Although intermodal continues to grow, railcar traffic is slumping. Secular and cyclical trends suggest the outlook for the two segments is unlikely to change much in the near term.
After a strong performance in 2014, the U.S. rail industry's picture has changed considerably during the first half of 2015. Intermodal has continued on its upward (albeit somewhat bumpy) trajectory. Meanwhile, the carload rail segment has diverged from that path, and volumes are substantially down. The outlook for both segments is fairly complex, involving both secular (longer-term) changes, such as declines in shipments of coal and crude oil by rail, and cyclical changes as the economic recovery continues to sputter.
Carloads down for many commodities
For carload rail, the growth trend that had been well established in 2014 continued during the first quarter of 2015, with overall volume up 1.1 percent year-on-year and 14 of 20 major commodities notching gains in shipment volumes. That's no longer the case, however. At this writing, with one week left in the second quarter, overall volume is down a striking 7.0 percent year-on-year, and 17 of 20 major commodities have posted losses. Figure 1 provides a breakout of the Q2-to-date performance, showing the year-on-year percentage change for each major commodity in yellow, and the same information in terms of the year-on-year number of cars gained (or lost) in blue.
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Year-on-year change in carloads by commodityEnlarge this image
Secular changes in the marketplace account for much of the volume decline. Coal looms largest. Shipment volume has been plunging as both the economics of cheap natural gas as well as environmental issues associated with the burning of coal have led utilities to switch from coal to natural gas. Of the 335,000 fewer carloads handled thus far in Q2 versus last year, the shortfall in coal shipments accounted for 226,000. The troika of 2014 growth stars—grain, crushed stone/sand/gravel, and petroleum products—all have seen declines in Q2. Demand for grain movements this year is not sufficient to clear out last year's bumper crop, and exports have been hurt by the strong U.S. dollar. Crushed stone/sand/gravel shipments have been hampered by reduced drilling activity due to lower oil prices, trimming the need for carloads of sand used in hydraulic fracturing. At the same time, shipments of petroleum products have also been dropping as production from existing wells tapers and fewer new wells are being drilled.
If we exclude coal, grain, petroleum, and crushed stone/sand/gravel, we can look at the balance of rail commodities to get an idea of trends in the industrial side of the U.S. economy. The news is still not very good. During the first quarter of 2015, volume in the remaining 16 major commodities was up 1.8 percent versus the prior year, but so far in the second quarter volume is down by 3.0 percent.
In 2008, North American railroads handled 20.9 million carloads. The next year, volume tumbled to 17.6 million carloads. Five years later, the industry still has not recovered that lost volume, and total carloads in 2014 were still 1.5 percent behind those seen in 2008. It's possible that the former level won't be achieved at all during this economic cycle.
What's going on? In 2014 the rails handled about 322,000 fewer carloads than in 2008, but the composition of those loads changed dramatically during that time frame. Coal volume plunged by almost 1.6 million cars per year. Pulp and paper (down 112,000 cars) was the next biggest loser—another secular story, as digital media continue to replace printed materials. Grain movements were down by 90,000 carloads, and various other commodities added about 237,000 carloads to the deficit, creating a 2.02-million-carload "hole" that had to be filled.
The railroads were able to eliminate most of that deficit for several reasons. For one thing, even as the shift in energy production to hydraulic fracturing and other new methods of extracting oil and gas hurt the rails by reducing coal shipments, it also helped them by increasing movements of petroleum products (+655,000 cars) and boosting demand for crushed stone, sand, and gravel used in energy production (+299,000 cars). For another, cheap energy and economic growth have boosted chemical shipments (+171,000 cars), and the domestic auto business has more than recovered (+217,000 cars). These four commodities made up for two-thirds of the deficit.
These figures tell us that the current "rail renaissance" can be attributed in large part to lower operating costs and stronger pricing rather than to growth. But the changing traffic mix presents some challenges. The 20 percent plunge in coal activity has left the railroads with surplus track in the coal regions. At the same time, unit trains of crude oil, traveling entirely different east-west routes that were often congested, created a need for more capacity at various chokepoints, such as Chicago. Adding permanent capacity—by laying additional track, for example—is expensive and costly to maintain. The railroads are therefore approaching this type of investment with caution.
Intermodal upswing continues
Intermodal has been the railroads' most successful business segment in terms of growth. During the recovery, intermodal shipment growth has exceeded that of both carload and truck. In 2008, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA), the railroads handled 13.6 million containers and trailers. Volume plunged 15 percent the next year but by 2014 had more than fully recovered, reaching 16.3 million, or almost 14 percent above figures for 2008.
Intermodal's story is really a tale of two markets, international and domestic. Each accounts for roughly half of all intermodal activity. International, the carriage of International Standards Organization (ISO) boxes containing import and export cargo, actually peaked in 2006 and has yet to fully regain those heights. Changes in port routing patterns, including less reliance on West Coast ports, has reduced intermodal use. Domestic intermodal, the movement of trailers and 53-foot domestic containers, has been the growth star. While international shipments have grown only 5 percent since 2008, domestic shipments have shot up by 37 percent. FTR estimates that in Q1/2015, intermodal handled a bit less than 18 percent of all U.S. dry-van-type movements of 550 miles or greater, and that intermodal's share of this long-haul truck market has been growing long-term at about 0.1 percent per calendar quarter. This conversion from highway has boosted intermodal growth by between 3 and 4 percent per year.
So far this year the intermodal situation has been turbulent. International loadings were badly affected first by the West Coast port congestion, and then by a big surge of volume when the backlog of containers trapped in ports and intermodal yards broke loose. But the underlying growth in the international segment, powered by consumer spending and a strong dollar, looks relatively robust. Domestic intermodal growth, meanwhile, has been easing for several reasons. One is that truck capacity is relatively abundant—for now. Although capacity is tight by historical standards, we are in a short period when it is more available than it has been; capacity is expected to tighten significantly next year, though. Another is that intermodal service speed and reliability declined markedly in 2014, and that situation has only been partially corrected to date. And finally, lower fuel prices are reducing intermodal's cost advantage over truck.
What is the outlook for the balance of the year? FTR's current forecast calls for a reduction of 3.9 percent in the number of rail carloads moved in 2015 versus 2014, with only a portion of that drop being made up in 2016. Meanwhile, intermodal will continue to grow at about 4.5 percent in 2015, with a slight deceleration going into 2016.
The combination of sagging volume and the shift in traffic mix from higher-margin carload traffic to lower-margin intermodal will put pressure on the railroads' operating ratios. Expect price hikes to continue at a brisk pace in the coming months as the carriers attempt to maintain their profitability.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.