Things are looking up on the rails. After about a year of stability (that is, limited growth), carload volume began to move up in the second quarter of 2018. According to data from the Association of American Railroads (AAR), North American carloads (excluding intermodal) were up 2.2 percent in the first half of 2018, but this figure masks an acceleration. In the first quarter of 2018, carloads were up only 0.3 percent year over year, but in Q2, they rose a solid 4.2 percent. Volume increased sequentially from Q1 to Q2 by 5.4 percent. The gains were broad-based, with only three of the 20 commodity groups included in the AAR data showing year-over-year losses in Q2.
The timing of the surge tells us something about what is and isn't happening. First, what isn't: Most likely the improvement is not coming from highway freight converting to rail carload. Truck capacity began to tighten up in Q4 2017, as the federal mandate that most trucks must be equipped with an electronic logging device (ELD) approached, and then got extremely tight after the mandate took effect in December. This situation remained through the first quarter of this year and persists today. Yet the tightening truck capacity did not affect carload activity, which remained very quiet in the first quarter. These days, there is little freight that can easily move between truck and rail. Rather, each mode has developed its own distinct market, and structural barriers inhibit easy shifts between modes.
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Four-week avg. merchandise train speeds: Total networkEnlarge this image
It's more likely that the improved rail carload picture in the second quarter represents an acceleration in the industrial economy. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Q1 was only 2 percent, roughly in line with prior performance over the course of the recovery. But all indications are that growth has moved up in Q2, and accelerating rail carload activity is one of the strands of evidence.
This growth in carload volume has been impressive given the continued decline in the use of coal for power generation despite the Trump administration's efforts to the contrary. (Coal has historically been the "bread and butter" of rail traffic.) The economic power of low-priced natural gas is simply too strong for coal generation to overcome. Coal carload activity in the first half of 2018 was unchanged from the prior year, mainly as a result of stronger coal exports offsetting for the moment the decline in utility coal.
The competition over operating ratio
The railroads continue to compete with each other to achieve the lowest operating ratio (OR), which is defined as expenses divided by revenue. A key method for driving down cost (and therefore improving OR) has been to lengthen trains, thereby increasing the number of cars and amount of freight handled by one crew. A critical tool in this effort has been the use of distributed power, in which unmanned locomotives located within or at the rear of the train are controlled remotely by the crew at the front of the train. Dispersing the locomotives reduces the forces generated within the train and also speeds up brake application, enabling the safe operation of much longer trains of 12,000 feet or more.
Another major recent influence on operating ratios has been the application of the concept of "precision scheduled railroading" (PSR) as promoted by the late E. Hunter Harrison, who was in the midst of implementing this operating philosophy on the CSX system at the time of his death after earlier stints at Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. While the PSR transformation involves lengthening trains, it also entails a wholesale revision of railroad operating plans, with reductions in yards, assets, and workforce in order to wring the maximum amount of efficiency out of the railroad infrastructure.
Cost reduction is only half of the operating ratio equation, however. The other means of reducing the operating ratio is raising revenue. In the absence of volume growth, this has meant continuing to raise rates at a pace exceeding that of the industry's cost inflation, a trend that has been in place for many years.
This transformation of operating practices, is not, however, evolving in a completely smooth manner. Train service has suffered. Figure 1 represents the four-week moving average of the composite merchandise train speeds of all the Class I railroads (except Canadian Pacific) as drawn from the weekly EP-274 reports the railroads make to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Merchandise trains are the mixed freight trains that carry the broad span of commodities handled by the railroads. The category excludes the unit trains of coal, oil, or grain, which are tracked separately, and excludes intermodal trains as well.
While average train speeds are a highly imperfect means of measuring service quality, they are useful indicators when the numbers move dramatically. Such is the case right now. Average merchandise train speeds have deteriorated substantially thus far this year, standing most recently at just 19.6 miles per hour (mph), down more than 5 percent from the same time last year and 8.7 percent lower than the average performance of the past five years. Much of the deterioration occurred during the first quarter in the absence of traffic growth, so while more volume may be contributing to the problem now, it certainly isn't the sole reason for the decline.
Intermodal: opportunities and challenges
There is a sector where rail and truck compete fiercely for market share, and that's domestic intermodal. Intermodal consists of two distinct market segments, each roughly equal in size. The international segment involves the inland movement of ISO (or international) containers from overseas. This segment mainly responds to international trade trends and port routing decisions by ocean carriers and shippers. The domestic segment covers the movements of domestic containers and trailers, and it responds to the competitive posture of intermodal vs. truck. The aforementioned shortage of truck capacity has provided intermodal with a golden opportunity to take freight off the highway. Indeed, domestic intermodal is growing briskly, with volume up 8.6 percent year over year for the first two months of Q2 2018. But earlier during the shortage, growth was restrained by a shortage of domestic containers. Intermodal carriers are now working to right-size their fleets to meet the current demand.
Meanwhile, the old stalwart "trailer on flat car" (TOFC) is helping to fill the gap. Intermodal movements of trailers were up over 17 percent year to date through May and over 21 percent quarter to date. TOFC strength is coming from three sources:
1) Movement of smaller trailers (primarily 28-foot "pups") filled with e-commerce-related cargo by parcel and less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers,
2) "Safety valve" movements by shippers who can't find a domestic container, and
3) Trailer moves by over-the-road truckers who don't own domestic containers but are using intermodal to handle load volume for which they otherwise can't find enough drivers.
There are, however, sources of concern regarding the sector's ability to handle the demand. Intermodal trains have not been immune from the rail network's general slowdown. The delays have caused trains to bunch up, which greatly impedes terminal productivity and slows equipment velocity. Drayage, the short-haul highway movement of intermodal equipment, has also been a major disruptor. Long-haul drayage carriers are subject to the new electronic logging device (ELD) requirement if their hauls exceed 115 miles from the intermodal ramp, but short-haul carriers are not. This has caused many carriers to migrate towards shorter hauls. The result has been a shortage in "long-haul" dray capacity for moves of around 200 miles from the intermodal ramps, and rates have been skyrocketing.
While Q2 typically marks the seasonal peak for truckload carriers, intermodal traffic usually peaks closer to the holidays with October typically being the busiest month. In a normal year, October domestic intermodal volume is typically about 7 percent higher than in May. With the system already showing signs of strain, there is real concern over its ability to handle the increased volumes to come.
For the balance of 2018, carload growth will likely be determined by the path of the economy. Will the presumably strong performance of the second quarter endure? Or will increasing interest rates, federal deficits, and possible trade disruption prove to be a drag that brings growth back down to previous levels? Meanwhile, the railroads will find it difficult to recruit the manpower they need to meet increasing demand with unemployment at very low levels, so service recovery may prove difficult. Meanwhile, intermodal will have all it can handle through the balance of this year as tight truck capacity will lead to robust demand. Intermodal's growth will only be limited by its ability to accept it.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.