Not sure if GP meant the math for just the trains bit. There is an increase in handling, and everytime the container changes hands, it's going to cost (assuming dearly). First the ship has to berth (cost), unloaded using QC gantry (cost) onto an ITV (cost) where it gets stacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) in a yard (cost) and then unstacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) onto a truck/ITV (cost) which takes it to a stacker/gantry (cost) which then stacks it onto a train (cost). This is then probably going to be reversed on the other side of the train destination assuming it's a port.

The handling is an opportunity too, though. Now you can merge cargo from several ships, and split the cargo from one ship to several others.

Rarely do all containers go in one large batch from just one port to another single one.

i don't disagree, but were it that advantageous, there would be islands in the pacific where this happened

Sounds like what they need is a conveyor belt

Some sort of a sideways space-elevator.

Space fountain working with containers! :)

why not a slingshot?

terrific idea

Pretty fragile though.

idk, could be addressed with segmentation and redundancy thou

Not if you put it on some sort of rail system, and make sure each unit that's on the system has the capability to push/stop itself on this rail system.

24000 TEU ships don't fit into Panama canal.

Well they didn't mention 24000 teu.

Or are you saying they wouldn't be limited by panamax, so could theoretically lower costs on the shipping portion?

They did calculate with 24000 TEUs, edited the comment afterwards. All good.

Yup, I did. I had that thought like, wait, can that big a ship fit through the Panama canal? The answer is... no ;)