Huge container ships: are they sensible?

[DarloRich]

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

No problem. The shipping company can have the box back AFTER the contents have been searched by locals

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.

In fairness I would rather we didn't ship goods half way around the world for all kinds of reasons but whilst we can wish for a perfect world we have to acknowledge the real world. People want tablets and cheap t shirts and flat screen tv's and rubber dog toys and all kinds of stuff that a globalized economy provides. That wont change any time soon.

If we admit that we may as well try to make the process as efficient as we can. One big ship chugging about has to do less damage than 3 smaller ones. Impose all those costs on the distributors and the majority will simply filter down the chain meaning the people in Bangladesh making those cheap t shirts get even less money.

 

[AndrewE]

In fairness I would rather we didn't ship goods half way around the world for all kinds of reasons but whilst we can wish for a perfect world we have to acknowledge the real world. People want tablets and cheap t shirts and flat screen tv's and rubber dog toys and all kinds of stuff that a globalized economy provides. That wont change any time soon.

If we admit that we may as well try to make the process as efficient as we can. One big ship chugging about has to do less damage than 3 smaller ones. Impose all those costs on the distributors and the majority will simply filter down the chain meaning the people in Bangladesh making those cheap t shirts get even less money.

You did say that and I agree with you. But on colossal ships, my feeling is that we might have passed the optimal size. "All those costs" might be higher with 2 big ships than with 3 smaller ones, especially if the wider costs are considered. we have so far spotted 1) admitted higher risk of losing cargo (so major but unquantifiable inconvenience for the customers, plus higher insurance) 2) deeper dredging for access to ports 3) congestion in container stockyards 4) congestion in the distribution networks 5) waste of fuel and resources when cargoes are scrapped or lost, leaving most of them fit for only recycling - if recovered.
How do you cost this?
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/video-container-collision-shatters-racing-yacht

Ruyant’s collision with an unidentified floating object marks the fifth time that a Vendée Globe competitor has struck something and been forced out during this leg of the race. Sailors Vincent Riou, Morgan Lagraviere, Kito de Pavant and Bertrand de Broc have all abandoned this race due to damage sustained by semi-submerged objects of some kind.

ps just found this too:
http://www.oceannavigator.com/March-April-2013/A-legendary-offshore-danger/
says

Perhaps the best documented incident of a collision with a container happened on Jan. 11, 2000. Marine investigators believe the British scallop trawler, Solway Harvester, struck a fully-loaded container in the Irish Sea killing all seven crewmembers. When rescuers arrived on the scene, plastic vats filled with mayonnaise were found floating near where the trawler went down.

But the worst incident in the history of container shipping occurred in 1998 when APL China lost 406 containers in the north Pacific. The ship somehow managed to survive 70-foot waves stirred up by Typhoon Babs though photographs suggest just barely. Three other containerships also fell victim, resulting in more than 1,000 containers lost overboard. And these were just the ones we know about.

 

[najaB]

1) admitted higher risk of losing cargo (so major but unquantifiable inconvenience for the customers

Is there a higher overall risk of losing cargo? There might be a higher risk of cargo going overboard if the ship encounters a large enough storm but (a) if there are fewer ships then there are fewer chances for storm and ship to interact; and (b) a larger ship will be less affected by a given size of wave.

 

[AndrewE]

Is there a higher overall risk of losing cargo? There might be a higher risk of cargo going overboard if the ship encounters a large enough storm but (a) if there are fewer ships then there are fewer chances for storm and ship to interact; and (b) a larger ship will be less affected by a given size of wave.

There are youtube videos of the biggest ships being almost incapacitated by storms. Obviously it's bad publicity for the operators, so I would guess coverage is suppressed where they can: several of the articles I read talked about the shipping lines and insurers being very reticent to admit the actual scale of losses. I took furnessvale's comment that

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.

as meaning that proper housings for the boxes wasn't viable above a certain height, but that some mitigation was put in instead. Added to the comment that a company running smaller ships claimed never to have lost one. (In that case I think garages below decks is probably a bad thing as a couple of floors of cars or other loose things is nothing like as much weight low down as other stowage and cargoes would give you, so will be worse in terms of the ship bobbing about.)

 

[birchesgreen]

Loose cargos are the most dangerous, nickel ore in particular.

 

[najaB]

There are youtube videos of the biggest ships being almost incapacitated by storms.

This is true. But (a) how often does it actually happen (the singular of data isn't anecdote); and (b) how often does it actually result in cargo being lost overboard?

 

[HSTEd]

It is also worth noting that problems with access to ports would be solved by moving to a more suitable harbour location.

For example, in the extreme, you could build a major container handling port at Scapa Flow with only a minor extension on routes from the far east (and shorter routes if the North-west passage ever opens up!).

There are other less extreme locations available, and there is always the Portland solution.
Trying to force larger and larger ships into historic ports however is a bad idea.

Also worth noting that larger ships permit alternative propulsion technologies to be considered.... for example the price of a naval nuclear propulsion plant for a surface vessel is estimated at about a billion US dollars.... almost independent of power output.
Larger faster ships would help there.

 

[Muttley]

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...

I wonder what Freightliner's loss rate percentage is.

 

[najaB]

I wonder what Freightliner's loss rate percentage is.

GB Railfreight had at least two incidents last year with containers on their sides, so the rate will be much worse.

 

[birchesgreen]

So basically they should haul their containers down the WCML in a big container ship

 

[DarloRich]

So basically they should haul their containers down the WCML in a big container ship

Is that a w10 gauged ship?

 

[edwin_m]

Is that a w10 gauged ship?

No, they will enlarge the WCML to post-Panamax and knock down most of Milton Keynes.

 

[DarloRich]

No, they will enlarge the WCML to post-Panamax and knock down most of Milton Keynes.

That is fine. I live in fenny Stratford. We are an entirely separate community and already have a canal so are well used to boats

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

Is there any reason why they can't develop a retractable telescopic cell guide system? That would be out of the way in port and would also be lighter at the higher extremes.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Is there any reason why they can't develop a retractable telescopic cell guide system? That would be out of the way in port and would also be lighter at the higher extremes.

You could in theory - but how reliable would it be after several weeks battering by wind and salt water?

 

[Groningen]

That ship carried 19.000 containers. How many freighttrains would that be?

 

[Esker-pades]

That ship carried 19.000 containers. How many freighttrains would that be?

There's far too much variation in length to come up with a simple answer. If the variation is between 20 and 30 containers per train, that's anything between 630 and 950 trains.

 

[furnessvale]

There's far too much variation in length to come up with a simple answer. If the variation is between 20 and 30 containers per train, that's anything between 630 and 950 trains.

The 19000 quoted are TEUs ie 20ft. The new standard length for FLL trains carries 90 TEUs, ie 211 trains. Still a lot but the alternative is road.

Of course the situation in the USA is somewhat different where around 40 of their trains would take the load.

 

[Esker-pades]

The 19000 quoted are TEUs ie 20ft. The new standard length for FLL trains carries 90 TEUs, ie 211 trains. Still a lot but the alternative is road.

Of course the situation in the USA is somewhat different where around 40 of their trains would take the load.

Ah, I was thinking the 40-45ft ones. Thanks for that.

 

[GrimShady]

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

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?

Designers can't account for poor ship handling (if that was indeed the cause), look at RMS Titanic, she was designed to survive the worst imaginable damage thought possible at the time in service, her crew managed to exceed that on her first voyage!

Ships are also designed with a significant wave height in mind, its possible Zoe was operating outside this. She may have been going to fast for the weather conditions, she may have been suffering from parametric rolling.

Your second statement isn't true.

 

[WessexEclectic]

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

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?

Given the shipping industry's historic loss rate this pales into comparison. My point is not to justify this event but to point to the context of the culture and trajectory of progress.

To me its sounds more like human error. As shown by the publication of A Masters Guide to Container Securing (2nd Edition), the industry takes these events seriously, along with all the other types of MARPOL events.

Billy Connolly sums it up.

Jimmy, a junior signalman for the local railway, has decided to apply for promotion to senior signalman, and has been told to meet the inspector at the signal box to take his exam.
The inspector decides to find out how Jimmy would react under pressure, so asks him, "What would you do if you realized that two trains were heading towards each other on the same track?" Immediately, Jimmy says, "I would switch one train onto the other track, thus averting a disaster."
"Good - but what if the lever broke?" asks the inspector. "Well, I'd run down to the tracks, activate the manual lever, thus averting a disaster" answers Jimmy.
"What if that had been struck by lightning?" challenges the inspector. "In that case," Jimmy continues, "I'd run back up here and use the phone to call the next signal box, thus averting a disaster."
"What if the phone was busy?" comes the next quickfire question. "Well," Jimmy argues, "I'd have to run to the street level and use the public phone near the station, thus averting a disaster".
"What if the public phone was on fire?" "Oh, well," says Jimmy, "in that case I'd run into town and get my Uncle Alistair."
Puzzled, the inspector asks, "Why would you do that?"
Jimmy replies "Because he's never seen a train crash..."