3 ms·

Yea, I don't really get why the 6.5 hours is particularly pertinent. The unloading time (and expense) will dominate, and any other railroads connecting a Pacifi

Yea, I don't really get why the 6.5 hours is particularly pertinent. The unloading time (and expense) will dominate, and any other railroads connecting a Pacific port to an Atlantic port in the Americas that are less than ~2 days transit time will be competitors. Why does connecting directly to the US help? If you're in one ocean and just want to access the US, can't you just steam direct to a US port?

bluGill 3y ago
By the jones act ships cannot go US port to US port. so all ships plan to unload once. this can work aroud that by letting a ship unload some in Seattle and then send San Diego from Mexico via train (or whatever variation makes sense)
- jessriedel 3y ago
  I mean ok but why not just unload at any mexican or canadian port with a rail connection to US? Why go all the way down to bottom of mexico?
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    By ship is still by far the cheapest way of transporting cargo, and the proposed route would involve the shortest land distances. More importantly the Sierra Madre ranges are large geographic barriers throughout most of Mexico but are relatively flat in the area of the Chivela pass, where this rail line is.
    - jessriedel 3y ago
      My comment was discussing using the rail for access to the US, not for getting from one ocean to another.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        Most of the US lives on the East Coast so at some point those mountains have to be crossed. The elevation of the plateau in between the Sierra Madres is no joke; Mexico City is at 7349 ft elevation.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    They can. However if the goal is the center of the US ports in Mexico may be closer (remember mountains cause are expensive to cross and so a straight line on a map may not be the best route). I'm not in logistics so I can't tell you all the considerations used to decide if they should stop in any particular port or not.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Right now the main thing controlling where the ships land is where they have ports that can receive their massive tonnage; places like Long Beach (16,618 TEU) or Houston (3,974 TEU). It's quite arguable that additional ports need to be built so that the ships can disperse cargo closer (or even farther, but more efficiently) to where it is going.
- wbl 3y ago
  That's not quite right. Boats can't pick up cargos in one US port and move them to another. They can drop in multiple places but it is usually uneconomic.
bombcar 3y ago
If a boat that would go through the locks could unload in Mexico and send it to its final destination it might be worth it, but unlikely (time wise). The whole thing comes into its own if Panama is overloaded and the other option is taking around the South America).

bluGill 3y ago

By the jones act ships cannot go US port to US port. so all ships plan to unload once. this can work aroud that by letting a ship unload some in Seattle and then send San Diego from Mexico via train (or whatever variation makes sense)

jessriedel 3y ago
I mean ok but why not just unload at any mexican or canadian port with a rail connection to US? Why go all the way down to bottom of mexico?
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  By ship is still by far the cheapest way of transporting cargo, and the proposed route would involve the shortest land distances. More importantly the Sierra Madre ranges are large geographic barriers throughout most of Mexico but are relatively flat in the area of the Chivela pass, where this rail line is.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    My comment was discussing using the rail for access to the US, not for getting from one ocean to another.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Most of the US lives on the East Coast so at some point those mountains have to be crossed. The elevation of the plateau in between the Sierra Madres is no joke; Mexico City is at 7349 ft elevation.
- bluGill 3y ago
  They can. However if the goal is the center of the US ports in Mexico may be closer (remember mountains cause are expensive to cross and so a straight line on a map may not be the best route). I'm not in logistics so I can't tell you all the considerations used to decide if they should stop in any particular port or not.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Right now the main thing controlling where the ships land is where they have ports that can receive their massive tonnage; places like Long Beach (16,618 TEU) or Houston (3,974 TEU). It's quite arguable that additional ports need to be built so that the ships can disperse cargo closer (or even farther, but more efficiently) to where it is going.
wbl 3y ago
That's not quite right. Boats can't pick up cargos in one US port and move them to another. They can drop in multiple places but it is usually uneconomic.

bombcar 3y ago

If a boat that would go through the locks could unload in Mexico and send it to its final destination it might be worth it, but unlikely (time wise). The whole thing comes into its own if Panama is overloaded and the other option is taking around the South America).