4 ms·

Great write up. I was really surprised about a few things; - They're aiming for concrete to last 100 years on the new lock. Doesn't this seem short sighted? Th

Great write up. I was really surprised about a few things; - They're aiming for concrete to last 100 years on the new lock. Doesn't this seem short sighted? The canal is already 100+ years old and its hardly like we'll be air freight and 3D printers in just another 100 years. - The lock size for these panamax ships being so tight. Current management issues aside, wouldn't it be prudent to plan for ship sizes to grow to new 'panamax' levels? Its reasonable to assume shipping companies will want larger ships 50 years from now, if not sooner. - $800,000 for a ship to cross. Wow

oh_sigh 10y ago
800k = $61/container for a neo panamax. Which is not bad at all when considering how much stuff can fit in a single container
dmoy 10y ago
There already exist ships way larger than new panamax. So I don't think there was ever a question about planning for larger ships... Look at the specs of some of the suezmax ships or the vlcc/ulcc ships out there.
walrus01 10y ago
800k seems like a lot, but they know that shipping companies will do the math on the fuel+salaries+operating cost consumed by going the "long way", and how many round trips a ship can make per year between points A and B using the canal vs. going the long way around.
tropo 10y ago
It cost Richard Halliburton only 36 cents to swim it. For 2016, the canal seems to have 7 different pricing schemes and some sort of loyalty discount for container ships. I'm surprised they don't price by the maximum width times the maximum length, plus per-hour charges for any required tug boats. Width times length relates well to the portion of the lock capacity being used by a ship.
- danielvf 10y ago
  Because they are wanting to maximize income. Thus, they charge more profitable ships more money. When the canal reaches full traffic capacity, then they charge more for reservations, which prices the cheapers ships out, and leaves the canal full of the profitable ones.
notatoad 10y ago
>Doesn't this seem short sighted? there's a balance between planning for the future and unreasonable expectations or overplanning. expecting concrete to last 100 years seems like a reasonable expectation to me. We might not be post-container-ship in 100 years, but there's a good chance there's some other reason the current locks are obsolete - anything from the locks being too small, to Gatun lake being dried up, to automated ports making it easier to unload, transport overland, and re-load onto a waiting ship.
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  This reply supports the second point of the locks being so tied to the current panamax size. Obviously there is balance of current cost to future benefit but this upgrade seems entirely tied to what is relevant today, when we know 20 years from now will be different. If you look at ship sizes they tend to jump a fair bit every ~20 years. There must be another factors like the lake depth encouraging them to restrict to this size. It just seems too short sighted (from my uneducated view), especially when as others have pointed out there are already much larger ships.

oh_sigh 10y ago

800k = $61/container for a neo panamax. Which is not bad at all when considering how much stuff can fit in a single container

dmoy 10y ago

There already exist ships way larger than new panamax. So I don't think there was ever a question about planning for larger ships... Look at the specs of some of the suezmax ships or the vlcc/ulcc ships out there.

walrus01 10y ago

800k seems like a lot, but they know that shipping companies will do the math on the fuel+salaries+operating cost consumed by going the "long way", and how many round trips a ship can make per year between points A and B using the canal vs. going the long way around.

tropo 10y ago

It cost Richard Halliburton only 36 cents to swim it. For 2016, the canal seems to have 7 different pricing schemes and some sort of loyalty discount for container ships. I'm surprised they don't price by the maximum width times the maximum length, plus per-hour charges for any required tug boats. Width times length relates well to the portion of the lock capacity being used by a ship.

danielvf 10y ago
Because they are wanting to maximize income. Thus, they charge more profitable ships more money. When the canal reaches full traffic capacity, then they charge more for reservations, which prices the cheapers ships out, and leaves the canal full of the profitable ones.

notatoad 10y ago

>Doesn't this seem short sighted? there's a balance between planning for the future and unreasonable expectations or overplanning. expecting concrete to last 100 years seems like a reasonable expectation to me. We might not be post-container-ship in 100 years, but there's a good chance there's some other reason the current locks are obsolete - anything from the locks being too small, to Gatun lake being dried up, to automated ports making it easier to unload, transport overland, and re-load onto a waiting ship.

Gustomaximus 10y ago
This reply supports the second point of the locks being so tied to the current panamax size. Obviously there is balance of current cost to future benefit but this upgrade seems entirely tied to what is relevant today, when we know 20 years from now will be different. If you look at ship sizes they tend to jump a fair bit every ~20 years. There must be another factors like the lake depth encouraging them to restrict to this size. It just seems too short sighted (from my uneducated view), especially when as others have pointed out there are already much larger ships.