Don’t Miss Tomorrow’s Supply Chain Industry News

Subscribe to weekly updates to stay ahead. For the rest of the week, costs across major highway corridors rose, and thousands of shipments were impacted. This trend applies to truck routes, warehousing, and last-mile services, demanding tighter control and smarter scheduling. Review what contracts were signed in september and prepare revised terms.

advice for action: Start with two moves: map where disruptions cluster and tighten control over detention and fuel surcharges. If you can’t renegotiate, consider alternatives either within the same region or by adjusting service levels. The most impactful steps apply to lanes that are repeatedly affected. Also review contracting terms and the signs you set for new SLAs. Share these steps with the teams handling them.

Where to look for updates: pull carrier performance data, transit times, on-time percentages, and freight costs by lane. What to track includes eta accuracy, accessorials, and contracting terms. Even small variances in transit time can add up to thousands of dollars in costs; use this data to recalibrate routing and inventory levels.

Implementation note: keep a standing plan and assign ownership. In september, set targets for вантажівка utilization and витрати control, and align teams to monitor updates every week. Where possible, automate alerts and exempting non-critical shipments from nonessential routes to reduce risk.

PSR adoption by Class I railroads: practical implications for shippers tomorrow

Recommendation: Shippers should audit PSR implications now and map move patterns across the network by origin–destination, commodity, and customer priority. Align contracts with the PSR cadence by defining car availability, cut-off times, and priority for high-value customers. Model scenarios where lead times tighten and capacity tightens, especially during month-end peaks. Push for clear updates with Class I railroads and set service-level expectations that reflect real costs. Record this data in owner dashboards to enable quick actions and role-based visibility for customers and internal teams.

Operational steps: build a cross-functional team of owners, planners, and contractor reps; include customers in the discussion to align expectations. Use the network view to identify circuits, corridors, or canals under stress, and re-route moves proactively rather than wait for disruptions. Take cues from Morgan and Kendall notes on capacity discipline, and translate them into monthly plans and updates. Track performing shipments vs. the average, and flag controversial routes that require mitigation. Prepare images or dashboards to show at-a-glance performance, with color-coded updates and alert thresholds. When urgent moves arise, issue a writ of priority to the carrier and reflect this in the contract language.

Impact on economy and resilience: PSR cadence can lift system throughput, but outcomes vary by product, origin, and destination. Build contingency options: hold stock closer to key customers, diversify origin points, and pre-coordinate with intermodal partners to keep cars moving. Use contractor capacity where railcars are declined by the market, and maintain a small buffer to protect critical customers. In disruptions, execute shelter plans: alternate networks, temporary partnerships, or strategic trailers to preserve service. Track results month-over-month to validate improvements in reliability and cost.

Key PSR elements adopted by Class I railroads

Adopt a stable, forecast-driven operating plan that locks train turns, yard slots, and timing across the system to lift asset utilization and reduce dwelling time in yards.

Further improvements arise when plans are tied to cross-functional governance and continuous feedback loops.

• Operating cadence and service design: establish a fixed schedule with minimal exceptions, align mainline, yard, and interchange movements into circuits that support predictable transit times; ensure visibility of these circuits through shareable dashboards for internal teams and key customers.
• Equipment pools and non-exclusive access: deploy centralized locomotive and railcar pools, open to multiple users under non-exclusive terms; a california-based provider can deliver consistent monitoring, maintenance, and quick redeployment when demand shifts.
• Network optimization and entire asset utilization: reduce the number of underutilized elements by consolidating yard moves, curbing short-haul trips, and balancing power and cars across routes; aim to spend capital more efficiently rather than accumulating surplus.
• Data, insight, and visibility: collect high-frequency sensor data, images from yard cameras, and performance metrics; provide real-time dashboards that show dwell at key locations under typical peak times; use the insight to adjust plans before delays propagate.
• Open access to information and registration: enable open access to performance views for customers, without registration friction for read-only views; reserve deeper analytics behind a bill-based subscription or authenticated portal for paid customers.
• Operational measures during extreme conditions: for Arctic routes or harsh winter seasons, adjust schedules proactively to maintain reliability; use dedicated capacity to support critical flows under challenging weather.
• Direct customer collaboration and location strategy: set up direct lanes from key locations to major hubs; implement location-based service agreements that match volumes to available capacity in states with high demand, rather than forcing ad hoc changes.
• Performance metrics and continuous improvement: track dwell time, on-time arrival, and car cycles; report weekly to stakeholders and adjust operating plans to spend less on rejections and returns; emphasize incremental gains rather than wholesale changes.

Industry observers, including a fisher analyst group, note that California-based providers can accelerate equipment redeployment and reduce spent on idle assets.

Operational impacts on shipments: dwell times, scheduling reliability, and bottlenecks

Adopt a unified operating model with clear control and real-time visibility across carriers, warehouses, and drayage partners. What does this entail? A single entity drives accountability, reducing dwell times by 20–35% in the first 90 days and cutting variability. In a three-site pilot, average dwell dropped from 42 hours to 32 hours, and outliers fell from 72+ hours to under 60 hours. morgan notes that success hinges on tight handoffs and a working discussion among employee groups and employers to align incentives that benefit customers. Creating common data standards and dashboards helps isolate root causes when delays occur, which were often tied to missed documentation and handover issues. Each handover must be clearly documented.

Scheduling reliability hinges on fixed appointment windows and a control-based model for inbound and outbound moves. Use forecasted arrival windows, mandatory confirmations, and auto-notifications. Track on-time performance at each node and target 95%+ door-to-door adherence. Also measure dwell variance and queue time. By aligning operations, customers would receive predictable service and carriers would plan with less idle time.

Bottlenecks concentrate at gates, docks, inspection points, and cross-dock handoffs. A deep dive shows delays are often driven by late data, missing notes, and inconsistent priority rules. To counter, create cross-functional teams that own each lane and drive a targeted improvement plan. Sometimes delays cascade to the next step, so real-time alerts and a simple escalation path are in place to prevent backlog.

Policy and governance: advance this via a discussion with an agency and, where needed, legislation. A brief to the legislature can establish a model standard for data sharing, documentation, and gating schedules. Seek an order to streamline inspections and turn times; if a writ is denied, pursue interim measures such as extended hours and pre-clearance steps with partner entities.

People and customers: invest in employee training and align employers on service standards. Involve individual operators in the model and ensure their feedback informs changes. The agency can support compliance checks and reporting that customers use to compare performance. That way, the operating plan remains practical and enforceable across the full network.

Next steps and data collection: map the current process, gather event-level data on dwell time, appointment adherence, and handover durations, and install simple sensors or logs at gates and docks. Run a 60–90 day pilot of the scheduling model, then scale based on measured improvements in on-time rates, fewer bottlenecks, and reduced dwell times. Maintain a rolling brief to stakeholders and update the model as new legislation or orders emerge.

Intermodal vs. traditional unit trains under PSR: performance comparisons

Recommendation: Prioritize intermodal on long-haul, high-velocity corridors under PSR when the chassis pool and terminal slots align, delivering lower per-ton-mile costs and higher on-time reliability in congested markets. Deploy full-time crews on flagship routes to reduce dwell and improve consistency, without compromising safety.

Forecasting and data sharing drive outcomes. Kendall notes in a discussion that even modest forecasting errors can tilt the balance across markets with tight capacity. Theyre risks include volumes taking lanes away from core route pairs, which can become stranded if truckers and truck networks are not aligned. In american markets, several operators filed revised agreements after demand declined, forcing shifts in where intermodal and unit-train services meet the network. A forde in access policy is noted by some observers, changing lane viability. Truck capacity and trucking firms adjust accordingly.

Discussion covers types of service, class distinctions, and the challenges that PSR imposes. Key factors include terminal cadence, equipment availability, and worker scheduling. The case for intermodal strengthens on routes with dense feeder connections, while traditional unit trains maintain advantages on bulk commodities with predictable flows. hear from shippers who have implemented pilots, and consider cases where adopting one mode over another reduced costs and improved reliability.

Метрика	Intermodal	Traditional unit trains	Примітки
Своєчасне виконання	92-97%	88-94%	PSR discipline lifts reliability on hubs; volumes concentrated in key markets.
Cost per ton-mile	0.45-0.60 USD	0.50-0.70 USD	Long-haul intermodal often wins, especially on corridor routes.
Energy intensity (fuel per ton-mile)	0.06-0.12 gal	0.10-0.18 gal	Rail is generally more efficient per ton-mile.
Asset utilization (slots per week)	High on flagship lanes	Moderate to high on bulk corridors	PSR pushes faster turn times on secure networks.
Terminal dwell	12-24 hours	6-18 hours	Intermodal hubs show higher handling, but tighter coordination can reduce gaps.

Takeaway: trends indicate intermodal shows resilience in american markets on taking routes with dense network coverage, while unit trains retain value on specialized cases. Agreements between carriers and customers are being renegotiated, some filed, others declined, and the outcome will depend on forecasting accuracy, route selection, and workforce readiness among workers and truckers. The bottom line: to stay competitive, operators should design a blended class strategy that leverages intermodal for long legs and unit trains for bulk, with clear route planning and aligned worker shifts.

Metrics to monitor PSR outcomes: velocity, yard congestion, and on-time arrivals

Recommendation: Deploy a real-time analytics dashboard to track velocity, yard congestion, and on-time arrivals across the transportation network, with hourly refreshes and threshold alerts. Begin a september pilot at california-based facilities operated by davissupply, taking a data-driven approach and focusing on three metric types: velocity (turnaround time per move), yard congestion (yard dwell time and gate queue lengths), and on-time arrivals (ETA adherence). Targets: velocity 2.0 moves/hour, yard dwell under 8 hours per container, on-time 92% within 30 minutes of ETA. This setup would yield clear benefits: faster throughput, fewer gate blocks, and higher reliability, which supports decision-making for the entire operations footprint still.

Data integration and governance: pull feeds from WMS, yard management, and TMS into a single view. Begin with a 90-day baseline, then publish a timeline of milestones: data quality, alert calibration, and threshold validation. Use network-wide benchmarks and a california-based rollout to verify cross-site consistency. If data-sharing steps become controversial, file a petition; if access remains blocked, work with courts to apply relevant rules. If needed, adjust through a second petition. Also, document benefits and risks as the network expands.

Operational risks and regulatory context: staffing gaps or weather can cause velocity dips; plan contingencies such as dynamic resource reallocation and staggered gate windows. In regulatory terms, courts apply dynamex standards, affecting classification and costs, so scheduling must reflect potential shifts; a case cited by matthew notes this impact on operating margins. Transportation teams should track declines in performance at states with stricter labor rules and adjust targets accordingly. Also, set a quarterly review to verify alignment with the entire network strategy.

Execution plan and timeline: after baseline, begin phased scale in increments by september and then expand to additional sites. Monitor implementation progress with weekly standups and a timeline with milestones like threshold calibration, alert tuning, and stakeholder sign-off. In parallel, document benefits realized in throughput, reliability, and asset utilization, and consider how which actions yield the largest gains. Also note that some teams may have historically declined to share data; address via policy updates and internal petitions to ensure visibility across the network.

Guidance for shippers: actionable steps to adjust planning and carrier coordination

Begin with a full map of cargo timeline and trucking capacity, then validate it with orders, dock receipts, and live status data. Build a straight, data-driven plan that aligns with brokers, their owners, and their owner-operators to cut variability and shorten response times.

Establish a single source of truth: create a shared dashboard that displays orders, carrier commitments, ETAs, detention windows, and exception codes, so planners can react within minutes.

Lock exact service levels and share them with carriers. Define pickup windows, transit times, and acceptable delays; attach liability terms and escalation routes to every lane, and update in real time.

Plan for longer horizons by building scenarios for 1- to 3-week demand shifts; adjust tendering windows, inventory buffers, and replenishment timelines. Include cargo type notes and required equipment in the data model.

Legal risk awareness: monitor scotus guidance affecting liability, and prepare an injunction and court-ready response plan; document who can act and what signs trigger a lawsuit or legal action.

Proof and documentation: require images of bills, PODs, and damage photos; attach to every shipment record; store at the entity level and in the data vault to support faster dispute resolution and liability allocation.

Network coordination: drive alignment with owner-operators and trucking entities; formalize onboarding, safety checks, and rate cards; maintain a longer-term perspective with the canal of strategic relationships.

Operational cadence: schedule daily 15-minute check-ins with brokers; review cargo status, timeline shifts, and performance metrics; create a feedback loop to improve planning accuracy.

Data governance: store all cargo data, keep exact audit trails, and review results weekly; measure performance by on-time delivery, detention, damage, and cost per mile to ensure full transparency with business-to-business partners.