How much freight the railroads move???

Hi Gary, I would love to weigh in on this but we are keeping politics off the site and I agree with that. I am sure you are going to York and look forward to a few words with you on this. Bill Park

That number tallies what I have heard. In terms of why it comes down to a number of factors, some of them historical (ie that rail freight rates were fixed while truck rates were decommissioned and trucks took up a large percent of freight handling, the kinds of subsidies trucking operated  under/operates on), and some of it has to do with the type of freight involved. For example, time sensitive freight is generally shipped via truck, because trucks don't have the problem of waiting for trains to be put together and then sent out, which can take a while, especially with PSR. Trucks also can go point to point, with trains, especially these days, company will often have to ship by truck to a rail point, then it goes by train, and then by truck. I don't know what the typical freight rate is for a train versus a truck (and how the higher cost of fuel has changed that, were trucks impacted more than trains, given a train is a lot more efficient in its use of diesel fuel on a ton mile basis) and if that has anything to do with it.

The other reason is the nature of our modern world, where things are made. In theory cargo ships coming into a port like LA or Long beach from China would have a natural ally in rail, but from what I have read the rail distribution at the ports for a variety of reasons (loss of rail facilities, corporate decisions, etc)  isn't all that great, like it being difficult to get the containers to where the trains are (and folks, I am not an insider in the industry, this is just from what I have read and in some cases read between the lines).

The other part of freight coming in from China is a lot of it comes in via air, too, up through Anchorage and the like, then gets trans-shipped via air to another airport, where its final delivery is truck.

I suspect too the PSR (or whatever they call it these days) hasn't helped matters, either.

What is interesting is from what I read the pandemic should have been an opportunity and ended up not being. For all the issues with shortages of truck drivers (another industry in flux) and the need to get freight through, from what I can tell it didn't change the fortunes of the rail industry.

None of these are political, railroad corporation decisions are private business decisions that are based on what they think is the right thing to do (which is part of the problem, for sure, PSR was supposed to improve the bottom line, whether it did or not is debatable).

@bigkid posted:

None of these are political, railroad corporation decisions are private business decisions that are based on what they think is the right thing to do (which is part of the problem, for sure, PSR was supposed to improve the bottom line, whether it did or not is debatable).

I have to respectfully disagree.  The private decisions of businesses are no longer private.  Much of the world is now adamant that these decisions must consider ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) concerns.  Therefore they are inherently political.

Remember that  threads frequently get shut down or deleted when they become political.

Please save our threads by keeping the politics out.

Mike

I recall reading years back an estimate that if all US railroads shut down, unemployment would go up to around 20%. Without railroads, many industries would be affected.

Important to keep in mind not just how much railroads haul, but what they haul. Bulk products like coal, or iron ore / taconite pellets aren't easily going to be moved by truck. Take one train of taconite pellets, made up of say 200 75-ton ore cars. How many 14-ton capacity road dump trucks would it take to haul that much tonnage? How many trucks would it take to haul one train's worth of Powder River coal from Wyoming to a North Carolina power plant?

No taconite pellets, no steel. No steel, no new cars or refrigerators, etc. No coal for coal-fired power plants means no or limited electricity for consumers and industries.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

I have to respectfully disagree.  The private decisions of businesses are no longer private.  Much of the world is now adamant that these decisions must consider ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) concerns.  Therefore they are inherently political.

Remember that  threads frequently get shut down or deleted when they become political.

Please save our threads by keeping the politics out.

Mike

ESG is an initiative in the private sector, it is not government policy. Among other things they are monetizing it, creating investment funds around ESG. There are indexes being built in derivatives trading around it......and it is also irrelevant to what we are talking about, ESG for all the hoopla about it is right now another buzz word. If ESG is part of the decision making process, it is like anything else, companies deciding if they need to do it, and how they implement it, no different than capitol spending, no different that other factors.

@wjstix posted:

I recall reading years back an estimate that if all US railroads shut down, unemployment would go up to around 20%. Without railroads, many industries would be affected.

Important to keep in mind not just how much railroads haul, but what they haul. Bulk products like coal, or iron ore / taconite pellets aren't easily going to be moved by truck. Take one train of taconite pellets, made up of say 200 75-ton ore cars. How many 14-ton capacity road dump trucks would it take to haul that much tonnage? How many trucks would it take to haul one train's worth of Powder River coal from Wyoming to a North Carolina power plant?

No taconite pellets, no steel. No steel, no new cars or refrigerators, etc. No coal for coal-fired power plants means no or limited electricity for consumers and industries.

Which of course is valid, that there are things where trains are better suited for hauling. Also things like bulk liquids, petroleum products, chemicals are better served by rail, also safer, things like lumber products as well.  I personally think that we could be using trains more effectively than we are, but that is always a factor. The ports are a classic example, where there are limits to using trucks to ship from there, capacity issues.

@Mellow Hudson Mike:

Again, please stop trying to be the political policeman of the forum. Let the moderators decide what is political and what isn't. In other words:  mellow out.

@wjstix posted:

...snip...but what they haul. Bulk products like coal, or iron ore / taconite pellets aren't easily going to be moved by truck.  ...snip...

Add containers to that list. This was just two of many, many container trains that passed me that day on a trip through Texas:

There were probably around a thousand TEUs between the two passing trains, and there are some who would like to see all that moved by truck? The roads would become a literal parking lot.

@superwarp1 posted:

With all the drama over possible strikes with what ever union over the railroads.  I've been reading a lot of articles on the subject and one thing that keeps getting repeated through out all of them, that the railroads only carry a third of the total freight that moves in this country.  Now I know how bad the media is and they are more likely to get something wrong than right.  But if true only to move a third is pretty sad and the railroads only have themselves to blame.  Railroads keep saying how they want to get freight off trucks but it's just not happening.  Many reasons for this but I think the main reason is the railroads are a slave to the whims of Wall Street, just that simple.

Gary,  The data showing railroads carry a third of the freight - is that tonnage or ton miles?  Railroads biggest competitors are the pipelines and barge lines.  Mississippi River barges carry most of the grain to the Port of New Orleans. The rails are no longer interested in LCL traffic or express traffic.  Land Bridge and Mini-Bridge have all but brought their physical plant to capacity.  Respectfully, John

Guys....we are watching this thread because generally these kinds of threads in fact do go "political".  Keep the politics out and it won't be closed or deleted.

@superwarp1 posted:

.  But if true only to move a third is pretty sad and the railroads only have themselves to blame.  Railroads keep saying how they want to get freight off trucks but it's just not happening.  Many reasons for this but I think the main reason is the railroads are a slave to the whims of Wall Street, just that simple.

I think the problem is the railroads settled themselves into a carrier between two points only versus serving line side industries.  This was not their fault in the beginning since industry disappeared from rail served corridors esp in New England but...the trend changed a number of years ago and the railroads didnt act.  The PW, CSX in MA are great examples.  One stand out is the Grafton and Upton shortline which under new ownership reactivated a long dormant main-line and added new yards, bought line side land and attracted industries to be served. Now they've taken over a CSX branch to serve several industries which CSX has no interest in.  Just my opinion anyways.