3 ms·

But you do get the opportunity of running multiple smaller ships on the receiving end to different destinations. That transloading often happens anyway eventua

But 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.

zer00eyz 3y ago
> But you do get the opportunity of running multiple smaller ships on the receiving end to different destinations. But for the Jones act. Ask Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii why everything is so expensive! https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-acts-role-encouraging-puerto-ricos-use-russian-energy https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-acts-role-encouraging-puerto...
- gumby 3y ago
  In this case Mexico is a sovereign country so the Jones Act won’t apply.
- bluGill 3y ago
  One end is Mexico sothe jones act won't apply. In fact this could make thing, cheaper because a small ship, for a short run makes sense
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    40% of all us containers go through the canal. 60% of all canal traffic is US containers. Look at some place North Carolina... 1000 calls a year. There is rail, truck and warehouse infrastructure to support that. It is highly optimized because of domestic transit by rail and truck, of imports and exports. If you optimize your profit, by dropping imports closer to the point of consumption any extra profit you make will be consumed by rail and trucks getting exports to you in a non optimal way. The smart choice is to sail to the port where the exports are. But because you can't take that domestic cargo you going in a non optimal state... that empty transit time just cost you money because you have a 2nd captain, crew, ship, insurance and moving an empty vessel is waste! Basicity the limits the jones act imposes means that you can't fully optimize against the cost and structure of domestic transit.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      The context here is bypassing the canal for a railroad across Mexico. While you have described the problem with the Jones act, the premises is we are loading/unloading in Mexico that changes a lot. Smaller ships can go to many different ports - large ones would probably still got to North Carolina, but we can sort in Mexico which means some (likely small) shipping company can run routes to smaller ports, they can take exports from those smaller ports and then sorting in Mexico can get it on/off the right ships. For US east coast to cargo that is crossing the pacific this makes sense (it doesn't make sense for cargo crossing the Atlantic though, so the Jones act is still a problem)
      - Scoundreller 3y ago
        This is effectively what happens with air cargo in Anchorage. It's a nice mid-point between asia and north america. They can receive aircraft cargo from many different sources in asia and then shuffle it between aircraft to ship it to different destinations in north america. Iceland Airlines kinda does the same shuffle for transatlantic flights and self-loading freight ;)
SilasX 3y ago
I remember having the shower thought that you could replace canals with railways by redesigning ships to automatically, rapidly offload containers directly onto some superfast maglev railway, effectively "shooting" the containers to the other side. But running the numbers on it, you really can't compete on throughput, what with the truly massive capacity of cargo ships. Like, even if it had only 3000 conatiners, it only has to go at 1/1500th of the rail speed (assuming you can stack them two-high) to beat it. This page[1] says panamaxes have traditionally held 5000, with "New Panamax"es carrying 13,000. (Edit: ChatGPT tells me that transit of the canal takes 10 hours on the high side, and it's 82 km long, so that's an effective ship speed of 8.2 km per hour, meaning the rail would have to go 20,000 km/h to compete on throughput.) But yeah, the other advantages you mention would apply. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax?useskin=vector#Cargo_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax?useskin=vector#Cargo_c...
- Solvency 3y ago
  So then why not build a bigger rail system and put the land equivalent of container ships on rails? I'm serious.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    First: When the GP said 13,000 containers, I presume that's TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit). A double-stack rail car holds 4 TEU. That means that you only (!) need 3,250 cars to replace the ship. That's a really long train. What's perhaps more reasonable is to replace it with maybe 20 trains. You could maybe run such trains on a 10-minute headway, so 6 trains an hour, so 3 1/3 hours. That's to replace one ship. But it's also if you only have a single track rail line. You could build N parallel tracks along the same route. (This is far more reasonable than trying to build something where you can stack the containers 10 high or something, and then wide enough that it would be stable, and then you have to worry about the load-bearing ability of the track.) But even if you build all those tracks, then you have the problem of unloading the ship at one end, and reloading a different ship at the other end. You can build enough tracks to get any rate you need, but can you get the load/unload speed?

zer00eyz 3y ago

> But you do get the opportunity of running multiple smaller ships on the receiving end to different destinations. But for the Jones act. Ask Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii why everything is so expensive! https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-acts-role-encouraging-puerto-ricos-use-russian-energy https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-acts-role-encouraging-puerto...

gumby 3y ago
In this case Mexico is a sovereign country so the Jones Act won’t apply.
bluGill 3y ago
One end is Mexico sothe jones act won't apply. In fact this could make thing, cheaper because a small ship, for a short run makes sense
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  40% of all us containers go through the canal. 60% of all canal traffic is US containers. Look at some place North Carolina... 1000 calls a year. There is rail, truck and warehouse infrastructure to support that. It is highly optimized because of domestic transit by rail and truck, of imports and exports. If you optimize your profit, by dropping imports closer to the point of consumption any extra profit you make will be consumed by rail and trucks getting exports to you in a non optimal way. The smart choice is to sail to the port where the exports are. But because you can't take that domestic cargo you going in a non optimal state... that empty transit time just cost you money because you have a 2nd captain, crew, ship, insurance and moving an empty vessel is waste! Basicity the limits the jones act imposes means that you can't fully optimize against the cost and structure of domestic transit.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The context here is bypassing the canal for a railroad across Mexico. While you have described the problem with the Jones act, the premises is we are loading/unloading in Mexico that changes a lot. Smaller ships can go to many different ports - large ones would probably still got to North Carolina, but we can sort in Mexico which means some (likely small) shipping company can run routes to smaller ports, they can take exports from those smaller ports and then sorting in Mexico can get it on/off the right ships. For US east coast to cargo that is crossing the pacific this makes sense (it doesn't make sense for cargo crossing the Atlantic though, so the Jones act is still a problem)
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      This is effectively what happens with air cargo in Anchorage. It's a nice mid-point between asia and north america. They can receive aircraft cargo from many different sources in asia and then shuffle it between aircraft to ship it to different destinations in north america. Iceland Airlines kinda does the same shuffle for transatlantic flights and self-loading freight ;)

SilasX 3y ago

I remember having the shower thought that you could replace canals with railways by redesigning ships to automatically, rapidly offload containers directly onto some superfast maglev railway, effectively "shooting" the containers to the other side. But running the numbers on it, you really can't compete on throughput, what with the truly massive capacity of cargo ships. Like, even if it had only 3000 conatiners, it only has to go at 1/1500th of the rail speed (assuming you can stack them two-high) to beat it. This page[1] says panamaxes have traditionally held 5000, with "New Panamax"es carrying 13,000. (Edit: ChatGPT tells me that transit of the canal takes 10 hours on the high side, and it's 82 km long, so that's an effective ship speed of 8.2 km per hour, meaning the rail would have to go 20,000 km/h to compete on throughput.) But yeah, the other advantages you mention would apply. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax?useskin=vector#Cargo_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax?useskin=vector#Cargo_c...

Solvency 3y ago
So then why not build a bigger rail system and put the land equivalent of container ships on rails? I'm serious.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  First: When the GP said 13,000 containers, I presume that's TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit). A double-stack rail car holds 4 TEU. That means that you only (!) need 3,250 cars to replace the ship. That's a really long train. What's perhaps more reasonable is to replace it with maybe 20 trains. You could maybe run such trains on a 10-minute headway, so 6 trains an hour, so 3 1/3 hours. That's to replace one ship. But it's also if you only have a single track rail line. You could build N parallel tracks along the same route. (This is far more reasonable than trying to build something where you can stack the containers 10 high or something, and then wide enough that it would be stable, and then you have to worry about the load-bearing ability of the track.) But even if you build all those tracks, then you have the problem of unloading the ship at one end, and reloading a different ship at the other end. You can build enough tracks to get any rate you need, but can you get the load/unload speed?