This isn’t the asset vs. non-asset debate. And it’s not a sales pitch for any particular model.
This is about understanding the role a 3PL, specifically an Intermodal Marketing Company (IMC), plays in making intermodal actually work for shippers. Because the gap between “intermodal as a concept” and “intermodal as a service that performs inside your operation” is almost entirely determined by who manages the freight.
In other words, an often overlooked decisionin any intermodal program has nothing to do with which railroad to use. It’s about who sits in the middle.
At the end of this article, you will understand:
An intermodal move has three legs: origin dray, railroad linehaul, and destination dray. The shipper sees one shipment. But behind it, there are at least three different service providers executing three different segments, often with different equipment, different systems, and different definitions of “on time.”
The railroad runs the train. The dray carrier handles the pickup and delivery. But the entity responsible for making all three work together as a single, truck-like experience? That’s the IMC.
And this is where the conversation about 3PLs (third party logistics providers) in intermodal gets interesting. Because not every 3PL that offers intermodal treats it the same way.
A freight broker (as in, a non-IMC 3PL) can offer intermodal, but they’re getting their capacity through a 3PL who is an IMC. The freight broker doesn’t:
A non-IMC broker is simply reselling someone else’s service.
That’s a meaningful distinction with truckload, in which the 3PL model is relatively straightforward. A broker connects a shipper with a carrier. The carrier picks up the freight, drives it to the destination, and delivers it. One party, one move, one mode.
Here’s how 3PL involvement in intermodal actually breaks down:
Freight brokers offering intermodal as an add-on. These providers primarily move truckload freight and offer intermodal as an option when a lane or rate seems to fit. They don’t hold railroad contracts. They work through an IMC or a rail retailer to access intermodal capacity. The shipper’s service experience depends entirely on the IMC the broker chooses, and the shipper may not even know who that IMC is.
Large multi-service 3PLs with intermodal as one of many modes. These are the big logistics companies that offer everything: truckload, LTL, ocean, air, managed transportation, and intermodal. Intermodal is part of their portfolio but rarely the focus. The intermodal desk may have less experience, fewer railroad relationships, and less operational depth than a dedicated IMC. The upside is convenience. The risk is that intermodal becomes an afterthought in a company built around other modes.
Dedicated Intermodal Marketing Companies (IMCs). IMCs exist specifically to purchase intermodal capacity directly from the Class 1 railroads and deliver a door-to-door intermodal service to shippers. They hold direct contracts with the railroads. They manage dray on both ends. They own the full service from pickup to delivery. This is the model designed for intermodal.
Within the IMC category, there are further distinctions. Asset-based (bi-modal) IMCs like JB Hunt own their containers and much of their dray capacity. Asset-lite providers like Schneider own some equipment and supplement with railroad equipment. Non-asset IMCs like InTek Logistics use railroad-owned and private box containers and build their own dray networks through contracted carrier relationships. (For a deeper dive into those distinctions, see our asset vs. non-asset comparison.)
The point here isn’t to declare one model better than the others. Each has trade-offs. The point is that who manages your intermodal freight determines the quality of the service you receive. And most shippers don’t spend nearly enough time evaluating that.
When intermodal service breaks down, the first reaction is usually: “The railroad messed up.” And sometimes, they did. But from our experience at InTek - and from the data we’ve gathered over nearly two decades of doing this -roughly 95% of intermodal service failures that reach the shipper are tied to drayage, not rail linehaul. And dray is managed by the IMC.
The pickup was late. The delivery appointment was missed. The container wasn’t at the ramp when the dray carrier showed up. The chassis wasn’t available. The return was delayed. Those are dray problems.
Railroads run the longest leg of the move, and they’re actually quite good at it. While delays due to weather, congested ramps, etc., do occur, transit reliability on major lanes between well-positioned ramps has improved significantly over the past several years.
But the shipper doesn’t experience the railroad directly. The shipper experiences the full door-to-door service, and that service is orchestrated by whoever is managing the intermodal move.
This is why the JOC Intermodal Service Report Cards consistently show non-asset IMCs outperforming larger providers on Net Promoter Scores. It’s not because the smaller IMCs have better trains. It’s because they manage dray more effectively, communicate more proactively, and treat the full move as their problem, not the railroad’s.
When an IMC operates as the single point of accountability, the shipper gets a truck-like experience. One call. One person who owns the problem. One invoice. That’s the standard we’ve pushed at InTek since 2007, and it’s the standard that makes intermodal feel trustworthy to operations teams that are accustomed to how truckload works.
When an IMC operates more like a broker of disconnected touchpoints, the shipper ends up chasing updates across three or four parties, wondering who’s responsible for what, and eventually concluding that “intermodal doesn’t work.” It’s not that intermodal doesn’t work. It’s that the intermediary didn’t manage it like a single service.
Here’s what an IMC should be doing for a shipper. Not all do all of these things. But the best ones do, and these are the capabilities that separate a logistics partner from a transaction processor.
Railroad contract management. The IMC holds direct contracts with all (or most) Class 1 railroads. That means access to both East and West Coast rail networks, pricing commitments, guaranteed capacity, and contractual terms that protect the shipper. If your “intermodal provider” doesn’t hold direct railroad contracts, they’re a broker, not an IMC.
Lane qualification and optimization. Not every lane is a good intermodal lane. A real IMC doesn’t just quote what you ask for. They evaluate origin-destination pairs, transit windows, ramp proximity, dray distances, cut-off times, and service history to tell you which lanes will perform and which won’t. Telling a shipper “that lane won’t work for intermodal, here’s why” is one of the most trust-building things an IMC can do.
Dray management on both ends. The IMC builds and manages relationships with dray carriers at origin and destination. This includes scheduling, appointment management, chassis coordination, and exception handling. This is where the service lives or dies.
Accessorial management. Detention, demurrage, per diem, storage, lift fees. An IMC that operates a truck-like model treats these as their problem to manage and mitigate, not a cost-plus pass-through to the shipper. I covered this in my article that discussed why intermodal is not a slam dunk. It’s one of the biggest reasons shippers walk away from intermodal. And it’s preventable when the IMC is doing their job.
Proactive communication and visibility. Shippers should know where their freight is at every point in the move. Not because they logged into a portal and figured it out, but because the IMC is surfacing exceptions, providing ETAs, and communicating proactively when things change. Modern visibility means one shipment timeline, clear ownership, and predictive updates. Not a series of disconnected check calls.
Exception management and recovery. Things go wrong in freight for a variety of reasons. The question is what happens next. A real intermodal partner has defined escalation paths, recovery protocols, and backup plans. When a dray falls through, they have another carrier. When a ramp congests, they reroute. When the railroad runs late, they adjust the delivery appointment before the shipper even knows there’s a problem.
Strategic planning. Beyond day-to-day operations, an IMC should be helping shippers plan their network. Which lanes should move from truckload to intermodal? Where does transloading make sense? How should the shipper position their freight program ahead of seasonal peaks, rate cycles, or network changes like the UP-NS merger? This is advisory-level work and it’s what separates a partner from a vendor.
In almost every initial conversation an IMC has with a new shipper, a common question/comment arises: “So you’re basically a broker for rail?” The answer is "no." And the distinction matters.
The contract between an IMC and a Class 1 railroad is a binding, three-way agreement that includes the shipper. It provides year-round pricing, guaranteed capacity commitments, and protection against peak-season equipment charges. The IMC doesn’t “find a train” the way a broker “finds a truck.” The IMC has contractual access to the railroad’s network, equipment, and service.
The railroads in the United States don’t sell intermodal service directly to shippers. (In Canada, CN and CPKC do sell direct, but that’s a different structure.) In the U.S., the railroad’s intermodal product is distributed through IMCs. That makes the IMC the primary point of access to intermodal capacity.
On the other hand, a freight broker in the truckload market is an intermediary between a shipper and a motor carrier. The brokers don’t own capacity. They don’t have contractual commitments to the carrier. They match loads to trucks, mostly on a transactional basis.
So no. An IMC is not a broker with a different name. An IMC has a fundamentally different relationship with the railroads. It’s a licensed, contracted logistics company with a specific, structural role in how intermodal freight moves.
This is also why the industry conversation around rebranding IMCs as Intermodal Logistics Companies (perhaps abbreviated as ILCs?) has gained traction. The word “marketing” in the name creates confusion. What IMCs actually do is manage logistics. A certification framework that validates direct railroad contracts and operational capabilities would help shippers distinguish legitimate intermodal operators from traditional brokers who happen to offer intermodal as an add-on.
Whether you’re working with a freight broker, a large 3PL, or a dedicated IMC, here’s how to assess whether they’re managing your intermodal freight the way it should be managed:
Do they hold direct railroad contracts? If they can’t tell you which railroads they’re contracted with, they’re buying through someone else. That adds cost and removes accountability.
Do they manage dray, or outsource it? The IMC should be selecting, scheduling, and managing dray carriers at both origin and destination. If they hand off dray management to a third party, you’ve added another layer between you and your freight.
How do they handle accessorials? Ask specifically. When demurrage or detention hits, does the IMC absorb it, work to mitigate it, or pass it straight through to you? The answer tells you everything about their operating model.
What does their visibility look like? Can they show you a single shipment timeline from pickup to delivery with proactive alerts? Or do you get a tracking number and have to figure it out yourself?
How do they handle exceptions? When things go wrong, do they call you with a problem and a solution? Or do they call you with a problem and a question?
Are they advising you on network strategy? If the only time you hear from your intermodal provider is when there’s a load to move or an invoice to pay, you have a vendor, not a partner.
Do they tell you when intermodal is the wrong choice? This one might be the most telling. An IMC that recommends truckload when a lane doesn’t fit intermodal is acting in your interest. One that forces every load onto rail is acting in theirs.
IMCs exist because they make it easier for shippers to stay focused on what they excel at against their competition.
An IMC gives shippers:
In the end, the IMC brings focus. And in a service as operationally complex as intermodal, focus matters.
The best 3PLs and IMCs in the intermodal space aren’t just managing intermodal moves anymore. They’re managing the supply chain around intermodal.
That means:
Truckload when intermodal doesn’t fit. Not every lane, load, or timeline works for intermodal. A good IMC knows when to recommend truck and has the capability to execute it. This keeps the shipper’s freight moving without forcing a mode that doesn’t perform.
Transloading when the origin or destination doesn’t align. Port freight that needs to convert to domestic equipment. Consolidation opportunities. Bulk transfers. These are intermodal-adjacent services that make the core intermodal program more effective. (We go deep on this in our Complete Guide to Transloading for Intermodal Shippers)
Cross-border logistics. U.S.-Mexico freight service is one of the fastest-growing intermodal opportunities, but it comes with customs, equipment exchange, and regulatory complexity that a standard domestic intermodal provider may not be equipped to handle.
Managed transportation. Some shippers want the IMC to manage not just intermodal, but their entire freight program. Routing, carrier selection, performance management, and reporting. When intermodal is the core of that program, having the IMC manage the full picture ensures intermodal is prioritized where it fits, not sidelined by default.
This isn’t about doing everything. It’s about understanding that intermodal doesn’t exist in isolation. The shipper’s freight program is a system, and the IMC that can support the full system delivers better outcomes than the one that only manages one piece.
There are situations where a large, multi-mode 3PL may be the better fit:
If that’s the situation, a generalist 3PL that happens to offer intermodal may be the right call. But the shipper should go in with eyes open: intermodal managed by a generalist will likely get generalist-level attention, operational depth, and railroad relationships.
For shippers who see intermodal as a strategic part of their freight program, or who want to grow it into one, a dedicated IMC will almost always deliver better results.
The decision of who to choose as a partner provider comes down to what you need intermodal to do in your operation.
If intermodal is a tactical option you use when the rate is right, almost any broker can give you that. But you’ll get what a transactional relationship delivers: inconsistent service, reactive communication, and limited optimization.
If intermodal is a strategic commitment designed to reduce cost, add capacity, improve sustainability, and build resilience into your freight program, you need a partner with the operational depth, railroad relationships, and intermodal-first focus to make it work.
The best way to find out? Ask the hard questions to evaluate who you're already using, and who you're looking to partner with. Visit their operation. Talk to their existing customers. Run a pilot. And pay attention to how they talk about intermodal.
The providers who talk about outcomes, not just rates, are the ones worth investing in.
The railroad moves the freight. But the IMC delivers the experience.
Here’s what matters:
At InTek, this is what we’ve built our company around. Not just moving intermodal freight, but making intermodal work inside your operation the way truckload does. One contact. One invoice. Full visibility. And honest advice about when intermodal is the right call and when it isn’t.
That’s been the commitment since 2007. And it hasn’t changed.
If you're ready to explore whether intermodal can benefit your freight program, request a lane analysis. We'll evaluate your freight, identify opportunities, and give you a straight answer about where intermodal fits your network.
Domestic Freight Services: