Container Ships and Shipping Logistics

Message boards : Politics : Container Ships and Shipping Logistics
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11014
Credit: 31,303,944
RAC: 2,460
United Kingdom
Message 1888212 - Posted: 6 Sep 2017, 22:33:27 UTC - in response to Message 1888196.  
Last modified: 6 Sep 2017, 22:33:55 UTC

Next, the shipping cargo that passes thru the state's ports would be routed to other ports, another major loss of income.

Routed to which other ports?
The only other major west coast port is Seattle/Tacoma. That area would have to increase to at least 6 times its present size to make up for the loss of the two major CA ports.
Not going to happen, and if CA gets upset with the rest of the US they put on some import/export taxes, cuts off your supply of wine, fruit and nuts.
ID: 1888212 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betregerProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 6184
Credit: 14,866,205
RAC: 12,446
United States
Message 1888215 - Posted: 6 Sep 2017, 22:40:28 UTC - in response to Message 1888212.  

Next, the shipping cargo that passes thru the state's ports would be routed to other ports, another major loss of income.

Routed to which other ports?
The only other major west coast port is Seattle/Tacoma. That area would have to increase to at least 6 times its present size to make up for the loss of the two major CA ports.
Not going to happen, and if CA gets upset with the rest of the US they put on some import/export taxes, cuts off your supply of wine, fruit and nuts.

If California were to leave the Union, something which I consider to be quite fanciful, the same conditions would probably cause Oregon and Washington to join California.
ID: 1888215 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Darrell
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 03
Posts: 247
Credit: 1,339,783
RAC: 2,916
United States
Message 1888295 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 5:32:29 UTC - in response to Message 1888212.  

Next, the shipping cargo that passes thru the state's ports would be routed to other ports, another major loss of income.

Routed to which other ports?
The only other major west coast port is Seattle/Tacoma. That area would have to increase to at least 6 times its present size to make up for the loss of the two major CA ports.
Not going to happen, and if CA gets upset with the rest of the US they put on some import/export taxes, cuts off your supply of wine, fruit, and nuts.


Ports along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. Panama would make out like a bandit, they would have to dig a second canal. Other states can grow the fruits, nuts, and make wines, or they could be imported from other countries. But, since the Constitution provides no means for a state to leave the Union and such a vote to do so would be considered an insurrection, which the Constitution does cover. It provides for the President to call up the state militia and put it down, plunging the Country into another Civil War.
... and still I fear, and still I dare not laugh at the Mad Man!

Queen - The Prophet's Song
ID: 1888295 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11014
Credit: 31,303,944
RAC: 2,460
United Kingdom
Message 1888315 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 6:39:45 UTC - in response to Message 1888295.  

Next, the shipping cargo that passes thru the state's ports would be routed to other ports, another major loss of income.

Routed to which other ports?
The only other major west coast port is Seattle/Tacoma. That area would have to increase to at least 6 times its present size to make up for the loss of the two major CA ports.
Not going to happen, and if CA gets upset with the rest of the US they put on some import/export taxes, cuts off your supply of wine, fruit, and nuts.


Ports along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. Panama would make out like a bandit, they would have to dig a second canal. Other states can grow the fruits, nuts, and make wines, or they could be imported from other countries. But, since the Constitution provides no means for a state to leave the Union and such a vote to do so would be considered an insurrection, which the Constitution does cover. It provides for the President to call up the state militia and put it down, plunging the Country into another Civil War.

Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.
ID: 1888315 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 20706
Credit: 29,208,081
RAC: 26,262
United States
Message 1888382 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 13:53:44 UTC - in response to Message 1888315.  

Next, the shipping cargo that passes thru the state's ports would be routed to other ports, another major loss of income.

Routed to which other ports?
The only other major west coast port is Seattle/Tacoma. That area would have to increase to at least 6 times its present size to make up for the loss of the two major CA ports.
Not going to happen, and if CA gets upset with the rest of the US they put on some import/export taxes, cuts off your supply of wine, fruit, and nuts.


Ports along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. Panama would make out like a bandit, they would have to dig a second canal. Other states can grow the fruits, nuts, and make wines, or they could be imported from other countries. But, since the Constitution provides no means for a state to leave the Union and such a vote to do so would be considered an insurrection, which the Constitution does cover. It provides for the President to call up the state militia and put it down, plunging the Country into another Civil War.

Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.

It is a long way around Africa or South America.

It is amazing how much ignorance of the logistics of the world is on display.
ID: 1888382 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Darrell
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 03
Posts: 247
Credit: 1,339,783
RAC: 2,916
United States
Message 1888384 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 14:03:15 UTC - in response to Message 1888315.  


Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.


For the bigger container ships, I wonder if it would be possible to build a high-speed conveyor system for containers along side the canal. One ship could unload on the West coast and another load on the East coast. Would take some very large industrial size rollers and motors to drive them. Which would be more expensive, widening the canal, or building the conveyor?
... and still I fear, and still I dare not laugh at the Mad Man!

Queen - The Prophet's Song
ID: 1888384 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile JaundicedEyeProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 3058
Credit: 25,823,605
RAC: 6,645
United States
Message 1888392 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 14:45:28 UTC - in response to Message 1888384.  
Last modified: 7 Sep 2017, 14:58:35 UTC


Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.


For the bigger container ships, I wonder if it would be possible to build a high-speed conveyor system for containers along side the canal. One ship could unload on the West coast and another load on the East coast. Would take some very large industrial size rollers and motors to drive them. Which would be more expensive, widening the canal, or building the conveyor?

I think the new Canal can handle pretty much everything afloat(Commercial)

Beginning operation last year........."The existing locks allow the passage of vessels that can carry up to 5,000 TEUs. After the expansion the Post-Panamax vessels will be(are) able to transit through the Canal, with up to 13,000/14,000 TEUs."
http://micanaldepanama.com/expansion/faq/

That's nearly three times the size of former traffic.

And.....

"The Third Set of Locks project is the most important component of the Expansion Program. It entails the construction of the two new lock complexes in the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the Panama Canal, creating a third lane of traffic for bigger ships. Each lock complex will have three-steps. The project will create a new lane with one lock on each side, providing a capacity to handle vessels up to 49 meters (160 feet) wide, 366 meters (1,200 feet) long and 15 meters (50 feet) deep, or with a cargo volume of up to 170,000 DWT and 12,000 TEU."

The USS Gerald R Ford newest US HyperCarrier has dimensions of:
Length: 1,106 ft (337 m)[9]
Beam: 134 ft (41 m) (waterline) 256 ft (78 m) (flight deck)

Draft data was not given so if less than 50 feet it would sail through nicely.

[EDIT] Draft of the Ford is 39 feet HOWEVER the Air Draft is 250 feet and the limit due to bridges "190 ft (57.91 m) measured from the waterline to the vessel's highest point; limit also pertains to New Panamax and Balboa harbor. Exception: 205 ft (62.5 m) when passage at low water (MLWS) at Balboa is possible." So the Ford could not fit after all.
"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." " : >
ID: 1888392 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 20706
Credit: 29,208,081
RAC: 26,262
United States
Message 1888394 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 15:09:50 UTC - in response to Message 1888384.  


Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.


For the bigger container ships, I wonder if it would be possible to build a high-speed conveyor system for containers along side the canal. One ship could unload on the West coast and another load on the East coast. Would take some very large industrial size rollers and motors to drive them. Which would be more expensive, widening the canal, or building the conveyor?

The conveyor by far. The most recent project on the locks is over $5b or just above 6% of GDP.
ID: 1888394 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11014
Credit: 31,303,944
RAC: 2,460
United Kingdom
Message 1888421 - Posted: 7 Sep 2017, 17:06:38 UTC - in response to Message 1888384.  


Panama still has a problem because one of the locks is still too narrow to handle the bigger container ships. Due to the fees for the Suez and Panama canals it is still cheaper to use the West coast ports for trade from Asia and the Middle East.


For the bigger container ships, I wonder if it would be possible to build a high-speed conveyor system for containers along side the canal. One ship could unload on the West coast and another load on the East coast. Would take some very large industrial size rollers and motors to drive them. Which would be more expensive, widening the canal, or building the conveyor?

Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realise it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason that the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.
ID: 1888421 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Darrell
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 03
Posts: 247
Credit: 1,339,783
RAC: 2,916
United States
Message 1888645 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 16:36:58 UTC - in response to Message 1888421.  


Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realize it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason than the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.


That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor. If they can build a system like they have for the new containment building at Chernobyl ( Building a new containment building and sliding it into place), someone could design a container carrying conveyor. Just don't know which would be more cost effective?
... and still I fear, and still I dare not laugh at the Mad Man!

Queen - The Prophet's Song
ID: 1888645 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betregerProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 6184
Credit: 14,866,205
RAC: 12,446
United States
Message 1888656 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 17:04:55 UTC - in response to Message 1888645.  

That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor

Many container ships don't go simply back and forth. They go to a port and unload some cargo and pick up new then go to the next and repeat then another. It's a continuous cycle with the ship partially being unloaded and loaded at each port of call.
ID: 1888656 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 1948
Credit: 11,926,321
RAC: 747
United States
Message 1888660 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 17:24:10 UTC - in response to Message 1888656.  

That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor

Many container ships don't go simply back and forth. They go to a port and unload some cargo and pick up new then go to the next and repeat then another. It's a continuous cycle with the ship partially being unloaded and loaded at each port of call.

With fewer ports of call, the loading is simplified. The loading scheme will be modified. Not a major issue.
...
ID: 1888660 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11014
Credit: 31,303,944
RAC: 2,460
United Kingdom
Message 1888669 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 19:30:12 UTC - in response to Message 1888645.  


Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realize it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason than the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.


That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor. If they can build a system like they have for the new containment building at Chernobyl ( Building a new containment building and sliding it into place), someone could design a container carrying conveyor. Just don't know which would be more cost effective?

And now you have put all the heavy containers at the top of the piles, all the hazardous materials in dangerous places and all the containers containing valuables where pirates can easily get to them.
How wise is that?
ID: 1888669 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 20706
Credit: 29,208,081
RAC: 26,262
United States
Message 1888672 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 19:46:12 UTC - in response to Message 1888669.  


Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realize it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason than the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.


That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor. If they can build a system like they have for the new containment building at Chernobyl ( Building a new containment building and sliding it into place), someone could design a container carrying conveyor. Just don't know which would be more cost effective?

And now you have put all the heavy containers at the top of the piles, all the hazardous materials in dangerous places and all the containers containing valuables where pirates can easily get to them.
How wise is that?

Makes perfect sense to the wave the hands make it so crowd.
ID: 1888672 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11342
Credit: 4,338,570
RAC: 5,262
United States
Message 1888698 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 21:59:37 UTC - in response to Message 1888672.  


Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realize it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason than the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.


That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor. If they can build a system like they have for the new containment building at Chernobyl ( Building a new containment building and sliding it into place), someone could design a container carrying conveyor. Just don't know which would be more cost effective?

And now you have put all the heavy containers at the top of the piles, all the hazardous materials in dangerous places and all the containers containing valuables where pirates can easily get to them.
How wise is that?

Makes perfect sense to the wave the hands make it so crowd.


Put ya hands in da airre like u jes don't care, Snoop Dawg & da dawwwwg pound. Bow wow wow, yippy yo, yipper yay, wave the hands in the air, make it so, okay? :)
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1888698 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Mr. KevvyCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 1636
Credit: 341,381,435
RAC: 591,368
Canada
Message 1888701 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 22:07:06 UTC

I've created this thread and moved these posts from the Donald Trump thread as they were taking it over... please continue the discussion here and thank you.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
--- Margaret Mead

ID: 1888701 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11342
Credit: 4,338,570
RAC: 5,262
United States
Message 1888704 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 22:24:47 UTC

So, who in the discussion actually knows logistics?
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1888704 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 20706
Credit: 29,208,081
RAC: 26,262
United States
Message 1888705 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 22:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1888698.  


Before you even consider that conveyor system you need to study the art/science of loading container ships.
You will soon realize it is as stupid unrealistic idea. If for no other reason than the last ones off need to be the first ones back on.


That problem would be easily solved by reversing the stacking order at the original loading port for a ship that would use the conveyor. If they can build a system like they have for the new containment building at Chernobyl ( Building a new containment building and sliding it into place), someone could design a container carrying conveyor. Just don't know which would be more cost effective?

And now you have put all the heavy containers at the top of the piles, all the hazardous materials in dangerous places and all the containers containing valuables where pirates can easily get to them.
How wise is that?

Makes perfect sense to the wave the hands make it so crowd.


Put ya hands in da airre like u jes don't care, Snoop Dawg & da dawwwwg pound. Bow wow wow, yippy yo, yipper yay, wave the hands in the air, make it so, okay? :)

Worse. Most ships don't do one port call and get empty. They might start in a couple of Chinese ports, head to Korea, then Taiwan, then Japan, then across the Pacific to Vancouver, down the coast to Los Angeles, then down around the cape making a call or two, a call or three on the East coast of the Americas, then across the Atlantic, make a call in England, then into the Mediterranean for more stops maybe with a detour into the Black Sea, through the Suez, calls in India and Indonesia, a drop down to Australia, finally heading back to China to complete the circuit. If you break that and make them unload in Panama, then they have to come back across the Pacific empty at huge additional expense to the shipper. Not going to happen!

So sorry, if #calexit, you are paying port fees to California or your goods are going to take an additional month to get to you.

BTW besides those hazmat containers there are all the refrigerated containers that have to be powered. Don't forget even though many are being trans-shipped various coast guards and customs may insist on inspection and even bar some goods. While computer loading programs have made this a bit easier, I'm sure an experienced Navy sailor like Darrel can figure this out and make sure he keeps the ship safe from pirates while making sure the containers stay in place through a typhoon.

Oh, just how are you going to power that refrigerated container on the conveyor? Is Panama going to allow that hazmat container on the conveyor?

Wave your hands more emphatically.
ID: 1888705 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11014
Credit: 31,303,944
RAC: 2,460
United Kingdom
Message 1888711 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 22:51:50 UTC - in response to Message 1888704.  

So, who in the discussion actually knows logistics?

Not me, that was my Dad's line of business and it looked totally boring to me, but I think some rubbed off and stuck in the back of my mind.
Some of it just looks like common sense logical .
ID: 1888711 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 1948
Credit: 11,926,321
RAC: 747
United States
Message 1888713 - Posted: 8 Sep 2017, 22:59:15 UTC - in response to Message 1888705.  

Wave your hands more emphatically.

Is that how we put man on the moon?

Har
...
ID: 1888713 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Container Ships and Shipping Logistics


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.