Saw this article about the future of Seattle/Tacoma as a container port.
Is “blue water” inherently more economical than rail? (That is, without artificial regulatory barriers imposed).
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025426368_jontaltoncol11xml.html
Depends - mainly on the amount of “circuitry” (extra distance) incurred by the ship to get to the port in question, compared to another port with competing rail service; the resulting ship vs. rail speed differential; the value and market-time sensitivity of the cargo; labor disputes at one port or another; off-loading and reloading capabilites and delays at each port; the operating difficulties of the rail route (over the Rockies), etc. John Kneiling used to opine that a properly run integral train system - and we’ve not yet seen one exactly per his vision - could beat almost any ship.
For what (if anything) it may be worth, here’s a post I made last August on another thread that may be relevant to this subject
Posted by Falcon48 on Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:02 PM
It’s not self evident that these canal projects would adversely affect rail volumes. Now, at first blush, that may seem like a strange statement. After all, the reconstructed Panama Canal (and the Nicaragua canal, if it were ever built) would accomodate large container ships. That could , in theory, cut out long distance, cross country rail routings. But consider this. If container ships from Asia went through the canal to get to the east coast rather than discharging their cargoes at a west coast port, their round trip transit time would double or triple (the same would be true for traffic coming from Europe, only in reverse). That means a shipping company would need many more ships to handle a given amount of cargo, and ships are hugely expensive to build and operate.
The question then becomes if the canal routings will generate sufficient additional revenue for a shipping company to justify the costs of the addtional ships. That’s pretty dicey. Of course, a shipping company would be able to get more revenue for some canal moves, since the some of the shippers would no longer need to pay for a long rail move. However, that revenue opportunity would likely only be significant for traffic destined to places close to the east coast. Traffic destined for interior points would still need a long land movement, although it might be from the east coast rather than the west coast… Stopping ships at multiple ports is likely not an option, because that a
[quote user=“Falcon48”]
For what (if anything) it may be worth, here’s a post I made last August on another thread that may be relevant to this subject
Posted by Falcon48 on Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:02 PM
It’s not self evident that these canal projects would adversely affect rail volumes. Now, at first blush, that may seem like a strange statement. After all, the reconstructed Panama Canal (and the Nicaragua canal, if it were ever built) would accomodate large container ships. That could , in theory, cut out long distance, cross country rail routings. But consider this. If container ships from Asia went through the canal to get to the east coast rather than discharging their cargoes at a west coast port, their round trip transit time would double or triple (the same would be true for traffic coming from Europe, only in reverse). That means a shipping company would need many more ships to handle a given amount of cargo, and ships are hugely expensive to build and operate.
The question then becomes if the canal routings will generate sufficient additional revenue for a shipping company to justify the costs of the addtional ships. That’s pretty dicey. Of course, a shipping company would be able to get more revenue for some canal moves, since the some of the shippers would no longer need to pay for a long rail move. However, that revenue opportunity would likely only be significant for traffic destined to places close to the east coast. Traffic destined for interior points would still need a long land movement, although it might be from t
The Panama Canal expansion will definitely change things. Many ports along the east and gulf coasts are expanding capacity in anticipation of increased ocean traffic as are the railroads connected to them.
Only history will tell us who the winners and losers will be many years from now.
If you want proof, look no further than what people anticipated before completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway and what actually happened.
The Seaway was built as much to let lake boats get to Montreal as to let larger ocean freighters get to the Lakes. While foreign flag traffic never reached the predicted amounts, it was reasonable until the onset of containerization.
Paul North,
Would an expanded Panama Canal be enough incentive for the railroads to build and operate true integral trains?
Then there is the coming Nicaragua canal. This ought to bring out more opnions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30584559
Rich
It is important to note that Panama’s dual-ocean transshipment concept represents a new transportation product providing ocean carriers and shippers with new opportunities and options to expand connecting services, improve asset utilization, increase vessel routing and re-deployment possibilities as well as alleviate Canal restrictions related to draft, line of sight or vessel size. In the future, the PCRC land bridge transshipment dimension may help attract post Panamax vessels to Panama’s ports and will likely offer a valuable routing alternative during times of USA port or rail delays.
http://www.panarail.com/en/cargo/index-03.html
What affect on the shortest transcontinental railroad in the Americas?
It’s going to be very interesting to see if the Nicaragua Canal actually becomes reality. The last reports I read on it, were that only 200 Million of the 50 Billion dollars required had been raised.
Interesting thread. My feeling is that there are so many variables in here BEFORE Nicaragua that it’s anybody’s guess how the new Panama plays out.
In the meantime, those West Coast longshoremen aren’t doing themselves or the ultimate rail cause any favors with their work slowdown. To me, a slowdown is a dishonest, sneaking tactic that is unworthy of a union man (or anybody else). Either walk off the job like a man or do the day’s work for which you’re being paid.
They already have them;modern doublestack trains using DPU’s are almost exactly what John Kneiling was proposing with with his “First Generation” Integral train concept :
True, they don’t have the means of propulsion attached directly to the freight cars like his “Second Generation” proposals but if you read Kneilings book, he makes it clear that he mostly viewed this as a way to get around crewing issues (back when labor agreements mandated 5 man crews on most freight trains in the US).
He did point out Tare weight advantages to dispensing with locomotives but the Doublestack system largely addresses that issue…
Changes in ocean shipping (whether an enlarged Panama Canal or development of ever-larger humonguships) won’t have any effect on the fact that the United States has a great big middle that is only accessible by rail or rubber-wheelers. If the container is bound forDallas, Kansas City or Minneapolis, it will get there by train.
Having watched double stacks moving on both the UP (ex-SP) and BNSF (ex ATSF) in Arizona, I submit that the slowest double stack is faster than the fastest containership - even before the recent general reduction in ship speed. With the current trend to minimum inventory storage, transportation time is more critical than ever.
Chuck
Interesting question: My understanding is that the ship speed reduction was a fuel saving issue? If so know that the price of fuel has fallen will the speed back up?
Possibly, for some cargoes. High-value goods (electronics, clothing) might now see enough benefit from reductions in inventory holding costs to offset increased fuel consumption at a lower fuel price. The question will be if there’s enough customers willing to pay for reduced transit times that will allow the carriers to concentrate shipload (or near-shiploads) volumes of such cargo at the major originating ports on a timely basis. If not, the ship companies are not going to be terribly anxious to give away their increased profit margins.