8 ms·
This is also why Mexico is building a rail-based alternative to the Panama Canal: It comprises a 300-kilometer railway line from the Pacific port of Salina Cru
by keiferski 3y ago
This is also why Mexico is building a rail-based alternative to the Panama Canal:
It comprises a 300-kilometer railway line from the Pacific port of Salina Cruz to Coatzacoalcos on the other side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec…
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/11/16/mexico-rail-rival-panama-canal/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/11/16/mexico-rail...
Theoretically, the standardized nature of containers should make switching from ships to trains relatively efficient.
- geraldhh 3y agocan someone more caffeinated than me, do the math here plz? i suspect there will be some lengthy trains involved. <containers on average ship> * <lenght of railway carriage>
- jrockway 3y agoNew Panamax ships can carry 13,000 twenty-foot-equivalent units. 13,000 * 20 ft = 260,000 ft = 49 miles. (You can stack containers on top of each other, so 25 miles. There also needs to be space between the containers on a train for the couplers, etc., though, so a real train would probably be longer than this.) I am not sure how much the railway helps. There is already a railway across North America and it's still cheaper to go via Panama at this scale.
- yreg 3y ago24000 TEU ships don't fit into Panama canal.
- benj111 3y agoWell they didn't mention 24000 teu. Or are you saying they wouldn't be limited by panamax, so could theoretically lower costs on the shipping portion?
- readthenotes1 3y agoSounds like what they need is a conveyor belt
- geraldhh 3y agoterrific idea
- nunesvn 3y agowhy not a slingshot?
- savoytruffle 3y agoSome sort of a sideways space-elevator.
- m4rtink 3y agoSpace fountain working with containers! :)
- pseudostem 3y agoNot sure if GP meant the math for just the trains bit. There is an increase in handling, and everytime the container changes hands, it's going to cost (assuming dearly). First the ship has to berth (cost), unloaded using QC gantry (cost) onto an ITV (cost) where it gets stacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) in a yard (cost) and then unstacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) onto a truck/ITV (cost) which takes it to a stacker/gantry (cost) which then stacks it onto a train (cost). This is then probably going to be reversed on the other side of the train destination assuming it's a port.
- berkes 3y agoThe handling is an opportunity too, though. Now you can merge cargo from several ships, and split the cargo from one ship to several others. Rarely do all containers go in one large batch from just one port to another single one.
- jaystraw 3y agoi don't disagree, but were it that advantageous, there would be islands in the pacific where this happened
- yreg 3y agoPanamax ships can carry up to 5000 ISO containers, while Neopanamax (the ones using the new set of locks) carry up to 14000. No idea about LPG tankers, etc.
- Ringz 3y agoOnly if all containers are empty. It is usually less than 14,000 if you assume the average weight of four and a half tons per container.
- EasyMark 3y agocouldn't you just use more trains rather than longer trains? I'm sure it wouldn't cost as much as developing entirely new types of trains.
- schiffern 3y agoThe Japan Times article says they plan to initially carry 300,000 TEU per year in both directions, via three round-trip trains per day (~=137 TEU per train). That works out to 11.5 New Panamax ships per year in each direction. It also says they eventually plan to increase the capacity to 1.4 million TEU per year, equivalent to 54 New Panamax container ships in each direction.
- geraldhh 3y ago> via three round-trip trains per day (~=137 TEU per train) given 2-10k TEU per ship, that does not sound nearly enough
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoThe math in the post you responded to checks out: > That works out to 11.5 New Panamax ships per year in each direction It seems like that it's enough, for 11.5 new panamax ships per year in each direction.
- zeristor 3y ago300k TEU a DAY would sound about right.
- schiffern 3y agoThat's roughly 10x the traffic through the canal.[0] The project goal of 1.4 million containers is 16% as much traffic as the canal. For comparison the existing Panama Canal railway has a capacity of 2 million TEU/year. [0] (yes these are annual not monthly) https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/panama/container-port-throughput https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/panama/container-port-...
- Ringz 3y agoFor 1000 containers of the 40 foot class (which are more widespread than the standard 20 foot class, the train would have to be about 14.5 km long. If you take 1/2 m distance between the wagons.
- ithkuil 3y agoFor reference: " The Australian BHP Iron Ore is the longest train ever recorded in history at approximately 4.6 miles (7.353 km). In the Pilbara region of Western Australia, BHP owns and runs the Mount Newman railway. This is a private rail network designed to transport iron ore "
- pasttense01 3y agoIn the U.S. they often double stack containers--so that would be half the distance if they could: "Invented in the United States in 1984, it is now being used for nearly seventy percent of United States intermodal shipments. Using double stack technology, a freight train of a given length can carry roughly twice as many containers, sharply reducing transport costs per container." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport But generally going around the southern tip of South America could well be cheaper--although it may take longer.
- Ringz 3y agoYou're right about that. However, this probably only works with diesel-powered locomotives and not with electrified railway systems.
- quickthrower2 3y agoIt means you need to time a ship to be on the receiving end. It sort of requires symmetric regular 2-way traffic to work.
- keiferski 3y agoTrue but maybe the time saved by cutting across Mexico and waiting for a receiver ship will still be less than going south through Panama.
- CPLX 3y agoThe extra time for Panama is waiting for your slot, not the time it takes to drive the boat there.
- keiferski 3y agoProbably depends on where you’re shipping from. Houston to East Asia is almost certainly faster through Mexico than down through Panama.
- Fatnino 3y agoTime only really matters for the ships. A ship sitting around, full or empty, is burning money. But if a shipping container is delayed a little waiting for a ship it's no big deal.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoIs that different from purely-oceanic shipping? The Box says that Malcom McLean decided to run a container ship that only went east, and it was a miserable failure because a delay on any part of the route meant the same delay happened everywhere else in the route (because it was the same ship). That tends to imply that what you want in shipping is a bunch of reliable legs, not one point-to-point transport?
- Scoundreller 3y agoBut you do get the opportunity of running multiple smaller ships on the receiving end to different destinations. That transloading often happens anyway eventually. And injecting some straight into the local railway network. And running larger than Panamax ships on either side.
- Erratic6576 3y agoThat’s nuts. Carrying cargo ships by rail is going to require huge locomotives
- taspeotis 3y agoIt’s carrying cargo ships’ cargo… shipping containers.
- littlestymaar 3y agoWoosh
- Y-bar 3y agoThat’s clearly not the sound a cargo ship makes when travelling by rail across Mexico.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoEspecially when you consider the ship sizes are no longer constrained by the Panama Canal so they could double the size, you might need another 30 locomotives to pull that across mexico
- labrador 3y agoNot a bad idea. There's nothing preventing us from building a rail line large enough to carry a cargo ship.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chucke1992 3y agoI wonder if cartels will try to rob it eventually.
- Hnrobert42 3y agoAs I read the article and the comments, all I can think of is all the bribes. The cartels don’t have to rob it. They will just charge protection fees.
- chucke1992 3y agoBut cartels also compete with each other.
- ed_balls 3y agoDoes it make sense to connect west and east coast via inland waterway e.g. Snake <-> Missouri river. Would it be too expensive? I assume nukes are out of the question.
- keiferski 3y agoI wondered about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27463198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27463198 It does seem like it would make sense for solving water issues in the southwest, at the very least.
- kibwen 3y ago> It does seem like it would make sense for solving water issues in the southwest, at the very least. With apologies to those with real estate interests in large swathes of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, at some point you must understand the inherent absurdity of living in an increasingly-inhospitable desert climate, and that no amount of nuclear bombs with which to blast a saltwater canal through Mexico will change the fact that you should move to the Great Lakes if you want access to freshwater.
- throwup238 3y ago> at some point you must understand the inherent absurdity of living in an increasingly-inhospitable desert climate As opposed to where, exactly? The entire northern half of the United States can’t grow for shit because its summer growing season is a barely a few months long and the winters are inhospitable to everything except a winter squash or two. The center is a giant dust bowl because they tried to grow more than they could support. The East barely has any arable land without catastrophically deforesting the area. That leaves the South which is either desert on the Western half or even more inhospitable swamp on the Eastern half. If the desert were really so bad, it wouldn’t be able to produce half the produce in the country plus extra for international export.
- edgyquant 3y ago
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoI wonder how effective this is though? An average container ship has 10,000 6.1 meter long containers. That a lot of carriages and trains.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoSo much manufacturing is moving from China to Mexico that Mexico is now the US' biggest trading partner [1] [2] [3]. As China ages rapidly, labor costs rise, and deglobalization occurs, the future won't be the past of enormous container loads from China eastbound. North American infra is the new hotness [4] [5]. Tangentially, 40% of ship cargoes are fossil fuels [6] [7], consider how that reduces marine traffic volume with the global energy transition underway. [1] https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/americas-biggest-trading-partner-is-now-mexico/ https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/americas-biggest-trading-partn... [2] https://nypost.com/2023/08/08/china-exports-plummet-as-us-firms-turn-away-from-rival/ https://nypost.com/2023/08/08/china-exports-plummet-as-us-fi... [3] https://www.marketplace.org/2023/11/21/with-mexico-the-top-u-s-trade-partner-industrial-real-estate-booms-in-laredo-texas/ https://www.marketplace.org/2023/11/21/with-mexico-the-top-u... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA_superhighway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA_superhighway [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69 [6] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/01/12/almost-40-of-all-ship-cargoes-are-oil-coal-and-gas/ https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/01/12/almost-40-... [7] https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en.pdf https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en...
- jncfhnb 3y agoFactorio vibes