Container ship breaks in half and sinks

Was a bit more complicated than the ships movements. Someone will possibly look it up somewhere on the internet. It was mainly only Zinc or Copper concentrates it occurred with. Put an attachment to the post but seems to have not gone. I know this because of a previous post regarding Bad Loading where ship had empty holds, the cargo we loaded in Esperance in 2 holds and sailed weight wise with 4 empty was such a cargo. We had to insert pipes into the cargo and drop thermometers down on lines and take temperatures 3 times a day. I said in previous post it was a 7 hold ship, this was me getting old it was 6 hold, I should have known better as have a shipyard photo of her from Mitsuibushi on her trials 18 inches above the computer. As said in bit that didn't go with the post, I cant remember at what temperature the surface water was said to appear, but had salvage pups handy if it did. That was an extremely long passage from SW Australia to Durban and was a daily nightmare due to the way the ship was loaded. Not the best loaded ship on the high seas at the time. Cheers John Sabourn

Never sailed on a purpose built containership, asked some time back if they ever got down in the water to their plimsolls. Cheers John Sabourn

John C
You are correct, containers come in 20 ft equivalent units (TEU) and 40 ft and as you say 15 ton for 20 ft. My fingers were fling and my eyes were not checking what they were writing.

The first proper container ship I sailed on,in 71 only carried around 500 containers and we only sailed between Tilbury(Inside berth, the first one in London) and Rotterdam thence to Quebec for full discharge and back load.
Even then the load plan was always worked out ashore as they had all the up to date information regarding numbers, weights, destination etc. London was a bit of a problem as the PLA insisted on all containers to be loaded to be first put into the shed they had built alongside the pier, before been taken out and loaded on board. Believe that was something to do with keeping Dockers numbers up. The PLA also objected to shore planners and as a result we would often spend nearly a week in tilbury loading the few hundred containers.
By this time container ships had reached around the 2000 teu capacity and with them calling at a number of ports in say Europe, loading and discharging and then the same on the other side of, for instance, the Atlantic, the job of the shore planner became even more important especially as they could be accepting containers for shipment virtually up to the sailing time. As John C rightly says in the early days these planners used standard weights for 20 and 40 foot units for planning purposes.
The planner sent his stow on board (no email or computers in those days) and the Chief Officer then sat down and checked the planners stow and stability calculations. This, as John C, says was meant to be done before any container was loaded but in reality very rarely happened. The calculations being done as you were loading and discharging.
The advent of P.C.'s made a huge difference and ship specific software loading programs were quickly developed that calculated stress and stability. Even so it was still the case that often the planners never knew the true weight of any particular container but relied on the rule of thumb method.
My mate was on the first generation Bay boats with P and O and their particular nightmare was the deck stow. They only secured the bottom tier if my memory is correct relying on stabiliser and twistlocks to keep the upper tiers in place.
By the time of third generation ships things had improved a lot but even so it has only been in recent (In shipping terms) that regulations have come into force requiring accurate weights to be declared for all containers.
I had a chat a number of years ago with a guy who was high up in the ops at Hamburgs newest container terminal which is fully automated with minimum workers. Containers are taken from their trucks and stacked awaiting loading by robot driven vehicles. They are weighed and true weight sent wirelessly to the planners. From the container park they are delivered by robot trucks to the crane where they first come into contact with humans. The cranes are designed so they can load and discharge at the same time. The discharged container is put onto a platform on the crane whilst the driver picks up the next container to be loaded and whilst that is happening the discharged container is loaded by robot onto the robot vehicle that takes it to its designated spot in the container park, from whence it can be taken, again by robot, to the customs point for loading onto a road truck for delivery to its destination. Its all done with GPS and computer software and its eerie watching the huge container ships being worked with hardly any human interference. The biggest number of people you saw are the lashing and unlashing gangs and even those are reduced to the bare minimum.
Without computer software ships officers these days have not a cat in hells chance of working out or checking the ships stresses and stability given the reduced in port times and the sheer size of ships these days but as the old saying about computers goes, **** in. **** out.
My suspicion regarding the MOL ship is it was most likely incorrectly loaded and on board insufficient knowledge and checking were made. O.K. we are stressed to 80% seagoing but that's o.k., may have been the attitude on board.
Not knowing the design of these ships but hazarding a guess they would have an underdeck tunnel running down port and stbd sides for access to the holds for checking reefer containers etc. Below these tunnels (part of the double hull) would be ballast tanks and looking at where the fractures appear to have started this seems to be the week point. From what I can see the fractures have not started a deck level and run downwards or from the keel upwards but appear to have started some way down the ships side in the area I mentioned. Ballast tanks these days are bitches with all sorts of problems not least amongst them being microbiological corrosion which can eat through 20mm of steel in around 5 to 7 years.
Finally
Bulk cargoes
Liquefaction of solid bulk cargoes has always been a problem. The two worst ones at present are nickel ore from Indonesia and coal from Brazil.
Unscrupulous owners are putting huge pressures on Masters to load these cargoes even though their transportable moisture limits have been exceeded by huge amounts. I was talking to a P and I surveyor who was heavily involved in cases of ships breaking up after loading these cargoes and some of the horror stories he told me were almost beyond belief. Masters who demanded the correct documentation and testing for these wet cargoes being relieved within 12 hours by another who either did not know the rules or could not care, being just one threat. If you queried the TML or refused to load it then sacked or you lost your turn in the berth rotation with huge losses due to delays, demurrage claims been nullified etc. etc.
Result has been a spate of bulk carrier losses in this trade in recent years and it is only now that insurers are turning the spotlight on these cargoes and the shippers of same in an attempt to reduce their losses.
rgds
JA

Ref. my post 53. For 64 read 74. Am really getting senile. However the water content of some mainly concentrates and the problems of coming to surface rather than down to bilges is not something which has just come to light. With the ordinary iron ore loaded in a pyrimid water went into bilge the likesof zinc concentrate usually flattened out it didn't. Cheers John Sabourn

John Arton ; don't want to get into any sort of argument with you - I do not agree with what you say , lets just leave it at that !.

just a thought as the ships get bigger will the boxes to?jp

I doubt there will be any increase in the size of containers. To do so would mean a new breed of cranes to move them, and a new breed of truck to move them once ashore. Some of the largest trucks now moving the containers are accused of damaging roads, so any increase in size would only exacerbate the situation.

true john the body has woke up but the brain still bobo's?:pjp

Maximum vehicle length over most of Europe is 16.5 metres , with the box at 12.2 metres that just allows enough room for a sleeper cab and the coupling , so I do not ever see it changing .

Sure would not be too keen being on any salvage tug stationed in that sector of the world currently, lest of all when towing the two sectors as it could well be a ripe for a little piracy container wise? Always thought that would be a good-interesting sector of the maritime world to be part of went to see Smitt in Holland when I was in my last days of the sea. They were really nice, however said I needed a lot more sea time before they would take me on to my disappointment though did say come back when you have it. Not too sure how I would have gone though in the Atlantic in a raging gale, or Bay of Biscay on that aft deck hmm could have been interesting times?