Replies

In every example you stated, trucking was involved. You call it "local," but it all involves highways. And I'd bet that most hauls are not a short distance, but involve hundreds of miles on the highways.

And yes, it is time for you to be surprised because there are many, many trucks that go from the petrochemical plants on the Gulf coast to customers all over the country with absolutely no rail involved. These are specialized tankers that only haul chemicals, and the only way those trailers move is if they are hooked up to a truck. No rail involved at any point. There are many customers that either don't have a rail siding or their own raw material tanks can't handle the 20,000 gallons that would be in a rail car. Their level of usage of the material simply does not warrant them buying that much at a time. I KNOW what I am talking about here, whether you want to believe me or not. Even when we used terminals (we only used 2 -- in New Jersey & Chicago), we only put the larger volume products there. It got there by rail, but from there it all went by truck. Want product in Maine? If it was one of the few high-demand products we stored in New Jersey, it would go from New Jersey to Maine by truck on highways. If the demand for the product was not great enough to justify keeping extra inventories in a terminal, it got shipped all the way from Texas (again, with no trains involved).

It isn't that expensive to ship by truck. From Texas to the Northeast or Northwest, it ran around 7-8 cents per pound. (Although I am sure with the higher gasoline costs, these numbers have changed, but I am no longer in a position to know exactly what those numbers are). I had one customer in California that arranged his own shipments, and used backhaul services from truckers that hauled produce eastward and wanted to get their equipment back to California. For a truckload of drums, about 40,000 lbs, he paid only 3.8 cents per pound. It is more economical than one would think.

And with trucks and our great interstate highways / infrastructure, you could get it to the customer AT LEAST a week sooner -- probably closer to two weeks. The railroads were so slow compared to trucks, and they were terrible about losing railcars for a few days and couldn't tell you where any one single car was. I remember many a time where a rail car didn't show up in time, the railroad had no idea where it was or how much longer it was going to take to arrive, the customer was running short on inventory, and we had to ship trucks on an emergency basis for them so they wouldn't have to shut down. We could ask for a double team of drivers and get a truck almost anywhere in the lower 48 in 2 days. I also recall customers calling to complain about why their truck was late, and the trucking companies always knew what the problem was and the exact location of their equipment. It would be broken down in the Rockies, or the driver had to stop and go the dentist for a toothache or some such deal.

Man, am I glad I'm not having to deal with those annoyances anymore.

1/3 of truck traffic by revenue is under 50 miles in haul. Considering that longer hauls are necessarily more expensive, its not much of a stretch to posit that 50% of truck traffic is under 50 miles, while the vast majority is under 300 miles. The number of long hauls by trucks is miniscule compared to the aggregate total.

And yes, it is time for you to be surprised because there are many, many trucks that go from the petrochemical plants on the Gulf coast to customers all over the country with absolutely no rail involved.

I'm aware of this. I believe the chemical companies generally only reccomend use of rail for shipments over 750 miles.

There are many customers that either don't have a rail siding or their own raw material tanks can't handle the 20,000 gallons that would be in a rail car. Their level of usage of the material simply does not warrant them buying that much at a time.

Well, they certainly believe this, although it isn't necessarily true economically if they can use the tank car as a storage facility, like many consignees do. We recently converted a roofing copany up here to rail use, but first we had to get him to unthink truck. One of his difficulties was he couldn't see how he could unload tank cars of molten asphalt into his storage tank. After some talking, we were finally able to enlighten him that he didn't need to, because he could just park the tank car on his sidetrack and spend 2 days unloading directly from the tank car with his in-plant steam providing the necessary warmth for the product. It never needed to go and visit his tank, because he could hold onto the railcar, unlike an over the road trailer.

It isn't that expensive to ship by truck. From Texas to the Northeast or Northwest, it ran around 7-8 cents per pound.

$3500 per truck (50,000 lbs)? That works out to $14,000 per tank car at 100 tons per tank car. The rail rate is easily half the equivalent truck amount. I suppose the cost of that is relative to the expense of the product. That type of rate would never pay for something cheap like refined oil.

I had one customer in California that arranged his own shipments, and used backhaul services from truckers that hauled produce eastward and wanted to get their equipment back to California. For a truckload of drums, about 40,000 lbs, he paid only 3.8 cents per pound. It is more economical than one would think.

$1520 for a truckload, so $6000 for the equivalent in a rail car. Drums ship by boxcar. Boxcar rates from Texas to California would run you about $3000. Again, half the price.

However your points are well taken. Railroads are aware that they only have 20% of all chemical shipments. A big part of this is the chemical companies promoting trucks for anything under 750 miles. Another big part is the specialty chemicals market with its small lot shipments. Railroads specialize in large lot shipments.

And with trucks and our great interstate highways / infrastructure, you could get it to the customer AT LEAST a week sooner -- probably closer to two weeks.

That's the nature of the beast with carload freight. The cars have to be aggregated in yards and resorted enroute. Your much cheaper rate comes at the price of slower transit. If you want low rates plus fast transit, you go intermodal rail shipment, where your rate is generally 25% under the truck rate, and delivery times are comparable to single drive movement by truck. That's why railroads have 98% of the LA-Chicago market, for example, and trucks have 2%.

The railroads were so slow compared to trucks, and they were terrible about losing railcars for a few days and couldn't tell you where any one single car was.

That may have been the case 10-20 years ago. With modern internet technology, you can trace your railcars and get updates of their location pretty much every hour or two as they move around the system. Its very difficult to lose cars now.

67 - LOL - "I remember many a time where a rail car didn't show up in time, the railroad had no idea where it was or how much longer it was going to take to arrive, the customer was running short on inventory, and we had to ship trucks on an emergency basis for them so they wouldn't have to shut down. We could ask for a double team of drivers and get a truck almost anywhere in the lower 48 in 2 days. I also recall customers calling to complain about why their truck was late, and the trucking companies always knew what the problem was and the exact location of their equipment. It would be broken down in the Rockies, or the driver had to stop and go the dentist for a toothache or some such deal. Man, am I glad I'm not having to deal with those annoyances anymore."

I spent years as an International Traffic Manager, building petro-chem plants, and boy are you right. And some of the stories of where my cargo was were really interesting. One of the best was a trucker who insisted he could make the ship in Los Angeles, on my heat exchanger from St. Louis. And I held the ship for him ($10,000 per day demurrage on the ship and $1 million per day penalty clause on the project. And he dicided to take 2 1/2 days in Colorado to 'visit' his girl friend. That was an expensive piece.