BNSF, CSX and CPKC Urge STB to Freeze UP–Norfolk Southern Merger Review Over Errata Pile-Up

Why Three Railroads Are Trying to Slow the UP–Norfolk Southern Merger Review

Three Class I railroads—BNSF Railway, CSX and CPKC—told the Surface Transportation Board this week that Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have repeatedly altered the evidence behind their proposed $85 billion merger, and they want the regulator to freeze a central traffic study before the rest of the industry has to respond.

The opponents say the application has been amended four times, three times after the STB accepted it as complete in late May. They count more than 200 pages of errata in about 50 days and note that over Labor Day weekend UP and NS submitted 2,446 new or replacement files totaling 272 gigabytes. The reason, they argue, is not routine cleanup: the Hunt/Oliver Wyman diversion report—the part of the case projecting highway trucks removed and savings to shippers—contains what they call 'fundamental errors.' That report says the merger would take about 2.1 million trucks off highways and save shippers $3.5 billion annually.

BNSF, CSX and CPKC want the STB to require UP and NS to certify by September 19 that the Hunt/Oliver Wyman report will not change again. With public comments due November 18, they say participants are being asked to respond to a 'moving target' under a Board-set schedule. BNSF also filed a separate notice saying the merger is not in the public interest, arguing it would serve UP/NS shareholders and management by raising rates on captive shippers and reducing competitive options.

What the STB Fight Reveals About the UP–NS Case

The filing is as much a calendar fight as a substantive one. The three railroads are not asking the STB to rule immediately on whether the merger is lawful; they are asking it to force a certification before comments are due. That would fix the record competitors must answer and publicly anchor the claim that UP and NS cannot present stable numbers.

The Unusual Procedural Attack on the Application

Normally, merger opponents attack the market analysis; here they are first attacking the integrity of the filing itself. More than 200 pages of errata in 50 days and a 272-gigabyte Labor Day weekend replacement are not typical for a completed application. Because the Board accepted the filing as complete in late May, the serial revisions create a procedural question: which version of the application are other parties supposed to analyze before the November 18 deadline?

Why BNSF’s Separate Filing Focuses on Captive Shippers

BNSF’s argument is a blunt competitive warning. If Union Pacific’s strategy to 'maximize price' is applied to the Norfolk Southern network, shippers with few realistic alternatives—farmers, chemical companies and other rail-dependent businesses—would bear higher costs. That is a specific anti-consolidation argument, not merely a procedural complaint. It tells the STB that the harm would be concentrated on shippers who cannot credibly move freight to a truck or another railroad.

What the Disputed Diversion Estimates Actually Carry

The Hunt/Oliver Wyman report is doing heavy public-interest work: it projects roughly 2.1 million trucks removed from highways and $3.5 billion in annual shipper savings. If that study is revised again, the promised benefits remain unproven on the record. The opponents’ claim that fixing one error creates or reveals another suggests the Board cannot yet rely on the current figures when weighing competitive harm against efficiency gains.

What Shippers, Investors and Competitors Should Track Next

For shippers, logistics managers and investors, the immediate question is whether the STB forces Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern to freeze their traffic study by September 19 and whether the record stays stable before comments close on November 18.

• Use the September 19 certification request as a tripwire. If the STB orders the Hunt/Oliver Wyman analysis frozen by that date, assume the current figures are the record; if UP and NS revise again, expect the comment period to become contested or slip.
• Prepare a November 18 submission if you rely on UP or NS routes. BNSF’s captive-shipper argument offers a ready framework for documenting lanes where no truck or rail alternative is practical.
• Treat the $3.5 billion annual shipper savings and 2.1 million truck diversion figures as disputed. Do not build network plans or contract assumptions on them until the underlying Hunt/Oliver Wyman work is certified and tested by opposing evidence.
• Watch for a procedural ruling before debating the merger’s merits. A decision on the certification request will signal whether the Board believes the application is stable enough for a substantive review on the current calendar.