SailNet Community banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,410 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"The world's biggest ship - for 53 days
The world's largest container ship, the Globe, is docking in Britain for the first time as it continues its maiden voyage. But how vast and powerful is it and how long until it's superseded?
The Globe is more than 400m (1,312ft) long, the equivalent of eight Olympic-size swimming pools. It is 56.8m (186ft) wide and 73m (240ft) high, its gross tonnage is 186,000 - the equivalent of 14,500 London buses, according to the Port of Felixstowe, where it arrived on Wednesday." BBC News - The world's biggest ship - for 53 days

I don't care what the Colregs say, I'm giving these guys a WIDE birth, period.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,854 Posts
"The world's biggest ship - for 53 days
The world's largest container ship, the Globe, is docking in Britain for the first time as it continues its maiden voyage. But how vast and powerful is it and how long until it's superseded?
The Globe is more than 400m (1,312ft) long, the equivalent of eight Olympic-size swimming pools. It is 56.8m (186ft) wide and 73m (240ft) high, its gross tonnage is 186,000 - the equivalent of 14,500 London buses, according to the Port of Felixstowe, where it arrived on Wednesday." BBC News - The world's biggest ship - for 53 days

I don't care what the Colregs say, I'm giving these guys a WIDE birth, period.
I hear it takes an entire month to turn and two weeks to stop, from full cruise speed........:D:D
 

·
Freedom isn't free
Joined
·
3,284 Posts
So when do these buyers realize that several smaller ships with more efficient screws are more capable to move cargo... or better stated more flexible to go elsewhere in pinch?

probably about the time fuel costs go up again.

Can someone answer for me why they build these massive direct-drive engines, instead of taking the freight train approach of hybrid drives (diesel engines driving generators for power, then electric motors driving the locomotive)... Or is it just inefficient to have multiple "screws," better to have 1 large one than several small ones?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
Can someone answer for me why they build these massive direct-drive engines, instead of taking the freight train approach of hybrid drives (diesel engines driving generators for power, then electric motors driving the locomotive)... Or is it just inefficient to have multiple "screws," better to have 1 large one than several small ones?
I always wondered why cars aren't done that way either. A small diesel generator powering and electric car....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
Well, yeah, they do build "New Panamax" ships ahead of time so they'll be ready for the new Panama locks, now scheduled to open in early 2016, a little over a year late, but it's definitely going to happen.

"max" as a suffix is a shipping/charter term for the largest ship that can fit a given canal, port, or design formula, with ("old") "Panamax" being the most commonly heard, they measure it in tonnage but about 800 feet and definitely not over 106' in beam.

Look now how many "maxes" there are:

Ship Sizes | Maritime-Connector.com

These are really big girls but even so, Colregs rule 18 still gives the lowly sailboat stand-on status, subject to the Narrow channel rule (9), Traffic Separation Scheme rule (10), and the Restricted Maneuverability Rule which is 18(a)(ii) if you look it up as I just did. And in fog/restricted visibility neither vessel has right of way.

But taking two miles to stop and five minutes to turn right does not constitute "restricted in ability to maneuver" if that's the ship's normal capability, so sail is still privileged. But as Capta mentions, I personally would abandon all hope of trying to "get missed" by that "give-way" Triple-E huge containership unless I had a blood-oath agreement with her captain that he would and could. Otherwise I'm "right, but dead right" as my old man used to say when we were out in a small sailboat. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
It is 56.8m (186ft) wide ... 'm giving these guys a WIDE birth, period.
It's not very wide: 57 meters. Hmmm. Quick little arithmetic in my head ... At 3 knots I can sail out of her way in about 45 seconds. Just. Out at sea there is not much of a danger. Really narrow harbor entrances are about 400 feet wide. Again plenty of room to pass, if you see them coming.

The largest bulk carriers are the same length ... so there is some length limit somewhere in the world ... or at the shipyard.

SHNOOL said:
Can someone answer for me why they build these massive direct-drive engines, instead of taking the freight train approach of hybrid drives...
You are joking, yes?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
Can someone answer for me why they build these massive direct-drive engines, instead of taking the freight train approach of hybrid drives (diesel engines driving generators for power, then electric motors driving the locomotive)...
You are joking, yes?
No. Are not our Nimitz class aircraft carriers that way? I think they are nuclear powered to produce electricity to drive electric motors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
No. Are not our Nimitz class aircraft carriers that way? I think they are nuclear powered to produce electricity to drive electric motors.
The Navy does not care about fuel cost.

Those ships are powered by *steam*. Not electric in any way.

Electric drive is only common in ferry boats and their cousins like cruise ships where other design constraints rule: maneuverability and saving interior volume by having pods outside.

Hybrid drive makes zero sense, today, in any long range vessel.
 

·
islander bahama 24
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
I though ship builders limited the size of container ships so they would fit in the locks of canals.
No they don't do that to fit the existing locks and its not the length its the beam that is the main constraint to the existing locks take a look at the west coast of the USA ports are full of ships that won't fit the current canal the shippers offload here and ship by truck and rail to the mid western states its cheaper than going around the horn and they have been doing it or a long time that way.
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,410 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
So when do these buyers realize that several smaller ships with more efficient screws are more capable to move cargo... or better stated more flexible to go elsewhere in pinch?

probably about the time fuel costs go up again.
Can someone answer for me why they build these massive direct-drive engines, instead of taking the freight train approach of hybrid drives (diesel engines driving generators for power, then electric motors driving the locomotive)... Or is it just inefficient to have multiple "screws," better to have 1 large one than several small ones?
In the article it stated that these behemoths can move the containers for 20% of the cost of doing so on the smaller vessels. That must include the fact that the Panama Canal has not been viable for the bigger container ships for quite some time.
Diesel electric vessels have been around for quite some time. Many of the Coast Guard vessels were diesel electric back in the 40's through the 70's, but were found to be a great deal more trouble than conventionally powered vessels. It added another expert in the engine room that an amateur service like the CG just couldn't maintain. Also, the railroads can add or subtract locomotives for different loads and routes, which a vessel cannot.
My thought when reading the article, was would these monsters ever make a run completely full, especially in these uncertain economic times? Would they end up spending too much time dockside or anchored out, waiting to gather 20,000 containers?
 

·
islander bahama 24
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
Here are the specifics on canal limits and the main limit seems to be draft at 39 ft 6 in

A.
Maximum Transit Draft: 12.04 meters (39 feet, 6 inches) Tropical Fresh Water.
B.
Maximum Beam: 32.31 meters (106 feet).
C.
Maximum Overall Length: 294.13 meters (965 feet) for passenger and container vessels.
D.
Maximum Airdraft: 57.91 meters (190 feet) at any tide, 62.48 meters (205 feet) at low tide with special approval from the ACP authorities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,641 Posts
The megaships are usually designed very particularly for a particular area of operations. They reduce expenses because the crew size is basically "one crew, one ship" without regard for ship size. In theory, a bigger ship could mean a faster ship could mean better able to outrun weather and repel pirates, so those factors could be involved.

Propulsion systems? I'm sure they've done sharp cost accounting including construction, procurement, maintenance, life cycle, reliability.

Panama Canal? Not all runs need to cross the Americas, there is the rest of the world, i.e the Suez as well. If this is for China trade to the EU? Panama Canal would not be a consideration. And with the Chinese and Nicaraguans breaking ground for a new canal that is supposed to obsolete the Panamanian one...or with the Northwest Passage being projected to become viable so shortly...Could be built for Chinese exports via the NW Passage to Russia, for all we know.

When you can afford to pay the yard bill for something that big, odds are you've invested a great deal in determining how to build it. And then you either get rich because you're so smart, or you go bust because you gambled wrong. Happens all the time.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top