The decision by Wal-Mart to conduct a pilot of a 60 foot high cube tractor-trailer in Ontario, Canada caught the transportation industry off guard.  The surprise is not so much that a newer and longer piece of trucking equipment is being trialed.  This was inevitable.  The surprise is that the initiative was driven by a large shipper and not by a Trucking Association or trucking company in Canada or the United States.    

The arguments in support of the trial are compelling and are the same arguments that were made when 53 foot trailers and every other innovation in transportation occurred.  A 60 foot tractor-trailer that offers 30 percent more cubic space promises to make the North American economy more efficient.  It places fewer trucks on the road, thereby reducing congestion and lessening the need to refurbish our existing highway infrastructure.  It reduces the impact of a driver shortage.  It would reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  It permits drivers to accomplish more under HOS restrictions.  It would allow trucking companies to derive a better return on their investment.

The arguments against Wal-Mart’s pilot are the same as those made each time there is a proposed change of this nature.  The most frequently mentioned reservation is that this will make our roads less safe.  It will result in more highway fatalities.  The prototype trailer is not in compliance with existing laws in various jurisdictions.  There will be problems in backing up a tractor-trailer combo of this nature into many existing loading and unloading docks.  Longer high cube equipment will contain heavier payloads that will speed up the damage to our roads and highways.   It will require infrastructure changes to accommodate vehicles of this length.

While all of these comments deserve discussion, it must be pointed out that the transportation industry has dealt with all of these issues before.  Laws can be amended.  Loading areas can be reconfigured.  Bridge crossing can be modified.  Weight configurations can change.  It wasn’t that long ago that Ontario ran a trial on long combination vehicles (LCVs).  What makes a 60 foot tractor-trailer so different?

Perhaps the biggest issue is the impact that the widespread standardization of 60 foot equipment would have on the capital budgets of trucking companies and shippers who have their own fleets.  The industry has billions of dollars invested in 53 foot equipment.  With an economy that is less than robust, trying to “keep up with the Jones” by having to convert part of a fleet to 60 foot equipment is certainly not what the industry is looking for at this time.  This issue alone explains why longer tractor-trailer lengths have not been driven by the trucking industry.  A change of this nature would cost enormous amounts of money.  The cost alone creates a certain amount of inertia and resistance.

Pierre Berton, the late, famous Canadian author noted in his book, “The Last Spike,” that CP Rail has held a respected place in the country’s history.  He wrote that “no other private company, with the single exception of Hudson’s Bay Company, has had such an influence on the destinies of the nation.” For most of the past 15 years, CP Rail faced stiff competition from CN Rail as Paul Tellier and Hunter Harrison led the company’s move from a bloated government run enterprise to a highly profitable public company.  In fact CN’s operating ratio of 61.3 is not only the best among the major North American railroads, it is one of the best of any company in the transportation industry.

The fact that CP Rail lagged so far behind CN Rail and the other class 1 railways in North America led the activist investor Bill Ackman, of Pershing Square Capital, to launch his “palace revolt” proxy battle that resulted in the replacement of CP’s former President with Hunter Harrison, whom he brought out of retirement to drive the railway’s profit improvement.

As we pass through the last quarter of this year, Canada’s two largest railroads are heading down separate tracks.  With an operating ratio is the low 80’s, Mr. Harrison has embarked on a series of actions to reduce costs through improved asset utilization.  This is another way of saying that CP Rail is planning to move its equipment more quickly and efficiently, to become Canada’s second “precision” railroad.   It is seeking to accomplish this by undertaking a series of initiatives.  These include:

• Building trains at CP’s intermodal terminal in Vancouver with blocks of cars for long haul destinations. This reduces stops and streamlines connections.
• Increasing average train lengths to 7,000 to 12,000 feet
• Speeding up the fueling of trains
• Improving daily scheduling
• Investing $1.2 billion in 2012 and $1 billion in 2013 on key infrastructure projects
• Working with customers at both ends to improve coordination

The net result of these changes is that CP Rail now provides 4 day transit times between Vancouver and Chicago and Toronto.  These changes represent half of the transcontinental trains that CP launches daily across its network.  Mr. Harrison is not expecting an overnight drop in the company’s operating ratio.  He told Bloomberg News that he is targeting about 65 percent in the next four years.

Shippers appear to be taking notice of improved service on both major Canadian railways. 

Some shippers have a negative attitude towards freight brokers. Labelling them “freight pimps” or worse, they do not see their value proposition. They see freight brokers as obtaining transportation services that they could obtain on their own, without the brokers’ mark-up. This reflects a lack of understanding of where freight brokers fit in the portfolio of service providers available in the market.

Shippers have a limited amount of time to meet carriers. There are thousands of transportation companies across North America. Even the large transportation companies do not have sales representation in all North American markets and they do not provide short haul and long haul services in all markets. A broker with a large stable of carriers in their data base can often find transportation services that shippers cannot locate on their own and at rates that a shipper cannot procure on their own.

But not all freight brokers are created equal. Just as there are good and not so good trucking companies, some freight brokers are better than others. When should you consider using a freight broker? First, if you have trouble finding carriers that go to or from certain markets, you should contact a freight broker. Second, even on your major lanes, freight brokers may be able to find carriers that you cannot identify on your own. They may be able to offer better service and pricing than the “name brand” carriers serving some corridors. What are the criteria you should look for in selecting a freight broker?

Market Knowledge

You need to identify those markets where your broker has particular expertise and make a determination as to how that market knowledge matches up with your specific transportation needs. The good brokers “have a nose” for finding those carriers that need backhaul traffic in certain lanes. They can negotiate low rates, add their mark-up, make a profit and still be competitive with the asset based carriers with whom they are competing. This is the market knowledge they need to be successful.