Forwarders say PSR ‘doesn’t work’

Forwarders are pointing to a problem in how trains get made up that is causing delays to cargoes.

The use of very long trains is posing some problems a lot like using very large container vessels. container ships can wait till they get sufficient cargo to make the voyage economically satisfactory. It’s done by ‘blanking’; sailings till there is enough cargo.

Railroads that use long trains are likewise waiting till they have enough cars to run the train. That is causing cargo delays, according to the forwarders.

The forwarders claim that this is contrary to the original PSR, which made trains meet the schedules they had promised. I think they’re right– the original PSR, championed by Hunter Harrison, the now deceased head to CN, CP, and CSX, was intended to make the trains run on time.

The practice of delaying trains is a cost control measure, and would be part of lean management, except that it has the effect of annoying customers, and denying them the one thing they want to pay for, on-time delivery. It’s no wonder they are angry.

By Alex Whiteman 13/04/2023

Forwarders demand change on US railways, as PSR ‘doesn’t work’ – The Loadstar

Work resumes at LA/LB ports, but contract settlement stays out of reach

There’s no labor agreement in sight for West Coast ports. And recently there have been short unannounced work stoppages by the unions.

I’m thinking these work stoppages are trial balloons. The major union at the ports, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), may be trying to gauge the impact of a stoppage on the ports. We all know that the ocean shipping market is weak, and in addition quite a bit of container traffic has moved away from the West Coast ports, to the East Coast. So volumes are down at the West Coast ports.

It’s possible that cargo volumes are so light that a full strike will jeopardize the ports’ business. A sizeable reduction in container traffic would reduce the demand for longshoremen and union workers. They don’t want to kill the golden goose. A mini-trial would tell them whether the ports would be severely hurt by a strike. Otherwise the ports might say “Go ahead and strike!”

I think that is why the US government is loath to intervene yet. Continuing to negotiate might be the best way to get an outcome everyone can live with.

Ian Putzger, Americas Correspondent 11/04/2023

Work resumes at LA/LB ports, but contract settlement stays out of reach – The Loadstar

Anyone got a meth lab?

This article compliments Maersk on their efforts to build a methanol-powered ship, and deploy it in the Baltic running on green methanol. I agree- it’s a great idea, and will actually be green, if they can pull off the creation of the sources of methanol properly.

But the author is less complimentary about how shipowners are approaching the fuel dilemma. He suspects that the craze for dual-fuel vessels is a way to hide the continued use of high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO). Dual-fuel vessels can operate on methanol or ammonia or hydrogen, but don’t have to. When those fuels are available they could be used. But will they? It will probably be a lot cheaper to use HSFO, for quite a long time. These ships can claim ‘greenness’ without actually being green.

This could especially be a problem for ships reading in the ‘gray’ markets, such as sanctioned shipments. There’s no reason Russia or China for that matter should not continue to accept and make shipments delivered using HSFO. They are not participating in agreements to reduce maritime pollution from hydrocarbons.

It’s a real conundrum, and the splitting of world trade into two camps that follow different rules makes any sort of control harder.

We could be in for a long contest to actually reduce carbon output from ocean shipping.

Andrew Craig-Bennett April 11, 2023

Anyone got a meth lab? – Splash247