Coal shipments are declining every year and will, someday, go to zero. Intermodal picked up a bit in 2017 with the truck driver shortages but autonomous trucking looks like it will boost truck freight capacity while lowering rates in the next 10-20 years. There are some other heavy, bulk commodities like gravel but is that it? Will rails in 2050 just be carrying mixed bulk freight and the occasional double stack unit train from LA to Chicago?
Does managment at the Class 1s talk about this question? Are they acutely aware of the headwinds rail is facing and looking for ways to do something about it?
Trains aren't going anywhere.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
traisessive1Trains aren't going anywhere.
Do you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
Everything changes.
I think the worry about autonomous trucks is overrated at this time. Most trucks I see on I-80 are small companies. While the large truck load and LTL carriers may go into autonomous trucks, I think the smaller ones won't for quite a while. I also don't think you'll see fully autonomous trucks. Rather, there'll still be a driver for certain tasks and conditions a human will be needed for. Partially autonomous trucks could alleviate the driver shortage by allowing one driver to make as many miles as a team.
Instead of worrying about new trucking technology, I'd be worried about production of goods actually moving back to the US. (Whether done by humans or automated machines doesn't matter for this.) I'd guess if new means of production had to be built, it would be located nearer where the major consumer markets would be. That would lessen the number of miles freight would travel and almost favor trucks, driverless or not. Moves under a certain number of miles (dependent on railroad company) fall off their radar.
If you look at the industry only by looking at the class one carriers, the industry is doomed to a few major routes handling bulk and intermodal long distances. Look at the entire industry, the short lines and regionals, the prospects are much better. Many thrive without ever having much or any coal in the first place. They thrive because they are willing to provide service to their customers. They'll look for business that the major carriers pass up. I've said it before, maybe the big carriers should divest all but their major routes. Let the smaller companies do the first/last mile while the class ones do the long line haul.
Jeff
NKP guyDo you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
I think with those two examples their issue wasn't lack of opportunity or traffic rather lack of competitiveness due to lack of diversification of their traffic mix. They found a large chuck of volume in one or two primary markets and stuck with it to the exclusion of almost anything else.
P&LE = Steel Industry related traffic over reliance
E-L = Inability to shed money losiing passenger operations, reliance on coal and fruit shipments (which St. Lawerence Seaway cut into). Inability to quickly respond to rising passenger deficits and declining frieght traffic. Could make the argument that railroad regulation by the Feds made E-L Management complacent.
jeffhergertThey'll look for business that the major carriers pass up. I've said it before, maybe the big carriers should divest all but their major routes.
Thats not a bad idea. I can see what you said with WSOR though. Under Milwaukee Road stewardship a lot of those weed grown branchlines, had maybe a tri-weekly run on them at the end. Now some of them are maintained to secondary mainline standards and carry multiple trains a day including some from BNSF with the large road power (before as a branch being weight restricted to four axle power or smaller). Seems lack of marketing attention as well as line investment drove a lot of potential traffic away in the last days of the Milwaukee Road. Of course abandoning the poorer of the two lines in joint C&NW, Milwaukee Road territory and consolidating traffic on one line, helped as well.
BTW, as I was leaving Milwaukee back to Dallas, saw a UPRR Coal train crossing I-94 on the former Butler Yard belt line over the new bridge with empty coal hoppers with light blue ends.
Then as the Amtrak Hiawatha headed South of Milwaukee another UPRR Coal train empty and headed South on CP with UPRR power on the front, same light blue ended hoppers (possibly could have been the same train but I don't think there is a connection between lines in Milwaukee). Unusual to see two coal trains at once in Milwaukee from the same RR. My guess is WE utilities were stocking up coal.
Well, no one can see the future.
What I do see is that many of the restrictions on rail business growth are not inherent. That means they can be overcome with thought and reason. Something easier said than done. Emotions are powerful things, and they're often fueled by ignorance. Emotions can readily trump thought and reason. And therein lies the real problem.
We need to look at the economics of rail freight movement vs. motor freight movement. Yes, it does all come down to money. People will get all emotional and talk about "An assault on the middle class" or "Corporate Greed", etc. Blaming a villain is emotionally satisfying, but it's not really productive. And in the end the most economically efficient system will win.
The Achilles Heel of railroading is in its high terminal costs. Including the resultant delays needed to aggregate shipments in to economical trainload lots. A trucker just goes from origin to destination. A trucker doesn't have the rail's terminal costs. What to do?
It's obvious. Reduce the rail's terminal cost. How do we do that? We do that by running smaller, lower cost trains from smaller, lower cost terminals. Railroads will still have more terminal costs than truckers, but rail line haul efficiency is much better than a trucker's. Use that!
Lower cost trains mean trains with less labor, among other things. (And here we go! I'll get called every dirty name allowed.) But I reason that there is no reason that a train with a one person crew operating from Cedar Rapids, IA to near a Walmart distribution center serving Chicago would be unsafe or inefficient. Cedar Rapids is a major production point for breakfast cereal. And the rail share from the largest cereal plant in Cedar Rapids (Quaker) is 0.00%.
I reason it's worth a try. But emotion will certainly get in the way. CN has a very underutilized line between Cedar Rapids and Chicago. What does anyone, including rail labor, have to loose by trying it?
Railroads will likely be as important as ever in 30 years from now, although they'll become part of larger, global, multimodal transportation entities. Further mergers between the larger railroads makes less sense than strategic mergers and partnerships with other modes that extend capabilty and global reach. CN's recent purchase of TransX is probably a good indication of what's to come. No doubt CP and the other Class 1s are looking to make similar acquisitions.. maybe the next will be the purchase of an ocean shipping line or a railroad in Europe or Asia. Although no one of course can predict the future, it stands to reason that future transportation entities will need to meet the demands of a more global marketplace where shippers tend to require more diversifed far reaching service capabilities from their vendors. It's why third party logistics companies have grown so rapidly over the last couple of decades... they're able to provide diverse services using different modes and across international borders, albeit on someone else's equipment. The next step in the evolution of transportation services will be companies that can do more using their own assets.. 3PLs generally fall short in being able to assure capacity as that capacity, whether its rail cars or trucks, is owned by others.. large asset based multimodal carriers that span the globe would fix that.
UlrichRailroads will likely be as important as ever in 30 years from now, although they'll become part of larger, global, multimodal transportation entities. Further mergers between the larger railroads makes less sense than strategic mergers and partnerships with other modes that extend capabilty and global reach. CN's recent purchase of TransX is probably a good indication of what's to come. No doubt CP and the other Class 1s are looking to make similar acquisitions.. maybe the next will be the purchase of an ocean shipping line or a railroad in Europe or Asia. Although no one of course can predict the future, it stands to reason that future transportation entities will need to meet the demands of a more global marketplace where shippers tend to require more diversifed far reaching service capabilities from their vendors. It's why third party logistics companies have grown so rapidly over the last couple of decades... they're able to provide diverse services using different modes and across international borders, albeit on someone else's equipment. The next step in the evolution of transportation services will be companies that can do more using their own assets.. 3PLs generally fall short in being able to assure capacity as that capacity, whether its rail cars or trucks, is owned by others.. large asset based multimodal carriers that span the globe would fix that.
CSX went that 'diversification' route in the mid 80's to the early 90's. They purchased Texas Gas Corp. which in addition to its natural gas holdings also owned American Commercial Barge Lines and SeaLand, the originator of containerized ocean shipping.
From my point of view, I never saw any real synergies get developed between the railroad, barge line and container line.
From a purely personal view point, when the purchase was made, company official bonus's weren't paid account what the purchase cost. Later as the various components were sold off in individual transactions, the proceeds from the sales were never included in the income line for company officials bonus as they were listed a 'extraordinary income'. So the company's non-contract employes got jobbed on all ends of the transactions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Same was done many years ago at Canadian Pacific.. famously branding each division as CP Rail, CP Air, CP Express, CP Hotels etc. They were way ahead of their time, which is why it didn't work out as well as it might have. The regulations back then were much more restrictive and not conducive to a far flung diversified undertaking. Today we have less restrictive economic regulation.. much better technology to manage it.. and probably most important, we have customers who need that capability. A major change since 2000 is that customers.. even the big ones.. have offloaded the supply management to their vendors. Its nolonger good enough to service one or a couple of lanes or to offer only one mode. The key now is managing all of the shippers' logistics needs, including what mode (s) are to be used. All shippers really want to do is provide the shipment stats and service expectations... the rest is up to the vendor. Fewer shippers are saying "we need a boxcar" or we need a flatbed trailer".. increasingly they're saying "here is my shipment X.. make it appear in Saint Louis on May 3". In part this is because shippers have grown and become more complex themselves, and in part this is because shippers, like most other businesses, want to divest themselves of work that isn't core to what they do. It's been a steady progression in that direction for a few years now toward a one stop "supply chain management"... and as an added benefit to transportation vendors, it provides that proverbial moat that separates those few who can from the many who can't.. Conversely, providing nothing more than capacity in specific lanes and calling that a niche works less well every day... those guys will be gone soon.
RailRoader608 Coal shipments are declining every year and will, someday, go to zero. Intermodal picked up a bit in 2017 with the truck driver shortages but autonomous trucking looks like it will boost truck freight capacity while lowering rates in the next 10-20 years. There are some other heavy, bulk commodities like gravel but is that it? Will rails in 2050 just be carrying mixed bulk freight and the occasional double stack unit train from LA to Chicago? Does managment at the Class 1s talk about this question? Are they acutely aware of the headwinds rail is facing and looking for ways to do something about it?
Coal shipments may decline, but they won't go to zero, ever. Unless we stop producing steel, there will be a need for met coal (coking coal) to adjust the carbon content of the steel. Will it ever be King Coal again? No, but it will be around for quite a while.
Autonomous trucks are still a pipe dream. Machine vision systems needed for a truely autonomous vehicle still have trouble distinguishing lane lines and pedestrians in heavy rain and snow. Twenty years from now, it might be acceptably accurate, but by that time Amazon could have a conveyor belt to every address in the US that drones can't reach and trucks won't be needed.
Despite the images of dis-connected, pampered fools in ivory towers in-charge of the railroads, looking to the future is one of the things they get paid to do.
CN already owns the Great Lakes Fleet, acquiring it when they purchased the BLE and DMIR. Like TransX will be, it is operated seprately from the railway.
CN has an in on Great Lakes shipping and some car ferry services on the east and west coasts. It's entirely possible we could see CN get into more marine business.
The Great Lakes Fleet is what's left of US Steel's ore boats. There aren't that many boats in the fleet and shipping on the Lakes has declined mostly in line with the decline of North American steelmaking.
I don't see any particular need for CN to get into overseas shipping. It's doing just fine interchanging containers with existing ship lines.
Is it a stretch to say that CN is involved with Algoma Central's fleet of boats? They aren't used for coal, rather to carry aggregate to places like Grand Haven, my home town.They were probably divested when CN (or WC, to be precise) took over the Algoma Central Railroad.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
rrnut282Twenty years from now, it might be acceptably accurate, but by that time Amazon could have a conveyor belt to every address in the US that drones can't reach and trucks won't be needed.
Perhaps 20 years sounds too soon, but consider....it was only 20 years ago that Google was founded; the first Apple iMac came out; Microsoft became the largest company in the world and Windows 98 released; MP3 players were all the rage; only 100 titles were available on the new-fangled DVD players; etc.
In all likelyhood, the only thing safe to say about the future is that it will be nothing like we imagine it will be.
Just looking at the numbers that have been in front of our face for the past 30 years, the future is INTERMODAL.
Loads have grown a bit faster than the economy while carload continues to shrink and coal continues it's death spiral.
For railroad to prosper in the future, they have to have a plan to configure themselves in a manner that optimizes intermodal and still accomodates "botique" carload traffic.
This means railroads have to look like the BNSF transcon and NS Chicago line, and not single track, laid on the dirt, three+ degree curve, crawling through yard limit, 8 mph up the ruling grade, 15 mph "connections" on through route, 1-1/2 hr to make a set out, 19th century wonders.
And they better wake up soon.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CShaveRR Is it a stretch to say that CN is involved with Algoma Central's fleet of boats? They aren't used for coal, rather to carry aggregate to places like Grand Haven, my home town.They were probably divested when CN (or WC, to be precise) took over the Algoma Central Railroad.
The shipping line was tied to the steel company like the railroad and they split at the same time. Algome Central Corp. carries Iron Ore from Duluth/Superior to Nanticoke, ON and also from Sept, Ile, QC to Nanticoke and Sorel. It moves grain from Thunder Bay to Quebec City and other ports on the lower St. Lawrence River, plus Salt, Cement and Limestone.
CN owns the ships of the Great Lakes Fleet but due to the Jones Act is in no way involved in their operation. Instead they are operated by a company called Key Lakes, Inc.
zardozNah. Once AI really takes off, and starts developing technology we humans cannot even imagine, maybe we'll see Star Trek-type inanimate matter transporters...no need for trucks, trains, etc.
Thats the plan. Most governmental IT systems are moving to the Amazon Cloud which is also probably stoking the Trump-Bezo's fued. They are already training people in machine learning and AI. By 2025 Alexia will probably be able to file your IRS tax return as well as give you a status on the refund check. It's not as far in the future as most people think. And almost just in time too.
There will be a brief overlap period but ironically the automation in the workplace is coinciding with our first ever global population declines. In some countries already population is on the decline but by 2050 in most countries it is forecasted that populations will be declining among humans. I think I read it will level out at some point but I forget the number.
The Cloud - is ripe for data theft. Brick & mortar data centers get hacked - so will The Cloud and the damage will be far worse than anything yet experienced.
CN's purchase of TransX is nothing like UP's purchase of Overnite back in the 80's or whenever that occurred. TransX has been one of CN's biggest intermodal customers since the late 90's, so it's more akin to BNSF buying JB Hunt, but without the complications of TransX having relationships with all the other railroads as well (CN offers TransX coast-to-coast coverage of the Canadian market).
Now, back to the original question - what do I see for the future of freight rail?
Autonomous vehicles would be the big game-changer, if the technology were to develop. There's been a lot of debate here and in other Trains threads about how realistic autonomous trucks are, at least in the relatively near future. I've recently come to believe that we've been asking ourselves that question from the wrong point of view, and with blinders on.
Let's say your goal is to build a vehicle capable of delivering a load of freight from point A to point B without a human driver on board. What's the shortest path to achieving that goal? Is it to develop AI smart and reliable enough to distinguish lane markings in snow and fog, or a pedestrian from a traffic cone, or anticipate how a human in a nearby vehicle might react to a sudden unexpected situation? Or is it to develop a vehicle capable of navigating its way through a national network of private, controlled roads reserved exclusively for such vehicles for most if not all of the trip? Roads which could use steel rails for guidance? I suspect that much, if not most, of the technology that would be needed for this already exists on the vehicle side. It's only the national network of exclusive freight shipment roads that needs some rethinking and retuning (and maybe expansion?)
Here's another question I've been pondering lately. Why did the rail industry develop 'trains', if not to be able to handle multiple loads with one crew? Is there any other reason to aggregate shipments going to and from different locations together, given all the time-consuming and expensive switching that's required? If autonomous vehicles could find their own way through the rail network (with perhaps some help from a centralized traffic control system), why not let them make the trip on their own, the way trucks do on the interstate system today?
^^^ Nice dream your having there but let me try to return you to reality:
1. Driverless trucks need significant additional road capacity if they are to shift from rail to highways. Your going to have a very massive traffic jam if you try to empty all the intermodal trains onto the interstate highway system. I can tell you as a former resident of Wisconsin......your going to piss off Joe Lunchpail in Chicago at a very minimum, even if he rides the Metra Express to work.
2. Driverless trucks even if powered by electricity might be cheaper to operate but there is no way they will ever compete with the cost efficiency of long-haul freight railroads......unless maybe they float in the air and burn hydrogen, even then your looking at buying more equipment and a lot of dead birds on the ground.
3. Crewless freight trains? Railroads are not entirely implementing PTC for altruistice reasons of preservation or safety of passenger trains. They expect to use the automation feature on the freight hauling side and also achieve additional fuel cost savings.
To CMStPnP: For clarity, whose "dream" are you referring to? Your post is confusing to me.
Maybe the railroads should look to Europe. Coal traffic is only a shadow of what it was and the distances travelled by railfreight are extremely short by American standards. Yet many state and private operators still manage to transport considerable quantities of freight and turn a profit. Not only that but the operators have to fit their freight trains on top of extremely intensive passenger operations which always get priority. In Europe dwell times at yards have been cut to virtually nothing and cars seldom stay in terminals for more than a few hours.Look at a large sorting yard in Europe and most of the time they are empty. Then a brace of trains will arrive and the activity is frenetic as cars are swapped between trains. Within 2/3 hours all the trains will have left and peace descends until the next rush.
LmsrMaybe the railroads should look to Europe. Coal traffic is only a shadow of what it was and the distances travelled by railfreight are extremely short by American standards. Yet many state and private operators still manage to transport considerable quantities of freight and turn a profit. Not only that but the operators have to fit their freight trains on top of extremely intensive passenger operations which always get priority. In Europe dwell times at yards have been cut to virtually nothing and cars seldom stay in terminals for more than a few hours.Look at a large sorting yard in Europe and most of the time they are empty. Then a brace of trains will arrive and the activity is frenetic as cars are swapped between trains. Within 2/3 hours all the trains will have left and peace descends until the next rush.
It sounds as if Europe is doing better than the US at short-haul intermodal but unfortuantely I don't think they've cracked the code either. European governments have been pushing intermodal rail harder than the US government but rail still moves ~12% of EU freight vs 50%+ for trucking.
https://www.ajot.com/premium/ajot-europe-strives-to-build-more-intermodal
But I agree the US could learn some best practices from the Europeans and perhaps reduce the break even distance at which rail becomes competitive with trucking.
The scary thing for trains is that using some rules on thumb, one RR car can carry as much as 4 trucks, and a train can be 100 or more cars long. Now I know that the arithmetic and algebra comparison is not all that realistic, but a train with two workers is having trouble competing with 400 trucks with 400 workers. What will happen if for safety reasons there are only 100 worker/supervisers for 400 trucks?
Somehow RR freight needs work on competing with shorter runs. Given the efficiency of container boxes, small cranes, computers and better scheduling perhaps it will be happening. Positive train control may be able to run trains closer together. And another matter of arithmetic, those trains do not need to go at breakneck speed to compete - they just always need to be moving, say at 40 50 mph.
ROBIN LUETHEtrains do not need to go at breakneck speed to compete - they just always need to be moving, say at 40 50 mph.
Many years ago, an official rode with me from Proviso to Butler, in order to see how the upgrades to the New Line sub were coming along (the line was being brought up from many 10mph slow orders to a constant 30mph standard). The line had numerous premanent speed restrictions (30mph over Deval, 35mph through Gurnee SS, 25mph at St. Francis and Belton). I asked him why not upgrade to 40 or 50mph. He said that the small amount of time saved going from 30 to 50mph (where possible) was so small compared with the huge cost of going from 30 to 50, did not justify the cost, and that the railroad would realize far greater efficiencies if that same amount of money were spent improving yards.
However, he did agree that the efficiency gained from going from 10 to 30mph WAS justified.
Door-to-door, nothing is faster than a dedicated delivery vehicle; and nothing is cheaper than train.
CMStPnPI can tell you as a former resident of Wisconsin......your going to piss off Joe Lunchpail in Chicago at a very minimum, even if he rides the Metra Express to work.
Maybe there were lunchpails in Cheesehead Paradise many years ago, but none on Metra.
Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE.
mkwelbornjrRegulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE.
ConRail retired the Erie - not CSX. By the time CSX acquired its portion of ConRail the Erie was no more than right of way without track.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.