Welcome to the Spring 2026 edition of Steel Wheels ‘E’ Magazine. I hope you have been able to explore the new features on the RailPAC website and use the tools for information and advocacy. There is also a PDF version of Steel Wheels you can print to read on the train. Also, under Resources Section, keep an eye on the Rail Projects Map feature. Brian Yanity, RailPAC’s VP-South, and RailPAC Director Robert Frampton are working to create an interactive and comprehensive database of rail projects and their status.

In this issue there is an update on the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Railroad merger, the second installment of an overview of Orange County stations and their importance to the communities, RailPAC member Ed D’Amato presents the first part of a multipart article on a strategy to create a robust rail system, there is the outlook for California High Speed Rail in 2026, Brian Yanity gives us a look at the Honolulu’s new Skyline Rapid Transit, we get a look at the fundamentals needed to build Electrolink in Southern California and finally there is an article by Doug Kerr of bus and rail schedule coordination and redeployment of resources north of the Golden Gate.  This should increase convenience for riders.

One of the things I noted in the last issue was that things appeared to be stable at Amtrak. Record ridership and ticket revenues continued into the Fall and in January Congress passed the FY 26 Federal Budget which appropriated sufficient funding for intercity rail operations and capital investment. Then in mid- February the whirlwind began. First, there was a proposed restructuring of Amtrak (we have seen this movie before) and the suspension of the new bi-level initiative.

Under the restructuring proposal the legacy Amtrak Corporation would be a holding company with three subsidiaries – an Infrastructure Management Entity (IME), a Rolling Stock Management Entity (RSME), and an Operating Entity (OE). This restructuring was announced by the FRA but no specific details on the proposal were outlined. The Rail Passengers Association has an excellent overview and discussion of the proposed concept based on what is currently known at –

• Rail Passengers Statement on Proposed Amtrak Restructuring (Rail Passengers Association)
• Passengers React to Restructuring Proposal (Rail Passengers Association)

From my perspective there are two visions of this proposal. The first is that given Amtrak’s portfolio of large construction projects, train maintenance facility construction and ongoing NEC infrastructure maintenance, having a specialized organization focused on project delivery and the contractor and supply chain, can strengthen the relationship and bring efficiency and project time savings. In fact, prior to this proposal, Amtrak recently created a separate capital delivery unit to focus on the NEC megaprojects. To give readers a sense of the scale of the mega-projects in the NEC, Amtrak spends more funds per month on capital projects than California High-Speed Rail does.

On the equipment side, Amtrak has several large equipment procurements underway and planned. Most especially the critical long-distance procurement initiative. Amtrak also holds options for further Airo train sets and locomotives should Congress provide funding. So, a separate equipment entity would position Amtrak to be the manager of the national equipment pool. RSME might also be in a better position than legacy Amtrak to tap private sector funds to finance additional equipment.

Amtrak is also moving toward train set maintenance for its corridor fleets which is completely divorced from the traditional railroad “fix it when it breaks” maintenance strategy. The new train set maintenance requires new management strategies. Finally, in all its recent equipment procurements, Amtrak has also negotiated a builder maintenance contract; the OEM builder organizing, managing, and supervising equipment maintenance and the Amtrak employees doing the work.

The operating entity seems the least changed. Although what is new with this reorganization and what will be a challenge for the OE will be the interfaces between the OE and the other entities especially when these interfaces are outside the normal flow of business. They could easily turn adversarial. For example, it is three hours before train departure and OE needs a mechanic. Instead of a simple call to the yard, now OE must coordinate it through the RSME. Things will be similar when dealing with train slots during a construction project. What happens when there is a late train?

On the negative side, the three-entity concept holds promise but will there be sufficient funding for the entities to deliver their products, good track and working equipment to the operating entity? The other major question is this just a scheme to privatize segments of Amtrak? Currently the operating surplus of the NEC is used to offset operating losses of the other services, giving Amtrak a better topline result than if each business unit reported separately. There are opportunists who have their eye on the NEC operating surplus to finance their privatized NEC operations. Also, these opportunists could easily set up the RSME as a profit center, as was done in Britain in the 1990’s, charging OE lease costs for use of its equipment resulting in increased route operating costs.

The one wild card here is the freight railroads. Some railroads have clearly stated that Amtrak’s legacy rights and avoidable cost access payments for use cannot be transferred to any other entity, public or private. The holding company concept is clearly an attempt to skirt this issue. Will the freight railroads agree, or will this reorg be tied up in court for the next 10-years?

Finally, Amtrak over the years has adopted policies and reorganizations to adapt to current political winds and survive the churning waters. In doing so Amtrak tries to influence the outcome. Is this a similar situation?

The suspension of the bi-level equipment procurement brings much disappointment. It is the second manufacturing supply chain failure western train riders have seen. The first was the state procurement of bi-level cars for the state funded trains. If fully carried to the western long-distance trains, it means that there will be no elevated scenery viewing area on these routes. The Rail Passengers Association has an excellent overview and discussion of the proposed concept based on what is currently known at Less Risky, Less Costly: Amtrak’s New LD Strategy (Rail Passengers Association)

While this initiative promises to bring new equipment into service quicker and with less expense there are some downsides. While the new equipment will bring maintenance expense savings and reliability benefits it will also result in increased costs (bi-level trains or forgone cost savings on current single-level trains). Single-level trains require more assistant conductors, can require more food service cars, and increase overhead costs where those costs are allocated based on the number of cars using a facility.

I hope Amtrak can maintain the Accessible Core concept in the new single-level fleet (they did have designs that were shown initially). The Accessible Core is key to a separate diner and lounge car and allowing wider seats and wider compartments outside of the accessible core. I also hope they can retain some of the new designs for a wider array of passenger accommodations.

Unfortunately, rail riders have already seen the less costly, available sooner rail cars on their trains, the Siemens Venture cars. These “contract failure settlement” rail cars were the result of the Nippon Sharyo bi-level failure. The big question is who will dominate the Amtrak single-level car procurement, will it be the “passenger experience” design team, or like the Venture Cars will the financial teams at the sponsoring agency (Amtrak) and the FRA dominate?

I also find the question on elevators a “red herring”.  There are full-size elevators in California Café Cars, Stadler Rocky Mountaineer bi-levels, Alaska Railroad Gold Class bi-levels and on cruise ships which often face very rough sea conditions.

In the end Amtrak staff should be applauded for crafting a signature, experiential product vision for the long-distance train that tried to balance the accessibility requirements with a design that maintained traditional features, separate diner and lounge cars, wide seats and wide compartments all while maximizing the revenue productivity similar to the current Superliner fleet.  Ride and enjoy the Superliners while you can.