Is Maersk "E" class containership still the largest?

[equinoxsailor21]

Is Emma Maersk and the rest of the "E" class containership still the largest containership to date?
Any update would be very much appreciated!!!!
 :hammer:

[Morten]

The question isn't as easy to answer as one might think. Because if you are talking about length overall and gross tonnage, yes - by far (for container ships). But several other companies have ships with larger official TEU numbers. I know from personal experience that the PS-type vessels have a very conservative TEU count compared to other companies.
The TEU count is however not really a useable number comparing ships as different companies have different ways of calculating the TEU number. Maersk are as I said very conservative and base their number on the actual number of containers you can realistically carry. Other companies tend to just calculate the theoretical number of TEUs though the ships aren't actually able to carry it. It seems that TEU is somewhat of a prestigious matter for many companies despite it being a silly method of measuring size.
I think the best way to compare size is by comparing Gross Tonnage (though that still isn't completely representative for a container vessel), and in Gross Tonnage, Emma and Sisters are by far the largest container vessels.

However, Emma and her sisters were never the largest ship in general. That price goes to the Jahre Viking / Knock Nevis /Seawise Giant - however, she has been used as an FSO in Qatar and is now being readied for demolition.

[Phil English]

It depends on how you define "largest" Mark.

 - Emma Maersk class - around 156,900 dwt / 170,700 gt with an LOA of 397.71 m and stated nominal TEU capacity of between 11,000 and 13,500 teu. However, it is well known that Maersk understate the nominal TEU capacity of their vessels.

- MSC Daniela class (Samsung) - around 156,300 dwt / 150,350 gt, LOA 366.00 m and 13,800 nominal teu

- MSC Danit / CMA CGM Christoph Columb classes (DSME) - around 157,000 dwt / 153,000 gt, LOA 365.5 m, 13,300 nominal TEU

Brgds
Phil

[equinoxsailor21]

thank you very much for the info... i appreciate it now... so containership has a long race to go i think when it comes to "largest"...
I believe that Knock Nevis" has been renamed "Mont" and is now beached at Alang, India... So by far its TI class who reigns the "largest" in the tanker categories....
Best regards... 8-)

[alshial00]

The MSC and CMA CGM ships under construction in Samsung and Daewoo yards are certainly large with accommodation midships and funnel stack aft...not the best looking, compared to Emma Maersk. With CMA CGM under financial bail out from the French government I expect, who knows what will happen to their ships.

If we look at STX shipyard say below...we have farther to go on the increase in size. Extract from http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item_10082.html

New designs on the world's biggest container ships
Behemoths would dwarf current giants and be the longest merchant ships...


STX Shipbuilding of South Korea said in a press release that they have designed what are the world's biggest ever container ships.

If the ships come to fruition, they will in fact be the longest ships, at 450 metres, operating on the high seas. The world's longest ship is currently the KNOCK NEVIS, at 458 metres, but she is now permanently moored in the Persian Gulf as a floating oil storage facility.

The new designs (there are two, one with a single propellor the other with twin propellors) will carry an astonishing 22,000 TEUs. Currently the largest container ships, the eight vessels of the EMMA MAERSK class, are designed as 13,500 TEU ships. These ships, which are giants at the moment, have a length of 397 metres.

(To put this into some perspective for those who still think in terms of feet - as this writer does!- the familiar QE2 is 963 feet long, the new STX designs are 1476 feet long!)

"The 22,000 TEU marks a breakthrough in the sense that the 20,000 TEU was once considered as the limit of a container ship can get in terms of its transport capacity both in terms of technology and economy." said STX.

Despite the carrying capacity of the new ships, STX say they will 'fit most major world ports'.

The drive to bigger ships, carrying more containers ever more efficiently, is driven largely by the price of fuel, STX say that these new vessels would cut the shipping price per container by 40%. A massive saving for exporters.

[spotti]

Maersk states the teu capacity of the E-ships to be 11000 units.
Usually - from what I have read - Maersk uses units of 14 tonnes.

CMA CGM states the CCIA capacity at 14t of CMA CGM Christophe
Colomb to be 9932 units.

Niels

[Phil English]

The STX press release and Shipping Times article are nearly two years old and were issued at a time when container shipping was booming and everyone was rushing to order larger ships. It was basically just a publicity stunt. Given how the bottom has fallen out of the market and owners are struggling to ditch their orders for 12,000+ teu ships, I really wouldn't hold out much hope of vessels of that size being built anytime soon.

Brgds
Phil

[equinoxsailor21]

That's exactly what i am thinking... It has been posted also on this site for some time yet no ship has been delivered nor any news of it being laid... I also believe that finding a cargo for the present tonnage of containership has been very difficult since the economic downturn began.... I wonder how Maersk manage to find cargo for the "E" class sisters..... :hammer:

[Morten]

I actually think that we will see more of these super large vessels! I don't think they'll be larger than the PS-class (the "E-type" is a class of mid 90's supertankers), as we are nearing the limits for what the Suez canal can accommodate.

What you have to remember here is that these vessels are hugely efficient compared to the smaller vessels. This is also why you haven't seen Emma and sisters shut down for long term lay up. I have worked on both the PS-type and the S-type vessels and knows for a fact that the PS only use slightly more fuel despite their greatly increased capacity.
There are a number of factors which makes large ships more viable than small ones:

- Greater total ship efficiency (lower fuel consumption per teu)
- Less "ship" per TEU (the larger ship doesn't consume proportionally more steel to produce than a smaller vessel)
- Lower per TEU crew costs as crews doesn't grow with capacity
- Lower per TEU port and transit fees.

The reason why the owners are trying to run away from their new building contracts on larger vessels is because these are more expensive and therefore greater potential to save a buck.
When the market picks up again (and it will) I am sure we'll see a shift from more smaller vessels to fewer larger vessels.

Remember, the more containers you can stack on one ship, the larger the profit per container will be.

[Phil English]

BlueWombat,

I do agree that the ultra-large FCCs do offer greater economies of scale and long-term, we are likely to see a shift away from the smaller ships. However, the fact remains that 2009 saw an unprecendent 10% drop in global box trade and, at the same time, rapid containership capacity growth as almost 5 million teu of new ships are due to hit the water in the coming 3-4 years. This perilous market outlook, coupled with extemely nervous financial markets, mean that any significant ordering of new ships in the short terms is very unlikely.

Brgds
Phil

[Morten]

Phil,

I completely agree with you. My earlier post might have been a bit vague.

I'm not saying that we'll see the new giga-ships like the ones the Koreans have designed the day after tomorrow. There is no doubt that even though the market eventually will pick up, there will be a very long lag before new newbuildings will be ordered.

What I was trying to convey, is that we will eventually see more of these giant vessels. The above posts made it sound like we weren't going to see more of these vessels ever again and that shipowners would start downsizing. It might have worked in the auto industry, but it doesn't work in the shipping business.

Regards,
Morten

[spotti]

More giant container ships are still in the pipe line.

According to www.joc.com (Maritime Journal of Commerce) UASC has obtained financing for three 13100 TEU ordered from Samsung HI. Six more ships to follow.

"The A13s will significantly improve UASC's cost base to enable the company to compete head-to-head with other industry majors" (UASC CEO quote).

Elsewhere it has been noted that UASC is the smallest "major" to have ordered ships in the 13000-TEU-range.

Niels

[Phil English]

Hi Spotti,

Maybe the JoC report is a little unclear. The UASC ships are not new orders. They were initially ordered back in 2008. It's commonplace for newbuilding contracts to be made without full financing in place, as payments to ship yards are made in instalments, often at tail heavy terms. All the JoC is saying is that the financing is now in place. The first ship is due to deliver this October.

Brgds
Phil

[spotti]

Hi Phil

I didn't mention anything about new orders.

What I was trying to convey - to quote BlueWombat 2010/2/22 - was just
that these UASC ships have not been cancelled or converted - and
apparently not delayed either.

Also by quoting UASC I just wanted to higlight BlueWombat's statement
"that these vessels are highly efficient compared to smaller vessels".

Br
Niels

[SD7]

The following issue of GL's Nonstop magazine holds an interesting article about the MSC Pamela.

http://www.gl-group.com/pdf/nonstop_2005-03_E.pdf

While the KNOCK NEVIS has an loa of 458m, it's probably debatable that containerships will grow so long. Structural integrity relies on a ships' keel and main deck. The longer containerships become, so the main deck has to become thicker to maintain that integrity.

In studies, GL determined ships over 10,000 teu needed steel plate of 70mm-plus thick to ensure the main decks had the right level of strength. I think their absolute maximum size was for ships of about 19,000 teu.

The problem is that as the deck plates get thicker then the ships become too stiff.

With tankers the deck area is greater so the load is spread over a wider area - ie, there are no gaping holes to access the cargo!

Steve