The Panama Canal II

Wouldn't it just be easier to build a dedicated train track accross the land? They can unload the cargo containers from the ships in the docks, load them onto train cars and haul them straight accross the land by train- much faster then a ship moving through a canal. On the opposite coast, the cargo containers would be unloaded from the trains and loaded onto other cargo ships.

Canals are extremely expensive to build which is why they have to build it in Panama where the distance between shores is the shortest. A train track, on the other hand, can be built accross greater stretches of land for the same money. A dedicated rail system could be built accross Mexico, near Guatemala. The rail system and the docks together would create a lot of new jobs for Mexico as well, I'm sure.

Interesting. This proposition was the same one used to justify the Cromford & High Peak Railway; the line joined the Cromford Canal at Cromford to the Peak Forest Canal at Whaley Bridge and was originally intended to be a canal. The argument used to do it with a railway instead was inadequate water supply to keep the levels up and the proposed lock flights working.

Presumably Panama has sufficient natural groundwater run-off to support the development of a second canal in parallel with the first?

Panama just finished revamping their tracks and equipment. The railroad company is called "Panama Canal Railway Company" and runs coast-to-coast.

You idea of off loading the cargo ships on either side of the Atlantic or Pacific and reloading the cargo to continue on its way, would be cost prohibited with more than 100 ships a day 24/7 a year the ACP charges between $200,000-$300,000 (cash) per ship, each way. But you can't offload and on load things like tanker ships that carry oil, gas, liquid propane, liquid H2 N2 O2 and many other volatile chemicals that navigate this canal, so hope this helps.

Navy vessles need to be able to cross through as fastas possible in times of war or emergancies. you would not gain anything from using a railroad. Another thing is people who are travelling on a cruise? or maybe just tarveling to some place new.

What would the cost be of a new channel between Mexico and the US border. This would act as a safer shipping channel as well as security between the two countries?

Please look at a world map and notice that the distance alone for a canal between US & Mexico is at least 20 to 30 times greater than at Panama and on top of it you would have to dig through the American Cordillera which means going through the Rockies or the Sierra Madre.

Regarding a Railroad instead of a new canal, merchandize would require triple handling and would increment transportation time as compared with the canal, it might be better than going around Argentina but definately the cost of whatever you transport by train will be much greater than getting the ships across the canal. If you want, add that some shipping companies would loose part of their profit if thay had to share the trip with some other company on the other side of Panama and simply wouldn't use the railroad arrangement.

I feel that reading David mcCullough's book "The Path Between The Seas" should be manditory for anyone even considering this topic. Yes many advances in engineering have come about in 100 years, including modern hydraulics, but the obsticles involved are bigger than you think. Have a good read, and get some history under your belt before you leap into a new "Big Ditch" .Possibly the answer is to have ships that need to transit the istmus for speed comply with the size requirements of the canal, and slower freight could go around.

The proposed solution will only last a few years before the next "bigger" demand.

David McCullough's book is a great historical reference but the only hinderance to facilitating a larger canal is replacement of the existing locks, a little dredging and maybe widening of the Gilliard Cut. A small feat with today's engineering capabilities. The primary hurdle is the will and financing!!

Okay, maybe a lot of dredging, but compared to the original effort and the current capabilities available to modern engineers, it is light work at best! I'm not slighting or diminishing the magnitude of the effort, but merely pointing out that if the need were truly there, the "powers that be" would commision the work. Obviously, the US, under the mighty guidance of a democratic administration didn't see the value in maintaining a presence in the canal zone so why is this so important today?

Before one could or should truly consider such an option as replacing or enlarging the Panama Canal, one must first weigh the need for it's continued existence. Is there a sustainable need? I don't know! Commission a study and buy back the canal and let's find out.

The discovery channel look at the canal is very informative and most probably a great option. So who foots the bill?