Wednesday september 13 I waited half a day, from 14.00 to 20.30 pm (to dark for pictures) to see this ship leave the harbor here in Rotterdam. It was supposed to leave at 15.00 but didn't show up until well after I left the pier at Hook of Holland (which is opposite the container terminals at Maasvlakte). Well, the company was good and the weather excellent (got a sunburn too).
I did see 2 other big container ships, one from Evergreen and one from China Shipping Line. The distance between them was less than 1000 meters. The first went to the ECT terminal and the second to APM (Maersk terminal). It has been said that you can get even more containers on the Emma Maersk than stated before (11.000 according to Maersk and 13.500 by experts), maybe even 14.000+.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
Mileage on the Emma Mearsk is approx 250 T/day of HFO
HFO is the lowest quality of fuel available (and therefore the cheapest)
HFO is currently $ 360 / Ton
If calculated over 13000 Containers, fuel costs have reduced signifcantly per container due to increase in vessel size, but are still a large factor of operational costs.
Crew pay is diffrent to US salaries, as US salaries are twice what anyone else might earn in shipping worldwide, nevertheless the sometimes outrageous workrights which Unions have agreed upon for US sailors. Hardly any shipping company wants to live up to these standards as long as they can have same quality of sailors (or better) with european standards
Crew of 13 is a minimium according international laws and IMO rules.
1 Captain
3 Nautical officers
3 Engineering officers
1 Cook
1 Steward
4 Able seaman
Very often more people are carried, due to maintance onboard.
Main engine is a 14 Cyl. 110000 Hp, but there are also 5 auxiliary engines of total 20000 kW, as well as a complete heating system, fresh water generator, ballast system, etc. Just ordinary houskeeping of engineroom and deck (cleanliness and upkeep of paintwork) consumes ennough time to keep all hands busy during a week.
Watches on board are 4 on, 8 off. Total 8 hours of watch. Besides these 8 hours, the officers put inan extra 2 to 4 hours to do administrative and safety tasks, such as upkeep of lifeboat, fire extinguishing system, upkeep uof relevant nautical data changes in charts and publicatons etc.
You see, it a complete different story to driving a train and then go home to sleep over night as the maintainance crew takes care of the trains and railroads to have them ready for the next train haul.
Both worlds are different, but similar too in work stress and responsibility regarding safe arrival atc.
morseman wrote:I find it strange that no one has commented on the Panama Railroad which was completely rebuilt by Kansas City Southern RR and operated and financed by KCS & two other parties. Ships too large to transit the canal were to drop their loads at one end of the canal where they would be transported by rail across the isthmus to be reloaded at the opposite port. Locomotives are former Amtrak locomotives shipped I believe from New Orleans. I believe there are also passenger cars on this train. Can anyone fill bme in if this train is now operational for transporting cargos from ships or do the docks still have to be built for loading and unloading their containers.
I find it strange that no one has commented on the Panama Railroad which was completely rebuilt by Kansas City Southern RR and operated and financed by KCS & two other parties. Ships too large to transit the canal were to drop their loads at one end of the canal where they would be transported by rail across the isthmus to be reloaded at the opposite port. Locomotives are former Amtrak locomotives shipped I believe from New Orleans. I believe there are also passenger cars on this train. Can anyone fill bme in if this train is now operational for transporting cargos from ships or do the docks still have to be built for loading and unloading their containers.
According to the New York Times story (above), Panama wants to widen the canal to accommodate large container ships. So the relevant question to me is if they widen it and add capacity that pretty much puts KCS out of the canal transshipment business, right? That is unless they can make their passenger service extremely popular. When I mentioned the railroads opposing widening the Canal KCS seemed to me the railroad with the most to lose.
I agree with Dutchrailnut re the 4 days for shipping by rail across Panama. However KCS has put a great deal of investment restoring the rail line, which I believe is now operational. Is this rail line just going to carry tourists, Panamanians and local Panama freight. Are ports being constructed at each end of the canal to handle trans-shipment by rail? Does the railroad now have the freight cars to handle these containers? I can not see why KCS would spend so much on this venture if they did not see a return on their investment.
This post panamax has nothing to do with giant containerships now being built.
Transporting by rail at Panama Canal and loading and unloading can take upto 4 days. to much of a delay for most freights, may just as well unload at west coast and directly ship by rail, just from any west coast container port..
Its interesting however that the Panama Canal company is thinking about upgrading the canal and built bigger locks and dredge out some of canal to accommodate ships bigger container ships.
Yes the second ship in the series had a engineroom fire which shot up to the bridge and burned out part of superstructure and electrical instalation of bridge.
The superstructure was removed and replaced by the completed superstructure of the third ship, saving the delivery date of the second vessel.
Dutchrailnut wrote:Here is Picture of Emma Mearsk after techincal sea trials, ship is still empty but is enormous. http://www.faergejournalen.dk/landgangen/maersk.jpg and Here a Picture of 12 Cylinder Warzila RTA96cflex engine, the Emma Meark has 14 cylinder of same type. http://www.dieselduck.ca/images/engine_room/Machinery/rta96c.htm
Here is Picture of Emma Mearsk after techincal sea trials, ship is still empty but is enormous.
http://www.faergejournalen.dk/landgangen/maersk.jpg
and Here a Picture of 12 Cylinder Warzila RTA96cflex engine, the Emma Meark has 14 cylinder of same type.
http://www.dieselduck.ca/images/engine_room/Machinery/rta96c.htm
Was it one of her not yet completed sisterships that was badly damaged in a shipyard fire earlier this summer?
JB
beaulieu wrote: eastside wrote:What interests me is the decision process. Suppose the VLCCs could pass through the Canal and the East Coast ports could accommodate them. Anyone have an idea what the extra sailing time to Virginia or New Jersey (over L.A.) would be? I suppose also a new Canal would impose stiff tolls for a VLCC.VLCC= Very Large Crude Carrier (aka Supertanker)JB
eastside wrote:What interests me is the decision process. Suppose the VLCCs could pass through the Canal and the East Coast ports could accommodate them. Anyone have an idea what the extra sailing time to Virginia or New Jersey (over L.A.) would be? I suppose also a new Canal would impose stiff tolls for a VLCC.
nanaimo73 wrote: beaulieu wrote: Probably because ships can be further from help during their voyages, the ships officers are reponsible for making sure the ship's cargo is balanced, you don't want to do a Cougar Ace off the Aleutians. John, What happened to that ship full of thousands of cars heading for Vancouver that listed 90 degrees south of the Aleutians several weeks ago ?
beaulieu wrote: Probably because ships can be further from help during their voyages, the ships officers are reponsible for making sure the ship's cargo is balanced, you don't want to do a Cougar Ace off the Aleutians.
John,
What happened to that ship full of thousands of cars heading for Vancouver that listed 90 degrees south of the Aleutians several weeks ago ?
youngengineer wrote:I am thinking that a train can run with one person on a crew, with the help of computers, why not ships well 3 people, 2 drivers, and one cook! If the railroad can do it why not shipping
StillGrande wrote: Average speed is misleading, as it can include entering and leaving ports, waiting to dock, sitting at the dock, etc. Fuel continues to be burned even when not underway. You don't just shut it off when you get there. Another reason they are in such a hurry to unload and load these things.
Average speed is misleading, as it can include entering and leaving ports, waiting to dock, sitting at the dock, etc.
Fuel continues to be burned even when not underway. You don't just shut it off when you get there. Another reason they are in such a hurry to unload and load these things.
Fuel consumed while alongside for loading/unloading is consumed in auxiliary diesel generator sets. The main engine is shut down and the shaft is locked so the access panels into the crankcase can be removed for inspection/maintenance. Incidentally, the engine room will be staffed if any of the machinery is working, since somebody immediately on hand can prevent a minor casualty from becoming a major catastrophe.
Just did a little math, based on the 21,270 ton ship that burned 40tons/day at 20 knots. That equates to 754 ton-miles per gallon. I don't know about other people's rides, but my personal transportation is lucky to get 50 ton-miles per gallon. If I held my speed to 20 knots, that might improve to 60 (but I doubt it.) In any event, even that relatively small ship is 15 times as efficient as my pickup. Larger ships are, relatively, more efficient. Emma Maersk, at 70,000 tons, will probably burn about 70 tons of diesel a day and cruise at 24 knots, yielding 1701 ton/miles per gallon.
A little apples-and-oranges here. UP's Big Boy, working hard, would burn 7 tons of coal an HOUR to move a train that rarely topped 4000 tons at a speed that seldom reached an honest 24 knots upgrade. Somebody who knows more about modern locomotives than I might want to work out the fuel economics for a 21st century stack train.
One final note - the Panamanians are widening and deepening the Canal, but handling much larger ships will overload the available water supply - and it still won't be able to handle the huge overhang of an aircraft carrier's deck. As for a sea level canal, the difference in tide ranges between the two ends would still require locks.
Chuck
riprap wrote: So, aside from the RRs opposing the widening of the Panama Canal (for business reasons), what do you suppose the impact of these larger ships will have on the RR industry? The figure "35 miles of double-stacks" has been cited. Will double-stack trains leaving the Port of LA/Long Beach now be 2 miles long (tongue firmly in cheek)???? Riprap
So, aside from the RRs opposing the widening of the Panama Canal (for business reasons), what do you suppose the impact of these larger ships will have on the RR industry? The figure "35 miles of double-stacks" has been cited. Will double-stack trains leaving the Port of LA/Long Beach now be 2 miles long (tongue firmly in cheek)????
Riprap
my 35 miles was based on 40 footers - not TEUs which is twenty foot equivalent units. So I stand corrected at about 17 miles of train. Might make a long highway crossing wait.
dd
nanaimo73 wrote: eastside wrote:Are the sidings long enough? How about refueling tracks? Sidings should not be an issue on the former ATSF between Los Angeles and Argentine in KC because of all of the double track. Would the only fuel stop be at Clovis for the 1000 mile inspection ?
eastside wrote:Are the sidings long enough? How about refueling tracks?
Sidings should not be an issue on the former ATSF between Los Angeles and Argentine in KC because of all of the double track. Would the only fuel stop be at Clovis for the 1000 mile inspection ?
Sidings ARE an issue, in a roundabout way, because there's a lot of the time you don't have double track because one of the tracks is withdrawn for maintenance. At a minimum you want to think about how much room you have between universal crossovers. And if you want to do overtakes, then you need outside sidings or hope that traffic is so light that you can use 10 miles of main track between crossovers as a siding for the train being overtaken without gumming up the whole main line in the process. The whole point of the triple track on UP between O'Fallons and Gibbon Junction was to be able to pull a track out of service for maintenance and still have double track.
One fuel stop at Belen gets you between Los Angeles and Kansas City.
S. Hadid
Riprap,
Sure, why not two miles? The railroads currently run stack and container trains which are over 9,000 feet. So what is another 1,600 feet of train? The limiting factor is at the terminals. Where will 10,560 feet of train fit and how much chaos and delay to road traffic will there be while the train is doubled or tripled into shorter tracks.
CNW 6000 wrote: beaulieu wrote:(snipped)Also note that Maersk reported disappointing results from container operations last year with fuel being a big problem, even with a surcharge. Small wonder. I found this page (http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/kindia/) discussing a container ship's ins and outs. It listed "Average service speed comes in at 20 knots, with a fuel consumption of around 40t/day." Am I reading that correct? 40 tons per day?? The dimeensions of the Kindia ship are:Length: 168.0mWidth: 27.2mDepth: 13.8m Now if the Emma Maersk has these dimensions: Length: 397 metresBeam: 56 metresDepth: 30 metres I wonder, how poor her mileage will be? The Emma Maersk is about double the size of the Kindia!
beaulieu wrote:(snipped)Also note that Maersk reported disappointing results from container operations last year with fuel being a big problem, even with a surcharge.
Small wonder. I found this page (http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/kindia/) discussing a container ship's ins and outs. It listed "Average service speed comes in at 20 knots, with a fuel consumption of around 40t/day." Am I reading that correct? 40 tons per day??
The dimeensions of the Kindia ship are:Length: 168.0mWidth: 27.2mDepth: 13.8m
Now if the Emma Maersk has these dimensions: Length: 397 metresBeam: 56 metresDepth: 30 metres
I wonder, how poor her mileage will be? The Emma Maersk is about double the size of the Kindia!
40 tons/day does not seem too far fetched. Remember, you are dealing with a 110,000 hp engine, not a 600 HP truck engine or a 4400 to 6,000 HP locomotive engine. Efficiency here use the term ton-miles/day, not miles per gallon.
Depth -- normally refers to depth of hold; that is, the distance from the weather deck (top of watertight hull -- you hope) to keel. Permitted draught varies with which ocean and which season you are dealing with. Emma Maersk won't be that much bigger -- if any -- than a number of the recently built VLCCs.
13 crew doesn't sound like all that many, but realistically it doesn't take all that many. On the other hand, you can't do it with fewer on a large ship. You have to have at least one deck officer and an AB on the bridge, and you have to have at least one engineer on watch. Whatever the watch schedule is, it is rare indeed for a big ship to have only two watches; normally there are three. The Chief Engineer and the Captain usually do not stand watches. There's 11 folks right there!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.