcher Association; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen; and International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers.

According to the NTSB, the timing between the beginning of an investigation and a probable cause determination and report varies based on the complexity of the investigation and the workload of the agency’s investigators. In general, the NTSB said it tries to complete an investigation within 12 to 24 months, “but these and other factors can greatly affect that timing.”

• NTSB Determines Probable Cause for BNSF M/w Employee Fatality
• NTSB Determines Probable Cause for NJ Transit Collision
• NTSB Recommends Sidelining SEPTA Silverliner IVs
• NTSB: Railroads Must Equip Rail Maintenance Vehicles With Collision Avoidance Technology

The post NTSB Issues Preliminary Report for CN-IC/Amtrak Train Collision appeared first on Railway Age.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on March 18 approved a $750,000 Rail Industrial Access (RIA) grant to the Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative (VPGC) in Rockingham County. Administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), the funding will be used by VPGC to expand its Grain Unloading Station in Linville, Va.

With a total capital investment of $85 million, the project, DRPT says, “will increase the amount of grain the facility can move by rail. The CTB-approved expansion will double VPGC’s current railcar usage to approximately 1,000 annually. It also will reduce truck traffic including on nearby I-81, by an additional estimated 1,700 trips each year, while creating six new jobs.” The rail component includes $1.5 million in track construction, served by the Chesapeake & Western Railway, connecting to the Norfolk Southern (NS) main line.

“This project is great news for Virginia’s farmers and the Shenandoah Valley,” said DRPT Director Mariia Zimmerman. “By expanding rail access at this facility, we are helping to lower costs and improve access for local poultry growers while keeping hundreds of trucks off our roads. It is a win for agriculture, a win for the economy, and a win for communities across the Commonwealth.”

“We appreciate DRPT’s partnership in this project,” said Grant Martin, Vice President of Live and Feed with VPGC. “With this funding, we can move more grain by rail, take trucks off the road, and provide stronger, more reliable support to our member farms across the Shenandoah Valley.”

Founded in 2004 when local farmers united to preserve turkey production, VPGC has grown to nearly 200 member farms, up from about 130 at its inception. The cooperative applied for the RIA grant to support track construction and improvements at the Linville facility.

VPGC opened their Grain Unloading Station in 2008 to support a future feed milling facility. While construction of the feed mill was delayed, “growing demand now makes expanded rail infrastructure essential to support feed production and the long-term success of member farms,” DRPT noted.

The post Virginia DRPT: $750,000 to Increase Rail Access for Poultry Growers appeared first on Railway Age.

So it was, following a dark night highway-rail grade crossing accident, that the train’s conductor swore under oath he was waving a lantern “back and forth” prior to the automobile operator ignoring the lantern and driving onto the tracks in front of the locomotive. The case is decided in favor of the railroad, with the conductor later commenting to the railroad attorney, “I’m glad I wasn’t asked if the lantern was lighted.” And so it is that there are truths and whole truths.

Upon being appointed Surface Transportation Board (STB) chairperson by POTUS 47 on Jan. 20, 2025, Republican Patrick J. Fuchs, with unanimous peer support, promised an agency providing the public with whole truths. He later told Railway Age his focus was “getting all the facts and elevating transparency in agency decision making.”

That unanimous bipartisan commitment to tell-it-all was extended by a March 18 STB decision (Docket F.D. 36873; download below) directed at Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS), who are expected by April 30 to file a merger application to create the first U.S. Atlantic-to-Pacific railroad. The STB is requiring of UP and NS the same full disclosure—whole truths—as the Department of Justice (DOJ), under provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, requires of non-railroad merger applicants.

Although the STB has exclusive statutory authority to approve or disapprove railroad mergers, and impose conditions, DOJ may elect to file comments, which the Board considers along with those of other parties.

The STB’s March 18 order follows a March 3 letter from DOJ’s Antitrust Division urging the Board to compel UP and NS to provide, ahead of their April 30-expected merger application, “relevant ordinary course documents.” DOJ identifies them as transaction documents analyzing markets, market shares, competition, competitors, entry into new markets and synergies.

The STB, quoting from DOJ’s letter, said while the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act does not apply to Board proceedings, “access to such documents [which STB otherwise has authority to compel] is imperative in evaluating the potential anticompetitive effects of a proposed merger” and will “ensure a robust record for the Board’s decision making.”

The STB gave UP and NS until April 7 to provide the relevant documents such as produced in-house and by outside advisors. This gives the Board some three weeks to review them prior to UP and NS refiling a merger application—a prior one having been rejected Jan. 16 as “incomplete” (without prejudice to refiling). Should the STB accept a refiled application within a 30-day review period, it will set a procedural schedule, including public and stakeholder comment periods, with a decision expected within 12-15 months.

Although UP and NS responded they “are not refusing” to produce such documents and would “conduct reasonable searches,” they raised concern over producing “highly sensitive internal company documents.”

The concern may be that the documents sought may conflict with documents merger applicants typically provide the Board. When predicting future events, conflicting estimates are common, but it is data most beneficial to the desired outcome that is supplied.

To this concern, the Board said that while some of the sought documents may be “highly sensitive,” applicants may designate them “confidential” or “highly confidential” and they would be shielded by a protective order.

The STB said it is “appropriate” to demand these documents “given the proposed transaction’s size and significance, and because the transaction is the first to be assessed under the 2001 merger rules. Moreover, the Board finds that these documents will assist it in determining whether the proposed transaction is likely to have the effects attributed to it by applicants and whether the transaction is consistent with the public interest”—truths vs. whole truths.

The documents sought, said the STB, “are likely to provide valuable insight into the proposed transaction’s effects because they reflect real-time business decisions and forecasts concerning the merging parties’ operations, and views of past, present and future market conditions [and] may be more probative … than self-serving statements’ provided to support a merger application.”

Although this unanimous decision of three Board members—Fuchs, fellow Republican Michelle A. Schultz and Democrat Karen J. Hedlund—was silent on the source, it clearly reflects in tone and substance former President Ronald Reagan—“trust, but verify.”

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

The post STB to UP and NS: ‘We Trust, But Verify’ appeared first on Railway Age.

Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. plans to construct a 93-mile railroad from Mary River to Steensby Port, in remote Nunavut, Canada, to increase production and the lifespan of the Mary River ore mine, the company and local media report.

“This is a defining moment for the Mary River Project,” Jowdat Waheed, acting chief executive officer for Baffinland, said in a news release announcing that the proposed railroad can proceed and has received all key regulatory authorizations.

The railroad will allow Baffinland to increase iron ore production to 22 million tons per year from the current 4.2 million tons and extend the mine’s life until 2050 and beyond, Peter Akman, head of communications for Baffinland, told the Nunatsiaq News. It will also reduce truck traffic, dust, and emissions.

A railroad was part of Baffinland’s original site proposal for Mary River and was approved by the Canadian government in 2012. Baffinland initially abandoned its plans for the railway but dusted them off a decade later. Construction should start this year and take about three years.

The railway will include three mainline passing sidings, arrival and departure tracks at Steensby Port and the mine, two tunnels, 42 bridges, and at least 258 culverts, Baffinland said. Plans also include new locomotives and cars, maintenance buildings, and ore and freight loading/unloading facilities at the mine and port.

—M.T. Burkhart

The post New Railroad in Nunavut appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

In a letter to SSL riders, former President Michael Noland expressed his excitement about the completion of the 8-mile line extension, which will run from Gateway Station in North Hammond, with station stops at 173rd Street in Hammond, Ridge Road in Munster, and at the Munster/Dyer border. Passenger service will officially begin on the new Monon Corridor at 11:45 am on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.

Noland also announced that he is retiring after 43 years in the railroad industry. March 15 was his last day leading the SSL. “Working on the SSL over the past 12 years has been the highlight of my career, and I’m leaving at a time when I am very excited about the railroad’s future,” he wrote. Former Tri-Rail CEO David Dech has been appointed as SSL’s third President in the railroad’s nearly 50-year history, beginning March 16.

“Dave is the perfect person to lead the railroad into the future and is highly regarded as one of the best leaders in the entire U.S. railroad industry. Dave has the passion, drive, and ability to lead this railroad into the future, and I can’t wait to see what improvements he brings to the system. Dave will lead an incredible team of employees who work tirelessly to bring you the best possible commuter rail service. In my opinion, we have the best employees in the entire railroad industry,” wrote Noland.

Noland was hired by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) Board of Trustees in October 2014. “The Board entrusted me with a mission: deliver the elements of their recently approved 20-Year Strategic Plan. The two key elements of the plan were double tracking the 26-mile section of the main line railroad from Gary to Michigan City and extending the service on the West Lake Corridor with a line extension from north Hammond to the Munster/Dyer border. Though the timeline for the plan was 20 years, it needed, in my opinion, to be done in 20 minutes. The plan was bold, it was exciting, and it made perfect sense. The plan was, as Daniel Burnham once advocated for, ‘a big plan.’ In early 2015, we implemented limited stop service from South Bend on a train we named the ‘Sunrise Express.’ The Sunrise Express reduced travel time from South Bend to and from Chicago to less than 2 hours, saving over 30 minutes of travel time. The future of improved service for the railroad was captured in the Sunrise Express and was the predecessor for the start of the Double Track project in early 2016. Support for both these projects grew, often exponentially, and these projects were approved for $1.6B in funding. This funding came from local, county, state, and federal sources and was achieved with leadership support on a bipartisan basis from our northwest Indiana delegation, both state and federal,” Noland wrote in his March 13 letter to SSL riders.

Noland’s full letter to SSI riders is available here.

The post SSL Announces Opening of Monon Corridor Service; Noland Retires as President appeared first on Railway Age.

North American rail volume on nine reporting U.S., Canadian, and Mexican railroads came in at 6,849,595 carloads and intermodal units for the 10-week period ending March 14, 2026, the AAR reported March 18. Cumulative volume in the U.S. was 4,977,338 carloads and intermodal containers and trailers, up 1.9% from the same point last year; in Canada, 1,599,541 carloads and intermodal units, up 1.9%; and in Mexico, 272,716 carloads and intermodal units, up 18.3%.

Results were similar through the first nine weeks of this year (ending March 7, 2026).

For the week ending March 14, 2026, U.S. Class I railroads carried 508,737 carloads and intermodal units, rising 1.1% from the same week last year, according to the AAR. That comprised 228,299 carloads, up 1.0% from 2025, and 280,438 containers and trailers, up 1.1% from 2025.

Six of the 10 carload commodity groups posted an increase for the week ending March 14, 2026, compared with the same week in 2025. They included grain, up 3,890 carloads, to 25,060; chemicals, up 1,837 carloads, to 34,966; and petroleum and petroleum products, up 1,088 carloads, to 10,688. Commodity groups that posted declines included coal, down 3,618 carloads, to 57,825; metallic ores and metals, down 1,584 carloads, to 17,987; and forest products, down 684 carloads, to 7,816.

For the first 10 weeks of 2026, U.S. railroads reported cumulative volume of 2,222,692 carloads, a 5.0% increase from the same point last year; and 2,754,646 intermodal units, dipping 0.5% from last year.

North American rail volume for the week ending March 14, 2026, on nine reporting U.S., Canadian, and Mexican railroads totaled 330,589 carloads, down 0.8% from the same week last year, and 368,448 intermodal units, up 1.7% compared with last year. Total combined weekly rail traffic in North America came in at 699,037 carloads and intermodal units, up 0.5%.

For the week ending March 14, 2026, Canadian railroads reported 88,636 carloads, a 4.7% decline, and 72,706 intermodal units, a 0.5% drop-off compared with the same week last year.

Mexican railroads reported 13,654 carloads for the week ending March 14, 2026, falling 4.6% from the same point last year, and 15,304 intermodal units, gaining 31.8%.

The post AAR: North American Rail Volume Up Slightly Through Week 10 appeared first on Railway Age.

Lonchamp brings extensive global financial expertise across complex, multinational organizations. Most recently, he served as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for North America Low Voltage Transformer and Global Field Devices at Schneider Electric in Boston. During Lonchamp’s career he has held various finance roles including credit manager, controller, business partner, and CFO. The roles have spanned front office, business unit and corporate levels across multiple geographies including Europe, Middle East (Dubai), Asia (Hong Kong) and the U.S. (Boston).

With a strong background in transformational change, Lonchamp will bring “valuable global and financial expertise to the growing portfolio of Keolis’ public transportation clients in the U.S. and Canada,” the company noted. At Schneider Electric, he held several international leadership roles including CFO for Hong Kong and Macau and in the UAE he served as Finance Business Partner, Energy, Oil, and Gas for Gulf Countries and Pakistan. Early in his tenure he also guided credit management activities across more than 20 countries spanning EMEA and LATAM.

“Matthieu’s global perspective and proven ability to lead financial strategy within complex organizations make him a tremendous addition to our leadership team in North America,” said Keolis North America President and CEO Brad Thomas. “His experience driving transformation and financial performance across large-scale operations will be invaluable as we continue to strengthen our business and deliver greater value to our public agency partners.”

Throughout his career, Lonchamp has been closely involved in large-scale organizational transformation, digital modernization, and financial performance improvement initiatives. He has a record of helping divisions within global companies navigate operational complexity while maintaining strong governance and financial discipline.

Lonchamp’s appointment, the company says, “reflects Keolis’ continued focus on operational excellence and sustainable growth as the company expands its portfolio across the region.” In the past year, Keolis has doubled its footprint in Canada and since 2024 has doubled operations in the U.S.

The post Keolis Appoints Lonchamp as EVP of Finance appeared first on Railway Age.

On March 16, PEB 254, the second POTUS 47-appointed board assigned to the long-running contract dispute between a coalition of five unions and LIRR, “like an earlier appointed board of experts, recommended raises and retroactive pay for rail workers,” reported the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), which is part of the coalition, along with the Transportation Communications Union; Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

According to BLET, the Board wrote in its report: “Based on the foregoing analysis of both the respective wage offers and the Carriers work rule proposals, we find that the Organizations’ (the unions) Final Offer is the most reasonable offer.” The Board noted, the union said, that “…the Carrier’s insistence on all of its work rule changes, in our view, makes its Final Offer the less reasonable of the two, regardless of the respective GWIs.”

The five-union coalition on Jan. 12 reported requesting the second PEB, noting that members “have been without a pay raise” since April 2022.

“Although more than half all LIRR union workers have already settled a contract that guaranteed 9.5% in wage increases over three years, the five remaining unions have held out for more, arguing that their raises should be more in line with what other railroads in the United States have offered workers in recent years, including Amtrak and Philadelphia’s Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or SEPTA,” according to an Aug. 19, 2025 Newsday report.

The LIRR-labor coalition contract dispute began National Mediation Board-sponsored mediation in February 2024. The NMB on Aug. 18, 2025, released the parties from mediation, triggering a 30-day cooling off period under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), ending at 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 18. The labor coalition requested the first PEB at that time.

The first PEB “recommended raises of 14% over four years along with other improvements,” according to the coalition.

That recommendation, Newsday reported Jan. 9, 2026, “was closer to the 16%, four-year contract sought by the unions than it was to the 9.5%, three-year deal offered by the MTA.”

“We felt compelled to request a second PEB because of LIRR and the MTA’s refusal to bargain in good faith,” said Gilman Lang, the General Chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen at LIRR, at that time.

Under the rules of the RLA, the PEB “was charged with selecting the most reasonable last offer; either the last offer of the unions in its entirety, or the last offer of the Long Island Rail Road, which is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority,” BLET reported March 17. “After comparing the two offers, the board selected the offer presented by the unions.”

Now, if no agreement is reached in the next 60 days, the unions would be allowed to strike as soon as May 16 under RLA rules or the MTA could lock out its rail labor workforce on that date, according to BLET.

The labor coalition on March 16 sent a letter to MTA urging it “to return to the bargaining table to reach a voluntary agreement using the PEB’s recommendations as a foundation for a settlement,” according to BLET.

“Let’s get back to the bargaining table and agree to a fair settlement that takes away the threat of a disruption in service,” said BLET Vice President Kevin Sexton speaking on behalf of the labor coalition.

MTA Chief Labor and Employee Relations Officer Anita Miller told Long Island Life & Politics: “We are disappointed, but not surprised, that this [POTUS 47]-appointed Board rejected the MTA’s common-sense proposal for a new LIRR labor contract. These unions have hidden from the normal give and take of collective bargaining. They are the highest-paid railroad workers in the nation but have refused the same significant wage increases the vast majority of their colleagues accepted – and repeatedly refused to negotiate.”

According to the media outlet, “Miller said the MTA could initiate a ‘needless’ work stoppage if the coalition does not begin to negotiate in good faith, which would ‘only hurt both riders and workers. In the meantime, we will take every available step to mitigate the impact of a potential strike on LIRR customers. And should these unions decide to come to the table in good faith, we have been, and are, ready to go.’”

“What we’ve been asking for since negotiations commenced more than two years ago is exceedingly reasonable, essentially the status quo,” said Mike Sullivan, General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman. “In stark contrast, the employer has been seeking a concessionary contract that doesn’t keep pace with the high cost of living in our metropolitan area.”

“This outcome confirms that our fight has been grounded in facts, equity, and the best interests of our members,” noted Shaun O’Connor, General Chairman of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

“The Board’s report confirms that labor acted responsibly throughout this process and deserves a fair contract,” added Jeffrey Klein, General Chairman of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

“Our labor coalition and management both made presentations to the Board,” said Nick Peluso, National Vice President of the Transportation Communications Union. “The Board members reviewed the facts, and the facts supported labor. It’s now the time for our employer and [New York] Governor [Kathy] Hochul to show some support for the workers and the commuters that rely on the LIRR. Let’s get this done and keep the trains running.”

Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner provided the following explanation of the commuter rail provisions of the RLA:

“Major Disputes on commuter railroads, including Amtrak commuter operations, are resolved under distinct procedures. Amtrak intercity passenger operations are subject to the RLA’s freight-railroad provisions. 

“The NMB, a commuter rail authority, labor union, or a governor of a state through which the commuter railroad operates may request creation of a PEB. If appointed, there is imposed a 120-day status quo (no strikes; no lockouts) requirement.

“If, within the first 60 days, there is no resolution, the NMB must conduct a public hearing at which parties to the dispute testify.

“If a voluntary agreement is not reached by the end of the second 60-day period, the commuter authority, labor union, or governor may request a second PEB be created.

“If a second PEB is created, a new 30-day status quo period commences. If, by the end of that period, a voluntary settlement is not reached, the parties present to the second PEB a ‘last, best and final offer,’ with the PEB selecting, without modification, the one it finds most reasonable. The PEB’s selection is not binding. If a settlement still is not reached based upon the second PEB’s non-binding recommendations, a strike, unilateral promulgation of carrier-desired changes, or an employer lockout may commence. As with Major Disputes on freight railroads, the RLA at that point has run its course. Congress then may legislate settlement terms.

“Should labor commence a work stoppage, striking employees are denied, for the duration of the strike, unemployment benefits payable under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). Should the commuter railroad reject the non-binding recommendations, precipitating a work stoppage, the commuter railroad may not take advantage of a carrier strike insurance plan.”

Click here for a mediation overview and FAQ from the NMB.

• BLET Givebacks to NJT a “New Normal” for Labor?
• NJT BLET Rank-and-File Ratify Deal
• Biden Orders Second PEB in NJ Transit-BLET Contract Dispute
• PEB 251 Established, Recommendations Released to Settle NJ Transit-BLET Dispute
• BLET Forks $50K Over to NJT for ‘Illegal Job Action’
• President Biden Signs H.J. Res. 100 Into Law

TTC CEO Mandeep S. Lali on March 17 reported that the agency has formally filed for conciliation with CUPE Local 2 through Ontario’s Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. The union members, who are responsible for installing and maintaining critical subway, streetcar, and bus systems at TTC, include electricians, substations electricians, radio technicians, cable technicians, signal technicians, relay technicians, transit control technicians, SCADA technicians, overhead linespersons, and power systems controllers.

“While the current collective agreement with this bargaining unit does not expire until the end of the month, entering conciliation at this stage is intended to support a timely and constructive resolution to negotiations,” Lali said. “There is no impact on customers, service, or safety as a result of this step. Transit operations continue as normal.”

Conciliation, he noted, provides an opportunity for TTC and the union to work with an independent third party “to advance collective bargaining in a fair and efficient manner.”

“TTC remains focused on achieving an agreement that is fair to employees, reflects fiscal realities, and maintains operational continuity,” said Lali, noting that “[c]onstructive dialogue through conciliation is viewed as the most effective path to a mutually acceptable outcome.”

According to the Ministry of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, if conciliation results in an agreement—meaning if the employer and the union settle their differences concerning the terms of the collective agreement during conciliation—the conciliation officer reports the results to the Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. A ratification vote needs to be held before the new agreement can have effect, it noted. The union and the employer must also file a copy of the agreement with the Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, as required by the Labor Relations Act.

If the union and the employer don’t reach an agreement during conciliation, the conciliation officer will report the outcome to the Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, and the Minister will send a written notice to the union and the employer. “Typically, this notice will inform the parties that a board of conciliation will not be appointed,” according to the Ministry of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. “This is commonly known as a ‘no-board.’ Less commonly, the notice will inform the parties that the process to appoint a board of conciliation (a three-person panel that attempts to help the parties agree on the matters referred to the board of conciliation) has been started.

“After the minister sends the notice, the union and the employer continue to have a duty to bargain in good faith and attempt to reach an agreement. Until a collective agreement has been concluded, the union and the employer have different options depending on the circumstances, including the following:

• “If the parties are able to engage in a legal strike or lock-out, the release of the ‘no-board’ notice begins the countdown to the date on which either the employer or the union could begin a legal work stoppage. See sections 79 and 122 of the LRA for rules related to the release of no-board notices, conciliation board reports, and communication by the minister.

• “If the parties are negotiating their first collective agreement, the union or the employer can apply to the Ontario Labor Relations Board to direct them to interest arbitration to settle the collective agreement in certain circumstances. The Board will determine whether to make that direction.

• “If the parties are not able, or have a limited ability, to strike or lock out, the release of the ‘no-board’ notice in a compulsory interest arbitration or essential services framework generally enables them to proceed to interest arbitration to resolve the dispute, where applicable.

• “Parties may agree to participate in voluntary interest arbitration. Employers may request a last-offer vote.”

For more details, click here.

• Eglinton Crosstown Opens Feb. 8
• Toronto Orders New Subway Train Fleet
• TTC Board OKs 2026 Operating, Capital Budgets
  

The post Labor Updates: LIRR, TTC appeared first on Railway Age.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is initiating a Safety Management Inspection (SMI) of the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) State Safety Oversight (SSO) program for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) rail transit system. The aim, it reported March 17, is “to identify the root causes of longstanding deficiencies in IDOT’s safety oversight.”

“CTA operates one of the largest combined heavy rail and bus transit systems in the United States, providing more than a million passenger trips each weekday across the City of Chicago and 35 surrounding suburbs, supported by a workforce of more than 11,000 employees,” the FTA wrote in a March 17 letter to IDOT Secretary Gia Biagi, explaining the basis of the SSI (download below). “Through FTA’s ongoing oversight of Special Directive 23-1, issued to IDOT on October 23, 2023 [to address staffing and other concerns]; FTA’s evaluation of IDOT’s response to FTA’s October 7, 2025 SSO audit; and FTA’s participation in the investigation of recent safety events at CTA, including a worker struck by a train on November 10, 2025, FTA has identified repeated and persistent deficiencies in IDOT’s oversight performance, including limited onsite presence, weak accident investigation governance, ineffective corrective action plan management, and minimal use of enforcement authority.”

FTA’s Office of Transit Safety and Oversight will conduct the safety investigation and assess how IDOT performs “critical safety oversight functions,” such as how IDOT:

• “Independently identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes safety risk;
• “Conducts and/or critically reviews safety event investigations, ensuring their sufficiency and thoroughness;
• “Exercises active and informed oversight of CTA’s Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) program;
• “Critically reviews and, where necessary, challenges CTA’s analyses and conclusions to ensure that safety risk is appropriately identified and mitigated;
• “Verifies the implementation and effectiveness of corrective actions; and
• “Takes timely and appropriate action to intervene when CTA’s safety performance is inadequate.”

The FTA, in its announcement, said it “will determine, based on the results of the inspection, whether additional enforcement actions, such as the issuance of additional Special Directives or other enforcement actions, are warranted.”

The FTA on March 17 also reported issuing Special Directive 26-1 (download below), requiring IDOT “to address known deficiencies in its oversight of CTA.”

“IDOT has not made sufficient progress in addressing long-term issues, including FTA’s findings from a recent audit,” the government agency said. “These deficiencies have allowed critical safety concerns to continue.”

“[T]o accelerate reforms of IDOT’s oversight of CTA,” FTA said the new Special Directive will: 

• “Incorporate the eight findings from FTA’s safety audit of IDOT as immediately enforceable findings under this directive;
• “Establish specific required actions and expedited completion timeframes for IDOT to correct these deficiencies; and
• “Issue three additional findings and corresponding required actions where FTA has determined that further direction and enforcement are necessary to address ongoing safety risk at CTA.”

Meanwhile, CTA on March 10 reported submitting its Revised Security Enhancement Plan to the FTA, which includes “a 75% increase in monthly system policing hours, aggressive crime reduction targets, and expanded social service support—bolstered by early data showing that crime reduction strategies implemented over the past three months are working.”

The post FTA Launches Safety Investigation of Illinois DOT Oversight of CTA appeared first on Railway Age.

Last week, NJ Transit and Amtrak celebrated a major milestone with the opening of the first track on the new Portal North Bridge in Kearny, N.J. On March 12, the first press/ceremonial train loaded with area dignitaries traveled across the new structure. On Monday, March 16, one track officially went into service, the first operational step in transferring service away from the current 116-year-old swing bridge. 

The original Portal bridge has long been a source of delays thanks to issues with its movement and control systems. Located on the busiest segment of the Northeast Corridor between Newark and New York, the bridge sees more than 400 trains daily, representing about 200,000 weekday passengers on Amtrak and NJ Transit trains. With the first track in service, there’s still construction that needs to occur before the second track enters service in the fall of 2027.

The new two-track, high-level, fixed-span Portal North Bridge will eliminate the maintenance headaches inherent in a 116-year-old movable bridge. The project spans 2.44 miles of the Northeast Corridor and includes construction of retaining walls, deep foundations, concrete piers, structural steel bridge spans and rail systems. Demolition of the original Portal Bridge will occur in 2027. 

—Bob Gallegos

The post Amtrak and NJ Transit Open First Track of New Portal North Bridge appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.