3 ms·

For containers headed to the US east coast from the Pacific, is there any advantage of using this route and incurring two extra mode switches (sea->rail->sea),

by jp57 3y ago

For containers headed to the US east coast from the Pacific, is there any advantage of using this route and incurring two extra mode switches (sea->rail->sea), over going to a US west coast port and just incurring one (and possibly zero) extra mode switches? Given that the containers may be distributed in a variety of modes when they are unloaded at a land port (e.g. different trains, trucks, etc), it's probably reasonable to think about fractional mode switches. I.e. what's the average number of switches across all containers on the ship. Using a rail portage to get to from the Pacific to the Atlantic will add 2 to that number for every container, whereas going to a west coast port might add one or maybe zero (I.e. switch to a truck that drives cross country, vs rail->truck) Is the increased cost of transcontinental land transport in the US so high as to make this scheme worthwhile for US East coast?

livueta 3y ago
This Economist article on the same topic seems to agree with you: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2024/01/09/the-dwindling-of-the-panama-canal-boosts-rival-trade-routes https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2024/01/09/the-dwindl... / https://archive.is/ZU0ws https://archive.is/ZU0ws > But projects like CIIT may still struggle to entice cargo away from the Panama Canal. The largest vessels that go through it can carry 14,000 containers. Mexico’s government accurately reckons that the coast-to-coast rail journey will be quicker than passing through the canal. But it neglects to mention that the trains’ capacity and the speed at which they can be loaded and unloaded mean that the overall rate of goods’ transit between the two oceans will be much slower than the canal. > Moreover, Niels Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst at Bimco, an industry association, says that carrying cargo by train or road has big snags. Most shippers would prefer to rack up extra miles on other maritime routes than to deal with the hassle of unloading and reloading. And if push comes to shove, many would probably prefer existing routes across the United States to untested road alternatives in Latin America.
- intrasight 3y ago
  The economist article also mentioned just going north around Canada
  - reactordev 3y ago
    So clearly they don’t know what they are talking about. Any sailor would tell you, you don’t go above and below 55 degrees. Granted these are steel container ships but the seas don’t care. What’s one or two lost containers of goods? They sit just below the water surface for the next vessel to crash into. The Panama Canal has two paths. Only one can be used for container ships. Even that has been at capacity for quite some time. A more integrated shipping supply chain is needed to get goods from A to Z. Rail, truck, boat, and plane.
    - philipov 3y ago
      > The Panama Canal has two paths. Only one can be used for container ships. I believe both Panamax and Neopanamax lanes can be used by most container ships. The Neopanamax lane can accommodate the biggest new container ships in addition to that.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      > Any sailor would tell you, you don’t go above and below 55 degrees. Elaborate? There are major ports north of 55° and the US, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, the UK etc.
      - reactordev 3y ago
        North of 55 is ice sheets. South 55 is Cape Horn. Not saying it can’t be done. Just not something you just “do” except for Vikings.
        jefftk 3y ago
        North of 55 has ice, but isn't all ice sheets. The most extreme example is probably the warm water port of Murmansk at 68° 58'.
        reactordev 3y ago
        Only because of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream bringing warmer waters. Everywhere else around there is closed in the winter due to ice. Murmansk is a freak of nature, an exception to the rule, like how you can’t freeze vodka in a normal freezer.
bluGill 3y ago
Sea transport is cheap but slow. Mexico is much narrower than the US so they can potentially be faster than the Canal without adding much more costs. Going LA to the east cost is done, but has more expensive land transport. So this could be a useful compromise. If (big if that I have no confidence in, but still possible) Mexico puts in great sorting they can also take containers from on ship and sort them into several others to various ports on the east coast. Is it worth it? Hard to say. Sea transport is cheap, but not free. There is a lot of opportunity to reduce the costs of move switches by automation. However thee biggest advantage to this really only an come if they can sort containers to different destinations.
wolverine876 3y ago
Rail freight costs orders of magnitude more than ocean freight over the same distance.

by jp57 3y ago

livueta 3y ago

This Economist article on the same topic seems to agree with you: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2024/01/09/the-dwindling-of-the-panama-canal-boosts-rival-trade-routes https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2024/01/09/the-dwindl... / https://archive.is/ZU0ws https://archive.is/ZU0ws > But projects like CIIT may still struggle to entice cargo away from the Panama Canal. The largest vessels that go through it can carry 14,000 containers. Mexico’s government accurately reckons that the coast-to-coast rail journey will be quicker than passing through the canal. But it neglects to mention that the trains’ capacity and the speed at which they can be loaded and unloaded mean that the overall rate of goods’ transit between the two oceans will be much slower than the canal. > Moreover, Niels Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst at Bimco, an industry association, says that carrying cargo by train or road has big snags. Most shippers would prefer to rack up extra miles on other maritime routes than to deal with the hassle of unloading and reloading. And if push comes to shove, many would probably prefer existing routes across the United States to untested road alternatives in Latin America.

intrasight 3y ago
The economist article also mentioned just going north around Canada
- reactordev 3y ago
  So clearly they don’t know what they are talking about. Any sailor would tell you, you don’t go above and below 55 degrees. Granted these are steel container ships but the seas don’t care. What’s one or two lost containers of goods? They sit just below the water surface for the next vessel to crash into. The Panama Canal has two paths. Only one can be used for container ships. Even that has been at capacity for quite some time. A more integrated shipping supply chain is needed to get goods from A to Z. Rail, truck, boat, and plane.
  - philipov 3y ago
    > The Panama Canal has two paths. Only one can be used for container ships. I believe both Panamax and Neopanamax lanes can be used by most container ships. The Neopanamax lane can accommodate the biggest new container ships in addition to that.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > Any sailor would tell you, you don’t go above and below 55 degrees. Elaborate? There are major ports north of 55° and the US, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, the UK etc.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      North of 55 is ice sheets. South 55 is Cape Horn. Not saying it can’t be done. Just not something you just “do” except for Vikings.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        North of 55 has ice, but isn't all ice sheets. The most extreme example is probably the warm water port of Murmansk at 68° 58'.
        reactordev 3y ago
        Only because of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream bringing warmer waters. Everywhere else around there is closed in the winter due to ice. Murmansk is a freak of nature, an exception to the rule, like how you can’t freeze vodka in a normal freezer.

bluGill 3y ago

Sea transport is cheap but slow. Mexico is much narrower than the US so they can potentially be faster than the Canal without adding much more costs. Going LA to the east cost is done, but has more expensive land transport. So this could be a useful compromise. If (big if that I have no confidence in, but still possible) Mexico puts in great sorting they can also take containers from on ship and sort them into several others to various ports on the east coast. Is it worth it? Hard to say. Sea transport is cheap, but not free. There is a lot of opportunity to reduce the costs of move switches by automation. However thee biggest advantage to this really only an come if they can sort containers to different destinations.

wolverine876 3y ago

Rail freight costs orders of magnitude more than ocean freight over the same distance.