6 ms·
First big containerships en route to the Panama Canal
- vermontdevil 10y agoI thought this was more interesting, using miniature models such as tiny ships for training http://theloadstar.co.uk/panamas-model-for-success-as-pilots-use-tiny-ships-to-practise/ http://theloadstar.co.uk/panamas-model-for-success-as-pilots...
- theoh 10y agoThere's a site in France which specializes in this kind of training: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Revel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Revel
- schoen 10y agoJohn McPhee wrote a super-awesome journalistic piece based on a visit to Port Revel (called "The Ships of Port Revel"). It's published in his book Uncommon Carriers (which is about profiles of people who work in different parts of the transportation industry). Depending on your country, you may be able to read the whole thing on Google Books via this link from Danielle Sucher: https://twitter.com/daniellesucher/status/491217820945223680 https://twitter.com/daniellesucher/status/491217820945223680
- op00to 10y agoI want to ride that adorable little boat around all day.
- jedberg 10y agoI understood about 1/2 the phrases in this article. Can someone who is familiar with shipping terms tell me what Panamax strings are?
- USAnum1 10y agoPanamax ships are the absolute maximum size of ship the Panama Canal can handle (eg: PANAma canal MAXimum). [0] Edit: Obviously, the canal is now larger. So Panamax in this case refers to ships that maxed out the old maximum size. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax
- Animats 10y agoAnd they really mean "absolute max". See these pictures of Panamax ships being carefully squeezed through the locks.[1] The original two lock lanes were built in 1917, and they were built big for the time. But bigger ships are now available and won't fit. So the Panama Canal Authority just finished a third lock lane, with longer, wider, and deeper locks, for larger ships.[2] There were problems with the new construction, including serious leaks in the concrete. But the new locks open for business in 10 days. Here's good drone imagery of the new locks being used by a ship for the first test run.[3] If you're really into this, here's a video of the basic operational procedures for using the new locks.[4] A maximum sized, fully loaded container ship pays about $1M in tolls for each transit. That's about $85 per container. There's a loyalty program for regular customers, with discounts. [1] http://www.canalmuseum.com/canalphotos/panamax.htm http://www.canalmuseum.com/canalphotos/panamax.htm [2] http://micanaldepanama.com/expansion/ http://micanaldepanama.com/expansion/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA2TyFxbH9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA2TyFxbH9Q [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrQrKAku3e0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrQrKAku3e0
- toyg 10y agoOne thing that baffles me is the fact that ok, the third lane is bigger; but it's one lane vs the existing two. If everyone started using only New Panamax ships, they would effectively cut in half the number of ships that can go through (and would likely have congestion issues because of alternating directions of travel). Just to balance that, new ships should have 100% more capacity, but spec numbers look 50% bigger at best. Is there a plan to enlarge at least one of the existing lanes, once the new lane is open?
- Isamu 10y agoSome context (2014) http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-hidden-opportunity-in-container-shipping http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corp... The industry’s bleak economics Transport is often seen as the harbinger of the broader economy. It certainly fulfilled that role in the recent economic crisis, as business fell off precipitously. However, shipping is now also a kind of lagging indicator: its performance is trailing the broader, somewhat erratic global recovery. A big part of the problem is that the industry continues to add capacity. By 2015, the typical vessel delivered will handle about 10,000 20-foot equivalent units (TEU), five times more than ships built in the 1990s. Not surprisingly, pressure to fill this capacity and capture the efficiency benefits of larger vessels has led to hasty decisions by carriers. In turn, profits have become exceptionally volatile. Record losses in 2009 were followed by strong profits in 2010―and significant losses again in 2011. The supply/demand imbalance, the larger vessels that will only make the imbalance worse, and the volatility of profits are significant problems. However we argue that they are in fact symptoms of these deeper challenges: The market is saturated, and the industry is now in a race for market share. The quest to take share is squeezing out smaller players and has started another wave of price wars. Shipping companies are forsaking their guidelines on pricing, both in spot rates and general rate increases, and choosing not to enforce contracts with customers. Companies are pricing at their marginal cost. That’s not necessarily bad; in fact, it’s the right decision for many. But for others it is irrational, and when everyone does it, the industry suffers. Many shipping companies have ineffective cost-management systems.
- kyllo 10y agoI used to work at a major container carrier and they actually had a pretty good handle on their operating costs (it's not hard when you only sell one thing), their problem was insane capital expenditures. When China joined the WTO in 2002 they bet big on the upward trend in demand continuing indefinitely, and when the economy crashed in 2008 they were left with a huge order book of new vessels they no longer needed. They still haven't recovered from that.
- gggggggg 10y agoAm I reading this right. I could HIRE a container ship for $5500 a day? A whole ship! Does not seem right to me, crew costs would have to be more than that. > Indeed, according to Alphaliner, there are about 40 panamax container vessels currently seeking employment on the spot market against an unfavourable backdrop of oversupply. It said that charter rates remained “stuck at rock-bottom levels” – typically at about just $5,000-$5,500 a day
- danvayn 10y agoI have a feeling those are BYOC - bring your own crew.
- neffy 10y agoStill, it's got to beat those stupid luxury yachts.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- WildUtah 10y agoI'm confused. The article implies that 'westbound' ships are headed the opposite direction of ships headed for New York. But ships traverse the Panama Canal from east to west on the way from Asia to New York. Is there a convention of calling ships that cross Panama from southeast to northwest 'eastbound' and ships that traverse from northwest to southeast 'westbound?' Because that seems like it would be even more confusing that things already are.
- niftich 10y agoThey're referring to global (i.e. shipping) geography with regard to east-west, not local geography. The convention is actually to call the Atlantic side 'north' and the Pacific side 'south'.
- alienasa 10y agoBecause it is actually 'north' and 'south'. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Atlantic exit of the canal is actually west of the Pacific exit.
- vlehto 10y agoFor anybody interested in geopolitics: the new canal is big enough for Nimitz and Ford class carriers. Cutting travel time from NY to LA from 17 days to 7 days. NY to Taiwan strait is now only ~14 days, previously ~20 days and LA Taiwan strait remains ~8 days. LA - Israel travel times from 18 days to 11, from NY about 7 days. This has relatively little to do with "power projection" as carrier battle group is lot more likely to use the Suez canal in such situations. But for U.S. defense this is significant. Now nobody can start crossing the pacific with evil thoughts without taking into account every carrier battle group in Pacific and Atlantic. And if you embark from Barents sea, you have to take into account anything floating around Hawaii or closer.
- relix 10y agoIs it easy to sabotage the canal while the battle groups are traversing it, effectively trapping them inside? Would they take that risk?
- vlehto 10y agoThe alternative is not that much better, Drake passage at the tip of south America is stormy and "only" 1000km across and very stormy. This makes it very difficult for carrier to safely operate aircraft. Which makes it difficult to out range threats. So they pass though stairs of Magellan. Which in turn makes surprise attack with container missile more of a threat. You could fire it from container parked at Punta Arenas. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-system-26146327.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-syst... Here is Nimitz at suez channel: http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%20Suez%20Canal.jpg http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%2... and here in Magellan strait: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-6536T-066_The_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN_76)_cruises_through_the_Straits_of_Magellan.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-653... Edit: added the word "stormy". Drake passage is mean business.https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d6-11e2-8c7c-d4ae52e62bcc/resize/570xauto/df581edfcc2b8edf0d0248c45f1cc62f/3t_global_wind.jpg https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d...