Trains are cool, but a containership can move a lot more. A better option might be a second canal.
That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails.
6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second.
Largest container ports do 40 million containers per year, that's about 1 per second.
Main problems would be politics and mountains.
By this analogy, no need to limit to one port, either.
But even this analogy doesn't quite hold true, because tracks v. ports are apples v. oranges. The proper comparisons here would be tracks v. navigation routes and ports v. rail depots.
That's quite an assumption. Yeah, that might be a reasonable (if brisk) cruising speed, but the average is probably gonna be a fair bit slower than that, especially when passing through cities or mountains.
> 6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second.
Technically 8 (under the above assumption), since containers can double-stack (though not all tunnels offer enough clearance for it).
Still, real-life throughput's usually gonna be a lot lower than this theoretical maximum (by at least an order of magnitude, if not more), namely because trains can't really be packed end-to-end on a track when moving at any useful speed; they ain't exactly able to stop on a dime, so for safety reasons there's gonna be a fair bit of distance between trains.
Further, if you're going to count the time it takes for ports to load/unload containers, then it's only fair to do the same for train depots.
In other words, most countries can cut out dozens of middlemen.
“There can be delays of up to seven days on the route – and no one expected this to happen. We are now running up to 50 trucks a week from China to Europe,”
The truck bit is because they're switching to trucks to avoid the congestion on the train. It's partly due to success, partly due to problems on other modalities (air+container vessel).
Also "China-Europe rail services had been suffering from recent delays caused by military movements at the Kazakh-China border, and there had also been congestion issues at the Poland-Belarus border hub of Malaszewicze."
Though you could also summarize this as growing pains. It's pretty normal and expected to run into issues as usage greatly increases. The article does mention that the cost was subsidized by the Chinese government. Not sure how much economies of scale would apply here (more usage, lower cost, less need to subsidize). 2020 had a crazy jump on the amount of cargo on Chine-Europe by rail.
Strategically, it's an issue that all countries between origin and destination can influence the movement of goods with this method. It's less of a factor with shipping.
I think there are a lack of people working in logistics in these comments. The modality depends on the circumstances. And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost. A container vessel is cheaper because of the reduced friction and the ability to scale. Those cost savings are very beneficial to loads of shipped goods. It's not always beneficial though, in which case another modality is used.
If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used.
> Trains are low throughput, low latency.
This is too simplistic. You can ship by air/truck/train/barge/vessel. A train is _not_ low latency. It takes a while before the entire train is full (stacked). It's way quicker to drive off with a container on a truck. For a long distance, a train is sometimes a solution. For short distances there is too much of a delay. Train/Barge are quite similar in this.
> That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails.
Ugh. How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries? It's a pretty simplistic view. Depending on the need the right solution is chosen. But you cannot just ignore that a big vessel uses way less energy per container than anything else. Thereby it'll be significantly cheaper.
A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need. Meaning, if urgent, by air. But a combination of modalities is easily possible. Meaning, the majority on a big container vessel. Then any unexpected things by train (China->Europe).
I do work in logistics, thanks for asking :)
> And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost.
"Cost" is a tricky subject. Yes, price-wise a container ship is usually cheaper (past a certain distance), but that's only one aspect of cost-to-business. Transit time is another aspect, since it imposes its own costs - both tangible (e.g. spoilage) and intangible (inventory "in limbo" for longer).
EDIT: not to mention externalized costs, like pollution. Right now trains and ships are both pretty bad (and trucks even worse), but - per another comment of mine in this thread - trains (and trucks) can at least be electrified, meaning they could ultimately derive their power from solar/wind/nuclear/geothermal/etc. Ships have fewer options there; the only feasible option of which I'm aware is nuclear, and that doesn't seem to be very common at all.
That said:
> If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used.
And there are a lot of situations where a train is indeed the cheapest option, or at least cheaper than a ship. And that could be improved further with better economies of scale - i.e. more rails, and more trains on those rails.
> A train is _not_ low latency.
I meant compared to ships. Obviously there are yet-lower-latency modes of freight transportation, including trucks (depending on distance; at longer distances, trains and even ships eventually overtake trucks, but for short distances they're about as good as it gets), but compared to ships, trains are definitely the "low latency" option, both due to better speed and due to loading/unloading times.
> How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries?
We're talking about a situation where a rail connection already exists, which would mean that the issue of different rail standards across countries would already be addressed.
> A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need.
Obviously. Nobody's arguing otherwise.
It's not about throughput or latency. It's about cost. Shipping is _way_ cheaper than anything else. Trains are quicker, but also more expensive. Barge/Train is again cheaper than a truck, but in various cases only a truck is a good option.
> I also think that is true generally today
It's not true in the slightest. If something needs to arrive quicker another modality can be used. What's important is than it is predictable. Meaning, something arrives every week around the same day. Latency can cover up scheduling issues. It's much cheaper and better to control the scheduling issue.
Yes, currently shipping by sea is cheaper, even if it means sending several containers' full of stuff to a place that doesn't need them by the time they arrive. Or worse, sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere in anticipation of them maybe needing it soon -- because by the time they need it, it's too late to start sending it.
This is of course very wasteful, and the high latency is the source of the waste. But it still comes out ahead in the books.
What I'm saying is that hopefully maybe in the future the parameters of the equation look different, and it's no longer sensible to send huge batches of things just to patch over delivery problems relating to latency.
So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches, except on a global scale.
You're again making a lot of assumptions here. What do you mean with "sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere"? Similarly with "This is of course very wasteful". First you assume that companies often send too much stuff, then use that as a basis that there's waste. You haven't substantiated the first assumption!
> and the high latency is the source of the waste.
Again, this entirely depends on the business (commodity) and circumstances! Further, you take this as a given, while you did _not_ substantiate this at all.
For loads of commodities the time spent on the vessel does _not_ matter. For others it might be a mix. Sometimes it's important that things arrive on a regular basis. Sometimes it's not important.
> So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches
Lean manufacturing car companies are happily using container vessel to transport their car parts. I've already mentioned the latency argument is missing the point quite a bit: the scheduling is important. A factory that runs out of parts is way more important than the 2 weeks vs 4-6 weeks. If the 2 weeks cannot be trusted upon it won't work.
Further, substantiate your assumptions. I don't see anything referencing a particular business, the costs associated, etc. Just guesswork.
If they manage to shave a week off the overhead elsewhere (e.g. by throwing money at it), they can switch from flights to rail, and likely achieve the same quality of service at a lower cost.
A tiny fraction is the answer. Shipping back and forth has huge cost implications, including customs tariffs at every country the goods are held at and container/lcl costs (currently up to $20k per FCL!). Businesses aren't generally shipping loads of stuff that they don't need to be moved.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/suez-2-ever-gi...
Problems with pre existing rail network can be relevant when using existing old infrastructure, but if comparing to a new canal, the point of comparison should be a new rail connection.