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?
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.
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.
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
traisessive1Trains aren't going anywhere.
Do you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
Everything changes.
Trains aren't going anywhere.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.