In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 28/02/2020 18:36, John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.


What size ships can use the St Lawrence these days?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 18:36:25 on Fri, 28 Feb 2020,
John Levine remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.

So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 28/02/2020 22:12, John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?


Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 29/02/2020 22:20, John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.


Apparently container traffic doesn't figure at the moment though there
are proposals for a feeder service from Oswego to Nova Scotia for
transhipment to ocean going services.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 22:12:28 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:58:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:12:28 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.

Recliner wrote:

It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

And on one occasion a GM locomotive to Irish Rail but that was more to
meet a crew training schedule
rather than the loco perishing on a sea voyage.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.


At least one of the large container shipping companies that was already
heavily in debt is attracting concern as to how it may ride a period of
downturn.

https://gcaptain.com/cma-cgms-debt-p...d-virus-fears/

The knock on effects of reduced trade will be felt here by others as well,
not many days pass without a CMA vessel calling in to Southampton. There
is some relevance to UK Railway ,many of the containers they carry are
moved to and from the Port by train. We could see trains of container
flats progressing with lots of gaps in a few weeks time.

If things get too bad then companies may reassess their dependence on
somewhere like China for production behind the brandnames and no longer put
all their eggs in one basket , we may even see some manufacturing return.
One thing we may have give up is buying some cheap electrical components
sourced from China that cost little more than the postage. I reckon ebay
will soon have a lot less items available for immediate delivery before
too long has passed.

GH