Category Archives: Shipping

‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs

This article spells out some of the issues in demurrage charges rail lines are charging for cargoes that are not being removed from their premises.

Demurrage is charged, say the rail lines, when cargo is left at a rail terminal beyond a specified number of days. Charges vary by railroad. The chart they provide, reproduced below from Supply Chain Dive, shows how the seven Class I rails charge demurrage rates.

How individual railroads charge for demurrage varies
RailroadRange of daily demurrage fees
BNSF$150 to $500, depending on container dwell time and facility
CN$100 to $450, depending on container dwell time and facility
CP$75 to $350, depending on container dwell time, facility and who owns the equipment
CSX$100 to $500, depending on container dwell time, facility and whether the equipment is for domestic or international use
KCS$100 per day after free time expires, in all cases
NS$100 to $300, depending on container dwell time and facility
UP$100 to $225, depending on container dwell time, facility and whether the equipment is for domestic or international use

SOURCE: Letters in response to the STB, as linked. Union Pacific did not disclose its specific fees in the letter, but its rates are available online.

Shippers complain that sometimes the demurrage is due to the fact that rail lines have canceled trains that they previously were running. The shift by all of the Class I rails to some form of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), a system of lean operations in which only the movements required are made, is responsible. If a shipper delivers a cargo, but then the train is canceled, who is to blame?

And it’s understood that regardless of what they say, all of these rail lines have adjusted capacity in line with the principles of PSR, even if they won’t call it that. But setting capacity based on experience is not easy when we are experiencing not only a surge in customers, but also many abnormal conditions throughout supply chains that disrupt the standard patterns. Decisions about PSR, such as reducing the number of locomotives or yard staff or engineers, are based on forecasts, and forecasts are always wrong; so it’s a question of whether the rails have left enough slack in the system to handle the variation in the rest of the system. The answer appears not.

One particularly vexing problem with the current system is being addressed by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) which governs rail operation in the US. In the past, demurrage was viewed as something infrequent that did not matter much, and railroads did not develop systems to capture and bill for it in a regularized way. But now, it’s essential that the accounting for it be accurate and transparent, and that bills be sent in a way that shippers can handle digitally and determine the facts from their side about each incident. More accurate and standardized billing is key. That’s what the STB wants to achieve by regulating the nature of demurrage charges by rails.

Already in place at the end of 2020 are new rules requiring bills to be sent to shippers rather than intermediaries, and

“provide machine-readable access to minimum information on billing, including details on the billing cycle covered by the invoice, the car involved, the commodity being shipped, and railroads’ original estimated time of arrival for the cargo in question”

Supply Chain Dive, ‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs | Supply Chain Dive, Jan 12, 2020.

As expected, some rails complain this will lead to more litigation and questioning. Of course! But in fact no one wants the delays that cause demurrage, and it’s in everyone’s interest to understand exactly what happened to cause the problem. The new billing standard will clarify a lot, and get into shippers’ hands so they can do something about the problem.

I think it is a big step forward in the rail arena. I wish it were as clear in ocean shipping, in the port and terminal arena.

Published Jan. 12, 2022

Sarah Zimmerman Associate Editor

Edwin Lopez Lead Editor

‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs | Supply Chain Dive

Feeder ship frenzy putting even more pressure on supply chains

Feeder ships are smaller container vessels used to transport to and from large ports and other locations, inland or along a coast. There are many feeder ship operators, mainly clustered around larger ports. In Europe they frequently ply rivers as well as coastal routes.

Feeder operators have in the past been ‘asset-light’. In other words, they have not owned their ships– they have chartered them from shipowners.

But now, with major congestion at major ports, shippers who have large well-defined needs for container transport have been scrambling to charter these smaller vessels for their own account. The feeder operators face a bidding war for the vessels they need.

An example of the competition for ships is the recent charter by Pasha Hawaii, a US-flagged carrier, of a 2756 TEU ship on behalf of Costco. The charter rate was $1875K per day for 60 days. This astonishing rate cannot be afforded by feeder lines. It turns their economic model topsy-turvy.

Nobody ever said shipping was an easy business.

By Mike Wackett 03/02/2022

Feeder ship frenzy putting even more pressure on supply chains – The Loadstar

Los Angeles imports slump further as congestion throttles volume

American Shipper has done a very nice article showing that LA/Long Beach is actually slowing down in throughput in the last two months or so. The graphs from their SONAR statistics show clearly that container processing is bottlenecked at those two ports.

It’s also true that both the port management at Los Angeles and Long Beach has emphasized the overall gains in 2021. But most of that was accomplished before the end of the year,and there has been a dramatic slowdown recently.

One issue that has only recently been mentioned is the large excess of empty containers at these two ports, waiting to be exported back to the Far East. These empties get in the way of unloading and loading real cargo.

Ocean carriers are recalcitrant about taking on the empties, as they don’t pay any fare. And it’s almost cheaper to build new containers in China for Chinese exported goods, than it would be to carry them back. So there is little economic incentive for those containers to be returned. And ocean carriers can’t be ordered to take them by any government.

One option for the ports of LA and Long Beach is to actually enforce fines per day on empty containers not taken by ocean carriers. These have been discussed previously and keep being passed on by the Port Boards.

Another option is for the Ports to declare that any empty container left in the port for more than some number of days will be scrapped for the steel, and the container owner charged for the cost of scrapping. The value of the sold metal could accrue to the port, or could be paid back to the original owner, according to the politics. I’d favor the port keeping the scrap money.

China has been accused of dumping steel in the US before. Now China is dumping fabricated steel in the form of containers. It’s not sustainable to have these boxes build up beyond a point where they interfere with import and export of real goods.

Greg Miller, Senior Editor Thursday, January 27, 2022

Los Angeles imports slump further as congestion throttles volume