Huge container ships: are they sensible?

[yorkie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46746312

Extensive debris has washed up on islands off the Dutch north coast after some 270 containers including chemicals fell off a cargo ship in a storm.

As Storm Zeetje buffeted northern Germany with gale force winds late on Tuesday night, 270 containers of Zoe's cargo fell off the ship as it made its way through the Wadden Sea from the Belgian port of Antwerp.

Waves of up to 10m (33ft) in height were reported on the night and images from the Dutch coastguard showed dozens of containers balanced precariously like dominoes on the deck, about to fall into the sea....

As soon as I heard about, and saw photos of, these huge ships (the one in this incident can carry 19,000 containers) I knew it was obvious that such incidents were going to happen. How can the designers not have known?

It appears these ships are stacked so high that they are only safe if they don't encounter a storm, so basically it's relying on luck, with no margin for error. I don't think this is acceptable.

Is there anyone here involved in the container shipping industry who can provide their thoughts?

 

[Starmill]

The World Shipping Council (whom I am quite happy to admit to never having heard of before) suggest that the annual average is about 600 containers lost at sea each year, or about 1,600 including what they refer to as "Catastrophic Events", out of about 130 million transported.

Upon review of the results of the nine year period (2008-2016) surveyed, the WSC estimates
that there were on average 568 containers lost at sea each year, not counting catastrophic events,
and on average a total of 1,582 containers lost at sea each year including catastrophic events. On
average, 64% of containers lost during the last decade were attributed to a catastrophic event.

http://www.worldshipping.org/indust...Vaw2PTZqlVwE32kRhkMmPicBI&cshid=1546566560397

Other estimates put the total as high as 10,000 a year. The World Shipping Council calls this "unspported and grossly inaccurate". But then, they would.

 

[birchesgreen]

Even using the high estimate that puts the loss rate at 0.007% containers lost every year, to be honest this method seems very sensible to me...

 

[Groningen]

Good words in the first post. Question is whether the weather condition was known as it left Antwerpen. Once on the Northsea there is no room to avoid the winds. The stuff is now turning up on the Dutch islands. 3 containers have hazardous content. There is free travel to the harbour from Leeuwarden and Groningen; and 50 % discount on the ferry with a special ticket to help with the cleanup on the beach.

 

[edwin_m]

A smaller ship will be more affected by large waves so might be more likely to lose some of its load. More but smaller ships might also result in more collisions. So although there might not be the headline-making incidents of hundreds of containers being lost at a time, the total number lost if they all travelled in small ships might actually be more.

Also, as Brunel well knew, a large ship is more fuel-efficient than a smaller ship. So unless the use of large ships serving only large ports leads to huge amount of extra feeder traffic, the large ships are relatively speaking minimising pollution including the CO2 emissions that are probably partly to blame for more severe storms.

 

[whhistle]

I wonder how much insurance is paid by the shipping companies too.
I mean, a shipping container full of the latest graphics cards is going to be many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

[Ploughman]

Are the stacks of containers tied to other neighbouring stacks in some way?
Or are they just columns of containers free to sway?

 

[Ploughman]

I wonder how much insurance is paid by the shipping companies too.
I mean, a shipping container full of the latest graphics cards is going to be many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

And as for a container of plastic dog toys:-

 

[GB]

Are the stacks of containers tied to other neighbouring stacks in some way?
Or are they just columns of containers free to sway?

Each individual container is connected to every other container by shipping spigots that locks the containers in place. Containers stacks are also tied/lashed. Some stacks might technically be free from each other but the amount of stacks is what gives the strength.

As to the OP, yes big ships are sensible and the amount of containers lost overboard are extremely low in comparison to how many containers are shipped each year.

The size of the ship has little to do with risk or how secure containers are.
A ship that has 10000 TEUs of space still carries the same container *loss risk as a 19000 TEU ship (*over board containers)

 

[furnessvale]

If you want to see cargo ships in trouble in storms, have a look at ships carrying loose timber.

 

[The_Train]

Considering how many shippings must occur around the world on a daily basis, I don't think we can question whether cargo ships are sensible based on one issue with containers falling into the sea. As shown above it seems to be a minute percentage of containers that don't reach their destination which speaks volumes for whether this mode of transport is sensible or not

 

[najaB]

It appears these ships are stacked so high that they are only safe if they don't encounter a storm, so basically it's relying on luck, with no margin for error.

It may appear that way, but engineering is based on maths not intuition. Weather forecasting is also based on science rather than luck.

 

[Starmill]

To be honest, it also seems relatively unlikely that we could transport goods in any other way for a lot of the current shipping routes. Having to fly them would raise the cost of some products many times over. Railway routes do not havw the capacity or there is no land to build a railway on. A larger number of smaller vessels would be less efficient, and it's not clear at what point the smaller size begins to reduce the risk of losing the cargo.

Of course, we could buy and consume less stuff, but this would have far-reaching consequences.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

ACL claim never to have lost a container from a ship because the cell-guides on their container-ro-ro ships extend all the way to the top of the stack, effectively 'locking in' every container. They are however fairly unique among major shipping operators. As the lower part of the ACL ships are a big 'garage' for ro ro cargo, all their container capacity is, effectively, above deck. They also operate exclusively on the Atlantic whose weather is pretty notorious. Objections to cell guides, apart from the cost, I would think, could be slower loading and unloading and, possibly, loss of some flexibility.

 

[DarloRich]

Of course, we could buy and consume less stuff, but this would have far-reaching consequences.

technically: we could buy and consume less stuff that has to be shipped half way around the world

However I agree that IF we are going to ship stuff half way around the world ( and clearly we are!) we may as well do it in the most efficient manner possible. That means 1 ship carrying as much cargo as it can as far as it can as often as it can.

 

[furnessvale]

ACL claim never to have lost a container from a ship because the cell-guides on their container-ro-ro ships extend all the way to the top of the stack, effectively 'locking in' every container. They are however fairly unique among major shipping operators. As the lower part of the ACL ships are a big 'garage' for ro ro cargo, all their container capacity is, effectively, above deck. They also operate exclusively on the Atlantic whose weather is pretty notorious. Objections to cell guides, apart from the cost, I would think, could be slower loading and unloading and, possibly, loss of some flexibility.

Even the largest ACL vessel is only half the weight of the largest container vessels afloat so they are in a different league.

Having to use cell guides for the full height above deck would put many hours onto port turnaround time, as well as putting extra weight high up where you don't want it.

Above deck container stacks have long diagonal strapping bars fitted, locking the containers into blocks. As the statistics show, failures are rare.

 

[AndrewE]

Even the largest ACL vessel is only half the weight of the largest container vessels afloat so they are in a different league.
Having to use cell guides for the full height above deck would put many hours onto port turnaround time, as well as putting extra weight high up where you don't want it.

Maritime law needs to stop the pursuit of "cheapest at any price" as it disadvantages more responsible carriers (who might never lose a container) and we need to accept too that our supposed demand for "cheap" almost always comes at someone else's expense.

Above deck container stacks have long diagonal strapping bars fitted, locking the containers into blocks. As the statistics show, failures are rare.

but every single one that is lost on the big oceans and continues to float just at or below the surface is a potential death sentence to a smallish boat or ship, of which there are quite a lot.
There is obviously a law of diminishing returns at work, as I think I have read that they have realised that dredging Felixtowe (or maybe the Thames) for these super-size ships won't be cost-effective - especially as we have also been told that Felixtowe port stowage is choked internally and extra trains aren't going to help it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, we could buy and consume less stuff, but this would have far-reaching consequences.

Or do more local manufacturing, though you'd still need to transport raw materials, and oil tankers (for making plastic) definitely cause far more issues if something bad happens than a few tellies ending up floating around in the sea.

 

[najaB]

Maritime law needs to stop the pursuit of "cheapest at any price" as it disadvantages more responsible carriers (who might never lose a container) and we need to accept too that our supposed demand for "cheap" almost always comes at someone else's expense.

You answered your own point:

There is obviously a law of diminishing returns at work...

 

[Bletchleyite]

but every single one that is lost on the big oceans and continues to float just at or below the surface is a potential death sentence to a smallish boat or ship, of which there are quite a lot.

Changing international law is hard, but could some kind of transponder be made mandatory as well as finding them and retrieving? You wouldn't leave a crashed car by the roadside (though admittedly in some countries you might).

 

[najaB]

Changing international law is hard, but could some kind of transponder be made mandatory as well as finding them and retrieving?

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: The oceans are big. Really big.

There's a whole Boeing 777 that's not been found yet, I doubt you'd be able to track down a single 40ft container.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: The oceans are big. Really big.

There's a whole Boeing 777 that's not been found yet, I doubt you'd be able to track down a single 40ft container.

I suspect said Boeing is likely to be in bits smaller than a shipping container, also nobody knows its precise track, whereas they do know exactly where a given container ship (off which one has fallen) went.

 

[AndrewE]

You answered your own point:

I don't think so. People (e.g. even DarloRich) seem to approve the ever-bigger ship simply for its supposed economy. I was saying that someone else often bears the costs. I'm hoping that even the current pile-them-high sell-it-cheap merchants might realise that the costs that they dump on others at the moment will actually backfire. Higher insurance to cover the costs of the losses. Much higher port charges because of the dredging needed. Less reliable onward distribution because there will always be pinch points in the systems that they have to interface with.
Bigger (or faster, or whatever) isn't always better.

 

[najaB]

I suspect said Boeing is likely to be in bits smaller than a shipping container, also nobody knows its precise track, whereas they do know exactly where a given container ship (off which one has fallen) went.

The same issues apply though - while you might know fairly accurately where a given container ship was when it lost its cargo, the event that likely caused it to be lost (i.e. a storm) results in a very low confidence in the containers' subsequent motion.

 

[AndrewE]

Changing international law is hard.

That's why this organisation http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx
exists.

As a specialized agency of the United Nations, IMO is the global standard-setting authority for the safety, security and environmental performance of international shipping. Its main role is to create a regulatory framework for the shipping industry that is fair and effective, universally adopted and universally implemented.

In other words, its role is to create a level playing-field so that ship operators cannot address their financial issues by simply cutting corners and compromising on safety, security and environmental performance. This approach also encourages innovation and efficiency.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It may appear that way, but engineering is based on maths not intuition. Weather forecasting is also based on science rather than luck.

That is a completely meaningless statement and I can’t work out what point it is attempting to make. Weather forecasting might be based on science but as the word forecasting suggests it is a prediction, not a fact. The decision as to which type of ship to use and the method of carriage will also largely be economic and not based on science, i.e. the profitability for the shipping company, the companies whose goods are being shipped and the price the consumer is prepared to pay.

 

[najaB]

That is a completely meaningless statement and I can’t work out what point it is attempting to make. Weather forecasting might be based on science but as the word forecasting suggests it is a prediction, not a fact. The decision as to which type of ship to use and the method of carriage will also largely be economic and not based on science, i.e. the profitability for the shipping company, the companies whose goods are being shipped and the price the consumer is prepared to pay.

The point is that avoiding storms doesn't depend (in 99.9% of cases) on luck.

 

[Starmill]

In principle, I think posters are absolutely 100% right that the people making the stuff (and unfortunately by extension the people buying the stuff, i.e. all of us) should be the ones paying the cost of cleaning up after it, or mitigating the damage in the first place.

That could be the cost of cleaning up spilled containers, or the cost of cleaning wastewater from the factory that makes it, or the cost of paying for a high standard of safety for factory workers. All of these things are linked, and if you really want that new 4K TV...

In practice, it's very difficult to force this to happen. Approaches on International Law are certainly interesting, but it is something that's often misunderstood.

If we can't stop the Chinese from destroying reefs in the South China Sea to extert military control over the area, or the Icelanders from killing endangered species of whale "because it's in our culture"...

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Even the largest ACL vessel is only half the weight of the largest container vessels afloat so they are in a different league.

Having to use cell guides for the full height above deck would put many hours onto port turnaround time, as well as putting extra weight high up where you don't want it.

Above deck container stacks have long diagonal strapping bars fitted, locking the containers into blocks. As the statistics show, failures are rare.

Presumably the port turnaround time doesn't matter too much for ACL as that will be governed by the time it takes to un/load the garage deck, which I guess would always be the most time-consuming part of the operation.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I don't think so. People (e.g. even DarloRich) seem to approve the ever-bigger ship simply for its supposed economy. I was saying that someone else often bears the costs. I'm hoping that even the current pile-them-high sell-it-cheap merchants might realise that the costs that they dump on others at the moment will actually backfire. Higher insurance to cover the costs of the losses. Much higher port charges because of the dredging needed. Less reliable onward distribution because there will always be pinch points in the systems that they have to interface with.
Bigger (or faster, or whatever) isn't always better.

Though there do seems to be signs that the latest generation of superlarge containerships are taxing port and landside operations - including rail services - to their limits. I wonder whether 20,000teu or so is the effective maximum ship size?