I. Executive Summary

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) stands as one of the premier Class I freight railroads in North America, possessing a strategic and non-replicable network spanning the economically vital Eastern United States.¹ The company’s investment profile has been shaped by three defining events in recent years: a multi-year operational overhaul centered on Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR); the profound financial, regulatory, and reputational impacts of the February 2023 derailment in East Palestine, Ohio; and most recently, a transformative acquisition proposal from Union Pacific Corporation (UP).³

Historically, NSC’s operational efficiency has lagged that of its peers, creating a persistent gap in profitability margins. A renewed and more aggressive PSR strategy, implemented under a new Chief Operating Officer in 2024, began to yield demonstrable improvements in service metrics and cost control, positioning the company for a credible standalone turnaround.⁴ This progress, however, has been overshadowed by the significant financial burden of the East Palestine incident, which has resulted in over $1.1 billion in charges for cleanup, legal settlements, and government fines, while triggering intense regulatory scrutiny.⁶

The investment landscape for Norfolk Southern was fundamentally altered on July 29, 2025, with the announcement of a definitive agreement to be acquired by Union Pacific in a cash-and-stock transaction valued at an implied $320 per share, or an enterprise value of $85 billion.³ The strategic rationale for the merger is the creation of the first U.S. transcontinental railroad, a seamless network of over 50,000 route miles designed to enhance competition with trucking and other North American railways and generate an estimated $2.75 billion in annual synergies.³

Consequently, the investment thesis for Norfolk Southern has pivoted dramatically. It is no longer a question of the company’s ability to execute a standalone operational improvement plan. Instead, the primary drivers of shareholder value are now the probability and timeline of the merger’s completion. The transaction faces a formidable regulatory review by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), which has not approved a major Class I railroad merger in over two decades and applies a stringent “public interest” test.³ The current market valuation of NSC reflects this significant uncertainty, trading at a discount to the implied offer price. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of Norfolk Southern, first examining its intrinsic business quality, operational challenges, and financial health as a standalone entity, and then evaluating the overriding risks and potential rewards associated with the proposed transformative merger with Union Pacific.

II. The North American Rail Oligopoly: An Enduring Moat

The North American freight rail industry operates as a mature, highly concentrated oligopoly, providing a stable and profitable long-term context for its participants. The industry’s structure, characterized by immense scale and nearly insurmountable barriers to entry, grants incumbent operators, including Norfolk Southern, a powerful and durable competitive advantage.

Industry Structure and Market Size

The U.S. freight rail network, spanning nearly 140,000 route miles, is an approximately $80 billion industry that is the backbone of the nation’s supply chain.¹⁰ The market is dominated by six Class I railroads—Norfolk Southern, CSX Corporation (CSX) in the East; Union Pacific (UP) and BNSF Railway (BNSF) in the West; and the two Canadian transcontinentals, Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC).¹¹ These six carriers account for approximately 69% of the industry’s mileage and a staggering 94% of its freight revenue, effectively creating regional duopolies.¹¹ This concentration is the result of decades of consolidation following the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated the industry and reduced the number of Class I carriers from over 70 to the handful that exist today.¹²

This structure creates a powerful incentive for transformative M&A as the primary path to achieving step-change growth and value creation. With new network construction being economically unfeasible, acquiring another railroad is the only viable method to fundamentally alter a carrier’s geographic reach and competitive posture. The 2023 merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern to form CPKC, the first single-line network connecting Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, exemplified this dynamic.¹¹ The proposed Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern combination is a direct and logical response, representing an attempt to create a competing U.S.-centric transcontinental network to counter the strategic advantages of CPKC and enhance competition against other modes of transport.³

Barriers to Entry and Capital Intensity

The primary competitive advantage for Class I railroads is the non-replicable nature of their networks. The existing infrastructure is a privately-owned asset built over more than a century, and the capital cost, regulatory hurdles, and land acquisition challenges of building a competing network are prohibitive.¹⁰ This creates one of the most formidable barriers to entry of any industry.

Furthermore, the industry is exceptionally capital-intensive. Class I railroads reinvest, on average, over 18% of their revenue annually into maintaining and upgrading their infrastructure—a rate six times higher than the average U.S. manufacturer.¹⁰ This continuous, large-scale investment in track, bridges, locomotives, and technology is necessary for ensuring safety and efficiency and serves as a further deterrent to new entrants.

Economic Drivers and Modal Competition

Rail volumes are a critical indicator of broader economic activity, with the industry transporting approximately 28% of U.S. freight by ton-miles.¹⁰ Demand is cyclical and tied to industrial production, agricultural harvests, energy consumption (particularly coal), and consumer spending, which drives intermodal volumes.¹⁷ Recent economic data presents a mixed outlook, with persistent weakness in manufacturing, as indicated by the ISM Manufacturing PMI remaining below the expansionary threshold of 50, contrasted by resilient intermodal demand supported by consumer spending and port activity.¹⁷

The primary mode of competition for railroads is the trucking industry. For long-haul, heavy-density freight, rail possesses a significant structural advantage in both cost and fuel efficiency; a train can move one ton of freight over 470 miles on a single gallon of fuel, making it roughly four times more efficient than a truck.¹⁰ This efficiency also translates to a smaller environmental footprint, as rail accounts for only 2.0% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions despite its large share of freight volume.¹⁰ However, trucking offers superior flexibility, speed for shorter distances, and crucial door-to-door service.¹⁹ The battleground for market share between these two modes is predominantly in the intermodal space, which seeks to combine rail’s long-haul efficiency with trucking’s last-mile delivery capabilities.

Regulatory Environment

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is the primary federal body providing economic oversight for the U.S. railroad industry.¹³ While the Staggers Act of 1980 largely deregulated railroad pricing and operations, the STB retains authority over key areas, including rate reasonableness, service standards, and, most critically, mergers and acquisitions.¹³ The STB’s mandate in reviewing any merger between Class I carriers is to determine if the transaction is “consistent with the public interest”—a deliberately high and subjective standard.³ This authority represents the single largest external risk factor for the industry’s strategic direction, as the STB has demonstrated a strong aversion to further major consolidation for more than two decades, a posture that will be central to the fate of the proposed UP-NSC combination.

Table 1: Class I Railroad Peer Comparison Matrix

Metric	Norfolk Southern (NSC)	Union Pacific (UP)	CSX Corp. (CSX)	BNSF Railway	Canadian National (CN)	Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC)
Market Cap (approx.)	$63.7B	~$140B	~$65B	Private (BRK.A)	~$80B	~$70B
Route Miles	~19,300	~32,100	~20,000	~32,500	~20,000	~20,000
2024 Revenue	$12.1B	$24.3B	$14.0B (est.)	$23.9B	$12.5B	$9.0B (est.)
2024 Adj. Op. Ratio	65.8%	59.9%	~60-61% (est.)	N/A	~60%	~61.3%
Q2 2025 Train Velocity	N/A	221 mi/day	18.2 MPH	N/A	19.6 MPH	18.8 MPH
Q2 2025 Terminal Dwell	N/A	N/A	9.6 hours	N/A	7.1 hours	9.8 hours
Note: Data compiled from multiple sources and may include estimates for comparability. BNSF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Operating metrics (velocity, dwell) are reported differently by carriers and may not be directly comparable.
Sources: 14

III. Norfolk Southern’s Strategic Footprint: The Eastern Corridor

Norfolk Southern’s competitive position is defined by its dense and strategically located rail network in the Eastern United States. This irreplaceable asset provides direct access to a majority of the nation’s population and industrial base, making it a critical component of the North American supply chain. Its value is derived not only from its standalone service territory but also from its potential role as the eastern anchor of a true transcontinental rail system.

Network Geography and Strategic Importance

NSC operates approximately 19,300 route miles across 22 states and the District of Columbia, forming one of the two dominant rail networks east of the Mississippi River.¹ The network’s key strategic advantage is its reach. It serves a high concentration of manufacturing plants, distribution centers, and population hubs, and provides crucial connections to every major container port on the Atlantic Coast, as well as key ports on the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes.² This geographic franchise positions NSC as an essential carrier for a wide swath of the U.S. economy, from raw materials and industrial inputs to finished consumer goods.

Service Portfolio and End-Market Exposure

The company’s revenues are generated across three primary commodity groups, each with distinct economic drivers and secular trends:

• Merchandise: This is NSC’s largest and most diverse segment, encompassing a broad range of industrial and agricultural products. It is a leader in the automotive sector, originating more traffic than any other Class I railroad, which involves moving finished vehicles and component parts throughout the complex North American auto manufacturing supply chain.⁷ Other key markets include chemicals, metals and construction, and agriculture.²⁸ Performance in this segment is closely correlated with the health of U.S. industrial production and capital investment cycles.
• Intermodal: This segment involves the transportation of shipping containers and truck trailers, representing the most direct point of competition with the trucking industry. NSC boasts the most extensive intermodal network in the Eastern U.S., a critical advantage for moving goods from bustling Atlantic ports like New York/New Jersey, Virginia, and Savannah to major inland markets such as Chicago, Atlanta, and the Ohio Valley.² This business is highly sensitive to international trade flows, port activity, and consumer spending patterns.
• Coal: While facing long-term secular headwinds from the transition to natural gas and renewable energy for electricity generation, coal remains a significant source of revenue and cash flow for NSC. The business consists of hauling thermal coal to domestic utilities and metallurgical coal, a key ingredient in steelmaking, to domestic steel mills and to ports for export.²¹ The export metallurgical coal market, in particular, provides a source of demand that is less correlated with domestic energy trends.

The strategic value of NSC’s network extends beyond its current operations. For a Western railroad like Union Pacific, whose network terminates at key Midwest gateways like Chicago and Memphis, NSC’s system represents the essential “last mile” to the majority of the U.S. population and industrial base. Currently, freight moving coast-to-coast must be interchanged between an Eastern and a Western carrier—a process that adds time, cost, and operational complexity.³ By acquiring NSC, UP would eliminate this friction point, creating a seamless, single-line service that could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape. This potential to unlock a national network, rather than simply adding a regional one, is a core component of the strategic rationale behind the merger and helps explain the significant control premium offered in the acquisition.³

IV. The PSR Mandate: Driving Efficiency and Margin Expansion

Norfolk Southern’s operational and financial performance over the past several years has been defined by its adoption and evolving implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR). This operating philosophy, aimed at maximizing asset efficiency and lowering costs, has been the central driver of the company’s efforts to close its long-standing profitability gap with industry peers. The journey has been marked by initial progress, a significant setback following the East Palestine derailment, and a recent, aggressive acceleration of the strategy.

The Evolution of PSR at Norfolk Southern

PSR is an operational model focused on moving assets continuously and efficiently. Core tenets include minimizing car dwell time in terminals, increasing train velocity and length, and adhering to a fixed operating plan, all of which are designed to reduce the resources—locomotives, railcars, and crews—required to move a given amount of freight.³¹ The ultimate financial goal of PSR is a sustained reduction in the operating ratio (OR), a key industry metric that measures operating expenses as a percentage of revenue.

Norfolk Southern was a later adopter of PSR compared to many of its peers, formally launching its “TOP21” strategy in 2019 with the goal of achieving a 60% OR by 2021.³¹ While initial progress was made, the strategy was significantly disrupted first by the COVID-19 pandemic and then, more profoundly, by the February 2023 East Palestine incident. The derailment forced an immediate and necessary pivot in priorities, with management shifting focus toward enhancing safety and service resilience, which involved adding resources and personnel back into the network—actions that run counter to a pure cost-cutting PSR approach.⁵

The “PSR 2.0” Acceleration

This period of retrenchment contributed to an activist investor campaign in early 2024, which culminated in a board settlement and the appointment of John Orr as the new Chief Operating Officer.⁴ Orr, an executive with a strong track record of implementing PSR at other Class I railroads, including the successful turnaround of CPKC’s Mexico operations, immediately began executing an accelerated “PSR 2.0” strategy.³³ This renewed push is characterized by an intense focus on core operational discipline, including:

• Improving Asset Utilization: A key initiative has been to improve the productivity of the locomotive fleet. This is evidenced by the decision to place over 500 locomotives into storage during 2024 and the introduction of new efficiency metrics like Gross Ton-Miles (GTMs) per available horsepower, which rose from a low of 94 in mid-2023 to 129 by the fourth quarter of 2024.⁴
• Enhancing Network Fluidity: The company has set aggressive near-term targets to reduce terminal dwell time in major yards by 30%, cut overtime by 20%, and increase on-time performance by 10%.⁵
• Driving Margin Improvement: The ultimate goal is to close the gap with peers by achieving a sub-60% operating ratio within three to four years, a significant improvement from current levels.⁵

Recent Operational Performance

The renewed focus on PSR has translated into tangible improvements in key performance metrics. In the fourth quarter of 2024, Norfolk Southern was the only Class I railroad to achieve year-over-year improvements in both average train speed and terminal dwell time.²¹ For the full year 2024, the company’s adjusted OR improved by 160 basis points to 65.8%.²² This momentum continued into 2025, with the second quarter adjusted OR improving a further 170 basis points year-over-year to 63.4%.³⁴

This demonstrable progress in NSC’s standalone operational turnaround forms a critical backdrop to the Union Pacific acquisition offer. The bid was launched just as the company’s new leadership was beginning to prove its ability to execute a credible efficiency plan. This timing suggests that Union Pacific may have been motivated to acquire NSC before the full financial benefits of this accelerated PSR implementation were realized and reflected in a higher standalone market valuation. In essence, the acquisition allows UP to capture the value of NSC’s ongoing turnaround for itself, in addition to the strategic synergies of the combination.

V. Financial Health and Capital Discipline

Norfolk Southern’s financial performance reflects the characteristics of a mature, capital-intensive industrial company operating in a cyclical industry. Its financial statements clearly show the significant impact of the East Palestine derailment in 2023, followed by a period of recovery and renewed focus on operational efficiency in 2024. The company’s capital allocation strategy has historically balanced substantial network reinvestment with consistent returns to shareholders.

Historical Financial Performance

An analysis of NSC’s financial results from 2020 to 2024 reveals several key trends:

• Revenue: Railway operating revenues have been relatively stable, reflecting the mature nature of the freight market. After reaching a record $12.7 billion in 2022, revenues moderated slightly to $12.2 billion in 2023 and $12.1 billion in 2024.²³ These fluctuations are influenced by a combination of freight volumes, which are tied to the economic cycle, and fuel surcharge revenue, which varies with energy prices.
• Profitability and Margins: The operating ratio is the most critical measure of profitability and efficiency. NSC achieved a strong adjusted OR of 62.3% in 2022, demonstrating the earnings power of the franchise in a stable environment.²³ The financial impact of the East Palestine incident is starkly visible in the 2023 results, where the reported OR deteriorated to 76.5% due to $1.1 billion in related charges.⁷ On an adjusted basis, excluding these charges, the 2023 OR was 67.4%.²³ The company showed significant progress in 2024, with the adjusted OR improving by 160 basis points to 65.8%.²²
• Earnings Per Share (EPS): Diluted EPS has mirrored the trend in profitability. After peaking at $13.88 in 2022, reported EPS fell to $8.02 in 2023.²³ Adjusted for the derailment costs, 2023 EPS was $11.74.⁷ A recovery was evident in 2024, with adjusted EPS of $11.85.²
• Free Cash Flow (FCF): As a capital-intensive business, FCF is a crucial indicator of financial health. NSC’s FCF generation has been volatile, heavily impacted by the cash outlays for the East Palestine incident. After generating $2.3 billion in FCF in 2022, the figure dropped to $852 million in 2023 before recovering to $1.7 billion in 2024.²³

Capital Allocation and Financial Strategy

NSC’s management has historically followed a balanced capital allocation framework:

• Capital Expenditures: Reinvestment in the network is the top priority. Property additions have steadily increased, rising from $1.9 billion in 2022 to $2.4 billion in 2024, reflecting inflationary pressures and increased investment in safety and technology.²³ This spending is essential to maintain the integrity and fluidity of the company’s primary asset.
• Shareholder Returns: NSC has a long track record of returning capital to shareholders. The company has consistently paid a dividend, which increased from $4.96 per share in 2022 to $5.40 per share in both 2023 and 2024.²³ Share repurchase programs have also been a regular component of capital allocation, though they have been paused in light of the pending merger with Union Pacific.⁸
• Debt and Leverage: The company maintains a significant debt load, with total debt standing at $17.2 billion at the end of 2024.²³ The debt-to-total-capitalization ratio was 54.6% at year-end 2024, a level that is manageable but underscores the balance sheet’s capital intensity.²³

Table 2: NSC Historical Financial Summary (2020-2024)

($ in millions, except per share data)	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
Railway Operating Revenue	$12,123	$12,156	$12,745	$11,142	$9,820
Operating Income	$4,071	$2,851	$4,809	$4,449	$3,015
Reported Operating Ratio	66.4%	76.5%	62.3%	60.1%	69.3%
Adjusted Operating Ratio	65.8%	67.4%	62.3%	60.1%	69.3%
Net Income	$2,622	$1,827	$3,270	$3,024	$1,999
Reported Diluted EPS	$11.57	$8.02	$13.88	$12.01	$7.86
Adjusted Diluted EPS	$11.85	$11.74	$13.88	$12.01	$7.86
Dividends per Share	$5.40	$5.40	$4.96	$4.36	$3.84
Net Cash from Operations	$4,052	$3,179	$4,222	$4,324	$3,607
Capital Expenditures	$2,381	$2,327	$1,948	$1,657	$1,586
Free Cash Flow	$1,671	$852	$2,274	$2,667	$2,021
Total Debt	$17,206	$17,179	$15,182	$14,242	$13,767
Note: Adjusted figures for 2023 and 2024 remove the impacts of the East Palestine incident and other special items as reported by the company. FCF is calculated as Net Cash from Operations less Capital Expenditures.
Sources: 7

VI. The Shadow of East Palestine: A Multi-faceted Overhang

The derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, Ohio, on February 3, 2023, was a watershed event for the company and the entire North American rail industry. The incident, which involved the release of hazardous materials and a subsequent controlled burn, has created a significant and lasting overhang, encompassing substantial financial costs, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and profound reputational damage.

Incident and NTSB Findings

The derailment involved 38 railcars, 11 of which carried hazardous materials.³⁶ A fire ensued, and three days later, responders conducted a controversial “vent and burn” of five tank cars containing vinyl chloride monomer, releasing a large plume of smoke over the area.³⁶

In its final report, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified the probable cause as the catastrophic failure of an overheated wheel bearing on the 23rd railcar.³⁶ The NTSB’s investigation was highly critical of several parties, including Norfolk Southern. A key finding was that the decision to conduct the vent and burn was “unnecessary” and was based on “incomplete and misleading information” provided by NSC and its contractors, who inaccurately suggested that the tank cars were at risk of a catastrophic explosion.³⁶ The NTSB also identified shortcomings in NSC’s wayside hot bearing detector system and procedures, which failed to provide the train crew with adequate warning to stop the train before the bearing failed.³⁸

Quantifiable Financial Impact

The financial consequences of the derailment have been immense and continue to accrue. As of early 2024, total costs had already surpassed $1.1 billion and are expected to continue to rise.⁶ In its full-year 2023 financial results, Norfolk Southern recognized a total charge of $1.1 billion related to the incident.⁷ The costs are comprised of several distinct categories:

• Environmental and Remediation Costs: These include the direct costs of site cleanup, soil and water testing, and long-term environmental monitoring. These expenses totaled $836 million as of January 2024.⁶
• Community Assistance and Legal Fees: This includes payments for resident relocation, community investment funds, and associated legal expenses, totaling $381 million as of January 2024.⁶
• Major Settlements:

• NSC reached an agreement in principle to pay $600 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of residents and businesses in the affected area.⁴⁰
• The company reached a settlement with the U.S. government valued at over $310 million. This includes a $15 million civil penalty under the Clean Water Act, an estimated $235 million for all past and future cleanup costs, and $25 million to fund a 20-year community health program.⁴²
• Insurance Recoveries: NSC has exhausted its liability insurance coverage for the event. The company recovered $101 million as of early 2024, partially offsetting the gross costs.⁶

Operational and Regulatory Response

In the wake of the incident, Norfolk Southern launched a six-point safety plan, which included enhancing its hot bearing detector network, investing in new digital inspection portals using machine vision, and strengthening its safety culture and training programs.²⁹ The company reports that these efforts contributed to a 42% reduction in its mainline accident rate in 2023, bringing it to a level that is among the best in the industry.²⁹

However, the derailment triggered a massive regulatory and political response. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) conducted a supplemental safety audit of NSC and noted that between 2018 and 2022, the company’s accident rate per million train miles had risen faster than any other major railroad.⁴⁵ The incident also spurred the introduction of the bipartisan Railway Safety Act in Congress, which aims to mandate stricter safety standards for trains carrying hazardous materials, though the legislation has so far stalled.⁴² The long-term consequence is a near certainty of more stringent and sustained regulatory oversight for both NSC and the industry as a whole.

Table 3: Quantified Financial Impact of East Palestine Derailment (as of mid-2024)

Cost Component	Amount (in millions)	Source
Accrued Charges (FY 2023)	$1,116	7
Class-Action Lawsuit Settlement	$600	40
U.S. Government Settlement	>$310	43
Civil Penalty (Clean Water Act)	$15	43
Community Health Program	$25	43
Past & Future Govt. Costs	$235+	43
Total Gross Costs (Publicly Disclosed)	>$1.7 Billion	Analyst Synthesis
Insurance Recoveries (as of early 2024)	($101)	6
Net Financial Impact (to date)	>$1.6 Billion	Analyst Synthesis
Note: Total costs are expected to continue to increase as legal proceedings and long-term monitoring costs are finalized. The table represents a consolidation of publicly announced figures and accounting charges.
Sources: 6

VII. The Transcontinental Endgame: Union Pacific’s Transformative Acquisition

The announcement on July 29, 2025, of a definitive agreement for Union Pacific to acquire Norfolk Southern represents a landmark event in the history of the North American railroad industry. The transaction, if completed, would end decades of stability in the Class I railroad map and create the first truly transcontinental railroad in the United States, fundamentally reshaping the competitive landscape for freight transportation.

Transaction Structure and Valuation

The merger agreement outlines a cash-and-stock transaction with the following key terms:

• Consideration: For each share of Norfolk Southern common stock, shareholders will receive 1.0 share of Union Pacific common stock and $88.82 in cash.³
• Implied Value: Based on UP’s unaffected stock price on July 16, 2025, the consideration implies a value of $320 per NSC share. This represented a 25% premium to NSC’s 30-day volume-weighted average price on that date.³
• Enterprise Value: The deal values Norfolk Southern at a total enterprise value of approximately $85 billion.³ The resulting combined enterprise would be valued at over $250 billion.
• Pro-Forma Ownership: Upon completion, existing Norfolk Southern shareholders will own approximately 27% of the combined company on a fully diluted basis, allowing them to participate in the potential upside from the merger.³

Strategic Rationale and Synergy Targets

The core strategic driver of the merger is the creation of a seamless, single-line rail network connecting the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, and the East Coast. The companies have articulated several key benefits they believe will result from this combination:

• Enhanced Service and Competition: By eliminating the need for freight to be interchanged between separate eastern and western rail networks, the combined company expects to offer faster and more reliable service. This is projected to reduce transit times on key corridors by 24 to 48 hours, creating a more formidable competitor to the long-haul trucking industry and the recently expanded CPKC network.³
• Unlocking New Markets: The single-line service will provide new and more efficient rail options for shippers in regions that are currently less efficiently served by rail, such as the Ohio Valley and markets on both sides of the Mississippi River.³
• Synergy Generation: The companies have targeted approximately $2.75 billion in annualized synergies to be achieved by the end of the third year after closing. These synergies are expected to come from a combination of new revenue opportunities created by the expanded network and cost efficiencies from consolidating operations, optimizing routes, and reducing overhead.³ This synergy target is projected to create over $30 billion in total value for shareholders.³

Pro-Forma Financial Profile and Timeline

Based on 2024 financial results, the combined entity would be a financial powerhouse. The pro-forma company would have approximately $36 billion in annual revenue, $18 billion in EBITDA, and a highly efficient operating ratio of 62%.³ The transaction is expected to be accretive to Union Pacific’s adjusted EPS in the second full year after closing, with high single-digit accretion thereafter.³ The companies are targeting a closing date by

early 2027, contingent upon receiving the necessary regulatory and shareholder approvals.³

Table 4: Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger Terms & Pro-Forma Metrics

Category	Detail
Transaction Terms
Per Share Consideration	1.0 UNP Share + $88.82 Cash
Implied Value per NSC Share	$320.00 (as of July 16, 2025)
NSC Implied Enterprise Value	~$85 Billion
Pro-Forma Ownership	NSC Shareholders: ~27%; UP Shareholders: ~73%
Pro-Forma Financials (2024 Basis)
Revenue	~$36 Billion
EBITDA	~$18 Billion
Operating Ratio	~62%
Free Cash Flow	~$7 Billion
Synergy & Accretion Targets
Annualized Synergies	~$2.75 Billion
Synergy Realization Timeline	By End of Year 3 Post-Close
EPS Accretion (Adjusted)	Accretive in Year 2; High Single-Digit Accretion Year 3+
Capital Structure & Timeline
Pro-Forma Debt/EBITDA at Close	~3.3x
Target Leverage (by Year 2)	~2.8x
Expected Closing	Early 2027
Sources: 3

VIII. Navigating the Gauntlet: Merger Risks and Regulatory Hurdles

While the strategic and financial logic of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger is compelling on paper, the transaction faces a series of formidable risks, the most significant of which is the rigorous and uncertain regulatory approval process. The investment outcome for Norfolk Southern shareholders is now primarily dependent on navigating this complex gauntlet.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) Hurdle

The successful closure of the merger is contingent upon approval from the Surface Transportation Board, which holds absolute authority over railroad consolidation. This represents the single greatest risk to the deal.

• The “Public Interest” Standard: The STB’s governing statute requires it to find that a merger is “consistent with the public interest”.³ This is a broad and challenging standard that goes beyond simple antitrust analysis to include impacts on shippers, labor, the environment, and the national transportation network.
• Lack of Precedent: The STB has not approved a merger between two Class I railroads in over two decades.⁹ In 2001, the board implemented stricter rules for major rail mergers, reflecting a deep-seated concern about the effects of further consolidation in an already concentrated industry. The board’s skepticism was on full display in 2021 when it rejected a key procedural element of Canadian National’s bid for Kansas City Southern, effectively derailing the transaction and paving the way for the competing offer from Canadian Pacific.⁹
• Pro- and Anti-Competitive Arguments: Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern will argue that the merger is pro-competitive, as it will create a more powerful competitor to long-haul trucking and the North American networks of CPKC and CN.³ They will emphasize the creation of new single-line service options and enhanced supply chain efficiency. Conversely, opponents—likely to include competing railroads (most notably CSX), major shipper groups, and labor unions—will argue that the merger will substantially reduce rail-to-rail competition. They will point to the loss of competitive options at key interchange gateways and the potential for the combined entity to exert greater pricing power, ultimately harming the public interest.

Political and Shipper Opposition

Given the critical role of freight rail in the U.S. economy, the proposed merger will attract intense political scrutiny from Congress and various government agencies. Major shipping organizations, representing industries from agriculture to manufacturing, are likely to voice strong opposition, fearing that a reduction in the number of major carriers from six to five will lead to higher rates and diminished service quality, particularly during the complex integration period.

Financial and Integration Risks

Beyond the regulatory challenge, the transaction carries significant financial and operational risks.

• Increased Leverage: The cash component of the deal will be financed with new debt, resulting in a pro-forma Debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the combined company of approximately 3.3x at closing.³ While the companies have committed to maintaining an investment-grade credit rating and plan to deleverage rapidly using the combined entity’s strong cash flow, this increased leverage temporarily reduces financial flexibility and heightens risk in the event of an economic downturn. To facilitate this deleveraging, Union Pacific has stated it will pause its share repurchase program upon the deal’s announcement.⁸
• Execution and Integration Risk: The task of merging two of the nation’s largest and most complex transportation networks is monumental. Integrating disparate operating systems, labor agreements, and corporate cultures presents a significant execution challenge. Any major service disruptions during the integration process could alienate customers and undermine the merger’s financial and strategic goals.
• Termination Fee: The merger agreement includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee, which would be payable by Union Pacific to Norfolk Southern if the transaction fails to obtain regulatory approval.³ The existence of such a large fee underscores the significant and acknowledged level of regulatory risk that both parties have assigned to the deal.

IX. Valuation Framework: From Standalone Value to Merger Arbitrage

The proposed acquisition by Union Pacific has fundamentally reset the valuation framework for Norfolk Southern. While an assessment of its intrinsic value as a standalone entity provides a crucial baseline, the stock now trades primarily as a function of the merger’s terms and its perceived probability of success. The investment analysis thus shifts from a traditional fundamental valuation to one of merger arbitrage.

Standalone Valuation Context

Before the merger announcement, NSC’s valuation was a reflection of its position as a major Class I railroad undergoing an operational turnaround.

• Peer Group Comparison: In the Class I railroad peer group, valuation multiples are typically correlated with profitability and returns on capital. Carriers with consistently lower operating ratios and higher returns on invested capital, such as Union Pacific and the Canadian railroads, have historically commanded premium Price-to-Earnings (P/E) and Enterprise Value-to-EBITDA (EV/EBITDA) multiples. Norfolk Southern, due to its historically higher OR, has often traded at a slight discount to these industry leaders.
• Turnaround Potential: The standalone investment case for NSC was predicated on the company successfully executing its PSR 2.0 strategy and closing the profitability gap with its peers. Had the company achieved its target of a sub-60% operating ratio, its earnings power would have increased substantially, likely leading to a re-rating of its valuation multiple closer to that of its more efficient competitors.

Valuation in a Merger Context

The $320 per share implied offer price from Union Pacific now serves as the primary valuation anchor for Norfolk Southern’s stock.

• Transaction Multiples: The $85 billion enterprise value represents a full valuation, reflecting both a control premium and the significant synergies UP expects to realize. Based on NSC’s pro-forma 2024 EBITDA of approximately $5.5 billion (derived from the combined entity’s pro-forma financials), the acquisition multiple is roughly 15.5x EV/EBITDA.³ This is a premium to where Class I railroads typically trade, underscoring the strategic importance of the acquisition to Union Pacific.
• The Arbitrage Spread: The most critical valuation metric for investors now is the “merger arbitrage spread”—the discount at which NSC’s stock trades relative to the $320 implied deal value. This spread is not an indicator of undervaluation in the traditional sense; rather, it is the market’s price for the risks associated with the deal. The size of the spread is a function of three primary variables:

1. Probability of Completion: The market’s collective assessment of the likelihood that the STB will approve the transaction. A wider spread implies a lower perceived probability of success.
2. Time Value of Money: The deal is not expected to close until early 2027.³ The spread must be wide enough to offer investors a sufficient annualized return to compensate for tying up capital for that period.
3. Downside Risk: The spread also reflects the market’s estimate of where NSC’s stock would trade on a standalone basis if the deal were to be blocked by regulators. A larger potential drop from the current price to the “break price” necessitates a wider spread to compensate for that risk.

The investment decision in Norfolk Southern has therefore transformed from a fundamental analysis of its long-term earnings power into a probabilistic assessment of a complex, multi-year regulatory process. The central question for an investor is whether the current arbitrage spread offers adequate compensation for the significant risk of regulatory denial and the time value of money until a final decision is rendered.

X. Synthesized Investment Thesis & Key Questions

The investment profile of Norfolk Southern Corporation has been irrevocably altered. What was an unfolding story of an operational turnaround at a strategic infrastructure asset has been superseded by a transformative, high-stakes merger proposal. The company’s intrinsic qualities—its valuable Eastern U.S. network and the potential for margin improvement—now serve primarily as a backstop valuation in the event of a deal failure. The forward-looking investment case is almost entirely dependent on the outcome of the proposed acquisition by Union Pacific.

The core investment thesis is now one of event-driven merger arbitrage. The potential for shareholder return is defined by the spread between Norfolk Southern’s current market price and the implied $320 per share acquisition value. This potential return must be weighed against the substantial risk of regulatory denial by the Surface Transportation Board and the opportunity cost of capital over a projected 1.5- to 2-year timeline to a potential closing.

Addressing Key Investment Questions

• How sustainable are NSC’s current margins and returns given industry headwinds?
  On a standalone basis, the accelerated PSR strategy under new operational leadership suggests that margin improvement is not only sustainable but likely to accelerate, with a clear path toward closing the gap with more efficient peers. However, this question is now largely academic. The relevant forward-looking margin profile is that of the combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern entity, which, if the projected $2.75 billion in synergies is realized, would be substantially higher than what either company could achieve alone.3
• What is the company’s exposure to secular growth vs. declining end markets?
  Norfolk Southern maintains a balanced portfolio. Its extensive intermodal network is directly exposed to the secular growth of e-commerce and the ongoing optimization of global supply chains.2 The merchandise segment is tied to the cyclical but enduring U.S. industrial economy, with a leading position in the automotive sector.29 The coal segment faces a clear secular decline in domestic thermal coal but retains a valuable franchise in export metallurgical coal, which provides a source of significant cash flow.21
• How effectively has management navigated recent operational and regulatory challenges?
  Management’s navigation has been a catalyst for profound change. The operational and safety failures leading to the East Palestine derailment created a crisis that ultimately forced a strategic reset. The subsequent pressure from an activist investor led to the appointment of a new COO, who has implemented a more aggressive and credible operational improvement plan.4 This progress arguably made NSC a more attractive acquisition target, and the board’s decision to accept Union Pacific’s offer represents the culmination of this period of intense challenge and transformation.
• What are the key catalysts that could drive outperformance or underperformance?
  The single, overriding catalyst for Norfolk Southern’s stock price is the regulatory review of the Union Pacific merger. Any communication from the STB, major shippers, or political figures that is perceived to increase or decrease the probability of the deal’s approval will be the primary driver of the stock’s performance. Underperformance would be triggered by a definitive regulatory rejection, which would cause the stock to re-price based on its standalone fundamentals. Outperformance would be driven by the gradual closing of the merger arbitrage spread as the closing date approaches and regulatory approval appears more certain.
• How does NSC’s risk-adjusted return profile compare to other infrastructure investments?
  Its profile is no longer that of a typical infrastructure investment, which is generally characterized by stable, predictable cash flows and modest growth. Norfolk Southern now offers a binary, event-driven return profile. The potential upside is capped at the deal price, while the potential downside is a drop to its standalone valuation. This high-risk, high-reward scenario is more akin to a special situation or arbitrage investment than a traditional, long-term infrastructure holding.
• What is the long-term outlook for freight rail demand in NSC’s key markets?
  The long-term outlook for freight demand in the Eastern U.S. remains favorable, underpinned by population and economic growth, the onshoring of manufacturing, and increased activity at Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports.10 Rail’s inherent cost and environmental advantages for long-haul freight position it to continue capturing share from trucking over time. The proposed merger is itself a powerful bet on this long-term growth, as its primary goal is to create a more efficient and competitive network to capture a larger share of the total U.S. freight market.3

Works cited

1. Norfolk Southern (NSC) Investor Relations Material – Quartr, accessed August 4, 2025, https://quartr.com/companies/norfolk-southern-corporation_6327
2. Norfolk Southern reports fourth quarter and full year 2024 results – Jan 29, 2025, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.mediaroom.com/2025-01-29-Norfolk-Southern-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2024-results
3. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern to Create America’s First Transcontinental Railroad, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.up.com/press-releases/growth/norfolk-southern-transcontinental-nr-250729
4. Norfolk Southern poised for opportunistic growth in 2025 – FreightWaves, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/norfolk-southern-poised-for-opportunistic-growth-in-2025
5. Norfolk Southern presentation: We are creating a safer, more profitable railroad with long-term upside for shareholders – Apr 18, 2024, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/2024-04-18-Norfolk-Southern-presentation-We-are-creating-a-safer,-more-profitable-railroad-with-long-term-upside-for-shareholders
6. Norfolk Southern: East Palestine Derailment Costs Top $1 Billion – The Intelligencer, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2024/01/norfolk-southern-east-palestine-derailment-costs-top-1-billion/
7. Norfolk Southern reports fourth quarter and full-year 2023 results – Jan 26, 2024, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.mediaroom.com/2024-01-26-Norfolk-Southern-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2023-results
8. Project Opal Investor Presentation, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/image/America%27s_First_Transcontinental_Railroad.pdf
9. Union Pacific to Acquire Norfolk Southern for $72 Billion – YouTube, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYqeEEG6Dvs
10. Freight Rail Overview | FRA, accessed August 4, 2025, https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/freight-rail-overview
11. Class 1 Railroads (USA): Revenue, Statistics, Overview – American-Rails.com, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.american-rails.com/class.html
12. Railroad Concentration, Market Shares, and Rates (pdf), accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Railroad%20Concentration%2C%20Market%20Shares%2C%20and%20Rates.pdf
13. Class One Railroads Complete Guide – RSI Logistics, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.rsilogistics.com/blog/class-one-railroads-complete-guide/
14. The Ultimate Guide to Railroad Classes: Classes I, II & III – RailState, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.railstate.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-railroad-classes-defining-class-i-class-ii-and-class-iii-railroads/
15. US Rail Infrastructure | ASCE, accessed August 4, 2025, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/rail-infrastructure/
16. FREIGHT RAIL FACTS & FIGURES – Association of American Railroads, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/AAR-Facts-Figures-Fact-Sheet.pdf
17. Rail Industry Overview Economic Report | AAR – Association of American Railroads, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.aar.org/rail-industry-overview/
18. New edition of AAR’s ‘Rail Industry Overview’ highlights 2024’s mixed U.S. rail carload and intermodal volumes – Logistics Management, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/new_edition_of_aars_rail_industry_overview_highlights_2024s_mixed_u.s_rail_carload_and_intermodal_volumes
19. Rail Freight Transportation Market in North America to Grow by USD 37.53 Billion from 2025-2029, Driven by Low Freight Transportation Costs, Report on AI’s Impact on Market Trends – Technavio – PR Newswire, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rail-freight-transportation-market-in-north-america-to-grow-by-usd-37-53-billion-from-2025-2029–driven-by-low-freight-transportation-costs-report-on-ais-impact-on-market-trends—technavio-302376007.html
20. Norfolk Southern Railway – Wikipedia, accessed August 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Southern_Railway
21. North American Class I Freight Rail Performance: Q4 Report – Oliver Wyman, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/north-american-freight-rail-performance.html
22. Norfolk Southern reports fourth quarter and full year 2024 results – Jan 29, 2025, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/2025-01-29-Norfolk-Southern-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2024-results
23. 2024 ANNUAL REPORT – Investor Relations | Norfolk Southern, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/image/454601+2024+AR+FullPages+_Web.pdf
24. 2025 SECOND QUARTER CONFERENCE CALL, accessed August 4, 2025, https://s2.q4cdn.com/859568992/files/doc_financials/2025/q2/CSX-2Q25-Earnings-Presentation-Final.pdf
25. Union Pacific Reports Second Quarter 2025 Results – Investors, accessed August 4, 2025, https://investor.unionpacific.com/news-releases/news-release-details/union-pacific-reports-second-quarter-2025-results/
26. Second Quarter 2025 Financial and Operating Results – CN, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.cn.ca/-/media/files/investors/investor-financial-quarterly/investor-financial-quarterly-2025/q2/q2-2025-financial-presentation-en.pdf
27. CPKC second quarter delivers strong growth, carries momentum …, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cpkc-second-quarter-delivers-strong-growth-carries-momentum-into-second-half-of-2025-302517795.html
28. accessed January 1, 1970, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/702165/000095017024010733/nsc-20231231.htm
29. Norfolk Southern corrects false and misleading claims – Mar 4, 2024, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.mediaroom.com/2024-03-04-Norfolk-Southern-corrects-false-and-misleading-claims
30. 10-K – SEC.gov, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/702165/000070216516000162/nsc1231201510-k.htm
31. Norfolk Southern lays out dramatic transition to PSR | Supply Chain Dive, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/norfolk-southern-psr-transition/548231/
32. Exploring the Fallout of Precision Scheduled Rail: A Rail Worker’s Perspective on Precision Scheduled Rail – FracTracker Alliance, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.fractracker.org/2024/06/exploring-the-fallout-of-precision-scheduled-rail-a-rail-workers-perspective/
33. Norfolk Southern outlines management team’s progress to accelerate balanced strategy and drive productivity – Apr 2, 2024, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/2024-04-02-Norfolk-Southern-outlines-management-teams-progress-to-accelerate-balanced-strategy-and-drive-productivity
34. Norfolk Southern reports second quarter 2025 results, accessed August 4, 2025, https://norfolksouthern.investorroom.com/2025-07-29-Norfolk-Southern-reports-second-quarter-2025-results
35. Norfolk Southern Posts Q2 Revenue Gain – Nasdaq, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/norfolk-southern-posts-q2-revenue-gain
36. RRD23MR005.aspx – NTSB, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/RRD23MR005.aspx
37. Illustrated Digest: Norfolk Southern Railway Derailment and Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release – NTSB, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/SPC2406.pdf
38. Failed Wheel Bearing Caused Norfolk Southern Train Derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20240625.aspx
39. Federal Railroad Administration’s Final Accident Report on Norfolk Southern Derailment in East Palestine Reaches Similar Conclusions as NTSB, and Supports USDOT’s Continued Calls for Safety Improvements and Need for Congress to Act | FRA – Department of Transportation, accessed August 4, 2025, https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/federal-railroad-administrations-final-accident
40. Norfolk Southern Reaches $600 Million Settlement Over 2023 Derailment – Investopedia, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/norfolk-southern-reaches-usd600m-settlement-over-2023-derailment-8628820
41. In East Palestine derailment trial, railroad and chemical maker agree on who pays residents, accessed August 4, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-derailment-norfolk-southern-oxy-settlement-2238558dae377e23a593a92307e6aa2e
42. Norfolk Southern and East Palestine announce $22 million settlement after 2023 derailment, accessed August 4, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/ohio-train-derailment-norfolk-east-palestine-settlement-ce5af7aad2725a721ac4bc1d51667077
43. U.S. Reaches Settlement with Norfolk Southern Over East Palestine Derailment – PSATS.org, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.psats.org/u-s-reaches-settlement-with-norfolk-southern-over-east-palestine-derailment/
44. Safety | Norfolk Southern, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.norfolksouthern.com/en/commitments/safety
45. Norfolk Southern content with minimum safety too often, regulators say after Ohio train derailment – PBS, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/norfolk-southern-content-with-minimum-safety-too-often-regulators-say-after-ohio-train-derailment