Rail Delays at Major U.S. Ports Are Emerging as the Next Reliability Risk for Import Freight

Rail-bound import containers are taking longer to leave major U.S. gateways, adding a new inland reliability risk at the port-to-rail handoff just as high diesel costs are nudging more freight toward intermodal rail. The pressure is most visible in Southern California, where fresh Port of Los Angeles data show a sharp buildup in on-dock rail containers awaiting loading, even while overall cargo volumes remain historically strong.

What changed this week

The immediate issue is not another jump in ocean spot rates or a new fuel surcharge headline. It is inland execution after the box lands. Reporting on September 16 highlighted rising delays for containers moving from marine terminals to rail at the busiest U.S. ports, a sign that congestion risk is shifting from the water side to the intermodal exit path. In the Los Angeles gateway, the latest Port of Los Angeles cargo operations dashboard and the port’s daily Import On-Dock Rail Awaiting Loading report show 15,170 import containers waiting for rail loading as of September 15, 2026, including 3,516 that had been sitting 9 days or more.

That matters because the same port reported only 12,119 import rail containers awaiting loading on May 15, 2026, with 663 sitting 9 days or more. In other words, the backlog of rail-bound import containers at Los Angeles is up about 25% since mid-May, while the oldest portion of that queue has increased by more than fivefold. Those figures point to slower fluidity inside the on-dock rail network rather than a vessel-arrival problem alone.

Why Los Angeles stands out

Southern California is the most important test case because of its scale and its dependence on rail for inland distribution. The Port of Los Angeles says about 35% of intermodal containers use its rail network, with cargo moving through five on-dock railyards, the near-dock ICTF, Pacific Harbor Line switching, and the Alameda Corridor into the national rail system. About 26% of all cargo at the port uses the on-dock rail network specifically.

At the same time, import volume has been strong. The port said on September 9, 2026 that August throughput reached 955,907 TEUs, capping the busiest three-month stretch in port history at more than 2.9 million TEUs across June, July, and August. Executive Director Gene Seroka said “September is shaping up to be another strong month.” In the same briefing, Seroka noted that the speed of moving cargo through Los Angeles and onto rail can make the gateway attractive for inland importers, an important point because that advantage weakens quickly when rail queues lengthen.

Operationally, “rail-bound container delays” can mean several different things at once:

• containers dwelling longer on terminal before rail loading;
• missed or deferred train departures;
• yard stack density that slows container retrieval;
• reduced fluidity between terminal operations and rail switching; and
• older boxes consuming scarce on-dock capacity that should be turning faster.

The Port of Los Angeles data do not, by themselves, prove the cause of every delay. But they do show measurable deterioration in the rail queue, especially in older freight that has already missed a normal handoff window.

High diesel prices may be adding to rail pressure

A related development came one day earlier from Norfolk Southern. At a Morgan Stanley conference in Laguna Beach, executives said high fuel prices were both hurting costs and helping rail gain share from trucking. According to Reuters’ September 15 report, CFO Jason Zampi said fuel prices now represent roughly a 250-basis-point headwind to the railroad’s operating ratio versus expectations from two months earlier, but executives also said Norfolk Southern continues to gain freight share from trucks and sees another opportunity to shift freight from highway to rail in the next intermodal contract bidding cycle.

Trade reporting from the same investor event added useful lane-level context. Norfolk Southern executives said high diesel prices are sending more traffic to rail in freight that can move either mode, including coiled steel, paper products, consumer products, and lumber, with gains also showing up in domestic intermodal and merchandise traffic. That does not prove diesel is causing port rail delays. But it does support a careful conclusion: when trucking becomes more expensive, more freight becomes rail-competitive, and any pre-existing tightness in port intermodal capacity can become more visible.

What may be driving the delays

Several factors could be contributing at once.

1. Strong import flow into a rail-heavy gateway

Los Angeles has been processing near-record container volumes. More import boxes moving inland by rail naturally put more pressure on terminal rail windows, lift capacity, train assembly, and outbound slot availability.

2. Aging containers inside the queue

The rise in containers sitting 9-plus days is a warning sign. A port can absorb high volume if cargo turns quickly. It becomes much harder when older rail-bound boxes remain on terminal and consume working capacity.

3. Limits inside the port-to-rail chain

The Port of Los Angeles rail network depends on terminal rail yards, Pacific Harbor Line switching, the Alameda Corridor, and major inland connections such as Union Pacific’s East Los Angeles operation and BNSF’s Hobart/Commerce complex. Delays can emerge from any link in that sequence: railcar supply, train starts, switching cadence, inland ramp congestion, labor availability, or imbalances between inbound volume and outbound capacity.

4. Modal shift away from truck

If fuel economics are moving more truck-competitive freight toward rail, even incrementally, that can tighten intermodal networks during a period when importers are still positioning Q4 inventory and industrial replenishment.

What remains unconfirmed at other gateways

The assignment’s key question was whether the same pattern is now visible beyond Southern California, including ports such as New York/New Jersey, Savannah, Norfolk, Seattle/Tacoma, or Houston. Public data are not equally transparent across those gateways, and as of September 16 there is stronger hard evidence from Los Angeles than from the others.

That does not mean the issue is limited to one port. It means the public evidence currently available is uneven. Many gateways publish broad volume releases, infrastructure plans, or terminal updates, but not a daily, portwide view of rail-bound import containers awaiting loading comparable to Los Angeles. Until similar current metrics are published elsewhere, broad claims about a nationwide rail-delay surge should be treated cautiously.

Why this is different from a drayage story

This is also a different problem than the drayage-capacity concerns CAP covered earlier this year. Drayage risk centers on whether a box can get a local truck, chassis, appointment, and warehouse slot after discharge. The current issue is further downstream in the same inland chain: whether rail-served imports are actually exiting the marine terminal and entering the long-haul intermodal network on schedule.

That distinction matters for industrial freight. A delayed rail handoff can push out DC receipt, replenishment timing, project cargo staging, and plant-input availability even when the vessel arrived on time and even when local drayage remains obtainable for other freight.

Practical implications for importers and industrial shippers

For supply chain teams, the operational takeaway is simple: vessel ETA is becoming a less complete measure of readiness for rail-served imports.

Near-term steps worth considering include:

Add lead time for rail-served imports

Boxes that would normally flow inland in a narrow planning window may need extra days of buffer, especially for production inputs or time-sensitive replenishment.

Split freight by urgency

If some cargo is critical and some is not, it may make sense to reserve truck recovery, team service, or transload capacity for the highest-priority freight while leaving less urgent freight on standard intermodal plans.

Reassess gateway strategy

When rail exit fluidity degrades at one gateway, the landed-cost math can change. A port with slightly higher ocean cost may still be preferable if inland execution is more reliable.

Consider near-port transload options

Transloading selected freight near the port can reduce dependence on a delayed rail container move, especially for dense or fast-turn freight heading to inland distribution points.

Monitor inland milestones, not just port arrival

The key operational checkpoints are container availability, rail assignment, actual loading, train departure, and inland ramp performance. Port arrival alone no longer captures the real delivery risk.

The bigger freight signal

The broader significance is that expensive fuel may be doing more than inflating invoices. It may also be redistributing freight across modes in ways that expose capacity constraints at the port-rail interface. Los Angeles port data show that this stress is no longer theoretical: the queue of rail-bound imports awaiting loading has lengthened materially since May, and the oldest part of that queue has grown sharply.

If that pattern spreads to other major gateways during fall planning season, inland reliability could become a more immediate supply chain problem than the headline transportation rate itself.

For CAP Logistics readers, the practical issue is whether imported freight tied to plants, projects, shutdown windows, or critical replenishment is relying too heavily on a single rail-served gateway plan. In the current environment, tighter monitoring of port-to-rail execution, added lead time, and contingency options for priority freight may matter more than vessel ETA alone.