Supply Chain Action Points
Read this first — the conclusion, and the moves to make:
- Within 30 days, rank your lanes by container count and mark which ones can absorb two extra days of transit variance without breaching a customer commitment.
- Re-run your next bid with Norfolk Southern's 22% revenue on 5% volume treated as a 16% unit-price move, instead of with today's spread.
- Cap rail share at 70% on any lane through the fourth quarter, so a truck fallback exists when ramp congestion and chassis shortages arrive.
- Before signing an annual rail contract, obtain written lift capacity and chassis availability commitments from the ramp for the peak months, not the annual average.
- For every converted lane, compute carrying cost per container per day and set a threshold: when the spread falls below that number, move the volume back to the road.
Second-quarter rail results show intermodal as the fastest-growing segment: CSX intermodal volume rose 9%, Norfolk Southern intermodal revenue climbed 22% on 5% higher volume, and Union Pacific domestic intermodal grew ~19%. Analysts tie the shift to tightening truck capacity and an unusually wide truckload-intermodal rate spread.
The Analysis
Three railroads reported second quarter, and the number that matters is not the volume. CSX moved 9% more intermodal. Norfolk Southern grew intermodal revenue 22% on 5% more volume. Union Pacific's domestic intermodal grew about 19%. The explanation offered is straightforward: truck capacity is tightening, the spread between truckload and intermodal rates is unusually wide, and freight is converting from road to rail.
The explanation is right, and it is also already out of date. The spread that pulled the freight off the road is being taken back by the people who own the track, and the proof is sitting in the same paragraph as the headline.
Intermodal is a chain of handoffs, and every handoff costs half a day or a day. A container leaves a shipper's dock on a truck, is driven to a ramp, lifted onto a well car, assembled into a train, railed several hundred to a couple of thousand miles, broken apart, lifted onto a chassis, and drayed to the consignee. Add the yard time at both ends and the train's own schedule, and you get a product one to three days slower than a truck on most domestic lanes, sometimes more. That is not a defect in the product. That is the price of the unit cost.
The physical constraint on the rail side is not track, mostly. It is the ramp: how many lifts per hour the terminal can do, how many well cars are in the pool, whether there is a chassis under the box when the drayage driver arrives, and whether the drayage fleet has a driver at four in the morning. When volume converts quickly from road to rail, the ramp and the chassis pool break first, because a terminal can add a shift but cannot add an acre.
The chain runs like this. Truck capacity tightens, spot truck rates rise, a shipper with a 900-mile lane runs the numbers, and rail wins on cost. Multiply that by a few thousand shippers and you get CSX at plus 9% and Union Pacific at plus 19%. The rails then meet their own version of the same problem: volume arriving faster than ramp capacity, and a customer base that has just proved it will move for a price. Prices go up. Norfolk Southern's 22% on 5% is that sentence written in accounting.
Divide one by the other and the story changes shape. Twenty-two percent revenue on five percent volume is about 16% more revenue per unit. That is not a volume story with a price tail. It is a price story with a volume tail, and it happened inside a single quarter, in the middle of the conversion wave. The gap that pulled freight off the road is being recaptured at roughly a sixth per quarter. If you converted because the truck-to-rail spread was unusually wide, the spread you converted on is not the spread you will be living with at your next bid.
A shipper moving ten or more containers a week on a lane over a thousand miles, with a distribution centre that can absorb a day of variance, gets a real saving and should already be converting. A shipper moving two loads a week over 400 miles should not: drayage at both ends plus ramp time eats the line-haul saving and the minimum charges eat the rest. An importer landing at Los Angeles or Long Beach and moving inland to Chicago or Dallas is the natural customer, because the ramp sits at the port and the long leg belongs to the train. An exporter of agricultural or chemical product running from the Midwest to the coast is also a natural customer, but that direction has its own equipment problem, and the box does not always come back.
The figures are second quarter, published in July. Pricing does not reset in July; it resets when contracts are bid, and for most large shippers that means the annual cycle. So the cost exposure arrives at your next request for proposal, not on your next invoice. Physical exposure runs on a different clock. Peak season lands in the third and fourth quarter, when ramp congestion and chassis shortages do the damage, and that is the month a one-to-three-day disadvantage turns into a five-day one.
What the coverage skipped: the conversion is a one-way bet unless you keep a truck option alive. Rail contracts are annual and volumes are committed. Truck capacity is what you rent when the rail product fails, and shippers who moved an entire lane onto rail to capture the spread have no lever in the week the ramp backs up. Keep a slice of every important lane on the road, not because it is cheaper, but because a shipper with an alternative gets a better service commitment from the one that has the volume.
Run the numbers with assumptions stated, because the article gives no absolute rates. Assume a truck all-in cost index of 100 and intermodal at 80 on the same lane, my assumption, not from the report. The spread is 20. Apply 16% revenue per unit growth to the rail side and it moves to about 93, leaving a spread of 7. Now price the service you lost. Two extra days of transit on goods worth 80,000 dollars a container, at a carrying cost of 0.15% of value per day, also my assumption, is 240 dollars. Seven points on an assumed 3,500 dollar truck cost is about 245 dollars. The saving and the carrying cost cancel out to within a rounding error. You are now converting for some reason other than money, and it had better be a real one.
Had truck capacity not tightened, none of this conversion happens and the railroads report flat volumes. Had the ramps not had capacity to absorb the volume, it would have gone back to the road at whatever price the road asked. And if you convert now without a fallback, you will find out in October that the only truck capacity left is the most expensive capacity on the market, sold by people who know exactly why you are calling.
The mistake is treating a rate spread as a permanent feature instead of a window. Spreads close, and they close from the side holding the pricing power. What to do this week is not a strategy review. Take your top three lanes by container count and write next to each one the number of days of transit variance your customer will actually accept. The lanes where that number is zero were never candidates for this trade.
↑ Back to the key points