Railway Age magazine

Regional/commuter rail operator Metra and UP have been negotiating the transfer of commuter rail services on the three lines—the Union Pacific North, Northwest, and West—for several years. UP has historically provided service for Metra under a PSA (Purchase of Service Agreement), which has been extended several times while the railroads negotiate a new agreement.

Approximately 39% of Metra’s annual ridership (13.7 million out of a total 35 million passengers) is associated with the three lines owned, used and dispatched by UP (see map, below). Those lines were once operated by the Chicago & North Western Railway: the West Line to Elburn, the Northwest Line to Harvard and McHenry, and the North Line to Waukegan, with limited service to Kenosha, Wis. Metra has eight other lines; one of which, the historic Chicago, Burlington & Quincy line to Aurora, runs on right-of-way owned by BNSF, which still operates it under contract with Metra.

(Map Courtesy of Metra)

Metra’s March 7, 2025, application for terminal trackage rights “states that ‘substantial progress’ has been made, and that as of May 16, 2025, Metra for the first time will be solely responsible for operating the commuter rail service on the UP Lines,” according to the STB’s recent decision (download below). “However, despite their efforts, including Board-sponsored mediation in Docket No. FD 36800 that concluded unsuccessfully in December 2024, the parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding an appropriate ‘interest rental’ or access fee for the UP Lines … During the transition, until recently, Metra and UP had agreed on short-term extensions of the PSA (usually 30 to 90 days) … However, in view of the parties’ impasse on the access fee and uncertainty that the short-term extensions would continue, Metra filed this application seeking terminal trackage rights over the UP Lines.”

52691Download

Metra filed the application under § 11102(a), “which provides that ‘[t]he Board may require terminal facilities, including main-line tracks for a reasonable distance outside of a terminal, owned by a rail carrier . . . to be used by another rail carrier’ if it finds that specified criteria are met,” according to the STB. The federal agency explained that Metra proposed three alternatives for defining a terminal area for purposes of this proceeding:

1. “First, Metra asserts that the UP Lines that are the subject of its application ‘function and operate as a terminal area or as part of the larger Metra system terminal area.’ … Metra explains its view that Metra’s commuter rail system, including the three UP Lines, ‘functions as and constitutes a unified terminal,’ … and exists within a commercially cohesive area known as Chicagoland. … Metra contends that the UP Lines that exist within this terminal are not too long to be considered terminal facilities.”
2. “Second, Metra asserts that the UP Lines are part of a larger Chicago rail terminal area overseen by the Chicago Planning Group (CPG), described as ‘a consortium of freight, passenger, and commuter railroads, established in 2000 to monitor freight and passenger train performance and develop solutions to daily operating problems to promote efficiency and safety.’ … According to Metra, both UP and Metra are members and active participants in the CPG and the entities that operate under its auspices—the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CTCO) and the Chicago Integrated Rail Operations Center (CIROC)—to collect real-time data, review routes and schedules, identify potential operational problems, and mobilize the equipment and personnel needed to keep traffic moving through the city. … Metra states that the CTCO defines its territory as extending one crew district from the downtown Chicago freight terminal district.”
3. “Finally, Metra asserts that the terminal area could consist of the Chicago Freight Terminal … in which the three UP Lines at issue originate, and that the remainder of each of the UP Lines is within a reasonable distance of the terminal for purposes of § 11102(a).” It noted that “UP Lines used by Metra outside of the CFT are within a ‘reasonable distance’ of the CFT and thus eligible to host Metra trackage rights under § 11102(a).”

The Board said it “construe[d] the terminal area in this proceeding as the Chicago Freight Terminal (or CFT),” as both Metra and UP “acknowledge that the CFT qualifies as a terminal area under any definition the Board may apply.”

According to the STB, Section 11102(a) also provides that “the Board may require terminal facilities owned by a rail carrier to be used by another rail carrier ‘if the Board finds that use to be practicable and in the public interest without substantially impairing the ability of the rail carrier owning the facilities . . . to handle its own business.’”

“Metra states that the parties’ long experience under the PSA demonstrates that use of the UP Lines for commuter rail service is practicable and does not substantially impair UP’s operations,” the STB wrote in its decision. “Metra maintains that the transfer of operational responsibility from UP to Metra, and Metra’s use of trackage rights to operate the service, will not reduce that practicability or impair UP’s operations … Metra explains that UP will continue to maintain and dispatch the UP Lines; that Metra’s trains will transport the same rolling stock over the same routes using essentially the same operating personnel (who have been transferred from UP to Metra); and that the workforce that maintains equipment and provides passenger services will also include the same experienced personnel who previously performed those functions for UP and are now Metra employees. … Metra also points to capital improvements and several technologies implemented in recent decades that it contends will help ensure safe, efficient commuter operations over the UP Lines going forward. … Metra states that, to Metra’s understanding, UP does not dispute that the use of the UP Lines for commuter service has been and would remain practicable, and that UP’s ability to handle its own business has not been, and will not be, impaired.”

The Board also reported finding Metra’s request for trackage rights “is in the public interest.”

“Metra provides a vital public service over the UP Lines to suburban residents north and west of Chicago and has done so for decades,” the STB wrote in its decision. “According to Metra, it serves a total of 66 stations along the UP Lines, which in 2024 supported more than 13 million passenger trips and accounted for 39% of Metra’s total annual ridership. … Metra states that it has invested more than $1 billion in public funds in the UP Lines to improve UP’s infrastructure and make it fully functional for combined passenger and freight use. … Metra’s opening submission also describes that dozens of communities were planned and built along the UP Lines, details the many public benefits its service provides, and asserts that even a temporary cessation of service would have wide-ranging and harmful economic and social impacts. The Board finds that there is a strong public interest in having this service continue, and … the record demonstrates that Board intervention is warranted to ensure that result.”

What Happens Next?

The STB reported that it “expects and encourages Metra and UP to undertake a concerted, good faith effort to reach agreement on terms and compensation for Metra’s use of the UP Lines.” If they cannot reach an agreement, however, the Board said it will “establish the compensation and conditions of use in accordance with the statute.”

Metra in its application asked the STB to “set a reasonable and prompt deadline for the parties to establish agreed conditions and compensation for Metra’s use of the facilities, or report to the Board that they cannot agree.” While the Board said it “does not typically set a deadline by which the parties must complete the negotiation process under § 11102(a) and will not do so here,” it is directing them to “submit a joint status report, if possible, or separate reports by November 3, 2025, stating whether they have reached agreement, require additional time, or are unable to agree.” If additional time is required, the STB said, further status reports should be filed every 60 days. “If or to the extent the parties are unable to agree, either party may request the Board to establish compensation and/or conditions of use,” it noted. “The request must identify the disputed issue(s) and be accompanied by a proposed procedural schedule for the Board’s consideration to govern the process for resolving any remaining issues pertaining to compensation or conditions of use. The other party may file a written response to the request within 20 days.”

Further Reading:

• STB Denies Metra’s Request for Temporary Injunction
• Metra to STB: Ensure Passenger Service on UP Lines ‘Continues Uninterrupted’
• UP, Metra Move Closer to Service Transfer
• STB Orders Mediation for UP, Metra
• Judge Pronounces Common Carrier Obligation for ‘Commuter Rail’ Dead
• Report: RTA Redirects Funds From Metra, Pace to Prevent CTA Service Reductions

The post STB Grants Metra’s ‘Terminal Trackage Rights’ Application appeared first on Railway Age.

Colossal brings expertise in rail, road, barge, and ocean transport, offering end-to-end project management for industrial-sized, heavy-lift cargo. Specializing in custom-engineered transport solutions, Colossal provides route planning, 3D drawings to navigate route obstructions, securement, GPS monitoring, and direct-discharge capabilities. Additional services are rigging operations with detailed lift plans for cranes, gantries, or jack-and-slide systems, along with last-mile delivery and site coordination.

“Colossal’s deep industry knowledge and reputation for handling multi-modal complex, largescale projects complements our ability to provide innovative, reliable, and flexible logistics services,” said Watco Logistics President Eric Wolfe. “We’re excited to welcome the Colossal team into the Watco family, and together we offer customers an unmatched breadth of capabilities and an expanded geographic reach.”

Bill Taylor and Nestor Bernabe, co-founders of Colossal Transport, said what was important to the Colossal team’s legacy was “continued focus on growing alongside the customer, culture and fit for their talented team members and having access to added resources to support future growth.”

“We will continue to grow and only strengthen our position as a leading project cargo provider,” Taylor said. “We believe Watco’s vast resources will allow us to provide unparalleled value to our customers. We are excited to be a part of this continued journey with Watco,” Bernabe added.

The post Watco Logistics Acquires Colossal Transport Solutions appeared first on Railway Age.

This year, Railway Age and RT&S are pleased to venture to Pittsburgh on Oct. 1-2 for the much-anticipated 2025 Light Rail Conference, featuring a packed lineup of LRT (light rail transit) professionals who are significantly influencing today’s rail transit industry. Among the reasons to attend is a back-by-popular demand feature, Engineering for Operations and Service Delivery. This detailed-filled presentation will examine the numerous issues affecting shared use of LRT and freight railroad right-of-way.

This edition of our annual in-person Light Rail Conference will be filled with dynamic panels and the chance to network with a wide-reaching group of like-minded professionals. It offer a comprehensive review of the specialized technical, operational, environmental, and socio-economic issues associated with LRT in an urban environment. All this will take place at the Fairmont Pittsburgh.

Session Overview Al Fazio

Presenters for Engineering for Operations & Service Delivery are Thomas R. Hickey, Transportation Strategist, West Chester Intersection, LLC; John Mardente, Civil Engineer, Passenger Rail Division, Federal Railroad Administration; and Alfred E. Fazio, P.E., BRT Rail Services. “The focus of this year’s session will be on designing new-start LRT systems or extensions to an existing LRT with an eye on operational integration at all times,” explains Fazio. “Generic repetition of design is becoming all too common, particularly when applied to LRT, the most flexible, varied and adaptable of all fixed guideway modes. LRT designs must be guided by a clearly defined CONOPS (Concept of Operations) that considers system growth, operational changes, implementation of express service, and maintenance-of-way support, including yards and work equipment. We’ll look at shared use of LRT and freight railroad right-of-way, including treatment of operational and safety issues. As well, we’ll discuss innovative means of operating various types of expedited, or express, services, with prerequisite engineering design considerations such as higher-speed crossovers, turnback tracks, appropriate signage and station design.”

Program Highlights

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

Key sessions will focus on:

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

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

Supporting Organizations

Industry support for the Railway Age / RT&S 2025 Light Rail Conference is strong, including sponsorship from 4AI Systems, Piper Networks, Benesch, and RDC. To inquire about sponsorship opportunities, contact Jonathan Chalon at jchalon@sbpub.com or (212) 620-7224.

The post 2025 Light Rail Conference Focus: CONOPS, Service Delivery appeared first on Railway Age.

You’ll find these articles in Railway Age’s latest issue:

• Mechanical Marvel — Contributing Editor Dan Cupper takes readers behind the scenes at Norfolk Southern’s Juniata Locomotive Shop in the heart of the Allegheny Mountains. America’s largest locomotive repair facility, a 70-acre complex, handles scheduled engine and truck overhauls, wreck repairs, and capital-upgrade programs that turn out rebuilt and updated units at half the cost of buying new locomotives.

• ‘Force Multipliers’ — Executive Editor Marybeth Luczak explores how drones are helping railroaders assess risk, reduce dwell, and boost efficiency and safety.

• A Future With Autonomous Trains? — This future is one the industry must consider if it wants to compete against trucking and its futuristic vision of autonomous truck platoons, according to those working to bring autonomous operations to freight rail, reports Contributing Editor Joanna Marsh.

• Force Control — Improved train dynamics, ease of retrofits, lower maintenance costs, increased safety: All these figure into draft gear and cushioning device developments, according to Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono, who provides a roundup of supplier offerings.

• MxV Rail R&D — Rail Research Week 2025, including an MxV Rail technical site tour, will provide a front row seat to rail innovation’s future.

Plus, Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner asks: Is shipper salvation performance standards? “Revenue adequacy, as defined by statute, means earning enough to cover total operating costs, including depreciation and obsolescence, plus a competitive return on invested capital sufficient over the long term to attract more of it to maintain a railroad’s large and costly infrastructure, including locomotives and rolling stock,” he writes. “It’s a mouthful, so no wonder railroads and their customers can’t agree on the determination process.” And Railway Age Financial Editor David Nahass discusses the Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern merger/acquisition and the inevitable fallout about what will happen next. “To be honest,” he writes, “the railroad merger dialogue is beginning to make North American rail feel a bit like Jane Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ Not the best look.”

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

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

MDOT

MDOT on Sept. 2 released its Draft Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) for Fiscal Years 2026 to 2031, outlining a $21.5 billion balanced plan “to further enhance safety, keep the system in working order and support the state’s economy.”

“Thanks to Governor Moore’s budget and the approximately $400 million in additional annual revenues passed by the General Assembly, the Department was able to use state dollars as a match to acquire additional federal funding in the previous Final CTP for Fiscal Years 2025-2030. That continued effort to match federal funding has resulted in an increase in this year’s draft program of nearly $300 million total compared to the Final CTP,” MDOT noted.

“This capital budget focuses on our priorities of enhancing safety, maintaining our system and driving economic growth,” said Acting MDOT Secretary Samantha J. Biddle. “Thanks to Governor Moore’s leadership and the General Assembly’s commitment to transportation funding, the additional revenues allow us to continue to advance projects that achieve these goals.”

The Draft Fiscal Year 2026-2031 CTP (download below) shows that MDOT “is strategically using available resources and focusing on data-driven investments to advance Maryland’s goals.” The $21.5 billion program includes key investments across all transportation modes, including significant reinvestment in the Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) core service, such as rehabilitation and modernization of the central light rail line.

The six-year Draft CTP outlines capital investments in each mode funded by the Transportation Trust Fund: Maryland Aviation Administration, Maryland Port Administration, MTA, Motor Vehicle Administration, State Highway Administration and The Secretary’s Office, as well as Maryland’s investment in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The MTA’s toll facilities are financed, constructed, operated and maintained with toll revenues paid by customers using those facilities and represent an additional $5 billion investment in the State’s transportation system in fiscal years 2026-2031, according to MDOT.

FY26_FY31_Draft_CTP_Full_ReportDownload BART

From Antioch to Millbrae, the Transbay Tube to the Dublin hills, BART fans can now see the system like never before as the agency releases a new series of videos showcasing the entire system from the point of view of a train operator. The BART Cab Cam series is the first time this footage will be available to view on YouTube.

BART released the first video—a ride on the Red Line from end to end—on Monday, Sept. 1, to kick off Transit Month. A total of 12 videos will be released of all five BART lines and the Oakland Airport Connector in both directions. 

The videos will be published on YouTube weekly over the next 12 weeks, with the final video debuting on Nov. 3. 

 Produced in-house by the BART Communications and Marketing teams, the videos were filmed throughout 2025 and showcase BART’s diverse service area in stunning 4K.

Denver RTD

Denver RTD is using virtual reality technology to augment its training program for Transit Police officers to learn how to safely assess a multitude of situations and address threats, the agency recently reported.

(Denver RTD)

The virtual reality technology offers reality-based training scenarios for officers to safely hone skills and supports certification in using TASERs. Almost half of the 100 sworn officers in the Transit Police Department (RTD-PD) have completed the reality-based training since the program was implemented in June. The program is taught by two of RTD-PD’s certified Master Taser instructors, Corporal Jacob Schubert and Corporal Chance Fitzgerald.

Through the technology, officers see and hear a simulated environment requiring them to take the best course of action and safely use TASERs. The technology manufacturer and service provider, Axon, currently provides 12 scenarios and continues to add more for officers to build upon their technical skills and refine in-the-moment decision-making. The technology, RTD says, “enables officers to progressively build skills, even accounting for factors such as the physical and mental state of the individual in the scenario, whether they’re standing, sitting or partially obscured––right down to the details of the clothing a person may be wearing and how that would impact the use of TASERs.”

The RTD-PD elected to implement the technology for a variety of benefits, including the ability to safely train officers without the use of live rounds from TASERs, RTD noted. The system’s headset and tablet device are portable, enabling training to be conducted in many locations. Transit Police brings the virtual reality training to almost every in-service training to maximize the ability of officers to use the technology.

With AI advancements, it is anticipated the training modules will evolve and benefit the program with future modules allowing for two-way communication with virtual suspects to better prepare officers for real world scenarios, according to RTD. The training’s virtual reality technology is built to represent the identical size, weight and capabilities of real-life TASER counterparts.

The virtual reality program costs RTD-PD approximately $170,000 a year for six headsets and tablets to directly view an officer’s actions in the simulated environment, and it provides access to performance metrics. Program costs are offset by the ability to provide a safe and versatile training environment for officers, as well as being able to keep officers on patrol while offering periodic bursts of training in about 20-minute intervals, the agency noted. “This reduced time for training means tens of thousands of dollars are saved on training field days and the associated costs for equipment and staff time.”

More information is available here.

Caltrain (Caltrain)

Caltrain has installed new digital displays at its Capitol, Blossom Hill, Morgan Hill, San Martin and Gilroy stations to improve the South Santa Clara County riding experience. These displays, the agency says, will help keep riders informed, offering real-time train schedules, service alerts and announcements.

Each display also includes text-to-speech functionality—at the push of a button, riders can hear important information read aloud, making it easier for all riders to stay updated.

This brings Caltrain’s live train updates and real time notifications to South County stations for the first time.

The digital displays are provided by Papercast. A pilot version was installed at San Carlos Station earlier this year.

LIRR

Gatekeeper Systems Inc. (Gatekeeper), a leader in video and data solutions for protecting people in transit, on Sept. 2 announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Gatekeeper Systems USA Inc., has entered contracts valued at approximately $19.55 million (approximately C$27 million) with the LIRR for the commuter rail’s Audio-Visual Recording Monitoring System Upgrade

The project, Gatekeeper says, relates to the replacement of LIRR’s audio-visual recording monitoring system on its railcar fleet in compliance with the FRA mandate, which requires that “all passenger train lead locomotives providing scheduled intercity rail passenger or commuter service be equipped with crashworthy memory modules and image recording devices prior to Oct. 12, 2027.”

The post Transit Briefs: MDOT, BART, Denver RTD, Caltrain, LIRR appeared first on Railway Age.

Total rail traffic for the week ending Aug. 30, 2025, comprised 234,740 carloads, up 0.6% from the same week last year, and 286,762 intermodal units, up 1.2% from 2024, according to the AAR.

Five of the 10 carload commodity groups posted an increase compared with the same week in 2024. They included chemicals, up 1,618 carloads, to 34,960; metallic ores and metals, up 762 carloads, to 22,362; and nonmetallic minerals, up 446 carloads, to 32,602. Commodity groups that posted decreases compared with the same week in 2024 included petroleum and petroleum products, down 878 carloads, to 10,559; grain, down 741 carloads, to 19,766; and forest products, down 288 carloads, to 8,236.

For the first 35 weeks of this year, U.S. railroads reported cumulative volume of 7,749,143 carloads, up 2.5% from the same point last year; and 9,471,467 intermodal units, up 4.1% from last year. Total combined U.S. traffic for the first 35 weeks of 2025 was 17,220,610 carloads and intermodal units, an increase of 3.4% compared to last year.

North American rail volume for the week ending Aug. 30, 2025, on nine reporting U.S., Canadian and Mexican railroads totaled 338,856 carloads, down 2.2% compared with the same week last year, and 374,612 intermodal units, up 5.2% compared with last year. Total combined weekly rail traffic in North America was 713,468 carloads and intermodal units, up 1.6%. North American rail volume for the first 35 weeks of 2025 was 23,701,966 carloads and intermodal units, up 2.7% compared with 2024.

Canadian railroads reported 90,367 carloads for the week ending Aug. 30, 2025, a down 3.9%, and 71,949 intermodal units, up 23.1% compared with the same week last year. For the first 35 weeks of 2025, they reported cumulative rail traffic volume of 5,661,886 carloads, containers and trailers, up 2.3% compared with the prior-year period.

For the week ending Aug. 30, 2025, Mexican railroads reported 13,749 carloads, down 28.0% compared with the same week last year, and 15,901 intermodal units, a 12.1% jump. Their cumulative volume for the first 35 weeks of 2025 was 819,470 carloads and intermodal containers and trailers, dropping 8.5% from the same point last year.

The post AAR: U.S. Rail Traffic Remains Flat in Week 35 appeared first on Railway Age.

IANA (BNSF Photograph)

IANA on Sept. 3 announced that Lucille Marvin is its Vice President for Government Affairs. In this newly created position, Marvin will be IANA’s representative on Capitol Hill. She served previously as Managing Director of the Federal Maritime Commission, and before that was FMC’s Legislative Counsel, as well as counsel to two chairmen and one commissioner. Marvin has also served as the Director of the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at the Surface Transportation Board. She began her career in federal service working in the U.S. House of Representatives for David Skaggs and Mark Udall of Colorado, her home state. She is an alumna of the Georgetown University Law Center, Teach For America and a member of the New York State bar.

“Having someone with Lucy’s deep history on the Hill and with our members, makes her an asset who will be working for IANA’s membership to ensure the concerns and interests of intermodal are heard and recognized,” IANA President and CEO Anne Reinke said. “We are all very excited with her arrival at IANA.”

Further Reading:

• IANA: Intermodal ‘Stays Strong’ in 2Q25
• IANA: ‘Tariff Deadlines’ Drove Up 1Q25 Intermodal Traffic

Port of LA (Port of LA Photograph)

Melanie Roberts is the new Human Resources Director at the Port of LA. She will oversee City employment operations for the Port’s nearly 1,000 employees. Roberts joined the City of Los Angeles in 2008 as an Accounting Clerk with the Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Street Services. She was later promoted several times with assignments at Los Angeles World Airports and the Bureau of Contract Administration, and served most recently as Senior Personnel Analyst II with the Personnel Department and liaison to LA Sanitation & Environment.

Roberts graduated from California State Dominguez Hills with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and earned a master’s degree in organizational management from the University of Phoenix.

“We’re thrilled to have Melanie join our team at the Port of Los Angeles,” said Erica Calhoun, the Port’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. “She brings a wealth of direct experience with the City of Los Angeles to the position. Additionally, her proven track record for results will be important in managing the human resources function for the busiest container port in the U.S.” 

Further Reading:

• For Ports of LA, Long Beach, ‘Record’ July Cargo
• Port of LA Participates in U.S. Library of Congress Project
• Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach Seek Short Line Operator
• Port of Los Angeles: Busiest June in History

Rajant (Rajant Image)

Cris Boyd has joined Rajant as Chief Growth Officer. A retired U.S. Army officer, he served for 32 years across the Infantry, Signal Regiment, and Army Acquisition Corps, holding key positions in product management and project management. His service culminated as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations at RDECOM (now CCDC DEVCOM). Following retirement, Boyd transitioned to a civilian industry leadership role, “specializing in business development and customer relations with a strong focus on integrating innovative technologies to defense priorities,” according to Rajant, which in 2018 entered into a strategic partnership with Wabtec Corporation to jointly develop and market Rajant’s Kinetic Mesh® wireless networking products to rail operators worldwide.

In his new role based at Rajant’s U.S. headquarters in Malvern, Pa., Boyd will lead the company’s growth strategy, focusing on expanding partnerships, driving customer engagement, and supporting the company’s evolution in delivering advanced edge computing and customer-focused solutions to targeted vertical markets, Rajant reported.

“Cris’s extensive background in defense operations and his proven ability to bridge innovation with mission requirements make him an outstanding addition to our executive team,” Rajant CEO Bob Schena said. “His leadership will be instrumental as we continue expanding Rajant’s global footprint and advancing our role in edge networking for critical industries.”

“It is an honor to join Rajant at such a pivotal time for intelligent edge networking in the industry,” Boyd said. “I’m excited to work with this exceptional team to strengthen our relationships, expand our markets, and continue delivering solutions that meet the real-world demands of our customers.”

Further Reading:

• Rail Runner: Upgrading Wireless Service

The post People News: IANA, Port of LA, Rajant appeared first on Railway Age.

Members of the International Association of Sheet, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers’ Mechanical and Engineering Department (SMART-MD) have ratified an agreement with Union Pacific (UP).

The American Arbitration Association finalized the vote count and advised that SMART-MD members working on UP unanimously ratified the agreement, the union reported Sept. 2.

Based on the terms of the agreements reached with other freight rail carriers, the union said the agreement with UP “provides a variety of improvements,” including:

• “Annual general wage increases effective July 1 of each calendar year, totaling 17.5% (over 18.75% when compounded).
• “Paid vacation days for new-hire employees and accelerated qualification and accrual of paid vacation for tenured employees.
• “Substantial increases for vision frame allowances from $115 to $250 every two years and the orthodontia lifetime maximum benefit increased from $1,000 to $2,500 per covered individual.
• “Optional high-deductible health plan with lower monthly cost-share contribution that will be available in 2026.
• “Increased Opt-Out Payment of $200 per month for employees who select not to have health insurance.”

According to the union, members should expect backpay issued by UP within 60 days of Aug. 29, 2025 (Oct. 24, 2025).

“Our Railroad, Mechanical and Engineering Department dedicated themselves to reaching an agreement that met the demands of our members,” SMART General President Michael Coleman said. “With this 100% ratification vote, SMART members at UP made one thing clear: This is an agreement they can be proud of, and that recognizes their work. SMART members keep our economy moving, and they deserve a contract that rewards them for that. I’m proud of every member who stood up for what they have earned, and I congratulate the SMART-MD negotiating team for securing real gains for our members.”

“This ratification is a clear victory for our UP members,” added SMART General Committee 2 Directing Chairperson John McCloskey. “It reflects their unity and commitment to securing a stronger future. Thank you to every member that voted to make this agreement possible.”

“The ratified agreement provides real wage increases, plus substantial improvements to paid time off and health and welfare benefits with an added benefit option for those that want it in 2026,” SMART-MD Director Peter Kennedy noted. “It is a respectable agreement, and I appreciate the members taking the time to review their ratification packet and vote their conscience.” 

Separately, the National Carriers Conference Committee earlier this year announced that SMART-MD members ratified a national collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, SMART-MD members ratified agreements with BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern in fall 2024.

The post SMART-MD Ratifies Agreement With UP appeared first on Railway Age.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is seeking nominations for TRACS (Transit Advisory Committee for Safety) membership. Qualified individuals, including past members, may apply and self-nominations are accepted. The deadline is Oct. 2, 2025.

TRACS was established in 2009, and its charter was renewed by the U.S. Transportation Secretary on June 9, 2025. Operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, the purpose of TRACS is to provide the Secretary and the FTA Administrator with information, advice, and recommendations related to the safety of the nation’s public transportation systems, according to the FTA, which recently published its call for nominations in the Federal Register (download below). Specifically, TRACS will “provide advice and recommendations on improvements and innovations in transit safety, review current challenges and innovations in public transportation, and provide recommendations that FTA can implement in support of safety in the public transportation sector.”

2025-16778Download

The committee does not exercise program management responsibilities and makes no decisions directly affecting the programs on which it provides advice, according to the FRA. Additionally, the Secretary may accept or reject a TRACS recommendation and is not bound to pursue any TRACS recommendation.

The committee reports to the Secretary through the FTA Administrator and comprises up to 25 members. “Members should be knowledgeable of trends and issues related to rail transit and/or bus transit safety,” the FTA reported. “[A]pplicants will also be evaluated and selected based on factors including leadership and organizational skills, region of the country represented, and the overall balance of industry representation. … The Department is interested in ensuring membership is balanced fairly in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by TRACS.”

Members will serve two-year terms but may be reappointed. TRACS meets at least once a year. FTA noted that all meetings will be held virtually or in a hybrid forum that does not require additional use of federal funds, unless otherwise required by law or approved by the Secretary.

The post FTA: Nominations Welcome for TRACS appeared first on Railway Age.

The Connecticut Department of Transportation will be conducting its annual prequalification of professional consultant firms who desire to provide services for the 2026 calendar year. Additional information can be obtained at: https://portal.ct.gov/dot/consultant-selection-info.

Submittals must be hand delivered by 3:00 pm on October 15, 2025 or postmarked by this date and received by October 20, 2025. No submittals will be accepted after these dates.

Connecticut Department of Transportation

An EO/AA/ADA Employ

The post Legal Notice appeared first on Railway Age.

WATCHING WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 2024 ISSUE: One’s eyes are wide shut not to acknowledge a polarizing dispute ensnaring railroads and their captive shippers—those lacking effective transportation alternatives—in a muddy morass as to whether railroads are revenue adequate. 

The debate is not inconsequential, as partial economic deregulation in 1980 (Staggers Rail Act) preserved protections—as administered today by the Surface Transportation Board (STB)—for some 20% of traffic considered captive to rail. Whether and what railroads are pronounced by the STB as revenue adequate has significant impact on captive shippers, as when railroads seek to raise rates, a revenue adequacy determination places with railroads a burden of defending that action.

Revenue adequacy, as defined by statute, means earning enough to cover total operating costs, including depreciation and obsolescence, plus a competitive return on invested capital sufficient over the long term to attract more of it to maintain a railroad’s large and costly infrastructure, including locomotives and rolling stock. It’s a mouthful, so no wonder railroads and their customers can’t agree on the determination process.

Congress instructed the STB to make an annual revenue adequacy determination, which it does by comparing each carrier’s return on net investment (ROI) with the rail industry’s after-tax cost of capital. The cost of capital is determined from the interest paid on debt and an estimate of returns shareholders require for their investment risk. If a railroad’s ROI exceeds the industry’s cost of capital, the carrier is considered revenue adequate.

Once a railroad is determined by the STB to be revenue adequate, it must, when seeking a rate increase, demonstrate “with particularity” its need for higher revenue; the harm it would suffer if prevented from collecting it through higher rates; and why a shipper without effective transportation alternatives should pay those higher rates. 

Captive shippers say most, if not all, Class I railroads are—and have been since at least 2015—revenue adequate. Thus, they say, the STB should constrain—which it has not done—future rail rate increases to no more than the revenue adequate carrier’s actual cost increases incurred in handling the freight. The progeny of this debate is an acrimonious rhetorical loop as illustrated in this abridged version: 

SHIPPERS: Railroads absolutely are revenue adequate. Warren Buffett’s legendary Berkshire Hathaway holding company would never have purchased BNSF in 2010 were it not revenue adequate. As far back as 1995, the president of the Association of American Railroads spoke of the industry’s “new golden age.”

RAILROADS: Buffett’s strategy is long-term value investing. He bought BNSF because he considered it undervalued. The STB did not find BNSF revenue adequate at the time of its purchase in 2009 or in 2010. 

SHIPPERS: Then why, since 2010, have railroads paid out more than $270 billion in stock buybacks and dividends? 

RAILROADS: Capital is a coward. During times of uncertainty, investors withdraw and seek return of their capital for use elsewhere. Coal, long the railroads’ mainstay traffic, is down 50% since 2014. Its successor, intermodal (containers and trailers on flat cars), faces significant headwinds. Among them are self-driving trucks; the peril of Congress permitting longer and heavier trucks on federal-aid highways; legislative resistance to reducing the shortfall in heavy-truck user fees assessed for pavement and bridge damage; rail labor’s resistance to smaller crew size, automated safety inspections and cost-reducing operating strategies such as Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR); and activist regulators wanting to micromanage and preserve unproductive jobs. 

SHIPPERS: PSR and crew size reduction are Wall Street-driven strategies to “goose” short-term returns and stock price but are not effective over time at attracting freight from trucks and satisfying shipper wants. Railroads should be investing profits in service improvements. 

RAILROADS: Notions of “build it and they will come” best belong in baseball-themed novels and movie scripts. Opposition to smaller crew size and PSR encourages stagflation—increased operating costs, higher freight rates to recover them, loss of traffic to lower-cost truck competitors and a return to excess capacity that contributed to the railroads’ darkest financial days when service quality was an oxymoron. 

SHIPPERS: STB predecessor Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ruled in 1985 that a railroad should not use its market power “to consistently earn, over time, an ROI above the cost of capital.” By avoiding a revenue adequate designation, they are doing just that. 

RAILROADS: Investors have expectations that railroads will earn greater than their cost of capital consistently over time, or they will find better investment opportunities. The result of capping returns at the cost of capital will be deferred maintenance and an inability to renew plant and equipment—essential to meet shipper wants. 

SHIPPERS: The STB’s failure to impose rate constraints on revenue adequate railroads is troubling. By STB calculations, Union Pacific has been revenue adequate every year since 2011. CSX has been revenue adequate every year since 2018. No railroad ever said in its annual report it is revenue inadequate. 

RAILROADS: Annual STB revenue adequacy determinations look backward, not forward. They do not incorporate headwinds that are substantial, as mentioned. They are a historical accounting snapshot.

What Might Be Done? 

Although the STB opened a proceeding in 2014, inviting comments on how its revenue adequacy determination methodology might be improved; and although railroads in 2020 asked the STB to consider whether railroads require a return greater than their cost of capital to attract adequate investment, the STB discontinued both proceedings in July 2025. It said “the public interest would be better served” by devoting scarce resources to other matters.

Although captive shippers still can file complaints that rail rates are unreasonable, they have ceased doing so, citing millions of dollars in costs to pursue those challenges and “minimal expectation” of victory. 

For the foreseeable future, captive shippers are unlikely to find salvation at the STB or before Congress owing to a political atmosphere discouraging federal agency regulation. That leaves shippers distrusting the STB, and railroads saying results disliked by shippers confirm there is no market power abuse.

Shippers are not alone in criticizing the STB’s superintending of its revenue adequacy responsibility. 

The National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board concluded in a congressionally funded study that an annual revenue adequacy determination “serves no constructive purpose.” Economist Alfred E. Kahn—acknowledged as the “father of airline deregulation”—said the STB’s annual revenue adequacy determination produces “nonsensical results.” 

An example is STB’s using stock prices as part of determining industry-wide cost of capital. Berkshire Hathaway-owned BNSF, which earns one-third of the Big Four railroads’ total revenue (BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific), has no publicly traded stock, leaving a gaping hole in the STB’s analysis. 

STB staff also is critical. In 2019, an STB internal Rate Reform Task Force said the agency’s methodology can result in a railroad being found revenue adequate in a single year and still not be long-term revenue adequate; or be found revenue inadequate in a single year even though it is long-term revenue adequate. 

If the process is broken, captive shippers have an option to exploit an upcoming window of opportunity presented by the consolidation desire of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern—and, maybe, BNSF and CSX. 

Imagine a contractual transaction that would help railroads demonstrate enhanced competition resulting from merger, as is required of applicants. In exchange for shippers supporting merger, the railroad applicants would agree to link future rate changes to service performance metrics, with penalties for failure to meet minimum standards. The Gordian knot to solve is that service failure penalties will not cause fewer future commitments.

Railroads are enthusiasts of such market-based performance standards, long advocating they replace prescriptive safety regulation. UP may be ready to deal. CEO Jim Vena has already promised, in exchange for labor support, workforce lifetime income protection. 

Resentment and anger between railroads and captive shippers are inevitable so long as each views the relationship as a zero-sum game, where when one “wins” the other “loses.” Crafting a symbiosis through arms’ length bilateral agreements is preferable to third-party determinations, as rotating third parties (new regulators, new lawmakers) can be polar opposites. History is replete with examples.

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 Is Shipper Salvation Performance Standards? appeared first on Railway Age.

BNSF (Courtesy of BNSF)

“BNSF operating teams are generating improved performance and building on the positive momentum going into the holiday weekend,” the Class I railroad told customers in an Aug. 29 online message. Average car velocity increased nearly 2% versus the prior week. Terminal dwell remains steady as compared to the prior week’s average and levels in July. “Our local service compliance measure, which reflects our timeliness in handling carload freight, is above 90% and improved compared to both the previous week and the prior month,” BNSF said.

This summer, BNSF says it has continued to bring customers “competitive, efficient opportunities” across its network and beyond. In July, the Class I announced its new expedited intermodal service from Los Angeles to Houston, as well as its new Salt Lake City intermodal facility. “Both serve growing markets and have ample capacity to grow in the months to come,” BNSF said.

Last week, BNSF announced three new intermodal services, offering “seamless coast-to-coast solutions” with CSX, including:

• Coast-to-coast, direct domestic intermodal services between Southern California and Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla.
• Service between Phoenix, Ariz., and Atlanta, Ga., “aiming to convert over-the-road (OTR) freight to rail through a seamless product.”
• Direct international intermodal services between the Port of New York and New Jersey, and Norfolk, Va., and Kansas City.

“This collaboration between BNSF and CSX is a direct example of delivering immediate value to customers with faster, more reliable service while maintaining the flexibility and optionality needed for your supply chains,” the Class I said.

The number of trains operating on BNSF track is typically lower over the Labor Day holiday due to reduced freight volume. BNSF’s Intermodal holiday operating plan adjusted operations to account for this potential reduction in traffic. As a result, shipments from Monday, Sept. 1, through noon on Wednesday, Sept. 3, may experience delays of approximately 24 hours. Connecting carriers who have reduced operations for the holiday may cause delays on interline traffic. All BNSF Intermodal hubs observed normal working hours during the holiday period.

CN

CN recently announced via a LinkedIn post that it is partnering with Autism Canada on the launch of Empowering Connections, as part of its “commitment to building stronger, more inclusive communities.”

Empowering Connections, a CN-supported National Support Line launching in October 2025, is the first-of-its-kind in Canada. The dedicated service will provide Autistic people, neurodivergents, and their families/caregivers across Canada “with direct access to compassionate, peer-informed connection during moments of isolation, loneliness, or disconnection,” according to Autism Canada.

NS

NS is contributing $50,000 to Rebuilding Together New Orleans to help launch the city’s new Resiliency Center, the Class I recently announced in an X post.

The new space will provide critical home repairs for elderly, disabled, and veteran homeowners, workforce training, and disaster recovery support for the community, according to the Class I.

“Resilience isn’t just history. It’s the future we’re building, together,” NS said.

More information is available here.

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

FINANCIAL EDGE, RAILWAY AGE SEPTEMBER 2025 ISSUE: The North American rail media sphere has been dominated by the Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern merger/acquisition and by the inevitable fallout about what will happen next: BNSF+CSX, CPKC+CSX, UP+NS+CN. These events offer rail journalists the opportunity to dance to a new tune (so often relegated are they to discussions as mundane as when and where will rail loadings growth arrive). The entire mix of speculation, the involvement of roguish activist investors and the pure thrill of having something to write about that people outside of the industry may want to consume is extraordinary.

To be honest, the railroad merger dialogue is beginning to make North American rail feel a bit like Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Not the best look.

But the world keeps spinning. Railcar loadings into late August looked better than 2024 (especially King Coal) but not good enough for North American rail to look like it is on a growth trajectory. Rail service across North America has been acceptable and consistent, and for the most part that is good enough.

For a railroad looking to change the world by creating continental dominance and promising post-merger volume growth (never heard that before), the late August news that Union Pacific was ordered by OSHA to pay damages to an employee who was fired over what the railroad claimed was a false work injury claim put an ugly spin on a fairly minor event.

“Financial Edge” has never given UP, and all the other railroads for that matter, a pass on their public relations gaffes. There was Lance Fritz’s attempt to blame intermodal container pillaging on the Los Angeles Police Department (Sgt. Joe Friday would never have tolerated that). There have been senior-executive podium statements confirming that the one thing at which UP excels is bureaucracy. Also, there have been recent statements that UP’s customer-facing technology improvements involved their new and updated website. 

While a transcontinental merger certainly redirects the conversation, it bears remembering that even prior to the recent OSHA ruling, UP has frequently been on the negative side of employment reporting. Several Propublica.org articles highlight tension between UP and employees. Mostly these articles focus on employees being told to prioritize train speed over safety or on whistleblowers trying to highlight unsafe operating conditions. None of these stories end well. The employee is usually fired. The railroad cites cause and the employee says it is retributive. Litigation or arbitration of one form or another ensues. Payoffs are made.

Propublica is far from the top-ten list of unbiased news reporting agencies. Neither is it the most biased news outlet. As noted before in this space, one thing the railroads do not do well is counteracting negative media and negative perception of themselves in the public domain.

OSHA notes that when it comes to soft tissue injuries, concrete physical diagnosis is often hard to obtain. OSHA stops short of passing definitive judgment about the existence of an injury but goes as far as to suggest that the faking of the injury is a possibility. OSHA walks an odd line, and the facts available to the public are limited. Here’s what is easy to find: OSHA’s report identifies UP as a “serial violator” of the whistleblowing rules. In a window between 2001 and 2015, UP had more than 200 reported whistleblower complaints.

Let’s be clear: All U.S.-domiciled Class I railroads have OSHA retaliatory employment action judgements. They span decades; each railroad has recent decisions against it. The volume of these complaints at UP is clearly more significant than at the other Class I railroads.

No surprise that SMART-TD and TWU (Transport Workers Union of America) have come out strongly against the UP+NS merger. Both unions have targeted safety concerns, immediate labor force impacts and the overarching perception that a merger will line executive pockets while offering little for the employees working on the ground. 

Unions have long memories. They all remember the service meltdowns that have followed most railroad mergers. The BLET and BMWED are reserving judgment until they have a sit-down with management. One would guess that the recent NS and UP five-year labor agreements do not include guaranteed employee retention in the event of a transcontinental merger. 

No one likes injury, scandal, or the perception of employee-directed apathy. It does create a sense of wonder about why more effort is not being exerted into making UP, its image and its employee relations more positive—especially as it is about to pursue the most significant U.S. railroad merger since the original transcontinental spike in 1869.

Maybe after the merger?

The post Merger Dialogue: Shades of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ appeared first on Railway Age.

LACMTA (Courtesy of LACMTA/LA Metro)

Infrastructure firm FlatironDragados on Aug. 28 reported its selection as Construction Manager/General Contractor for two LACMTA rail projects.

FlatironDragados and joint venture partner Herzog will support the preconstruction services phase of the Southeast Gateway Line project, which will relocate freight rail lines and conflicting utilities. This project will make way for the future phase, bringing 14.5 miles of new light rail to southeast Los Angeles County. The $10.5 million preconstruction contract supports early design coordination and construction planning that is currently under way, according to FlatironDragados.

The overall construction project, it said, is expected to exceed $500 million and include utility relocations, rail installation, one new light rail bridge and one new freight bridge, a pedestrian bridge over the freeway, and a new LACMTA infill station at the I-105 freeway, where riders would transfer between the C Line and the Southeast Gateway Line.

LACMTA on Oct. 30, 2024, broke ground for advanced utility work for the Southeast Gateway Line in Artesia. The new 14.5-mile, nine-station light rail line (see map, top) will run between the A Line’s Slauson Station in Florence-Firestone to Artesia; it will serve the cities and communities of Artesia, Bell, Bellflower, Cerritos, Cudahy, Downey, Florence-Firestone, Huntington Park, Los Angeles, Paramount, South Gate, and Vernon. The project in November 2024 was awarded $231 million by the California State Transportation Agency. The opening is forecasted for 2035.

FlatironDragados also reported being selected for the preconstruction services phase of the Link Union Station project, which it called “a long-awaited modernization of the historic Los Angeles Union Station, Southern California’s busiest multimodal transit hub.” The $7 million preconstruction contract supports current collaboration with LACMTA on project design and construction planning. This phase of the “collaborative delivery project fosters innovation, facilitates ongoing problem solving, and enables greater budget and schedule certainty,” according to the infrastructure firm.

The overall project will create new through tracks on an elevated rail yard to increase Los Angeles Union Station capacity by up to 200%, improve transit connectivity, accommodate Amtrak and Metrolink service, and prepare the corridor for future high-speed rail service, FlatironDragados reported.

The improvements will allow trains to enter and exit from both ends of the station in an aim to ease congestion and improve operations.

“Delivering complex rail infrastructure in one of the country’s busiest urban areas takes ongoing collaboration, technical expertise, and a shared commitment to the communities we serve,” said Dale Nelson, Executive Vice President at FlatironDragados. “We look forward to working alongside Metro [LACMTA] during the design phase—to optimize the project design and phasing to minimize risk—with the ultimate goal of reaching a negotiated construction contract.”

Further Reading:

• Fourth of a Series: New Through Tracks Proposed for L.A. Union Station
• Los Angeles Through-Running: ‘Build It and They Will Come’

HART (Courtesy of HART)

Trial Operations on Skyline’s Segment 2 are under way with all 26 testing scenarios completed and system performance demonstration continuing through September, HART reported in the Aug. 25 edition of its weekly newsletter. This segment includes 5.2 miles of guideway and four new stations: Makalapa (Pearl Harbor), Lelepaua (Daniel K. Inouye International Airport), Āhua (Lagoon Drive), and Kahauiki (Middle Street). (See map below.)

Skyline Map (Courtesy of HART)

According to HART, once the required testing and safety documentation is completed, Segment 2 assets will be transferred to the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Transportation Services (DTS) for passenger service, which is anticipated to begin Oct. 16, 2025.

Segment 1 included the first nine stations and 10.75 miles of guideway. On June 9, 2023, HART transferred the guideway, stations, 43-acre Rail Operations Center, and 12 four-car trains to DTS. The rail system, officially named Skyline, opened to the public June 30, 2023.

Segment 3—including three miles of elevated guideway and six stations at Kalihi, Honolulu Community College-Kapālama, Iwilei, Chinatown, Downtown, and Civic Center—is expected to wrap up in 2030, with the transfer to DTS by 2031. A groundbreaking ceremony took place last month.

Further Reading:

• Delivering a Hawaii Transit Megaproject
• Tutor Perini Lands $1.66B Skyline Contract
• Hitachi Rail Sues HART for $325MM
• Watch: Happy Birthday, Skyline!
• HART Takes Delivery of Final Trainset, $125MM in Federal Funding

MBTA Rendering of South Station post fare gate installation. (Courtesy of MBTA)

MBTA on Aug. 29 reported that it will begin installing 40 Commuter Rail fare gates around the South Station concourse in September. Eleven of the gates will be wider for accessibility, allowing sufficient room for wheelchairs, scooters, bicycles, luggage, and strollers. All gates are expected to be operational this winter.

Commuter Rail fare gates were first installed at North Station in 2022. The goal: to “improve fare collection, replace platform ticket checks, and create a more consistent fare-paying experience for passengers across transit modes,” according to MBTA. The design and configuration of South Station gates, it noted, was developed with rider needs in mind, and builds on the lessons learned during gate implementation at North Station, where riders have tapped tickets or passes 14 million times since the gates opened. The design also follows industry standards and global best practices in fare collection, the transit authority said.

MBTA anticipates adding fare gates to Ruggles Station in winter 2025/2026 and to Back Bay Station in early 2026.

“Installing fare gates at South Station, our busiest station, will help ensure fares are appropriately collected,” MBTA General Manager and CEO Phillip Eng said. “These fares support our operations budget and are important to continuing the delivery of safe, reliable and more frequent rail service. The public has a right to expect us to do our part and to ensure revenue is collected. These gates, including fully accessible ones, are another step towards delivering a best-in-class transportation system that the public deserves.”

Further Reading:

• MassDOT Secures $3.5MM to Advance West-East Rail
• MBTA Celebrates Completion of Winchester Center Station Accessibility Project
• Massachusetts Sets FY26 Budget
• Report: U.S. CBP Delaying CRRC MBTA Carshell Deliveries

TriMet Front row, left to right: Beverly Pearman, Port of Portland Director of Public Safety and Security; Bob Day, Portland Police Chief; Keith Wilson, Portland Mayor; Nicole Morrisey O’Donnell, Multnomah County Sheriff; Sam Desue Jr., TriMet General Manager; Andrew Wilson, TriMet Executive Director of Safety and Security. (Courtesy of TriMet)

TriMet and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office on Aug. 29 welcomed back the City of Portland and the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) as a member of the Transit Police Division, whose other members include the Beaverton and Hillsboro police departments.

The City of Portland in 2020 ended a previous agreement with TriMet, which provides bus, MAX light rail, WES commuter rail, and LIFT paratransit services. The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office became the law enforcement lead of Transit Police in 2021 and remains in the role. TriMet is now contracting with the City for five PPB officers and one sergeant to serve on Transit Police.

According to TriMet, the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office recently added a lieutenant to Transit Police, and the Port of Portland Police Department added three more officers. 

The moves bring the Transit Police Division to 31 active officers. TriMet said it pays the “fully burdened rate” for the law enforcement personnel assigned to Transit Police. 

(Courtesy of TriMet)

“As the largest city in TriMet’s service area, renewing our relationship with the City of Portland and the Portland Police Bureau is a benefit for TriMet, our riders, and the region,” TriMet General Manager Sam Desue Jr. said.

“Welcoming the Portland Police Bureau back to Transit Police will increase our collective presence on the transit system, deterring crime, building trust, and reassuring riders,” Multnomah County Sheriff Nicole Morrisey O’Donnell said. “It will also expand our capacity for high-visibility safety missions focused on areas of public concern or with higher rates of criminal activity.”

“Over the past year, Portland has seen a promising decrease in crime, with both property and violent offenses trending downward,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said. “That improvement is the result of collaboration, community engagement, and tireless work by our law enforcement partners. Bringing the Portland Police Bureau back into the Transit Police Division builds directly on this momentum and helps ensure riders feel safe and supported.”

“The Portland Police Bureau is proud to rejoin Transit Police to help ensure the safety and security of our community on and around the transit system,” PPB Chief Bob Day said. “As our city continues to grow and evolve, a collaborative police presence on public transportation is essential. We look forward to working alongside our partners to support safe and reliable transit for all.”

“The more we’re able to collaborate across agencies, the better we can serve our community, ensure safety, and maintain a consistent presence throughout the TriMet system,” Port of Portland Public Safety and Security Director Beverly Pearman said.

At its height, Transit Police included 65 law enforcement staff from 15 local police agencies, according to TriMet. “The national police officer shortage that intensified after the murder of George Floyd and the COVID-19 pandemic, and hit its peak in 2023, led to hiring challenges for local police and sheriff’s departments,” the transit agency reported. “As they struggled with staffing, fewer officers were available to be assigned to Transit Police.”

TriMet Executive Director of Safety and Security Andrew Wilson, who oversees the Transit Police Division for TriMet, continues to work with Multnomah County Sheriff Morrisey O’Donnell and Transit Police Chief Matt Jordan to engage other local law enforcement agencies to join Transit Police. 

TriMet noted that since 2021 it has diversified and expanded its public safety teams. Contracted Transit Security Officers and Customer Safety Officers patrol the system, “discouraging inappropriate and illegal behavior,” it said. TriMet’s Customer Safety Supervisors enforce the agency’s rules for riding, and its Safety Response Team connects people on and around the transit system with social services such as shelters, mental health resources, and addiction services. Along with Transit Police, it has nearly 500 people dedicated to safety and security. 

Calls for police services, which include both possible crimes and non-criminal incidents such as welfare checks, dropped nearly 50% from 2021 through 2024, TriMet reported.

“TriMet provides about 1.3 million trips a week,” Sam Desue Jr. said. “The vast majority occur without incident due to the dedication of the Transit Police staff, their fellow officers and TriMet’s dedicated safety and security teams.”

Further Reading:

• TriMet Installs 700+ Digital Displays Networkwide
• TriMet Announces Service Cuts, Other Reductions
• WES: Commuter Rail Skirting Its Principal City
• TriMet Board Adopts $1.96B FY2026 Budget

The post Transit Briefs: LACMTA, HART, MBTA, TriMet appeared first on Railway Age.

Disruption at the Surface Transportation Board: One of the attributes of the freight transportation sector we’ve always liked has been its low politicization. People in and around the industry care about stuff getting from A to B on time and at a fair price, and there’s nothing political about that.

As we entered the second [POTUS 47] term, our assumption was that the freight railroads would continue to fly under the political radar. Despite being huge entities and one of the backbones of the goods economy, the big U.S. railroads are not household names, and 99% of the population probably couldn’t name all four. (Editor’s Note: It’s six. Though CPKC and CN are “technically” Canadian, each has a massive U.S. presence, which 99% of the population couldn’t name– William C. Vantuono) We also expected the Surface Transportation Board to be left alone to do its work, with a fifth member added in 2026.

Those assumptions went down in flames Aug. 27, when the White House emailed STB member Robert Primus, ostensibly terminating his position. We say ostensibly because Board members can only be terminated for cause, there wasn’t one, and the White House didn’t even bother trying to invent one. Mr. Primus has vowed to fight it, which we think is the right call, and we wish him success in this endeavor. He was a strong voice for shippers, in particular, which would be missed.

This situation is unprecedented at the STB and, of course, everything must be viewed in terms of what it might mean for the agency’s most consequential decision that will likely be made in early 2027: the Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern merger.

In our mind, there are two aspects to what just happened that matter: the direct impact of what has already been done, and the question of why it was done.

“We’ve been trying to come up with plausible scenarios that might explain the motivation of the Administration to terminate Mr. Primus, and all of them are somewhere between inappropriate and awful.”

The direct impact is very simple: the [POTUS 47] Administration just removed a likely “no” vote on the UP+NS merger. Mr. Primus was the only STB member to vote against the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger, and the consensus, right or wrong, was that he would vote against UP+NS. Even if Mr. Primus is successful in his challenge, the courts move slowly, and he will likely miss the vote, regardless.

After a few days thinking about this, we’re also troubled by the “why.” If we know the “why,” it at least enables an educated guess as to what comes next. There’s no doubt a backstory here, which we may never know, but we’ve been trying to come up with plausible scenarios that might explain the motivation of the Administration to terminate Mr. Primus, and all of them are somewhere between inappropriate and awful. For example:

The [POTUS 47] Administration truly wants the UP+NS merger and is prepared to fire regulators to get it. This is how the situation appears at first glance, with the Administration putting its finger firmly on the scales in favor of the merger. It also sends a message to the other Board members that’s basically: Approve the deal or be fired as well. Even if that wasn’t the intention, this is the message that may have inadvertently been sent. Has the UP+NS merger just been made a fait accompli? If the Administration nominates an overtly merger-supportive Board member in the near term, it would give credence to this theory.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? Another scenario that could explain the Administration’s motivation is that some person or group that badly wants this merger to go through called in a favor with the Administration to unlawfully remove a “no” vote. We’re not pointing the finger at UP or NS, just highlighting the scenario because it’s one of only a few that has any degree of rationality.

Scattershot firings. Another possible motivation is that the Administration is just working through these agencies, firing mostly Democrats randomly to generate news. While it sounds somewhat silly, it may turn out to be the most likely explanation. In short, last Wednesday was a [POTUS 47] Administration curveball we’re unable to rationalize. It may not be the last.

The post POTUS 47 Turmoil Reaches STB appeared first on Railway Age.

FROM THE EDITOR, RAILWAY AGE SEPTEMBER 2025 ISSUE: As I write this, it’s the late afternoon of Friday, Aug. 29, the end of one of the strangest weeks I’ve ever encountered in my 33-plus years at Railway Age—on top all the crazy things flying out of the White House practically every day since January.

In the space of one week, hedge fund Ancora resurfaced from the swamp and mounted an ugly, nonsensical, fabrication-filled attack on CSX and CEO Joe Hinrichs (our current Railroader of the Year), proclaiming that CSX, only because Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announced their intended combination, must pursue a merger with either BNSF or CPKC—both of which responded with, “Dumb idea. Get lost.” Then, POTUS 47, once again invoking his The Apprentice reality TV persona, told STB Member Robert Primus, “You’re Fired!”

With Primus ejected from 395 E Street SW in Washington D.C., the odds of UP+NS being approved in roughly two years most likely have increased. The STB has its work cut out, because this transaction falls under merger rules that will be invoked for the first time since they were written in 2001. So, should any other railroads be rushing toward the altar, further complicating what already is an extremely complex undertaking?

No, per l’amor di Dio! Not now. Let’s keep our heads screwed on straight and see how this all plays out. Cool your jets. There are several ways the other four Class I’s can “combine,” in terms of operations and improved services—and they’re doing it.

Now, you might say, “Who does this intelligentone think he is?” But I’m just agreeing with Keith Creel, Warren Buffett and Joe Hinrichs. (Of course, I’m glad they said it first.)

CPKC “is not interested in participating in immediate rail industry consolidation, despite suggestions by some that it take part,” Creel said. “CPKC does not believe that further rail consolidation is necessary for the industry as currently structured.”

Buffett and Greg Abel met with Hinrichs in Omaha alone, without advisors present. They told him they would not make a bid for CSX, adding they “believed they could cooperate more to gain some of the same benefits that would come from combining the two companies.” Hinrichs confirmed this in a session with Jim Cramer, the animated, rapid-fire-dialogue (that’s putting it mildly) host of CNBC’s Mad Money—who called Ancora “some fund I don’t know jack about.”

Jim may not know jack, but he sure knows Joe, as do we. Hinrichs highlighted the importance of “collaboration over consolidation,” stating, “The biggest problem that needs to be solved is interchanges.” He also pointed to CSX’s “robust network, best-in-class margins and high employee engagement … Our focus is on creating value for shareholders and serving customers better so that we can profitably grow the business. That involves people working effectively together.”

Oh, by the way, Cramer prefaced his questioning of Hinrichs with this: “First, just so people know, Railway Age is the most important publication in this industry, and you are the railroad man of the year.”

Thanks for the plug, Jim! But can you talk a little slower? I’m having a hard time understanding you at my advancing age.

The post One Merger at a Time, Please appeared first on Railway Age.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has granted authority for Watco Holdings, Inc. to acquire control of the 379.2-mile Class III Great Lakes Central Railroad, Inc., subject to certain conditions. The acquisition will allow Watco, which provides rail, transloading, terminal and port, and logistics services, to expand its control to one Class II and 44 Class IIIs across the United States.

GLC is currently owned by Federated Capital Acquisitions, Inc., a subsidiary of Federated Capital Holdings, LLC. According to Watco, the state of Michigan owns about 350 miles of GLC’s lines and GLC operates over them via “modified certificates of public convenience and necessity,” the STB reported in its Aug. 31 decision (download below). It will join Watco’s Grand Elk and Ann Arbor (AA) railroads in Michigan. Stretching from Ann Arbor (north) to Cadillac (central), Mich., with branches to Thompsonville, Traverse City, and Petoskey, GLC is the largest short line in the state and serves 15 counties. It ships a range of commodities including soybeans, corn, and other agricultural products, fertilizers, plastics, and LPG, and interchanges with CSX, Genesee & Wyoming’s Mid-Michigan Railroad and Huron & Eastern Railway, CN, and AA, which links with Norfolk Southern.

52682Download

Pittsburg, Kans.-based Watco on March 6 filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502, seeking an exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 to acquire control of GLC by acquiring 100% of GLC’s common stock. On June 20, under the STB’s direction, Watco filed a supplement providing additional information that the Board needed to determine whether the transaction qualified for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a).

The STB on Aug. 31 reported that its decision followed “a thorough review” of the petition and supplement. “In its filings, Watco stated its commitment to implementing service improvements and modernizing GLC’s infrastructure,” the Board said. “Specifically, Watco presented that its acquisition of control of GLC will create streamlined routing efficiencies between GLC and AA, allow GLC to gain access to Watco’s experienced marketing team, and allow Watco to invest approximately $3.7 million in GLC’s network. Watco also represented that the transaction will not reduce competitive options for shippers and committed to keeping open all currently active gateways operated by GLC and the Watco-owned AA, to which GLC connects.” No party opposed the transaction, and the State of Michigan submitted a letter in support of the acquisition, according to the STB.

In its approval decision, the Board said it “finds that the transaction satisfies the applicable statutory criteria and will not result in significant impacts on competition, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring Watco to maintain all currently active gateways on commercially competitive terms.” The decision, it noted, is subject to standard employee protective conditions.

The exemption will become effective Sept. 28, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by Sept. 8, 2025. Petitions to reopen must be filed by Sept. 18, 2025. STB Chairman Patrick J. Fuchs and Members Karen J. Hedlund, and Michelle A. Schultz issued the decision.

Further Reading: Did Primus Engineer His Own Ouster?

The post Watco Adding GLC to Small-Road Portfolio appeared first on Railway Age.

Sound Transit

Sound Transit announced Aug. 28 that passenger service will begin on the Link 1 Line to Federal Way on Dec. 6. The 7.8-mile Federal Way Link Extension includes three new stations in South King County, serving Kent Des Moines, Star Lake and Federal Way Downtown. During peak hours, trains will operate every eight minutes. 

The Federal Way extension will serve the following stations, all of which will include multiple transit connections:

• Kent Des Moines Station. Located east of I-5 at S 236th Street on the border of Kent and Des Moines, Kent Des Moines is an elevated station that serves Highline College, includes a 500-space parking garage, and features transit-oriented development opportunities including a 233-unit affordable housing project from Mercy Housing Northwest set to break ground this winter.
• Star Lake Station. Located at S 272nd St and 26th avenue, Star Lake station will serve as a key interchange for Link, St Express, King County Metro, and park-and-ride commuters. The elevated station features a new bike and pedestrian access path to the station plaza, connects to the existing freeway station, and will add 1,100 parking spaces in a new garage that replaced surface parking.
• Federal Way Downtown. Located at the Federal Way Transit Center, this elevated station serves one of the busiest transit centers in the region from the heart of Downtown Federal Way. The station features 400 new parking spaces in addition to existing garages, public restrooms, and a rebuilt street grid with pedestrian and bicycle improvements and opportunities for affordable housing and sustainable transit-oriented development.

The new Federal Way bus loop, which opened earlier this year, connects King County Metro, ST Express, and Pierce Transit buses directly to the station, “providing fast and reliable light rail connections to South King and Pierce County,” the agency noted.

“Today’s announcement on Federal Way shows that the region continues to make significant progress toward our mass transit goals,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. “This is one more step in completing the spine and providing relief from gridlock and more travel options for our residents. I look forward to the day we open Everett, and Tacoma, and the other key elements of the Sound Transit 3 package.”  

“It’s exciting to see trains out there running on the tracks as we continue to prepare for the opening of this crucial extension, further knitting our region together with clean, traffic-free light rail,” said Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine. “Thank you to our partners at the Washington State Department of Transportation and the local jurisdictions who have accommodated years of project activity, and to our hard-working contractors and staff.”

According to a KIRO 7 News report, Sound Transit staff recently said they are “facing a 20-25% increase in costs compared to what’s currently outlined in the Long-Range Financial Plan, unless cost-saving measures are applied.

Voters approved the Sound Transit 3 (ST3) System Plan in 2016; however, according to the report, the agency says, “much has changed since then, citing challenges including lower-than-expected revenues, rising costs and uncertainty surrounding tariffs and federal funding commitments.”

On Aug. 28, staff reported a need for an additional $14 to $20 billion in today’s dollars “to cover capital program costs to complete the major, voter-approved ST3 light rail projects,” including West Seattle, Ballard, Tacoma Dome, Everett, Tacoma Community College and South Kirkland-Issaquah Link extensions.

The agency, KIRO 7 News reports, also says it will need a few billion dollars more to cover service delivery costs, including new and replacement light rail vehicles, investments to improve light rail system resiliency and other maintenance and operations costs.

On top of growing costs, staff expect revenue to fall, according to the report.

For the last few months, the Board has been focused on implementing an action plan, deemed “the Enterprise Initiative,” which the agency describes as a “comprehensive effort that helps identify affordability gaps and tools available to cut costs.”

The initiative, KIRO 7 News reports, “aims to update the system plan, while staying in line with the original voter-approved ballot measure.”

Some of that increase can be tied to industry-wide issues, while other cost issues are related to “agency process, procedure, and delays since ST3 adoption,” according to Sound Transit documents and as reported by KIRO 7 News.

According to the report, “Phase 1 of the Enterprise Initiative calls for analyzing how the region has changed since 2016, building a deep understanding of the scale of the problem and understanding how to use available tools to solve these challenges (or coming up with new tools to fix them).

“Phase 2, which the agency has previously said will begin in 2026, calls for identifying approaches for updating the ST3 System Plan and adopting a new long-range financial plan.

“It also calls for conducting more public engagement about the initiative. During this phase, the Board is set to take action to amend the ST3 System Plan and adopt the new long-range financial plan.”

Board members on Thursday, according to the KIRO 7 News report noted that “the cost increases are unprecedented, but that Sound Transit is not the only agency in the country dealing with challenges out of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Sound Transit staff believe there are some cost-saving measures that can be applied to future projects, but it’s not clear at this time exactly how Sound Transit will make up the gap, according to the report.

The process, KIRO 7 News reports, “is expected to be finished by the middle of next year, but the deadline is not set in stone.”

Once complete, the agency will release an updated System Plan and a new Long-Range Financial Plan.

Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx

Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx announced Aug. 28 that they have selected Trillium Rail Partners (TRP), a consortium comprised of WSP Canada Inc.; Amico Major Projects Inc.; Alberici Constructors, Ltd.; and Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc., to deliver the Stations, Rail and Systems (SRS) package for the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension. The team has signed a Development and Master Construction Agreement with Metrolinx.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

According to Infrastructure Ontario, the team was selected following an evaluation of proposals. The selection of TRP “is the result of an open, fair and competitive procurement process overseen by a third-party fairness monitor,” the agency noted.

The Development and Master Construction Agreement (DMCA) marks the start of the development phase, part of a progressive design-build procurement model. The DMCA, Infrastructure Ontario says, enables TRP to begin construction of early works and for them to collaborate with Metrolinx to further develop the design scope, risk allocation and pricing of various elements as part of the development phase.

The scope of work for the project’s SRS package includes design and construction of seven stations and installation of rail and systems for the 9.2-kilometer (5-7-mile) extension and works at the existing Mount Dennis Station to connect the ECWE with future Line 5 Eglinton LRT service.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

The overall Eglinton Crosstown West Extension project is being delivered through various Public-Private-Partnership (P3), progressive design-build and traditional procurement contracts.

“The Eglinton Crosstown West Extension is a vital east-west transit connector for Toronto, one that will significantly reduce commuting times for people throughout the city. We are proud to be part of a project that, once complete, will make it easier for thousands of people in the Greater Toronto Area get to the places and people they value most,” said Corina Moore, Executive Vice President, Transportation and Infrastructure at WSP in Canada, which will lead the design as part of the TRP consortium.

The post Transit Briefs: Sound Transit, Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx appeared first on Railway Age.

Now based in Dunwoody, Ga., the company says it is “reinforcing its presence within Atlanta’s logistics ecosystem through a new, state of the art facility.” The location, IntelliTrans adds, supports hybrid work and ongoing product innovation as demand increases for its transportation management system (TMS).

Replacing the company’s former Midtown Atlanta office, the new headquarters “unites executive leadership, product, marketing and technical teams under roof to foster closer collaboration and align around the company’s next phase of growth,” IntelliTrans said. “The new headquarters continues a transformative growth period for the company, with new leadership, expanded operations in Conway, Ark., and continuing to provide more advanced TMS offerings.”

“This move is about focus,” said IntelliTrans CEO. “Ongoing supply chain disruption and rising pressure to optimize freight operations have bulk and breakbulk shippers demanding better visibility and smarter tools. Together with our operations hub in Conway, Arkansas, this new Atlanta headquarters gives our team the space to accelerate product innovation and scale the infrastructure our customers depend on. This headquarters is just as much about empowering our people as it is about scaling our platform—we’re building a space where teams can do their best work to serve our valued customers.”

“By being headquartered in Atlanta, we’re scaling strategically—growing our product and engineering teams in one of the country’s strongest logistics and tech talent markets,” added IntelliTrans Chief Technology Officer Jim Bell. “We’re building a team that understands the complexity of freight and brings the technical depth needed to turn that understanding into scalable solutions for today’s challenges.”

The post IntelliTrans Opens New Atlanta Headquarters appeared first on Railway Age.

Earlier this month, we profiled Brightline, the only private-sector railroad that operates passenger trains (not counting tourist excursions) in the United States. The story—Brightline: Something Different on the Rails, which posted online and in Railway Age’s August issue—featured an overview of Brightline and its current plans for Florida and for Brightline West, which will serve Las Vegas, Nev., with high-speed trains when it is complete. Since then, more issues have arisen concerning this unique railroad. One is a court battle with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR for purposes of the case and the official corporate name) over the capacity of the part of the FEC main in the Sunshine State’s three southern counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. That is the area where Brightline began service in 2018, and which comprised its entire operation until the extension to Orlando International Airport opened in September 2023 (see map below).

Brightline Map. Download Fact Sheet Here (Courtesy of Brightline)

Railway Age has often reported on battles between Amtrak and its host railroads, including Union Pacific and CN. We covered the “Second Battle of Mobile” between Amtrak and host railroads CSX and Norfolk Southern regarding new train service between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. That conflict included an 11-day trial before the Surface Transportation Board, but the parties settled their differences, and Amtrak’s Mardi Gras service is now running two daily round trips on the route.

The situation between FEC and Brightline is not the same. Things were different years ago, when All Aboard Florida, which became Brightline, proposed running passenger trains on the FEC for the first time since 1968. It started as a component of the railroad’s ownership. Part of the deal included selling yards and other real estate and infrastructure that the railroad no longer needed and developing that real estate—a plan similar to transit-oriented development, which is practiced along regional passenger rail lines that serve major cities.

FEC sued Brightline on July 11, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami, and was assigned Case No. 2025-013297-CA-01, captioned FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C. v. BRIGHTLINE TRAINS FLORIDA, L.L.C.  

Joshua Ceballos and Aaron Leibowitz first reported the litigation on Aug. 5 in the Miami Herald. They began by saying: “In a move that could derail plans for a long-awaited commuter train service, Florida East Coast Railway is suing Brightline for ‘clandestinely’ negotiating with county governments to add more trains to its rails. FECR claims the move violates a contract agreement between the two companies.” They also reported: “Plans have been in the works for Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to run a version of Tri-Rail commuter trains through South Florida’s urban corridor east of Interstate 95 along the Florida East Coast Railway tracks that Brightline uses. The private, luxury-train company and FECR entered into a series of agreements in 2016 and 2017 giving Brightline exclusive rights to run passenger trains on the rail corridor—with specific limitations.”

FECR’s Complaint, As Reported

According to Ceballos and Leibowitz, the complaint filed by FECR said: “The cooperation and transparency between FECR and Brightline that made Brightline’s passenger service a reality has, unfortunately, long disappeared … Desperate to salvage some of its investors’ funds, Brightline has covertly engaged in a years-long campaign to stave off its own financial problems by loading FECR’s tracks with more passenger trains.”

The original FEC was founded by Henry M. Flagler, an oil magnate and real estate developer, in 1895. Today, it is owned by Grupo México, and there is no longer such commonality of interest between the passenger (Brightline) and freight (Grupo México) operators whose trains run on FEC tracks.

(Courtesy of Tri-Rail)

The dispute apparently focuses on efforts by Brightline to develop local passenger service along the line. The present service to Orlando International Airport carries local passengers between Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, West Palm Beach, and intermediate stops. In a sense, it is a luxury service, offering food and beverages on board, as well as a “Premium” class. It also runs faster than Tri-Rail, which operates a service for commuters and other riders that is typically associated with “transit railroads” that serve other cities (see map above). Brightline also charges significantly higher fares than Tri-Rail in the region.

Coastal Link Map (Courtesy of Miami Dade County)

As we have reported over the years, Brightline is also planning Coastal Link, a similar service on its own line, which is located in coastal areas (see map, right). Most of Tri-Rail operates along the historic Seaboard Railroad’s line, which is several miles inland from the FEC route for most of the length of its line. Brightline and Tri-Rail both run service from Brightline’s Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, and both railroads have stations in West Palm Beach, which are a few blocks apart. Miami-Dade County described the Coastal Link project, which would provide a full, seven-day span of service, this way: “The Northeast Corridor marks the first segment of the 85-mile Coastal Link commuter rail, designed to seamlessly connect Miami-Dade with Broward and Palm Beach counties. This 13.5-mile project will establish a new rapid transit route from Miami Central Station in downtown Miami to West Aventura Station, utilizing the existing railroad corridor shared with Brightline and freight services. The goal is to provide residents, businesses, and visitors with a reliable and efficient transportation option.” The line is not to be confused with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, but the service pattern would be similar to Amtrak’s NEC: trains every 30 minutes at peak-commuting periods and every 60 minutes at other times, including on weekends. There would be new stations at Wynwood, Design District, Little Haiti, North Miami Beach, and FIU North Campus. There are also other plans to introduce that type of service in Broward and Palm Beach counties. That plan was revealed in 2023. FECR alleged that Brightline planned to run 54 “commuter” trains daily under the plan, the Herald reported.

According to the Herald, FECR’s complaint says: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” The Herald also reported: “FECR contends that it only found out about these talks ‘by chance’ and that when it approached Brightline with its concerns, Brightline accelerated its negotiations without bringing FECR to the table.”

According to Caballos and Leibowitz: “FECR alleges those plans were made without its approval, which is required through its agreement with Brightline, and that the plans threaten to create a logistical nightmare for South Florida.” While the line is double-tracked in the area at issue, Brightline already runs essentially hourly service on it to a place beyond the northern boundary of Palm Beach County. There is also FECR’s freight operation. As well, Brightline trains run faster than the proposed local passenger trains would. The Herald report noted: “The Florida Legislature removed funding for the commuter rail from this year’s budget cycle, prompting worries about the project’s future”—an event that could render the case moot, if no further progress is made on the Coastal Link proposal.

What We Don’t Know About the Complaint—Yet

Railway Age has not obtained the entire complaint or contracts that FECR submitted as exhibits, despite efforts to contact both parties to obtain them. In a paper filed with the complaint on July 11, the railroad claimed that 12 paragraphs of it (out of at least 145), along with two documents submitted as exhibits, contain confidential information, and requested that they be shielded from public view. If there is a redacted version of the complaint (presumably there is, because the Herald reported on it), we have not yet seen it, despite a diligent effort so far.

In effect, the Herald reported that FECR alleged that Brightline did not follow the rules of the parties’ Joint Use Agreement (JUA) for the railroad, which requires either party to present proposals for changes to a joint committee, that Brightline negotiated with the counties about Coastal Link starting in 2020, that FECR found out about these talks “by chance,” and that Brightline kept negotiating “without bringing FECR to the table.” Ceballos and Leibowitz also reported that FECR alleged: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” In addition, there have been questions raised about Brightine’s finances, which we will cover in a separate report. The JUA and other contracts between the parties are also part of the court papers. If and when we obtain them, we will review them and report on their relevant provisions.

(Brightline Photograph) Brightline Moves to Dismiss Case, Calls for Arbitration

Brightline on July 29 filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of the dispute with FECR. We obtained those motion papers. If a defendant does not believe that the plaintiff has stated a cause of action in the complaint and exhibits submitted with it that would justify relief, the defendant can move to dismiss the case before filing an answer, which the defendant would only need to file if the judge denies the motion. Brightline on July 31 filed its motion papers, acknowledging the JUA and passenger service easements, which Brightline alleged “are integrally related, independent and constitute … a single, unitary, and indivisible agreement.”

Brightline also alleged: “Under that agreement, Brightline has an express contractual right [emphasis in original] to operate passenger rail service along the FEC Corridor, either itself or through one or more ‘designees’ … This includes both higher-speed ‘intercity’ passenger service and ‘commuter’ service.” Also alleged: “Nevertheless, FECR’s Complaint asserts that Brightline ‘violat[ed]’ the JUA by working with Miami-Dade County and others to develop a badly-needed commuter rail service in South Florida. The Complaint seeks a series of declarations which are supposedly necessary to set at rest the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties as they pertain to the JUA and the continued shared use of the FEC Corridor.”

FECR’s primary argument is that the judge should dismiss the action because the contracts between FECR and Brightline require a binding arbitration proceeding to resolve disputes of this sort, rather than a court decision. FECR described a three-step procedure that (first) would present the dispute to a Service Standards Committee comprising representatives from both parties for investigation, (second) referring the dispute to the Presidents of FECR and Brightline for them to attempt to resolve the matter (the original agreement named All Aboard Florida, but Brightline is its successor), and (third) either party can submit the dispute to binding arbitration.

In the “Argument” section of its motion, FECR argued that arbitration is the only proper forum for resolving the dispute under both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Florida Arbitration Code, and that the court should submit it to arbitration.

The Issue of Following the Rules

FECR complained that Brightline was negotiating with the affected counties about local trains but did not follow the rule that required arbitration of such disputes. In response, Brightline alleged: “FECR is well aware of those contractual requirements, as it is currently pursuing claims against Brightline unrelated to commuter service in a separate arbitration under the JUA and associated agreements … In this instance, however, FECR chose to flout [emphasis in original] those contractual requirements and file its claims in court. It knew that one of Brightline’s parent entities was preparing to issue a bond offering to help finance the commuter rail project, and it sought to thwart that effort by asserting specious claims in a public forum” and “FECR publicly sought to harm Brightline by making gratuitous factual allegations it knew not to be true and pursuing baseless causes of action which can only be pursued, if at all, through ‘binding arbitration.’” FECR also called on the judge to submit the case to arbitration.

Setting the arguments about Brightline’s financial interests aside for the moment, it appears that FECR was aware of Brightline’s efforts to establish local service, so the question arises of why this issue has become so hotly disputed at this time. We have reported on the Coastal Link proposal before (most recently in March 2025), and a report from Miami-Dade County indicated that the project is in design stages and is not scheduled to begin service until 2032. With the State pulling funding, though, it will probably take longer, if service runs at all.

A bill before the Florida Legislature, CS/SB 916, is concerned with indemnifying victims of accidents involving “commuter” trains in the State. The Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement from March 20, 2025, said: “CS/SB 916 provides for the indemnification of commuter rail transportation providers on the Coastal Link Corridor. The bill creates the Coastal Link Commuter Rail Service Act and establishes parameters related to the indemnification of and insurance related to an agency providing commuter rail service on the corridor. The bill … Names Brightline, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR), South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), and an agency as parties operating rail service the coast link corridor.” SFRTA operates Tri-Rail. The provisions of the bill relate to a fund for compensating accident victims with a cap on liability, a self-insurance retention, allocation of liability, and other aspects of insurance law. We mention it here to clarify how much FECR would have known about Brightline’s efforts to establish local train service along the line. Without having the complaint and exhibits to review, we cannot speculate any further on that issue at this time.

(Jonathan Chalon Photograph) A Dispute Over a Process Leading to Arbitration

In its motion to dismiss, Brightline called on FECR to follow a three-step process for resolving disputes, using a Service Standards Committee, the presidents of the two railroads, and, finally, to arbitration if the other steps do not provide a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties.

Courts usually favor sending disputes to arbitration, because the process is simpler than litigation and referrals to arbitration get cases off the court calendar. Arbitration is usually faster, less formal, and less expensive than litigating a case in court. The American Arbitration Association sets rules for arbitrating cases, and arbitrators act as “professional neutrals” in deciding cases, but the process of selecting them is far less formal than that for selecting judges, who are chosen by a political process and assigned to cases. Typically, the parties select a single arbitrator or a panel of three. In the latter situation, each party chooses one member of the panel, and those two select the third. In all likelihood, these processes are set out in the JUA between the parties, but only a review of that agreement would confirm this.

Why are FEC, Brightline Fighting?

We don’t know all the details, but it appears that the parties have a dispute concerning how many passenger trains can fit onto the affected segment of the line, along with FEC’s anticipated freight use. For almost 50 years, there were no passenger trains at all running anywhere on FEC. Then Brightline came along, and now there is a train essentially every hour between Miami and Orlando International Airport, with intermediate stops in South Florida and more planned further north along the coast.

With local service coming, which would act as if it were “Tri-Rail East” as a parallel railroad for local service in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, it would require at least relatively careful scheduling to be sure the line could accommodate all that freight and passenger service. While the line is double-tracked in the region at issue, there are limits to the capacity of any rail line. We don’t know precisely what those limits might be in the present case.

This is the sort of case that often lends itself to arbitration, especially if the arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) have enough familiarity with the railroad to assess capacity intelligently and make a decision with which both parties can live.

Whether that happens is now up to a judge in Miami. We will keep an eye on the case as it proceeds, because capacity issues can arise whenever a new service is introduced on a railroad line. We remember the “Second Battle of Mobile” over Amtrak trains between that city and New Orleans, and we are also aware that trains are running there today, despite that battle. If and when we obtain the original complaint, we will report on it more thoroughly. We are also prepared to report the result of the present case. At this juncture, it appears reasonably likely that the judge will refer it to arbitration, especially if the JUA specifically calls for that. Still, in a litigation, nobody can be sure about a result.

The post FEC, Brightline Fight in Court Over Rail Capacity appeared first on Railway Age.