Inside   By the Numbers · What the Board said · Who pays · The price of being heard · The case against us · Jobs · Things Mike Is Reading · Things Mike Is Watching · Watch · BTP

On October 8, the Surface Transportation Board, the federal regulator for freight rail, served a decision with a sleepy name and a loud meaning. Four Class I railroads are, in the government's own word, adequate: BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific. The Federal Register notice that carries it is dated October 13, two days before this reached your inbox.

Adequate sounds like a C-minus. It means the opposite. Revenue adequacy is the regulator's finding that a railroad earns enough to cover its cost of capital. Strip off the agency varnish and the sentence reads: these four are making enough money.

So ask the only question that matters to anyone who buys anything that ever rode a freight car. If the government says they have enough, who is still paying, and does this finding change a single thing about the bill?

By the Numbers

• 4: Class I railroads the Surface Transportation Board found revenue adequate for 2025¹
• Oct. 8, 2026: the day the Board served that decision¹
• 87 of 135: Board filing fees that increase in its 2026 fee update²
• 48: Board filing fees that stay at current levels in the same update²

What the Board said, in plain words

The Federal Register notice says it straight: on October 8, 2026, the Board served a decision announcing its 2025 revenue adequacy determinations for the Class I railroads. Four made the list.

BNSF Railway Company. CSX Transportation, Inc. Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

That finding does not come from a critic, a shipper with a grudge or a cable panel. It comes from the regulator, in the regulator's own document. When the referee tells you a player has enough, you get to hold the referee to it.

Watch what the notice's summary leaves out. It does not print the return each railroad earned or the cost of capital the Board measured it against. Those numbers sit in the full decision, which we have not seen, so you will not find a guess here. And the summary says nothing about changing how the Board polices rates.

Who pays

Freight rail never mails you a bill. It sends one to the shipper, the business that needs a carload moved. BTP argues the shipper folds that cost into its own price, the next business down the line does the same, and at the end of the line you stand at a register paying for a ride you never took.

How much of your grocery bill or your rent or your kid's school supplies traces back to these four? Nobody can tell you from this notice, and anyone who hands you a number today is selling something. The rate-case data that would answer it is not in what the Board put in the Register.

Here is what the finding does settle. The government has now said, on paper, that BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific earn enough to cover what their money costs. BTP argues that from this week forward, every rate increase from these four should have to explain itself against that sentence.

The price of being heard

The railroad notice has a neighbor. The same day's Register carries the Board's 2026 fee update: 87 of its 135 filing fees increase, and 48 stay where they are. Those are the fees for bringing business before the Board.

Set the two side by side. The four railroads are adequate. Most of the price of walking into the referee's office went up. The fee notice does not say which of the 87 a shipper would pay to fight a rate, and we will not pretend it does.

Nothing in either document ties the two together, and we are not claiming one caused the other. BTP argues the pairing still tells you something about mood. An agency that certifies four giants as earning enough, and on the same page raises most of what it charges the people who might argue with them, has shown you whose comfort the paperwork protects.

The case against us

Give the other side its best shot. The strongest objection says revenue adequacy is an annual, long-standing call by the Board, so this week's finding may be routine and not news at all. The second says the finding, by itself, sets no rate, and that anyone claiming shippers are overcharged needs the Board's rate-case numbers.

Both points land, and neither one rescues the status quo. If the government declares the biggest players adequate on a schedule and nothing about what anyone pays ever moves, the finding has become a warning light painted over to look like wallpaper. If this one changes something, the Board can say so in plain words. Its summary does not.

And on overcharging, we agree: the proof lives in rate data we do not have in hand. That is the next fight, and it is a fight worth having in public. The regulator just handed every shipper and every member of Congress the opening line.

What to ask

Call your member of Congress and ask one question. The Surface Transportation Board says BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific earn enough to cover their cost of capital. What does that finding change about what the rest of us pay to move goods on their tracks?

If the answer is nothing, write that down. A finding that changes nothing is a press release with a docket number.

Adequate is the government's word. Make it use it.

Sources

1. Surface Transportation Board, Railroad Revenue Adequacy-2025 Determination, Federal Register doc. 2026-20878, October 13, 2026
2. Surface Transportation Board, Fees for Services Performed in Connection With Licensing and Related Services-2026 Update, Federal Register doc. 2026-20889, October 13, 2026

Burn Notice: Enough is a number, and the government just told four railroads they hit it.

Michael