CSX Double stack route problems

[zaleski]

The lack of double stack facilities at the port of Baltimore creates a problem for CSX.  This is, however, only one of the major problems for CSX.  The Howard Street tunnel in Baltimore makes double stack trains impossible from Baltimore and Philadelphia.  Without these ports CSX's double stack line will be open for ports to the south.  These ports have to come up through Washington after completion of the Virginia Avenue tunnel.  For another CSX problem, routing trains through the nation's capitol could be closed down to prevent terrorist attacks.  And the  southern ports as well as Philly, have other double stack rail lines to utilize.

Port of Philadelphia traffic will go up New Jersey and the CSX West Shore or the in town NS/PRR line.  Baltimore is not going to be in the running. In order to enter the double stack world, Baltimore needs to come up the funds to replace Howard Street Tunnel. If that were done, both Baltimore and Philly could use the CSX double stack line.  It is ironic that Baltimore is out of the running because of a inadequate B&O tunnel.  This was the railroad established to make the city competitive with rival  port cities to the north and south. Why didn't CSX get right on to the task of replacing the tunnel.  If it was too big of a ticket item than the former C&O through WV should have been the double stack line. 

 

 

 

[JoeKoh]

Seems in Railroading and life hindsight is 20/20.CP trains on csx(q166) have autoracks on them because they can't fit in Detroit.They cross in Buffalo.

stay safe

Joe

[blue streak 1]

Actually the Amtrak proposal to replace the B&P  tunnel is the answer.  Haven't found the latest proposal but it has one route decided upon with 4 separate tunnels.  They will all be plate "H" with room for overhead CAT clearance for possibility that it may finally be 25 Kv.  Provision for CSX to use them with certain track connections is also planned.   Here is draft plan but it is not latest.

http://www.bptunnel.com/images/BPT_Draft_PASR.pdf

 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Philadelphia will never have major container traffic volume because:

1. The Delaware River and Bay is too shallow for the the deeper 'draft' of the "post-Panamax" container ships.  The biggest technical obstacle to dredging to make it deeper is a 1/2-mile long granite ridge in the vicinity of Marcus Hook, PA; the biggest environmental obstacle is the objections to disposal of the dredge spoils, which will likely have a lot of contaminants.    
2. It's like a 100-mile (one-way) detour off the most direct trade routes, from the mouth of the Delaware Bay at Cape May, NJ - Lewes, Del.  By then the ship could be in Norfolk, with a much deeper channel, or New York/ New Jersey (they seem to not have either of the above dredging issues).

If the CN and connecting railroad routes serving Halifax, NS could get their act together, it would be highly competitive port.  I'm not holding my breath, though . . .

- Paul North.     

[daveklepper]

What about Boston and Prvidence?   Portland, ME?

[PNWRMNM]

daveklepper

What about Boston and Prvidence?   Portland, ME?

 

Will never be players because they have no hinterland of consequence and big container ships need deep water, which these places do not have. In addition I suspect that politically Boston does not want anything that smacks of blue collar work.

Hinterlands are important because they are the origins and destinations of traffic. New York City became the prime port on the East Coast because the Erie Canal expanded its hinterland at the expense of Philladelphia and Baltimore because the canal could transport wheat and flour much, much cleaper than could the competing wagons. The Erie also diverted traffic from New Orleans that would have otherwise gone down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. After the Civil War, railroads were cheap enough to capture most of the international trade North of the Ohio River. Ships go where the traffic is. 

Container ships are very expensive to own and operate. They make money sailing, not sitting in port. Operators will not make "pedler" runs along the coast wasting time at low volume ports like Philladelphia and Baltimore, even if the physical facilities exist, which generally they do not. That kicks out places like Providence Boston and Portland which can offer meager volumes at best. The lowest cost system is unload everything at New York which has deep water and a large "local" market, truck to and from destinations less than 250 miles, consider rail beyond 250 miles, rail to Chicago and beyond.

Modern container ships require deep water, which knocks Philladelphia and Baltimore out. In addition, as Paul points out each of these adds expensive and non-productive sailing time as compared to New York. Given all that why would CSX worry about clearances at Howard Street?

Next credible port to the south is Newport News. Its handicap is lack of local market. It is also more sailing time from Europe than NY. From Gibralter I do not know.

The three contenders in the SE are Charleston, Savanna, and Jacksonville. I believe only one will succeed in the big ship game since there is not enough traffic to support all three. It is possible that each could land one steamship line which the local pols will call success, since they still care about jobs, but at total cost higher than if traffic was all concentrated at one or the other.

The point is that import/export container traffic is not just about railroads. The traffic drives the business, steamship companies call the shots and the economics of both ships and land side development strongly tend to a few high volume ports.

Mac 

[caldreamer]

In response to the dredging issue in Philadelphia.  The dredge spoils could bd dumped out on the Atlantic Ocean.  The continental shelf drops off pretty steeply and nothing would be harmed..

[MP173]

Mac:

As always, an excellent review of the world of transportation.

Ed

[MidlandMike]

caldreamer

In response to the dredging issue in Philadelphia.  The dredge spoils could bd dumped out on the Atlantic Ocean.  The continental shelf drops off pretty steeply and nothing would be harmed..

 

First you have to haul the ocean-going barges miles out to sea.  The sediment and contaminants are very fine to soluable, and shifting currents at different levels will carry the contaminants to who knows where.  The continental slope is not fully stable, and dumping a lot of sediment could trigger a submarine landslide.  A submarine landslide caused the tidal wave that killed thousands in Indonesia/Thailand a few years back.

[BaltACD]

MidlandMike

caldreamer

In response to the dredging issue in Philadelphia.  The dredge spoils could bd dumped out on the Atlantic Ocean.  The continental shelf drops off pretty steeply and nothing would be harmed..

First you have to haul the ocean-going barges miles out to sea.  The sediment and contaminants are very fine to soluable, and shifting currents at different levels will carry the contaminants to who knows where.  The continental slope is not fully stable, and dumping a lot of sediment could trigger a submarine landslide.  A submarine landslide caused the tidal wave that killed thousands in Indonesia/Thailand a few years back.

Of course that landslide was triggered by a earthquake that caused one involved plate to rise about 70 feet above it's former level - moving all the ocean that was above it.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Based on the number of oil refineries and chemical plants along the Delaware River, any dredging spoil is going to be pretty nasty.  Consequently, just dumping the stuff in the Atlantic over 200 miles offshore is not a viable alternative.

[tree68]

MidlandMike

The sediment and contaminants are very fine to soluable, and shifting currents at different levels will carry the contaminants to who knows where.

Europe (via the Gulf Stream), which will likely complain bitterly.

[MidlandMike]

BaltACD

 

 

MidlandMike

caldreamer

In response to the dredging issue in Philadelphia.  The dredge spoils could bd dumped out on the Atlantic Ocean.  The continental shelf drops off pretty steeply and nothing would be harmed..

First you have to haul the ocean-going barges miles out to sea.  The sediment and contaminants are very fine to soluable, and shifting currents at different levels will carry the contaminants to who knows where.  The continental slope is not fully stable, and dumping a lot of sediment could trigger a submarine landslide.  A submarine landslide caused the tidal wave that killed thousands in Indonesia/Thailand a few years back.

 

 

Of course that landslide was triggered by a earthquake that caused one involved plate to rise about 70 feet above it's former level - moving all the ocean that was above it.

 

There were landslides of greater magnitude than fault displacement, but undoubtalby both types of movement contributed to the tsunami.  I am certainly not expecting a dsaster of that proportion here.  Nevertheless, continental slopes are areas of submarine landslide activity, with or without earthquake triggers.  The following is a USGS link on landslide tsunamis:

http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9752/3101

 

[CatFoodFlambe]

BaltACD

 

 

MidlandMike

caldreamer

In response to the dredging issue in Philadelphia.  The dredge spoils could bd dumped out on the Atlantic Ocean.  The continental shelf drops off pretty steeply and nothing would be harmed..

First you have to haul the ocean-going barges miles out to sea.  The sediment and contaminants are very fine to soluable, and shifting currents at different levels will carry the contaminants to who knows where.  The continental slope is not fully stable, and dumping a lot of sediment could trigger a submarine landslide.  A submarine landslide caused the tidal wave that killed thousands in Indonesia/Thailand a few years back.

 

 

Of course that landslide was triggered by a earthquake that caused one involved plate to rise about 70 feet above it's former level - moving all the ocean that was above it.

 

And in less that 35 seconds, too.  o.O

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Once again I've accidentally lost a pretty good post, in response to Mac's above.  Here's a very short version of it - from "The Geography of Transport Systems", Maritime Transportation, Evolution of Containerships, and Average Draft by Containership Capacity, etc. - just to preserve and share my research: 

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/ 

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/ch3c4en.html 

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/containerships.html

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/containership_draft_size.html

 - Paul North.

[NittanyLion]

zaleski

For another CSX problem, routing trains through the nation's capitol could be closed down to prevent terrorist attacks.   

 

0% chance of that happening.  The CSX tracks aren't nearly as close as the Amtrak ones (and look at where THEY are!) and if they're not touching that tunnel, they'll touch nothing.  

Plus they've taken a different tact: there's so many cameras and police around the little bit of track through L'Enfant and SW Capitol that if a flea so much as farts, they'll be on it instantly.  I work a half block from the tracks in that part of town, at a Federal agency.  No one ever voices any concern of any kind and those have to be the single most observed tracks in the country.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

In today's (Tues., 04 Aug. 2015) print edition of the Wall Street Journal, pages B-1 and B-2, there's a decent length article about why Portland, Oregon now has NO container service, since the last major ocean carrier pulled out this past March or April - it's tending to go to Seattle-Tacoma instead:  

• Shallow channel - 43 ft., as compared to 50 ft. at Seattle and 52 ft. at Vancouver, B.C.;
• Long ways in from the ocean (100 miles);
• Delays over most of the past 2 years due to labor unrest;
• Small volume - only about 130,000 TEUs in 2014 - as compared to 5.9 million TEUs at Los Angeles - so it lacks the economies of scale that the bigger ships need to be efficient, competitive, and remunerative enough to justify ships calling there.

The article mentions other ports facing similar challenges - Newark, NJ, Long Beach, Calif., also Sea-Tac, Wash., Jacksonville, Fla., and Baltimore, MD.  And those which are working and spending big $ to avoid those problems and the adverse results: Charleston, SC, and the Port Authority of NY and NJ. 

- Paul North. 

[SALfan]

Paul_D_North_Jr

The article mentions other ports facing similar challenges - Newark, NJ, Long Beach, Calif., also Sea-Tac, Wash., Jacksonville, Fla., and Baltimore, MD.  And those which are working and spending big $ to avoid those problems and the adverse results: Charleston, SC, and the Port Authority of NY and NJ. 

- Paul North. 

 

Several months or maybe a year ago Savannah, GA got approval to deepen the shipping channel in the Savannah River from the coast to the port.  Forget the new depth, but believe it is sufficient for the "new Panamax" container ships.  Good timing, if Savannah wants to preserve its status as the 4th-busiest container port in the nation.  Preliminary work has already begun - archeologists are excavating the remains of the CSS Georgia, an ironclad scuttled in the river by its crew to keep it from being captured by Sherman in late 1864.