Merger Voices
Written by David C. Lester, Editor-in-Chief
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern Photos
ATLANTA –– A Fresh Perspective ~ Railway Track and Structures "From the Dome," July 2026
Since Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern filed their application to merge with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), we’ve heard comments and viewpoints from the usual suspects –– the applicants, shippers, other Class I railroads, industry pundits, labor unions, the White House, Congress, state and local governments, and, as expected, very little from the STB.
Some recent voices which struck me as interesting, and maybe a bit unusual, are found in the long-form commentaries prepared by two former Norfolk Southern officials, Dan Bostek and Steve Blinn. Dan spent just shy of 33 years with NS, last serving as Director of Operating Practices & Special Projects in Atlanta. Steve spent 22 years at NS, last serving as a National Accounts Manager for the metals industry in Chicago. Prior to his time at NS, Steve was BNSF’s Intermodal Hub Manager in Chicago for seven years. After departure from NS, Steve served for a year as president of the Chicago Traffic Club, and a year at the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers (MARS). I’m not acquainted with either of these gentlemen and gleaned this information from their LinkedIn pages. Both are in consulting today.
While most analyses of the proposed merger are focused on “the merger is good for these reasons” or “the merger is bad for these reasons,” Bostek and Blinn look specifically at Norfolk Southern’s situation. Their pieces can be found on their LinkedIn pages, and a recent one, “What if ‘NO’ is the Best Outcome?” can also be found on our sister publication’s website, Railway Age, dated June 8.
First, they describe what will happen if the merger is approved. “Norfolk Southern’s future largely becomes an integration story. Networks will be combined. Operating plans will be combined. Cultures will be combined. The challenge becomes execution.”
Second, “If the merger fails, the challenge becomes something entirely different. It becomes a story about confidence, competition, leadership, technology, and growth. But perhaps most important, it becomes a story about whether Norfolk Southern still believes its best future can be created independently.”
Some recent voices which struck me as interesting, are found in the long-form commentaries prepared by two former Norfolk Southern Officials, Dan Bostek and Steve Blinn.
Essentially, Bostek and Blinn are not arguing for or against the merger. They’re offering their considered opinion that longer-term and more recent actions by NS have weakened the railroad’s ability to forge a path for an independent future should the merger not be approved. The authors describe what NS would “look like” the day after the STB announced the merger was not approved (should that occur):
- “A Chief Operating Officer who has been on the job for a matter of months, whose deep experience is in Union Pacific and CSX operating cultures, not Norfolk Southern.
- “A former Chief Operating Officer still on the payroll as a special advisor through mid-2027, with a $2.25 million retention payment contingent on a closing that will never happen.
- “An organizational structure that was being reshaped to fit inside a larger combined railroad.
- “A workforce that has watched its leadership prepare for a future in which Norfolk Southern, as currently constituted, does not exist.
- “A customer base, a regulator, an investor community and an industry waiting to see what the company will do next.”
Unfortunately, I don’t have the room here to delve into additional detail of the ideas and concerns that Bostek and Blinn offer. While everyone has a point of view, I believe these two gentlemen bring significant credibility to their arguments, being experienced railroaders and having been at Norfolk Southern themselves for nearly a combined total of 60 years. I believe what they have to say is an important part of the narrative.
I’m disappointed at how Norfolk Southern looks during this process. It’s clearly playing second fiddle. Yes, I know that UP is bigger than NS, in terms of both mileage and money. Nevertheless, given what NS has been and has meant to the Eastern U.S. economy since 1982, it’s tough to see.
I may be wrong, but I wonder if NS must have UP approve every statement, all advertising, and even how they’re painting their America250 locomotives. I noted with interest that the NS 1776 locomotive featuring the Liberty Bell, which accompanied UP’s 4014 “Big Boy” on its eastern tour over NS rails, did not have any indication on it that it belonged to NS other than the “Thoroughbred” horse on the nose at each end. And both ends of the locomotive were conveniently obscured by the 4014’s tender and the end of an NS business car. It appears that NS has tried to rectify that on the engine featuring the Statue of Liberty by placing its logo and name on the sides of the flared radiators and under the cab windows, but my guess is that engine will not be part of any train carrying UP equipment other than freight cars.
