4 ms·
In this example, the containers weren't bound for Dallas, the trains were. They're being commandeered from their normal route to move the containers to a new pi
by sparky_z 5y ago
In this example, the containers weren't bound for Dallas, the trains were. They're being commandeered from their normal route to move the containers to a new pickup point where the trucks will get them.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoThat's backwards. The issue is the chassis/trailer, right? Use the trucks to take the containers to the AFB, and use the trains to take them from there to Dallas. A truck (and chassis/trailer) can make two or three trips a day from LA/LB to the AFB. Or, it can take two or three days to take one container to Dallas.
- sparky_z 5y agoYes, the issue is the chasses. Removing the containers from the port frees up the chasses that are currently holding them. And why are you taking all the containers to Dallas? They aren't bound for Dallas, they're all going to different places, which is why you need a fleet of trucks to get them to their various destinations. The trains are just to get them to the new pickup point. It's a temporary measure to free up chasses until the logjam at the port works its way free. He only mentioned Dallas as a way to say "The trains aren't running their full usual cross-country route [i.e., all the way to Dallas]. They're just running the 1st leg back and forth over and over again so that the containers can be moved as quickly as possible." The goal was never to get the containers to Dallas.