A scarcity of truck drivers is biting into profits

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi


That's because the idiots in charge (whomever they may be) over the years have actually decreased our country's railroad capacities instead of expanded them like they need to be...


You do know the reason railroads decreased in size, right? Trucks offered faster, more flexible, and cheaper transport of goods and services, resulting in much less freight going via railroad. That's where they shed lines that weren't profitable, and quite honestly could barely maintain what they had. They are still in that box - raise rates high enough to allow for more investment in infrastructure, and lose traffic to more trucks. It isn't just some idiot going we should be smaller - flat out they had to survive to get to where they are today. It is amazing that nobody remembers how bad things had gotten for the railroads...


How can it be cheaper to ship by truck when you can ship the cargo of 100 trucks on one train?


If the 100 trucks are going to 20 different locations, none of which are near a rail depot trucking can likely be cheaper.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi


How can it be cheaper to ship by truck when you can ship the cargo of 100 trucks on one train?


If your metric is fuel consumed, you are right. By that metric, we should be barging everything as that is the cheapest form of transport based on energy consumed...

If your metric is total costs, including time in transport, handling, transport costs on either end, etc... then you are wrong.

Rail is great at covering long distances on its own schedule. Where it stinks is delivering that last mile to the customer. For things that don't make sense to ship in bulk, intermodal containers provide an option to ship via rail service to take advantage of that mode of cost effectiveness. Yet it still takes a truck to get it to the railyard, and then another one to deliver it to the customer.

There is no right or wrong answer - its what the customer demands...


There are probably a lot of logistical aspects I'm not aware of that make trucking a better option, it's just too bad we couldn't ship more by rail and get some of these semis off the roads. Not only do they cause a lot more congestion, they can turn a beautiful road surface into a pothole nightmare in a very short period of time...

 

[gman2304]

If you bought it, a truck brought it!

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: gman2304
If you bought it, a truck brought it!


Yep. Our economy revolves around trucking.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi


How can it be cheaper to ship by truck when you can ship the cargo of 100 trucks on one train?


If your metric is fuel consumed, you are right. By that metric, we should be barging everything as that is the cheapest form of transport based on energy consumed...

If your metric is total costs, including time in transport, handling, transport costs on either end, etc... then you are wrong.

Rail is great at covering long distances on its own schedule. Where it stinks is delivering that last mile to the customer. For things that don't make sense to ship in bulk, intermodal containers provide an option to ship via rail service to take advantage of that mode of cost effectiveness. Yet it still takes a truck to get it to the railyard, and then another one to deliver it to the customer.

There is no right or wrong answer - its what the customer demands...


There are probably a lot of logistical aspects I'm not aware of that make trucking a better option, it's just too bad we couldn't ship more by rail and get some of these semis off the roads. Not only do they cause a lot more congestion, they can turn a beautiful road surface into a pothole nightmare in a very short period of time...


The historical model involved trucks for distribution only. This was from warehouse to retail with rail providing the backbone/backhaul. Unfortunately, since rail is slow, this meant a ton of warehousing, which was expensive. With the push for JIT long-haul trucking gained serious traction, aided by inexpensive fuel. This led to a decline in rail and rail infrastructure began to decay. A lot of it was ripped up. When fuel prices went up, one could not simply switch back to rail, as much of that infrastructure was gone. What was left was also far less healthy than before.

We still move a lot of product via rail. Coal, crude, oats...etc. Stuff that doesn't need to be warehoused and isn't destined for the consumer. But these are on trunks that wouldn't work in most instances for the historical model, as those routes that serviced that warehouse-driven topology are gone. There's a ton of evidence of that locally. When I was kid my town had a TON of rail running all through it. I watched the decline, watched the increase in truck traffic and eventually saw the tracks pulled.

The thing with rail is of course the obvious: It has its own dedicated infrastructure so its impact on roads is next to non-existent. The biggest issue is the condition of crossings. Compared to the impact of trucking, which destroys highways and roads, one can see why many have rail nostalgia.

It would take not only incredibly high fuel prices to reinvigorate rail, but persistent ones. It would have to be a long drawn sort of affair and even then, the amount of investment necessary likely makes it non-viable unfortunately

With the advancement of small modular nuclear reactors it isn't outside the realm of possibility that both container ship and even rail could eventually be powered via that means. AC traction powered by a nuclear power module rather than diesel. In the quest to eliminate fossil fuels, nothing is off the table. Not that I think it is necessarily likely, but it is certainly possible.

 

[gman2304]

Trucks pay a huge amount of road use taxes as well as fuel taxes and licensing and registration fees. If state and federal politicians directed more of that tax money to infrastructure repair and road improvements instead of pork projects, we could well have a surplus for future improvements and maintenance.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gman2304
Trucks pay a huge amount of road use taxes as well as fuel taxes and licensing and registration fees. If state and federal politicians directed more of that tax money to infrastructure repair and road improvements instead of pork projects, we could well have a surplus for future improvements and maintenance.


But they don't, so we deal with heavily rutted roads littered with gators and waiting patiently while trucks pass each other with fractions of a MPH difference in speeds.

The old warehousing model may have been slower, but it did have the benefit of less congestion on the highways and other perks such as not having cars rolling alongside vehicles several orders of magnitude heavier that almost guarantees fatalities in a collision.

This is the 401:

A few trucks, probably doing local deliveries.

This is the 401 now:

(Yes, that's a pileup with a transport)

More trucks than cars. It's a massive change.

 

[dblshock]

12/23/17 got a CDL for semi retirement work, whew, first year is a loser.

 

[dblshock]

want to get rich? open a truck stop...they're all packed.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
want to get rich? open a truck stop...they're all packed.


That's why Buffet invested in Pilot Flying J truck stops.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
12/23/17 got a CDL for semi retirement work, whew, first year is a loser.


How many miles per week are you driving ?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: gman2304
If you bought it, a truck brought it!


Yep. Our economy revolves around trucking.


I know, I drive on the roads they trash and crowd...

 

[dblshock]

2-2.5k if not hung up at docks too much...I'd like to keep it around 500 a day.