Shippers evaluating intermodal to move their freight for the first time - or reconsidering it after a past experience that didn't meet expectations - tend to start with pricing. In fact, cost savings are typically the reason intermodal enters the conversation. But starting with price and stopping there is how shippers end up with intermodal programs that look good on paper and underperform in execution.
The evaluation that leads to a successful intermodal program goes deeper than the rate. It examines how the Intermodal Marketing Company, the IMC, actually operates, because the operating model is what determines whether the shipper gets a managed freight experience or a disconnected series of handoffs that breaks down when something goes wrong.
Not all IMCs operate the same way. Some manage intermodal moves end-to-end, owning the execution from pickup through delivery with a single point of accountability. Others operate closer to a brokerage model, booking the rail linehaul and contracting the drayage legs transactionally with whatever local carriers are available. Both call themselves IMCs. The shipper's experience with each is fundamentally different.
This guide walks through the evaluation criteria that separate the two, and provides a framework for shippers to assess any intermodal provider against the standards that predict whether the program will actually work.
Before evaluating an IMC, it helps to understand what the IMC is supposed to be managing.
Every intermodal shipment has three coordinated legs. Origin drayage, where a local truck picks up the loaded container from the shipper's facility and delivers it to the rail terminal. Rail linehaul, where the railroad moves the container from origin terminal to destination terminal. And destination drayage, where a local truck picks up the container from the destination terminal and delivers it to the consignee.
A qualified IMC manages all three legs as a single integrated service. The shipper deals with one provider, one tracking platform, and one point of accountability regardless of which leg a question or issue involves. The IMC coordinates the drayage carriers, manages the railroad relationship, handles the container and chassis logistics, and takes responsibility for the end-to-end execution.
For a full walkthrough of how intermodal transportation works, see our complete guide, but for now, the evaluation question at the foundation of everything else is whether the IMC actually operates this way, or whether the three-leg model is presented in the sales conversation and then executed as three separate transactions managed by different parties with limited coordination.
One of the first questions shippers ask when evaluating intermodal providers is whether the IMC owns its own equipment or sources it from others. That question points to a structural distinction in the industry that shapes how IMCs operate, how they price, and what the shipper's experience looks like.
Asset-based IMCs, often referred to in the industry as bi-modal carriers, own their intermodal containers and typically own the majority of their drayage equipment and have company drivers, as well. Their dray drivers are company employees on payroll. JB Hunt is the most recognized example of this model. The asset-based IMC controls the equipment, the drivers, and the rail relationship within a vertically integrated operation. The shipper's freight moves on the provider's own assets from pickup through delivery.
Non-asset IMCs operate the same three-leg model but with a different ownership structure. They hold direct ramp-to-ramp agreements with the Class 1 railroads and source their intermodal containers from either the railroad or private container owners rather than owning the boxes themselves. On the drayage side, non-asset IMCs manage pickup and delivery through a deep network of drayage carriers rather than through company-owned trucks and company drivers. The IMC dispatches, coordinates, and manages the drayage execution, but the trucks and drivers belong to the drayage carriers within the network.
Both models can deliver strong intermodal service. The distinction matters for shippers not because one model is inherently better than the other, but because the differences affect several dimensions of the evaluation.
Pricing structure can differ. Asset-based IMCs carry the fixed costs of equipment ownership and company driver payroll, which affects how they price and where their cost advantages sit. Non-asset IMCs carry lower fixed costs but manage variable drayage and equipment costs that fluctuate with market conditions. The total cost comparison depends on the specific lanes, volumes, and market dynamics involved.
Capacity flexibility can differ. Asset-based IMCs have dedicated capacity, but are constrained by the size of their fleet, the railroads they operate on, and the markets where their assets are positioned. Non-asset IMCs can flex capacity through their ability to source boxes from multiple partners and private box owners and drayage network, accessing carriers across a broader range of markets. A non-asset IMC's flexibility depends on the depth and reliability of the network relationships.
Network coverage can differ. The largest asset-based IMCs tend to operate on a national scale with broad lane coverage. Non-asset IMCs vary significantly in geographic scope, from regional specialists to providers with national coverage across all Class I railroads. The evaluation should map the shipper's specific lanes against the provider's actual operational footprint regardless of which model the provider operates.
Service accountability operates through different mechanisms. In the asset model, the IMC controls the driver, the equipment, and the execution directly. In the non-asset model, the IMC manages the execution through carrier relationships, dispatch coordination, and operational oversight. The question for shippers is not which model the IMC operates, but whether the accountability structure, whatever form it takes, actually delivers consistent service on the shipper's lanes.
The evaluation criteria that follow apply to both models. Regardless of whether the IMC owns its equipment or sources it, the questions about drayage management, accessorial discipline, railroad relationships, visibility, and service accountability are the same. The answers will look different depending on the model, but the evaluation framework holds across both.
Drayage is where approximately 95% of intermodal service failures originate. The local trucking legs at both ends of the move are where the operational variables multiply, where appointment schedules have to be met, where chassis and equipment logistics have to be managed, and where exceptions have to be caught and resolved in real time.
The single most important question in evaluating an IMC is how the provider manages drayage.
An IMC that manages drayage directly has established relationships with drayage carriers in the markets it serves, dispatches loads through its own operations, coordinates appointment scheduling with shippers and receivers, and takes responsibility for drayage performance as part of the integrated service. When a pickup is running late or a delivery hits an exception, the IMC's operations team is managing the resolution because the drayage is their operation, not a subcontracted transaction.
An IMC that brokers drayage contracts each drayage leg to available local carriers on a load-by-load basis, often through transactional relationships. The quality of the drayage experience varies from load to load depending on which carrier picks up the assignment. The IMC has limited control over dispatch timing, driver quality, equipment condition, and exception management because the operational connection to the drayage carrier is transactional rather than integrated.
Read Understanding Drayage: The Part of Intermodal That Makes or Breaks Service for a deeper look at why drayage matters this much, the specific failure modes, and the four distinct drayage management models that exist in the market.
Questions to ask:
After drayage execution, accessorial management is the factor most likely to determine whether an intermodal program delivers real savings or delivers linehaul savings offset by cost surprises.
Accessorial charges in intermodal include detention at origin and destination, per diem charges for containers held beyond the allowed free time, chassis usage fees, redelivery charges, and various other operational charges that accumulate when the execution doesn't go cleanly.
Two fundamentally different approaches exist in the market.
The managed approach treats accessorial mitigation as the IMC's responsibility. The provider works to prevent accessorial charges before they occur through appointment management, container flow discipline, proactive driver coordination, and operational practices designed to minimize the situations that generate charges. When charges do occur, the IMC takes ownership of understanding why and preventing recurrence. The shipper's invoice reflects a total cost of service where accessorial exposure has been actively managed, not simply passed through.
The pass-through approach treats accessorial charges as a cost the shipper absorbs after the fact. The linehaul rate looks competitive, but the final invoice includes detention, per diem, and other charges that accumulated during execution. The shipper discovers the true cost of the intermodal move after it's already happened, and the total landed cost may be significantly higher than the linehaul rate comparison suggested.
The distinction between these approaches is one of the clearest indicators of whether an IMC is managing intermodal as an integrated service or simply facilitating transactions.
Questions to ask:
An IMC's relationship with the Class I railroads directly affects pricing, capacity access, service priority, and the ability to resolve issues when they arise. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) serves as the industry body connecting IMCs, railroads, and other intermodal stakeholders.
There are four major Class I railroads relevant to domestic intermodal: Union Pacific and BNSF in the West, CSX and Norfolk Southern in the East (keep in mind, UP and NS have announced plans to merge, with the transaction currently under review). An IMC's ability to serve a shipper's full network depends on having direct contractual relationships with the railroads that cover the relevant lanes.
The evaluation question is whether the IMC holds direct contracts with the railroads or whether it accesses rail capacity through intermediaries. Direct contracts typically mean better pricing, more consistent capacity allocation, and a stronger position to resolve service issues. Intermediated access can add cost layers and reduce the IMC's ability to advocate for the shipper's freight when capacity is tight or service exceptions arise.
The breadth of railroad relationships matters as well. An IMC with contracts across all major Class I railroads can route freight on the most efficient rail network for each lane. An IMC limited to one or two railroad relationships may be routing freight on suboptimal networks or may be unable to serve certain corridors entirely.
Questions to ask:
The intermodal industry has made significant progress in providing real-time shipment visibility, but the quality of visibility varies substantially across providers.
The standard shippers should expect is real-time, exception-driven visibility across all three legs of the move. That means tracking from the moment the drayage driver is dispatched for pickup, through the rail linehaul, through destination drayage, to final delivery confirmation. The visibility should surface exceptions proactively rather than requiring the shipper to check status and discover problems after the schedule has already been affected.
Exception-driven communication is the key distinction. A visibility platform that shows a container's current location is useful. A visibility platform that alerts the shipper when the pickup is running behind schedule, when the rail transit is delayed, or when the delivery appointment is at risk is substantially more valuable, because it gives the shipper time to adjust their operations before the exception becomes a service failure.
The evaluation should also examine how visibility integrates with the shipper's existing systems. API connectivity to TMS platforms, automated status updates, and reporting capabilities that allow the shipper to analyze intermodal performance over time are increasingly standard expectations.
Questions to ask:
An IMC's ability to serve a shipper's freight network depends on the geographic scope of its operations and the depth of its capabilities in the specific markets relevant to the shipper's lanes.
The evaluation should map the shipper's qualifying lanes against the IMC's network coverage. Key questions include whether the IMC has drayage capability in both the origin and destination markets, whether the railroad relationships cover the relevant corridors, and whether the provider has operational experience with the specific lane characteristics involved.
Not every lane is an intermodal lane. A credible IMC will be direct about which lanes in a shipper's network are strong candidates for intermodal, which lanes are marginal, and which lanes are better served by truckload. That honesty is itself an evaluation criterion. A provider that positions intermodal as the right answer for every lane in the network is either oversimplifying the evaluation or prioritizing volume over fit.
For shippers new to intermodal evaluation, our guide on How to Convert Truckload Freight to Intermodal walks through the lane qualification process step by step.
Questions to ask:
The structural question underneath all the specific evaluation criteria is whether the IMC operates as a single point of accountability for the intermodal experience or as a coordinator of separately managed components.
The integrated service model means one provider owns the outcome. Drayage, rail, accessorials, visibility, and exception management are managed by the same team with a unified view of the shipment. When something goes wrong, there is no finger-pointing between the drayage carrier, the railroad, and the IMC, because the IMC owns the resolution regardless of which leg the issue originated on.
The coordinated-but-separate model means the IMC books the rail and arranges the drayage, but the operational management of each component sits with different parties. When something goes wrong, the shipper may find themselves caught between the drayage carrier and the IMC, or between the IMC and the railroad, trying to get resolution from parties that don't share a unified accountability structure.
The distinction is not always obvious in the sales conversation. Both models can present well in a pitch. The difference shows up in execution, particularly when the freight doesn't go as planned, which in intermodal happens frequently enough that the exception-handling capability is part of the evaluation, not a secondary consideration.
Questions to ask:
Certain patterns in the evaluation process signal that the provider may not be operating the end-to-end model the sales conversation suggests.
Rate-only positioning. A provider that leads the conversation exclusively with rate comparisons and doesn't proactively address drayage management, accessorial discipline, or service execution may be optimizing for winning the rate comparison rather than for delivering a managed intermodal experience. The lowest linehaul rate and the lowest total cost are often not the same thing.
Inability to discuss drayage specifics. If the provider cannot clearly articulate how drayage is sourced, dispatched, and managed in the specific markets relevant to the shipper's freight, the drayage is likely brokered rather than managed. The drayage question is the fastest diagnostic for whether the three-leg model is real or presentational.
Vague accessorial answers. A provider that describes accessorials as "industry standard" or "typical for intermodal" without offering specific data on their accessorial performance or describing their mitigation approach is likely passing charges through rather than managing them.
Reluctance to discuss where intermodal doesn't fit. A credible IMC will tell a shipper when specific lanes are better served by truckload. A provider that positions every lane as an intermodal opportunity is either unable or unwilling to do the honest evaluation that leads to a successful program. The willingness to say "this lane doesn't qualify" is one of the strongest credibility signals in the evaluation.
No direct railroad contracts. An IMC that cannot confirm direct contractual relationships with the relevant Class I railroads may be accessing capacity through intermediaries, which can affect pricing, capacity access, and the ability to resolve service issues.
The evaluation criteria outlined in this guide are designed to be applied during the provider-selection process, but they're equally useful for shippers reassessing an existing intermodal program that isn't performing to expectations.
For shippers evaluating intermodal for the first time, the recommendation is to use these criteria as the framework for the RFP and the provider conversations. Rate comparisons are part of the evaluation, but they're one input among several, and they should be evaluated alongside the operational capabilities that determine whether the rate translates into actual savings and reliable service. For a practical walkthrough of the conversion process, see our 5-stage guide to converting truckload freight to intermodal.
For shippers reassessing an existing program, these criteria can diagnose whether underperformance is a provider issue or a program-design issue. A shipper whose intermodal program is generating excessive accessorial charges, inconsistent service, or poor visibility may have a provider-capability problem rather than a modal-fit problem. Applying these criteria to the current provider and comparing against the market can surface whether a change in provider or a change in program design would address the issues.
The intermodal evaluation is ultimately about whether the provider operates in a way that makes intermodal work reliably for the shipper's specific network. The IMCs that manage the three-leg model as a genuinely integrated service, that own the drayage execution, that manage accessorials proactively, that maintain direct railroad relationships, and that provide real-time exception-driven visibility are the ones that consistently deliver intermodal programs shippers can build their operations around.
The IMCs that present the three-leg model in the sales conversation but operate it as a series of loosely connected transactions are the ones that give intermodal a reputation for inconsistency. Knowing the difference before committing is what the evaluation process exists to accomplish.
If you'd like to evaluate how these criteria apply to your specific freight network, visit the InTek Logistics blog for additional resources, or reach out directly to start the conversation.
What is an Intermodal Marketing Company (IMC)? An IMC is a logistics company that purchases rail and truck transportation services directly from the Class I railroads, sources intermodal containers, coordinates drayage at both ends of the move, and provides end-to-end intermodal service under a single freight bill. IMCs exist because railroads chose to sell wholesale to intermediaries rather than directly to shippers. For a deeper look at the role of IMCs in intermodal logistics, see our dedicated guide.
What is the difference between an asset-based and non-asset IMC? Asset-based IMCs (bi-modal carriers) own their containers, drayage equipment, and employ company drivers. Non-asset IMCs hold direct railroad contracts but source containers from railroads or private owners and manage drayage through contracted carrier networks. Both models can deliver strong service.
Why is drayage management the most important evaluation criterion? Approximately 95% of intermodal service failures trace to the drayage legs rather than the rail linehaul. Drayage involves local trucking, appointment scheduling, chassis management, and exception handling at both ends of the move. How the IMC manages these operations determines the shipper's experience more than any other factor. See our comprehensive guide on understanding drayage in intermodal.
What are intermodal accessorial charges? Accessorial charges include detention, per diem, chassis fees, redelivery charges, and other costs that accumulate during intermodal execution. The difference between an IMC that actively mitigates accessorials and one that passes them through can significantly affect the total cost of an intermodal program.
How do I know if my IMC has direct railroad contracts? Ask directly. An IMC with direct contracts can name the specific Class I railroads it contracts with and explain how those relationships affect pricing and capacity allocation. If the provider cannot confirm direct railroad relationships, it may be accessing intermodal capacity through another IMC, which adds cost and reduces accountability.
What lanes typically qualify for intermodal? Intermodal generally performs best on lanes over 750 miles with consistent volume, moving between major freight markets, where freight can tolerate modest transit flexibility. The economics improve as distance increases. For a practical framework on lane evaluation, see our guide on converting truckload freight to intermodal.
How should I compare intermodal costs to truckload? The comparison should include total landed cost, not just linehaul rates. Accessorial exposure, fuel surcharge structure, and total cost of service all affect the comparison. For a detailed breakdown, see our intermodal cost analysis.
This guide is part of InTek Logistics' shipper education series designed to help logistics professionals evaluate intermodal transportation with the specificity needed to make informed provider decisions. The series includes companion guides on drayage management, provider types, and the role of IMCs.
Related Reading:
Request a lane analysis to start the conversation.
Domestic freight services: