Rail Freight Supply Chain

How fixed track networks, passenger-freight scheduling conflicts, and terminal-to-destination transfer requirements create a freight system where geography decided a century ago still determines what moves, where, and how fast.

Introduction

Coal trains, intermodal containers stacked on flatcars, grain hoppers stretching a mile long, oil tank cars moving crude from wellhead regions to refineries — rail freight moves the heaviest, bulkiest goods across continents. What makes this supply chain structurally distinct is not the volume it carries, though that volume is enormous, but the rigidity of the system that carries it. Rail moves goods only where tracks exist, shares those tracks with passenger services that take scheduling priority, and cannot deliver to final destinations without handing cargo to trucks. Each constraint shapes the system in ways that compound across the network.

In the United States, freight railroads move roughly 1.7 billion tons of goods annually across approximately 140,000 miles of track. In Europe, rail carries a smaller but structurally important share of freight, constrained by fragmented national networks with incompatible signaling systems and gauge differences. In China and Russia, rail freight operates on state-controlled networks where coal, ore, and grain dominate tonnage. Across all these systems, the same three root constraints appear — because they follow from the physics of what rail is, not from how any particular country manages it.

The Three Root Constraints

Rail freight's observable properties — corridor concentration, service unreliability, intermodal complexity, commodity dominance — are downstream consequences of three root constraints interacting. Each alone would limit the system. Together, they produce the specific structural patterns that define rail logistics.

Why is the rail network effectively fixed over any commercial planning horizon?

A train can only move where track, bridges, tunnels, and signaling systems exist. Building new rail infrastructure requires acquiring rights-of-way through developed land, grading terrain, laying track, constructing bridges and tunnels, and installing signaling — a process that takes a decade or more for significant corridors and costs tens of millions of dollars per mile in developed regions. Environmental review, land acquisition, and political negotiation add years before construction begins. The capital and time requirements mean that the rail network is, for practical purposes, fixed over any commercially relevant planning horizon.

This fixity has a historical dimension that distinguishes rail from nearly every other freight system. The core topology of most national rail networks was established fifty to one hundred and fifty years ago, when route decisions were driven by the economic geography of a different era — coal fields, river crossings, ports that may no longer be primary, industrial centers that may have shifted. The network reflects where goods needed to move in the nineteenth century, not necessarily where they need to move today. Unlike trucking, which can use any road, or shipping, which can adjust routes, rail freight is locked to paths that were surveyed and graded generations ago.

The constraint compounds: adding capacity to an existing corridor — a second track, upgraded signaling, higher bridges for double-stack containers — is far cheaper than building new routes, but still requires years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The system responds to demand growth not by expanding the network but by intensifying use of existing corridors, which pushes against the second root constraint.

Why do freight trains lose priority to passenger trains on shared track?

In most countries, freight and passenger trains share the same track infrastructure. This shared usage creates a scheduling conflict with a structural bias: passenger trains almost always receive priority. In Europe, passenger rail takes precedence on most lines by regulation and by political mandate. In the United States, where freight railroads own the majority of track, Amtrak holds statutory priority rights on freight-owned corridors. In practice, the interaction is more complex — freight trains are often held in sidings to allow passenger trains to pass, creating delays that cascade through the freight network.

The consequence is that freight rail operates in the scheduling gaps left by passenger service. On corridors with heavy passenger traffic — the Northeast Corridor in the United States, most mainline routes in Western Europe, intercity corridors in Japan — freight is effectively squeezed into off-peak windows, often overnight. This limits throughput, constrains scheduling flexibility, and makes freight transit times unreliable in ways that are structurally embedded, not operationally fixable.

The constraint intensifies where it matters most. The corridors with the highest passenger demand tend to be the same corridors connecting major economic centers where freight demand is also highest. Both passenger and freight services concentrate on the same routes because both follow population density and economic geography — the same force that makes a corridor valuable for passengers makes it valuable for freight. Building separate dedicated freight corridors would resolve the conflict but returns to the infrastructure fixity constraint: new corridors take decades and cost billions.

Why can't rail deliver goods to their final destination without trucks?

Rail moves goods between terminals — classification yards, intermodal facilities, port railheads, grain elevators, industrial sidings. It does not deliver to warehouses, retail locations, construction sites, or homes. The physical reality of rail — heavy vehicles on fixed tracks — means that every shipment that originates or terminates somewhere other than a rail-connected facility requires transfer to another mode, almost always trucking. This intermodal transfer adds time, cost, and handling at each end of the rail journey.

The transfer is not merely a logistical inconvenience. Each modal handoff requires a facility — a terminal with cranes, chassis, container handling equipment, and truck staging areas. The container must be lifted from a railcar to a truck chassis or transferred to a warehouse. Each transfer takes hours, requires coordination between different operators using different scheduling systems, and introduces a point where delays, damage, and information loss can occur. For a shipment moving by intermodal container from a port to an inland distribution center, the rail portion may be the fastest and cheapest segment — but the two truck segments at either end and the terminal handling at each transfer point can consume more time and cost than the rail haul itself.

This constraint determines which goods move by rail and which do not. Bulk commodities shipped in dedicated unit trains — coal from mine to power plant, grain from elevator to port, oil from terminal to refinery — often move between rail-connected facilities, eliminating the last-mile gap entirely. These are the goods where rail's cost advantage is overwhelming. For manufactured goods, consumer products, and anything requiring delivery to a non-rail-connected destination, the last-mile gap erodes rail's economic advantage and pushes shippers toward trucks that can move door-to-door without transfer.

How the Constraints Shape the System

These three root constraints interact to produce the structural patterns visible across rail freight. Each pattern traces back to the constraints — it is a consequence, not an independent feature of the industry.

Why is rail freight dominated by bulk commodities like coal and grain?

Rail freight is dominated by bulk commodities: coal, grain, petroleum products, chemicals, minerals, and lumber. In the United States, coal alone historically accounted for over forty percent of rail tonnage, though this share has declined as coal-fired power generation has decreased. These commodities dominate rail because they align with the constraint structure. Bulk goods move in unit trains — dedicated consists of identical cars running from a single origin to a single destination, often between rail-connected facilities. Unit trains avoid the last-mile gap because mines, elevators, refineries, and power plants are typically built on rail sidings. They suffer less from shared network congestion because their scheduling is more predictable and their tolerance for delay is measured in days, not hours.

The dominance of bulk commodities is not a market preference — it is a structural selection effect. The constraints filter out goods that require flexible routing, precise delivery timing, or final-destination access. What remains is cargo that is heavy enough to justify rail's fixed costs, tolerant enough of delay to absorb scheduling unreliability, and concentrated enough at origin and destination to avoid the last-mile penalty. The system does not choose to carry coal and grain. Coal and grain are what the system's constraints permit it to carry most effectively.

Why is containerized intermodal an adaptation to the last-mile gap rather than a solution?

The containerized intermodal system — where standardized containers move between ship, rail, and truck — is an adaptation to the last-mile gap, not a solution to it. By placing cargo in a container that can be lifted between modes, intermodal transport reduces the cost and time of each transfer compared to breaking bulk. But the transfers still occur. Each intermodal terminal is a potential bottleneck where cranes, chassis, and truck capacity must be coordinated. Terminal congestion during peak periods — holiday shipping seasons, harvest surges, port import waves — reveals that the intermodal system has moved the constraint from the rail car to the terminal.

Intermodal's growth over the past four decades reflects a partial workaround: rail's line-haul cost advantage over trucking is significant on distances over roughly 500 miles, and containerization makes the terminal transfers fast enough to preserve that advantage for some shipments. But intermodal remains structurally inferior to trucking for shipments under 500 miles, shipments requiring precise delivery windows, or shipments to locations far from intermodal terminals. The last-mile gap sets a boundary on how much freight rail can capture from trucking, and that boundary is determined by terminal geography and transfer efficiency — both of which trace back to the infrastructure fixity constraint.

Why does rail freight concentrate on a handful of corridors and hubs like Chicago?

Because the rail network is fixed and cannot expand quickly, freight concentrates on the corridors that exist. In the United States, seven Class I railroads operate the vast majority of freight track, and the highest-volume corridors — Chicago to Los Angeles, the Powder River Basin coal routes, Gulf Coast to Midwest chemical corridors — carry traffic densities that approach the physical limits of the infrastructure. Chicago, where six of the seven Class I railroads interchange traffic, processes roughly one-quarter of all U.S. rail freight. The city's role as a rail hub was established in the 1850s and has not changed in a hundred and seventy years, despite the fact that the economy around it has transformed entirely.

This concentration creates fragility. A disruption at a single node — a derailment blocking a key corridor, flooding on a river bridge, congestion at a major classification yard — can propagate across the network because alternative routes either do not exist or lack the capacity to absorb diverted traffic. The infrastructure fixity constraint means the system has limited redundancy. The routes that exist must carry the traffic, because building alternative routes is measured in decades, not years. Similar to how port infrastructure concentration in container shipping creates cascading delays when a single terminal is congested, rail corridor concentration means that capacity constraints at Chicago or the Powder River Basin affect freight flows across the entire national network.

Flows and Visibility

Physical flows in rail freight are heavy and slow relative to trucking but fast relative to ocean shipping. A unit train of coal covering 1,000 miles takes two to three days. An intermodal container train crossing the continental United States takes three to five days — roughly comparable to a truck on the same route, but at a fraction of the per-ton cost. The physical flows are constrained by speed limits, grade profiles, single-track bottlenecks, and the priority given to passenger trains on shared corridors. A freight train may cover 500 miles in a day on a clear corridor and 200 miles on a congested one.

Information flows in rail freight have historically been poor relative to trucking. A truck driver carries a mobile phone and a GPS transponder; the shipper can track the vehicle in real time. Rail shipments move through classification yards where individual cars are sorted, combined with other cars, and assembled into outbound trains — a process that can take hours or days and during which visibility is limited. Intermodal shipments have better tracking because the container is a discrete unit, but even intermodal trains can experience delays that are not communicated to shippers in real time. The information gap exists because rail operations involve multiple handoffs — between railroads, between terminals, between the rail network and the truck network — and each handoff crosses organizational boundaries where systems do not fully integrate.

Capital flows in rail freight reflect the infrastructure fixity constraint. Track, bridges, tunnels, and signaling require continuous capital investment — the seven U.S. Class I railroads collectively spend over $25 billion annually on capital expenditure, much of it maintaining existing infrastructure rather than expanding it. This maintenance burden creates a paradox: the system requires enormous ongoing investment simply to persist in its current form, leaving limited capital for expansion into new corridors or capacity additions that would relieve congestion. Capital flows reinforce existing network topology rather than reshaping it.

What Disruptions Have Revealed

The 2021-2022 U.S. supply chain congestion made visible how rail's constraints interact with the broader logistics system. When container imports surged at West Coast ports, the intermodal system backed up — not because the trains could not run, but because terminal capacity at both ends was overwhelmed. Containers stacked up at port rail terminals waiting for trains. Containers stacked up at inland terminals waiting for trucks. The last-mile gap, normally invisible when volumes are moderate, became a binding constraint when throughput demand exceeded terminal handling capacity. The rail line-haul worked. The transitions failed.

The 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, revealed the physical consequences of corridor concentration. A single derailment on a primary route disrupted freight flows across a significant portion of the eastern U.S. network. Alternative routes existed but lacked capacity to absorb the diverted traffic without creating secondary congestion. The incident made visible what infrastructure fixity produces: a system with limited redundancy, where the failure of a single link can degrade performance across the network because the network was not built with backup capacity — it was built to carry traffic along the most direct available routes, and those routes have not fundamentally changed in a century.

The recurring congestion at Chicago — where trains entering the metropolitan area can take over thirty hours to pass through a region that is only thirty miles across — reveals the shared network constraint at its most acute. Freight trains, commuter trains, and Amtrak services all compete for track time through a complex of junctions, crossings, and yards that has been a bottleneck since the early twentieth century. Multiple infrastructure improvement programs have been proposed and partially implemented, but the fundamental constraint persists because expanding rail capacity through a densely built urban area confronts the same infrastructure fixity that shapes the entire system: land is occupied, rights-of-way are constrained, and construction timelines are measured in decades.

What This Reveals About Industrial Structure

• Infrastructure decisions made generations ago still determine logistics structure — The rail network's topology was set before the modern economy existed. Unlike digital systems that can be reconfigured, physical track defines what is possible and the cost of changing it exceeds what any commercially motivated actor will bear in most cases. Companies that depend on rail freight operate within a network they did not design and cannot alter.
• Shared infrastructure creates structural scheduling conflicts — When freight and passenger services compete for the same track, the resolution is political, not economic. Passenger priority is a policy decision that imposes real costs on freight shippers in the form of delay and unreliability. This conflict cannot be resolved by either party acting alone — it is embedded in the infrastructure.
• Modal transfer points are where cost advantages erode — Rail's per-mile economics are superior to trucking for heavy, long-distance freight. But each intermodal transfer — each crane lift, each terminal wait, each truck segment — subtracts from that advantage. The system's competitiveness is determined not by line-haul efficiency alone but by the total cost and time including every transition.
• Bulk commodities dominate rail because the constraints select for them — Coal, grain, oil, and chemicals move by rail not because rail chose to serve these markets but because these goods tolerate the system's constraints: fixed routes, scheduling unreliability, and terminal-to-terminal service. The freight mix reflects the constraint structure, not market strategy.
• Network concentration creates fragility proportional to dependency — The more traffic a corridor carries, the more disruptive its failure. Infrastructure fixity prevents building redundancy, so the system's most important corridors are also its most vulnerable. This is not a risk that can be managed away — it is a structural property of a network that cannot be quickly reconfigured.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.