This is a follow up to @NorthWest's post A man is sitting at his desk, looking at photos. He comes across some of his old train photos. Looking back, it is hard to believe machines like trains ever traversed the continent at all. It had been almost a decade since he last saw a revenue train in person. The last railfanning he ever did was going out to see crews remove the rails over Cajon Pass. The pictures got him thinking about the decline of railroads, how it happened. It began in the 1990s, with service breakdowns resulting from mergers. Slow speeds and unreliable service meant that many once-reliable rail customers were switching to trucks. Carload traffic began to fall and never picked back up. This only continued with the decline of coal-fired power plants. A brief period of growth came when domestic intermodal began taking hold in the early to mid 2010s, but that only lasted so long, and in the year leading up to the caronavirus pandemic, volumes began to drop as railroads adopted PSR. Much like what had happened to carload, volumes and market share never recovered. But this only laying the groundwork for the coming disaster, as despite the fact that trucking was growing, rail was merely stagnating. Rail freight's outlook moving into the 2040s was grim. Trucking tonnage was set to grow by 4 billion tons, whereas rail was barely set to grow at all. Not dying, but certainly declining. Death came in the 2030s, after a mediocre decade, the railroads were still solid businesses by the time the 2030s came around, but this changed quickly, which very few people foresaw. Autonomous and partially automated vehicles were finally ready and approved for use on highways. Long the source of derision, especially among railfans who joked that autonomous cars would be 5 years away forever as they had been long delayed from the original lofty promises. But eventually, they did come, and when they did, nobody was laughing. The first thing to go was intermodal, specifically domestic. Margins were thin for railroads on this business, and once automated trucks proved to be cheaper for that type of haul, nobody was moving domestic intermodal anymore. Once automated truck availability ramped up, international intermodal volumes began eroding too. Shortlines were next to go as small shippers could no longer find saving in rail as journey times and costs of trucking were slashed. Finished automobile traffic evaporated very quickly as well, since cars could deliver themselves right from the factory. Soon the railroads were nothing more than heavy bulk carriers, but even this came under threat as coal and oil movements across North America ended, and once volumes and profitability fell down the drain, deffered maintenance began catching up to the railroads and even "safe" commodities like grain switched to the highways. Soon all the class 1 railroads were bankrupt. The 2030s for railroads very much resembled the 1970s, but much much worse. None of the railroads were able to recover, and soon, the only method of shipping goods over land was by road. Trucking companies were even making the same profit margins railroads once made thanks to increased volumes and reduced costs. People complained about the trucking companies not paying the full cost of using the roads, but that is something that always was the case since the dawn of trucking. Ultimately, it wasn't as bad as people say. In the end, there were more trucks on the road, but the lack of hours of service limitations and the ability to move almost all hours a day meant that vehicles moved around the clock, reducing the amount of congestion, and with vehicle-to-vehicle communications among other benefits of self driving vehicles, traffic congestion had become a thing of the past. These changes also saved consumers a lot of money, as the total cost of moving goods was greatly reduced. The man remembered all the good times railfanning, but ultimately he realized that as the world moved forward, it didn't need railroads anymore. It had already been moving in that direction for over half a century, but now the reign of railroads was over. Links for further reading: Impacts of Self Driving Trucks: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/self-driving-trucks-will-change-the-world-more-than-you-might-think/ Profitability of Automated Trucks: https://medium.com/starsky-robotics-blog/the-poor-roi-of-autonomy-f5d6f4f2dd14 Cost per mile of Autonomous trucks vs Rail: https://ark-invest.com/analyst-research/autonomous-trucks/
Tonnage by mode, projections to 2045:
https://www.bts.gov/weight-shipments-mode
As the man drove home on the gravel road that used to be the interstate, he was squashed flat by one of the 1,000's of wall-to-wall trucks on the highway.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The barriers to driverless trucks will be regulatory and political, not technical.
Trying to merge onto an interstate in between three six-truck platoons is going to be a nightmare. I doubt people are going to be willing to pay for the infrastructure required for large-scale modal conversion, because it will require greater highway spending and the highway trust fund already fails to cover costs.
The inherent energy advantages of rail will always be a competitive advantage; railroads need to fix their reliability, velocity and service problems to best take advantage of them.
Railroads not going to disappear . Need to build this yet!
If American railroading dies out, it'll be do to two things, or a combination of both.
Suicide, or vampirism.
Let's say American companies do pick up the patriotic banner of manufacturing what we need in the US in the US (and Canada). Are there any railroad people with the desire and ability to market location economics that's favorable to railroad traffic development?
Gramp Are there any railroad people with the desire and ability to market location economics that's favorable to railroad traffic development?
About 10 years ago, our marketting asked for input from current RRers about any industry that was near any of our lines (whether it had a siding or not).
I know many locations were sent in, and I don't know if they retained that information, but it was collected at one time.
Of course that was a couple CEOs and a few dozen operating policies ago.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The vision seems to be that suddenly platoons of trucks will be running down the freeways we know today. But, if they put all that railroad tonnage on existing roadways, in monter truck platoons, it would tear up the road infrastucture in a short time.
I also don't see how you run that intense truck traffic on close headway, in multiple lanes; and expect private automobiles to be mixed in with all that heavy trucking. So, I don't think that cars and trucks can share the same roadway.
This new age of automatic trucking will need its own corridor where large platoons can run fast and close. And this corridor would need an extra strong roadbed to bear all that heavy truck traffic. So, you are almost into something like a fixed guidway or railroad track. Also this "truckway" would have precision control of all traffic. It would end up being something like railroading without flanges.
You could almost call it a self-driving train. When you look at it in those terms, maybe this is the final embodiment of the automatic freight train that is predicted right along with automatic trucking. So if a platoon of independent tractive/carriage units are all operting automatically in precise concert with each other, then maybe this is actually the continuation of the freight train that is predicted to disappear in a few years.
Euclid-- Makes perfect sense. Thinking you are correct.
EuclidBut, if they put all that railroad tonnage on existing roadways, in monter truck platoons, it would tear up the road infrastucture in a short time.
Remember that the Interstates were originally built to handle M60 tanks and the like. Most have been rebuilt - the question is whether that original standard was maintained.
One thing that such automated trucks will allow is having them all run at a consistent speed, which would eliminate the problem of one truck taking several miles to overtake another. Oftimes the difference in speed is well within single digits. The electronic nature of the vehicles would likely make monitoring and enforcement into real-time activies.
While completely separate roadways for the trucks would probably be a great goal, on the practical side, it's not really feasible. That's a lot of real estate, and if the problems that have confronted high speed rail (in terms of real estate) are any indication, would see a lot of pushback.
I would opine that for much of the system that the addition of an HOV-style lane, and/or an express lane in built up areas, would probably serve the purpose.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Euclid But, if they put all that railroad tonnage on existing roadways, in monter truck platoons, it would tear up the road infrastucture in a short time. Remember that the Interstates were originally built to handle M60 tanks and the like. Most have been rebuilt - the question is whether that original standard was maintained.
Euclid But, if they put all that railroad tonnage on existing roadways, in monter truck platoons, it would tear up the road infrastucture in a short time.
From personal observations and no scientific acknowledgement - today's Interstates are barely surviving the 80K trucks, let alone the weight of M60 tanks.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidThis new age of automatic trucking will need its own corridor where large platoons can run fast and close.
Y'all are dancing around the 'vision of the future' that ttrraaffiicc's scenario implies, but none of you seems to have tumbled to it quite yet.
Think back to the dawn of the railroad age ... how the original Pennsylvania state railroad system was supposed to work. The operating model with the posts, and 'laying on the leather'? And here are all these presumed heavily-built railroad 'guideways' -- most of them incapable of being rebuilt into primitive roads-needing-shoulders-and-excess-width, but with inherent grade and curve geometry at least as good as highway spec -- supposedly going idle for want of 'centralizable' traffic?
As Euclid points out, the first best use of those rights-of-way would be for, well, let's call it TRT, for 'truck rapid transit' as a backformation from BRT. Take the best of the rights of way, deck them renewably for road wheels, and provide distributed or point electrical support. Then run them interactively, for autonomous vehicles of applicable spec and inspection only, with fleeting and directional running just as for trains.
But there's more. Even adapting the 'sleds' Musk wanted to use for Hyperloop gives you the ability to run trucks on steel rails at... well, the highest speeds justified by overall profitability in sectors of the ground transportation industry. (Trucks that need not be expensively instrumented, or kept in perfect order, or given costly and potentially disastrous full electric drive, be it added). The sleds themselves can be easily platooned and run across the 'iron ocean' to any point they are needed or wanted, and of course can easily enter or leave a given stream of platooning vehicles with computer-negotiated ease. (Think of it as 'modular piggyback') This was a logical follow-on from the PRT studies in the '70s, and the only reason it wasn't pursued academically is that the money wouldn't be there for freight. It is assuredly there in an era where the alternative is full instrumentation, lots and lots and lots of potential-liability insurance coverage, and widespread adoption of full-electric trucks... with both free-road and toll-road running-service degradation nitwit-designed autonomous trucks would aggravate just as it's already proven to aggravate nitwit-designed BRT systems in France.
More still: if there are full-electric trucks, the sleds for them can be driven and controlled using the equipment on the trucks, giving them the advantages of steel-wheel lack of resistance and close default guiding in addition to controlled headway and distributed speed and access-point control. Even issues like brake or control failure on single units can be much more easily (and directly) handled without catastrophe than on any alternative system.
And it should also be possible to run, well, long strings of 'sleds' with distributed power, loaded with wheelless containers to save tare weight and eliminate the need to send expensive road-mode powertrains around. These might begin to look suspiciously like Kneiling's integral trains -- or my sideloading lightweight articulated skeleton flats. And power for them suspiciously like locomotives... autonomous or under distributed control.
I'll let you futurists chew on these ideas for a while.
2058 - Ten Years Further In The Future
Cars are not very popular with the younger age. Between working from home and living closer to work, car traffic is down dramatically from the 20's. Thus, cars were allowed to be banned from the interstates, where they were too much of a hazard for the truck platoons.
With the cars gone, the thru trucks now use the inside lane. The outer lane is used for merging and local traffic. Once up to speed, the platoons can move over into the slot created for them by central dispatch. All interstate traffic is controlled by central dispatch, with feedback so they can handle exceptions.
The latest innovation, starting to show up, is the addition of steel rails as guides in an express lane. Near interchanges, the top is flush with the pavement. Here they provide guidance, but the load is still carried by rubber. Past the interchange the rails start to rise so as to carry the load. This allows the guided truck to move from pavement to rail without slowing down.
To use this express lane, trucks and trailers have an additional pair of wheels on each axle. They have steel tires on rims similar to those for rubber. Like rubber, the steel tires have to be changed with wear. They don't add a lot of weight, unlike the heavy wheels which had been used by railroad cars.
Further, the use of this express lane is limited to trucks whose computers allow central to determine that they are properly maintained. All others are limited to pavement only.
A lot of good discussion here. I think the biggest theme here is that rail freight just doesn't work these days. It is fundamentally flawed, and the technology is essentially obsolete. The industry is going to die, the only question is what will replace it?
ttrraaffiiccThe industry is going to die, the only question is what will replace it?
I happen to think there is a happy future for properly implemented and run standard-gauge -- just not with financiers trying to wreck it. There are a number of historical examples (UP/CP post-1872 is one) where inherent profitability is subverted, destroyed, or lost for what may be a protracted time. There are other examples where highly-promising technological developments are frustrated or lost due to financial or political circumstances -- light single-coach steam 'railcars' in the panic of 1857 and then the Civil War years being a particularly striking documented example.
But there is a similar cautionary tale for the 'happy world' of electric trucks in history: the story of what happened to the Pickwick Nite Coach, shaping up to be a disruptive technology to any small-volume Pullman traffic in the early 1930s. It is not a very large step from one of the double-deck Nite Coaches to a full articulated vehicle of considerable size, as indeed the Santa Fe tried a year or two before WWII.
These did not fail predominantly because of regulation (e.g. the Motor Carrier act of 1935) or government restriction of perceived competition. The big principal thing was Missouri enacting strict combination size and weight limits specifically to cut down road-damage and safety concerns for large vehicles.
Long before there is any particular pervasive change in capital-intensive (and maintenance-integrity-critical) autonomous trucking -- let alone electric trucking with its high barrier to entry in services -- look for there to be a backlash over road deterioration, perceived lack of safety once malconsidered platooning and other techniques become established, and finding ways to get trucks to contribute their 'fair share' to the communities they run through as 'historical' means of financing things become less and less effective (e.g. road maintenance tied to absolute dollars of fuel tax in an evolving electric paradigm).
I think there is far more 'future' in the idea of a distributed autonomous regional-trucking infrastructure than one where many tractors runs up large road mileage in transcontinental service. One thing this would involve is greater use of gang-unloading techniques for 'dumb' trailers -- automating the old CargoSpeed idea with greater 'autonomous' sensing and operation is not particularly difficult and (to me at least) poses relatively few problems. Once you have automatic racks that can handle ~240 trailers every 7 or 8 minutes, much of the 'yarding' difficulty involved with "just-in-time" or PSR-like operational models specifically for TOFC with relatively unreinforced trailers goes away. If you then have autonomous yard tractors filling in for those trailers whose 'tractors' were not present at arrival time, you have asynchronous operation with a relatively small dedicated footprint, in which regional trucks handle all the reasonable last-mile services without getting more than a few hundred miles from their assigned service base, the equivalent of 'home every night' for intelligent machinery.
There will be plenty of times, and plenty of places, still best served by OTR trucks, including externally-assisted electric trucks. We have already discussed that containers on OTR truck chassis made directly-rail-capable is an economic nonstarter, with operating conditions waiting in the wings to discourage potential adopters if the tare-weight and loading characteristics already haven't. What we now have is an enhanced model going back to 'pure' TOFC as an option, and it's interesting to look back at some of the historical reviews of different kinds of innovative TOFC equipment to see what might and might not work in this newer paradigm.
You will still have a fairly sensible containerized infrastructure for 'shipborne' goods that need distribution. Electric container-hauling trucks may not be as compellingly disruptive in long-distance handling of that, as a completely different trailer underframe and construction is required for that service than normal OTR vans or specialty trailers.
It's been recognized since the 1940s that autonomous rail is in many respects 'easier' than for road-going vehicles (the same is somewhat counterintuitively true for aircraft) and that were existing railroads to 'go out of business' any number of new firms, no longer bound by current labor or management agreements or historical precedent, could find ways to use the existing assets more effectively. The "iron ocean" operating model would, of course, be a far better use of most of the current main-line infrastructure than either a 'glorified busway' or a bunch of little railbanked trails.
I think the theme is not that railroading is technologically obsolete, but that the present operating paradigm is obsolete. Railroading has traditionally considered itself to be in the business of running trains rather than serving customers who need things moved from A to B. This insistance on running trains has increasingly left them with only the traffic that has to move in trains.
Harrison's methodology is really about "how do we run the trains at the lowest cost while charging the most the market will bear". Better serving the evolving logistics community will require understanding that what is the lowest cost to the railroad is not to their customers, and adapting to the needs of the customers is the only way to grow.
I think platooned and automated trucks are going to run into issues with the 'social license to operate', where their public drawbacks are socially considered to outweigh their private benefits. Look at road train legislation in Australia for an example where really long trucks are permitted, but only in sparsely populated areas. Even if automated trucks are better behaved, I don't see the public giving the trucking industry carte blanche to run long platoons on busy public highways.
The same social license to operate goes towards the railroads, too. If they keep discouraging traffic types, crowing about how much they can gouge captive customers, and insisting on their right to block grade crossings for however long they feel like, they're going to feel the public backlash. And I wouldn't count on the STB always being as friendly to railroads as it is now.
So, in my view, there will always be a social demand for railroading to haul volumes of goods that people don't want to contend with on the highways. So far, the railroads haven't been good about picking up their end of the bargain, which is to fill this need. The less successful they are at it, the more their negative externalities will find a sympathetic public. Be a good neigbor, or you'll be made a good neighbor through regulation you may not like very much...
BaltACD tree68 Euclid But, if they put all that railroad tonnage on existing roadways, in monter truck platoons, it would tear up the road infrastucture in a short time. Remember that the Interstates were originally built to handle M60 tanks and the like. Most have been rebuilt - the question is whether that original standard was maintained. From personal observations and no scientific acknowledgement - today's Interstates are barely surviving the 80K trucks, let alone the weight of M60 tanks.
Anyway, tanks are never run long distances on their tracks - they're always loaded on trucks (or trains). So we're back to a heavy truck load scenario.
Just some facts for thought.
- PDN.
Of the millions of SUV/sedan/pickup drivers, how many would like to see every semi disappear from the highways? I would estimate the grand majority.
Take your pick...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThokYLDpi9A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ-rNPF3YSg
https://transportationnation.com/video-i-80-pileup-in-wyoming-on-march-1-2020-viewer-discretion-advised/
Do you know how many fatalities were in this pileup?
NorthWestThis insistance on running trains has increasingly left them with only the traffic that has to move in trains.
NorthWestEven if automated trucks are better behaved, I don't see the public giving the trucking industry carte blanche to run long platoons on busy public highways.
ttrraaffiiccI don't think the public will have much say in this. Ultimately, what benefits the trucking industry generally benefits the public, and the trucking lobby is very strong.
As evident by your posts.
ttrraaffiiccA theme not discussed here, but brought up by you, and this is a good one. Railroads are essentially irrelevant to most shippers. Unless they have no other choice, nobody will touch rail, and what reason would they have to use rail when trucks, for the most part, can get the job done just plain better? Just look at the total tonnage moved by each mode. Trucking dominates over rail, and it isn't even close. Rail trails far behind road and it will never catch up. Even pipelines move more tonnage than rail. What's worse is that truck tonnage is set to increase by a huge amount in coming decades, but rail is set to shrink. You mention that current methods of running railroads are obsolete, but that is not going to change either. The way things are is the way things will always be, and there aren't any hopes of this changing. Rail is on a declining trajectory, and nothing they can do will stop that. It is often mentioned that if railroads weren't providing service, the highways would be destroyed, but that doesn't seem true at all. In terms of tonnage, there would be less than a 10% increase moved on highways. Railroads just don't move sigificant volumes of freight anymore.
It is often mentioned that if railroads weren't providing service, the highways would be destroyed, but that doesn't seem true at all. In terms of tonnage, there would be less than a 10% increase moved on highways. Railroads just don't move sigificant volumes of freight anymore.
Where are you getting your data?
The most recent data I can find is from 2017, where rail hauled 1,674,784 ton miles to trucking's 2,023,456. That's far more than pipeline's 882,444 out of a total of 5,084,101. That gives railroading a market share of 32% to trucking's 40%. You're not going to be able to basically double the number of trucks on the road without problems, platooning or not.
https://www.bts.gov/us-ton-miles-freight (Source for above)
I'm happy to debate with you, but only on a factual rather than emotional basis.
The future of logistics is in smaller shipments with tighter deadlines. That requires speed and reliability, which are not currently railroading strengths, but that can be fixed. The railroads of Europe and Japan are far more rapid and reliable than those here.
Railroading just needs to realize there is a problem, and the status quo of "we run trains" isn't going to be the way of the future. Rail can absolutely fit in with supply chains, it just has to be willing to want to. Right now, pride cometh before the fall.
I don't think the public will have much say in this. Ultimately, what benefits the trucking industry generally benefits the public, and the trucking lobby is very strong. It is also worth mentioning that everyone in this thread focuses on platooning, but that is only one issue. Platooning is essentially a dead concept. Autonomous and teleoperated trucks are the ways forward for trucking that will have just as much of a disasterous impact on the railroads. See the medium.com article.
Once again, you're not going to double traffic on highways without problems or the public becoming irritated about subsidizing it.
Autonomous trucking will lower costs significantly; there is no doubt about that. Railroading has cost advantages in energy usage that can be improved with smarter technology.
Also, even if railroads were not technically obsolete, they can still be killed. They just need to fall below a threshold where they can no longer afford to pay for their infrastructure, and with the direction that things are headed where volumes are already in steep decline, that is likely to happen regardless how long it takes to automate and reduce the costs of trucking. Long story short, railroads and rail freight are dying. There really isn't any way to avert this.
We're less than a month from the 40th anniversary of the death of the Rock Island. The industry has been in dire straights before, then made changes and became profitable. With profit came investment and growth.
Things are going to get uglier before they get better, but I doubt to 1980s levels. Again, the data shows static ton miles, not a decline, but also not growth.
There are certainly ways to fix things; I discussed a number in the other thread. Railroads are competitive in lanes under 300 miles in Europe and they can be in some lanes here. They're just going to need the focus, discipline and attitude to do it. In absence of other options, they'll get it.
What about this?
https://www.upcoldconnect.com/facilities/index.html
NorthWestThe most recent data I can find is from 2017, where rail hauled 1,674,784 ton miles to trucking's 2,023,456.
I am referring to tons of freight. By that metric, rail moves very little compared to contemporary modes of land transport. When tons are factored in, rail moves less than 10% total tonnage whereas trucking moves more than 60% of tonnage.
I find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances.
But even if we were talking ton-miles, despite the fact that the average haul length of a truck is between a quarter to a third of the length of the average rail haul (according to the commodity flow survey), they still move more ton-miles, which speaks to how little freight moves on rails.
The data on tonnage can be found here:
https://www.bts.gov/topics/freight-transportation/freight-shipments-mode
Projections of tonnage (with significant loss of market share) to 2045 can be found here:
https://www.bts.gov/content/weight-shipments-transportation-mode-2012-2015-and-2045
ttrraaffiiccI find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances.
On what basis do you find this? Why shouldn't the amount of transportation include the distance it moves as well as the weight moved? Both of them together define the activity. So why should stipulating the distance of the transport be considered a bias?
Euclid ttrraaffiicc I find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances. On what basis do you find this? Why shouldn't the amount of transportation include the distance it moves as well as the weight moved? Both of them together define the activity. So why should stipulating the distance of the transport be considered a bias?
ttrraaffiicc I find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances.
Because distance doesn't fit his narrative.
When it comes to tranportation of ANYTHING - distance is why the tranportation is happening - the product is needed and consumed at some distance from where it is sourced and/or manufactured. If everything was sourced or manufactured at the location of the end user, there would be no need for tranportation.
ttrraaffiicc NorthWest The most recent data I can find is from 2017, where rail hauled 1,674,784 ton miles to trucking's 2,023,456. I am referring to tons of freight. By that metric, rail moves very little compared to contemporary modes of land transport. When tons are factored in, rail moves less than 10% total tonnage whereas trucking moves more than 60% of tonnage. I find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances. But even if we were talking ton-miles, despite the fact that the average haul length of a truck is between a quarter to a third of the length of the average rail haul (according to the commodity flow survey), they still move more ton-miles, which speaks to how little freight moves on rails. The data on tonnage can be found here: https://www.bts.gov/topics/freight-transportation/freight-shipments-mode Projections of tonnage (with significant loss of market share) to 2045 can be found here: https://www.bts.gov/content/weight-shipments-transportation-mode-2012-2015-and-2045
NorthWest The most recent data I can find is from 2017, where rail hauled 1,674,784 ton miles to trucking's 2,023,456.
ttrraaffiiccI am referring to tons of freight. By that metric, rail moves very little compared to contemporary modes of land transport. When tons are factored in, rail moves less than 10% total tonnage whereas trucking moves more than 60% of tonnage. I find that tonnage is a more accurate representation of the role each mode plays, as ton-miles plays heavily into the bias for transport modes that move products further distances. But even if we were talking ton-miles, despite the fact that the average haul length of a truck is between a quarter to a third of the length of the average rail haul (according to the commodity flow survey), they still move more ton-miles, which speaks to how little freight moves on rails. The data on tonnage can be found here:
But even if we were talking ton-miles, despite the fact that the average haul length of a truck is between a quarter to a third of the length of the average rail haul (according to the commodity flow survey), they still move more ton-miles, which speaks to how little freight moves on rails. The data on tonnage can be found here:
Railroads are good at hauling large volumes of freight long distances. They are very bad at hauling a small quantity less than 50 miles. If you expect them to, they're always going to be irrelevant.
As such, ton-miles are the better metric. The question is how much of the longer hauls can railroading capture?
With increases in e-commerce and two day delivery, the number of small, short distance shipments will continue to grow, which will make it appear that the railroads are losing market share. Behind those shipments are the larger shipments required to get items from point of manufacture to the distribution center. Rail is well-suited to many of these shipments, and can capture more of them.
Trains are a tool. Tools are best used in certain areas, and ineffective in others. Trying to measure how well trains handle all types of land shipments is like trying to measure how useful a belt sander is to all the facets of home construction.
NorthWestRailroads are good at hauling large volumes of freight long distances. They are very bad at hauling a small quantity less than 50 miles. If you expect them to, they're always going to be irrelevant.
If we go by those metrics, then forklifts would probably be the winner over trucks.
I now will wait for a lobbyist from the forklift federation to sign up here.
The proper tool for the job.
The 20 pound sledge hammer is not the tool to install a 1/8 in brad. The brad's tack hammer won't accomplish the job of the 20 pound sledge hammer.
Each form of transportation has services that it performs well and services it doesn't. There is no one size fits all.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.