Container ship sizes have become ever larger since the inception of this vessel type, and this process has become more extreme as time has gone on. The motivation for carriers to invest in larger tonnage is relatively simple – the bigger the ship, the lower the slot cost per teu. And in an era in which container shipping has become commoditised, lower costs and therefore the ability to offer shippers and forwarders lower freight rates, is the chief weapon to win market share. In these economically precarious times it is also the best tool for staying in business.
The age of ultra large container vessels (ULCVs) began with Maersk Line’s order for 20 Triple-E vessels, rated with a capacity of 18,270 teu. The Danish carrier was followed by the rest of the pack ordering ULCVs of varying sizes upwards of 14,000 teu – but the fundamental trend was to increase capacity over the Triple-E. Last year saw Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC) introducing MSC Oscar, China Shipping Container Lines Co (CSCL) introducing CSCL Globe and United Arab Shipping Co (UASC) launching Barzan, the first of its six A18 class vessels built by Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries Co in Mokpo, South Korea.
Although UASC publically states that the vessel’s capacity is over 18,800 teu, its nominal capacity is actually 19,870 teu, making it the world’s largest container ship. It is the first vessel to have a quoted length of 400m, whereas most other ULCVs are a metre or so shorter. It has a breadth of 58.68m and a draught of 16m.
Barzan, along with its A18 class sisterships, can load 10 tiers deep below decks, with up to 11 high on deck, and has 1,000 reefer slots. Its launch coincided with the last Triple-E delivery and the announcement that Maersk had placed a new order for 11 Triple-E next generation 19,630 teu vessels for delivery in 2017 and 2018, with Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co in South Korea.
The new ships represent a capacity increase of 1,360 teu over the original Triple-Es, or 7.4 per cent. In terms of their physical dimensions – with a length of 400m, beam of 58.6m and a draught of 16.5m – they are virtually identical to the first generation, which goes to show how container vessel design has changed, in terms of accommodating more slots, since the Triple-E was first conceived.
A Maersk Line spokesman says that, like Barzan, the new units will have 1,000 reefer plugs. This is considerably more than the 600 plugs on today’s Triple-Es. It is also understood that the engines will be of the twin-screw type, and Maersk executives have indicated that since the company has been operating the Triple-E vessels it has been investigating the viability of fitting them with smaller engines, now that slow steaming has become commonplace.
“While the contract is for a twin skeg [the projecting after section of a vessel’s keel, where the propeller is sited], we may yet opt for a single skeg. We expect the output to be over 60KW, equivalent to 550 VW Golf cars,” the spokesman adds.
The new vessels are also considerably cheaper than the US$185 million per unit that Maersk paid for the original Triple-Es in 2011. The new order has a total value of US$1.8 billion, representing a per ship price of US$163.6 million. This puts Maersk more in line with other carriers, which have been paying prices in the band US$150 million to US$160 million for their vessels. There is an option for six additional units.
Maersk said the new vessels will operate its Asia–Europe service, replacing smaller, less efficient ships. At the time of the order, Maersk Line chief operating officer Søren Toft said: “I am very happy with this order. These vessels will help us stay competitive in the Asia–Europe trade and will be key in our strategy to grow with the market. It is the second order this year and we expect to order more vessels, which we can add to our fleet from 2017 and onwards.”
What happens next is anyone’s guess – although it is likely that vessel sizes will get even larger, according to Andrew Penfold, project director at Ocean Shipping Consultants, part of Royal HaskoningDHV. He told delegates at last year’s TOC Europe conference in Rotterdam that designs for vessels of over 20,000 teu had become quite advanced.
“We have been working closely with Lloyd’s Register and can confirm that there is no technical reason why ships cannot go above 20,000 teu – and we have had very serious discussion about vessels of 22,000 teu.
“In all likelihood these vessels will be longer than current sizes rather than beamier,” he said. “After that there may be a pause in ordering greater vessel sizes, although I would imagine it would ultimately resume again,” he added.
Maersk Line’s head of network and procurement in north Europe Hans Augusteijn said that the dimensions of the recent Maersk order were due to the carrier’s assessment of where demand and supply on the Asia–Europe trade was heading. “The reason that Maersk Line has decided to order vessels of 19,630 teu size is that it was appropriate to keep up with the market growth. But we did not want to go beyond that because we wanted to grow in line with how we expect the trade to grow.”
He added that problems with berth productivity at terminals were also a factor. Although average berth productivity had increased globally in terms of the gross number of crane moves per hour, these increases had not kept pace with increasing vessel dimensions.
Mr Penfold added that the increase in vessel sizes inevitably led to more containers being exchanged in a single vessel call, and larger vessels would place even more pressure on terminals.
His predictions came with a caveat, however, as the bout of orders for ULCVs of 18,000 teu and over had come soon after a series of smaller vessels, of between 12,500 teu and 13,000 teu, had been speculatively ordered by non-operating shipowners. This could affect vessel operating costs.
“Since the 18,000 teu vessel is so much more economic than a 12,500 teu vessel, there will be pressure on some of these non-operating shipowners to offload these assets if they cannot find employment for them. Should these vessels be sold as distressed assets and picked up very cheaply by operators, it could be that they suddenly become more cost effective than the bigger vessels. The economics can be very complicated,” Mr Penfold said.
However, it may be that the chief obstacle to greater vessel sizes is to be found on land rather than on naval architects’ drawing boards. Ports are finding it increasingly difficult to handle such large vessels and the enormous numbers of containers being loaded and unloaded in a single call. And because ship capacity has increased as vessels have become wider rather than longer, terminal operators have been unable to do what they normally do when faced with bigger ships – deploy more cranes.
For example, 2009-built Gerda Maersk is 366m long and 43m wide and offers a capacity of 9,000 teu. In comparison, Maersk-McKinney Møller is just 10 per cent longer at 399m, but is 37 per cent wider at 59m and carries twice as many containers. And as the ships become bigger, that contrast becomes even more pronounced. Emma Maersk is just 2m shorter and 2m narrower than Maersk-McKinney Møller but has a capacity of 15,500 teu, representing an increase of 18 per cent.
“The fact is that vessel size increases are not proportionate with the length of the vessels so we cannot put more cranes into operation,” says APM Terminals head of design and automation Alexandru Duca.
And according to Drewry’s senior analyst for ports and terminals Neil Davidson, eight is the maximum number of cranes that can be set to work on the largest ship, and in most cases terminals will deploy six. The only other option is to increase crane moves per hour, but here too there are limitations. Mr Davidson explains that the critical space on the dockside underneath the cranes, coupled with the way containers are moved from yard stacks to the quay and vice versa, remains too small to allow terminal operators any chance of achieving a step change in productivity.
“The real problem is the congestion under the crane. Getting the boxes to and away from the crane is still the fundamental issue. The more boxes you lift on and off a ship per crane per hour, the more trailers, tractors, straddle carriers and the like are arriving in the lanes between the crane’s legs, and you hit a congestion problem,” he says.
However, Mr Penfold revealed that the next generation of ULCV designs that are being developed under the gaze of Lloyd’s Register show that carriers have become more aware of current terminals’ limitations. The 22,000 teu vessel on the drawing board has a length of 430m and a beam of 59m, while there are two possible options for going up to 24,000 teu – either the same beam and a length of 450m, or a 430m long vessel with a beam of 61m. Either way, carriers will have to begin talking to their terminals well in advance.
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.