True enough. However, while it's in transit, the consignee doesn't have to pay taxes on warehousing it, either. And that's JIT for you. Eliminating the warehouse is saves money. A week in transit is a lot better than having a week's supply of parts taking up room somewhere.
Agreed. But then you could also say that doubling the tonnage capacity of the rolling stock halves the asset required, too (not literally, of course, but the idea remains the same...increasing capacity reduces the number of cars needed).
RR'ing here in the States is all about cost, as in the cheapest method of transportation possible on dry land. US RR's will never be faster than airplanes or purpose driven trucks (ie, with two drivers) as our air freight and highways are too good to see RR's get that kind of business. But, US RR's can compete on price, so they focus on that. To their success, BTW. US RR'ing has made great strides business-wise since deregulation (Stagger's).
Then I would point you at CSX. Those nincompoops can barely keep the rails from spreading under the weight of an enpty car, yet they are, to their credit, a money making RR. And they run C-C locos and just as heavy a rail service as just about anyone else.
Huh? Why would I expect to see that?
Paul A. Cutler III
************* What have you done to save r.m.r today? *************