tree68It's been said here before that most customers don't care how long it takes for a regularly needed commodity to reach them (within reason, I suppose) - but that yes, they need them to arrive predictably.
That was a thing with this PSR crap. We had a few week period where we had to deliver to every customer 7 days a week. If you ignore the fact we have waaay too many customers to do that (that's why we had service days), several of the customers (esp. the ones that had to be physically present) weren't amused. They didn't need us there every single day. They just wanted 2-3 days a week of reliable service.
But, you know: the metrics, demurrage, storage fees, EHH fangirls, and the like.
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
zugmann And some customers just use the cars to keep their silos/storage bins filled. So the cars aren't normally needed in a great rush - they just need a dependable supply of them.
And some customers just use the cars to keep their silos/storage bins filled. So the cars aren't normally needed in a great rush - they just need a dependable supply of them.
It's been said here before that most customers don't care how long it takes for a regularly needed commodity to reach them (within reason, I suppose) - but that yes, they need them to arrive predictably.
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...
Some customers view the longer transit time of rail as a benefit.
Lumber mills still send a lot of cars on their way before figuring out exactly where the load is going.
A lot of chemical and oilfield outfits use their railcars as mobile storage.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
As someone who on a daily basis manages rail, truck and intermodal shipments I am very well adept at how these modes work. I also pay the freight bills, and our measurably best cost mode is rail.... so if it weren't efficient, than how would it be the most economical? Also if your viewpoint were true, why would anyone consider intermodal? And by the way, the LTL guys are getting into the Intermodal box game, they had been sourcing the IMCs for the long hauls but now they are cutting those guys out and save costs (imagine that). YRC of course being the black sheep of this.... someone with those mess of financials are headed for a singular destiny.
So if I understand you correctly you are saying trucks are now maintenace free and the outfits require no sales, operations, accounting, finance, mechanical, procurement, customer service, IT, HR and/or legal department?
I find the proverbial wheels here are spinning and I've yet to see any considerations from your side that perhaps your analysis is flawed (and don't doubt for a moment that it is). When you've got some concrete experience in this, let's keep the discussion going, I'm always happy to talk about the future of the industry (and its not going away anytime soon).
ttrraaffiicc- Can you do some math? The Dakota & Iowa Railroad hauls unit trins of quarry rock 5 days a week 110 miles from Dell Rapids S.D. to Sioux City Iowa. What would it cost to buy automated trucks capable of doing the same job? 110 x 4= 440 truckloads per day440 x 5 = 2200 truckloads per week2200 x 52 = 114,400 loads per year
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CMQ_9017You again are failing to take into account the entire supply chain. A train today is 400 trucks tomorrow. Modality is essential to the supply and value chain.
CMQ_9017Also, what about the LTL?
CMQ_9017You are assuming as well every single truck you see on the road is a load, what about empties?
CMQ_9017If you are believe only what you 'see' and make assumptions based on that, you again build a house of cards on your analysis-- remember always follow the data (By the way FHA data is public so you can look at that if you like)
What you 'see' varies greatly depending upon where in the country you are looking. Commodities being shipped vary in accordance with the economic characteristics of the various parts of the country. One view doesn't tell all.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You again are failing to take into account the entire supply chain. A train today is 400 trucks tomorrow. Modality is essential to the supply and value chain. You are looking at a snap shot saying, 'there are more trucks than trains out there' but again, something on a truck today, was likely already on a train a few days ago. Also, what about the LTL? You are assuming as well every single truck you see on the road is a load, what about empties? What about trucks being used to move assets around and not consumer goods/raw materials? Ton-miles is the actual measured movement of goods over a distance, again, if you are looking at simply number of trucks driving around then you've skewed the results. We stratify movements using the FHA data into buckets into length of haul and mode when looking at the market. I've paid reefers to come into a place just to keep some temperature sensitive product cool while requiring refrigeration capacity on site, and guess what that reefer came in empty and likewise left empty. What about company owned vans just moving their own product around?UP was looking to dump Cold Connect for a few years now, and guess who is picking up the slack? The IMCs and their new reefer divisions (John B and Hub have already been knocking on those doors). CN & CP will pull some of that volume too.
If you are believe only what you 'see' and make assumptions based on that, you again build a house of cards on your analysis-- remember always follow the data (By the way FHA data is public so you can look at that if you like)
Bruce D GillingsAnd I certainly hope we don’t have to hear any more disparaging “you are anti-railroading” remarks just because I and others question the ability of railroads to survive. We’re all commenting here precisely because we do give a damn AND we see a serious need for change.
Bruce D GillingsThe upside is they are, by and large, so damn good at what they do, at understanding the changing world we are living in, that they fill an incredibly valuable need that railroading, generally, does not. Take away 20 or so mid- to long-haul intermodal lanes nationally, and railroads simply don’t exist. Places like Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Minneapolis, etc, get MOST of their non-bulk goods from trucks. Not a majority, but the overwhelming majority. When I work on an industrial project, ANY industrial project, the logistics are either entirely truck-based or mostly truck-based. If intermodal is a factor, it’s in a few major markets, for primarily long-haul traffic. I have been a part of industrial facilities that, by themselves, generate as many truck inbound/outbound moves as quite a few of the intermodal ramps in North America. That’s not a boast; that’s a dismaying observation.
Actually trucking is facing some enrmous issues and pressures. I work closely with a lot of very well known trucki partners, they are changing to regional 'daisy chain' models. The lifestyle of the longhaul trucker is going the way of the do-do, and the average age of those OTR guys is getting into the high 50s... the terminal model is what this generation of trucker wants, home every night or every other if possible. Teams will be interesting to see if those pan out or not. With that, intermodal and port drayage is attractive for drivers.
The intermodal model feeds heavily into the long haul of the supply chain, RDC to RDC. A tremendous amount of goods are crossdocked on the west coast into 53s from ISO boxes, almost 50% and a good chunk of those ride intermodal into the RDC network. Walmart, Target, Amazon and even a lot of the smaller to medium sized manufactures feed their RDCs with intermodal, while the final mile is typically your van/lift gate type solution. That's probably why you see a lot of trucks to your site, again, the JIT model keeps the RDCs stocked and in the hotbed markets.
Remember in logistics, you can only rely consistently on having two of the three following virtues -- good, fast or cheap. Again, you can't have more than two, right now intermodal falls in the good and cheap category, where trucking is in the good and fast. As mentioned previously, occasionaly things flip and trucks become good, fast and cheap and that does put a bind on intermodal volumes, but returning to the equilibrium of things, it is not sustainable over the long term. Truckers walk away from the long-haul cab when other more attractive jobs open up, such as construction work or in-house trucking.
Rail manifest works quite weel actually in short haul markets as long as its a single line haul (more than that you jump up costs, but also some regional/shortlines are able to come up with some creative models to make it work amongst partners). If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be over 700 active shortlines across America squeezing rocks to get nickels... and yet they are and they do.
NorthWest ttrraaffiicc It will probably end up being that management and investors will seek to milk what money they can from the railroads and jump ship before everything collapses ... better management is unlikely to step forward to run the railroads. And that is a valid opinion. I think more optimistically.
ttrraaffiicc It will probably end up being that management and investors will seek to milk what money they can from the railroads and jump ship before everything collapses ... better management is unlikely to step forward to run the railroads.
And that is a valid opinion. I think more optimistically.
I have another opinion on this specific facet. Since almost the infancy of the railroad industry, successful operations have been developed from 'near-abandoned' efforts, often expensively financed, that were not run effectively in one sense or another. The early history of empire-builder Hill, the van Sweringens, Ike Tigrett, and a number of others are potential examples.
ttrraaffiicc seems to think that when the current round of financiers have stolen all the easy money from railroad companies, like some of the LBO artists stripping companies in the '80s, there will be insufficient perceived value to retain the rights-of-way as operating properties. This is highly unlikely for a number of reasons -- there will always be some Anspach, or even Hilal, to attempt a little empire-building. Probably the economic 'worst case' is that railroads en masse give up owning enormous amounts of real estate and stranded capital; the Federal and state governments acquire it as they have so much mileage already, and set it up as a proper 'iron ocean' on the same semi-open model they'll have to adopt for automated highways; a wide range of operating companies and perhaps revived 'express lines' as in the late 19th Century provide more or less capable equipment tu run over it.
Kneiling saw this as essential over 50 years ago. It is still a hard default solution for any perceived 'obsolescence' of current owner/operatorship of railroads. While it is possible that 'original' railroad companies and names disappear, it is highly unlikely that steel-rail traffic (with much of it still being distributed power and lightweight equipment) will. On the other hand, with the proper mix of CBTC, autonomous operation, and AI/ES dispatch and operations oversight, a very large number of currently-impractical intermodal operations using rail for key parts of their traffic can be expected to flourish. All but essential autonomous trucking across Manhattan, for example, can be expected to be effectively legislated out of existence in a cost-competitive sense during considerable portions of given weekdays (through higher tolls reflecting an adequate 'fair share' of costs and "safety" assurance, if nothing else) in favor of effective bridge operations across the metropolitan area.
I appreciate you taking the time to write out your opinion and here is mine -- you are punching way above your weight class with this analysis. Remember, never build a house of cards, you rely on a myriad of assumptions that would need to align in a perfect way to say that one of the largest transportation sectors in North America will simply disappear in less than 30 years (Yes, 2048 is less than 30 years from now)
I don't understand the basis on your opinion for intermodal... the IMCs and 3PL are out selling on the spot market the excess capacity (IE the non-contracted capacity) to any shipper big or small who has something to ship. Have you ever seen a hay load? I have, quite a messy clean up. We've delived 53' boxes to the middle of fields, offloaded in streets and the like.
You have not taken into account velocity, inventory models or for that matter any kind of supply chain model in your analysis. A high velocity product, Intermodal, can survive on smaller margins. How much D&D do you think gets racked up in the carload business? Whats the average turn time on that equipment? You haven't really looked at that... intermodal is a good product and it IS truck competitive. Lets talk automation. Before trucks can be automated completely you have a lot of work to do. Long haul trucking can be automated, but final mile delivery to door needs a lot of work as that currently requires a human to complete. The intermediate step before automation is platooning, you haven't yet address that as far as I can tell either. Our freinds to the north are already running doubles, and playing around with triples on the road, so in reality that is similar to a platooning concept but with less cabs.
Remember that rates are a function of capacity and there was a lot of excess capacity in the trucking market last year (how many companies folded). That'll bring the spot market down (remember difference between spot and contract markets) but if you are riding mostly on the spot market you're in a pretty rough spot from a management standpoint. If you can't promise drivers load on a consistent basis they'll walk.EU rail networks are completely different in terms of their function and utilization. Someone mentioned the geography of the UK and that is correct. But you have to remember that Europe leans on a heavy inland barge network in lieu of rails, IE that IS their rail network. US has some heavy barge systems in the major waterways such as the Mississippi, Missouri and Great Lakes... but it pales in comparison the Rhine, Rhone, Main, ect... So again, you failed to take into account how tons are moving today (also their trucking networks are very limited in size due to infrastructure). And the rail networks are getting their piece, especially intermodal as you see new services bridging half the world with container trains from China to the UK just starting to come to fruition.
Again, simply trucking everything creates an inventory problem. When you manufacture something, you try to stay on that product run (assuming you have a diversified product portfolio which you have to in order to survive) as long as possible (efficiency). That means if you are caracelling around making this and that, you lose productivity with line changes and have a period of time to 'settle in on a run'. So how do you stay productive? You produce the order book as far out as you can, meaning you make product 2 or 3 months in advance. This is where the supply chain picks up the slack, you can't keep product on your plant floor as you'll shut down the manufacturing operation, so you dump it into rail cars and move to RDCs or other networks with the slowest most economical way of moving it -- railcars.
Door to door is important to some shippers, its a predominant model in the US, but actually the supply chain (or sub in value chain in some instances) is a lot more complex than that. Widgets don't always go from plant to retail store directly, there are a lot of stops inbetween. The Amazon model of course changed everything like the Walmart model before it, you rely on a robust RDC structure and no retail front. No one Amazon is one of the top users of intermodal... So to curtail my ramblings a bit, again my opinion is that your opinion is categorically inaccurate for a variety of reasons as listed above.
Understood on the misquote; my apologies.
The UK is a somewhat unique example. The country is only 400 miles or so long, and railroading struggles in markets under 300 miles, so there are fewer viable lanes, which is to be expected. The Beeching Plan's politically motivated disinvestment campaign also did far more than economics to decimate freight.
That said, as I've noted, certain things work best as carload and always will.
ttrraaffiiccI certainly don't think these problems will be fixed. The railroads likely won't recognize them or want to fix them. It will probably end up being that management and investors will seek to milk what money they can from the railroads and jump ship before everything collapses. What I presented in comparison to your vision is what I believe to be a more grim and quite frankly (IMO) much more likely future where railroads fall from internal and (more significantly) external threats. The external threat, being trucking cannot be fought against with better management as leverage against railroads from trucking comes from superior technology. Even so, better management is unlikely to step forward to run the railroads.
trraaffiiccA lot of "stuff" still moves by rail. I don't think our nation's highway infrastructure is up to the massive number of trucks that will be required to replace the trains.
Ok, I didn't mean to say this and it has been removed from my comment. This was a typo where I meant to include that as part of my quote from @tree68.
NorthWestJapan and the UK also are small countries with very short hauls. Things are better in Continental Europe where the same forces are in play, and intermodal hauls are longer (and growing).
Now on to Europe, specifically the UK. The UK is a cautionary tale as to why carload cannot be allowed to die. Compared to continental Europe where mixed goods trains still persist, the UK sees much less goods transported by train. It's an important part of the mix, and can't be ignored.
NorthWest But as I have said there and here, there are ways to fix many of them. The railroads just have to recognize them and want to.
I certainly don't think these problems will be fixed. The railroads likely won't recognize them or want to fix them. It will probably end up being that management and investors will seek to milk what money they can from the railroads and jump ship before everything collapses. What I presented in comparison to your vision is what I believe to be a more grim and quite frankly (IMO) much more likely future where railroads fall from internal and (more significantly) external threats. The external threat, being trucking cannot be fought against with better management as leverage against railroads from trucking comes from superior technology. Even so, better management is unlikely to step forward to run the railroads.
ttrraaffiiccThis is the problem, railroads can't afford to let carload die. The margins for railroads on carload are much better than intermodal.
Much of this is due to the pricing power railroads have over shippers that can't convert to trucking or barges. This carload traffic is much less likely to go away, and includes much of the large, heavy and volumous traffic. I don't see it dying soon. The stuff that convert to truck will have lower margins due to greater competition, and is best served by intermodal.
Intermodal rates have been inflated by PSR pricing strategies just as carloads have. Increasing velocity and asset utilization as I have suggested would lower costs and increase capacity.
As as has been seen in Europe (UK specifically) and Japan, once carload dies, rail freight networks don't see significant volumes.
Japan and the UK also are small countries with very short hauls. Things are better in Continental Europe where the same forces are in play, and intermodal hauls are longer (and growing).
A door to door service is very important to a lot of shippers, and once that is gone, they won't use rail.
Agreed. This goes back to the 'we run trains' mentality. If it shows up on a railroad truck and arrives on a different truck, it doesn't matter whether the trip was on rail or road. Railroads need to realize they are logistics companies in the business of freight. I'm encouraged by CN's attempts in this area. They are trying.
A lot of "stuff" still moves by rail. I don't think our nation's highway infrastructure is up to the massive number of trucks that will be required to replace the trains.
Glad we finally agree on this.
I am not anti-railroad, I am a railfan, but at the same time, a lot of cracks are showing in this industry and I can't foresee anything positive coming in its future.
I certainly see the same cracks that you see, and that's what prompted the other thread. But as I have said there and here, there are ways to fix many of them. The railroads just have to recognize them and want to.
NorthWestAs for carload; it is dying. That's true, not just here, but in Europe as well. In Japan, it's already dead. Carload has higher costs and poorer service than intermodal.
tree68I really have to wonder why you're on a forum dedicated to railroading if you are so anti-railroad.
This thread provides a great laugh.... what are you going to do to transport bulk materials from rural places? Not everywhere has a highway. What about direct rail to ship moves? If take the daily number of tons transported in the US each day... how many more vehicles would you put on roads? So many that you'd have to have megahighways everywhere just to accomodate the level of traffics. Also you going to put up a warehouse in every single vacant plot of land in the US? Half the advantage of rail is putting inventory into a slower pipeline... that is to say the concept of the rolling warehouse. SIT cars are still a meaningful lever as well. If everything is trucked you decrease the lead time in the supply chain, and the popular just in time model becomes 'just just just in time'. The reality is modality mix is extremely important in commoditzed goods gransportation. There are several supply chains that work soley due to the rails and how they feed manufacturing processes. You'd really need to completely restructure or change manufacturing and supply chain processes on a massive scale before rails died out.
One question I do have -- why are you posting such a 'fantasy' on a pro-rail group? I see no value in the discussion really.
ttrraaffiicc The service that railroads provide is just no longer useful to industry anymore.
Funny - watchers of the Deshler rail cams see 50-60 trains a day on a normal basis. A lot of that traffic is auto industry related, among other things.
Unless we stop making things out of steel, the 100 car trains of taconite (iron ore) will continue. So will the coil cars moving between mill and factory. So will the trainloads of finished vehicles. So will the unit trains of metalurgical coal and coke.
What you're telling us is that instead of 100 cars of taconite by rail, we'll see 300 trucks on I75 each way, every day but Sunday and Monday. And those loaded trucks will be grossed out. This also means we'll need 300 drivers (already a scarce commodity), or at least 300 monitors who can take over if the autopilot fails.
Another type of train seen at Deshler is grain trains. Again, we'll replace a 100 car train with 300 trucks... All going to the same place.
I could go on.
I really have to wonder why you're on a forum dedicated to railroading if you are so anti-railroad.
You're still not addressing my point.
What matters isn't the actual amount of freight moved, it's the actual amount of freight that moves in corridors that are competitive between modes.
The railroad has no way to compete with trucks moving things short distances. Including them is thus pointless to any argument about utility.
Using your logic, airlines are totally irrelevant because they account for only 0.1% of passenger trips as compared to the car's 83.4%. My guess is that when you're travelling long distances, there's a good chance you're going to consider flying. When you look at passenger miles, the importance of airlines becomes visible. Most passenger trips are short. So are most freight trips.
The comparison is no different with railroading vs trucking. As shown in the data on the previous page, the railroads do have a large chunk of the long hauls. That's what they're good at.
(For passenger travel data above see https://www.bts.dot.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/legacy/PTFF_Complete.pdf)
As for carload; it is dying. That's true, not just here, but in Europe as well. In Japan, it's already dead. Carload has higher costs and poorer service than intermodal. Trucking is more efficient in short hauls and terminal areas, and railroading is more efficient in line hauls. Intermodal blends the two, which is why carloads that can convert are. It's better for everyone. Thus, intermodal is growing. If it weren't cheaper than trucking, customers wouldn't use it at all.
The railroads don't need to preserve carload as long as the freight is still moving by rail. And much of it is, just in a container rather than a boxcar.
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. As such, ton-miles are the better metric.
NorthWestWith 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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
NorthWestThe most recent data I can find is from 2017, where rail hauled 1,674,784 ton miles to trucking's 2,023,456.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.