Mississippi vs Rail

[kalos72]

So my group was talking through some of our ideas for pacification of the US and this question came up.

Originally, we were just going to use the Mississippi River to make way from New Orleans to the North. But then we realized there is a railroad that runs all the way from New Orleans to Chicago and a major highway right next to most of it.

And it keep going from New Orleans to LA as well...

I am thinking that the railway might be more efficient and easier to get back on line. Amtrak has alot of line running some really strategic paths...

But it IS the Mississippi after all.

[kato13]

I think when you start you would use the river as it would require less work to get things going. You also can move greater volumes using less fuel and man power. Dredging and port facilities will be a concern, but less so than inspecting, repairing, and securing over 1000 miles of tracks.

Long term just as in real life the railroads will win when you consider the difficulty in offloading and moving materials away from the river. That will eventually eat up your efficiency gains once you have to deliver materials to multiple inland locations.

[kalos72]

So your thinking since Natches to Cairo and Cairo to St Louis have no locks, use that river section to start and then work rail in the areas that have damaged locks?

Make sense...

My guys aren't sure what to make of the whole "The Mississippi has changed paths and now comes out at Morgan City." Seems a little strange to me...

[kato13]

Your plan sounds good.

If you have good offloading facilities handling the larger portion of the trip by water would be desirable. You use trucks short term to move materials inland and the volumes moved would determine which rail lines need to be prioritized.

[Raellus]

Don't forget the Mississippi's multiple navigable tributaries. It's hard to overstate the importance of rivers (and later, canals) to America's pre-industrial economy. I imagine that rivers would regain some of their historical economic importance after the TDM. You don't even need fossil fuels to move goods downstream.

[Targan]

River pilots with intimate knowledge of the rivers where they operate will once again be highly sought after and respected. With the lack of regular dredging and removal of obstacles, such specialized rivermen will become invaluable to safe and efficient navigation of the rivers.

[Legbreaker]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The rivers and associated infrastructure have been damaged/altered by flooding and lack of maintenance, however if suitable shipping can be found (shouldn't be too hard) or manufactured, it does offer a cheap way of shifting build goods relatively safely (marauders would have a harder time attacking a vessel in mid stream than on land).

The railways have also suffered from damage and neglect. Floods wash out bridges and causeways, nukes destroy vital hubs, even sabotage by a number of different parties is possible. However, it's easier to repair damaged rails than dredge the river.

Either way could work, just as either way could be the worst hell on earth for those trying.

[Adm.Lee]

Rivers are probably easier to start on, making them the short-term bet. Railroads can cover a lot more territory, making them the long-term project, in my opinion. IMO, MilGov should get to work on securing the lower Mississippi with a goodly portion of the returning European armies (with ships, boats, and sailors!), and following navigable tributaries as far as possible. That's the 2001 project.
Getting a railroad network up & running should follow from that. That should start in 2001, with a goal of moving things about by 2002.

As an aside, I'd get to work using as much of the shipping available in and around the Gulf, making contact with Florida, Texas, and points in between. Somewhere in there is oil-- production and infrastructure to be salvaged.

Getting the airships from the Ozarks would be icing on the cake.

[kato13]

Does anyone know if there are any CONEX handling facilities upriver or on the great lakes.

I have looked for some on the great lakes when I planned to put a morrow project base on a Great Lakes island, but I could not find any facilities or ships that used them.

I think most lake and river traffic is limited to raw materials on massive single cargo type ships or barges. That might limit how efficiently you can move things.


Edit. I should note there are a few passenger/vehicle ferries on the great lakes in addition to the cargo ships but I don't see why the Mississippi would have a similar number due to the number of bridges.

[kalos72]

I have google earth'd the entire route and while I have never seen a Conex type facility, I dont see why they cant be used. Sure the barges wont be designed for them and ports wont necessarily have cranes to pick them up to start with.

It will however limit the barges carrying capacity thats for sure. One MAYBE two high is all you'll get an be assured of no issues moving downstream.

Now moving into the Great Lakes, thats another thing all together. The saint Lawrence and Canada are two much larger issues I think.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by kato13

Does anyone know if there are any CONEX handling facilities upriver or on the great lakes.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=i...He1fBisQsAQIGg
Clearly there's something going on in that regard...

[kato13]

I know they would be near the coasts. I have been to Gulfport Mississippi (which is not actually on the river mind you) and have seen them. New Orleans is also one of the Largest conex handling ports in the world IIRC and they are about 90 miles upriver.


I was not sure if they would be upriver especially WAY upriver near Illinois.

I did find a useful link from the link provided. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_on_barge

Mississippi River & tributaries COB

There is limited use of this mode of transport because a lack of infrastructure on the upriver side in the United States. With the development of the Louisiana International Gulf Transfer Terminal at the mouth of the Mississippi River, container on barge traffic could become mainstream.

The link shows it is possible to st louis, but not mainstream yet. It even gives nice logistic numbers for the possibility of moving through locks.

[RN7]

New Orleans in the only major container port on the Mississippi River. There are minor container facilities at Baton Rouge and Memphis with equipment such as the Baton Rouge custom made barge stacker. This is a large wheeled vehicle with a crane that has a 30 ton lift capacity and can move 20-22 containers an hour.

On the Great Lakes there are some minor container ports at Burns (Lake Michigan), Detroit (Lake Michigan), Duluth (Lake Superior), Hamilton (Lake Ontario) and Toronto (Lake Ontario). These would include some light cranes or mobile cranes similar to the Baton Rouge barge stacker.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

On the Great Lakes there are some minor container ports at Burns (Lake Michigan), Detroit (Lake Michigan), Duluth (Lake Superior), Hamilton (Lake Ontario) and Toronto (Lake Ontario). These would include some light cranes or mobile cranes similar to the Baton Rouge barge stacker.

Cool. Thanks. This may help me restart a project.

You know I actually knew about the Memphis facility (my gf translated a document on Memphis logistic infrastructure trying to get Korean car makers to move there), but I totally forgot about it.

[kalos72]

Great info here, thanks as always.

I wasn't thinking about all the tributaries as well...lots of mileage there too.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The rivers and associated infrastructure have been damaged/altered by flooding and lack of maintenance, however if suitable shipping can be found (shouldn't be too hard) or manufactured, it does offer a cheap way of shifting build goods relatively safely (marauders would have a harder time attacking a vessel in mid stream than on land).

Also, you may end up with fallout and debris in the water. As well as possible corpses.