Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nicaragua To Build Their Own "Panama Canal"  
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6604 posts, RR: 35
Posted (1 year 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://internacional.elpais.com/inte.../actualidad/1369513091_162199.html

It will be build by a chinese firm Xinwei Telecom Enterprise Group and the idea apparently is serious enough that President Ortega has mentioned it to President Obama and asked him for help in finding American investors to participate. They´ve opened already an office in Hong Kong: "HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. Ltd".

The canal will have a length of 280 km, will be able to receive ships of of 250,000 tons, locks of 460 mts. and a depth of 20 mts. The whole thigin s proyected to cost $40 billion USD

I don´t know if this will happen. Latin Amercia has a notorious history of announcing these types of mega-proyects to distract the population from the more teething and daily problems. However, if true, at a cost of of 40 billion USD, it will certainly lift this God-forgotten country out of its current (and apparently eternal) poverty.

I really hope it happens and good luck to them.

Edit: I apologize for using "Panama Canal" in the title but I thought it would be a good reference for people to understand what type of canal we are talking about. The intention is not to sound sarcastic or derogatory towards Nicaragua.

[Edited 2013-05-26 14:40:03]

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
I don´t know if this will happen

It's not the first time this idea has been proposed--I believe the original site that the U.S. looked at for building a canal in Central America (before the Panama Canal was built) was in Nicaragua.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The canal will have a length of 280 km

173 miles which is roughly 3.5 times the distance of the Panama Canal.
I suppose it is doable, just would question the $40B cost. That would seem low to me but not sure of existing rivers/waterways or the abilities to establish lakes and run-off to fill the lakes for operation of the canal.

The only way that it would be even cost productive would be to build it to handle the massive ocean going container ships that transport containers now.

I know they are in the process of enlarging the locks and depth of the Panama right now but I believe the Panama still will not be able to handle the largest container and tankers.

Okie


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

40 billions is 1,5 times the GDP of the country...


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
It will be build by a chinese firm Xinwei Telecom Enterprise Group

That makes me think this has less to do with Nicaragua than China. Like building an operating an aircraft carrier, building and controlling a shipping lane comparable to the Panama Canal would be a huge symbolic, if not actual, sign of China's legitimacy as a superpower. The Panama Canal was one of the five keys to the British Empire (along with the Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Straits of Malacca, and Straits of Dover) so China having something similar would be feather in their cap.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2083 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
That makes me think this has less to do with Nicaragua than China.

That is what I'm thinking. China seems to be engaging in some incredible 'empire building' at the moment through infrastructure projects throughout the developing world (and lets face it, the developed world too).

This is a win win for China. They create another route for Chinese goods to the East coast, West Europe along with the booming West coast of Africa. I'm assuming they will make the canal able to accomodate the largest ships in the world otherwise there is no point. Not only that they will have a quick way to move Navy ships into the Atlantic to defend their interests in West Africa and allow them to play a greater role in geopolitics throughout the Carribean.

They have more foreign reserves than they know what to do with, so for the relatively small price of $40 billion they get all of the above and they also get at least one small country in their back pocket for a long time to come.


The President asking to Obama for investment looks to me like the government is a little scared of becoming too indebted to China, if they can get enough funding to cap China's investment and just let them build it, they will be much better off.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The Panama Canal was one of the five keys to the British Empire (along with the Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Straits of Malacca, and Straits of Dover) so China having something similar would be feather in their cap.

The Panama Canal had nothing to do with the British Empire. The US built it and controlled it until 1999.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
40 billions is 1,5 times the GDP of the country...

$40B is less than half of the $85B per month that the US is printing for Wall St.

No wonder Ortega is looking to Obama for the monies.

I would still doubt the $40B figure for a 173 mile canal with infrastructure, locks, and equipment. Just the upgrades on the Panama was $5.25B in 2006 dollars.

Okie


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Would be cool if this opened but i can't see how it'd ever really be competitive vs Panama. Smells of vanity project, still if China wants to throw money at other parts of the world that's great.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The Panama Canal was one of the five keys to the British Empire (along with the Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Straits of Malacca, and Straits of Dover)

Nearly, - Panama Canal + Cape of Good Hope.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 2906 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
The Panama Canal had nothing to do with the British Empire. The US built it and controlled it until 1999.

It was part of the special relationship between the US and British. They ceded control of the Panama Canal to the US because of the Monroe Doctrine and the US could be trusted.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 9):
Nearly, - Panama Canal + Cape of Good Hope.

I've seen a couple different lists, but I think all of them include the Panama Canal but some do make mention of the Cape of Good Hope as an additional key.


China needs to be mindful of the course Japan ended up on and seriously ask themselves if this is really a good investment or if they just want all the cool stuff America has.

Maybe the newly minted middle and upper class Chinese are just discovering the joys of cocaine.   

[Edited 2013-05-26 23:00:38 by SA7700]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 2890 times:

Hopefully less people die building this one. Reportedly over 27,000 people died from disease and accidents building the Panama Canal.

User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6604 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 2886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 16):
Hopefully less people die building this one. Reportedly over 27,000 people died from disease and accidents building the Panama Canal.

I get you. But, It´s Nicaragua who is going to supply the labor and the Chinese the capital, so I don´t think that concern is high on anybody´s mind.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1357 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 13):
Quoting Polot (Reply 14):

    Wow! I've clearly been awake too long. However, Nicaragua is one of the countries that has relations with the ROC rather than the PRC.



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12596 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
That makes me think this has less to do with Nicaragua than China. Like building an operating an aircraft carrier, building and controlling a shipping lane comparable to the Panama Canal would be a huge symbolic, if not actual, sign of China's legitimacy as a superpower

I agree with this; America has been concerned for some time about China buying into the Panama Canal; do Chinese vessels use the Panama Canal?

Quoting zkojq (Reply 12):
I've clearly been awake too long. However, Nicaragua is one of the countries that has relations with the ROC rather than the PRC.

Well, it's an incentive to review that position!

Presumably there will need to be a lake or other large area to allow ships to turn or drop anchor, or will there be enough room for ships to pass each other? (Would that be a contra flow?  )


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
China needs to be mindful of the course Japan ended up on and seriously ask themselves if this is really a good investment or if they just want all the cool stuff America has.

The Chinese development model is entirely different from Japan, and when the Japanese invested it was only for financial purposes. If Xinwei is a Chinese SOE, then I'm willing to bet security considerations are motivating the investment as much as ROI--it's an alternative to the Panama Canal, and one that the PRC would likely have more of a say in terms of security considerations and transit permission.

The PRC has already demonstrated that they are willing to invest substantial sums for the sake of the country's national security (which includes energy/resource security)--look at what they have been up to in Africa--and have a long-time interest in a canal across the Thai isthmus as an alternative to to the Strait of Malacca.


User currently offlinevc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The Panama Canal was one of the five keys to the British Empire (along with the Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Straits of Malacca, and Straits of Dover) so China having something similar would be feather in their cap.

I think you probably was thinking of the Suez canal which was the gate way to India


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 13):
Presumably there will need to be a lake or other large area to allow ships to turn or drop anchor, or will there be enough room for ships to pass each other?

Nicaragua does appear to have a big lake in quite a convenient place, kaitak. With several rivers to the east of it, suggesting that the land there is pretty flat and low-lying.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/central-america/nicaragua/

So, on the face of it the project does look to be pretty 'feasible'?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
The Panama Canal had nothing to do with the British Empire. The US built it and controlled it until 1999.

Well a canal was first thought by the Spanish as soon as the 16th century. For the US it was the early 19th century and yes it has to do with Britain since relations between the two weren't great, Britain controlled Columbia (Panama was part of that country) so they wanted to do one there and the US controlled Nicaragua so they wanted to do it there.

Ultimately the ones who committed to it were the French though, a private enterprise that cost many their fortunes, since the plan was for a sea level canal, ending up being too difficult to do at the time (and killing 22000 people in the process). Then years later the US bought the partially built canal (and the country of Panama) and finished it with a less ambitious design.

If this ends up as a Chinese canal then I think Nicaragua will not benefit at all from it, China will send its own people to built it and operate it.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
Britain controlled Columbia (Panama was part of that country) so they wanted to do one there and the US controlled Nicaragua so they wanted to do it there.

Britain never controlled Columbia nor Panama (Maybe you mean British Columbia in Canada).

Britain had little in Latin America apart from Honduras, Guyana and the Caribbean, hence why the Panama canal was of little strategic importance to them.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It was part of the special relationship between the US and British. They ceded control of the Panama Canal to the US because of the Monroe Doctrine and the US could be trusted.

What are you talking about? The British NEVER had control of the canal in the first place. You are aware that the Panama Canal was built in the early 20th century, almost 100 years after the Monroe Doctrine? Again, the British never had control of the canal or the land it was built on.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):

I never said the US was the first one to come up with the idea, or even the first one to try- but they were the ones to actually finish and control it, not the British Empire.

Anyways your facts are off- Britain never controlled Colombia, and the US never "bought" the country of Panama, although they heavily supported the existing Panama separatist movement ensuring they won in their fight against Colombia and getting a very favorable treaty out of it.

[Edited 2013-05-27 07:08:47]

[Edited 2013-05-27 07:09:29]

User currently offlineVinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 11):
I get you. But, It´s Nicaragua who is going to supply the labor and the Chinese the capital, so I don´t think that concern is high on anybody´s mind.

That's not usually how China work: They supply their own labor with little help from the locals!


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
Britain never controlled Columbia nor Panama (Maybe you mean British Columbia in Canada).

Sorry, I read wikipedia at 5am, some of the facts have collided in my brain. The US serious project about the canal was in the early 19th century and a way to assert US power against Britain, that I remember well, it just didn't go anywhere after a vote.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

The Chinese might do it but they will rather stick with improving the infrastructure within China. That is going at great pace.
Additionally, why should China build that Canal while other SE Asian countries are exporting to the US as well and would possibly benefit from that infrastructure?

That is why Ortega, ruler of an impoversihed communist country knocks at the door of Uncle Sam to ask for money. Furthermore. is doubtful that US$ 40 billion will do the trick, looking what other infrastructure projects cost.

Meanwhile, the industry is developing other routes between North America, Europe and China, such as by vessel to Narvik in Norway, by rail via Sweden, Finland and russia using various routes and destinations. Trans-Sib rail container traffic already offers 16 days transit from Chinese inland to Duisburg in Germany. In times of slow steaming to conserve fuel, that is quick, although at a premium..


US rail is highly developed, with less coal to be transpoirted there will be free slots available, container trains of 3,5 miles lenbht are possible and daily practise. .

I would ot invest money into that project.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 19):
What are you talking about? The British NEVER had control of the canal in the first place. You are aware that the Panama Canal was built in the early 20th century, almost 100 years after the Monroe Doctrine? Again, the British never had control of the canal or the land it was built on.

Never actual control, but it was a pretty basic understanding: during the days of the British Empire, the US would take care of the Panama Canal. Remember that at the time it was built the US was not a superpower and the combination of the Spanish American War and the Panama Canal is what sent us down the path that ended with becoming a superpower at the end of WWII.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

It was part of the special relationship between the US and British. They ceded control of the Panama Canal to the US because of the Monroe Doctrine and the US could be trusted.

It was the French who started building the canal, they sold all the construction equipment and design to the US in 1904. Nothing to do with the British.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The Panama Canal was one of the five keys to the British Empire

Already addressed

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
Britain controlled Columbia

ColOmbia!

Quoting Polot (Reply 19):
Colombia

Gracias



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 24):
It was the French who started building the canal, they sold all the construction equipment and design to the US in 1904. Nothing to do with the British.

Let me explain this, it really isn't that complicated.

In the early 20th century, the British Empire needed to maintain control of several key shipping lanes around the world. The exact lists vary, but they were the Straits of Dover, Straits of Malacca, Cape of Good Hope, Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, and the Panama Canal.

While the British never technically controlled the Panama Canal, it was of huge strategic importance to them. Because of the Monroe Doctrine, their close relationship with the US, and American influence in the region, the British entrusted the construction, control, and protection of the Panama Canal to the US.

It was not the first or last time a country has had another country, actively or passively, do their strategic bidding.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2413 times:

Actually, the canal idea dates back to the 16th century with Spain drawing up some plans in 1529 or thereabouts.

Nicaragua was originally one of the two routes (Panama being the other) originally surveyed between 1850 and 1875 for the canal.

Interestingly, when the US Congress authorized the Isthmus Canal Commision in 1899, Nicaragua was the first choice. Regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 2):
173 miles which is roughly 3.5 times the distance of the Panama Canal.
I suppose it is doable, just would question the $40B cost.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
So, on the face of it the project does look to be pretty 'feasible'?

Oh, anything is "feasible". But the canal they are talking about will require a 50-mile - minimum - of very large artificial waterway on the east side, and another 15 or so on the west side. And those distances assume a dead-straight line from Lake Nicaragua to the sea. In terms of volume of earth to be moved, I'd guess at least 10 or 20 times the cubic yards of earth needed to build the Panama Canal.

Current estimates for Panama Canal construction run around $8 billion in today's dollars, and that was with pretty miserable working conditions. Nearly 30,000 workers died building the canal, mostly of Malaria. Considering modern standards, and even taking into account better machinery, I can't see this costing any less than $100 billion.

But then comes the other question. How will it fare economically? Panama is finishing up its widening and general improvements to their canal. The costs to transit Panama are not cheap - there will certainly be something of a price war between the two, So the two countries will have a hard time recouping the cost.

But without question shipping costs will go down.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3442 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 27):

Interestingly, when the US Congress authorized the Isthmus Canal Commision in 1899, Nicaragua was the first choice. Regards...jack

Indeed, and Nicaragua was the a route of transit from the US East Coast to the West Coast before the construction of the railroads. Passengers would take a steamer to Nicaragua, and river boat to Lago Nicaragua, a wagon train to the Pacific Ocean, and then another steamer to San Francisco.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Nicaragua has a GNP of approximately 7,3 billion US$. A completed canal would add to that, however the capital costs would have to be served and the gross of the annual income from the canal would not stay in Nicaragua.

Since there are plenty of alternative routings available, a competition to the Panama Canal would make little economic sense.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
While the British never technically controlled the Panama Canal, it was of huge strategic importance to them.

No it wasn't, India was the Jewel in the Imperial Crown, the fastest and easiest acess to that jewel was via the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal had no value at all to the British, they had no need of it. If you think it was please drag up a reference to it and post it.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30):
Since there are plenty of alternative routings available, a competition to the Panama Canal would make little economic sense.

China to the East Coast of the US what alternative shorter/cheaper route is there than cutting through Central America?


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 31):
China to the East Coast of the US what alternative shorter/cheaper route is there than cutting through Central America?

The north passage is about as realistic as a canal competing with an already existing canal. Ship/rail routings via Scandinavia and Russia are a potential route especially for Chinese inland destination/roigin cities

UP and BNSF offer intermodal rail super highways straight from the west coast ports, There are plenty choices already today.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 32):
The north passage is about as realistic as a canal competing with an already existing canal. Ship/rail routings via Scandinavia and Russia are a potential route especially for Chinese inland destination/roigin cities.

Having a duplicate canal is going to be cheaper, safer and quicker. Until global warming does it's bit the Northern Passage isn't an all year round proposition, I can't see any purpose in sending goods from China via Scandinavia to the US East Coast? That's a whole lot of backtracking.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 32):
UP and BNSF offer intermodal rail super highways straight from the west coast ports, There are plenty choices already today.

And how many trains is it going to take to shift 14,000 TEU from West to East Coast of the US? That's just one ship the Chinese are send multiple ships daily to the US.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 33):
And how many trains is it going to take to shift 14,000 TEU fr

30 trains with 120 well cars. Considering that not all 14000 TEU are off loaded at one single port, that there are local consignees and that there is a lot of trucking that's nothing that cannot be handled.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 33):
Having a duplicate canal is going to be cheaper, safer and quicker.

I said that the north passage is about as realistic. Which means I give the Nicaragua project no chance. Besides the high costs, this country does not offer any adequate infrastructure, lack of skilled labor to operate, etc..

I rather would bet on a project which is going on since decades as well (Niacaragua is nothing new BTW) and that is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico, between Coatzacoalcos and the Pacific. Not likely either, biut Mexico has by far better ressources to handle such a project.

The rail line from central and west China is a relatively new preject and has various terminals at both ends and varying routes as well. The connection to sea traffic to the US East coast would be at Narvik in northern Norway.

Another transit point between rail and sea could be St. Petersburg. There's a lot of flexibility build in as the rail network in Russia and Scandinavia is well developed.

.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
Considering that not all 14000 TEU are off loaded at one single port

Most of it is, full ships go to Long Beach offload and return relatively empty to China to repeat the process. The E class ships and others of similar size go point to point, they don't make calls along the way.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
The rail line from central and west China is a relatively new preject and has various terminals at both ends and varying routes as well.

That is an amazingly long rail route running thgrough multiple countries, which would only add to the cost of the goods being transported.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
The connection to sea traffic to the US East coast would be at Narvik in northern Norway.

Navik would need to be extensively developed, I just can't see that happening. It would also be a signficantly slower journey. If the Chinese are prepared to fund a second canal I can't see why it wouldn't happen, they supply the design and engineering talent, the locals supply the manpower, if you can teach some one from Panama to run a canal I can't see why this location would be any different.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
There's a lot of flexibility build in as the rail network in Russia and Scandinavia is well developed.

The rail network in Norway is not well developed, most of the country is single track, it's outdated and requires tens of billions of NOK in funding to make it an attractive proposition for moving the amount of freight you would be thinking of moving. The rail gauge is also different between Russia and Scandinavia, Finland is different again, so a train travling from China to Norway would require 4 changes of gauge, unless you build a track the same guage all the way, that would be massively expensive. A second canal looks like a good option to me.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 31):
No it wasn't, India was the Jewel in the Imperial Crown, the fastest and easiest acess to that jewel was via the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal had no value at all to the British, they had no need of it. If you think it was please drag up a reference to it and post it.

I never thought it would be so difficult for people to understand how the Panama Canal would benefit the nation that at the time was the world's biggest trading and naval power. That said, this chapter of History of the Panama Canal pretty well spells it out.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BD6...UeDfL8LZrgGnvoDADg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
30 trains with 120 well cars. Considering that not all 14000 TEU are off loaded at one single port, that there are local consignees and that there is a lot of trucking that's nothing that cannot be handled.

Even more to the point, how many ships are actually carrying their entire capacity? Very few, in the current maritime economy.

The land bridge idea brought up earlier is one I advocate. Within the last few years UP and CSX have teamed up to cut coast-to-coast time of intermodal trains down to roughly the same time it takes for an over-the-road truck to cross the country. That mostly impacts domestic shipments right now, but the land bridge idea is not going away, even with the expansion of the canal and the deepening and expansion of eastern ports.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 35):
That is an amazingly long rail route running thgrough multiple countries, which would only add to the cost of the goods being transported.

it works already with regular trains from central CXhina to Duisburg in Germany.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 35):
Navik would need to be extensively developed, I just can't see that happening. It would also be a signficantly slower journey.
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 35):
The rail network in Norway is not well developed, most of the country is single track, i

It is hapüpening already, The iron ore line from lulea to narvik will be double tracked all the way allowing for the additional capacity needed. There are trains running from Narvik with 1000 trons fresh fish to daily Oslo, southern Sweden and norther Germany , covering the 2000 km in 27 hours. The infrastructure is in place, used by many different modes, the opening up for intermodal traffic from the Far east is an additional source of traffic

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 37):
The land bridge idea brought up earlier is one I advocate. Within the last few years UP and CSX have teamed up to cut coast-to-coast time of intermodal trains down to roughly the same ti

Not only UP and CSX offer transcon services, BNSF and NS do as well. They don't even change the locomotives.

The fact that traffic is not balanced is adding to costs indeed. BTW, 16000 TEU ships are already sailing, they would be, with their 400 mteres lenght and over 50 meters width the standard for locks and waterways. Now, what would be the advantage to have these ships going through an additional canal when most of the distribution centres in the midwest require rail or truck haulage to their inland location anyhow? I think that this market is well served with PanaMax vessels.

What could be done is legislation changed, making feeder ships economically viable. So far it must be US build, US staffedin order to serve "cabotage" . The US would have to jump over their own shadow to allow that but it would be beneficial as it would take traffic away from the I-95 and other highways mainly in the East would be relieved from some truck traffic.

Now, not oly Senate and Congress but the Teamsters and the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa would need to be convinced.




 



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

I remember a textbook from the 1950s that discussed, among many peaceful uses of nuclear bombs, a plan to excavate a canal through Nicaragua with a chain of nuclear craters. Insane!

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 31):
China to the East Coast of the US what alternative shorter/cheaper route is there than cutting through Central America?

The Northwest Passage was already mentioned, and not as far fetched as some think. The circumpolar nations have already been active in securing continental shelf rights to offshore oil and gas, and supertanker shipping the more reliable means of transport to either Europe, Asia, or the US rather than very expensive pipelines. Already the route is open through the summer, and may soon be open year round. John Cabot and Martin Frobisher would be intrigued!

-Rampart


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38):
There are trains running from Narvik with 1000 trons fresh fish to daily Oslo, southern Sweden and norther Germany , covering the 2000 km in 27 hours. The infrastructure is in place, used by many different modes, the opening up for intermodal traffic from the Far east is an additional source of traffic

It's trashed at the moment, there hasn't been rail traffic between Northern and Southern Norway for about a week now. I very much doubt any track in Norway is capable to taking double height containers, none of the tunnels enywhere near where I live would be able to take them, plus as I said Oslo North is single track, you'd have to spend up large in Narvik to take container traffic, the port isn't container friendly.

Narvik Port




There was a plan to build a port near where I live to take container ships coming via the Northern Passage for delivery to Norway then feeder ships to the rest of Europe, the cost ran to about 20 billion NOK to build the port and surrounding infrastructure, plus additional costs to build a rail link, this died a quiet death. read this

Interesting map showing trade routes from China


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

The 27 hr rail connection I am talking about is via Sweden, Narvik-Kiruna-Storvik-.Hallsberg-Oslo Alnabru. Thze rail line from narvik to Kiruna is about to be cdouble tracked and the port is a project. I did say that there are a lot of options on the land bridge from central China to Europe, some are already working and some are planned. St. petersburg or a Finish port could as well be a trans-shipment point.

The data and information is brand new. a supplement of a leading transport maganzine from last Friday. There was a picture of Narvik port from a different angle but basically the same view included. Reason enoug to show this as.one of the many alternatives to a Niacragua Canal.

Back to that, these projects, Nicaragua and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, are rather old and have little chance to become reality. Especially not sinc ethe Panama Canal upgrading is about the be completed next year. There will be a 50% increase in number of ships and the largest container ships that can cross through the canal will have a capaqcity of 13000 TEU. Only very few box carriers will be larger than that.

Guess what the real problem is? Most of the ports on the east Coast will not be able to handle these ships. Not fully laden and in the case of NY (Elizabeth) the Bayonne Bridge nees to be raised..

But, as said before, the final destinatiuon for many of the containers are in the Midwest, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois where many importers have their distribution centers as these states are in the demographic center of the USA. The biggest cost is handling. Since the ports of LALB have direct rail access through the Alameda corridor the drayage cost must have been reduced. Sending off block trains to the various intermodal facilities in the South, and Midwest is daily routine. At the end of the day, the cost for a container shipped by rail over 2000 miles is not double than the cost shipped only 1000 miles.

Of the possibloe destinations, only the NYNJ area (better the NE corrodior served by the PANYNJ ports) has enough potential to justify direct services by large box carriers, but a 13000 TEU vessel will do the job here.



Quoting kiwirob (Reply 40):
very much doubt any track in Norway is capable to taking double height containers, n

not a single rail line in Europe can take double stacks, due to the catenary system, besides the tunnels of course.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Pope Asks Priests To Have Their Own Blogs posted Tue Jan 26 2010 13:30:34 by MadameConcorde
Does Amtrak Have Plans To Replace Their Genesis Locos? posted Sat May 15 2010 14:47:32 by 747400sp
Israel To Build NIS 1.5b Fence Along Egypt Border posted Sun Jan 10 2010 22:43:14 by Mortyman
Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities posted Sun Nov 29 2009 15:14:19 by FuturePilot16
Conservatives:: Time For Their Own Party? posted Tue Nov 3 2009 00:47:56 by Ken777
What If Iran Were To Sell Their Nuclear Weapons? posted Wed Sep 30 2009 10:16:09 by Slider
Nickelodeon To Build Theme Park In New Orleans posted Tue Aug 18 2009 10:59:51 by MSYtristar
Mexico To Build Wall To Keep US Citizens Out posted Wed Jul 8 2009 20:55:44 by Marcus
Am General/Hummer To Build Next-Gen Taxicabs posted Fri Mar 6 2009 16:14:10 by StasisLAX
Israel To Build A Jewish "Museum Of Tolerance" posted Fri Nov 7 2008 19:30:13 by Bravo45