Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, who first announced a planned merger last summer, officially refiled their application to combine forces on April 30. The two railroads were forced to resubmit their plans to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) after the body ruled its initial application incomplete in January - a month after UP & NS officially made their submission.
So what does the new application contain that the original was missing, and where does that put the merger's chances - and timeline - moving forward? We'll examine those questions, the implications of a combined transcontinental railroad, and what the other Class 1 railroads are doing in the meantime below.
Why did the Surface Transportation Board reject the initial railroad merger application?
The STB send UP and NS back to the drawing board after a review of their first merger application, saying the document lacked "certain information required by the Board’s regulations." The Board did stress the rejection was purely based on incompleteness, and not an indication of how it would rule if and when a resubmission occurred. More specifically, the STB ruling found three components lacking:
-
That its impact analyses did not contain a full market analysis consistent with claims regarding growth via diversion of traffic from trucks and other rail carriers
- That the related application for control of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (TRRA) is listed as "minor," which the STB said should be called "significant"
-
That the application was missing certain required documents that defined their obligations.
The finding came as BNSF and CN both filed motions asking more information be required from UP and NS.
What does the updated Union Pacific - Norfolk Southern merger application include?
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern attempted to address missing information cited by the STB in their updated application submitted at the end of April, by including what they say is full traffic data provided by all six class 1 railroads, rather than STB sample data – "making it the most thorough assessment of market and operational impacts ever." The joint applicants say they've addressed each shortcoming the Board noted, including:
-
More detailed market share projections that account for the growth the combined railroad expects to achieve related to shifts from trucks and other railroad combinations to its coast-to-coast service
-
Addressing transparency concerns by entering more merger documents than required into the public record
-
A commitment to divest or otherwise relinquish control of TRRA as a condition to the merger’s close
Beyond addressing what was deemed incomplete, UP and NS say their merger will still keep at least two class 1 options available for any lane and save shippers who move from truck to rail an estimated $3.5 billion each year. That transition, according to their analysis, will also take 2.1 million trucks off the road (saving 3.8 million metric tons of annual CO2 emissions), and add 1,200 net new union jobs by its third year, up from 900 projected in their original application.
What does the revised UP and NS merger mean for intermodal?
Intermodal service - and thus market share - should improve in a number of ways post-merger according to Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, including:
-
Seven new premium intermodal lanes operating daily (adding a lane from Northern California to the Southeast on top of the original application)
-
88,000 county to county lanes, up from 84,000 in the first filing
-
Removal of interchange handoffs on many lanes that will save 24 to 48 hours (and related costs) in some instances
-
Elimination of 2,550 rail car and container handlings and 65,000 car miles daily (up from 2,400 and 60,000 initially)
All of these factors are expected to make the switch from truckload to intermodal more appealing to shippers, thus leading to greater anticipated annual savings of $3.5 billion. Beyond the projected switch from 2.1 million truckloads to intermodal, the application also expects 303,000 intermodal containers shifting from other rail carriers.
Intermodal was a particular area some felt was left uncovered in the original application, so these details offer some additional details for the freight mode.
What do competitors think of the amended rail merger application?
Other class 1 railroads including CSX, BNSF, CN and CPKC all voiced initial opposition to the merger when it was first announced and applied for - and that attitude appears not to have changed with the amended filing. In fact, BNSF and CPKC joined with the Teamsters Rail Conference, National Industrial Transportation League, Alliance for Chemical Distribution, American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation and Vinyl Institute to launch the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition in conjunction with the refiling.
In sum, the Coalition argues the merger will drive up consumer costs, weaken the workforce and hurt the U.S. supply chain. CSX has launched its own website it says is a resource for stakeholders to determine the merger's impact. On the homepage, the railroad indicates it believes "the proposed transaction would create an industry imbalance that would reduce viable options for shippers."
CN has continued to voice its opposition even after the revision, saying the new application is still missing important information to evaluate the merger's impacts while also not offering "meaningful competitive enhancements." The Canadian railroad has submitted updated comments to the STB to that effect as well.
On the flip side, UP and NS have a page devoted to backers of the merger, on which they say they've received more than 2,000 letters of support. Key industry backers include the SMART TD labor union along with Hub Group - one of the country's largest intermodal carriers - and Knight-Swift Transportation representing truckload.
What's next for the UP-NS railroad merger?
Following the submission of the amended merger application, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern say they expect the $85 billion deal to close in the first half of 2027. Industry analysts tend to agree with that timeline, though some believe it could take longer. If it does, the two sides can walk away with no deal in place by January 28, 2028. If one of the railroads decides to back out before then for other reasons, they'd be responsible for a $2.5 billion breakup fee.
Public comments on the revised application were due May 8, with any replies by the applicants due today. Following that, the review period begins.
What are railroads doing with intermodal in the meantime?
In addition to new intermodal services announced last year, more offerings continue to come online in 2026. Most recently, Norfolk Southern announced new intermodal service between Cincinnati and Atlanta. New facilities have also gone up for BNSF and CSX, the latter of whom also announced an improved Southeast to Mexico service in partnership with CPKC - leading to service about 2.5 days faster between Atlanta and Central Mexico.
Overall, with the pending merger and increased partnerships among railroads, intermodal service is on the upswing just as rising fuel costs and lower rates make it an enticing alternative for truckload shippers' bottom line.
If you're looking to find savings without sacrificing service, our experts here at InTek are ready to help. Simply fill in our brief form, and we'll get right back to you with solutions to fit your needs. For more information about InTek, or logistics and supply chain issues in general, check out our Freight Guides.
