« Post punk kitchen | Main | Tee-hee! »

Rail way

14 Mar 2008 09:28 am

Is the current increase in fuel prices a good reason to invest in freight rail?

While us Metro-commuting urbanites are thanking our lucky stars that soaring gas prices haven’t taken a direct chunk out of our wallets, it’s still the case that many of the goods we buy arrive courtesy of long-haul truckers, who fuel their rigs with diesel. This provides a direct inflation pathway from fuel to goods, either through increases in trucking rates for companies that can demand them, or from reduced goods supply as high fuel costs shave margins and drive freelancers out of business.

This is an absurd state of affairs. Long-haul cross-country shipping should be done via rail, and it no doubt would be (especially now) were we not so terrible about investing in our rail resources. Even diesel powered locomotives are far cleaner and cheaper to fuel than the trucks they replace. Were our railways entirely electrified, the efficiency gains would be greater still, and freight emissions would decline as electrical generation shifted toward renewables. And obviously, there would be significant gains from getting trucks off the roads, both from reduced congestion and from a safety perspective.

And really, the cost per capacity of rails versus roads should make this a no-brainer. I can’t imagine there’s much–or any–cost advantage to paving three new lanes along a right of way as opposed to laying three new rail lines. The capacity difference, however, is enormous. Isn’t value for money invested an important consideration anymore?

Our freight rail network desperately needs upgrading, but it isn't as easy as laying some new rail lines. The limiting factor on rail freight right now is less the bands of steel than the capacity of the freight yards. We need yards that are both bigger, and use updated technology. The problem is, freight yards are often located in places like Chicago, where expansion competes with urban development. Until then, rail will remain a slower, if cheaper, method of getting your products from point A to point B.

Actually, even then it will. A hub and spoke system is more time consuming than going point to point, which is why all of us prefer direct flights. So there's a limit to how much rail will come to replace trucking. An even firmer limit is set by the fact that places like New York don't have any room for a new freight yard.

That said, there clearly is a great deal of demand for rail capacity. It's not clear to me why rail companies aren't at least trying to provide more than they are.

Comments (31)

Megan, I did 30 seconds of research and came up with this--from the front page of the Wall Steet Journal a few weeks ago:


New Era Dawns for Rail Building
Lines Add Tracks,
Upgrade Tunnels
To Take On Trucks
By DANIEL MACHALABA
February 13, 2008; Page A1

MERIDIAN, Miss. -- America is back to working on the railroads.

For decades, stretches of track west of this town were so rough that trains couldn't run faster than 25 miles an hour. Lanie Keith, a locomotive engineer for Kansas City Southern, recalls waiting for hours when trains stalled on a steep curve on a stretch of single track between Meridian and Shreveport, La.

But over the past two years, at a cost of $300 million, track crews have transformed the 320-mile route...

The upgrade is part of a railroad renaissance under way across much of the U.S. For the first time in nearly a century, railroads are making large investments in their networks -- adding sets of tracks, straightening curves that force engines to slow and expanding tunnels for bigger trains. Their campaign is altering the corridors of American commerce, more so than any other development since interstate highways spread to the interior.

For decades, railroads spent little on expansion, even tore up surplus track and shrank routes. But since 2000 they've spent $10 billion to expand tracks, build freight yards and buy locomotives, and they have $12 billion more in upgrades planned.

The buildout comes as the industry transitions away from its chief role in recent decades of hauling coal, timber and other raw materials in manufacturing regions. Now, increasingly, railroads are moving finished consumer goods, often made in Asia, from ports to major cities. Their new higher-volume routes, called corridors, often serve the South, where the rail system is less developed and the population is rising.

An added advantage, even if we can't cut the number of trucks going into our cities is the reduction of stress on the interstates. One truck will cause as much damage to highways as I believe 100 passenger cars. That would allow us to have better more efficient highways for less money in the hinterlands and permit more money to be spent maintaining and improving the roads near the major cities.

I think rail companies aren't getting into this because of the large capital outlays required to lay new track, acquire modern locomotives, and expand/improve rail yards. They don't want to get stuck holding the bag if fuel prices drop or trucks for some other reason become more attractive again.

BSC how ya doing? Wonder if anyone is teeing up a lawsuit vs the company and CEO based on his CNBC appearance? Wonder if anyone pokes around insider trading given the insane options play, looks for 50% drop within a week, seems to have kicked off the same day GS dk'd Bear as a counterparty. Joe Lewis is passing the hat? CTIC eats a rip, choke on that.

MM,

to Blake's point, do some simple research.

"The problem is, freight yards are often located in places like Chicago", actually, the largest rail yard in the World is in North Platte, Nebraska.
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/facilities/bailey/index.shtml

Also, regarding NYC, where do you think the 'City Fathers' want to build the new Football Stadium/Sports Complex/Consumption Extravaganza??

That's right!~ on the old West Side RR facility!

Of course, if you ask CSX and NS and the other railroads, they claim that they are investing in expanded capacity. And why not? They've been making record profits recently. I don't particularly worry about freight rail investment from a freight perspective, at least not the parts that the railroads have control over. There are certainly issues where the freight railroads are much less interested in providing trackage upgrades that would enable passenger rail to go faster (because freight cares about speed less). There are also issues when it comes to creating new freight yards or rights of way with environmental impact statements and acquiring land. Despite the obviously lower environmental impact of rail in many ways (energy, congestion, etc.), it takes much longer to put together the EIS for rail than for highways.

There's another factor - just In time (JIT) - that means lots of smaller loads delivered all over the place.

As long as inventory is more expensive than fuel, trucks will rule the logistic chain, no matter if they pay their 'fare share' of costs or not.

Megan,

You are perhaps aware that new rail lines are laid down and maintained by private freight companies, whereas new highways are laid and maintained by the government? Wouldn't that explain why there are no new rail lines, despite the inherent efficiency vs trucks?

Of course it is easy to lay new lines, as many existing rail lines sit next to old discarded lines. Once there were multiple rail lines in many places where now there is only one line, so outgoing freight must wait for incoming freight to finish to clear the line. It is like having a one lane highway where you must wait for traffic in one direction to stop before you can go. This is why there is so much congestion on railways, not because hubs are too small or in Chicago and NY. Don't you do any research at all Megan? Is google so hard?

"As long as inventory is more expensive than fuel, trucks will rule the logistic chain, no matter if they pay their 'fare share' of costs or not."-Posted by Plebist

True, but property values - and, I assume, rents on warehouses - are also declining. Now I just need to convince the local Target stores to buy into my scheme to use vacant townhouse developments as overflow warehousing and I'll be rich!

I recall reading recently that the US has a very high percentage of total freight tonnage sent by rail. This far exceeds European freight by rail. This is the natural consequence of distance in the US. With the exception of Coal and other bulk items, US freight is very multi-modal.

This exploits the advanages of each technology well. Final "diffuse" transport is highly efficient by truck while longer distance work is rail strong point.

(Megan, if you are into an economic tour swing by Bethlehem PA. The rusting steel plants are right next to a huge modern multi-modal terminal where containers are transferred from truck to rail and rail to truck).

An even firmer limit is set by the fact that places like New York don't have any room for a new freight yard.

Freight trains have no easy way to get to New York. The only Hudson River crossing is located 150 miles north of the city, near Albany, and the route coming down the east side of the river has height and width restrictions. Plans for a freight tunnel under New York Harbor have been poking around for decades and of course nothing will ever be built.

to amplify what plebist said a bit... when you ship via rail, it takes weeks, or longer. Wal-mart barely even has distribution centers, most of it's stock is always in a truck. What you do with Just In Time is when you sell out of widgets in a given walmart, an order for them is placed. Once those orders come through the part is shipped to the walmart, either in a truckload to a DC, to be split onto individual trucks for individual walmarts, or a whole truck to an group of walmarts.

the thing is, this happens all day long every day. If it didn't, your walmart would always be out of everything, waiting for it to be shipped via rail. That wouldn't work, so they would be forced to have large warehouses like in the olden days to have stock on hand. Which would tie up large amounts of capital...

Essentially all the operating efficiency of a walmart or target etc. comes from their ability to get an item within a day or so of ordering it...

Rail can't provide those efficiencies, at all. It's a critical mass thing. A load has to be a certain size, and have a certain amount of time to move. Retail moves much faster than that.

we could go back to the old ways, but all the operating efficiency would be gone. Large rail yards don't change the fact that constantly changing the makeup of the cars in a train makes the train stop all the time. The best thing is a full load of the same thing going from pickup to terminus. But for a train that's a lot of stuff. That's why they are good for hauling coal, or cars, or grain, but not tickle me elmo dolls.

On the price truck pay to move, EACH truck pays taxes to move through each state, often based on weight and destination PLUS the amount of tax on it's fuel. This is a large number... if that money is never coming back to maintain roads, well, that isn't the trucks fault.


One way that would be interesting, would be to make the idividual truck and driver a commuter, on a "commuting" train. That is to say, you pick up a pair of containers from Long Beach, drive up to a train heading directly to St. Louis with no stops, where you drive off the train, and take those containers to Springfield, IL. to deliver them. That takes the wear off the truck and driver, makes the fuelling more efficient, but also delivers the load in 2 days...

For the sake of explanation, I drove over the road to finance part of college... The rail question has been out there forever, and ever. It's just like if light rail all goes downtown, and you work in another suburb, light rail doesn't help you get to work. You need a car, or other individual transport.

Not yet.

At some point, the realization will come that the entire system of auto based private transport is in trouble with high gas prices and shortages, and what will likely be proposed is a megaproject that turns much of the existing Highway / Interstate right of ways into medium duty rail lines.

Whats even more likely would be that these brand new rail lines will be electrified and installed in much of the heavily populated areas and new, more stout railway engines designed that can handle much steeper grades.

Existing rail lines are just too committed to the 19th century notions of rail transport. Besides, much of their infrastructure (rail lines, stations, etc.) are in the wrong place relative to where the people who want to be moved are (in the suburbs). To really make it economic, the model will have to go beyond today's freight and "mass transit" model.

People do not like mass transit --- they like their own private space (i.e. their own car).

What is needed is a way for rail to economically (without subsidies) be able to rapidly move cars (or private pods in the case of urban areas) from one location to another with a high frequency, low waiting time, and low cost solution. Preserving private space is a must in any solution.

Picture you can drive your car right up to an enclosed railcar loading platform, and, with less than a 15 minute wait since the service runs "on demand, be transported at speeds well above legal for cars (e.g. 100mph), and then drive off at the other end within 10 minutes of your destination.

If you wish to stay in the car, you can for the trip (not bad for a minivan), or you can go to the restaurants / bar / bathroom car for a break.

In order to make this economic, the entire "train" will have to be automated (not hard to do), and "pods" will have to be economic carrying no more than 3 or 4 cars per unit. People will have a choice of larger or smaller "trains" with more or less amenities. Modern security systems (cameras, etc.) will make these trains safe.

At night or during non-peak periods, these same pods and trains can be used to carry freight on a far more economic basis than tractor trailer based trucking or rail.

The existing rail companies are too tied to the 18th and 19th century to do this kind of imaginative solution. More than likely, it will happen with a totally new group of people with a lot of money (and political support) behind them.

$15 a gallon gasoline will make this solution seem brilliant.

So instead of investing in old fashioned rail, I would rather look at companies that are now no more than a sparkle in someone's eye.

The rail share of the long haul non bulk commodity freight business may be larger than you think, depending on what you mean by long haul. Bulk commodities (i.e. coal) they have a lock on anyway.

An even firmer limit is set by the fact that places like New York don't have any room for a new freight yard.

New York has bigger problems than that. The nearest freight rail crossing of the Hudson (i.e. NYC's and New England's connection with the rest of the rail freight network) is in Albany. Amtrak's tunnel to Penn Station is unsuitable for freight traffic and already pretty much at capacity. There used to be a bridge across the Hudson at Poughkeepsie but that has been unusable (although it's still standing, I think) since a fire in 1974.

I'm not sure the freight railroads need yards (i.e. a place where cars are switched from one train to another) as such in the big cities, unless they're needed for serving big industrial customers. Intermodal (trailer/container) service points are another matter, and maybe that's what you meant by yards. Having big switching yards in the cities made sense back in the day when the railroads really made an attempt to serve even small customers directly, but they have realized that they are lousy at local service and it is much more efficient for them to give the last 50 (or 100, or 500) miles to the trucks and the taxpayer supported road infrastructure. The railroads would vacate Chicago (but not Northern Indiana and its steel mills) tomorrow if somebody would give them the billions of dollars needed to move the whole shebang somewhere else.

I think rail companies aren't getting into this because of the large capital outlays required to lay new track, acquire modern locomotives, and expand/improve rail yards. They don't want to get stuck holding the bag if fuel prices drop or trucks for some other reason become more attractive again.

The capital requirements are quite large, and Wall Street tends to attack any company that tries to invest much money in anything that isn't expected to produce a return within the next three months. They also have to worry about their customers whining to the government and getting rail regulation re-established.

That brings up another point, to Megan and the other libertarians: the railroads have only started to come back since the incredibly heavy federal regulation they used to labor under was lifted, but this never seems to get mentioned in these discussions. The railroad industry should be exhibit #1 for the case against regulation.

Won't happen until we get reliable rolling decoupling. Right now moving a container off involves stopping the entire train. Given the fuel costs of that, it's not going to happen.

Given reliable rolling decoupling and reliable moderate speed container pluckers, perhaps - but that's a long, long time away.

Gas could be $100 a gallon and people would still avoid mass transit, for the simple reason that it doesn't go where you want it to when you want it to. Bicycles, anyone?

freddiemac:
It is like having a one lane highway where you must wait for traffic in one direction to stop before you can go. This is why there is so much congestion on railways, not because hubs are too small or in Chicago and NY. Don't you do any research at all Megan? Is google so hard?

Do you have a reference on that?

Gas could be $100 a gallon and people would still avoid mass transit, for the simple reason that it doesn't go where you want it to when you want it to. Bicycles, anyone?

I think $100 would actually change behavior. $10, maybe not, except our cars would get smaller.

To comment upon commenter jon's comment above that "One truck will cause as much damage to highways as I believe 100 passenger cars.", it's actually much worse than that.

While exact equivalences are difficult (road damage depends on axle spacing, suspension type, tire pressure, etc) the dominant factor is the weight per axle. As found by the AASHO road tests and confirmed many times since, road damage varies with the fourth power of the axle weight. (Presumably sine damage is a function of deflection, and catenary deflection is a fourth power function. It's been a long time since I did this stuff.)

This means that a 20,000lb axle on a semi would do ~30,000x the damage of a 1500lb axle on a car. Estimates for a the damage from a single fully loaded semi ranged from 20,000 to 60,000 car equivalents. Freight trucks do pay high taxes, but nowhere near enough to pay for their share of road damage.

P.S. If memory serves, the only other thing that did that kind of out-of-proportion road damage were steel studded tires. Eliminate studs and heavy trucks and your pavement will last nearly forever.

Guys, rail has a lot of issues that need upgrading. Mentioning one does not preclude the others also being true. Yes, intermodal switching is time consuming, but so is making cars go where you want them, laying rail, upgrading the switching infrastructure, procuring right of way for bridges . . . rail's advantage is speed, reliability, and low energy cost. It also has drawbacks, being made worse by lack of investment, and while there is a little investment going on right now, pretty much everyone agrees that it's nowhere near enough. That, too, is a complicated multifactorial problem.

You don't need to build rail yards in major cities - why not build it half an hour outside of downtown(or whatever works for the city in question), where land is cheaper and relatively available, and use trucks for the last bit? Assuming your freight handling is sensible enough, you should be able to have a bunch of short-haul trucks to disperse things from the rail yard to the rest of the city, while retaining nearly all the cost savings of long-haul rail.

"Just In Time is when you sell out of widgets in a given walmart, an order for them is placed."

Swiss AD,

OOS (out-of-stock) would be a great failure within JIT. Rapidity of sales and historical Seasonal Averages are taken into account to order more stock before the shelves empty.

As you can guess, you can't sell what you don't have. Which, in fact, is the Economic argument against, the Financially-driven, JIT craze.

"we could go back to the old ways, but all the operating efficiency would be gone"

operating efficiency is in the eye of the beholder. what is, surely, lost, with JIT, is the natural inflation-hedge, and insurance against systemic risk, that comes with on-hand inventory..

"Wal-mart barely even has distribution centers"

WMT has some of the largest DCs the world has ever known..

"One way that would be interesting, would be to make the idividual truck and driver a commuter, on a "commuting" train. That is to say, you pick up a pair of containers from Long Beach, drive up to a train heading directly to St. Louis with no stops, where you drive off the train, and take those containers to Springfield, IL. to deliver them. That takes the wear off the truck and driver, makes the fuelling more efficient, but also delivers the load in 2 days..."

to the above mention of 'inter-modal' goods trans-shipment...transporting the driver is incredibly expensive, and he/she wouldrather be at home with familia--that's that Train is serviced by two short-haul Truck lines, one to, and one to the destination...

for further review
http://www.logisticstoday.com/

MEH: Sure, "the largest freight yard" is in a not-very-urban area.

But most rail yards aren't. Giant ports tend to be giant cities, and need giant rail yards. Likewise, big manufacturing hubs or destinations for shipped goods tend to be big cities, and they all need freight yards, and every such yard I've ever seen or heard of is hemmed in pretty effectively with little expansion room.

Your counter-example is irrelevant to Megan's point, which looks correct.

That said, there clearly is a great deal of demand for rail capacity. It's not clear to me why rail companies aren't at least trying to provide more than they are.

How long does it take to get the permissions required for infrastructure improvements?

How long would it take for these investments to pay for themselves, at the current oil price?

And how long will the oil price stay this high?

Were our railways entirely electrified, the efficiency gains would be greater still, and freight emissions would decline as electrical generation shifted toward renewables.

Yeah, renewable resources generate electricity at a much lower rate than coal, gas or diesel.

Where do these ideas come from?

Sigi-

like it matters, but: "freight yards are often located in places like Chicago"

rebutting: "often located"--in places like Chicago

and: "big manufacturing hubs or destinations for shipped goods tend to be big cities, and they all need freight yards"

No, actually, what they Need are rail lines and associated spurs.

Do you think that cat, above, was kidding about NS's massive new inter-modal facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania? "Nestled in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, the fastest growing distribution center in the U.S."
http://www.bethintermodal.com/container.htm

"and every such yard I've ever seen or heard of is hemmed in pretty effectively with little expansion room."

simply, see more, hear more..

BP Beckley,

Here is your reference:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hibernum/1067269268/in/set-72157600149160481/

You can see it with your own two eyes just by walking outside and looking at the train lines. One where once there were two!

Freddiemac:

The reduction in rail route miles and track miles is a fact I wouldn't attempt to refute. What I was asking about was this:

It is like having a one lane highway where you must wait for traffic in one direction to stop before you can go.This is why there is so much congestion on railways, not because hubs are too small or in Chicago and NY.

Everything I've read on freight rail congestion in the past 10 years or so has indicated that the yards/hubs are in fact the bottlenecks. I was wondering if you any specific evidence that this has changed in some cases.

Putting in more main tracks can raise the capacity, of course, but the yards (or other endpoints, like intermodal facilities) have to keep pace.

A properly designed railroad right of way with a single main track, passing sidings in certain locations, and centralized control (i.e. constant communications with every train), really does work fine up to a certain traffic level (as long as you don't have impatient commuters screaming at you every time the train stops, anyway). Every mile of track and every increase in maximum speed soaks up construction and maintenance dollars, and the railroads are always going to try to do what makes the most economic sense.

It's not clear to me why rail companies aren't at least trying to provide more than they are.

mmm, because we don't live in a libertarian utopia, the start-up costs are enormous, and the railcos are looking for federal guarantees?

More to the point, as private companies they are naturally hesitant to spend a fortune on infrastructure that will cause ongoing maintenance costs that could hurt them in a traffic downturn.

""Wal-mart barely even has distribution centers"

WMT has some of the largest DCs the world has ever known.." MEH

Er, yeah, now reading that, used the wrong words...

Warehouses... They don't store an astounding amount of goods, just waiting to ship when needed. They have an astounding amount of goods ALWAYS in motion.

So my point was, that only works if everything stays moving at that speed... slow stuff down, and it lotsa change is required.

Walmart, Target, and so forth HAVE warehouses. They are called trucks.

The commuter truck thing, is more kinda pie in the sky... Intermodal does seems to work with rail in the middle, but the rail companies NEVER will give you fast service. The complications and economies of moving things on such a grand scale prohibit speed.

HOWEVER, what's interesting to think about often with both auto transit, and truck transit, is the easiest route.

Work from home, and you don't need a car to dive to work.
Buy online and you don't need trucks to bring stuff to a walmart, so that you can drive to the walmart and buy it.

Working from home doesn't work for everybody, naturally, but it does work for a large group. It is older style management that wants to see your face everyday. This is no silver bullet, but it does shift the dynamics a lot.

Likewise, buying stuff online, shifts the transport to more on-demand, but then you get to make the economies work because you are only moving what really requires moving... and with technology, you can aggregate on the fly to get the critical mass needed.

The otherside of both is human nature. We want to pick stuff up and look at it before we buy. We want to interact with our co-workers directly sometimes. I think this will change as time passes. We will get more comfortable doing things remotely and via wire.

Perhaps we will even start talking to neighbors, if we start working close to home, again. How would that be for full circle?

Megan, if you have any buyside friends who cover the rails, they could write you a book. There's too much misinformation in this thread to bother correcting, of course, but a good think piece would start by examining:

1. How the industry changed with the Staggers Act, and what 20 years in the woods looks like
2. How price is set on the parts of the business that are still regulated
3. What the economics of both freight and intermodal look like now that the industry is finally at capacity
4. Actual velocity and dwell numbers for intermodal transport, and what that means for the tradeoff between lower costs and higher working capital intensity for the Wal-Marts of the world.
5. The incentives to add capacity now that the industry is finally covering its capital costs


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.