4 ms·
can 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 rai
by geraldhh 3y ago
can 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.