If we step back and look at US infrastructure over all it’s probably the most effective in the world. Were it goes wrong is when workers are paid very low wages with frankly terrible working conditions.
Congestion we see today is primarily surge cargo, no business is going to spend to improve facilities when cargo flows are going back to normal at some point. By normal I mean regular predictable flows. Besides the hard infrastructure is very good, buildings machinery roads rails etc. Throwing government money at it won’t make much difference.
Workers another story. American trucker drivers are treated terribly. At ocean terminals waiting time is not compensated . Same at inland distribution centers, driver could easily wait hours pick up and deliver and most independent operators paid by the mile. Matters worse electronic logs track his hours, waiting comes out of his federally mandated maxim driving time. Result is shortage of drivers.
Large Inland distribution centers labor paid low wages, many from 3rd party labor contractors. Production monitored, slow punished. Situation today labor shortages inland facilities. Not hard to see why.
Thing that always struck me with a Ocean background, all with ship owners is how well the waterfront works how poorly the warehouses work. Break bulk days 1970s often had to knock off discharge of full load vessel bagged and palletized cargo to allow inland warehouse to “catch up” Containers the ship no longer waits, cargo still waits on dock because the Inland facilities are slow to receive and strip.
Do the major US importers want to improve ? No because once they pay more they will always pay more. Result that 9.95 toaster on their shelf will have to increase in price. Sounds crazy but have sat in meetings with importers were retail price of their product had to reduce by a few cents, because the major retailer demanded it. My attendance because the ocean transportation was 25% of landed cost.
Did we reduce ? Yes market was flat then and new larger vessels had a big appetite reduce small amount per container keep the contract. Today carriers can demand higher prices no reductions. It will switch back always does.
Rail and road to water ? Cargo can switch today if the shippers want to. Our water infrastructure operates significant tonnage moving. With a few exceptions bulk and tank not containers . Doubt if there is any river in the world moving the tonnage Mississippi does. Exclude passenger service, rail in the US far more effective and moves more tonnage than other countries. Truck ? Compare US with Europe. Tractor pulling 53 foot 9’6” light tare weight trailer 80 mph limit across interstate 10 Or 70 other interstates with 90 K speed limited truck pulling small trailer across continental Europe.
On the vast majority of its network, Europe has more restricted loading gauge and train weight limits as well as axle load limits. In other words, many bridges and tunnels are too low for double-stacking. In addition, since European electrification standards generally predated double stacking, overhead catenary in Europe is too low to accommodate double stacking and rebuilding for double-stack operation is far too expensive.
Not everybody have such rosy opinion on the standard of US infrastructure:
Yes back in the 1970s things were different and shipping more relaxed, Today things are different and we have to move with the times. What is the use of rushing shipment across oceans if the receiving end is not able to handle it??
Barge transport on the Mississippi is a major contributor to the efficiency of US grain export.
Why couldn’t it be made into an efficient conduit for containers in the future?
Yes, but is that because it is the more efficient, or because it doesn’t have competition form water transport to the same degree as in Europe, China or other parts of the world.
Yes less % of containers and commodities move by rail in Europe, since there are efficient transport alternative by water. Since most European railways are electrified and high speed, therefore more passengers travel by train over longer distance, thus reducing road congestion and GHG emission
What would it take to make the US freight rail network electrified?:
To get a US high speed rail network for passengers would be even more expensive, but both would save money and the environment in the long run.
Great pictures that illustrate your points. Our self loading chassis compensate for the maximum weight permitted in a 20’ or 40’ container by extra Axles and their use is restricted to an urban environment. Trucking companies will send one loaded to a particular area and once unloaded can unload or load conventional chassis. All chassis are owned by individual companies and they are constructed differently than the chassis used in the US.
The first picture that ombugge posted of the NCL Stelgun, a 852 TEU feeder ship. I would be pretty sure that the fuel burn on her would be less than the four locomotives doing their thing in the picture. I don’t know how many wagons the train consisted of.
From looking around the 'net, maximum length is around 5.5 km (300-ish wagons) and average length more like 2.5 km. Trains longer than around 2.5 km must have extra radio-controlled power units in the middle or rear of the train to reduce stress on the couplings.
I would have to guess at the UP trains double stack container capacity, it’s a lot. Certainly comparable to small coastal feeders. However fuel burn rail vs water moot point as the US has no East West transcontinental rivers. Rule of thumb though, water transport uses least energy per ton mile, rail road after rail & air transport highest consumption per ton. Cannot support that statement with specifics
Major river we do have is the Mississippi & serves a vast area center of the county. Barges carry majority of Ag exports & many bulk imports at considerably less expense than rail. Rail moves the tonnage that’s not situated close to the river. Doubt if there is more effective inland grain transport anywhere than the Mississippi . Tow shown not a particularly large one. Large river Towboats use a “fleeting” system. River ports with small tugs that spot barges at terminals for loading & consolation into larger tows then meet the main river tug mid stream. It’s a competitive business number of Towboat companies involved.
The truck is carrying a 53 foot, rail container, rail long haul, transfer to chassis at rail depot for local delivery. US railroads have extensive inland depots or as we often say “ramps” from the days they were loaded wheels on flat rail cars instead of double stacked.
I have seen those chassis in New Zealand very effective in their market.
Due to the terrain here in NZ our railway system is mountain gauge of 3’ 6”” and 55 wagons is pretty much the limit. Our West Coast has only one port used by international shipping, the other port facilities have bars at their entrances and apart from giving masters such as myself unwarranted excitement, have largely fallen into disuse with the growth of the trucking industry.
Our major ports are on the East Coast.
Here’s another interesting photo, empty gives better perspective, new “cross dock” distribution center. Container arrives & dropped by the drayman one side . Full of product single overseas factory. Other side domestic trailers 53 footers are spotted. Cargo out of the container sorted without stopping forklift to the domestic trailer loading mixed product for one retail store. Note very limited trailer storage lot. Great when cargo flows are even and predictable cause severe back ups when over capacity. Forces the trucker to hold containers often long periods subject to container demurrage.
Here’s the other style DC Rack storage. Just what name implies out of the container stored for varying times removed then loaded to domestic transport . My opinion rack storage causes less trouble for containers as it’s not dependent on perfect timing to load out. Still full is full and can cause containers to sit at ocean terminal
I have enjoyed it too, incl. hearing your experiences from different parts of the world.
But yes, I think it is time to end this conversation
I still think that if as much effort was put into finding solutions as is spent on proving it cannot be done, as least not in USA, there will eventually be both coastal and inland container feeder services serving the US market, just like it is in other parts of the world.
If nothing else, the effects of climate change on life in the US will force changes to the way of thinking about transport and a lot of other things. It may take time, but it will happen, (Sooner rather than later, I hope)
Meanwhile, Europe, China and other areas are moving ahead with developing the infrastructure and technology required to meet the demands of the future. Fast rail transport, electric cars.
Green hydrogen to power trucks for long haul road transport, tugs and eventually ships.
Where you see problems and expenses, others sees opportunities and profit.
Those who live long enough will know who is right. I know who I bet on.
Another city which might like to use a fancy container barge. Not sure this route makes sense though, unless Wal-Mart is interested to use it to ship containers up to Fort Smith and on to their Arkansas distribution system.
