<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Limited air cargo capacity and high ocean load factors are keeping demand elevated on the overland rail network between China and Europe.</div>

Limited air cargo capacity and high ocean load factors are keeping demand elevated on the overland rail network between China and Europe.

3645491_FI.png

<div>Europe’s inland hub of Duisport has grown its containerized rail trade with China in the first nine months of the year as shippers seeking alternatives to disrupted air and ocean transport kept overland demand elevated.The largest inland port in Europe did not give actual figures for its January through September volume, but in an update said container throughput was 2 percent higher than the same period last year.“The volume of [overall] traffic via the New Silk Road has almost doubled compared with the previous year and already accounts for almost 8 percent of the total container turnover of the Duisport...

Europe’s inland hub of Duisport has grown its containerized rail trade with China in the first nine months of the year as shippers seeking alternatives to disrupted air and ocean transport kept overland demand elevated. The largest inland port in Europe did not give actual figures for its January through September volume, but in an update said container throughput was 2 percent higher than the same period last year. “The volume of [overall] traffic via the New Silk Road has almost doubled compared with the previous year and already accounts for almost 8 percent of the total container turnover of the Duisport group,” CEO Erich Staake said in the statement. Duisport reported that the number of trains running to and from China during the nine months reached record levels, with one-third of the total volume of trade by freight train between Europe and China passing through the Duisburg, Germany, logistics hub. Again, no numbers were provided by Duisport for the first nine months, but along with Europe’s seaport hubs of Rotterdam and Antwerp, Duisport attributed rising demand from China as a traffic driver. However, despite the positive nine-month performance, Staake was cautious in his predictions for the year. “This is gratifying, but by no means a foregone conclusion in view of the current situation,” he said. “What will be decisive is that we can confirm this positive development up to the end of the fiscal year. I am confident that we will be able to do so.” His confidence is well-placed. Soaring air freight rates amid a chronic reduction in capacity and high demand keeping ocean freight full have forced shippers to seek out alternative transport options. While expedited ocean shipping is booming on the trans-Pacific, it is the China-Europe rail network that provides the alternative on Asia-Europe. Rail between China and Europe gives shippers a cost and speed option to air and ocean transport. But travel bans have removed half the available air cargo capacity and pushed rates up, while peak season demand and blank sailings has limited ocean freight capacity. Forwarders use agents in China to arrange their China-Europe rail rates and all offer different prices, but UK-based forwarder Davies Turner said its rail freight rate from China to the UK equated to about $0.24 per kilogram with a transit time of 22 days. By comparison, average air freight rates from Shanghai to North Europe assessed by the TAC Index are currently at $4.20/kg, with average long-haul air freight spending six days in transit. Ocean freight takes about 34 days from China to North Europe, and spot rates are currently at $1,084 per TEU, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI). The rising demand for rail was confirmed by forwarders. Jan Harnisch, global COO of air and ocean for Rhenus Logistics, said the land bridge was in heavy demand from customers. “The demise of the air freight trade is leading to a very strong push towards the Silk Road out of China with many more enquiries from customers to move their cargo by land because of the faster transit time,” he told JOC.com. “Shippers are fed up with the lack of reliability and see the land as a more viable option, even with the higher rates,” Harnisch added. “For certain emergency shipments we even organized trucks between Europe and China. It is not really an alternative to rail, but it is more an alternative to air.” Long list of reasons behind rail’s popularity Tony Cole, head of supply chain services at Davies Turner, said their express China rail service was continuing to show strong growth since container volumes soared in the second quarter. He said a long list of container shipping issues facing European importers — blank sailings, rolled cargo, poor on-time performance, and loading delays — made the China-Europe rail service attractive. “Unlike the ocean freight alternative, there are no disruptions affecting the overland rail service, which typically saves clients up to 22 days [compared to ocean],” he told JOC.com in a recent interview. There is a lag in the official volume data for the rail network provided by China State Railway Group, the state-owned operator of the rail network, but UTLC ERA, a joint venture of the Belarusian, Kazakh, and Russian railways, said in a recent statement that 277,600 TEU were carried on its network in the first seven months of 2020, an increase in volume of almost 70 percent year over year. July volume was up 76 percent to 54,200 TEU. In the first half of the year, China State Railway Group data shows 5,122 China-Europe freight trains were operated, a 36 percent increase year over year. The busiest border point in the network was at Khorgos on the China-Kazakhstan border, where the 2,000 trains handled in the first half was almost 50 percent more than in the first six months of 2019. Demand is also growing on the backhaul route, according to Austrian fiber producer Lenzing Group, which has contracted two block trains to China with logistics provider cargo-partner. The first train from Vienna to Shanghai departed in August, and the latest train from Linz to Qingdao left Oct. 9 and will arrive Oct. 25. Lenzing Group spokesperson Marco Schlimpert said in a recent statement there was high demand from Chinese brands for the fibers that go into textiles and apparel, and rail was the most efficient way to deliver the cargo. “This allows us to transport our goods in an environment-friendly way, and moreover it ensures that the goods reach our customers in China twice as fast as on the usual sea route,” he said. While some forwarders have told JOC.com of congestion building on the China-Europe rail network at the two gauge-changing points on the China-Kazakhstan and Belarus-Poland borders, others say transit times are being sustained. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @greg_knowler .

Rail News

European inland hub boosts rail container trade from China

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC and Cosco are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers.</div>

CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC and Cosco are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Indian cargo owners are facing a new wave of surcharges from major carriers on laden containers exceeding the standard weight threshold as westbound capacity suffers due to persistent schedule disruptions. CMA CGM, Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and Cosco Shipping are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers, according to industry updates. Indian export trades hit by the surcharge wave include shipments to the US, the Mediterranean, Africa and South America. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have confirmed that Maersk recently began levying a fee of $200 per TEU for shipments to the US weighing over 22 metric tons. Maersk now operates an enhanced “MECL” service on the India-US East Coast trade, with its space out of West India overbooked in recent weeks amid sailing cutbacks on competing networks. Similarly, CMA CGM from July 13 will implement an overweight surcharge of $600 per TEU for dry shipments over 18 metric tons moving to the east coast of South America, complementing a $150-per-TEU fee it has already lined up for 27-ton-plus loads from West India to Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) beginning July 1. Forwarder sources noted that the lead carriers are trying to restrict heavy cargo loadings, especially stones, tiles and metal products, and instead target lightweight cargo to maximize capacity utilization through better vessel stowage planning. “Fewer 40-foot boxes in the market have also contributed to the overweight problem,” a sales executive at a European liner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Our average container weight per TEU has been in the region of 19 metric tons to 19.5 mt, as against the 14 mt limit, on many recent sailings.” A second forwarder said surcharges on heavier loads are now across the board, with the scale varying from carrier to carrier. “The carriers who are not charging [overweight fees] mostly do not accept manual cargo bookings,” the forwarder said. Shipper sources echoed that concern, noting that carriers typically try to push through additional surcharges as the industry heads into the traditional peak season. “We should expect more [surcharge] hits in the coming days,” a Mumbai-based yarn exporter said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

Indian cargo owners are facing a new wave of surcharges from major carriers on laden containers exceeding the standard weight threshold as westbound capacity suffers due to persistent schedule disruptions. CMA CGM, Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and Cosco Shipping are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers, according to industry updates. Indian export trades hit by the surcharge wave include shipments to the US, the Mediterranean, Africa and South America. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have confirmed that Maersk recently began levying a fee of $200 per TEU for shipments to the US weighing over 22 metric tons. Maersk now operates an enhanced “MECL” service on the India-US East Coast trade, with its space out of West India overbooked in recent weeks amid sailing cutbacks on competing networks. Similarly, CMA CGM from July 13 will implement an overweight surcharge of $600 per TEU for dry shipments over 18 metric tons moving to the east coast of South America, complementing a $150-per-TEU fee it has already lined up for 27-ton-plus loads from West India to Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) beginning July 1. Forwarder sources noted that the lead carriers are trying to restrict heavy cargo loadings, especially stones, tiles and metal products, and instead target lightweight cargo to maximize capacity utilization through better vessel stowage planning. “Fewer 40-foot boxes in the market have also contributed to the overweight problem,” a sales executive at a European liner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Our average container weight per TEU has been in the region of 19 metric tons to 19.5 mt, as against the 14 mt limit, on many recent sailings.” A second forwarder said surcharges on heavier loads are now across the board, with the scale varying from carrier to carrier. “The carriers who are not charging [overweight fees] mostly do not accept manual cargo bookings,” the forwarder said. Shipper sources echoed that concern, noting that carriers typically try to push through additional surcharges as the industry heads into the traditional peak season. “We should expect more [surcharge] hits in the coming days,” a Mumbai-based yarn exporter said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

Indian exporters face overweight box surcharges as carriers push scalability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Global vehicle carriers are set to feel the sting of a growing Chinese-operated ro/ro fleet amid a fight for international car cargoes.</div>

Global vehicle carriers are set to feel the sting of a growing Chinese-operated ro/ro fleet amid a fight for international car cargoes.

<div class="phx-topic">Chinese vehicle carrier operators are set to upend the roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) cargo market, especially for eastbound backhaul vehicle, breakbulk and project cargo to China and Asia, senior maritime executives say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, the executives pointed out that carriers such as Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, SAIC Anji Logistics and BYD Auto are steadily increasing the number of pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs) in their fleets as Chinese vehicle exports continue to soar after hitting a high of 6 million units last year. Exports have grown a further 6% so far this year.  Stian Omli, co-founder and senior vice president of the shipping arm of Norwegian market intelligence company Esgian, said China’s eight major companies currently control 55 ships with a total capacity of 333,190 car equivalent units (CEU). “This is equivalent to between 12% and 15% of the global deep-sea fleet,” Omli said. Data from Norwegian shipbroking house Hesnes Shipping, which has a strategic partnership with Esgian, showed a further 169 car carriers larger than 3,000 CEUs would be delivered from the second half of this year to 2028, the majority controlled by Chinese operators. Omli said the vessels would either be newbuild ships ordered by firms such as Cosco Shipping or chartered to the logistics affiliates of Chinese manufacturers such as BYD Auto or Geely Jisu from tonnage providers such as Singapore’s Eastern Pacific Shipping. The vessels include the BYD’s series of 9,200-CEU vessels, the largest in the world, which are being delivered beginning this year; the first, BYD Shenzhen, began its maiden voyage in April. <h3>Challenges of different operating models </h3>While these vessels are overshadowed by the almost 130 PCTCs operated by the world’s largest car carrier company, Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Chinese operators serve just a handful of Chinese vehicle makers calling at a small number of ports. Consequently, port dwell and voyage times are lower and vessel utilization is improved, Omli said. As a result, Chinese operators can make more round-trip voyages in a year compared with carriers such as Wallenius, so annualized transport volumes per ship are higher. Wallenius CEO Lasse Kristoffersen said the average ro/ro ship makes just over three round-trip voyages a year due to changing operational conditions, including more port calls and schedule disruption caused by vessel diversions around southern Africa. Senior maritime executives said the Chinese vessels are largely dedicated to transporting Chinese-manufactured vehicles to export markets such as Europe and South America, but because the operators are recent entrants to the market, they don’t yet have the customer network to generate return cargo. Cutting freight rates is one likely way they will generate those cargo volumes, the executives added. “The PCTC market is transforming. Traditional carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners are now in competition with new Chinese players,” Paris Venetos, business development director at Venetos Maritime, told the Journal of Commerce. The Piraeus, Greece-based company is actively involved in vehicle shipments from China to the Mediterranean, Europe and Middle East, especially new electric vehicle entrants into the region. “But what I think will generate even bigger stress is the scramble for return cargo to China from Europe and elsewhere,” Ventos said. “Traditional PCTC operators have had this nice market. But now, Chinese carriers will need return cargo from northern Europe or the Mediterranean to China or the US to Europe or Asia. Consequently, competition will become increasingly harsh.” He indicated there could be a rate war as Chinese carriers undercut traditional operators to secure backhaul freight. “Return cargo will become the new battleground for brutal fights to the benefit of the cargo owners,” Venetos said. Esgian’s Omli agreed that dumping rates was one way to secure return freight. “But incumbent carriers like Wilhelmsen have a much better relationship with European and US cargo owners and have a terminals and logistics organization to support it,” he said. “It will take time for Chinese operators to build this up.” Omli added that the established operators also have an “upper hand” when it comes to the shipment of high and heavy machines and industrial equipment, used cars, breakbulk and project cargo, which typically comprise return cargo. <h3>Overseas expansion of Chinese auto brands </h3>Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners did not respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce on the challenges posed by Chinese ro/ro operators. But carriers such as Wilhelmsen and “K” Line are facing a widening imbalance with fronthaul volumes from Asia outpacing backhaul cargo from Europe and the US over the last six years. The imbalance was 4.6 million vehicles in 2019, but that surged 132% to 10.7 million vehicles last year as European and US manufacturers lost market share in Asia while Chinese, South Korean and Japanese vehicle makers gained market share in Europe and the US, according to motor industry association figures. Advisory firm AlixPartners forecast that trend would accelerate in the next five years, with local Chinese auto brands gaining 76% of China’s domestic market by 2030 at the expense of foreign makers. Lackluster sales of 3% in China this year will spur further overseas expansion. Chinese automakers are forecast to double their European market share to 10% by 2030, according to the 2025 AlixPartners Global Automotive Outlook published on June 19. “I'd say that the competitive supply and demand pressures for car carrier operators are likely to increase, and we'll see a more diversified operator market with newcomers adding capacity and boosting their relative competitive position,” Omli said. “But there are many uncertainties, including the reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal, with the shortest transit route to Europe and the Mediterranean immediately adding the equivalent of more than 35 ships in extra capacity.” Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Chinese vehicle carrier operators are set to upend the roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) cargo market, especially for eastbound backhaul vehicle, breakbulk and project cargo to China and Asia, senior maritime executives say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, the executives pointed out that carriers such as Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, SAIC Anji Logistics and BYD Auto are steadily increasing the number of pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs) in their fleets as Chinese vehicle exports continue to soar after hitting a high of 6 million units last year. Exports have grown a further 6% so far this year.  Stian Omli, co-founder and senior vice president of the shipping arm of Norwegian market intelligence company Esgian, said China’s eight major companies currently control 55 ships with a total capacity of 333,190 car equivalent units (CEU). “This is equivalent to between 12% and 15% of the global deep-sea fleet,” Omli said. Data from Norwegian shipbroking house Hesnes Shipping, which has a strategic partnership with Esgian, showed a further 169 car carriers larger than 3,000 CEUs would be delivered from the second half of this year to 2028, the majority controlled by Chinese operators. Omli said the vessels would either be newbuild ships ordered by firms such as Cosco Shipping or chartered to the logistics affiliates of Chinese manufacturers such as BYD Auto or Geely Jisu from tonnage providers such as Singapore’s Eastern Pacific Shipping. The vessels include the BYD’s series of 9,200-CEU vessels, the largest in the world, which are being delivered beginning this year; the first, BYD Shenzhen, began its maiden voyage in April. Challenges of different operating models While these vessels are overshadowed by the almost 130 PCTCs operated by the world’s largest car carrier company, Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Chinese operators serve just a handful of Chinese vehicle makers calling at a small number of ports. Consequently, port dwell and voyage times are lower and vessel utilization is improved, Omli said. As a result, Chinese operators can make more round-trip voyages in a year compared with carriers such as Wallenius, so annualized transport volumes per ship are higher. Wallenius CEO Lasse Kristoffersen said the average ro/ro ship makes just over three round-trip voyages a year due to changing operational conditions, including more port calls and schedule disruption caused by vessel diversions around southern Africa. Senior maritime executives said the Chinese vessels are largely dedicated to transporting Chinese-manufactured vehicles to export markets such as Europe and South America, but because the operators are recent entrants to the market, they don’t yet have the customer network to generate return cargo. Cutting freight rates is one likely way they will generate those cargo volumes, the executives added. “The PCTC market is transforming. Traditional carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners are now in competition with new Chinese players,” Paris Venetos, business development director at Venetos Maritime, told the Journal of Commerce. The Piraeus, Greece-based company is actively involved in vehicle shipments from China to the Mediterranean, Europe and Middle East, especially new electric vehicle entrants into the region. “But what I think will generate even bigger stress is the scramble for return cargo to China from Europe and elsewhere,” Ventos said. “Traditional PCTC operators have had this nice market. But now, Chinese carriers will need return cargo from northern Europe or the Mediterranean to China or the US to Europe or Asia. Consequently, competition will become increasingly harsh.” He indicated there could be a rate war as Chinese carriers undercut traditional operators to secure backhaul freight. “Return cargo will become the new battleground for brutal fights to the benefit of the cargo owners,” Venetos said. Esgian’s Omli agreed that dumping rates was one way to secure return freight. “But incumbent carriers like Wilhelmsen have a much better relationship with European and US cargo owners and have a terminals and logistics organization to support it,” he said. “It will take time for Chinese operators to build this up.” Omli added that the established operators also have an “upper hand” when it comes to the shipment of high and heavy machines and industrial equipment, used cars, breakbulk and project cargo, which typically comprise return cargo. Overseas expansion of Chinese auto brands Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners did not respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce on the challenges posed by Chinese ro/ro operators. But carriers such as Wilhelmsen and “K” Line are facing a widening imbalance with fronthaul volumes from Asia outpacing backhaul cargo from Europe and the US over the last six years. The imbalance was 4.6 million vehicles in 2019, but that surged 132% to 10.7 million vehicles last year as European and US manufacturers lost market share in Asia while Chinese, South Korean and Japanese vehicle makers gained market share in Europe and the US, according to motor industry association figures. Advisory firm AlixPartners forecast that trend would accelerate in the next five years, with local Chinese auto brands gaining 76% of China’s domestic market by 2030 at the expense of foreign makers. Lackluster sales of 3% in China this year will spur further overseas expansion. Chinese automakers are forecast to double their European market share to 10% by 2030, according to the 2025 AlixPartners Global Automotive Outlook published on June 19. “I'd say that the competitive supply and demand pressures for car carrier operators are likely to increase, and we'll see a more diversified operator market with newcomers adding capacity and boosting their relative competitive position,” Omli said. “But there are many uncertainties, including the reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal, with the shortest transit route to Europe and the Mediterranean immediately adding the equivalent of more than 35 ships in extra capacity.” Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Ro/ro cargo

Heavy-haul transport

Rate dumping fears emerge as Chinese ro/ro operators eye European expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fees come as dwell times for refrigerated containers in Houston exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years.</div>

The fees come as dwell times for refrigerated containers in Houston exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years.

<div class="phx-topic">Port Houston will implement new fees next month to force the movement of long-dwelling refrigerated import containers at the port. That comes as dwell times for reefer containers in Houston — a long-running problem — exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years. “We are implementing these fees to maintain current operations, encourage the flow of cargo, and protect and add capacity ahead of forecasted demand,” Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher told the Journal of Commerce. The new fees, which begin July 1 and kick in after one week of free time for most cargo, are $51.60 per day per container for one to three days, $77.40 per day for four to seven days, $103.20 per day for eight to 13 days, and $154.80 per day for 14 or more gate days. The new fees will override the existing sustained import dwell fee, which is $45 per day after one week. Mariacher acknowledged that reefer equipment at Houston is “dwelling excessively ... more than seven days.” The number of reefer containers being moved through Houston has risen every month between February and May, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, with the boxes containing a variety of cargo including frozen chicken paws, shrimp, prawns, meat, plantains and pineapples. In May, the most recent data available, total reefer throughput was 10,747 TEUs — exceeding 10,000 TEUs for the first time since May 2022, according to PIERS. Reefer volume in May was up 40% over the same month a year earlier. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Port Houston will implement new fees next month to force the movement of long-dwelling refrigerated import containers at the port. That comes as dwell times for reefer containers in Houston — a long-running problem — exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years. “We are implementing these fees to maintain current operations, encourage the flow of cargo, and protect and add capacity ahead of forecasted demand,” Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher told the Journal of Commerce. The new fees, which begin July 1 and kick in after one week of free time for most cargo, are $51.60 per day per container for one to three days, $77.40 per day for four to seven days, $103.20 per day for eight to 13 days, and $154.80 per day for 14 or more gate days. The new fees will override the existing sustained import dwell fee, which is $45 per day after one week. Mariacher acknowledged that reefer equipment at Houston is “dwelling excessively ... more than seven days.” The number of reefer containers being moved through Houston has risen every month between February and May, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, with the boxes containing a variety of cargo including frozen chicken paws, shrimp, prawns, meat, plantains and pineapples. In May, the most recent data available, total reefer throughput was 10,747 TEUs — exceeding 10,000 TEUs for the first time since May 2022, according to PIERS. Reefer volume in May was up 40% over the same month a year earlier. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

North American ports

Port Houston implementing reefer dwell fees to encourage container flow

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroad said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May, with the technology integration intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network.</div>

The railroad said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May, with the technology integration intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network.

<div class="phx-topic">Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) has acknowledged to US regulators that its customers have experienced poor service from the railroad since early May and vowed to fix the core issue — a messy transition from legacy Kansas City Southern (KCS) computer systems to CP networks. <a href="https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1750688210397/309692.pdf">A letter from CPKC</a> to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), dated June 20, outlined how the railroad will restore service to normal levels within the next month. The disruptions have centered not on the trains themselves but rather on the first and last miles of journeys, with the problems linked to terminals and switch yards. “CPKC’s level of service performance on the legacy KCS network since May 3, 2025 … does not measure up to CPKC’s standards for the quality of service it provides customers or the efficient operation of its network,” the railroad wrote to the STB. “CPKC also wishes to reassure the board that there is no broader underlying service problem.” CPKC said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May. The technology integration was intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network. But CPKC wrote that the rollout encountered critical failures that disrupted car tracking, customer billing and switching operations. The ripple effects were significant, forcing crews to manually reconstruct data. Congestion soon mounted across the former KCS network, and some of the railroad’s customers were caught unprepared. <h3>Impact on intermodal and manifest trains </h3>In the initial weeks of the disruption, truck drivers were <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-grapples-with-complaints-over-us-canada-terminal-operations-6009914">spending hours waiting in lines</a> at terminals as crews had to be stationed at the gate to write receipts by hand. One CPKC customer had containers stuck inside the Wylie terminal in Texas for 10 days, according to data from GPS devices on the boxes. Two high-volume intermodal customers told the Journal of Commerce they pulled freight off the CPKC network in response. But Schneider National, CPKC’s top US partner, said the disruption was a minor blip. While CPKC’s letter to the STB focused on non-containerized freight, manifest and intermodal trains can impact one another in Laredo and Wylie, Texas, because they often share the same human resources, equipment and infrastructure. CPKC said the on-time performance of manifest trains, which hold a mixture of cargo, fell to 57.3% in a rolling four-week average ending June 13, dropping each week since the May 3 transition. Prior to May, on-time performance was regularly 75% to 85%. The situation was serious enough that CPKC created a “war room” in early May to troubleshoot issues. CPKC also flew in top executives, including COO Mark Redd, from Calgary to locations in Texas and the Gulf Coast to organize remedial efforts. “CPKC soon established cross-functional ‘SWAT-like’ support teams [comprised of experts from Operations, IT, and Network Support, and Marketing &amp; Sales, and including senior executives] to work through the issues arising from the IT transition,” CPKC wrote in the STB letter. “CPKC understands that some customer interactions with CPKC customer service personnel during the period may have been frustrating as a result of the issues with data visibility.” CPKC said it will continue to file weekly supplemental reports to update US regulators on the status of recovery efforts. “This report, along with the weekly cadence of updates we anticipate filing with the board as noted below, will provide those stakeholders with up-to-date data reflecting progress towards a return to normal service,” the railroad wrote. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) has acknowledged to US regulators that its customers have experienced poor service from the railroad since early May and vowed to fix the core issue — a messy transition from legacy Kansas City Southern (KCS) computer systems to CP networks. A letter from CPKC to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), dated June 20, outlined how the railroad will restore service to normal levels within the next month. The disruptions have centered not on the trains themselves but rather on the first and last miles of journeys, with the problems linked to terminals and switch yards. “CPKC’s level of service performance on the legacy KCS network since May 3, 2025 … does not measure up to CPKC’s standards for the quality of service it provides customers or the efficient operation of its network,” the railroad wrote to the STB. “CPKC also wishes to reassure the board that there is no broader underlying service problem.” CPKC said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May. The technology integration was intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network. But CPKC wrote that the rollout encountered critical failures that disrupted car tracking, customer billing and switching operations. The ripple effects were significant, forcing crews to manually reconstruct data. Congestion soon mounted across the former KCS network, and some of the railroad’s customers were caught unprepared. Impact on intermodal and manifest trains In the initial weeks of the disruption, truck drivers were spending hours waiting in lines at terminals as crews had to be stationed at the gate to write receipts by hand. One CPKC customer had containers stuck inside the Wylie terminal in Texas for 10 days, according to data from GPS devices on the boxes. Two high-volume intermodal customers told the Journal of Commerce they pulled freight off the CPKC network in response. But Schneider National, CPKC’s top US partner, said the disruption was a minor blip. While CPKC’s letter to the STB focused on non-containerized freight, manifest and intermodal trains can impact one another in Laredo and Wylie, Texas, because they often share the same human resources, equipment and infrastructure. CPKC said the on-time performance of manifest trains, which hold a mixture of cargo, fell to 57.3% in a rolling four-week average ending June 13, dropping each week since the May 3 transition. Prior to May, on-time performance was regularly 75% to 85%. The situation was serious enough that CPKC created a “war room” in early May to troubleshoot issues. CPKC also flew in top executives, including COO Mark Redd, from Calgary to locations in Texas and the Gulf Coast to organize remedial efforts. “CPKC soon established cross-functional ‘SWAT-like’ support teams [comprised of experts from Operations, IT, and Network Support, and Marketing & Sales, and including senior executives] to work through the issues arising from the IT transition,” CPKC wrote in the STB letter. “CPKC understands that some customer interactions with CPKC customer service personnel during the period may have been frustrating as a result of the issues with data visibility.” CPKC said it will continue to file weekly supplemental reports to update US regulators on the status of recovery efforts. “This report, along with the weekly cadence of updates we anticipate filing with the board as noted below, will provide those stakeholders with up-to-date data reflecting progress towards a return to normal service,” the railroad wrote. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

CPKC acknowledges service woes to US regulators, vows remediation

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Internal and external forces in the first half of 2025 mitigated container vessel overcapacity, but steep challenges lie ahead, writes Journal of Commerce Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.</div>

Internal and external forces in the first half of 2025 mitigated container vessel overcapacity, but steep challenges lie ahead, writes Journal of Commerce Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.

<div class="phx-topic">External forces and a modicum of industry discipline mitigated yawning overcapacity in container shipping in the first half of 2025. But the sharpest pressures on ocean carriers’ capacity control, and resulting pricing, in the coming year are only intensifying — as reflected by the plunge in container spot rates on the trans-Pacific. The signs and rewards of capacity discipline in the first six months were modest. Container lines concluded annual trans-Pacific service contracts at levels 10% to 20% higher than last year, moving closer to $2,000 per FEU to the US West Coast for midsize importers, executives at three container lines told the Journal of Commence on the condition of anonymity. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6030001_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Those gains are less impressive when carriers’ operating costs have risen in the mid-single digits in the same period, largely due to higher chartering rates and terminal handling charges, but still speak to carriers’ increasing control of the market. Service contract rate levels in the past have crumbled in the face of a second-half plunge in spot rates, with importers successfully demanding pricing relief on minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) agreed to earlier in the year. There is no guarantee carriers would show the same resolve if a spot rate plunge followed the early and already waning peak season. But the fact that carriers mostly kept contracted importers to their MQC when spot rates began spiking in early May bodes well for their resolve. “We won’t be revising contracts,” an executive at a major Europe-based container line said he told major customers, adding that the biggest shipper customers finally realize that sharp enough rate declines will spur major capacity withdrawals, jeopardizing their restocking plans. The lessons of the danger of not pulling capacity fast enough when demand plunges, such as in 2008–09 when rates fell on a pullback of US imports due to the global financial crisis, still resonates. When China bookings surged in early May, carriers were able to add about 600,000 TEUs of capacity in the trans-Pacific within approximately a month, equating to up to 15% more weekly capacity than normal deployment levels, said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. That Mediterranean Shipping Co. is no longer in an alliance gave it a free hand to restore capacity faster, and a modest peak season in Asia-Europe allowed the deployment of extra loaders by the world’s largest carrier (as measured by tonnage) and its rivals. The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd substituted smaller vessels for larger ships when demand plunged, and then reversed course when bookings rebounded. Thus, Gemini didn’t need to blank capacity by skipping port calls, although some Asia outbound cargo initially shipped later than scheduled when demand outpaced what the smaller vessels could handle. That allowed Gemini to maintain its 90% reliability, keeping “our services going, while others have had to take capacity out by blanking,” Charles van der Steene, Maersk’s president of North America, told the Journal of Commerce in late May. But intra-Asia carriers piling into the trans-Pacific to take advantage of rising container spot rates, coupled with signs of a weaker-than-expected surge tied to the reprieve in higher US tariffs, began pulling down spot rates in early June. Carriers’ greater control of capacity “is a good thing, because we need stable, profitable ocean carriers to have a healthy industry,” Aldwell said in a June 16 interview at K+N’s headquarters in Schindellegi, Switzerland. “The last thing we need is another Hanjin [Shipping] crisis, because we’ve got long sustained losses in an industry which is so vital to global trade,” he added, referring to the 2016 collapse of the South Korea-based carrier. While carriers have exercised greater capacity control in recent years, Aldwell said the overcapacity challenges are still steep but added that it “doesn’t have to be a train wreck financially if it’s managed well for both customers and suppliers.” <h3>External factors tying up capacity </h3>MSC and CMA CGM’s major purchase of second-hand tonnage, sapping the amount of available chartered tonnage, has also served as a backstop to overcapacity, said Jeremy Masters, a shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. Approximately 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the most-traded sector of the charter market — 7,000- to 9,000-TEU ships — has shrunk by 3.7 million TEUs in the last five years, according to analyst Alphaliner. “Of course, there will be a point of oversupply where even if all the assets were in the hands of the carriers, they would not be able to park enough ships in a concerted enough fashion quickly enough to keep supply below demand and thus keep rates up,” said Masters. “Recently, the carriers have been like a cat with seven lives,” he added, referring to how looming overcapacity has yet to bite. External factors such as port congestion are also tying up functional capacity. Northern European ports have been congested for months, while Asian ports such as Shanghai and Singapore have also been heavily affected. Major container lines still view Suez Canal transits as too risky even after President Donald Trump’s early May assertion that the Houthi rebels would stop attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US missile attacks on Iran on Saturday demolished that fragile peace. The real test for container capacity control, according to the Europe-based shipping executive, will be after Golden Week, the week-long holiday in early October in which Chinese factories slow or halt production. US retailers’ confidence may falter by then, and the signals pointing to future consumption are worsening. In May, US retail sales fell, residential housing construction reached a five-year low and employment shrank, while airline travel fell in April and May. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

External forces and a modicum of industry discipline mitigated yawning overcapacity in container shipping in the first half of 2025. But the sharpest pressures on ocean carriers’ capacity control, and resulting pricing, in the coming year are only intensifying — as reflected by the plunge in container spot rates on the trans-Pacific. The signs and rewards of capacity discipline in the first six months were modest. Container lines concluded annual trans-Pacific service contracts at levels 10% to 20% higher than last year, moving closer to $2,000 per FEU to the US West Coast for midsize importers, executives at three container lines told the Journal of Commence on the condition of anonymity. Those gains are less impressive when carriers’ operating costs have risen in the mid-single digits in the same period, largely due to higher chartering rates and terminal handling charges, but still speak to carriers’ increasing control of the market. Service contract rate levels in the past have crumbled in the face of a second-half plunge in spot rates, with importers successfully demanding pricing relief on minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) agreed to earlier in the year. There is no guarantee carriers would show the same resolve if a spot rate plunge followed the early and already waning peak season. But the fact that carriers mostly kept contracted importers to their MQC when spot rates began spiking in early May bodes well for their resolve. “We won’t be revising contracts,” an executive at a major Europe-based container line said he told major customers, adding that the biggest shipper customers finally realize that sharp enough rate declines will spur major capacity withdrawals, jeopardizing their restocking plans. The lessons of the danger of not pulling capacity fast enough when demand plunges, such as in 2008–09 when rates fell on a pullback of US imports due to the global financial crisis, still resonates. When China bookings surged in early May, carriers were able to add about 600,000 TEUs of capacity in the trans-Pacific within approximately a month, equating to up to 15% more weekly capacity than normal deployment levels, said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. That Mediterranean Shipping Co. is no longer in an alliance gave it a free hand to restore capacity faster, and a modest peak season in Asia-Europe allowed the deployment of extra loaders by the world’s largest carrier (as measured by tonnage) and its rivals. The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd substituted smaller vessels for larger ships when demand plunged, and then reversed course when bookings rebounded. Thus, Gemini didn’t need to blank capacity by skipping port calls, although some Asia outbound cargo initially shipped later than scheduled when demand outpaced what the smaller vessels could handle. That allowed Gemini to maintain its 90% reliability, keeping “our services going, while others have had to take capacity out by blanking,” Charles van der Steene, Maersk’s president of North America, told the Journal of Commerce in late May. But intra-Asia carriers piling into the trans-Pacific to take advantage of rising container spot rates, coupled with signs of a weaker-than-expected surge tied to the reprieve in higher US tariffs, began pulling down spot rates in early June. Carriers’ greater control of capacity “is a good thing, because we need stable, profitable ocean carriers to have a healthy industry,” Aldwell said in a June 16 interview at K+N’s headquarters in Schindellegi, Switzerland. “The last thing we need is another Hanjin [Shipping] crisis, because we’ve got long sustained losses in an industry which is so vital to global trade,” he added, referring to the 2016 collapse of the South Korea-based carrier. While carriers have exercised greater capacity control in recent years, Aldwell said the overcapacity challenges are still steep but added that it “doesn’t have to be a train wreck financially if it’s managed well for both customers and suppliers.” External factors tying up capacity MSC and CMA CGM’s major purchase of second-hand tonnage, sapping the amount of available chartered tonnage, has also served as a backstop to overcapacity, said Jeremy Masters, a shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. Approximately 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the most-traded sector of the charter market — 7,000- to 9,000-TEU ships — has shrunk by 3.7 million TEUs in the last five years, according to analyst Alphaliner. “Of course, there will be a point of oversupply where even if all the assets were in the hands of the carriers, they would not be able to park enough ships in a concerted enough fashion quickly enough to keep supply below demand and thus keep rates up,” said Masters. “Recently, the carriers have been like a cat with seven lives,” he added, referring to how looming overcapacity has yet to bite. External factors such as port congestion are also tying up functional capacity. Northern European ports have been congested for months, while Asian ports such as Shanghai and Singapore have also been heavily affected. Major container lines still view Suez Canal transits as too risky even after President Donald Trump’s early May assertion that the Houthi rebels would stop attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US missile attacks on Iran on Saturday demolished that fragile peace. The real test for container capacity control, according to the Europe-based shipping executive, will be after Golden Week, the week-long holiday in early October in which Chinese factories slow or halt production. US retailers’ confidence may falter by then, and the signals pointing to future consumption are worsening. In May, US retail sales fell, residential housing construction reached a five-year low and employment shrank, while airline travel fell in April and May. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

International ports

Ocean carriers flex tonnage control, but overcapacity is mounting

Use code SKSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s analysis and coverage of North American and global rail news encompasses Class I railroad, intermodal marketing providers, and supporting drayage and truckload services. Reporting on freight railroad news today, journalists track volume, intermodal freight rates, service levels, precision schedule railroading, transloading, regulation, union labor and network investment at domestic and international intermodal terminals.

International rail

Intermodal providers

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

Trucking News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Indian exporters face overweight box surcharges as carriers push scalability

Rate dumping fears emerge as Chinese ro/ro operators eye European expansion

Port Houston implementing reefer dwell fees to encourage container flow