UP, NS Set April 30 Date To Refile Merger Application

Published: February 18, 2026

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have told federal regulators they will submit a revised merger application on April 30, restarting the formal review process for what would become one of the most consequential railroad consolidations in decades. The announcement, delivered in a letter to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), sets a new target after the agency previously determined the companies’ initial submission did not meet key filing requirements.

The April 30 refiling date matters because it effectively reopens the front door to the STB’s merger pipeline. Under modern rules, the board’s evaluation of a major Class I railroad merger is an intensive, evidence-driven process focused on whether a deal serves the public interest—and, critically, whether it can enhance competition, not merely preserve it.

Why the railroads are refiling

UP and NS originally filed their application in late 2025 as part of a plan to combine their operations into a single, coast-to-coast freight network. But in January 2026, the STB rejected (or “declined to accept”) the filing as incomplete, prompting the carriers to return with a revised package addressing the board’s concerns. One recurring theme in coverage of the STB’s decision is the expectation that the refiling will include more complete supporting material—particularly around forecasts, market analysis, and how the transaction would affect shippers and competition over time.

In practical terms, the April 30 date gives the companies time to update the application’s technical components and strengthen the narrative that the merger is not just a scale play, but one that produces measurable public benefits—service improvements, faster end-to-end freight movement, and potentially new single-line routes that supporters say could draw traffic off highways.

A brief overview of the proposed UP–NS merger

The proposed transaction would combine Union Pacific, the largest railroad in the western United States, with Norfolk Southern, a major eastern carrier. The companies have framed the deal as creating “America’s first transcontinental railroad,” built around end-to-end network geography rather than a highly overlapping route map.

Publicly described benefits have centered on building a network spanning more than 50,000 route miles across 43 states, linking a wide range of ports and cross-border gateways with Canada and Mexico. The railroads argue that a combined system could reduce interchanges, simplify long-haul logistics, and create more consistent service for customers that today rely on handoffs between multiple carriers.

The companies have also emphasized that their merger proposal is being evaluated under the STB’s post-2001 merger framework, which is more stringent than prior eras of rail consolidation. That matters because the burden is not merely to show the merger won’t harm competition, but to demonstrate that it can affirmatively improve competitive conditions—an unusually high bar by historical standards.

Support and opposition: the debate taking shape

Even before the revised application is filed, the contours of the debate are familiar to anyone who followed prior rail megamergers: supporters point to operational efficiency and faster coast-to-coast freight options; critics warn about market power, reduced routing choices, and the risk of service disruption during integration.

In recent months, reporting has highlighted that some labor and shipper stakeholders have been weighing in on what the merger could mean for workforce stability and freight competition, while other railroads and industry groups continue to argue that the industry should prioritize cooperation and interoperability rather than consolidation.

For UP and NS, the strategic story is also about geopolitics and modal competition. Canadian carriers already offer coast-to-coast reach within their home network footprints, and U.S. railroads face sustained competition from trucking—especially as trucking continues to improve long-haul efficiency and reliability. Supporters of the merger argue that a single-line transcontinental railroad could be more competitive for time-sensitive freight and could capture additional volumes that might otherwise stay on the highway.

What happens after April 30

If the STB accepts the revised application as complete, the docket would move into a more structured review phase. That typically includes opportunities for formal comments and interventions from states, shippers, labor organizations, competing railroads, ports, and other affected parties—followed by the agency’s deeper analysis of competitive impacts, service plans, and conditions the board might impose.

The STB has also created a dedicated resource page guiding the public to the merger docket and filings, underscoring how document-heavy and procedural the process is likely to be.

Meanwhile, the companies continue to publish their own explanatory materials and links to their prior filing volumes, which outline claimed benefits, competitive analyses, and proposed commitments. Those documents will be reworked and re-presented in the April 30 revision, and they will likely form the backbone of the railroads’ argument that the deal would improve freight transportation outcomes for a broad set of stakeholders.