Sea Monster.

[Jim Brady]

Google Maersk Triple E and have a look at the new ships they are having built and should be launched 2013/2015.They will dwarf the QE2 where they will be able to dock I dont know.They say Felixstowe,Rotterdam and Bremerhaven,I imagine even these ports will have to have major adjustment to handle the 18,000 containers that can be carried by these ships.They are stilll about 200 ft shorter than the supertanker Knock Nevis,which was 1,502ft long and in fact the largest ship ever built.
Well worth a look at.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[Gulliver]

Thanks for that Jim B.
One good Link Here(concerning emissions) states:-
'In international waters, sulphur and nitrogen emissions are barely regulated and the largest container ships have been found to emit as much sulphur and nitrogen pollutants as 50m cars.'
(50 million cars !)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/maersk-containers-shipping-emissions?INTCMP=SRCH


　
　
　
.....and my 'large' container ship of 1971(1,500 boxes) is now like a mere lifeboat in comparison.......
Gulliver

[Jim Brady]

Hi Gulliver,the follow up comments to the story made very interesting reading.Thanks for that.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[Gulliver]

Yes Jim B,there are some very interesting comments by readers at the bottom of that article.
One said that Maersk could be considering the possibility in the future that should the Suez Canal be closed due to conflict(indeed there is conflict there now,as we know),then they will have an advantage in being routed via the Cape.Indeed there is a calculation,allegedly by a former Maersk manager ,graduate in Transport showing the economics of the venture.
I'll post it here to save you finding it:-


''Rotterdam to Shanghai via the Suez Canal = 9,600 nm.
Rotterdam to Shanghai via the Cape of Good Hope if your ship is too big for the Suez Canal (like these ones) = 13,900 nm.
Duration via the Suez Canal @ 26.5 mph = 15 days, 2 hrs and 15 min. (the minutes are pretty academic to be honest).
Duration via the CGH @ 21.8mph = 26 days, 15 hrs and 40 odd min.
Fuel burn per hr @ 200 tonnes per day = 8.3 tonnes per hr.
Fuel burn per hr @ 100 tonnes per day = half that, 4.15 tonnes per hr.
So:-
Old ship going via the canal would burn around 3,017 tonnes. (Tonnes per hr x duration of trek).
New ship going the long way would burn around 2,665 tonnes.
Reduction in fuel burn for the trip = 13.2% in my book.
That's very impressive by freight transport standards which try to be efficient as possible for fuel burn out of pure economic necessity. It should be applauded, but it's not close to 50%. Also, I'd bet a whole years pay that once the global economic situation kicks back into gear properly that ship will be back up to 23 knots (as that's the max speed that they designed for this class). They're not going to turn round and refuse shipping requests due to no spare shipping capacity for the sake of being green, they'll simply tell the captain to put his foot down and hurry up because at max speed he can do about 15 trips a year (allowing for bad weather and port turnaround time) instead of around 12 trips.
Maths: 26.5 mph * 24 hrs * 365 days divided by 13,900 miles, minus some days for turn around (about 48 hrs a go) and bad weather (which is unpredictable and a sensible guess).
Doing an extra 3 legs per year is not bad where the profit per run could potentially run to millions of US dollars if freight rates are high and Maersk like any other shipper are likely to go for the profits over the green PR opportunity. Any takers on their fuel burn at 23 knots?
(I should probably point out that I have a Bachelors degree in transport management and that I used to work for Maersk)
　
"Fwoggie " 21 February 2011 10:04PM " The Guardian.

　
　
　
The Guardian article mentions one of the few ports capable of taking mega-container ships as being Suez,but why call there,as apparently they are too big for the Suez Canal anyway.Our correspondent above also admits they are too big for the Suez Canal.
　
　
'Suezmax is a naval term that refers to the restrictions on dimensions for cargo ships transitting the Suez Canal. Unlike the Panama Canal there's no locks, so the only real restraints are the draft (maximum depth below the waterline) and height (due to the Suez Canal bridge). At the moment these are 20.1m below the waterline and 70m above the waterline for the bridge - these ships are said to be 73m high.
Container ships get measured in TEU's. A TEU is a Twenty foot Equivalent Unit. Two of them = one forty foot container and you'll often see a forty foot container on the back of trucks, trains and the like around the world.
The general consensus in the shipping industry is that Suezmax TEU ship size is 12,000. This being a 18,000 TEU spec ship, it's far too big.


　
　
Another concern is the increased amount of road container traffic to FELIXSTOWE port(the only UK port able to take the ships.
Each lorry taking 2X 20 TEU's = 9,000 extra lorry journies per ship......


Gulliver

[Doc Vernon]

Wow!
These Monsters of the Seas are really just that!
After watching that Video (thanks Jim B) i was blown away by the sheer size of these Ships! (Also thanks to Guliver for extra Info)
And reading the writeup as well,it gives one an idea of what these Ships are like!
I cannot even get my head araound all this to be honest chaps! as ts just getting too damn big now!
As Gulliver mentions about a Ship of his,well the ones we sailed on were just a drop in the Ocean compared to these!
Makes me giggle when thinking of just one of my old Ships EG; the old Dunnottar Castle haha! Not even a lifeboat nowdays.
How times are changing!
But is this all in the name of costing! Yes i would say!
Cheers and thanks for this post!

[Ivan Cloherty]

[QUOTE=Gulliver;cargo ships transitting the Suez Canal. Unlike the Panama Canal there's no locks, so the only real restraints are the draft (maximum depth below the waterline) and height ([B]due to the Suez Canal bridge[/B]). At the moment these are 20.1m below the waterline and 70m above the waterline for the bridge - these ships are said to be 73m high.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Container ships get measured in TEU's. A TEU is a Twenty foot Equivalent Unit. Two of them = one forty foot container and you'll often see a forty foot container on the back of trucks, trains and the like around the world.
The general consensus in the shipping industry is that Suezmax TEU ship size is 12,000. This being a 18,000 TEU spec ship, it's far too big.
QUOTE]

The Suez Canal, is currently being deepened, alternative channels are planned and are in the bidding stage.
The air draught of 71m versus 73m is not a problem for these ships, as designers will have taken this into account as masts and funnels (if any) will be programmed with telescopic features to take air draught into account. As happened on the Thames in the 30's and 40's(the flatirons under the bridges) and the Manchester Ship canal, so it is nothing new

Also 18,000 TEU as compared to 12,000 TEU for the Suez transit is not a problem, as vessels will have virtually the same length as current 12-14000 TEU, but the beam has been increased to accommodate the extra payload. Width on the Suez is not a problem neither is current or planned LOA of any vessel scheduled to use the Canal.

You can be sure that Maersk and the shipbuilders will be having the finest Naval Architect brains working on these designs and will not be leaving it to some "Logistical Expert" who may fool the general public with his grasp of logistical mathematics, but surely cannot influence anyone on this site, who all know the sharp end from the blunt end.

More ports will be able to use these giant ships as a new generation of container cranes (already on the drawing board and some under construction) come on stream. They are only restricted to certain ports now as the current container cranes do not have the outreach to reach outboard of the new ships, but that will change, as economics will make it change.

You can tell the type of audience our Logistic expert was playing to by reading the inane remarks made by some of the correspondents commenting on the article. Their grasp of world trade and the importance of volume transit economics could be written on a pinhead and is probably restricted to the Bananas and flat screen TV's they mention, although some will have done it with tongue in cheek!

We are still some way off in achieving an economic passage of goods via the North West passage or Polar route, even if global warming does accelerate to make it easier. The cost of building ships for this route with the required deeper and thicker scantlings for ice duty increases the costs considerably

Just an observation

Ivan

[happy daze john in oz]

Saw some interesting figures about the impending growth of India. By 2018 it will grow by more than the population of Australia each year, and compounded that will only increase. The demand for larger ships will be justified by the growth of countries sush as India and China which is now the number two world economy having overtaken Japan. Economy of scale is what the boffins like to call it, and with world growth expected to eventualy be in line with India there is good reason to understand that.

[Willie Saunders]

Couple of good articles on a Dutch site on the impact these ships are going to have on marine insurance, and slow steaming. shipspotters.nl.>Ships+news>page190