Lane-by-lane vs network freight planning: why sensible lanes can add up to an expensive network.
Lane-by-lane planning gives each depot its usual plant and cheapest quote. Network planning asks what the whole map costs, and decides all lanes together.
Plant, carrier and truck chosen together for all depots
Plant output limits
Checked later, by phone
Respected in the plan
Fleet limits
Assumed available
Counted in truck-days, by lane length
Carrier policies
Applied by habit
Written as rules and priced
Truck size
Habitual per lane
Chosen to fill trucks and cut trips
Effort
Low, in a spreadsheet
Needs clean masters and a solver
Explaining the gap later
Hard; no consistent formula
Same formula prices plan and actuals
When each makes sense
Lane-by-lane is fine with one plant, few depots, or where each depot can only be served one way.
Network planning pays off with several plants, overlapping depots, several carriers and truck types, and capacity or policy limits that interact.
An example
A bakery brand with two plants serves its eastern depots from the nearer plant by habit. That plant also runs out of output late in the month, triggering spot trucks from the other plant. A network plan moves part of the volume to the further plant from the start, in larger trucks, and avoids the late-month spot trips. See freight network optimisation and spot vs contract rates.
How FreightPlan does it
FreightPlan loads your masters (plants, depots, lanes, carriers, fleet, rate cards and demand) from CSV, validating every row: a bad row is rejected with the reason and the fix, and the rest of the file loads. It prices every option with one landed-cost formula (billable load × rate × (1 + fuel surcharge) + toll + handling) and uses a Google OR-Tools optimiser to choose the plant, carrier and truck type for every depot, in whole trucks, within 1% of optimal, subject to six written rules: demand, plant output, fleet truck-days, carrier share, contracted commitments and whole trucks. Unserved demand is reported, never hidden. At month-end the same formula prices the trip log, the gap is split into volume and rate so the two add up exactly to the total, and the rate gap is split into five causes (empty truck space, rate card, unplanned trips, detention and service), each with an owner and an action.
Questions
What is lane-by-lane freight planning?
Planning each depot on its own, usually with its usual or nearest plant and the cheapest carrier quote, without considering the rest of the network.
Why can network planning cost less than nearest-plant sourcing?
Because it accounts for plant output, fleet, truck size and carrier policies together, avoiding late spot trips and part-full trucks that lane-by-lane plans create.
Is network planning worth it for one plant?
Usually not; with one plant and few options, lane-by-lane planning is close enough.