On Nov. 14, the Rail Users’ Network (RUN) held its fall online conference. Its theme was “An Update—Keeping You Informed in the World of Passenger Rail & Rail Transit.” The organization also observed 25 years of advocating for more passenger trains and better rail transit in the United States and Canada, and the conference heard from 12 speakers: five about new starts (two of which are already in service), four on a panel about the merger of the Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) railroads that is now under consideration, and a presentation from an Amtrak official about plans for purchasing new equipment. I delivered the closing remarks. The other speaker was Dr. Richard Rudolph, Founder and Chair of RUN since it was established.
UP+NS Implications
As part of the ongoing discussions about the proposed merger, the conference heard from three presenters: a rider-advocate with an economics background and experience as a planner, a renowned transportation economist, and a representative from rail labor. RUN Vice Chair Andrew Albert, who is also Chair of the Transit Riders’ Council in New York City and a rider-representative at New York’s MTA Board, moderated the panel. He opened the discussion by noting that a decision from the STB is expected during the middle or end of 2027.
The first presenter was Steve Roberts, President of the Rail Passengers’ Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC), and an economist and former planner at Amtrak and the Southern Pacific (SP). He pointed out that a merger of this sort is supposed to enhance competition and generate public benefits. He noted that shippers want reciprocal switching (using someone other than the local carrier for switching), fewer paper barriers at interchanges (which can inhibit innovative routing), no bottleneck rates (high rates where one carrier has a monopoly), as well as trackage rights on Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) where they interchange with the merged railroad. He distinguished between “hard costs” (infrastructure improvements) and “soft costs” (operational improvements), which are less expensive to deliver. He said that he expects UP to claim that it can handle any changes post-merger, despite difficult transitions after other mergers, such as when UP absorbed SP thirty years ago. He concluded by saying that hoped-for public benefits could come to Amtrak’s on-time-performance (OTP), Metra in Chicago, the tri-weekly Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Los Angeles, and the proposed new Amtrak route between Fort Worth and Meridian, Mississippi, mainly on CPKC, which resulted from the recent merger of CP and KCS.
The second presenter was longtime railroad economist and Railway Age Contributing Editor Jim Blaze. He began by saying: “This is not my first railroad M&A rodeo,” that he placed the likelihood of the STB approving the deal at 70% to 80%, but there could be some market complications. He addressed the question of whether such mergers are effective, would results be better and cheaper for shippers? On that subject, Blaze said that administrative costs would be lower and that there would probably be significantly less mode-shifting, but not massive layoffs. He acknowledged that there are unknown factors and that any predictions can be speculative but did not see “game-changing” results. He did not expect a major market change as happened when double-stacked containers became commonplace, railroads offering more “retail” transportation, or much diversion of freight from trucks. He cautioned that the railroads would continue to retain free cash flow, rather than rather than reinvesting any resulting savings. He concluded by mentioning how decision-makers discount expectations to present them in their filings and suggested that attendees also “look at the facts and conclude your own discounting factor.” He concluded by saying that, even if much of the shipping went away from the railroads and onto the highways, a market share as low as 20 to 25% would still be profitable for the rail carriers.
The third and final presentation on the panel came from Ron Kaminkow, Trustee for Rail Workers United, a rail labor organization that has members from several crafts (but is not a union). He recently retired from Amtrak, where he worked as an engineer. He began by saying that he started in Chicago and worked for all the Class I railroads, that they are adversaries to railroad workers, and that he helped fight a plan that BNSF proposed in 2014 to run with single-person crews. He is now fighting against the UP-NS merger and questioned why it’s on the table. He said that Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) rewards stockholders, but “it’s not good railroading” because it has resulted in the decline of freight service and additional delays to passenger trains. He said that lowering operating ratios and maintaining share prices is good for Wall Street, but that the savings could be spent better on double-tracking than on stock buybacks. He also questioned whether viable freight and passenger service is feasible with the Class I roads calling the shots and called for public ownership of railroads, as with other transportation. Regarding passenger trains, he expressed concern about a short-term meltdown, which would worsen delays, while consolidation of facilities would alienate workers and degrade service. Long-term, he predicted that having two monopolistic railroads would be worse than the situation in the 1890s. He called on advocates to build an alliance to fight the merger, especially in trackside communities.
In my concluding remarks, I commented on the effects that I expected that the merger would have on passenger trains and on the likelihood that the STB would approve the deal. Before the conference, I had believed that it would not have much of an effect on the passenger side of railroading, because Amtrak does not run many trains on NS, and there is not much “transit railroad” activity on it, either. I had thought that the main issue was whether UP hosting the Amtrak trains now operating on NS track would change those operations. I was concerned that they would change for the worse. After listening to the panel, though, I became more concerned that congestion and delays resulting from the merger could harm passenger trains indirectly, even if there is not a lot of direct harm that could result from downgraded service. The schedule of the Crescent between Atlanta and New Orleans was lengthened not long ago, because NS could not keep the prior schedule, and the train now arrives in New Orleans after dinnertime and in New York early in the evening instead of early in the afternoon.
Today the railroads in the U.S. form two duopolies: one in the East (NS and CSX), one in the West (UP and BNSF), plus two (CPKC and CN) in the middle of the country on roughly north-south alignments. The merger will break that pattern by combining one of the Eastern roads and a Western road that has already absorbed many other railroads. It seems difficult to believe that the proposed arrangement could increase competition, give shippers better service, or facilitate the movement of passenger trains. Yet, it seems inevitable that the STB will approve it. While Jim Blaze sees a 70% to 80% likelihood, I see 98%, on account of politics.
Because of the party affiliations of the Board members, I expect that the merger plan will be approved. I have met Karen Hedlund and Robert Primus. They are Democrats, they could reasonably be expected to express concerns about the merger, and I have expressed my respect for them for considering what shippers and passengers want and need. Primus is contesting POTUS 47’s act of terminating his STB membership before the end of his term, which is scheduled to end in 2027. He received his notice of termination on August 27 of this year. He told PBS reporter Geoff Bennett that he still considers himself a member, and that the action “challenges the integrity of the Board” as reported on PBS News Hour on August 29. On October 1, Primus (in his official capacity) sued POTUS 47 and STB Chair Patrick J. Fuchs (in their official capacities) and the Board itself, in federal court for the District of D.C. Whether or not Primus succeeds in challenging his dismissal from the Board, I do not see his fate as affecting the merger.
It goes without saying that Railway Age will continue to follow this story as it develops but, at this writing, RUN is considering whether to take an official position and comment to the STB about the proposed deal. The RUN Board meets on Dec. 6 and is likely to discuss the matter at that time.
Amtrak Equipment Procurements
There has been a great deal of concern expressed about Amtrak’s equipment situation lately, especially by advocates. We have been reporting on it here at Railway Age, and the conference included a presentation on the subject by Michelle Tortolani, Amtrak’s Vice-President for Project Delivery – Fleet and Facilities. She started by saying that Amtrak’s ridership is growing and breaking records, so “We need more trains.” She described three equipment procurements: the Next Gen Acela fleet, the Airo sets for other trains on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and other corridors, and the long-distance fleet replacement. Amtrak has ordered 28 of the new Acela sets, and some are now in service. The trains are longer than the original sets that will soon be retired, and Tortolani said that they have 27% more seats. Amtrak has also ordered 83 Airo sets and expects to place them in service next year, starting on the Cascades trains in the Northwest. In addition, Amtrak is getting 50 Chargerlocomotives and is refreshing the Superlinercars that run on long-distance trains west of Chicago and New Orleans, and on the Auto Train.
Although efforts are being made to refresh the Superliner equipment, much of it is more than 40 years old, and advocates (including at RUN) have expressed concern that Amtrak is already running short consists on at least some of its long-distance trains. Tortolani noted that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for cars to replace the Superliners was issued in 2023, and that one for replacing the single-level Amfleet II cars that are roughly the same age came out recently. However, the target date for new bilevel cars is not until “the 2030s” and she did not say exactly when. She also described infrastructure upgrades “to maximize Amtrak’s fleet initiatives.” They include upgrading six Level I (full maintenance) and seven Level II (lighter maintenance) facilities. Ground has already been broken for two major ones: Ivy City (Northeast Washington, D.C.) and Southampton (Boston). She also described infrastructure projects on the NEC and its branches, like the East River Tunnel Project in New York City, the Connecticut River Bridge, and Portal North Bridge in New Jersey, projects funded through the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA), but she added that construction on those projects requires that funding come through first, and that some additional money is also needed for maintenance.
The Amtrak equipment situation is highly problematic. The corridors will have trains, although they will be less pleasant in some ways than the trains they will replace, with their cushioned seats, most of which face forward. For Amtrak to use the name Airo to describe its new trainsets for its corridors appears to reveal Amtrak’s true intention to imitate the airlines as much as possible, even though airline travel no longer gets the high marks from passengers that it once received. Frankly, I would strongly prefer a name that recalls the great railroad tradition like Libertyliner 250, which Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail suggests. It has a patriotic feel and recalls the greatness that was part of the American railroad tradition for generations, but Amtrak seems to be heading in another direction.
Amtrak’s efforts toward replacing the current long-distance fleet appears to be a case in point. We have reported on the upcoming LD-fleet procurement. We obtained the Request For Proposals (RFP) for a new long-distance fleet to replace the bilevel Superliner cars, and it is 1,379 pages long. To make matters worse, the soonest the new equipment can be placed into service will be sometime in the 2030s. The middle of that decade is ten years from now, which is when VIA Rail needs to replace its tiny LD fleet of heritage cars built by the Budd Company for Canadian Pacific in 1954, and its procurement has advanced further than Amtrak’s.
It will probably be too late by then. Eight years from now, in 2033, 52% of the equipment on Amtrak’s long-distance trains today, comprising Superliner and Amfleet II cars, will be at least 50 years old, the same age as Amfleet I cars that now run on Amtrak’s corridors and which Amtrak recently released a proposal to scrap, rather than keeping the shells and rebuilding the cars, so they can continue to run. It will probably take longer to purchase new cars and get them into service than the existing fleet can last. Amtrak is already running shorter consists on the trains that use Superliner equipment than they had carried in the past, a practice that allows fewer passengers to ride and charges them higher fares, too. I stand by my assessment from early in the year. Unless Amtrak comes up with a means for expediting the procurement and getting new equipment into service sooner than planned, the long-distance network will die by attrition, one train at a time. My advice remains the same as it was then: Ride as much as you can, while you know you still can. That’s what I plan to do.
Five U.S. Projects
Phoenix, Arizona’s Valley Metro Rail has been growing incrementally for several years. On June 7, 2025, it officially became a two-line light rail system, when the South Central Extension opened (along with the Tempe Streetcar as a third line, although that was mentioned only briefly in the presentation). Luis Mota, Project Manager for the South Central Extension, gave the conference a detailed description of the steps that his agency took to bring the project to fruition, including outreach to local communities and other stakeholders. Mota said that light rail in Phoenix expanded twice recently: the 1.6-mile Northwest Extension Phase II on Jan. 27, 2024, and the South Central Extension. The latter segment is 6.5 miles long, has eight stations, uses 14 new vehicles, and cost $1.35 billion. As part of the project, Valley Metro created a new Downtown Hub for transfers between the two lines, which included building some new stations and moving part of the existing line onto a different street. Valley Metro Rail consisted of a single line until the project was completed and that line was split. Today’s A Line originates at the Downtown Hub and runs eastward to Mesa through Tempe, where it connects with the Tempe streetcar. Today’s B Line runs mostly on a north-south alignment, with a northwesterly component at the north end of the line.
Rail transit is now running in Hawai’i’s capital, Honolulu. Skyline, an elevated and automated rail line, operated by the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportaiton (HART), is now operating west of the city center, and as close to downtown as the airport. Project Manager Lori Kahikina, HART Executive Director and CEO, gave the conference an overview of the troubled project which, after years of delay and financial difficulties, is finally running. She described the current line, which runs 16.1 miles with 13 stations. It consists of Segment 1 (west of the city) which opened on June 30, 2023, and Segment 2 (closer to downtown), which opened on October 16, 2025. Six more stations downtown on 3.3 miles of additional line are expected to open in 2031. Equipment consists of 20 four-car trains built by Hitachi and powered by third rail. The line is expected to alleviate traffic congestion when it is completed, and Kahikina noted that the start of service on Segment 2 was accelerated so it could happen this year. She acknowledged the difficulties that the project has faced in the past, noted that it is entirely tax-supported (83% local and 17% federal), and said: “They need to prove that they can pay off the bonds.” The line is entirely elevated, mostly at the third-story level, and sometimes 70 feet above ground. The route to downtown is being served by express buses until Segment 3 is completed and service begins.
Front Range Rail is a project that proposes new trains to Fort Collins (north of Denver) and Colorado Springs and Pueblo (south of Denver). Chris Nevitt, Board Chair of the Front Range Passenger Rail District, described the current project. It is now expected that service to Fort Collins will start in 2029 with three round trips per day, although one planned alternative calls for ten round trips between Fort Collins and Pueblo through Denver eventually, with trains running every 90 minutes. A Special Taxing District has been established to help pay for the service, while Nevitt stressed that the new trains would be “intercity” and not local, and that they would connect with Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD). He touted “innovative state funding,” said that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and RTD are partners on the project, and he also said: “It’s time to invest in a comprehensive transportation plan for Colorado.” He expressed the hope that, with participation by neighboring states, trains would someday go to places like Cheyenne, Wyoming and Raton, New Mexico (on the route of Amtrak’s Southwest Chief). He described Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the other stakeholders involved in the project but did not say that rider-advocacy organizations like the Colorado Rail Passenger Association (ColoRail) are among them.
The RUN conference held last fall heard a presentation about a proposal to restore passenger trains between Salisbury (on Amtrak’s Crescent route) and Asheville, North Carolina. This conference featured a talk on another project in the Tar Heel State: the effort to bring trains back to the route between Raleigh and Wilmington, a port in the southeastern part of the state, through Goldsboro and other towns. While Wilmington was once the headquarters for the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and contains many tourist attractions today, no passenger trains have called there since 1968. Steve Unger, Co-Chair of Eastern Carolina Rail, described the campaign to restore service. He said that Eastern Carolina Rail was founded last year and works with North Carolinians for Passenger Rail and the Carolinas Association for Passenger Trains (CAPT). The proposal is in the planning stage, one of seven applications from North Carolina in the FRA’s Corridor ID Program. He described other potential stops, said there is a gap in the route where new track must be built, listed the usual benefits that go beyond added mobility for potential riders, and said that service now appears to be seven to twelve years off. His advice: “Volunteer and advocate.”
The other new start presented to the conference would serve New York City: specifically, the “outer boroughs” of Brooklyn and Queens. It would not be another line on the city’s famous subway (and elevated rail) system, but the mode would be light rail, which is something new for the city. The project is the Interborough Express (IBX). Jordan Smith, IBX Project Manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), described it. It would run for 14 miles on the historic New York and Manhattan Beach Railroad (1876-1924), now the Long Island Rail Road’s Bay Ridge Branch, and would be coordinated with today’s freight operations there. CSX owns the northernmost three miles, the Fremont Secondary. Plans call for 19 stations and connections with 17 existing subway or elevated lines, along with the LIRR East New York station on the railroad’s Atlantic Branch in Brooklyn and Woodside in Queens. Most of the line will run in a trench, and Jordan said that the embankments on its sides will be removed and replaced by walls, to increase its capacity from two to four tracks. The anticipated running time is 32 minutes end to end, trains will have a 600-passenger capacity, and the MTA expects 160,000 daily riders. Jordan said that the line will be funded with $2.75 billion from the MTA’s capital plan, but not with money from the Congestion Pricing toll. He also described the due diligence part of the planning process and how the light rail mode was selected. The IBX section found on the MTA website calls the project “a transformative rapid transit project that will connect currently underserved areas of Brooklyn and Queens” but does not say when service is expected to begin. The MTA is now conducting the Environmental Review for the project.
Phoenix has a tiny downtown area, surrounded by sprawl. Amtrak does not go there. It’s not a place where rail transit could reasonably be expected to flourish, but Valley Metro Rail is doing well. It has expanded several times, accelerated openings of new segments, survived a 2019 referendum to stop the expansion, and is now a two-line system, plus the Tempe Streetcar. They’re doing something right!
Skyline in Honolulu has been a troubled project for years, but the people behind it persevere. It will still be years before it serves the downtown area, but it could improve mobility in a city with congested roads. I have been waiting for the line to progress as far as it has before planning a visit to the Islands, or at least Oahu. I am now planning to go there, and when I do, I’ll ride Skyline and file a trip report.
Front Range Rail has big plans, and it could improve mobility along its corridor, which now has only limited bus service provided by Bustang (affiliated with CDOT) outside RTD’s service area, which includes Denver and some of its suburbs. Three round trips between Denver and Fort Collins would be a minor improvement over today’s bus service, but the proposed schedule of ten daily round trips running every 90 minutes could entice some motorists to join Denver’s non-motorists on the train. We don’t know if the line will offer such robust service, but even three daily round trips to downtown Fort Collins will make that beautiful town more accessible than it is today.
North Carolina has ambitious plans but, whether they come to fruition depends on the state’s politics, which appear to remain in a state of flux. It is difficult to get to Wilmington without a private vehicle today, and even three daily trains to and from Raleigh would change that to a significant extent. It would connect Front Street, Wilmington’s museums, and other attractions to trains within the state and elsewhere on Amtrak, but that will not happen anytime soon. At least the people in the region are getting together to advocate for more trains. It remains to be seen how successful they will be.
The IBX in Brooklyn and Queens could be an interesting model for a circumferential route that would link many existing subway and elevated lines in New York City, allowing residents of two of the city’s “outer boroughs” to get around those areas without the need to make the time-consuming trip through Manhattan. New York City has never had a light rail line before, so this will be an interesting experiment. So will the construction, which includes widening an existing trench to allow the transit line and freight tracks to coexist side by side. The line could become a model for developing rail transit elsewhere, or maybe even expanding the IBX to the Bronx, as was previously proposed and dropped.
As with proposed new starts everywhere, though, proposals do not mean much until a project is completed and service starts running. There are plenty of studies on projects that have been proposed and never built, and no passenger will ever ride a study. Phoenix has a history of extending its rail transit “system” and Honolulu has a line going, with the expection of serving the downtown core about six years from now. The IBX in New York would add to the variety of transit available in the city, as well as connectivity without having to go through Manhattan to travel between Brooklyn and Queens. The prospect of taking a train to Fort Collins, Colorado or Wilmington, North Carolina sounds great. I have visited both of those towns, as well as Goldsboro, on the way to Wilmington. I had to do it the hard way, on buses that run infrequently, and including a long ride on a local bus in Wilmington between the bus hub where Greyhound buses stop and the other bus hub near downtown. As with all proposed new routes, though, whether those trains run remains to be seen.
Rudolph Report
Dr. Richard Rudolph, founder and Chair of RUN since it began, opened the conference with a brief talk that mentioned some of the highlights in the organization’s history, and he started by saying that there were more than 80 persons who had registered for the conference. He then noted that he and other founding members of RUN were on the Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee (ACAC) in the late 1990s and wanted to continue advocating for improvements in Amtrak and and connecting rail transit after their terms at ACAC expired. He also described RUN’s other activities, especially the conferences and the RUN Newsletter, and announced the next online Board meeting on Dec.r 6. The featured guest at that event will be Andy Byford, who was New York’s popular “Train Daddy” when he ran New York City Transit, and who is now supervising Penn Station redevelopment for Amtrak.
Rudolph recalled some of RUN’s campaigns, including calling for enhanced rail safety in the wake of the Lac Megantic disaster in Quebec in 2014, fighting for Amtrak’s national network including helping save the Southwest Chief in 2018, when there was a proposal under consideration to eliminate the segment between Newton, Kansas and Albuquerque and replacing it with a long bus ride, and voting “no confidence” in the leadership of Richard Anderson, who was then Amtrak’s CEO. He also said that, since then, RUN has been involved in campaigns to preserve service or bring it to Maine, Montana, and Mobile, and expressed concern about Amtrak’s equipment situation, particularly the long-distance fleet. He concluded by calling on conference attendees to keep advocating and become active with RUN.
I expressed agreement with what Rudolph had said about the organization. It is the only national advocacy organization that is concerned with all rail modes in the United States and Canada, from the long-distance trains on Amtrak and VIA Rail to local light rail and streetcar lines, as well as corridors and regional rail lines with magnitudes in-between. It is also concerned with connectivity between modes, including better transit at train stations, an important part of almost every rider’s experience.
I joined RUN in 2003 and was voted onto its Board of Directors in 2005. With only one exception, I have participated in every Conference Committee since that time. RUN conferences provide “continuing education” for advocates and encourage other rail communities, like managers, planners and others on the political scene, to participate at an affordable price. Before the COVID-19 virus hit, RUN held two-day conferences in various cities. When the virus came, it was time to move the conferences to an online format, which has been successful. Since then, RUN has held two such conferences every year, in the spring and fall.
Today, like many longtime RUN members, I am an “elder statesman” who is no longer as active as an advocate as I was in the past. I now concentrate on my reporting for Railway Age, although I will also report on the conference for the RUN Newsletter. RUN still provides a valuable service for me because it helps keep me up to date with developments on the advocacy scene. I know of no other reporters on the passenger rail and transit beat who report regularly on activities in the advocacy movement, even though the advocates are the only people on the scene who represent the interests of train riders and transit riders, people who are often ignored by decision makers, although they should be considered as the primary intended beneficiaries of the trains and transit offered to them.
These are hard times for Amtrak, rail transit, and the people who ride them. The POTUS 47 Administration appears hostile to any mobility that is available to non-motorists, as well as motorists. All transit is under intense pressure and fights to survive, as states and their political subdivisions that support it face increasing financial demands from all sides, while POTUS 47 and Congress reduce their support. The losses are real. Northstar trains in and near Minneapolis will be discontinued at the start of next year, only a few weeks from now. The streetcars on F Street in Washington, D.C. will roll for the last time on March 31, 2026. We will report their obituaries, but that will not help the riders get around.
RUN cannot solve those problems alone, but it is in a position to help advocates and others who care about our trains and rail transit make a best effort in the struggle to keep what we have, and possibly expand our mobility network on rails in the future. One of the ways RUN does this is through its conferences, which provide useful information from knowledgeable advocates and mangers.
There will be more to report on many topics concerning passenger trains and rail transit in the future. As has been the case in the past, some of my reporting will focus on what rider-advocates are doing to help the cause, even though such advocates and their constituents are not often taken seriously as genuine stakeholders on issues pertaining to mobility on rails. Without my long experience at RUN, I would not be able to report as thoroughly on the advocacy scene as I have through the years.
Here are a few “basics” about RUN: The organization advocates for improvements on all modes of rail passenger transportation in the United States and Canada. It is a not-for-profit corporation, and its Board members are all experienced advocates, some of whom have working experience as railroaders. RUN’s activities include the online conferences and its quarterly RUN Newsletter. RUN has individual members and organizational members, which are advisory committees and advocacy organizations. Dues for individuals are $40 per year, with an “introductory” rate of $25 for a new member’s first year.
