Despite a snow squall that snarled traffic and shut down Chicago’s airports for a couple of hours, the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers (MARS) opened its 2026 Winter Meeting with more than 1,100 registered attendees. Always an interesting forum, this year’s meeting took place soon after Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern filed their merger application. To say the proposed merger dominated the discussion is an understatement. MARS met all expectations with speakers from four of the six Class I’s.*
Keith Creel, President and CEO of CPKC, opened the conference pointing out that the bar the proposed merger is projecting may be difficult to achieve. “The devil is in the details,” he said. Creel noted that if 20% of traffic can be improved, the other 80% of shippers should ask how it will benefit them. “Is it worth it to benefit just 20%?” he asked. He encouraged rail customers to carefully consider what is at stake in the proposed merger. “Are we creating something that is too big to fail? That is what you have to ask yourself,” he said, urging stakeholders “to make their perspectives heard before the Surface Transportation Board. “Raise your voices,” encouraging the shippers to speak up as to what they need in relationship as to what the proposed merger would provide.
Katie Farmer, President and CEO BNSF, joined the conference for a “fireside chat” that had an expectedly major focus on the proposed merger. Farmer pointed out that the projected growth rate of the merger proposal is being questioned. She referenced statistics from previous mergers not being able to achieve the proposed objectives in merger applications. Another point Farmer emphasized was the failure of the Open Gateway concept not working in Laredo border crossing, given the restrictions placed on motor vehicle, unit train and intermodal moves, resulting in only 1% of possible traffic enjoying the benefit of an Open Gateway. “Why would it work now?” she asked. Farmer also emphasized that shippers should make their voice heard, asking “is it worth the saving of a few minutes of switching time to experience what has happened after previous mergers?” and “Does this merger preserve competition?”
Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena respond to some of the criticism of the proposed merger, employing some rather colorful language,” like the word “b_____t.” Vena urged participants to make their decision “based on the facts, not emotion.” He stressed the positive aspects of the proposal and illustrated an example of traffic traveling from UP’s North Platte, Neb. yard to Conway Yard, Pittsburgh on NS, claiming a reduction of 48 hours’ transit time by avoiding an interchange in Chicago and reclassification in Elkhart, Ind., before making the final run to Conway Yard. Vena also said that intermodal’s “sweet spot” is a 750- to 1,500-mile haul for possible capture of over-the-road market share.
Union Pacific issued a lengthy statement saying the MARS meeting “provided a welcome opportunity to correct misinformation spread by opponents.”
“We knew our competitors would oppose the merger, and we understand why,” said Vena. “This is a transformational merger that will inject more competition into the railroad industry and force them to enhance their service, reduce their price, or do both. While our opponents appear to be stuck in the past, we are taking a bold step that will reinvigorate the rail industry and make the entire U.S. supply chain stronger. We are not content to compete for share of a shrinking railroad industry. America needs strong, innovative railroads to shoulder the weight of a growing U.S. economy, and we are going to deliver. Single-line transcontinental rail service will inject new competitive energy into the railroad industry and provide stronger competition with long-haul trucking. Opponents say that if the two railroads merge, customers will lose a competitive option for their shipping, but that’s not the case. The combination of Union Pacific in the West and Norfolk Southern in the East is a classic end-to-end merger with virtually no overlap. Customers understand this, which is why more than 500 shippers provided letters of support for the application.
“The merger will lower costs by reducing handoffs and using faster, more efficient and price-competitive routes. Opponents say the merger will drive prices up for shippers. They have no evidence, so they simply use it as a scare tactic. The reality is that single-line, coast-to-coast service is more cost efficient, which is a big win for U.S. businesses and consumers. According to a study by leading industry advisor Oliver Wyman, interline merchandise traffic moving 1,000 to 1,500 miles costs on average 35% more than comparable single-line service, just one example of the savings.
“One of the biggest wins will be more reliable rail service. Opponents say mergers in the rail industry lead to service disruptions, citing as evidence a merger (Union Pacific and Southern Pacific) that happened 30 years ago. This argument ignores the massive technology investments and advances that have transformed railroad operations over the last three decades. The reality is the merger will enhance reliability, as several independent experts who have looked at current facts agree. Both railroads run well today. Because it is an end-to-end merger, most traffic moving on the two networks will not be affected. Most yards and terminals will not experience any significant merger-related increase in activity levels. The primary impacts will be on traffic the railroads currently interchange, streamlining how it is handled and reducing opportunities for service disruptions.
“The combined company will also be more resilient due to the greater availability of main line track, terminals, crews, locomotives and rail cars required to keep traffic flowing. A transcontinental network with 50,000 route-miles will have more options for rapidly rerouting traffic to avoid congested areas or weather. The superior service product of a transcontinental railroad will produce growth. Opponents claim the respected independent experts who produced growth forecasts for the merger application are wrong because previous rail mergers have not produced hoped-for growth. However, no previous merger has created coast-to-coast single-line service or offered cost-effective rail service to the chronically underserved watershed region. The analysis in the application shows that when single-line rail service is available, market share grows.
“The merger application is comprehensive and transparent. Opponents claim they need to hear ‘the rest of the story’ regarding plans for the merger. However, the comprehensive nearly 7,000-page application to the Surface Transportation is available for public review and includes detailed operating plans, market analysis and integration information. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern will work transparently with the members and staff of the Surface Transportation Board in the merger proceeding to ensure they have the information they need. And the merger includes unprecedented protection for union railroaders. Opponents say the merger will be bad for railroad employees because they could be transferred between locations. The facts are Union Pacific has pledged that every employee with a union job when the merger is approved will continue to have one, and is the first and only railroad to reach groundbreaking jobs-for-life agreements with multiple unions.
“We have had fantastic interactions with customers at the MARS meeting. Despite what you’ll hear from our competitors and some of the association lobbyists in Washington, the customers we talk with understand the benefits of single-line service and are excited about how a transcontinental network can make them more efficient and competitive.”
CN Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Office Janet Drysdale stated that while CN is not specifically objecting to the mergers, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have not provided enough information related to retaining competitiveness in the U.S.” Being wrong could result in congestion and delays and be devastating to the industry,” she noted.
One of the most entertaining and informative sessions was luncheon speaker Dr. Christopher Kuel from Armada Corporation, and his comments on the economy and what we might expect in 2026. “We are clawing our way up into a good recovery as the year progresses,” he said. Kuel noted a “2030 work force collapse as the last of the Baby Boomers retires and the newer generations do not have the collective skills to operate manufacturing. Watch for more AI and robotics as replacements for l this generational and historic knowledge.”
Independent analyst Tony Hatch closed out the conference Tony pointing out that “the argument is growth vs. profit. Can we grow using our capital expenditures, or do we have to provide high profits.” He noted that “many of the current rail executives are former CN people.” On the positive side for 2026, “labor is at peace. Technology improvements and trucking equilibrium will be a benefit, along with partnerships and cooperation of short lines.”
