5 ms·

How much would this have to scale up to reduce the container ship demand?

dnautics 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains it seems the longest US train ever had ~700 containers
- guidopallemans 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ship... I don't think that this comparison is the best way of looking at it, but FWIW, the largest container ships can haul just shy of 24k containers.
  - briffle 6y ago
    Those are '20-foot equivalent Containers' so more like half that. But then you have to factor in the loading time, unloading time, space needed, cost, etc. I see it kind of like a station wagon full of tapes, versus a fast internet pipe. The station wagon can possibly move more, but has much, much more latency. (and that analogy doesn't account for the time to load/unload the tapes onto the computer systems)
    - dghlsakjg 6y ago
      There is also the basic fact that many routes are mutually exclusive. Denver to LA will never be viable by ship. Shenzhen to LA will never be viable by train.
      - throwaway-571 6y ago
        Maybe one day they will build the bering straight tunnel!
      - wahern 6y ago
        > Shenzhen to LA will never be viable by train Probably, but a certain breed of politician (across nationalities) keeps the dream alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#21st_ce...
    - greedo 6y ago
      Isn't unloading train cars also a similar time constraint?
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        It can help that they arrive in 1d instead of 3d.
- Animats 6y ago
  The limit is siding length. Eventually you have to park the thing somewhere. There are some super-long trains used by bulk carriers on dedicated track. The Union Pacific ran a 3.4 mile long container train once, from Texas to LA. Double-stacked containers at reasonably high speed. There were locomotives spaced throughout the train, all under control from the head end. There's a video.[1] Worked fine, but got political attention due to long grade crossing blockage. [1] https://youtu.be/jdIzRFOaTCY https://youtu.be/jdIzRFOaTCY
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Siding length isn't an issue if the line is double-tracked the whole way.
    - Animats 6y ago
      If there are any problems, lack of a siding somewhere nearby leaves the main line blocked. Also, at the destination, you need some place to put the thing, except for bulk mine trains which go round and round a loop.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        On a double-tracked line, lack of a siding somewhere nearby leaves one of the two main lines blocked. That's still serious, but less than what you are saying.
  - elygre 6y ago
    An unexpected discovery from that video was how many Evergreen containers there were. Suddenly I see them everywhere!
    - bombcar 6y ago
      The one I always see (and keep an eye out for) is the TEX containers - I like to think of it as TeX as in LaTeX :)
m4rtink 6y ago
Energy cost per container for train versus container ship on the same route would be interesting. Also pollution wise you can (at least in theory) electrify the whole route and run electric trains on it, which should make the whole thing quite clean (as long as the energy sources are reasonably clean). For ships that's more involved - IIRC some can run on LNG but otherwise you would basically have to make them nuclear powered if you wanted zero emissions. At least until you have carbon capture & fuel synthesization running.
- cwwc 6y ago
  Smart but — highly doubt Russian electric will be “clean” in the foreseeable future.
- bruiseralmighty 6y ago
  Shipping by boat is much cheaper per mile than train. Generally shipping cost functions like this gradient. Ships < Trains < Trucks < Aircraft Obvious considerations other than cost: Ships can only come to port. Trains likewise can only go to rail stations. This makes trains slightly more expensive land ships from a logistics perspective. Trucks can go anywhere over land, but are quite a step up in expense. They are still necessary for something last 10 miles shipping in nearly all cases. Airplanes are special. They are probably best thought of as very fast very expensive trains. Their main drawback being that they need an airport to land and load. Other aircraft (helicopters/bush-pilots). Also a special case. These are quite expensive and generally only used when the landscape precludes the building of necessary infrastructure. Areas where this makes sense are remote by definition; generally landlocked with no nearby airport or roads to/from the nearest airport. Often companies that provide these services like to take passengers as humans who want to travel to remote regions are cost effective in terms of freight ($$$). Blimps (not currently used commercially). Renewed development into using blimps to transport freight is being researched by several governments including the USG. Blimps are quite efficient at moving freight around as they utilize the same physical properties that ships use (buoyancy). They require very little infrastructure to take-off and land; comparable to that of helicopters. Added bonus! Blimps are more difficult to raid by organize crime elements and move slowly enough to make autonomous piloting a possibility. Both factors are expected to be huge cost savers for logistics in the coming decades. For example, one of the reasons trucking is more expensive than trains is the number of humans required to operate the vehicles. Shipping lanes are expected to become more contested as NAFTA begins to contend with a multi-polar global powers dynamic (China, Russia, India (,perhaps even SEA will get their shit together!)). Thus a low cost, low infrastructure, piracy-resistant solution is being searched for. Blimps do have an obvious downside of limited volume and several high profile catastrophes, though these are now a century old. All that being said, we could see blimps beginning to fill in the gaps as early as the end of this decade.
pm90 6y ago
A lot. Not only can container ships carry a fuckton of containers, but investments have also been made in ports throughout the world to load/unload the cargo in these ships. Freight trains might perhaps cater to a niche where they’re faster than ships but slower than airplanes. Or serve as a backup for essential commodities when there are snags with the global trade routes. But ocean shipping is absolutely bonkers at the scale at which it currently operates. The ships are only getting more massive.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The main advantage of a train is that it can go over land, and that the cars can be "humped" without an unload/load cycle which allows a single train from LA serve multiple midwest destinations (by splitting at a common junction). But where boats and barges can operate, they usually win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains it seems the longest US train ever had ~700 containers

guidopallemans 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ship... I don't think that this comparison is the best way of looking at it, but FWIW, the largest container ships can haul just shy of 24k containers.
- briffle 6y ago
  Those are '20-foot equivalent Containers' so more like half that. But then you have to factor in the loading time, unloading time, space needed, cost, etc. I see it kind of like a station wagon full of tapes, versus a fast internet pipe. The station wagon can possibly move more, but has much, much more latency. (and that analogy doesn't account for the time to load/unload the tapes onto the computer systems)
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    There is also the basic fact that many routes are mutually exclusive. Denver to LA will never be viable by ship. Shenzhen to LA will never be viable by train.
    - throwaway-571 6y ago
      Maybe one day they will build the bering straight tunnel!
    - wahern 6y ago
      > Shenzhen to LA will never be viable by train Probably, but a certain breed of politician (across nationalities) keeps the dream alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#21st_ce...
  - greedo 6y ago
    Isn't unloading train cars also a similar time constraint?
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      It can help that they arrive in 1d instead of 3d.
Animats 6y ago
The limit is siding length. Eventually you have to park the thing somewhere. There are some super-long trains used by bulk carriers on dedicated track. The Union Pacific ran a 3.4 mile long container train once, from Texas to LA. Double-stacked containers at reasonably high speed. There were locomotives spaced throughout the train, all under control from the head end. There's a video.[1] Worked fine, but got political attention due to long grade crossing blockage. [1] https://youtu.be/jdIzRFOaTCY https://youtu.be/jdIzRFOaTCY
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Siding length isn't an issue if the line is double-tracked the whole way.
  - Animats 6y ago
    If there are any problems, lack of a siding somewhere nearby leaves the main line blocked. Also, at the destination, you need some place to put the thing, except for bulk mine trains which go round and round a loop.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      On a double-tracked line, lack of a siding somewhere nearby leaves one of the two main lines blocked. That's still serious, but less than what you are saying.
- elygre 6y ago
  An unexpected discovery from that video was how many Evergreen containers there were. Suddenly I see them everywhere!
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The one I always see (and keep an eye out for) is the TEX containers - I like to think of it as TeX as in LaTeX :)

m4rtink 6y ago

Energy cost per container for train versus container ship on the same route would be interesting. Also pollution wise you can (at least in theory) electrify the whole route and run electric trains on it, which should make the whole thing quite clean (as long as the energy sources are reasonably clean). For ships that's more involved - IIRC some can run on LNG but otherwise you would basically have to make them nuclear powered if you wanted zero emissions. At least until you have carbon capture & fuel synthesization running.

cwwc 6y ago
Smart but — highly doubt Russian electric will be “clean” in the foreseeable future.
bruiseralmighty 6y ago
Shipping by boat is much cheaper per mile than train. Generally shipping cost functions like this gradient. Ships < Trains < Trucks < Aircraft Obvious considerations other than cost: Ships can only come to port. Trains likewise can only go to rail stations. This makes trains slightly more expensive land ships from a logistics perspective. Trucks can go anywhere over land, but are quite a step up in expense. They are still necessary for something last 10 miles shipping in nearly all cases. Airplanes are special. They are probably best thought of as very fast very expensive trains. Their main drawback being that they need an airport to land and load. Other aircraft (helicopters/bush-pilots). Also a special case. These are quite expensive and generally only used when the landscape precludes the building of necessary infrastructure. Areas where this makes sense are remote by definition; generally landlocked with no nearby airport or roads to/from the nearest airport. Often companies that provide these services like to take passengers as humans who want to travel to remote regions are cost effective in terms of freight ($$$). Blimps (not currently used commercially). Renewed development into using blimps to transport freight is being researched by several governments including the USG. Blimps are quite efficient at moving freight around as they utilize the same physical properties that ships use (buoyancy). They require very little infrastructure to take-off and land; comparable to that of helicopters. Added bonus! Blimps are more difficult to raid by organize crime elements and move slowly enough to make autonomous piloting a possibility. Both factors are expected to be huge cost savers for logistics in the coming decades. For example, one of the reasons trucking is more expensive than trains is the number of humans required to operate the vehicles. Shipping lanes are expected to become more contested as NAFTA begins to contend with a multi-polar global powers dynamic (China, Russia, India (,perhaps even SEA will get their shit together!)). Thus a low cost, low infrastructure, piracy-resistant solution is being searched for. Blimps do have an obvious downside of limited volume and several high profile catastrophes, though these are now a century old. All that being said, we could see blimps beginning to fill in the gaps as early as the end of this decade.

pm90 6y ago

A lot. Not only can container ships carry a fuckton of containers, but investments have also been made in ports throughout the world to load/unload the cargo in these ships. Freight trains might perhaps cater to a niche where they’re faster than ships but slower than airplanes. Or serve as a backup for essential commodities when there are snags with the global trade routes. But ocean shipping is absolutely bonkers at the scale at which it currently operates. The ships are only getting more massive.

bombcar 6y ago
The main advantage of a train is that it can go over land, and that the cars can be "humped" without an unload/load cycle which allows a single train from LA serve multiple midwest destinations (by splitting at a common junction). But where boats and barges can operate, they usually win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard