<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">When it comes to delivering freight, speed is important, but in an uncertain economy, money often matters most. Shippers are turning to slower, lower-priced transportation options, both international and domestic, deferring delivery of freight and better managing inventory pipelines to cut transportation costs.</div>

When it comes to delivering freight, speed is important, but in an uncertain economy, money often matters most. Shippers are turning to slower, lower-priced transportation options, both international and domestic, deferring delivery of freight and better managing inventory pipelines to cut transportation costs.

<div>When it comes to delivering freight, speed is important, but in an uncertain economy, money often matters most. Shippers are turning to slower, lower-priced transportation options, both international and domestic, deferring delivery of freight and better managing inventory pipelines to cut transportation costs.That’s true for trucking as well as international air freight. Not only are shippers moving more over-the-road truckload freight to intermodal rail, but they’re looking for lower-cost options for less-than-truckload freight, too, whether consolidating freight into truckloads or rethinking how they ship freight on pallets and packages.At FedEx Freight, the trend is evident in strong demand for lower-priced,...

When it comes to delivering freight, speed is important, but in an uncertain economy, money often matters most. Shippers are turning to slower, lower-priced transportation options, both international and domestic, deferring delivery of freight and better managing inventory pipelines to cut transportation costs. That’s true for trucking as well as international air freight. Not only are shippers moving more over-the-road truckload freight to intermodal rail, but they’re looking for lower-cost options for less-than-truckload freight, too, whether consolidating freight into truckloads or rethinking how they ship freight on pallets and packages. At FedEx Freight, the trend is evident in strong demand for lower-priced, deferred economy service, which has been growing rapidly during the last several quarters while demand for higher priced priority service declines slowly. “Most of our business now comes from customers who use both economy and priority,” FedEx Freight President and CEO William J. Logue said in an interview. “Priority is a big part of our business, but in the past year, we’ve seen some good growth in the economy business. Our objective is to make sure that whether a customer picks priority or economy, we’re there with that option.” After a sweeping re-engineering of its network in 2011, the nation’s largest less-than-truckload carrier now offers two levels of service, priority and economy, on all lanes for all shipments — a strategy modeled on its parent company’s parcel business. And although faster priority freight accounts for 68.7 percent of the $5 billion carrier’s shipments, its economy service is on track for expedited growth. Although the numbers show priority shipments account for most of FedEx Freight’s volume, the more rapid growth is in economy shipments. The company’s total LTL shipments per day rose 1 percent in the fiscal quarter that ended Feb. 28, but priority shipments dropped 2 percent, while economy shipments surged 8 percent. Revenue per hundredweight — or yield — for priority shipments declined 1 percent to $17.87, but the average economy shipment yield jumped 8 percent to $26.17. A year ago, economy freight accounted for 27.9 percent of FedEx Freight’s shipments. Today that percentage has risen to 31.3 percent, propelled by volume gains of 10 percent on average over the past three quarters. In comparison, priority shipments were flat in the fiscal quarter that ended last Aug. 30, were down 1 percent in the Nov. 30 quarter and fell 2 percent in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. Shippers, apparently, are increasingly willing to wait an extra day for delivery to save some cash. According to Logue, economy service typically delivers goods in three to four days, while priority takes two to three days at most. Those economy trips increasingly include an intermodal rail leg. Two years ago, FedEx Freight put no shipments on the rails. Now the LTL carrier uses trailer-on-flatcar intermodal as a regular alternative to over-the-road line-haul between major cities. “About 14 percent of the miles we travel are on the rail now,” Logue said. “We will always look at lanes and see what the opportunities are as we grow. If the railroads can hit those delivery parameters, the scheduled times, we’ll talk.” Some consultants and analysts question whether FedEx Freight isn’t cannibalizing its own earnings potential and slowing its revenue growth by offering economy or priority service for every shipment it handles. The company is sticking with its model, though, insisting the dual approach is a business necessity. “We’re allowing the customers to decide,” Logue said. “They have a choice now.” And if customers choose a lower-priced option, it can still be a FedEx option. Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com and follow him at twitter.com/wbcassidy_joc .

Trucking News

Supply chain

Shippers Turn to Slower Service for Bigger Savings

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A Canadian bitcoin miner that faced customs delays bringing specialty cooling towers into the US from China alleges Zim and the Port of Houston charged unfair per-diem fees.</div>

A Canadian bitcoin miner that faced customs delays bringing specialty cooling towers into the US from China alleges Zim and the Port of Houston charged unfair per-diem fees.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A Canadian firm that brought containers from China specially designed to cool bitcoin mining machines is suing Zim Integrated Shipping Services and the Port of Houston for excessive per-diem charges after US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) held the containers three months past their free time. Toronto-based Sunnyside Digital and its Delaware-registered entity Down Quark Systems filed the complaint last week with the Federal Maritime Commission(FMC). The complaint alleges Zim has already charged the company $5,880 in demurrage on its containers, while the Port of Houston Authority as terminal operator charge assessed $917,458 in extended dwell fees for the containers. Along with restitution of those charges, Sunnyside Digital is asking the FMC to investigate and restrain Zim from pursuing another $7 million in demurrage it is trying to collect from Sunnyside. Zim has also filed a federal lawsuit against Sunnyside seeking another $708,153 in terminal storage charges. <h3>‘Bespoke’ containers </h3>The containers themselves were not standard dry containers, the complaint said. Rather, they were “bespoke, highly specialized/modified containers” built to serve as cooling systems for bitcoin mining machines. Sunnyside argued in the complaint that because these were not standard dry containers, they “do not fall within” the scope of Zim’s published tariff. Sunnyside also argued Houston’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/houston-to-start-charging-long-dwell-fee-from-feb-1-5224463">excessive dwell fee</a> did not adhere to the FMC’s incentive principle for prompting the timely removal of cargo. Sunnyside said the 147 containers from Shanghai were loaded on the 11,923-TEU Zim Canada on March 17, 2025, and reached Houston about a month later on Good Friday. Due to the holiday, Sunnyside had four days of free time starting the following Monday. However, between April 21 and 23, CBP said it would inspect nine of the containers, while putting a hold on the rest until the inspection was completed. Sunnyside said between April 23 and May 6, CBP provided no information about “the basis for the hold or inspection of the containers.” On May 7, CBP issued a formal notice of detention for the containers to Sunnyside. About a month later, Sunnyside said CBP would only release the containers if Sunnyside agreed to a different valuation and tariff classification for the cargo. Sunnyside submitted a bond to CBP on July 31 to release the containers. Customs holds and the resulting demurrage fees from ocean carriers and marine terminals have been an issue for some shippers. In 2023, the FMC’s National Shipper Advisory had <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/shipper-group-wants-more-fmc-action-on-dwell-fees-erds-5220538">sought for the agency to determine</a> that shippers should only be billed a portion of per-diem fees resulting from government holds. But the agency has yet to craft a rule addressing the issue. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A Canadian firm that brought containers from China specially designed to cool bitcoin mining machines is suing Zim Integrated Shipping Services and the Port of Houston for excessive per-diem charges after US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) held the containers three months past their free time. Toronto-based Sunnyside Digital and its Delaware-registered entity Down Quark Systems filed the complaint last week with the Federal Maritime Commission(FMC). The complaint alleges Zim has already charged the company $5,880 in demurrage on its containers, while the Port of Houston Authority as terminal operator charge assessed $917,458 in extended dwell fees for the containers. Along with restitution of those charges, Sunnyside Digital is asking the FMC to investigate and restrain Zim from pursuing another $7 million in demurrage it is trying to collect from Sunnyside. Zim has also filed a federal lawsuit against Sunnyside seeking another $708,153 in terminal storage charges. ‘Bespoke’ containers The containers themselves were not standard dry containers, the complaint said. Rather, they were “bespoke, highly specialized/modified containers” built to serve as cooling systems for bitcoin mining machines. Sunnyside argued in the complaint that because these were not standard dry containers, they “do not fall within” the scope of Zim’s published tariff. Sunnyside also argued Houston’s excessive dwell fee did not adhere to the FMC’s incentive principle for prompting the timely removal of cargo. Sunnyside said the 147 containers from Shanghai were loaded on the 11,923-TEU Zim Canada on March 17, 2025, and reached Houston about a month later on Good Friday. Due to the holiday, Sunnyside had four days of free time starting the following Monday. However, between April 21 and 23, CBP said it would inspect nine of the containers, while putting a hold on the rest until the inspection was completed. Sunnyside said between April 23 and May 6, CBP provided no information about “the basis for the hold or inspection of the containers.” On May 7, CBP issued a formal notice of detention for the containers to Sunnyside. About a month later, Sunnyside said CBP would only release the containers if Sunnyside agreed to a different valuation and tariff classification for the cargo. Sunnyside submitted a bond to CBP on July 31 to release the containers. Customs holds and the resulting demurrage fees from ocean carriers and marine terminals have been an issue for some shippers. In 2023, the FMC’s National Shipper Advisory had sought for the agency to determine that shippers should only be billed a portion of per-diem fees resulting from government holds. But the agency has yet to craft a rule addressing the issue. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Maritime

Bitcoin miner hits Zim, Houston with FMC lawsuit on delayed boxes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rather than single objections against the proposed transcontinental railroad, time is the real threat to this deal, writes analyst Paul Tonsager. </div>

Rather than single objections against the proposed transcontinental railroad, time is the real threat to this deal, writes analyst Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">On May 28, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-accepts-upns-paperwork-buts-holds-on-merger-decision-6228099">the Surface Transportation Board (STB) accepted</a> the amended Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) merger application. This was the April refiling, submitted after the Board rejected the railroads’ first attempt in January. UP and NS will call the acceptance a milestone. It is the least important thing the Board did that day. The same decision held the entire proceeding in abeyance. No merits schedule. No environmental review. The Board ordered the railroads to supplement nine areas of the filing by July 27, and it will not start the review clock until it has that material and is satisfied with it. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6228199_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Clearing completeness means the filing was good enough to keep, not good enough to approve. The Board said in the same decision that several parts of the application are unclear or underdeveloped. So here is where this now stands, and it is not where the railroads wanted to be. The Board did two things it did not have to pair: it kept the application alive and refused to set a date for judging it. Discovery continues, so UP and NS keep working ... but working does not mean advancing. The Board is moving the chains, and, two filings in, the railroads still have not picked up a first down. That makes time the real threat to this deal, ahead of any single objection the opponents are raising. The Board did not need to find a fatal flaw. Keeping the calendar open is enough. The wait is not neutral. The railroads carry the cost of an $85 billion transaction sitting in limbo, while the opposition uses that time to organize its filings and line up allies in Congress. Competitors keep taking real freight in real time, with CPKC selling the single-line service the merged carrier does not yet exist to counter. Everybody waits, but nobody waits equally. The deal’s own structure makes the delay bite harder. There is no voting trust, so Norfolk Southern shareholders are not cashed out early. Instead, they wait for full STB approval to be paid, which puts the entire timeline on their backs. The agreement’s outside date of Jan. 28, 2028, extends automatically if the review runs long. Sounds like a safety valve? Well, it is the trap. The deal has no clean expiration and no forcing event. It does not die on a deadline but erodes; it creates a combination that is now likelier to fail from exhaustion than from a flat “no.” The case for benefits decays on the same clock. The payoff the railroads are selling — led by 2.1 million truckloads moved off the highway — is modeled from a close date. Every quarter that close slips right, the present value of those benefits falls. As a result, delay weakens the central exhibit the Board is supposed to weigh. On substance, the sharpest signal in the decision is a small one. The Board asked for the applicants’ workpapers as a standalone supplemental item, which, in plain terms, means it could not reproduce the railroads’ own numbers from what they filed. That is a pointed thing for a regulator to put in writing about a benefits case. The Board also pulled the St. Louis and Kansas City terminals into one request alongside the TTX railcar pool, on gateways and car supply — a sign it sees neutral access to shared infrastructure as a single unresolved question rather than a set of separate fixes. For shippers, the takeaway is direct. Do not build around an early close. The initial target the railroads set by the first half of 2027 is now unreachable. The safe assumption now is later and open-ended. If your routing or rate strategy assumes a combined UP-NS network by 2027, rebuild it without that assumption. I support this merger, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strategic-vision-of-up-ns-merger-must-meet-operational-reality-6139519">I have said so in this publication</a> and elsewhere. The transcontinental thesis is sound, truck conversion is real, and single-line service creates genuine value. That is exactly why the execution should worry supporters more than critics. The merits fight is winnable on the record. The July 27 supplement is the third attempt at a record this Board will act on. The first application was rejected outright; the second cleared completeness and was still parked, because the Board found too much of it underdeveloped to judge; and there is no clever third version. The Board has told the railroads twice what it needs, and anyone who has watched this agency knew the list before the first application was filed. So give it to them, put the real numbers and the methodology behind them on the record, and stop trying to win on anything but substance. Every month spent deciding what to hold back is a month the clock takes off the merits case that can actually carry it. The author holds no equity in either carrier and represents no Class I railroad in this transaction. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

On May 28, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) accepted the amended Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) merger application. This was the April refiling, submitted after the Board rejected the railroads’ first attempt in January. UP and NS will call the acceptance a milestone. It is the least important thing the Board did that day. The same decision held the entire proceeding in abeyance. No merits schedule. No environmental review. The Board ordered the railroads to supplement nine areas of the filing by July 27, and it will not start the review clock until it has that material and is satisfied with it. Clearing completeness means the filing was good enough to keep, not good enough to approve. The Board said in the same decision that several parts of the application are unclear or underdeveloped. So here is where this now stands, and it is not where the railroads wanted to be. The Board did two things it did not have to pair: it kept the application alive and refused to set a date for judging it. Discovery continues, so UP and NS keep working ... but working does not mean advancing. The Board is moving the chains, and, two filings in, the railroads still have not picked up a first down. That makes time the real threat to this deal, ahead of any single objection the opponents are raising. The Board did not need to find a fatal flaw. Keeping the calendar open is enough. The wait is not neutral. The railroads carry the cost of an $85 billion transaction sitting in limbo, while the opposition uses that time to organize its filings and line up allies in Congress. Competitors keep taking real freight in real time, with CPKC selling the single-line service the merged carrier does not yet exist to counter. Everybody waits, but nobody waits equally. The deal’s own structure makes the delay bite harder. There is no voting trust, so Norfolk Southern shareholders are not cashed out early. Instead, they wait for full STB approval to be paid, which puts the entire timeline on their backs. The agreement’s outside date of Jan. 28, 2028, extends automatically if the review runs long. Sounds like a safety valve? Well, it is the trap. The deal has no clean expiration and no forcing event. It does not die on a deadline but erodes; it creates a combination that is now likelier to fail from exhaustion than from a flat “no.” The case for benefits decays on the same clock. The payoff the railroads are selling — led by 2.1 million truckloads moved off the highway — is modeled from a close date. Every quarter that close slips right, the present value of those benefits falls. As a result, delay weakens the central exhibit the Board is supposed to weigh. On substance, the sharpest signal in the decision is a small one. The Board asked for the applicants’ workpapers as a standalone supplemental item, which, in plain terms, means it could not reproduce the railroads’ own numbers from what they filed. That is a pointed thing for a regulator to put in writing about a benefits case. The Board also pulled the St. Louis and Kansas City terminals into one request alongside the TTX railcar pool, on gateways and car supply — a sign it sees neutral access to shared infrastructure as a single unresolved question rather than a set of separate fixes. For shippers, the takeaway is direct. Do not build around an early close. The initial target the railroads set by the first half of 2027 is now unreachable. The safe assumption now is later and open-ended. If your routing or rate strategy assumes a combined UP-NS network by 2027, rebuild it without that assumption. I support this merger, I have said so in this publication and elsewhere. The transcontinental thesis is sound, truck conversion is real, and single-line service creates genuine value. That is exactly why the execution should worry supporters more than critics. The merits fight is winnable on the record. The July 27 supplement is the third attempt at a record this Board will act on. The first application was rejected outright; the second cleared completeness and was still parked, because the Board found too much of it underdeveloped to judge; and there is no clever third version. The Board has told the railroads twice what it needs, and anyone who has watched this agency knew the list before the first application was filed. So give it to them, put the real numbers and the methodology behind them on the record, and stop trying to win on anything but substance. Every month spent deciding what to hold back is a month the clock takes off the merits case that can actually carry it. The author holds no equity in either carrier and represents no Class I railroad in this transaction. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Benefits of UP-NS merger erode on approval delay: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The agency said there needs to be additional information submitted concerning the environmental impact of the merger. </div>

The agency said there needs to be additional information submitted concerning the environmental impact of the merger.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) Thursday unanimously voted to accept Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) revised application to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) but held off from giving a final blessing. Instead, the STB put a final decision in abeyance, because the agency said there needs to be additional information submitted concerning the environmental impact of the merger. The STB gave Union Pacific until July 26 to submit that material. The decision allows the process to go forward, but it is potentially another delay in the regulatory review of the proposed $85 billion transaction. The decision does not kill the deal but signals that regulators still do not believe the companies have provided enough information to allow a formal review of the proposed merger to begin, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-rejects-up-ns-merger-application-as-incomplete-6154074">much like they wrote in January</a>. “Today, the Board finds that Applicants have provided sufficient information to satisfy the completeness requirements for a major merger application.  Given the fairly narrow procedural question of completeness, issues raised by commenters do not warrant rejecting the revised application,” the STB wrote in its decision. Still, the STB’s decision might end the proposed marriage due to the costs associated with the deal. Previously, UP and NS disclosed that each was spending between $40 million and $60 million per quarter on merger-related expenses; eventually, shareholders might decide the costs are too much to continue. “However, the Board finds that there are several aspects of the revised application that are unclear or underdeveloped and require supplementation at this stage of the proceeding so that the Board may have the information necessary to thoroughly evaluate — and the public has an adequate opportunity to comment on — whether the transaction is in the public interest.” While not a rejection, the ruling is a setback because UP and NS thought the revised application fixed everything that was deemed deficient in January. The revised filing updated truck-to-rail conversions and attempted to address concerns over two entities — Kansas City Terminal Railway and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis — which control switching and operations across those cities. Both groups are jointly owned by Class I railroads. It also disclosed Schedule 5.8 of the merger agreement, the document that defines which regulatory conditions would be onerous enough for the companies to walk away from the deal. Nevertheless, regulators effectively sided with opponents who argued the revised application remained too vague on market concentration, traffic diversions and control of jointly-owned rail assets. UP and NS said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ups-revised-filing-for-ns-merger-boosts-number-of-freight-conversions-6212318">the merger would shift 2.1 million truckloads from highways to rail each year</a> and save shippers an estimated $3.5 billion annually. UP and NS also say the combined railroad would create 88,000 new county-to-county lanes for single-line rail service and convert 10,000 existing interline lanes into single-line routes.  Opponents argued that those figures are too optimistic and not sufficiently supported. Their central claim is that UP and NS are overstating how much freight would move from truck to rail while understating how much traffic would simply be diverted from rival railroads. In its statement announcing the decision, the STB indicated it may be losing patience with Union Pacific, but it appears willing to give the parties 60 days to resolve the questions. Both railroads said the agency’s decision gives them a path forward to an eventual approval and merger. <h3>Decision time for UP, NS </h3>In a May 22 filing to the STB, state attorneys general from Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota argued that the application still failed to address how the combined UP and NS would control about half of US Class I freight rail traffic. The attorneys general also said the companies had not adequately analyzed whether the deal could trigger another round of Class I consolidation or provided enough detail on Kansas City, St. Louis, or a joint equipment pool of intermodal railcars called TTX. For UP and NS, the ruling turns what had been expected to be a procedural move into another test of the merger’s viability. The two railroads must now decide whether to submit additional information, providing more detail on the competitive and operational issues opponents have raised. Or they can decide to walk away from the deal. The calendar may also become a factor. As it stands, a decision from the STB was not likely until late 2027, but an additional delay would likely push attempts to rescue the deal into 2028, an election year. Democrats on Capitol Hill have already voiced their opposition to the merger because they believe it would create a virtual monopoly and harm union labor. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report. </div>

The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) Thursday unanimously voted to accept Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) revised application to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) but held off from giving a final blessing. Instead, the STB put a final decision in abeyance, because the agency said there needs to be additional information submitted concerning the environmental impact of the merger. The STB gave Union Pacific until July 26 to submit that material. The decision allows the process to go forward, but it is potentially another delay in the regulatory review of the proposed $85 billion transaction. The decision does not kill the deal but signals that regulators still do not believe the companies have provided enough information to allow a formal review of the proposed merger to begin, much like they wrote in January . “Today, the Board finds that Applicants have provided sufficient information to satisfy the completeness requirements for a major merger application.  Given the fairly narrow procedural question of completeness, issues raised by commenters do not warrant rejecting the revised application,” the STB wrote in its decision. Still, the STB’s decision might end the proposed marriage due to the costs associated with the deal. Previously, UP and NS disclosed that each was spending between $40 million and $60 million per quarter on merger-related expenses; eventually, shareholders might decide the costs are too much to continue. “However, the Board finds that there are several aspects of the revised application that are unclear or underdeveloped and require supplementation at this stage of the proceeding so that the Board may have the information necessary to thoroughly evaluate — and the public has an adequate opportunity to comment on — whether the transaction is in the public interest.” While not a rejection, the ruling is a setback because UP and NS thought the revised application fixed everything that was deemed deficient in January. The revised filing updated truck-to-rail conversions and attempted to address concerns over two entities — Kansas City Terminal Railway and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis — which control switching and operations across those cities. Both groups are jointly owned by Class I railroads. It also disclosed Schedule 5.8 of the merger agreement, the document that defines which regulatory conditions would be onerous enough for the companies to walk away from the deal. Nevertheless, regulators effectively sided with opponents who argued the revised application remained too vague on market concentration, traffic diversions and control of jointly-owned rail assets. UP and NS said the merger would shift 2.1 million truckloads from highways to rail each year and save shippers an estimated $3.5 billion annually. UP and NS also say the combined railroad would create 88,000 new county-to-county lanes for single-line rail service and convert 10,000 existing interline lanes into single-line routes.  Opponents argued that those figures are too optimistic and not sufficiently supported. Their central claim is that UP and NS are overstating how much freight would move from truck to rail while understating how much traffic would simply be diverted from rival railroads. In its statement announcing the decision, the STB indicated it may be losing patience with Union Pacific, but it appears willing to give the parties 60 days to resolve the questions. Both railroads said the agency’s decision gives them a path forward to an eventual approval and merger. Decision time for UP, NS In a May 22 filing to the STB, state attorneys general from Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota argued that the application still failed to address how the combined UP and NS would control about half of US Class I freight rail traffic. The attorneys general also said the companies had not adequately analyzed whether the deal could trigger another round of Class I consolidation or provided enough detail on Kansas City, St. Louis, or a joint equipment pool of intermodal railcars called TTX. For UP and NS, the ruling turns what had been expected to be a procedural move into another test of the merger’s viability. The two railroads must now decide whether to submit additional information, providing more detail on the competitive and operational issues opponents have raised. Or they can decide to walk away from the deal. The calendar may also become a factor. As it stands, a decision from the STB was not likely until late 2027, but an additional delay would likely push attempts to rescue the deal into 2028, an election year. Democrats on Capitol Hill have already voiced their opposition to the merger because they believe it would create a virtual monopoly and harm union labor. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report.

Rail News

STB accepts UP/NS paperwork, puts holds on merger decision

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Last month’s deal between the agency running Canada’s largest container port and the terminal operator tenant ends a years-long legal battle over development of the Robert Banks Terminal 2 and GCT’s separate plan to build a fourth berth at its Deltaport facility. </div>

Last month’s deal between the agency running Canada’s largest container port and the terminal operator tenant ends a years-long legal battle over development of the Robert Banks Terminal 2 and GCT’s separate plan to build a fourth berth at its Deltaport facility.

<div class="phx-topic">The recent decision by Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to jointly study development of the port’s proposed mega-terminal squashes the duo’s long-running dispute, positions GCT to run the terminal, and inches the long-planned facility closer to realization. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gct-vancouver-port-to-jointly-study-roberts-bank-terminal-project-6207642">truce between the agency running Canada’s largest container port and the terminal operator tenant</a> ends a years-long <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/vancouver-capacity-needs-spark-conflict-among-port-tenant-5223507">legal battle tied</a> to the port trying to develop the Robert Banks Terminal 2 and GCT’s separate plan to build a fourth berth at its Deltaport facility. The RB2 project is expected to cost more than C$3 billion ($2.17 billion). <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6227603_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The memorandum of understanding announced in April gives the two sides a year to determine how GCT could offer unique efficiencies by operating the planned RBT2 terminal given that its existing Deltaport would share a causeway with the new project. The port authority tentatively gains a terminal operator in GCT in exchange for the latter scrapping its plan to build another berth. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Major Project Office is involved in driving the deal between the port authority and tenant. In the fall of 2024, Peter Xotta, CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, told local media the port authority would allow GCT to take part in the selection process for an operator of RBT2. Under previous leadership, the port authority had argued a third-party operator was needed to keep the terminal competitive, ruling out GCT, which also operates the downtown Vanterm terminal. “Given the reality of where we’re at geopolitically and the risk associated with a project of this order of magnitude, it seemed prudent to me and to our board that we didn’t want to exclude anybody from bringing solutions forward that would help Canada,” Xotta told the Journal of Commerce last week. “It’s up to [GCT] to put their best foot forward to the landlord about the merits of them as the operator.” The sharing of administrative and maintenance facilities with GCT are some of the possible ways to mitigate the rising price tag of the RBT2 terminal, Xotta said. Potentially, both terminals could share a truck gate and the existing rail terminal at Deltaport. “GCT has a long history of supporting growth at the Port of Vancouver and remains deeply committed to the success of this gateway,” GCT President and CEO Eric Waltz said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “We have always sought to be part of the solution in advancing strong, reliable trade infrastructure that is so fundamental to Canada’s economic strength.”Separately, the port authority has shortlisted three consortia interested in building the landmass that would support the terminal. Vancouver sought terminal operators to build and operate RBT2 in 2002 and again in 2008 amid the global financial crisis, but there were no willing takers. On why another request for proposals wasn’t floated again, Xotta said terminal operator selection is “always bespoke,” but would be consistent with Canadian law and would be done in partnership with the federal government’s Office of Major Projects. “The port bellied up to the bar twice on this and without being able to get it across the line,” he said. “I’m determined this won’t happen a third time.” The shift in approach to seeking a partnership with an existing tenant rather than opening the project to bid again raised questions about whether Canadian shippers would get the most competitive terminal, according to a source close to the RBT2 development. Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near its existing full capacity by the 2030s. The port now has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs. The current timeline, which has been delayed by lengthy environmental reviews, is for the new terminal to open in the early 2030s. The project received environmental approval in 2023. <h3>Next steps </h3>Xotta, who is cautiously optimistic that the agreement will end with GCT as operator of RBT2, said future milestones for the proposed terminal would be receiving funding from Canada’s Infrastructure Bank and potentially being added to a list of infrastructure projects of national importance. Meanwhile, on Canada’s eastern coast, the Port of Montreal’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canada-looks-for-new-container-gateways-for-decoupling-from-us-6122714">own stalled mega-terminal project</a>, known as Contrecoeur, got a recent jolt back to life thanks to a C$1.16 million loan from the Infrastructure Bank, while Carney tapped it as one of five national infrastructure projects being fast-tracked. DP World and the port authority are developing the C$1.6 million terminal, which would have an annual throughput of 1.15 million TEUs. In a May 20 interview at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the prime minister said there is similar urgency to add port capacity in Western Canada. “We’re going to run out of capacity at the Port of Vancouver over the next, well, decade in effect,” he said. “We would likely run out of capacity sooner than that, because we would like to be growing our exports faster than that which means we act now” in terms of building more port capacity for container and bulk exports. Carney aims to double Canada’s non-US exports in a decade to diversify away from US trade. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The recent decision by Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to jointly study development of the port’s proposed mega-terminal squashes the duo’s long-running dispute, positions GCT to run the terminal, and inches the long-planned facility closer to realization. The truce between the agency running Canada’s largest container port and the terminal operator tenant ends a years-long legal battle tied to the port trying to develop the Robert Banks Terminal 2 and GCT’s separate plan to build a fourth berth at its Deltaport facility. The RB2 project is expected to cost more than C$3 billion ($2.17 billion). The memorandum of understanding announced in April gives the two sides a year to determine how GCT could offer unique efficiencies by operating the planned RBT2 terminal given that its existing Deltaport would share a causeway with the new project. The port authority tentatively gains a terminal operator in GCT in exchange for the latter scrapping its plan to build another berth. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Major Project Office is involved in driving the deal between the port authority and tenant. In the fall of 2024, Peter Xotta, CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, told local media the port authority would allow GCT to take part in the selection process for an operator of RBT2. Under previous leadership, the port authority had argued a third-party operator was needed to keep the terminal competitive, ruling out GCT, which also operates the downtown Vanterm terminal. “Given the reality of where we’re at geopolitically and the risk associated with a project of this order of magnitude, it seemed prudent to me and to our board that we didn’t want to exclude anybody from bringing solutions forward that would help Canada,” Xotta told the Journal of Commerce last week. “It’s up to [GCT] to put their best foot forward to the landlord about the merits of them as the operator.” The sharing of administrative and maintenance facilities with GCT are some of the possible ways to mitigate the rising price tag of the RBT2 terminal, Xotta said. Potentially, both terminals could share a truck gate and the existing rail terminal at Deltaport. “GCT has a long history of supporting growth at the Port of Vancouver and remains deeply committed to the success of this gateway,” GCT President and CEO Eric Waltz said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “We have always sought to be part of the solution in advancing strong, reliable trade infrastructure that is so fundamental to Canada’s economic strength.” Separately, the port authority has shortlisted three consortia interested in building the landmass that would support the terminal. Vancouver sought terminal operators to build and operate RBT2 in 2002 and again in 2008 amid the global financial crisis, but there were no willing takers. On why another request for proposals wasn’t floated again, Xotta said terminal operator selection is “always bespoke,” but would be consistent with Canadian law and would be done in partnership with the federal government’s Office of Major Projects. “The port bellied up to the bar twice on this and without being able to get it across the line,” he said. “I’m determined this won’t happen a third time.” The shift in approach to seeking a partnership with an existing tenant rather than opening the project to bid again raised questions about whether Canadian shippers would get the most competitive terminal, according to a source close to the RBT2 development. Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near its existing full capacity by the 2030s. The port now has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs. The current timeline, which has been delayed by lengthy environmental reviews, is for the new terminal to open in the early 2030s. The project received environmental approval in 2023. Next steps Xotta, who is cautiously optimistic that the agreement will end with GCT as operator of RBT2, said future milestones for the proposed terminal would be receiving funding from Canada’s Infrastructure Bank and potentially being added to a list of infrastructure projects of national importance. Meanwhile, on Canada’s eastern coast, the Port of Montreal’s own stalled mega-terminal project , known as Contrecoeur, got a recent jolt back to life thanks to a C$1.16 million loan from the Infrastructure Bank, while Carney tapped it as one of five national infrastructure projects being fast-tracked. DP World and the port authority are developing the C$1.6 million terminal, which would have an annual throughput of 1.15 million TEUs. In a May 20 interview at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the prime minister said there is similar urgency to add port capacity in Western Canada. “We’re going to run out of capacity at the Port of Vancouver over the next, well, decade in effect,” he said. “We would likely run out of capacity sooner than that, because we would like to be growing our exports faster than that which means we act now” in terms of building more port capacity for container and bulk exports. Carney aims to double Canada’s non-US exports in a decade to diversify away from US trade. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Vancouver truce opens door for GCT as mega-terminal operator

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Strong regional cargo demand, buoyant market sentiment and higher bunker costs signal continued upward movement on intra-Asia rates, executives and analysts warn.</div>

Strong regional cargo demand, buoyant market sentiment and higher bunker costs signal continued upward movement on intra-Asia rates, executives and analysts warn.

<div class="phx-topic">The unseasonally high container spot rates on intra-Asia trades — up double digits year over year — show no signs of slowing, thanks to strong regional cargo demand, buoyant market sentiment and higher bunker costs, according to freight executives and analysts. The upbeat conditions have led some carriers including Orient Overseas Container Line to push general rate increases (GRIs), although others have so far left June rates unchanged. “The overall rate development is quite dynamic,” a FIBS Logistics spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. OOCL has implemented a GRI of between $25 and $100 per TEU depending on the trade, said the spokesperson, adding that Maersk, Ocean Network Express and Hapag-Lloyd are maintaining the same rate for June. “We see increases in both rates and volumes in the intra-Asia market,” the head of an Asia-headquartered container line told the Journal of Commerce, adding that “It’s not very common at this time of the year so we hope it lasts as long as possible.” Wider trade dislocations caused by the Middle East war, which have tightened capacity, put upward pressure on rates on long-haul East-West trades, said Peter Sand, chief analyst at benchmarking platform Xeneta. The container spot rates from Shanghai to Singapore have soared 56% since Feb. 28, the start of the Middle East war, Sand noted, while rates from Shanghai to Vietnam have risen 40% and Shanghai-Bangkok rates are up 15%. They now stand at $1,489 per FEU from Shanghai to Singapore, the highest since Jan. 14, 2025, $1,648 per FEU for Shanghai to Bangkok and $1,287 per FEU from Shanghai to Vietnam, which are both the highest since Dec. 31, 2025.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="435f0ad1-f797-4f48-8a29-74f1f3c33961"></dynamic-object></div>Shanghai Shipping Exchange (SSE) rate data reflected the Xeneta statistics, with SSE also reporting rates from Shanghai to Japan at about $333 per TEU, the highest since early August 2023, according to its data carried on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. Drewry said its intra-Asia container index, a weighted average of weekly spot rates on 18 regional trades, reached a record $959 per FEU on May 22, the highest since it was launched on Oct. 31, 2025, partly due to higher longer-haul Shanghai-Dubai rates. <h3>Peak season comes early </h3>Other executives said the healthy increases in cargo volumes are due to generally upbeat consumer demand in Asia, with growth rates this year varying between 3% in China, 4% in Singapore and Malaysia and 10% in Vietnam, plus a likely early peak season in Europe and North America. This is driving shipments of semi-manufactured goods and components within Asia, especially between China and Southeast Asia, the Asia container line head said. UPS estimated that up to 80% of intra-Asia container volumes comprise raw materials, goods, parts, and semi-manufactured products transported between multiple Asian countries for processing and assembly before final export. “The uncertainty and prospect of further cost increases and perhaps operational disruptions is causing Western BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] to call forward their Christmas goods earlier, which, as a knock-on, is lifting the volumes of raw and intermediate materials on the intra-Asian trades sooner than usual,” Stijn Rubens, senior consultant, Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, told the Journal of Commerce. “Manufacturing shifts and stronger regional trade ties are what’s boosting intra-Asia trade and container flows,” the FIBS Logistics spokesperson said. Highlighting the growth in volumes, Hong Kong-listed intra-Asia carrier SITC said first-quarter liftings climbed 8% to 855,795 TEUs, Cosco Shipping Holdings saw a 6% rise in intra-Asia volumes to 2.3 million TEUs, and Hong Kong’s TS Lines recorded a 3% increase to 396,935 TEUs. Firm container growth on the intra-Asia trades is reflected in the latest figures from Container Trade Statistics that show total regional volumes climbed 7% in the first quarter to 11.9 million TEUs from 11.1 million TEUs a year earlier, which came after a 5% increase to 50 million TEUs for the whole of 2025.Executives said higher fuel prices have also likely contributed to the increase in freight rates, which are paid by shippers to carriers through bunker adjustment factor surcharges. The cost of high-sulfur fuel in Singapore has risen 15% from an average of $579 per metric ton this year to $665 per metric ton on May 22, while the price of low-sulfur diesel has increased 22% from an average of $684 per metric ton this year to $834 per metric ton on May 22. “Fuel surcharges hit shippers unevenly, as some are capable of pushing back, while others don’t or can’t. Fuel surcharges don’t hit all trades in the same way,” Xeneta’s Sand said. He also thought port congestion may being playing a mild role in supporting intra-Asia freight rates by reducing available capacity. Sand said Singapore especially has “been challenged — not to the point of consistent peak trouble, but it continues to be under pressure as the world’s more important transshipment hub.” Carriers have highlighted congestion in Singapore, Shanghai and Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo in Japan as reasons for vessel delays deployed in intra-Asia services. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

The unseasonally high container spot rates on intra-Asia trades — up double digits year over year — show no signs of slowing, thanks to strong regional cargo demand, buoyant market sentiment and higher bunker costs, according to freight executives and analysts. The upbeat conditions have led some carriers including Orient Overseas Container Line to push general rate increases (GRIs), although others have so far left June rates unchanged. “The overall rate development is quite dynamic,” a FIBS Logistics spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. OOCL has implemented a GRI of between $25 and $100 per TEU depending on the trade, said the spokesperson, adding that Maersk, Ocean Network Express and Hapag-Lloyd are maintaining the same rate for June. “We see increases in both rates and volumes in the intra-Asia market,” the head of an Asia-headquartered container line told the Journal of Commerce, adding that “It’s not very common at this time of the year so we hope it lasts as long as possible.” Wider trade dislocations caused by the Middle East war, which have tightened capacity, put upward pressure on rates on long-haul East-West trades, said Peter Sand, chief analyst at benchmarking platform Xeneta. The container spot rates from Shanghai to Singapore have soared 56% since Feb. 28, the start of the Middle East war, Sand noted, while rates from Shanghai to Vietnam have risen 40% and Shanghai-Bangkok rates are up 15%. They now stand at $1,489 per FEU from Shanghai to Singapore, the highest since Jan. 14, 2025, $1,648 per FEU for Shanghai to Bangkok and $1,287 per FEU from Shanghai to Vietnam, which are both the highest since Dec. 31, 2025. Shanghai Shipping Exchange (SSE) rate data reflected the Xeneta statistics, with SSE also reporting rates from Shanghai to Japan at about $333 per TEU, the highest since early August 2023, according to its data carried on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. Drewry said its intra-Asia container index, a weighted average of weekly spot rates on 18 regional trades, reached a record $959 per FEU on May 22, the highest since it was launched on Oct. 31, 2025, partly due to higher longer-haul Shanghai-Dubai rates. Peak season comes early Other executives said the healthy increases in cargo volumes are due to generally upbeat consumer demand in Asia, with growth rates this year varying between 3% in China, 4% in Singapore and Malaysia and 10% in Vietnam, plus a likely early peak season in Europe and North America. This is driving shipments of semi-manufactured goods and components within Asia, especially between China and Southeast Asia, the Asia container line head said. UPS estimated that up to 80% of intra-Asia container volumes comprise raw materials, goods, parts, and semi-manufactured products transported between multiple Asian countries for processing and assembly before final export. “The uncertainty and prospect of further cost increases and perhaps operational disruptions is causing Western BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] to call forward their Christmas goods earlier, which, as a knock-on, is lifting the volumes of raw and intermediate materials on the intra-Asian trades sooner than usual,” Stijn Rubens, senior consultant, Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, told the Journal of Commerce. “Manufacturing shifts and stronger regional trade ties are what’s boosting intra-Asia trade and container flows,” the FIBS Logistics spokesperson said. Highlighting the growth in volumes, Hong Kong-listed intra-Asia carrier SITC said first-quarter liftings climbed 8% to 855,795 TEUs, Cosco Shipping Holdings saw a 6% rise in intra-Asia volumes to 2.3 million TEUs, and Hong Kong’s TS Lines recorded a 3% increase to 396,935 TEUs. Firm container growth on the intra-Asia trades is reflected in the latest figures from Container Trade Statistics that show total regional volumes climbed 7% in the first quarter to 11.9 million TEUs from 11.1 million TEUs a year earlier, which came after a 5% increase to 50 million TEUs for the whole of 2025. Executives said higher fuel prices have also likely contributed to the increase in freight rates, which are paid by shippers to carriers through bunker adjustment factor surcharges. The cost of high-sulfur fuel in Singapore has risen 15% from an average of $579 per metric ton this year to $665 per metric ton on May 22, while the price of low-sulfur diesel has increased 22% from an average of $684 per metric ton this year to $834 per metric ton on May 22. “Fuel surcharges hit shippers unevenly, as some are capable of pushing back, while others don’t or can’t. Fuel surcharges don’t hit all trades in the same way,” Xeneta’s Sand said. He also thought port congestion may being playing a mild role in supporting intra-Asia freight rates by reducing available capacity. Sand said Singapore especially has “been challenged — not to the point of consistent peak trouble, but it continues to be under pressure as the world’s more important transshipment hub.” Carriers have highlighted congestion in Singapore, Shanghai and Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo in Japan as reasons for vessel delays deployed in intra-Asia services. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Double-digit rate increases whip up intra-Asia trades

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code MDFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

Use code MDGW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Use code MDW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code MDFTGW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code MDGW895 at checkout and save $600 on a Gold annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDGW895 at checkout and save $600 on a Gold annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDGW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDFTGW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Bitcoin miner hits Zim, Houston with FMC lawsuit on delayed boxes

Benefits of UP-NS merger erode on approval delay: analyst

STB accepts UP/NS paperwork, puts holds on merger decision