U.S. shippers would increase their use of rail if they had better visibility into goods in transit, according to new research commissioned by the German security technology provider Giesecke+Devrient (G+D).
G+D’s report said that only 23% of shippers are currently able to continuously track and monitor the condition of goods moved by rail. At the same time, 84% said they would be more likely to increase their use of rail in future logistics operations if they had greater visibility.
Those results come from a survey of 500 U.S. logistics, transportation and supply chain decision-makers. And the findings show that freight competitiveness increasingly depends on trusted, real-time data from connected assets, not just the physical movement of goods.
Specifically, logistics providers and shippers say that visibility is no longer limited to knowing where freight is. It increasingly means having access to reliable data from connected assets that can support faster decisions, stronger accountability and more resilient supply chain operations.
Respondents said this data layer would support their operations in several ways. The leading motivation for greater visibility was the ability to plan and optimize downstream operations, cited by 45%. This was followed by the need for verifiable evidence to contest accessorial and demurrage charges (33%), condition monitoring for perishable, pharmaceutical or hazardous goods (33%), and earlier alerts to theft or unexpected movement (32%).
Clearly, end-to-end visibility across the freight journey is a key priority for shippers. Yet this view is often lost during the rail leg: only 26% of respondents had access to real-time location tracking in rail transport, while 14% were limited to occasional location updates and another 14% to departure and arrival times. Respondents identified this lack of visibility as their number one frustration with rail as a mode of transport.
The survey also measured various additional concerns that shippers hold about rail freight:
- Greater visibility could encourage respondents to shift more freight to rail, especially since it could improve their ability to react to cargo theft. Nine in ten respondents (90%) said they were extremely or somewhat concerned about cargo theft.
- Fees incurred during rail transit are another concern. Four in five decision-makers (80%) said charges such as demurrage and accessorial fees were at least sometimes inaccurate, excessive or otherwise worth contesting. A further 80% said full visibility into goods in transit would make them more likely to challenge such charges.
- Beyond location tracking, respondents identified damage detection as the most valuable use case for condition monitoring during rail transit, followed by tampering alerts, door opening, temperature monitoring, moisture monitoring, and shock detection.
Facts Only
* Only 23% of shippers currently track and monitor the condition of goods moved by rail.
* 84% of shippers would be more likely to increase use of rail if they had greater visibility.
* The survey involved 500 U.S. logistics, transportation, and supply chain decision-makers.
* Visibility is needed to plan and optimize downstream operations (45%).
* Visibility is needed for verifiable evidence to contest charges (33%).
* Visibility is needed for condition monitoring of perishable, pharmaceutical, or hazardous goods (33%).
* Visibility is needed for earlier alerts regarding theft or unexpected movement (32%).
* Only 26% of respondents had access to real-time location tracking in rail transport.
* 14% of respondents had only occasional location updates and 14% had only departure and arrival times.
* Nine in ten respondents (90%) were concerned about cargo theft.
* 80% of decision-makers found demurrage and accessorial fees sometimes inaccurate, excessive, or worth contesting.
* 80% stated full visibility would increase the likelihood of challenging charges.
* Damage detection was identified as the most valuable use case for condition monitoring during rail transit.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative highlights a critical gap between potential operational efficiency and current infrastructural realities within rail logistics. The data reveals that the theoretical benefits of shifting to or increasing rail transport are strongly contingent upon overcoming severe informational asymmetry, specifically regarding the rail leg itself. The motivation for increased visibility is not simply tracking location; it is about transforming reactive management into proactive optimization and accountability across the entire supply chain. This framing suggests that the friction points in rail transit—lack of real-time data and opaque fee structures—act as significant barriers to leveraging rail's potential competitiveness.
The pattern observed is a demand shift: shippers are moving from valuing physical movement to demanding digital certainty. The frustration regarding location tracking (only 26% access) being the number one complaint suggests that visible flow is insufficient; true value resides in immutable, verifiable data streams that mitigate financial and risk exposure. The correlation between visibility and contesting fees implies that transparency acts as a necessary tool for enforcing contractual fairness rather than merely an operational convenience. This points to a systemic failure where physical asset movement does not equate to informational control, creating a structural vulnerability that current systems fail to address.
The missing piece in this narrative is the mechanism by which data ownership is established and enforced across disparate entities (shippers, rail operators, asset owners). If visibility is the driver for increased rail use, then the next logical inquiry shifts from *what* data exists to *who* controls its aggregation and validation. How can these distributed, connected assets be integrated into a trusted layer that automatically validates conditions, manages liability regarding fees, and preempts theft without introducing new points of systemic failure or centralized manipulation? What institutional or technological framework must evolve to bridge the gap between tracking location and establishing verifiable evidence for condition and payment legitimacy in transit?