PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

For topics on Class I and II passenger and freight operations more general in nature and not specifically related to a specific railroad with its own forum.

Moderator: Jeff Smith

Re: The End of Coal - Wall Street Journal

Postby David Benton » Tue May 16, 2017 2:02 am

http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/panamax/

The different Panama ships. I imagine it allows for a bigger cubic capacity for coal carriers , similar to the equation for container ships. How it effects the economics of coal,( and if any shipping line is prepared to invest in large coal ships) I don't know.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 8324
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

Postby Gilbert B Norman » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:54 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/nyreg ... aters.html

Fair Use:

...But Capt. Maksym Kononov, a merchant mariner from Ukraine, can expect considerably more fanfare when his ship, the CMA CGM T Roosevelt, with its crew of 27, arrives Thursday morning, assuming the weather allows. Harbor officials have been preparing for his ship’s arrival for years — dredging the harbor and raising the Bayonne Bridge by 64 feet — so that this ship, and others like it, can be accommodated.

A 1,200-foot-long behemoth that measures more than 157-feet wide, the T Roosevelt is being billed by port officials as the biggest cargo ship to ever call on an East Coast port. And it will be a tight fit. So tight, in fact, that port officials were initially a bit concerned


Reading this article makes me wonder how many of its containers will have any rail line haul to destination when compared with a West Coast docking and the resulting assured rail line hauls.
Gilbert B Norman
 
Posts: 13675
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

Postby ExCon90 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:29 pm

Very little, the way things look. It's been awhile since I was in that line of work, but the destination would have had to be in Ohio or west for rail to be competitive from New York. If it's west of Chicago and St. Louis it becomes a matter of relative transit time (versus West Coast) and (as always) freight rates. Either way, it doesn't leave much room for railroads east of Chicago to be in the picture. As to traffic destined New York, mini-landbridge via the West Coast would have to have a strong advantage in rates, transit time, or frequency (or all three) for the railroads to retain that traffic.
ExCon90
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

Postby Gilbert B Norman » Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:49 pm

It appears that Google has "patched up the knothole" in the paywall, so absent being a Wall Street Journal subscriber, you may not be able to view this article;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1507464000

Even if towards the end of the article, I think this Fair Use quotation is most pertinent to those such as myself who consider railroad interests paramount:

The widened waterway could shift as much as 10% of Asian container imports to the East Coast from the West Coast by 2020, according to a 2015 study by the Boston Consulting Group and C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., a freight-forwarding company.

That doesn’t mean ports like Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., the nation’s two biggest gateways, will shrink anytime soon. Western ports are deep enough and bridges high enough to allow behemoths moving more than 18,000 containers to cross along with crude supertankers—too big even for the new Panama Canal.
.

Encouraging.

disclaimer: author holds long position UNP
Gilbert B Norman
 
Posts: 13675
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

Postby Gilbert B Norman » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:31 am

As readers have likely gathered, I follow maritime industry affairs as I hold that they can impact those of the railroads.

I'm not certain how the reporting within this Wall Street Journal article will impact. One might hold that if it will cost more "to gas up the boats", they will prefer to call at the West Coast ports resulting in considerably more favorable line hauls for BNSF and UP. CSX and NS will also benefit in that traffic to East Coast ports is more vulnerable to diversion to highway.

On the other hand, the reduction in frequency of sailings will not help the maritime operators, although this could be the result of the stalemated China/US trade agreements:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-storm-is ... mail_share

Fair Use:

It used to be that you could measure confidence in the container-shipping industry by the ever-increasing scale of the carriers’ vessels and the size of their ship orders.

These days, the hulking megaships that serve the world’s biggest trade routes look more than ever like monuments to brash corporate planning and projections built out of hopes rather than reality.

From slowing global trade to rising fuel prices to capacity increasingly out of step with demand, container-shipping operators are facing new challenges over the next two years, hurting prospects for a recovery after nearly a decade of moving in fits and starts toward stability..
Gilbert B Norman
 
Posts: 13675
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: PANAMAX - Effect Upon US Roads

Postby JayBee » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:10 pm

Something to consider, the IMO (International Maritime Organization), a UN Agency, will require all ships in International trade to burn Ultra Low Sulfur fuel effective 1/1/2020 or to use scrubbers, It is not known where all this ULS marine fuel will come from as refiners do not have the capacity and in many cases the technology to make this fuel. Most US refineries have the capability, but there already is a lot of demand from trucks and railroads for this fuel and most of this fuel is made from "Sour" (high-sulfur) heavy crude, with the sulfur winding up in the Marine fuel, which won't be an option next year. The only solution will for the refiners to turn the leftover high-sulfur liquid into asphalt.
JayBee
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Previous

Return to General Class I and II Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest