Wave your hands more emphatically.

Is that how we put man on the moon?

Har

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

Wave your hands more emphatically.

Is that how we put man on the moon?

Har

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

That I don't know. Somebody made a profit though and that goes back into the economy in many ways. We did yap that all the way to the bank/economy. Just not your bank.

---

...

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

Gary, methinks the technology developed to pull off the moon landing has paid off in spades.

---

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

Gary, methinks the technology developed to pull off the moon landing has paid off in spades.

Yes but it was all new tech. A conveyor, not so much new tech and not new tech in many different areas. But you still have the issue even if Scotty beamed it across Panama for free, the ship sails back empty and an empty ship has to sail to pick it up. It costs less the sail around the cape than two empty ship movements. Is it really that hard to grasp the economics?

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

Gary, methinks the technology developed to pull off the moon landing has paid off in spades.

Yes but it was all new tech. A conveyor, not so much new tech and not new tech in many different areas. But you still have the issue even if Scotty beamed it across Panama for free, the ship sails back empty and an empty ship has to sail to pick it up. It costs less the sail around the cape than two empty ship movements. Is it really that hard to grasp the economics?

Not if you mean there will only be movement in one direction of which I doubt.

---

...

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.

Sounds good on paper but logistically it would be a nightmare. It's a canal not a port & one would need these at each end of the conveyor.

Har Har, how much did it cost? Did it have to earn a profit? Yap all the way to the bank!

Gary, methinks the technology developed to pull off the moon landing has paid off in spades.

Yes but it was all new tech. A conveyor, not so much new tech and not new tech in many different areas. But you still have the issue even if Scotty beamed it across Panama for free, the ship sails back empty and an empty ship has to sail to pick it up. It costs less the sail around the cape than two empty ship movements. Is it really that hard to grasp the economics?

Not if you mean there will only be movement in one direction of which I doubt.

Suggest you see where stuff is made and where stuff is consumed. Again you were building this because of #calexit

Suggest you see where stuff is made and where stuff is consumed. Again you were building this because of #calexit

Unless I miss seeing something on a world map, if California went it alone, they don't need the Panama Canal. They can have their Asian goods shipped direct.

If fact, I can't see why the East Coast can't arrange shipping in that way surely that side of America consumes more than enough to do so.

Okay now the cricket & football is over, time to sort out what's bugging me about this. I'm going to simplify some things. At the current moment (2016 figures) 14,723 ships traverse the Canal per year. With the new super container ships afloat it won't be long before the toll to traverse it will be $1m. Let's assume that 50% of that total is American shipping, so let's amalgamate them all into "America Lines".

That will be 7,361 traverses of the Canal. That's a lot of money.

What would be the annual cost to America Lines if ALL shipping was direct to a major seaport on the Eastern Seaboard thereby bypassing the Canal?
What would the annual cost be to tranship all goods for the Western Seaboard by rail?

Suez costs about $500,000.
Going round Cape costs is about $250,000 cheaper.
I looked earlier.

Okay, but direct from China, Taiwan, South Korea & Japan to the East Coast there is no need to traverse the Suez or the Cape.

Okay, but direct from China, Taiwan, South Korea & Japan to the East Coast there is no need to traverse the Suez or the Cape.

No you can run Drake's passage. The northwest passage isn't an option for about another decade of global warming.

Okay, but direct from China, Taiwan, South Korea & Japan to the East Coast there is no need to traverse the Suez or the Cape.

No you can run Drake's passage. The northwest passage isn't an option for about another decade of global warming.

What? The Northwest Passage doesn't even come into it.

For Japan, cross the North Pacific, bypass Hawaii & on to a seaport on the Californian Coast. For China, Taiwan & South Korea through the East China Sea into the North Pacific. If that is incorrect, could someone tell me what route the Japanese Fleet took to hit Pearl Harbour?

Okay, but direct from China, Taiwan, South Korea & Japan to the East Coast there is no need to traverse the Suez or the Cape.

No you can run Drake's passage. The northwest passage isn't an option for about another decade of global warming.

What? The Northwest Passage doesn't even come into it.

For Japan, cross the North Pacific, bypass Hawaii & on to a seaport on the Californian Coast. For China, Taiwan & South Korea through the East China Sea into the North Pacific. If that is incorrect, could someone tell me what route the Japanese Fleet took to hit Pearl Harbour?

California, Oregon and Washington State are the West coast.

Yep was just about to post correction of my error :-). Was also researching a bit more & found some fascinating info (logistically that is} :-)There are 9 container ship routes to the States from Asian Pacific. 5 to the West Coast & 4 to the East Coast via the Panama Canal.
The 4 to the East Coast take 22 days
The 5 on the West Coast take:
10 days
11 days
13 days
14 days
17 days

As seen in the link provided.

I'm assuming that the red circles & lines are distribution centres & transhipping routes. There sure are a lot of permutations just looking at that map :-)

United States container ports.

Edit: To admit to another error. Sorry Nick my mistake, I had better relearn how to map read & get the points of the compass correct :-(

Okay, but direct from China, Taiwan, South Korea & Japan to the East Coast there is no need to traverse the Suez or the Cape.

No you can run Drake's passage. The northwest passage isn't an option for about another decade of global warming.

What? The Northwest Passage doesn't even come into it.

For Japan, cross the North Pacific, bypass Hawaii & on to a seaport on the Californian Coast. For China, Taiwan & South Korea through the East China Sea into the North Pacific. If that is incorrect, could someone tell me what route the Japanese Fleet took to hit Pearl Harbour?

You said East, not West.

---

Yes sorry Gary. I wanted to do another post with the info I found & apologise for my error. Nick beat me to it. :-(

Think I'll stick to what I knew of them growing up - Pacific Coast & Atlantic Coast :-)

The other reason for not going through the canals from the far east was given as a clue in container placement.