This interactive page shows key information about Class I railroads in the US. It displays the average speed of trains while moving, average dwell time in a yard waiting to be switched or unloaded, and the number of cars in service. You can select the figures for each Class I rail, and the time shown on the graphs, start and end.
The data comes from the Surface Transportation Board compilation of data provided by the railroads themselves, and is probably a bit late due to the deadlines for submitting figures.
The graph of speed for BNSF is especially interesting. It shows a recent spectacular jump, from under 25 mph to over 26 mph. Clearly the message is getting through to rails that they’d better move cargo.
Dwell time, spent sitting in yards waiting to be switched on, has for BNSF been rising recently, pointing to a new bottleneck. It had better start working on these problems.
We also don’t see which particular sites or segments of the rail line are contributing to the changes in the figures. That’s for each rail to figure out and make corrections. But seeing an overview of what’s going on will provide motivation for rails to do their part to keep congestion down. And a rail does not want to be perceived as slow-moving, for sure.
I hope we can count on the authors to keep updating this page, so the visibility will provide an incentive for rails to improve.
On the heels of a letter to CSX rail seeking explanations for poor service, the chair of the STB wants explanations from NSR. Why have rails in the East been letting their service level decline?
One explanation that’s been offered is a shortage of labor. While it’s true that rail labor is skilled and highly paid work, in the current situation there are plenty of people looking for better jobs. Rail offers those. And with unions to help, training should be available. So some effort should produce more workers, well trained. It doesn’t seem like a good explanation to me.
Perhaps the rail managements are thinking, “If everything else is congested, no one will notice if we have a little congestion too.” Another way to put it: lack of attention, and no desire to take action.
One interesting item in the article is the possibility of reciprocal switching in the US. Canada has had it for years, but the number of rails in Canada is smaller. The generic name for the practice is open switching.
The idea is that a shipper could take advantage of competition between rails if it were allowed to transfer shipments from one rail to another at specific locations where the rails met. There would be charges for the interchange to be sure, but the result might be a lower total cost of shipment.
There are significant hurdles to implement open switching. Workers have to be trained, and there would be multiple inspections required for safety and compatibility. And equipment would be needed to support interchange. Who would pay for it? These are bigger concerns in the US where there are six Class I rails, any pair of whom might be candidates for open switching practice at certain locations.
It’s not clear that allowing open switching or reciprocal switching as the STB calls it would really foster much competitive increase. However, there could be times, such as when there is severe congestion at an origin or destination, that open switching capability would save the day for many shippers.
It’s an example of meeting the need for resilience in our rail-using supply chains. I think the competitiveness aspect is fine, but the overall resilience is a much greater factor. It would put rails in a position to challenge trucking if switching could be done smoothly, even with charges.
Another view of reciprocal switching is presented in the final article below. It’s from the American Association of Railroads President, via Logistics Management magazine. He gives a positive view of rails’ contributions to the great supply chain jam-up of 2021, and talks more extensively about the ongoing discussion about reciprocal switching. It seems rails are not enthused about it.
To get the attention of shippers and carriers, the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles have instituted escalating fees for containers that are not picked up at the port. The fines start at $100 per day and go up with each following day.
These fees have been endorsed by the US Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force.
There are lots of efforts to try to give ocean carriers and shippers incentives to move cargo out. Railroads UP and BNSF also are planning to offer rebates to shippers who move cargo to them on weekends, using the longer time windows at the ports. The large rails are also taking other steps to improve flow. UP is reopening an idled rail terminal in the Chicago area, near the Centerpoint logistics complex. The refunds apply to containers in-gated at the ICTF (Intermodal Container Transfer Facility) in Long Beach CA. BNSF’s rebates apply both to LA and Long Beach.
We’ve also heard about California Governor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to find space to store containers, by leasing empty land near key transfer points.
Naturally, there are complaints about fees, which will surely be passed on to consumers. And many point to the general logjams for containers at warehouses and other choke points in supply chains. Dispersed bottlenecks are harder to do anything direct about; perhaps a money impact is the best way to get these diverse players to work harder to relieve the jam-ups.
And there’s a bit of contradiction, with the FMC looking into excessive demurrage and detention fees at port terminals, a long-standing gripe of shippers, while watching two ports add to those burdens.
Yet, there is some action. So the complaining is good, and a variety of approaches makes it more likely that the logjam will start to abate as more folks speed things up all over.
Read the articles for more details and different views.
Eric Kulisch, Air Cargo Editor Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Supply Chain and Logistics 