Tag Archives: supply chains

CSX Rail Projects boost intermodal

The CSX (NASDAQ: CSX) first-quarter financial report was very positive. It showed over 5 percentage points improvement in the operating ratio, to 64%. Operating ratio is a metric much watched in the rail industry, as it shows how efficiently the line is moving and using equipment. The formula for calculating the Operating Ratio is:

OR = 100 * Operating Expenses / Operating Revenue

What it Covers: Operating expenses typically include fuel, labor, equipment maintenance, and materials. It does not include taxes, interest, or other non-operating costs. In particular it doesn’t cover capital improvements to the rail line and equipment.

The industry benchmark for this ratio is in the low 60s or even high 50s, when the so-called “Precision Scheduled Railroading” (PSR) strategy is in place. Invented by Hunter Harrison, at the Illinois Central Railroad, PSR began as a series of ‘lean operations’ improvements including speeding up interchange of equipment, and making sure trains interacted on time and customer loads were routed to meet committed schedules the customers expected. His last stop in leading several railroads was at CSX.

As the concept evolved, cost-cutting became the mantra, and this was realized in the adoption of operating ratio as the measure of success.

But modern implementations of PSR-like concepts have included running longer trains on more spaced-out schedules, reducing crew sizes, lengthening crew working hours, reducing rail staff such as inspectors and conductors, reducing the amount of equipment used such as locomotives, adjusting safety and inspection standards to less frequent review, and using more automated inspection equipment and fewer human inspection hours. Some of these actions are not consistent with the original Hunter Harrison practices, especially when pushed to limits.

There have been protests from rail unions over practices that reduce rail staff and compromise train safety. Some of these have surfaced at major accident sites such as the derailment and toxic spill at East Palestine, OH in 2023, where defect-detection technology failures and lack of human inspection were implicated in the accident. The rail involved was Norfolk Southern (NS).

Intermodal freight increases were instrumental in the financial good tidings presented in the report. And with fuel prices escalating, intermodal should be the go-to choice for shippers looking to reduce their exposure to rising fuel costs. Intermodal freight can replace many highway trucks, and save lots of fuel. More intermodal shifts are required than for straight trucking; but for longer movements, intermodal has been a winner for a while.

To me the most interesting feature of the report is the pending completion of a new double-stack tunnel and bridge clearance project between Baltimore and Philadelphia. The map below indicates the location of project elements.

A key element is the Howard Street Tunnel project. This capital project allows CSX to run double-stack intermodal trains from Baltimore to Philadelphia, and beyond. It opens the Northeast to improved rail-container traffic from Southeast ports. This will improve transit times for shippers. The project is a capital project, and its cost is not reflected in the operating ratio, but represents CSX making investments of its surpluses in infrastructure that will improve service both long-term and short-term. Especially now, with fuel prices at highs and going up, customers will have a more reliable and sustainable alternative to trucks.

CSX also made improvements in its intermodal terminals and interchange in the Chicago area, removing bottlenecks of long standing at the Barr Yard. Chicago has been a bottleneck for East-West transfer for many years, and relieving it should have been a major priority for years. CSX’s action is important because of potential competition with the potential merged rail UP (Union Pacific) and NS, which will create a coast-to-coast national rail service with more leverage to eliminate its bottlenecks.

Trains.com Staff·Wednesday, April 22, 2026

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/csx-sees-stronger-first-quarter-earnings-as-costs-fall-volume-rises

US tariff fight shifts to Mexico

Mexican-made heavy equipment is being targeted in the latest Section 232 national security probes. These analyses are required before imposition of new tariffs. The claim is that such manufacturing should be performed in the US.

There’s some merit to argue that for national defense the US should have a vibrant heavy equipment manufacturing sector. If you think wars of the future will be fought with tanks, ships, airplanes, and large landing craft, the US should be able to ramp up production fast in case of a war.

Current wars aren’t fought that way. They are waged with missiles, drones, and portable explosives of many different kinds, delivered with high-tech mechanisms. And the Ukraine war and even Iran have shown that conventional forces can be stymied by the high-tech alternatives.

High-tech mechanisms are well within US manufacturing capabilities. There are plenty of jobs available at good wages, if you get the training.

A second argument for the tariffs is based on jobs for workers. High-paying manufacturing jobs are good for those who have them and like the lifestyle. But increasingly, young people are not choosing those jobs, preferring work settings that give them the ability to define their leisure time as they wish. Conventional heavy manufacturing does not fit that mold.

And in the US we have a declining work force, particularly if we choose not to let in immigrants for whom such jobs would be desirable.

So where are the workers going to come from?

We could be better off by cultivating our relations with Mexico and allow them to do the heavy manufacturing of automobile-like components.

Noi Mahoney Wednesday, April 01, 2026

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-tariff-fight-shifts-to-heavy-machinery-imported-from-mexico

US shipbuilding hard to revive

BRS is a major shipbroker headquartered in Geneva, with offices around the world. The group has issued its Annual Review 2026. One of its features is an assessment of seven major shipbuilding markets. I was interested in its take on the potential for Trump’s plan to revive American shipbuilding.

The BRS study has a very negative view. It views some ‘structural’ issues, to use economic jargon, as serious barriers. One of these barriers is the lack of sufficient labor of the kinds required in shipbuilding. Not enough engineers, not enough pipefitters, welders, and factory workers.

Not only does the US not have these workers; its recent immigration policies are preventing an influx of immigrants who might take these jobs, or allow Americans to take the jobs instead of working service jobs. The birth rate in America is also at an all-time low of 1.62; a factor of 2 is required even to replace the existing population. And surveys indicate that less than 20% of Americans want to take manufacturing jobs rather than service jobs. So where are the workers?

Another factor is manufacturing support infrastructure. Where are American shipyards going to get the supplies and sub-assemblies they need? American manufacturing has, for many years, been ‘hollowed out’ as the American economy shifted to services. Such supplies will need to come from abroad, adding to the cost and the risk. Even today, much US manufacturing is being farmed out to Mexico; closer and safer, and with more secure labor, perhaps, than China, but not nearby most American shipyard locations.

A third factor is capital. One thing the US has is an excellent capital structure, encouraging investment. But where will that capital want to flow? To the industries generating the greatest returns— artificial intelligence, healthcare, consumer services, financial services— not to hard industrial development. Pitchbook already reports something like 50% of capital for startups is going into AI and to data centers supporting AI. How will this rebuild an industrial base?

And investment capital today is facing some serious redemption issues. Investors want to get their money back with profit and are no longer willing to wait for the returns. It is taking longer to build companies. Investors, especially smaller retail investors being courted by venture capital, want their money back on schedule. That’s typically 5 or 7 years, much less time than startups need, especially in the industrial space. Even for software companies, it’s challenging.

Below, BRS summarizes in a table various countries and their performance on 10 criteria important to shipbuilding. They use a scale of 1 to 10 to evaluate each criterion. It’s enlightening.

I am looking for more information from BRS on how the measurements for the countries are made.

The US has not been a major shipbuilding nation since it ran out of wood. And woodworkers. It’s not likely to come back.

The Annual Review 2026 from BRS is here. You can download it.

Sam Chambers April 1, 2026

https://splash247.com/brs-exposes-the-scale-of-the-challenge-facing-trumps-maritime-ambitions/