ShipSpotting.com Forum

Shipspotters all over the world => Help and Advice => Topic started by: SkipSkip12 on February 06, 2018, 05:40:15 pm



Title: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: SkipSkip12 on February 06, 2018, 05:40:15 pm
Good evening dear all,

as someone new to the topic, I have question to which I was not able to find the answer on the internet.

It seem that every new build ULCV has the approx. dimension of 400m x 55-60m.

Why is it like this? When Shipping Companies want to have more profit due to larger TEU count, then why do the not simply build 500m x 70m vessels for example?

The Suez Canal shouldn't be the problem, because it has no locks, right?

Thanks for your help! :)


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: ChasB46 on February 06, 2018, 06:02:22 pm
Width determined by maximum outreach of largest container cranes = 22 rows/ width at present. Previously max 18 width on Panamax criteria.  Only a few ports have this size of Super Post Panamax cranes. Thus width determined by the ports not the ports by the ships.


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: SkipSkip12 on February 06, 2018, 06:40:20 pm
Width determined by maximum outreach of largest container cranes = 22 rows/ width at present. Previously max 18 width on Panamax criteria.  Only a few ports have this size of Super Post Panamax cranes. Thus width determined by the ports not the ports by the ships.

Nice, Thank you!

But what about the lenght?


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: ChasB46 on February 06, 2018, 08:12:09 pm
Similar problem. Container ports would have to be re-constructed if ship length extends. At present there are only a matter of metres between ships along quaysides. If you berth a longer ship that would close an adjacent berth, not agreeable to the port operator/ inefficient. How would MOL feel if told Maersk was taking part of their berth etc.


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: MO Roy on February 07, 2018, 12:01:23 am
Hi,

Well first there are actually bigger boxships in the pipeline.
MSC, eleven, and CMA CGM, nine, have boxships on order that will be 400m long (24 40ft bays long) and 24 boxes wide. Which is 1 box wider than current ultra large boxships.

Suex-canal, for instance, is already becoming a real limiting factor.
You effeminately don't want to round the corner at Ismalia with a 500x70 meter boxships, they would all end up against the sand.

Cheers,
Roy


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: lappino on February 07, 2018, 12:41:39 am

...

Suex-canal, for instance, is already becoming a real limiting factor.
You effeminately don't want to round the corner at Ismalia with a 500x70 meter boxships, they would all end up against the sand.

...


Damn you Autocorrect! :)

Actually, I didn't know that they will increase the width, I thought they will make the new vessels 1 x 40' bay longer.

Cheers

Vlad


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: MO Roy on February 08, 2018, 09:48:37 pm
Thanks Vlad for understanding what happened, especially when typing on a danish styled keyboard......

The only rumors I heard about box-ships that were going to be longer then 400m were on this site regarding the six ULCS originally ordered by CSCL (Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding) which are now incorporated in Cosco Shipping's new-building pipeline. 

Checking Equasis the first one could be the Cosco Shipping Universe. Just a wait and see if she turns out a "standard" ULCS or even more "ultra".

Cheers,
Roy


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: Neil D on February 12, 2018, 04:30:12 pm
As others have said, maximum container ship dimensions are constrained by canals, ports and terminals. Ports and terminals in particular have, over the last few years, had to spend huge sums of money on enhancing and enlarging approach channels, turning circles, berths (length and depth), gantry cranes (outreach and height). The ever larger ships offer economies of scale to shipping lines, but push up costs for ports and terminals (and offer no more cargo than before, just greater peaks of cargo).

It seems though, that for the time being at least, the lines have realised that they can't push beyond the "400m long x 61m wide x 16.5m draft" footprint.

There is a commercial consideration though as well - if lines go for even larger ships, they have to find enough cargo to fill them. Today, the only way lines can fill 20,000 teu ships is by operating in alliances, and we are already down to just 3 alliances.


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: Captain Ted on February 13, 2018, 02:58:26 am
To increase box capacity all what they have to do move the bridge all the way forward.

Somebody before mentioned the old Panamax had 18 box wide,,that is incorrect the old Panamax ships had 13 box wides.  The new Panama locks I do not know,,I think it is 18 . I did not see in Crsitobal ships coming out of the canal which are wider then 44m. (Correct me if I am wrong) That goes along with 44 m


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: Neil D on February 13, 2018, 09:04:09 am
The new Panama locks allow a maximum of 19 boxes wide. Maximum ship size is around 14,400 teu.


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: Captain Ted on February 13, 2018, 12:10:50 pm
Ship size by TEU is relative. Old panama the absolute max what was permitted to pass was 294x32 m with a max possible draft of 12.2 in freshwater which was the bar in Pedro Miguel locks.
The new locks take 366x49m with max draft of 15.2 m. (the locks it self as per a drawing I saw are actually 427x55m)  How far that will be expanded one day will be interesting to see in the future. The old Panama had also a lower restriction and then SEALAND (I think) had the first 292 m vessel passing through and pushed the bounderies. I guess sooner or later The Alliances will push to pass with bigger vessels.


Title: Re: Maximum Size of Container Vessel
Post by: chrisg46 on March 31, 2018, 06:57:37 am
If I'm reading posts right, its unusual to see that inaccurate information is being reported here, specifically regarding crane outreaches.

For instance, Felixstowe has had 22 row wide outreach cranes for many years on berths 6 and 7, while all of the berth 8 and 9 cranes are 24 rows wide.

London Gateway opened back in 2013 with 25 row wide outreach cranes installed from day one, and is to a large degree impervious to increases in beam - length is not a factor there, as it presently has 3 contiguous 400m berths, so that quay could handle 2 420m vessels and 1 366 with ease. All of the world's ports at which the current fleet of 400m by 60m vessels could handle wider vessels with existing or on-order cranes, and a 20 metre increase in length wouldn't make life impossible for them.

Neither Gateway nor Felixstowe would have major issues with 20m longer ships, and probably Southampton would manage, despite saying its maximum berth size is 400m. At this time, 420m ships would fit into most ports' mix of vessels, although the replacement/renewal of the existing 400m fleet with 420m long ships would cause a log-jam.