Railroad shipping: AAR reports volumes are up again for week ending November 12
Carload volume—at 299,591—was up 0.5 percent annually and slightly ahead of the week ending November 5 at 298,465.
in the NewsState of Logistics 2016: Pursue mutual benefit President Trump keeps promise on TPP…it’s history California exports robust…for now Landstar opens up new U.S.-Mexico cross-border facility SMC3 examines global trade issues More News
Rail traffic was up for the week ending November 12 according to data released by the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
Carload volume—at 299,591—was up 0.5 percent annually and slightly ahead of the week ending November 5 at 298,465 and behind the previous three weeks, which each were north of 300,000 weekly carloads at 307,000, 301, 864, and 303,363, respectively.
Eastern carloads were up 1.6 percent, and out west carloads were down 0.2 percent. On a year-to-date basis, carloads—at 13,142,833—are up 1.8 percent.
Intermodal volumes—at 244,972 trailers and containers—had a strong with, with a 5.2 percent year-over-year bump. This outpaced the week ending November 5 at 239,180 and was in line with the previous three weeks, which hit 245,404, 244,389, and 241,999, respectively. It was also behind the week ending October 1, which hit 250,864 for the highest weekly total for 2011 and highest weekly tally since week 39 of 2007.
On a year-to-date basis, intermodal is up 5.2 percent at 10,340,944 trailers and containers.
As LM has reported, shippers continue to turn to intermodal as an alternative to trucking movements, as they can see significant fuel savings in exchange for a longer transit time.
AAR officials recently said that the “containerization of U.S. rail intermodal service continues its upward trend,” explaining that containers accounted for 86.0 percent of U.S. rail intermodal volume in October 2011, down fractionally from September’s 86.1 percent and August’s 86.3 percent. This period, said the AAR, represents a stretch in which never before have containers accounted for such a high percentage of U.S. intermodal traffic.
And at recent industry conferences, shippers, carriers, and logistics services providers sang intermodal’s praises to a large degree, explaining that it is becoming a legitimate alternative to straight over the road trucking, as it is more environmentally friendly, is capable of handling lanes which are considered one-day trips, and that various truckload shippers are working in tandem with railroads on developing intermodal corridors and terminals.
Of the 20 commodity groups tracked by the AAR, ten were up annually. Petroleum products were up 22 percent, and grain was down 18.3 percent.
Estimated ton miles for the week at 35.9 billion were up 1.7 percent and for the year-to-date, they were up 2.8 percent at 1,496.3 billion.
About the AuthorJeff Berman, Group News Editor Jeff Berman is Group News Editor for Logistics Management, Modern Materials Handling, and Supply Chain Management Review. Jeff works and lives in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where he covers all aspects of the supply chain, logistics, freight transportation, and materials handling sectors on a daily basis. Contact Jeff Berman
Subscribe to Logistics Management Magazine!Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!
Transportation of freight in containers was first recorded around 1780 to move coal along England’s Bridgewater Canal. However, "modern" intermodal rail service by a major U.S. railroad only dates back to 1936. Malcom McLean’s Sea-Land Service significantly advanced intermodalism, showing how freight could be loaded into a “container” and moved by two or more modes economically and conveniently. As with all new technologies, there were problems that slowed the growth, which influenced many potential customers to shy away from moving intermodal.
Click here to download
Moore on Pricing: The other TMS functional options 2017 Rate Outlook: Where are freight transportation rates headed? View More From this Issue