Eastern Railroad Discussion > Union Pacific Acquisition of Norfolk Southern

UP refiles paperwork to STB Thursday. What do you all think the probability is of the acquisition going through? Would I get a higher probability on the Western Board?

I say 80%. Is this politically incorrect to ask, considering the steam powered celebration UP is sponsoring?

Victor Baird

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/26 19:53 by wabash2800.

Personally I’m not in favor of it, but I think the odds are closer to 100% than 80% of it happening.

Steve Gass
Linden, VA
B-LineRailfan

Oh boy, you better get ready for some of the most absurd and hypocritical manifesto-like posts with this question. My educated guess, the merger is ultimately approved.

Posted from Android

There may be some window dressing with trackage rights, maybe some non-essential spinoffs or line sales, but the deal is highly likely to get done.  IMHO

like to see them welcoming  amtrak to new service if it should ever happen, like CPKC offered to do  (sunset daily?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/26 22:41 by dan.

I hope it happens and confident it will.

Posted from iPhone

DM1980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope it happens and confident it will.
>
> Posted from iPhone

This merger is UP's way of out flanking BNSF on intermodal growth, as long as the merged companies use the opportunity (alot of doubters think they won't - we'll see).

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android

I dunno, there were a lot of industry groups lining up against it. And those groups have a lot of influence in Congress. Clearly UP is playing to Trump's ego in an attempt to circumnavigate those lobbyists, but not sure just how far that will go.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Trump has said he "likes competition" to help the people, and isn't too keen on helping a struggling airline right now.  

I predict the merger will NOT happen.  UP has pissed off too many customers.  Now imagine if during all these years UP offered great service, was happy and eager to greet new customers on existing spurs (UP MANAGMENT--ARE YOU READING THIS???), and worked hard to improve carload service?  You know what--those same customers would be happily writing letters in support of the merger.  But UP treated everyone like trash (and I picked up freight from some of them....), so now UP looks dumb.

All they had to do was be nice and offer good service.  But UP doesn't want to do that.  They want a stranglehold.

DM1980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope it happens and confident it will.
>
> Posted from iPhone


I will be curious to know if you STILL feel this way say 5 years AFTER merger approval (eyeroll)...?!?!?

Posted from Android

What UP and NS have in common as it pertains to Amtrak is that they will abuse them until they get sued. This merger likely means Atlanta - New Orleans becomes a PSR parking lot. 

Some folks like it for their yearning of a coast-to-coast railroad like Canada has. 
Will Omaha wipe Altoona off the map or at least reduce It to a fueling station as Conrail did to most non-Penn Central nerve centers and NS did to Roanoke to favor Altoona  ?  

NS is not exactly teetering on bankruptcy, so I see no need for this merger, which I think is a done deal anyway, and they want it done before the Nov 2028 election when the White House and STB are likely to flip parties. 

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/26 04:53 by joemvcnj.

Agreed.  I hope it doesn't happen and my thoughts are that it won't 

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump has said he "likes competition" to help the
> people, and isn't too keen on helping a struggling
> airline right now.  
>
> I predict the merger will NOT happen.  UP has
> pissed off too many customers.  Now imagine if
> during all these years UP offered great service,
> was happy and eager to greet new customers on
> existing spurs (UP MANAGMENT--ARE YOU READING
> THIS???), and worked hard to improve carload
> service?  You know what--those same customers
> would be happily writing letters in support of the
> merger.  But UP treated everyone like trash (and
> I picked up freight from some of them....), so now
> UP looks dumb.
>
> All they had to do was be nice and offer good
> service.  But UP doesn't want to do that.  They
> want a stranglehold.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump has said he "likes competition" to help the
> people, and isn't too keen on helping a struggling
> airline right now.  
>
> I predict the merger will NOT happen.  UP has
> pissed off too many customers.  Now imagine if
> during all these years UP offered great service,
> was happy and eager to greet new customers on
> existing spurs (UP MANAGMENT--ARE YOU READING
> THIS???), and worked hard to improve carload
> service?  You know what--those same customers
> would be happily writing letters in support of the
> merger.  But UP treated everyone like trash (and
> I picked up freight from some of them....), so now
> UP looks dumb.
>
> All they had to do was be nice and offer good
> service.  But UP doesn't want to do that.  They
> want a stranglehold.

Just like clockwork, manifesto #1 from a known BNSF foamer! You guys are so predictable.

AaronJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh boy, you better get ready for some of the most
> absurd and hypocritical manifesto-like posts with
> this question. My educated guess, the merger is
> ultimately approved.
>
> Posted from Android

I guess it takes a manifesto-writer to know one. Look in the mirror, please, "AaronJ". You have a long history of writing them here on TO.

Like many of us, I'll read the newly submitted document with interest, particularly as to material related to support of competition by the proposed merger which was not in the first submission, and which the STB requested. That's important to the STB and in this document, and likely also to winning support from shippers.

I'll also be looking for their support for another key point they cite for the merger, the development of so-called "watershed" traffic in the central US where eastern and western lines currently meet. The applicants have in public statements been hanging a lot on that, contending that the merger is the only viable way to develop traffic in that area and take it away from trucks. Quite a few of us have been skeptical, myself included, and have asked in many discussions why the merger is necessary and the same thing can't happen through coordinated run-through trains and services between and eastern and western carrier. A point which both BNSF and other carriers have also made.

Also relevant are some of the details of connections and traffic flows through major gateways in the center of the country, such as Chicago and St. Louis. Some have been skeptical of some of the facilities rationalization that were stated for example in Chicago, where for example the ex-MP/L&N nee-C&EI Yard Center yard in Dolton / South Holland, IL was planned for closure in the first submission, with its work being shifted to other yards.

No manifestos needed to read and study those sections, and much more. And after reading, to then formulate a viewpoint, to later also take into account the filed responses and testimony to the STB.

MC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/26 06:37 by ironmtn.

ironmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess it takes a manifesto-writer to know one.
> Look in the mirror, please, "AaronJ". You have a
> long history of writing them here on TO.
>
> Like many of us, I'll read the newly submitted
> document with interest, particularly as to
> material related to support of competition by the
> proposed merger which was not in the first
> submission, and which the STB requested. That's
> important to the STB and in this document, and
> likely also to winning support from shippers.
>
> I'll also be looking for their support for another
> key point they cite for the merger, the
> development of so-called "watershed" traffic in
> the central US where eastern and western lines
> currently meet. The applicants have in public
> statements been hanging a lot on that, contending
> that the merger is the only viable way to develop
> traffic in that area and take it away from trucks.
> Quite a few of us have been skeptical, myself
> included, and have asked in many discussions why
> the merger is necessary and the same thing can't
> happen through coordinated run-through trains and
> services between and eastern and western carrier.
> A point which both BNSF and other carriers have
> also made.
>
> Also relevant are some of the details of
> connections and traffic flows through major
> gateways in the center of the country, such as
> Chicago and St. Louis. Some have been skeptical of
> some of the facilities rationalization that were
> stated for example in Chicago, where for example
> the ex-MP/L&N nee-C&EI Yard Center yard in Dolton
> / South Holland, IL was planned for closure in the
> first submission, with its work being shifted to
> other yards.
>
> No manifestos needed to read and study those
> sections, and much more. And after reading, to
> then formulate a viewpoint, to later also take
> into account the filed responses and testimony to
> the STB.
>
> MC


Ah yes, I knew ol' MC would add a multi-paragraph manifesto while throwing insults at me. Classic MC!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/26 06:42 by AaronJ.

From UP's perspective, the war against Iran is extremely poorly timed in this merger. There's a lot of sensitivity in Congress about America's energy independence and export capability.  And specifically the already concentrated rail situation in Baton Rouge - New Orleans.  It is unlikely the UP will voluntarily give up any of its lock on refineries, chemical traffic, etc so there may be some work around.  I would need to see the specifics of the chemical makers, refiners, etc statements to know what these could be. Maybe a terminal railroad, sale of some lines to Watco, G&W, etc or a fig leaf of some sort.

For what it is worth, I have pretty good confidence this merger will happen.  More or less in its current configuration.

My first instinct is that it will go through, but I also remember how everyone thought BNSF and CN was a slam dunk. My personal opinion is there isn't anything that the merged company could do that the two companies alone couldn't do by cooperating better with each other now. If I were an STB board member, (and this would probably be one of the reasons why I would never get a job like that) I would tell them to go prove what they could do working together for say two years and then revisit whether the merger is a good idea or not. As I have said many times, what are the railroads going to use for a magic fix when there are no more railroads left to merge? 50 to 60 years ago I do think a lot of mergers probably made sense. At this point, I don't think mergers really fix any of the fundamental problems the railroads have, namely, poor service. If anything, I think the mergers will make that worse. The bigger a company becomes the less important any individual customer becomes. My perspective comes from working for a small company where EVERY customer is important, and providing the service they need is the only thing that keeps us alive. I hear some class one management talking about having the short line mentality, but even if they actually do believe it, ( questionable) ultimately I don't think the stockholders buy into that notion, which makes it pretty much meaningless. As long as Wall Street is obsessed with squeezing every last nickel out of the companies, I don't think any merger or anything else is gonna make a huge difference. Wall Street's goals, and the goals of a good transportation company are basically incompatible in my opinion.

Posted from iPhone

Fifty years ago, the big trend was conglomerates. Companies combining into bigger and bigger companies. Making everything from phone systems to hotel rooms to pine trees to pensions in one big company. Guys like Harold Geneen, Henry Singleton, Gerry Tsai, etc were lauded as heroes. Fortune even wondered what would happen when there weren't enough companies to fill the Fortune 500 index.

Then, creating value for shareholders came along and people like Rand Araskog broke up Harold Geneen's colossus of a company. Selling off businesses and distributing the profits. The initiative became a scramble and most of the big companies were broken up. The railroads have proven that they can't manage the complex organizations they have created.  But they've also proven that layering dollars all over DC will win a lot of friends and pave over many obstacles.

 

Ironmtn, Junctiontower and the rest of the manifesto writers:

Bravo on well thought out and sensible ideas put onto “paper”.

I am also a doubting Thomas on the UP/NS “merger” but then again 29 years in this industry has made me a raging cynic. I’m afraid I’m in the 80% sure that it’s a done deal club. Remember Vena has been been the AAR Bagman on this and UPRR has “donated” 5 Million (IIRC) to Donnie’s East Wing Dance Hall and Chicken Wing emporium; all out of the heart of UPRR and to help Build America of course.

The amount of hubris and PSR arrogance along with Wall Street greed and corruption in this issue has been staggering, even for this industry. My only hope against hope is that there are enough Bagmen in the shippers groups and industries that will be affected by this move to counteract UPRR’s play.

This is a move driven solely on Wall Street greed and Vena’s ego. Period.

Regards

Posted from iPhone

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My first instinct is that it will go through, but
> I also remember how everyone thought BNSF and CN
> was a slam dunk...

Yes, and SP and ATSF= SPSF was gonna be a slam dunk.  Shouldn'ta Painted So Fast.

mapboy