Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, JGon said:

This makes zero sense to me.

 

First look at the topography of that area. The only area "feasible" (as in it would cost less) is where I put the red line. You are still cutting through 200 meter elevation of soil. Any other area you're cutting through Mountains! The canal would be roughly 70 km long. I highly doubt that would cost 28 Billion USD.  

 

Second... all this work for what?! To save a few hundred kilometers? Both the Panama Canal and Suez save thousands of kilometers (Weeks) from voyages. This Thailand proposal would be as long as the Panama Canal, but it doesn't have a lake in the middle which means even more digging and cost.

 

This will never happen! :glare: 

Land_Bridge.png

Land_Bridge 2.png

Land_Bridge 3.png

It's not a canal they're planning. Rail and road link. The ships won't sail across. They will unload and reload at each end.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Even if you go for the land bridge as opposed to the canal option, the unloading and reloading facilities at BOTH ends would have to be super efficient & economical to justify the shippers' participation.

 

Which might be a challenge ...

That means when you compare that to JGon's explanation, by road becomes even less advantageous, and people will choose to sail around Singapore.

  • Agree 2
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Even if you go for the land bridge as opposed to the canal option, the unloading and reloading facilities at BOTH ends would have to be super efficient & economical to justify the shippers' participation.

 

Which might be a challenge ...

Yes, that would be the challenge, I agree. But strategically it has to make sense. Chennai, Kolkata, Yangon are all major ports in close proximity. Cutting out the piracy prone Malacca and Sunda straits would be a huge boon, plus those waters are too shallow for some of the largest container/tankers. Of course everyone will cry foul on China - when don't they - for tipping money into it if they do. But Sretta's looking for a consortium. This would help all maritime trading nations, including the oil states in the Middle East.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca

 

Edited by bradiston
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Peterphuket said:

That means when you compare that to JGon's explanation, by road becomes even less advantageous, and people will choose to sail around Singapore.

And rail? Would seem to be the best choice. Containers fit nicely onto wagons. But oil? I don't see that happening unless they build an oil line across too. Cars? Easy by rail. Etc etc.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, bradiston said:

And rail? Would seem to be the best choice. Containers fit nicely onto wagons. But oil? I don't see that happening unless they build an oil line across too. Cars? Easy by rail. Etc etc.

I was already assuming railways, but unloading and loading containers by rail too takes a lot of time, and the train really isn't going to run for 10 containers, but we'll see if it ever gets there.

  • Agree 1
Posted

Speeding trade?  How much time they are talking about?  It must be saving a lot off time (days, weeks)to make up for the extra time to unload ships and then load the cargo on   the waiting trucks/ trains on the other end unload the trucks /trains and load the cargo on the Waiting ships .what a bout all the double/triple handling off the loads. More chance off damaged goods.

Will be good for the thai transport people who have the chance to do the work, depending who's in charge (getting a bones) to choose the transport companies.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Sorry but this is almost doomed to failure before it gets anywhere near the ‘drawing board’, it’s just a big dream that’s going nowhere.

 

According to earlier reports the ‘Joly Green Giant,’ indicated that the overland bridge proposal will knock of 14 days sailing time around the Straits of Malacca and thus save both time and money for the shipping companies.

 

I seriously question his previously reported 14 days sailing time around the Straits of Malacca.  Sure, the Straits of Malacca is a busy shipping lane, but it only takes a couple of days to sail from say Chumpon to Singapore, and a further 2 days to get up to Phuket.   A total of 4 days, and perhaps allowing another day for ‘traffic jams’ or slow movement through the Straits.

 

The average SMALL container ship has a capacity of around 500 (40ft) containers.  So, when the vessel docks at Chumpon the ‘Joly Green Giant’ is proposing that these 500 containers will be off loaded onto either trucks, or trains, and transported overland to Ranong, where they will have to be reloaded onto another vessel which will be waiting at that port for those containers.

 

With one 40ft container per truck, that would mean having 500 trucks on standby at Chumpon.  Oh, and then there is the little matter that some containers may well require refrigeration. Will there be enough trucks capable of providing such facilities?

 

Can you imagine a convoy of 500 trucks ‘racing’ down the highway from Chumpon to Ranong.  The return trip will likely feature on the next instalment of ‘Fast and Furious’.  What could possibly go wrong? 

 

The alternative would be to transport the containers by train.  Given that modern freight train can haul about of 50 (40ft) containers, that would mean having 10 trains on standby at Chumpon for this one vessel.  Then you need more trains on standby for the next vessel etc.  A possible safer and more environmental solution.

 

It must also be remembered that the order in which the containers were originally loaded onto the vessel has been determined by their eventual destination.  So, when the first container is off loaded at Chumpon, it is imperative that it must subsequently be the last container to be reloaded at Ranong.  This will require good planning (again, what could possibly go wrong?) and necessitate sufficient storage area at Chumpon or Ranong to put the containers prior to being loaded onto truck/trains/vessel.

 

ContainerShip.jpg.0db1f451d102b6c7924b03ee503204f6.jpg

Now consider the LARGE, or SUPER, container ships which can have a capacity of 20,000 plus (40ft) containers like the one on the photo above.  These would be a complete nightmare.

 

How much will the off-loading, overland transportation and subsequent re-loading cost the shipping company, plus the cost of having to have 2 vessels tied up?

 

Will the off-loading, overland transportation and subsequent re-loading be quicker than the possible 5 days sailing around the Straits of Malacca?

 

I personally doubt very much that investors, or shipping companies, will want to buy into this 'hair brain' scheme as the numbers just won’t add up for them.

 

Now if the ‘Joly Green Giant’ was to suggest constructing a real canal, like the Suez or Panama canals, then that would be more likely to attract investors and shipping companies.  Also, the cost of such a project would be considerably higher than the ‘land bridge’ proposal, thus there would be far more opportunities for ‘commissions’ to be had :shock1:.

 

Exactly.That's a great post ... lays the facts out, and not hiso pipe dreams. From a logistics point of view alone the idea is ludicrous. The so-called 'land bridge' would also be a nightmare for all involved, including anyone living in the vicinity.

 

The only sensible and viable solution would be a canal, and that's not really viable as other posters have pointed out.

Edited by BusyB
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
22 hours ago, JGon said:

This makes zero sense to me.

 

First look at the topography of that area. The only area "feasible" (as in it would cost less) is where I put the red line. You are still cutting through 200 meter elevation of soil. Any other area you're cutting through Mountains! The canal would be roughly 70 km long. I highly doubt that would cost 28 Billion USD.  

 

Second... all this work for what?! To save a few hundred kilometers? Both the Panama Canal and Suez save thousands of kilometers (Weeks) from voyages. This Thailand proposal would be as long as the Panama Canal, but it doesn't have a lake in the middle which means even more digging and cost.

 

This will never happen! :glare: 

Land_Bridge.png

Land_Bridge 2.png

Land_Bridge 3.png

 

Posted
On 12/23/2023 at 8:18 AM, webfact said:

He called it a "very important project, not just for Thailand, but also for the world."

 

 

And if you believe this the PM has a bridge to sell you.

 

 

Buffoon? Con-man? Both?

 

 

Easily the silliest idea since the Kra Isthmus Canal.

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
On 12/23/2023 at 10:52 AM, Henryford said:

There will be big brown envelopes from China to build this to avoid the Malacca chokepoint.

I don't think China is that interested. It has been shipping goods via rail to Europe for a few years now. Look at the current shipping crisis in the Red Sea. The rail service to Europe has become even higher in demand.

 

China-Europe Railway Express stabilizes global supply chains amid security concerns in Red Sea

 

Quote

The China-Europe Railway Express operated a total of 16,145 trains in the first 11 months of this year, up 7 percent year-on-year. A total of 1.75 million 20-foot equivalent containers of goods were carried, up 19 percent year-on-year, according to China State Railway Group Co.

The China-Europe Railway Express services reach 217 cities across 25 European nations, according to the company.

 

spacer.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, WhatMeWorry said:

Thailand will sell its soul to China for money. Its all about money with the Thais, nothing else matters to them.

I see this proclaimed on every topic on this forum. What do people expect? They're trying to earn a living. You aren't. All about money? What else is there? Charity? Everything free today? Anywhere you go, it's all about money. Timbuctoo, Fulham Broadway, it doesn't matter. Money does.

  • Confused 1
Posted
On 12/23/2023 at 3:34 PM, 007 RED said:

It must also be remembered that the order in which the containers were originally loaded onto the vessel has been determined by their eventual destination

Not quite the full picture.  Different containers can not be located together due to hazardous material contained inside.  Fire hazards are taken into account and containers with most fire hazards are loaded on the outer of the ships.

Loading ships with various containers is a complex proprietary software (as well as storing on land as in Port of Singapore).

Overall I don't see Thailand buying this kind of software or inventing it again.  Port of SG are using big machines from HP (formerly Tandem Computers) at each port (4 overall) with NonStop databases (formerly Oracle database but these went down to often) to store the info and the proprietary software running on top.  The machines can not go down thus many small Linux boxes won't work to date.  I

 

really doubt the Thai Gov has thought through the entire process completely.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
14 hours ago, bradiston said:

I see this proclaimed on every topic on this forum. What do people expect? They're trying to earn a living. You aren't. All about money? What else is there? Charity? Everything free today? Anywhere you go, it's all about money. Timbuctoo, Fulham Broadway, it doesn't matter. Money does.

It's more than money.  Look at what is happening with Chinese companies running the ports in Nigeria.  The Chinese are importing Chinese prisoners to work in these companies thus a further hazard.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
1 hour ago, HaoleBoy said:

It's more than money.  Look at what is happening with Chinese companies running the ports in Nigeria.  The Chinese are importing Chinese prisoners to work in these companies thus a further hazard.

Any sources for this latter statement? I couldn't find any.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...