[bkor]

Everyone is forgetting another option. Say your factory is relying on parts delivered to you by containers. One week there's heavy storms somewhere in Asia and your containers from China aren't loaded. Currently the only option is to either always keep a buffer of parts or to gamble and use airfreight in case needed.

With such a rail option you'll have an alternative: by default use container vessel then in case of a problem switch to the rail.

[simonh]

>With such a rail option you'll have an alternative: by default use container vessel then in case of a problem switch to the rail.

That wouldn't make the rail system a sustainable business because it would only make money when there are problems with sea freight. To be sustainable it needs regular bookings. That's likely to be high value goods where timely and reliable delivery are important.

Also bear in mind these goods are shipped directly to cities anywhere in Europe. For some goods Madrid might be a better hub than any sea port and it's is nowhere near the sea, so sea freight would still need to be transferred to rail or road to get there. That's not such an issue for London, but it's a factor for many of these routes.

[alkonaut]

I suspect that a large part of european goods is dropped in Rotterdam, regardless of its final destination, simply because on a 20000 container ship you have many destinations. All those containers will continue on road or rail to their destination. A train to London and a train to Madrid doesn't have that detour.

[bkor]

There's a crazy amount of containers going from China to Europe. IMO just 200 containers on one train far from not enough. Shipping by sea is NOT reliable and there are an insane amount of containers being delivered every week.

I don't get your point about goods are shipped directly to cities? The train goes to Rotterdam and various other locations. Rotterdam has a huge infrastructure (train/truck/barge) already for delivering containers to the final destination. That would just be reused.

[crdoconnor]

Also blockades. This lets China continue trading with Europe if access to the straits of Malacca or Suez canal are cut off.

[jessaustin]

If we're considering such scenarios, train shipping seems much more vulnerable to interruption. After all the tracks transit many states rather than just one or two.

[crdoconnor]

If we're assuming that, say, Kazakhstan is the belligerent then yes.

If it's the United States then trains across central Asia are harder to stop and require bombing a third country (unlike a shipping blockade which just requires a threat and which doesnt require pissing off a third party).

[jessaustin]

Any nation would be hard-pressed to unilaterally close the Strait of Malacca. Pirates might occasionally delay or steal individual shipments, but I doubt even Malaysia and Indonesia could close it down together, if by some miracle they could agree to do so. Egypt would have a better chance closing Suez, but that's one of their few remaining sources of foreign cash so it would really hurt.

If for some reason USA wanted to stop a train, a few payments to the poorest dictator along the route would get it done. They wouldn't even have to stop anything permanently to make shipping much less reliable.

[crdoconnor]

The US could probably close down the straits to commercial shipping with one carrier group.

The US could certainly make a few payments to a poor dictator in Central Asia to stop a train unless, of course, that country was reliant upon that train for the flow of critical goods, in which case it would take more than a few payments.

[jessaustin]

Haha you would have fit right in with both of the last two USA Presidential regimes. All tactics, no strategy. No thought for "the morning after". If USA tried that kind of bullshit with a "carrier group", USA would lose a few ships if it were lucky. China, India, and Russia would leap at the chance to mix it up offshore with the big bully, only this time with the "support" of the entire world except Israel and possibly UK.

[arctangent]

It's a hedge bet.

[wastedhours]

I don't claim to understand logistics - but will we see companies pay for slots on the trains as insurance, but not use them if everything's fine? Train company gets a deposit, shipper gets an insurance policy for semi-important payloads?

[arctangent]

I'm fairly sure that such an approach plays a part in what would be a mixed strategy approach to mitigating risk.

Other ingredients to the mix would include insurance and complex financial trades (e.g. derivatives).

[wastedhours]

Is there a second-market in freight spots already? As in, I'm guessing major manufacturers need to pre-buy to a certain degree and then might not use them all (or are the shipping companies so over the barrel at the moment that it's a non-issue?)