Proposed Ocean Linking Nicaragua Canal Project

[Victrola1]

The US$40 billion channel that would compete with the Panama Canal planed to be 278-kilometre long, 230-520 metres wide and 27.6-metre deep

Nicaragua last Monday approved a proposed route for a shipping channel to link the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that would rival the Panama Canal, in a US$40 billion project that although according to experts is absolutely feasible from the technical point of view, raised many questions regarding its economic viability and, most of all, environmental concerns, as the channel would pass through Lake Nicaragua (also known as Lake Cocibolca), Central America’s largest source of sweet water.

http://buenosairesherald.com/article/164508/nicaragua-canal-project-technically-feasible-but-shroude

So far, just talk. If built, what possible effect on U. S. rail traffic? 

[MikeF90]

Victrola1

So far, just talk. If built, what possible effect on U. S. rail traffic? 

Another one of these questions that requires a crystal ball, some dice, and a ouija board to sort out the supply and demand issues.

The Panama Canal expansion has had some glitches but is progressing. Given the need for timely shipment of goods, the lines with the largest ships have little alternative but to pay the expected increased rates. Will larger post-Panamax ships cut U.S. rail traffic volumes - obviously depends on overall growth.

Another canal might increase competition to reduce rates .... or not. They could just match Panama and compete on something else (transit time?). A huge gamble that I wouldn't invest in.

The possible opening of a polar route is another factor.  Bring out your fast runners and an icebreaker or two.

In the meantime, lie back on the couch, break out the popcorn and enjoy the show.

[CMStPnP]

I don't think it will have any impact on rail traffic and I think the expected impact of the widening of the Panama Canal is probably a little overblown.     We went through this once before as a country with the St. Lawerence Seaway.    Several Railroads built up lines for that including the Milwaukee Road and it's Southwest line from Racine in the hopes that several Great Lake Harbors would become centers of trade (including Milwaukee harbor).    It never really came to fruition and died on the vine.

Nicaraqua I think is wasting money on this project and I agree with two canals the last one built probably will not be financially viable, long term.     Could potentially lead to a price war but more likely to lead to an ecological disaster.....which is sad.       Best use of Central American funds is building a standard guage railway link between North and South American continents.     That would probably spur trade and enhance state treasuries along the route more than another Canal.

[Leo_Ames]

Its only chance would've been had they done it before Panama's expansion. They missed their opportunity so I can't imagine it ever happening. 

[Murphy Siding]

     Seems like for $233 million per mile, a better investment might be a railroad between the oceans.  Heck, for that price you could double track it.

[Firelock76]

I remember talk about a proposed canal through Nicaragua 50 years ago.  It was even postulated it could be built cheaply using underground nuclear explosions.

It hasn't happened yet.  Teddy's Big Ditch is still the only ball game in town.

[SALfan]

I believe the French considered a route thru Nicaragua before settling on Panama.

[Rader Sidetrack]

Murphy Siding

     Seems like for $233 million per mile, a better investment might be a railroad between the oceans.  

There already is a railroad between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean in Central America.  Its called the Panama Canal Railway, and is a joint venture of KCS and Mi-Jack (a manufacturer of intermodal lift equipment).

http://www.panarail.com/home.html

The first train between the two oceans ran in January 1855, nearly 50 years before the Panama Canal opened to the first ship.

[DSchmitt]

Nicaragua Canal proposals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The Nicaragua Canal proposals go back as early as the 1850's and most treaties involving interoceanic canals up to about 1890 were based on the assumption that Nicaragua would be the canal route.  It wasn't until the French started in Panama that anybody really looked at Panama for a canal.

[Falcon48]

It's not self evident that these canal projects would adversely affect rail volumes.  Now, at first blush, that may seem like a strange statement.  After all, the reconstructed Panama Canal (and the Nicaragua canal, if it were ever built) would accomodate large container ships.  That could , in theory, cut out long distance, cross country rail routings.  But consider this.  If container ships from Asia went through the canal to get to the east coast rather than discharging their cargoes at a west coast port, their round trip transit time would double or triple (the same would be true for traffic coming from Europe, only in reverse).  That means a shipping company would need many more ships to handle a given amount of cargo, and ships are hugely expensive to build and operate.  

The question then becomes if the canal routings will generate sufficient additional revenue for a shipping company to justify the costs of the addtional ships.  That's pretty dicey.  Of course, a shipping company would be able to get more revenue for some canal moves, since the some of the shippers would no longer need to pay for a long rail move.  However, that revenue opportunity would likely only be significant for traffic destined to places close to the east coast.  Traffic destined for interior points would still need a long land movement, although it might be from the east coast rather than the west coast..  Stopping ships at multiple ports is likely not an option, because that also would result a a large increase in transit time and a need for even more vessels to handle a given amount of cargo.

It will be interesting to see how this works out once the "new" Panama Canal goes into service.    My guess is that the revenue isn't there to justify the cost of the additional ships needed to cut out most cross-county rail routings. 

[gregc]

Falcon48

It will be interesting to see how this works out once the "new" Panama Canal goes into service.    My guess is that the revenue isn't there to justify the cost of the additional ships needed to cut out most cross-county rail routings.

Just as railroad freight is limited to the width of two horses, ships are often designed no wider than the Panama canal.   the U.S.S Reagan is too large to fit through the Panama Canal.  Wouldn't it be in the U.S. interest to build a wider canal?

[Falcon48]

gregc

Falcon48

It will be interesting to see how this works out once the "new" Panama Canal goes into service.    My guess is that the revenue isn't there to justify the cost of the additional ships needed to cut out most cross-county rail routings.

Just as railroad freight is limited to the width of two horses, ships are often designed no wider than the Panama canal.   the U.S.S Reagan is too large to fit through the Panama Canal.  Wouldn't it be in the U.S. interest to build a wider canal?

 Sure it would be in U.S. interests (both military and commercial) to build a wider canal than the "old" one (particularly if someone other than the U.S. taxpayers pay for it,, which is what is going on in Panama right now).  I wasn't questioning that..  What I was questioning is whether a wider canal represents a major threat to U.S. railroads' intermodal traffic.  

The only way a wider canal would be a big threat to U.S. rail intermodal traffic is if the additional revenue the ocean carriers could obtain by cutting out the rail move would justify the costs of the additional ships that would be needed to route traffic via the canal, rather than just running a shuttle service across the ocean to a port on the nearest U.S. coast (figure 2-3 times the shipping capacity of a "shuttle" would be needed to handle the same amount of traffic through the canal to the opposite U.S. coast).  Doubtless, there is some potential additional revenue to be had.  For example, a shipment from Asia to the NYC area could move to the Port of Newark and avoid a cross country rail move, so the ocean carrier could presumably capture some of the savings in its rates.  On the other hand, there probably isn't a whole lot of additional revenue to be had on a shipment moving to, say, Chicago, since you would just be substituting a rail move from an east coast port for a rail move from a west coast port .  

A wider canal would, of course, permit bigger ships than those which can use the current canal.  But , whether the ships are "big" or "small",  you still need 2-3 times the shipping capacity to move a given amount traffic through the canal to the opposite U.S. coast than you do if you just shuttle back and forth to a port on the nearest U.S. coast..  I don't think the ecomonics will justify the additional shipping capacity on any kind of widespread basis.  We shall see..

[jrbernier]

Greg,

  The Essex class carriers of WWII barely 'fit' through the locks(they had to move the light poles to allow them to transit).  And after they were rebuilt with angled flight decks, they did not fit.  None of the current aircraft carriers can transit the Panama Canal.

Jim

[Falcon48]

jrbernier

Greg,

  The Essex class carriers of WWII barely 'fit' through the locks(they had to move the light poles to allow them to transit).  And after they were rebuilt with angled flight decks, they did not fit.  None of the current aircraft carriers can transit the Panama Canal.

Jim

You raise a point that some may not know.  "Widening" the Panama Canal is mostly about widening the locks, not the canal itself..  Most of the "canal" isn't really a canal at all.  It's an artificial lake that's above sea level (which is why you need locks at both ends, to raise ships up to the level of the lake, and then lower them again).  This design feature was critical.  The French had tried to build a "sea level" canal and failed (partly becuase of diseases and partly because of enginneering issues they were never able to solve).  Some of the early designs for the U.S. built canal also called for a sea level canal, This would have been immensely more difficult to build than the "artiificial lake" design actually built, would not have had as much capacity and would have quickly become obsolete due to the increase in size of ships after the canal was completed..   

[tomikawaTT]

Another factor which has to be cranked into the equation:

A Nicaragua Canal would still have to have locks, since different Mean Sea Level at the two ends and the effect of tides would have really fast water in a lockless ditch.  Really fast water in a narrow ditch with ships in it is a recipe for disaster.  Really fast water carrying life forms from one ocean to another is a recipe for ecological disaster.

So, how big would those locks be?  Good question.

Actually, there has always been TALK about a Nicaragua canal.  The same can be said for HSR from Los Angeles to Las Vegas...

Chuck

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Schematically, an interoceanic canal at Nicaragua would be almost identical to the Panama Canal.  Lake Nicaragua and its outflow river are analogous to Gatun Lake and the Chagres River.