Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Union Pacific makes competition case
Union Pacific has argued that its proposed merger with Norfolk Southern would strengthen rail competition by giving shippers a single line alternative across the United States and a stronger option against long haul trucking.
In a June 18 statement, Jennifer Hamann, Union Pacific’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, said the deal is built around growth rather than overlap. She said the combined railroad would connect 88,000 new county to county points and offer single line service in 10,000 lanes.
For shippers, the central promise is simple. Fewer handoffs should mean fewer delays, fewer bills and clearer shipment visibility. Anyone who has watched cargo wait at an interchange knows the issue. A rail handoff can look small on a map, but it can add time, cost and uncertainty to a supply chain.
Road to rail shift sits at the centre
Union Pacific’s argument also reaches beyond rail. Hamann said trucks move 43 percent of all freight ton miles today, making long haul trucking the main target for growth. The company says a larger single line rail network could win freight that now moves by road.
That point matters for intermodal, project cargo and industrial supply chains. Heavy equipment, machinery, steel, chemicals and containerised freight often move through networks where timing and reliability decide whether rail is a viable option.
Hamann said the proposed network would add seven daily intermodal lanes and six manifest trains. She said those services would open new markets for customers and force other railroads to respond through better service, lower prices or both.
Pricing claims face scrutiny
Union Pacific also says single line rail service can lower costs. Hamann cited analysis by economist Mark Israel, saying single line shipments over similar distances are generally 27 percent cheaper than interchanged rail moves.
That claim will be tested in the regulatory process. The deal is under review by the Surface Transportation Board, which must decide whether the merger enhances competition and serves the public interest.
The board accepted the revised merger application on May 28, 2026, after earlier rejecting a December filing as incomplete. The acceptance moved the proposal into a fuller review phase, but it did not signal approval.
Opponents warn of consolidation risk
The merger has drawn resistance from rival railroads, shipper groups and unions. Critics argue that combining Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could reduce competition, raise freight costs and trigger further consolidation in the US rail sector.
A Reuters report in April said a coalition including business groups, rival railroads and labour unions opposed the transaction, arguing it could hurt manufacturers, farmers and consumers. AP has also reported concerns from some unions and customers over service, safety and pricing.
For cargo owners, the question is practical rather than theoretical. Would one coast to coast railroad improve service enough to offset the loss of an independent Class I competitor? That is the issue regulators will have to weigh.
CPKC precedent shapes the argument
Union Pacific has pointed to the Surface Transportation Board’s 2023 approval of the Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern merger. In that case, the board said the end to end nature of the deal created little route overlap and could improve efficiency by eliminating interchanges.
Hamann said the Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern proposal follows the same logic. The company also says its Committed Gateway Pricing plan would preserve options for customers that do not directly gain a new single line route.
Under that plan, customers served by CSX, BNSF or short line partners at one end of a move could still access pricing designed to reflect the benefits of the combined network.
Freight market impact remains the test
The proposed merger would create the first US coast to coast freight railroad. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern say that would improve service reliability, support modal shift from road to rail and expand rail’s addressable market.
Opponents say the same scale could give the merged company greater pricing power. They also warn that rival railroads may seek their own mergers in response.
For maritime, breakbulk and project freight interests, the outcome could influence inland transport choices linked to ports, manufacturing centres and energy projects. A stronger rail bridge across the continent could help cargo owners reduce trucking exposure, but only if service levels and pricing remain competitive.
