 |
Re: A mental exercise on freight train efficiency
Author: Chris
Date: 02-17-2007 - 17:25
If rail *is* so much more efficient (both in fuel economy and in labor costs) than trucking, why is there so much long-distance trucking?
I don't know what the stats are on long distance freight by rail vs. by truck, but I've seen lots of trucks on I-40 and others while on my many cross-country road trips. I can only assume that these trucks are on the road for one of two reasons:
1) Shipping the commodity by truck takes less time
2) Shipping the commodity by truck costs less
The first case is very possible and very likely: team-driven trucks can go 75mph on I-40 or any other Interstate highway, don't sit for long periods of time at red signals or in sidings, and can drive straight from the shipper to the receiver, so for large loads that are time-sensitive (but not so much as to require shipping by air), the shipper might figure that the extra, say, 30% cost (number out of a hat) is worth the shorter time. (On the other hand, a single truck driver has hours of service limits, and in that case, actually may take longer than a rail shipment.)
Note that BNSF says that their Z-train from LA to Chicago is time-competitive with team-driven trucking (of course, that doesn't include time sitting in the railyard or on a local switching job to deliver the load to a receiving dock). Of course, not all loads are shipped by high-priority Z-trains and not all loads get to use the fast, wide, smooth, straight Transcon route, but my point is that I'm not sure there's a significant time difference between rail and road--a slight one, but not enough to justify the amount of freight on the nation's highways.
The second case just doesn't make sense to me. Unless the shipper or receiver is in a very low-traffic area or one with no rail infrastructure, why would it cost more to ship via rail? If the math works out--7.5 times as fuel efficient (even 3.75 times as efficient, if we assume fuel trucks with double trailers) and 10-20 times as labor-efficient (play those numbers as you want--without the stats on average wages and benefits and man-hours involved in switching, it's hard to pin down a number)--then trucking is only cheaper in a very, very, very few number of cases.
So, if time savings isn't huge (on the order of 25-50% faster) and the cost is almost inevitably higher, again, why is there so much long-distance trucking in this country?
A case that interests me is UPS vs. FedEx Ground. UPS uses BNSF's Chicago-L.A. Z train. FedEx uses team truckers. Both companies' rates are basically equivalent (if anything, FedEx's rates are actually around 10% less). If rail is really that much more efficient--and we've established that it is for large, long-distance loads--why don't both companies use rail, or at the very least, why isn't UPS substantially cheaper?
I don't know what the stats are on long distance freight by rail vs. by truck, but I've seen lots of trucks on I-40 and others while on my many cross-country road trips. I can only assume that these trucks are on the road for one of two reasons:
1) Shipping the commodity by truck takes less time
2) Shipping the commodity by truck costs less
The first case is very possible and very likely: team-driven trucks can go 75mph on I-40 or any other Interstate highway, don't sit for long periods of time at red signals or in sidings, and can drive straight from the shipper to the receiver, so for large loads that are time-sensitive (but not so much as to require shipping by air), the shipper might figure that the extra, say, 30% cost (number out of a hat) is worth the shorter time. (On the other hand, a single truck driver has hours of service limits, and in that case, actually may take longer than a rail shipment.)
Note that BNSF says that their Z-train from LA to Chicago is time-competitive with team-driven trucking (of course, that doesn't include time sitting in the railyard or on a local switching job to deliver the load to a receiving dock). Of course, not all loads are shipped by high-priority Z-trains and not all loads get to use the fast, wide, smooth, straight Transcon route, but my point is that I'm not sure there's a significant time difference between rail and road--a slight one, but not enough to justify the amount of freight on the nation's highways.
The second case just doesn't make sense to me. Unless the shipper or receiver is in a very low-traffic area or one with no rail infrastructure, why would it cost more to ship via rail? If the math works out--7.5 times as fuel efficient (even 3.75 times as efficient, if we assume fuel trucks with double trailers) and 10-20 times as labor-efficient (play those numbers as you want--without the stats on average wages and benefits and man-hours involved in switching, it's hard to pin down a number)--then trucking is only cheaper in a very, very, very few number of cases.
So, if time savings isn't huge (on the order of 25-50% faster) and the cost is almost inevitably higher, again, why is there so much long-distance trucking in this country?
A case that interests me is UPS vs. FedEx Ground. UPS uses BNSF's Chicago-L.A. Z train. FedEx uses team truckers. Both companies' rates are basically equivalent (if anything, FedEx's rates are actually around 10% less). If rail is really that much more efficient--and we've established that it is for large, long-distance loads--why don't both companies use rail, or at the very least, why isn't UPS substantially cheaper?
