even larger containerships

[Mirelle]

are prbably impossible, according to a paper that I have just read, written by an expert on the subject at one of the Classification Societies, BV.

The biggest ships that Andrea Zamburlini envisages are around 12,500 TEU. The limit to growth is probably the structrual stresses in the hull, which is shallow draft (max 14.5 metres for access to the major container ports) long and wide - and cannot really be said to have much in the way of a deck at all. This makes big boxboats a very different proposition to big tankers, which don't have holes in tehir decks, so speak of. He even points out that welding high tensile steels thicker than 75mm is very difficult and is only done by people who build nuclear reactor pressure vessels and submarine hulls.

So, I am sure we are all hugely relieved. By the way, there are over 100 ships of over 7,000 TEU on order!

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[ChrisE]

TEU = 'Twenty foot equivalent unit"? Is that the trade name for a container? So, 7500 TEU means capable of carrying 7500 standard containers?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

Extract from the Guiness book of records site :

Largest Container Ship
With a registered capacity of 8,063 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU), the 322.97-m (1,059.61-ft) long OOCL SX-class vessels are the world's largest container ships. The first, OOCL Shenzhen, was launched on April 30, 2003. It was built by Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (South Korea), and is owned and operated by Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd (OOCL).
OOCL Shenzhen is the first in a fleet of SX-class vessels which are to be delivered by the end of 2005. Other specifications include:

Beam: 42.8 m (140.4 ft)
Deadweight: approx. 100,000
tonnes (cargo-carrying
capacity)
Full load speed: 25.2 knots
(46.6 km/h or 28.9 mph).

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AJW]

Yes and no. TEU is Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit. So 1 TEU = 1 20ft box. But a 40ft box is 2 TEU. So a 7500 TEU ship could carry 7500 20ft boxes or 3750 40ft or some combination of the two. In theory of course. I'm sure Mirelle can comment further bring the expert.

As an aside as an importer of lots of stuff from the Far East I dont want bigger ships I want faster ones! Cos if I miss our shipping date I have to fly it in which costs 'bout 20 times as much. 'Course as a sometime sailor I dont want 35kt container ships bearing down on me!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

I think what we think of as "standard" containers are Forty Foot Equivalent Units = 2 x TEU

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

what do you think of the spat between RSPB and Maersk, ABP et al over the RSPB container traffic figures which show that transhipment traffic is declining (and thus a significant part of the justification for Dibden Bay is flawed).

The volume is certainly being turned up as a decision on Dibden approaches and its getting vicious. Maersk MD's spin on the figures published in a letter to Lloyds List on 17 March was:

Mr Nielsen says that traffic figures have been distorted by the fact that ocean carriers have been forced to relocate transhipment traffic to the continent because of lack of capacity in the UK.

“The truth of today’s situation is that carriers are faced with monopolistic and congested terminals with the UK,” he says in a letter published in today’s newspaper.

“They are forced to take their own measures to restrict cargo movements at these terminals so as to protect the service levels received.”

It is imperative, says Mr Nielsen, “that the current drive towards additional container capacity is maintained, and not sidelined by focusing on actual volume growth figures distorted by restrictions imposed by existing terminal capacity”.

..... one could say about Mr Nielsen's letter that 'the facts are as I say they are ..' and one wonders to whom he is referring to as being "monopolistic" other than ABP and Hutchison Whampoa which might indicate his preference for a terminal elsewhere than Dibden ...?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

My thoughts
Given a certain level of container movements I'd rather have fewer larger ships than more smaller ships. Dodging a container ship is the same to me whether its big, very big or immense. I'd rather dodge one biggie than 4 wee yins... or am I missing the point completely?

<hr width=100% size=1>I Have The Body Of A God... Buddha

 

[Mirelle]

With great respect to Kim Hollamby

there is a good reason why I have deleted my name from my personal details from my profile and why I am posting here under the name of my boat. I work for a competitor of Maersk Line. A yachtsman will have no great trouble identifying me from the membership lists of the two yacht clubs I belong to, but the modest degree of anonymity does allow me to answer your question.

Basically, I agree with the RSPB.

What you have not seen anywhere in the Press is the very widely held belief, in the industry, that the Bathside Bay proposals, by Hutchinson Port Holdings, (HPH) actually represent a move to create a dedicated terminal, the first in the UK, for Maersk Line.

Looking at the proposed layout, providing four four postpanamax berths, with the poor road (A120, single track) and rail (single track, Ipswich tunnel to negotiate for access to the Midlands) access, one concludes that this terminal if operated by Maersk would indeed function largely as a transhipment terminal.

There is indeed an element of "spin" in Maersk's letter, and this may be illustrated by citing John Meredith, the Hong Kong based MD of HPH, who recently asked, publicly, why any government would want to encourage transhipment terminals, given that they take up a great deal of valuable estuary land and do almost nothing for the local economy.

I am frankly staggered that the yachting interests in the Haven Ports appear to have been "bought off" by HPH's sponsorship of a race series and are not opposing the application for Bathside Bay. The rather shameful conduct of the RYA in respect of Dibden Bay, dropping the CA in it at the last moment, needs no further comment from me.

For a different perspective on the whole issue, take a look at what P&O Ports, who are developing the former Shellhaven oil refinery as the London Gateway container terminal, are saying. They argue that there is no shortage of capacity.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[Mirelle]

Yes, and you can have them 8ft 6ins high (standard) or 9ft 6ins high ("high cube", originally developed for the US rag trade as they take two racks of dresses on hangers, but now widely used) and 20, 40 45, 48 and even 53 feet long, though the odd lengths are more commonly seen on the Pacific trades as they fit US railcars. They are of course very awkward to handle and are generally unpopular. The size you no longer see is 30ft, originally used by British Rail - almost all UK container railcars are 60ft on the bed.

The Fast Ship scheme proposes 45 knot ships on the Atlantic; personally I doubt if we will see much increase on 25 knots in the Europe/Asia trades, as there is no marine diesel engine large enough, and there are big technical issues inm making one that might be.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[ParaHandy]

Ah, yes .. the voice of yachting ..

.. not Kim, I hasten to add. but the RYA legal adviser's self promotion ... quite bitter taste reading Capt Chestnutt's evidence chastising yachtsmen for their disregard of the Col Regs whereas recent evidence indicates that the vessels he was championing just make the rules up as they go along .. at 25 kn in 50m visibility

what brought this up was one of the district councils straddling the A34 in Oxford who were about to bring out a public consultation on the A34 which included an idea that HGVs be given priority on the A34. The consultation never happened and it set me wondering whether Dibden was at the bottom of it because the total container traffic using the A34 to get to the West Midlands and beyond is 4,700 AADT (Average Annual Daily Total) of HGVs (that accounts for a 1.5:1 container to lorry ratio) by 2015. This assumes that the Government and Strategic Rail Authority spend the £1bn necessary to upgrade the WCML (West Coast Main Line), to accept W12 containers (9.5') amongst other reasons, otherwise the modal split of 35% train & 65% lorry will not be achieved which will chuck more lorries on to the road.

As it happens, the A34-M4 Chievely upgrade is just being built and the Highways agency calculate that there are 55,000 AADT of which 44% use the A34 and 16% are HGV. That gives existing HGV traffic of 3,700 AADT on the A34. So Dibden will more than double the HGVs trundling along the A34 ... absolute chaos and the reason for abandoning the A34 traffic consultation document might well be that it would expose the inadequacies of the Government's transport policy, do you not think?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Re: Ah, yes .. the voice of yachting ..

And of course, the A34 is partially built on a railway line once decribed as "the most vital link in the country", running from Didcot to Newbury and then joining the main line just south of Winchester.

Dibden? Only if lorry movements are banned, as if...

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.

 

[halcyon]

Re: Ah, yes .. the voice of yachting ..

Do we have a transport policy ????
Thought we had committees that discussed policy, but did not change anything, that way nothing can go wrong that was your fault, as you have done nothing because you are waiting for a new review.
Down here in Cornwall were spending £20,000,00 putting back the track they lifted 20 years ago, somone found out that a single track main line causes a bottleneck. Then they have turned down a review of the Falmouth branch to add passing loops to improve traffic flow. Only thing is that they lifted them in the 70's, the track beds still there, but they wanted to spend £200,000 on consultants, to look at putting them back in. Then there talking about £2 billion to fit ATC to stop trains running red lights, but did not GWR introduce that back in 1908.

Then we wonder why they have to tax red diesel !!!

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

passing loops

The Lowestoft / Ipswich ("East Suffolk") line was single tracked at the same time beyond Woodbridge, and according to local folklore only survives at all because the CEGB picked on it to move nuclear fuel flasks to Sizewell A (and now B). A proposal to create a passing loop at Beccles has been made regularly by the users association, which points out that there has been a 50% increase in passenger numbers since 1996 and a two hourly service is daft, but the SRA says it cannot lay its hands on the Pds 600,000 it says it needs to put the loop back. If Pds 200,000 of this has to go on consultants, no wonder it costs so much!

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[AJW]

Beccles

And of course there used to be a passing loop and more at Beccles when it was a major junction station many years ago. Even as a comparitive youth in my mid thirties I can remember when Beccles had two lines (an up and a down) and getting an express train direct to London without the slog by DMU to Ipswich to change!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

Sorry to reactivate this thread, but I've been away for a bit.

Whenever an expert states that something is impossible, it normally means that it will actually happen in about 10 years time.

From what you've written, it strikes me that there are two flaws in his argument:

i) He assumes that ships will continue to be made out of steel. Composites may be expensive and hard to shape now, but there's already talk of building a 250m high composite sky scraper.

ii) He assumes that ships will continue to be welded by hand. 75mm may be the limit of what can be welded by hand, but surely its only a matter of time before computer controlled laser welding is introduced into large scale fabricating?

<hr width=100% size=1>