Union Pacific reported third-quarter 2026 results on Thursday, October 22, before the open. Operating revenue: $7,197 million, up 15%, and net income $2,076 million - up 16%. The company reports a series of records.
And that is exactly where the question worth asking of a railroad's report sits: how much of that 15% is actually business?
There may be errors or inaccuracies. Found something that looks wrong? Write to me and I will fix it.
What was reported
| (millions of dollars, except per share) | Q3 2026 | Q3 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freight revenue | 6,813 | 5,927 | +15% |
| Other revenue | 384 | 317 | +21% |
| Total operating revenue | 7,197 | 6,244 | +15% |
| Operating income | 2,943 | 2,549 | +15% |
| Interest expense | (312) | (327) | -5% |
| Income before income taxes | 2,726 | 2,318 | +18% |
| Income tax expense | (650) | (530) | +23% |
| Net income | 2,076 | 1,788 | +16% |
| Diluted earnings per share (dollars) | 3.49 | 3.01 | +16% |
| Adjusted diluted earnings per share (dollars) | 3.53 | 3.08 | +15% |
Source: Union Pacific's third-quarter 2026 press release, October 22, 2026, filed with the SEC on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1. Adjusted earnings and the adjusted operating ratio are non-GAAP measures, as the company defines them. Total operating revenue is the sum of the two revenue lines in the report.
‼ 15% versus 6% - and this is the heart of the report
Operating revenue rose 15%. Freight revenue excluding the fuel surcharge rose 6%.
The difference is the fuel surcharge - an addition the company collects from customers when fuel prices rise. It enters the revenue line in full, but it is largely a pass-through of cost, not margin.
So the figure that describes the business is the 6%, not the 15%. And it squares with volume: freight volume rose 6%.
And the company itself states the rest explicitly: higher fuel prices hurt the operating ratio by 140 basis points. In other words, the very component inflating revenue is the one eroding the efficiency measure.
The operating ratio, and why "improvement" here is not clear-cut
In railroads, the operating ratio is operating expenses divided by revenue. Lower is better.
- Reported: 59.1% - a 10 basis point improvement
- Adjusted: 58.8% - worsened by 30 basis points
So on the reported basis the picture is slightly better, and on the adjusted basis - the one meant to strip out one-offs - efficiency actually slipped a little. And both of those figures live in the same release.
The reported figure can be verified from the report itself: operating expenses were $4,254 million ($7,197 less $2,943), and dividing by revenue gives 59.1%. In the year-ago quarter: $3,695 million divided by $6,244 million, or 59.2%.
Operations, and here the report is strong
There is no ambiguity here - the operating data are good, and the company reports records in workforce productivity, train length and the fuel consumption rate:
| Q3 2026 | Change | |
|---|---|---|
| Workforce productivity (car miles per employee) | 1,219 | +5% improvement |
| Freight car velocity (daily miles per car) | 228 | +1% improvement |
| Average terminal dwell (hours) | 19.9 | 2% improvement |
| Fuel consumption rate (gallons per thousand gross ton-miles) | 1.034 | 2% improvement |
The company also reports that its reportable personal injury rate improved.
The merger in the background
Chief executive Jim Vena refers in the release to the upcoming steps of the Surface Transportation Board's merger review process, and writes that the company looks forward to delivering the benefits of "America's first transcontinental railroad".
This is context worth holding while reading the report: the company is in a regulatory process over a merger, and it does not depend on the quarter's results. The report contains no timetable or estimate for a decision.
The outlook
The company affirmed the main elements of its outlook: high-single-digit reported earnings per share growth, consistent with a three-year compound growth target of high-single to low-double digit through 2027; pricing dollars in excess of inflation dollars; and industry-leading operating ratio and return on invested capital.
And what was updated: operating ratio improvement from the core business, with the caveat that the reported ratio is challenged by high fuel prices - precisely the same factor as in the quarter. The capital plan stands at $3.5 billion.
The stock
The report was published before the open, and the investor call was held at 8:45 a.m. Eastern. So the trading reaction is that same day, October 22 - and it was dramatic.
The stock opened at $280.10 - a negative gap of 2.70% from the prior close of $287.87 - and fell as low as $278.59, which is 3.23% below that close. From there it climbed through the day and closed at $298.09, up 3.55%, near the session high ($299.38).
That is a move of 7.00% from the low to the close, on volume of 5.0 million shares - 77% above the day before.
On Friday the stock fell 1.75%, to $292.87.
הזווית שלי
דעה אישית של אילן אברמוב - לא ייעוץ ולא המלצה
I think this report is one of the cleanest examples of the fact that the revenue line at a railroad does not say what it appears to say.
15% revenue growth is an excellent headline. But when the company itself writes two lines down that freight revenue excluding the fuel surcharge rose 6%, and that higher fuel prices hurt the operating ratio by 140 basis points - it is effectively saying that the component which grew revenue is also the component that worsened efficiency. That is not a contradiction; it simply means a fuel surcharge passes through the report rather than staying in it.
So the figure I read here is the 6%, and it squares with volume up 6%. A business moving 6% more freight and getting core pricing on it - that is a good report. It is just not a 15% report.
And the line it is tempting to skip is the adjusted operating ratio worsening by 30 basis points. At a company whose efficiency measures are the story - train length, miles per employee, dwell time - and they are genuinely at records, it is interesting that the adjusted ratio nonetheless slipped. The plausible explanation is fuel, but "adjusted" is meant to strip out outliers, which is why that line deserves following rather than dismissing.
And what I hold in doubt is actually the thing that is not in the report: the merger review process. The release mentions it and gives it no date and no estimate, and it is the one place in this report where the important figure simply does not exist. That is legitimate - a company cannot forecast a regulator - but it means anyone reading the report is reading only part of the picture.
What I will follow: freight revenue excluding the fuel surcharge, which is the real growth measure here; and the adjusted operating ratio, because if it keeps slipping while the efficiency records continue, there is a story there.
(To be clear: this is my personal opinion only. Nothing here is a recommendation to take any action, and there is no forecast here of the price of any security.)
Ilan Abramov, the author, or anyone on his behalf may hold some of the securities or funds mentioned in this article.
