Giant Container Ships Coming

[eastside]

I understand that a new generation of super-cargo ships is starting to hit the seas.  The first, the China Shipping Container Lines "Asia" carries 8,500 containers.  How many stack trains are needed to carry that many containers, and how long might it take to unload them?  There are even ships capable of carrying 11,000 containers being built.  If several of these hit LA-LB at the same time can they be handled presently?

[dldance]

by my rough estimate that is over 35 miles of double stacks!

dd

[rrboomer]

Doesn't the shipping industry mean a small (20') container when they refer to the ship capacity?

[beaulieu]

Yes, they are refering to TEU (20 ft, containers)

Newest Maersk ship is 11,000 TEU Emma Maersk

397 meters long  1302 ft.
56 meters beam    184 ft.
30 meters draft    98 ft.

powered by a single Wartsila 14 cylinder diesel rated at 110,000 hp.
at 102 rpm.

[erikem]

Newest Maersk ship is 11,000 TEU Emma Maersk
-snip-

30 meters draft    98 ft. !!!!!!!!!!!

-deletia-

How many US ports can handle a 98 foot draft??

[greyhounds]

Newest Maersk ship is 11,000 TEU Emma Maersk
-snip-

30 meters draft    98 ft. !!!!!!!!!!!

-deletia-

How many US ports can handle a 98 foot draft??

Aparently, none.  And there's some disagreement about that 98' --- says here she draws 51' of water.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=109670&ran=87860

Initial route for these things will be Europe-Asia.  Norfolk says they can handle her.  They've got 50' of water and she can come right on in at high tide.  I guess when the tide goes out she'll sit on the bottom.  Better not get delayed on the way to the pier. 

I figure the Emma Maersk will have 18 trainloads of containers at 300 containers per train.  Which brings up a serious question.  With ships like these comming to a port near you soon, could the BNSF run a double double stack?  (no, I don't mean four high) Could they put DPU on the thing and run a 600 container train, which would be about twice as long as anything now running.

 

[beaulieu]

Newest Maersk ship is 11,000 TEU Emma Maersk
-snip-

30 meters draft    98 ft. !!!!!!!!!!!

-deletia-

How many US ports can handle a 98 foot draft??

Aparently, none.  And there's some disagreement about that 98' --- says here she draws 51' of water.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=109670&ran=87860

Initial route for these things will be Europe-Asia.  Norfolk says they can handle her.  They've got 50' of water and she can come right on in at high tide.  I guess when the tide goes out she'll sit on the bottom.  Better not get delayed on the way to the pier. 

I figure the Emma Maersk will have 18 trainloads of containers at 300 containers per train.  Which brings up a serious question.  With ships like these comming to a port near you soon, could the BNSF run a double double stack?  (no, I don't mean four high) Could they put DPU on the thing and run a 600 container train, which would be about twice as long as anything now running.

 

Your probably right, I took depth to be draft, but it may include freeboard. Here is the fact sheet right from the company's website.

Emma Maersk

[greyhounds]

A 13 person crew?  11,000 TEUs and only 13 people.  Let's see, there's the Capitan, the cook, and 11 other people bored out of their skulls watching computer screens in the middle of the ocean.

Which brings up a question.  I've always heard that US owned ships can not compete with foriegn ships because US crews get higher pay.  A US seaperson wants more pay than a Chinese seaperson.

But with only 13 people on the ship and 11,000 TEUs it doesn't matter much what you pay them.  You could pay them each $250,000/year and the cost per container would be insignificant.  So why did the last two major international US ship lines pass to foriegn hands under the Clinton Administration?  We don't have a major international ship line.  It's obviously not the crew cost, what is it?

[eastside]

Every day it seems an article about China investing in the infrastructure or natural resources in some Third-World country appears in the newspapers.  This is pure speculation on my part, but it's only a matter of time before they propose financing the widening of the Panama Canal or digging a sea-level route to accommodate modern ships.  I'll bet the U.S. railroads would raise a big stink if that happens, probably on "national security" grounds.  It's hard for me to see how the U.S. government could oppose it without looking spiteful and jealous.

[greyhounds]

Every day it seems an article about China investing in the infrastructure or natural resources in some Third-World country appears in the newspapers.  This is pure speculation on my part, but it's only a matter of time before they propose financing the widening of the Panama Canal or digging a sea-level route to accommodate modern ships.  I'll bet the U.S. railroads would raise a big stink if that happens, probably on "national security" grounds.  It's hard for me to see how the U.S. government could oppose it without looking spiteful and jealous.

It's already planned.  I don't see how making the canal wider would affect our "National Security".  We've got two oceans to worry about and a big reason for digging the thing in the first place was so our own Navy could get back and forth between the two.

I don't know if they'll ever widen and deepen the Panama Canal, but I don't see it as having much of an impact on our security or our railroads if they do.  But there are definite plans to enlarge it by 2014.

[beaulieu]

A 13 person crew?  11,000 TEUs and only 13 people.  Let's see, there's the Capitan, the cook, and 11 other people bored out of their skulls watching computer screens in the middle of the ocean.

Don't forget that they have to cover three watches, probably just three people on each watch, two on the bridge and one in the engine room.

[greyhounds]

A 13 person crew?  11,000 TEUs and only 13 people.  Let's see, there's the Capitan, the cook, and 11 other people bored out of their skulls watching computer screens in the middle of the ocean.

Don't forget that they have to cover three watches, probably just three people on each watch, two on the bridge and one in the engine room.

OK, what's the guy/female person in the engine room going to do?  Watch the diesel run?

Let's see if we can S2 this 13 person crew.

Capitan, his/her job is to check if the proper destination is in the computer.

Cook, his/her job is to prevent mutiny about the food during long voyages between Europe and Asia.

Assistant Cook, his/her job is to wash dishes and keep the cook happy.  (Insert your own immoral thought here)

Computer Geek, his/her job is obvious on such a giant ship with a 13 person crew.

Nine Other Folks.  Three to alternate watching the diesel engine run.  Six to operate in alternating two person teams watching the ocean go by.

Do you think that's it?  That's 13 people.

 

[Chris30]

hmmm... crew of 13 on a container ship..

1. The captain 2. The first lieutenant (Gilligan) 3-5 The pilots (1 per 8 hr shift. 6-8. The navigators (again, 1 per 8 hr shift) 9. Computer systems engineer. 10 & 11 The mecahnics/engine room (1 per 12 hr shift ?) 12. The cook 13. The doctor

Not bad... only one Gilligans Island reference. Now, I wonder how close I am.

CC

[tdmidget]

I think that's 13 at any time. There would be the master of the vessel, 1st and 2nd officers( one of these must be in command at  all times), a Chief Engineer,and 1st and 2nd engineers. That covers the officers. there is a bosun( commands the deck operations), 3 helmsmen, 3 enginemen( lots more to do than keep an eye on than that Wartsila; ie all that other stuff listed, all plumbing, electrical, deck machinery, etc), cooks(probably 2 at least),and the balance are listed as"seamen". Doctor? You've been watching too much "Love Boat".

[Hugh Jampton]

Are you all sure they have 3 x 8 hour watches per day?

I thought it was only 2 x 12 hours.

[greyhounds]

Are you all sure they have 3 x 8 hour watches per day?

I thought it was only 2 x 12 hours.

I thought they did four hour "watches" as in four on, eight off, four on, eight off -- forever.

[spbed]

Kindly remember that NOT all the conatiners say discharged at LAX are destined for inland destinations via stck train.

 

 

I understand that a new generation of super-cargo ships is starting to hit the seas.  The first, the China Shipping Container Lines "Asia" carries 8,500 containers.  How many stack trains are needed to carry that many containers, and how long might it take to unload them?  There are even ships capable of carrying 11,000 containers being built.  If several of these hit LA-LB at the same time can they be handled presently?

[beaulieu]

My guess is the ship can be run with 13 but will actually operate with about 16. Captain, plus 3 Deck Officers who stand watches, 3 Sailors qualified to serve as Watchman. Chief Engineer, and 3 Junior Engineers to serve as Engineering Watch Officers, 2 cooks, and 3 Sailors who will do routine maintenance. Note on Maersk ships the Officers are normally Danish or other European, crew is normally Filipino. Also note that Maersk reported disappointing results from container operations last year with fuel being a big problem, even with a surcharge.

[beaulieu]

A 13 person crew?  11,000 TEUs and only 13 people.  Let's see, there's the Capitan, the cook, and 11 other people bored out of their skulls watching computer screens in the middle of the ocean.

Which brings up a question.  I've always heard that US owned ships can not compete with foriegn ships because US crews get higher pay.  A US seaperson wants more pay than a Chinese seaperson.

But with only 13 people on the ship and 11,000 TEUs it doesn't matter much what you pay them.  You could pay them each $250,000/year and the cost per container would be insignificant.  So why did the last two major international US ship lines pass to foriegn hands under the Clinton Administration?  We don't have a major international ship line.  It's obviously not the crew cost, what is it?

US registry, and being built in US shipyards. The last is a big issue. For educational purposes look at Horizon Lines the rump of Sealand (US operations not bought by Maersk) old ships, barely have their heads above water financially, they can't afford to buy new ships. And yes pay and benefits are important, don't forget vaction pay. Also important is the deplorable state of the US shipbuilding industry, NASSCO the best in the US took 142 weeks to turn out a Panamax tanker for BP this year, Hyundai in Korea would have taken about 21 weeks. The tanker was for Cabotage Trades and so had to be built in the US. None of the US ships run with that few crew members, the Union would never allow it.

[CNW 6000]

(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: 168.0m
Width: 27.2m
Depth: 13.8m

Now if the Emma Maersk has these dimensions:
Length: 397 metres
Beam: 56 metres
Depth:  30 metres

I wonder, how poor her mileage will be?  The Emma Maersk is about double the size of the Kindia!

[StillGrande]

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. 

[CNW 6000]

Right, I understand that.  It's not like a semi-truck.  I guess I was surprised to learn how much fuel these things go through!

[Anonymous]

I worked on a Great Lakes freighter and there was plenty to repair and oh yeah... paint paint paint and paint.....when you done with one end its time to go back and paint the other side...

[CrazyDiamond]

It will be interesting to see which country (Canada or the US) gets the most of this next genereration ship traffic.  Most ports in North America are simply not big/deep enough to receive these ships and/or are already near their congestion saturation levels.  Some ports could be made bigger but the costs are staggering.  That is except two in Canada:

• Prince Rupert, BC
• Halifax, NS

http://www.cn.ca/specialized/ports_docks/prince_rupert/en_KFPortsPrinceRupert.shtml

http://www.cn.ca/specialized/ports_docks/halifax/en_KFPortsHalifax.shtml

There is another port in Cape Breton, NS that is incredibally deep, but RR innfrastructure would need a major refreshment.

 

[eastside]

Every day it seems an article about China investing in the infrastructure or natural resources in some Third-World country appears in the newspapers.  This is pure speculation on my part, but it's only a matter of time before they propose financing the widening of the Panama Canal or digging a sea-level route to accommodate modern ships.  I'll bet the U.S. railroads would raise a big stink if that happens, probably on "national security" grounds.  It's hard for me to see how the U.S. government could oppose it without looking spiteful and jealous.

It's already planned.  I don't see how making the canal wider would affect our "National Security".  We've got two oceans to worry about and a big reason for digging the thing in the first place was so our own Navy could get back and forth between the two.

I don't know if they'll ever widen and deepen the Panama Canal, but I don't see it as having much of an impact on our security or our railroads if they do.  But there are definite plans to enlarge it by 2014.

What I implied is that a pretense for the railroads opposing the widening of the Panama Canal by China might be national security.  The actual reason, of course, would be potential loss of business.  I’d think our national security would be enhanced since the Canal could accommodate our largest aircraft carriers.

All that I've heard are proposals, but no commitment.

[eastside]

It will be interesting to see which country (Canada or the US) gets the most of this next genereration ship traffic.  Most ports in North America are simply not big/deep enough to receive these ships and/or are already near their congestion saturation levels.  Some ports could be made bigger but the costs are staggering.

Ideally, I'd think the most efficient use of the giant carriers would be to go directly to East Coast ports directly and minimize the use of trains, it would be cheaper.

[jchnhtfd]

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!

[Leon Silverman]

(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: 168.0m
Width: 27.2m
Depth: 13.8m

Now if the Emma Maersk has these dimensions:
Length: 397 metres
Beam: 56 metres
Depth:  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.

[Anonymous]

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

[arbfbe]

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.