Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have formally asked the Surface Transportation Board to approve a merger that would create the first end-to-end transcontinental freight railroad in U.S. history. The application, filed following a July 29, 2025, merger agreement, outlines how the combined network would reshape rail competition, freight efficiency, and supply-chain performance across the country.
Spanning nearly 7,000 pages, the filing positions the transaction as a classic end-to-end merger rather than a consolidation of overlapping routes. Union Pacific dominates the western U.S., while Norfolk Southern serves the East, with minimal network duplication. Together, the companies argue that the merger would remove the long-standing operational divide between eastern and western rail systems that has historically required freight to be handed off between carriers.
If approved, the merged railroad would operate roughly 50,000 route miles across 43 states and connect more than 100 ports and 10 international gateways to Canada and Mexico. A central claim in the application is the conversion of 10,000 existing interline lanes into single-line service, eliminating time-consuming handoffs that add cost and delay.
According to the companies, this shift would:
The filing also estimates that as many as 2 million truckloads of freight could shift from highways to rail each year as single-line service expands into markets where rail has struggled to compete.
A central concern in any major rail merger is competition. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern emphasize that only three customer locations—out of more than 20,000 served by the two railroads—would lose access to a second rail carrier. To further address shipper concerns, the companies propose several voluntary commitments, including keeping all existing gateways open on commercially reasonable terms.
They also plan to introduce “Committed Gateway Pricing,” a mechanism designed to simplify and stabilize pricing for interline traffic in markets that may not directly benefit from new single-line routes. The goal, according to the filing, is to expand competitive options rather than restrict them.
The application frames the merger as a catalyst for economic activity, particularly in the central U.S. “Watershed” region—areas historically underserved by rail because east-west handoffs made service costly and complex. Industry analysis cited in the filing suggests more than 100,000 carloads of freight could shift from road to rail in these markets once single-line service becomes available.
Environmental impacts also feature prominently. Freight rail already produces significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than trucking on a per-ton-mile basis. By increasing rail’s share of long-haul freight and improving network efficiency, the companies argue the merger would further reduce emissions while easing congestion and wear on public roadways.
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern commit to protecting all existing union jobs, pledging that any workforce efficiencies would occur only through attrition. They also project roughly 900 net new union jobs within three years of closing, driven by anticipated traffic growth.
On safety, the companies submitted a joint integration plan developed with the Federal Railroad Administration, combining operating practices and technologies from both railroads. The filing highlights recent safety performance improvements at each company as evidence of readiness for integration.
Financially, the merger plan includes approximately $2.1 billion in incremental capital investment to support integration and growth, along with projected annual capital synergies of $133 million.
The proposed transaction remains subject to extensive regulatory review and public comment, with ongoing oversight by the Surface Transportation Board if approved. The companies expect a decision within the statutory review timeline and anticipate closing the transaction in early 2027.
If approved, the merger would mark the most significant restructuring of the U.S. freight rail system in decades—one that proponents say could redefine how goods move across the country, while critics and regulators closely scrutinize its long-term competitive impacts.
