FORT WORTH, Texas — BNSF CEO Katie Farmer says the railroad’s initial review of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger application filed today “does not change BNSF’s opposition to the proposed merger.”
CPKC and Canadian National have also issued statements on the filing, with CN saying the application “falls well below both the 2001 and old merger rules set out by the Surface Transportation Board,” while CPKC said it is still reviewing the filing.
Farmer, in a statement issued today (Dec. 19), says the deal “poses a significant threat to the U.S. economy and the American consumer through its long-term competitive harms. It would leave shippers with fewer options — driving higher rates and ultimately higher prices for consumers.” Farmer says the benefits “appear to accrue primarily to shareholders. Past mergers demonstrate the risk of serious service failures with destructive impacts to customers, the U.S. rail network, and the American economy.
“This is precisely why the STB strengthened its merger rules: applicants must now prove their deal will not only preserve but enhance competition; that it serves the public interest, and its purported benefits can’t be delivered through partnerships. BNSF is confident that UP has not met these requirements.”
BNSF has questioned whether UP had complied with conditions of its merger with Southern Pacific [see “BNSF asks STB to review …,” Trains.com, Dec. 1, 2025], and Farmer says “UP has a long history of making promises in past mergers that they back away from once they’ve secured approval.” She said BNSF “remains focused on achieving these same benefits through partnership and collaboration which results in streamlined service, and greater operational flexibility — delivering real, immediate benefits to customers.”
Farmer said BNSF will have more to say about the merger application “soon.”
CN says application fails to meet requirements for approval
In its statement, CN says the UP-NS application “fails to demonstrate that the merger would enhance competition or generate significant public benefits that would require a merger. …
“Protecting competition is not optional, it is essential to keep costs down and the economy sound. The fact is that this merger would reduce rail transportation options for customers while creating a single entity that controls more than 40% of the US freight rail market. Without real railroad competition, prices go up and consumers lose.”
CN said it will be an active participant in the STB process and encourages all stakeholders to participate.
CPKC review of application continuing
CPKC said in a statement that it “will be thoroughly reviewing” the merger application in the coming days, and will examine it from “at least two perspectives: Whether it complies with the Board’s 2001 Major Merger Rules and provides the STB and interested parties an adequate basis for evaluating the public-interest consequences of the UP-NS proposal, [and] whether the UP-NS proposal is consistent with the public interest.”
CPKC said approval “is not inevitable” — echoing an earlier comment by CEO Keith Creel [see “Creel warns UP-NS merger is no’ fait accompli,’” Dec. 2, 2025].
It calls the UP-NS merger “unprecedented in scale and scope” and says it would “radically and permanently change the U.S. rail network. If approved, the merger would pose extraordinary and far-reaching risks to customers, rail employees, and broader supply chains.” CPKC, like CN, said it will be an active participant inevaluation of the merger and called on other stakeholders to “express their views about how this proposed merger would affect their business.”
— Updated at noon CT with CPKC statement; updated at 7:30 p.m. CT with CN statement. To report news or errors, contact trainsnewswire@firecrown.com.
Hey, BNSF, there’s still CSX. That might be a a very compatible and easy to execute merger. No overlap come to mind that couldn’t be resolved favorably. Hurricanes are a different issue.
If I recall, BNSF wanted to merge with CN some 30 years ago. If UP+NS is approved, could these two carriers resurrect this merger proposal, feeling as they must answer? This would leave CPKC and CSX to join up.
BNSF leadership is whining because they weren’t smart enough or aggressive enough to propose their own merger first. First is always better, particularly whenever you want to compete in business. BNSF is in decline and asking for government help is not their best path to profits. BNSF will seek their own merger(s) before railroad consolidation is complete. The BNSF ‘s current reaction to the UP/NS merger is 50 years behind times.
I think BNSF should have heeded their own initials: BNSF…Buy Norfolk-Southern FIRST… But they didn’t… Oh well…
I read the weekly car loading reports, and what I see is most of the time the count is lower than the same period last year….so, it seems to me that merger, or non merger, if the railroads continue to not play nice with each other, they might not have sustainable car loads to make a decent profit in the near future. Why is it that when a railroad wants to merge, everyone that has already merged in the last 50 years wants to complain about such petty stuff? BNSF took under their wings 4 giant railroads. Good for them…so, why shouldn’t another railroad be able to do the same?
She has a point, but her policies with workers smells like a dirty sock. Start at home, Katie.
First get rid of Hi-Viz attendance policy Farmer..