Average speed is misleading, as it can include entering and leaving ports, waiting to dock, sitting at the dock, etc.
Fuel continues to be burned even when not underway. You don’t just shut it off when you get there. Another reason they are in such a hurry to unload and load these things.
Right, I understand that. It’s not like a semi-truck. I guess I was surprised to learn how much fuel these things go through!
I worked on a Great Lakes freighter and there was plenty to repair and oh yeah… paint paint paint and paint…when you done with one end its time to go back and paint the other side…
It will be interesting to see which country (Canada or the US) gets the most of this next genereration ship traffic. Most ports in North America are simply not big/deep enough to receive these ships and/or are already near their congestion saturation levels. Some ports could be made bigger but the costs are staggering. That is except two in Canada:
http://www.cn.ca/specialized/ports_docks/prince_rupert/en_KFPortsPrinceRupert.shtml
http://www.cn.ca/specialized/ports_docks/halifax/en_KFPortsHalifax.shtml
There is another port in Cape Breton, NS that is incredibally deep, but RR innfrastructure would need a major refreshment.
What I implied is that a pretense for the railroads opposing the widening of the Panama Canal by China might be national security. The actual reason, of course, would be potential loss of business. I’d think our national security would be enhanced since the Canal could accommodate our largest aircraft carriers.
All that I’ve heard are proposals, but no commitment.
Ideally, I’d think the most efficient use of the giant carriers would be to go directly to East Coast ports directly and minimize the use of trains, it would be cheaper.
Depth – normally refers to depth of hold; that is, the distance from the weather deck (top of watertight hull – you hope) to keel. Permitted draught varies with which ocean and which season you are dealing with. Emma Maersk won’t be that much bigger – if any – than a number of the recently built VLCCs.
13 crew doesn’t sound like all that many, but realistically it doesn’t take all that many. On the other hand, you can’t do it with fewer on a large ship. You have to have at least one deck officer and an AB on the bridge, and you have to have at least one engineer on watch. Whatever the watch schedule is, it is rare indeed for a big ship to have only two watches; normally there are three. The Chief Engineer and the Captain usually do not stand watches. There’s 11 folks right there!
40 tons/day does not seem too far fetched. Remember, you are dealing with a 110,000 hp engine, not a 600 HP truck engine or a 4400 to 6,000 HP locomotive engine. Efficiency here use the term ton-miles/day, not miles per gallon.
So, aside from the RRs opposing the widening of the Panama Canal (for business reasons), what do you suppose the impact of these larger ships will have on the RR industry? The figure “35 miles of double-stacks” has been cited. Will double-stack trains leaving the Port of LA/Long Beach now be 2 miles long (tongue firmly in cheek)???
Riprap
Riprap,
Sure, why not two miles? The railroads currently run stack and container trains which are over 9,000 feet. So what is another 1,600 feet of train? The limiting factor is at the terminals. Where will 10,560 feet of train fit and how much chaos and delay to road traffic will there be while the train is doubled or tripled into shorter tracks.
Are the sidings long enough? How about refueling tracks?
Sidings should not be an issue on the former ATSF between Los Angeles and Argentine in KC because of all of the double track. Would the only fuel stop be at Clovis for the 1000 mile inspection ?
Sidings ARE an issue, in a roundabout way, because there’s a lot of the time you don’t have double track because one of the tracks is withdrawn for maintenance. At a minimum you want to think about how much room you have between universal crossovers. And if you want to do overtakes, then you need outside sidings or hope that traffic is so light that you can use 10 miles of main track between crossovers as a siding for the train being overtaken without gumming up the whole main line in the process. The whole point of the triple track on UP between O’Fallons and Gibbon Junction was to be able to pull a track out of service for maintenance and still have double track.
One fuel stop at Belen gets you between Los Angeles and Kansas City.
S. Hadid
my 35 miles was based on 40 footers - not TEUs which is twenty foot equivalent units. So I stand corrected at about 17 miles of train. Might make a long highway crossing wait.
dd
No currently in service American aircraft carrier can go through the Canal due to their width and their length.Draft is not the issue.
Maybe we shoulda went with wide gauge (7 feet?) trackage?[?]
,
What interests me is the decision process. Suppose the VLCCs could pass through the Canal and the East Coast ports could accommodate them. Anyone have an idea what the extra sailing time to Virginia or New Jersey (over L.A.) would be? I suppose also a new Canal would impose stiff tolls for a VLCC.
VLCC= Very Large Crude Carrier (aka Supertanker)
JB
Fuel consumed while alongside for loading/unloading is consumed in auxiliary diesel generator sets. The main engine is shut down and the shaft is locked so the access panels into the crankcase can be removed for inspection/maintenance. Incidentally, the engine room will be staffed if any of the machinery is working, since somebody immediately on hand can prevent a minor casualty from becoming a major catastrophe.
Just did a little math, based on the 21,270 ton ship that burned 40tons/day at 20 knots. That equates to 754 ton-miles per gallon. I don’t know about other people’s rides, but my personal transportation is lucky to get 50 ton-miles per gallon. If I held my speed to 20 knots, that might improve to 60 (but I doubt it.) In any event, even that relatively small ship is 15 times as efficient as my pickup. Larger ships are, relatively, more efficient. Emma Maersk, at 70,000 tons, will probably burn about 70 tons of diesel a day and cruise at 24 knots, yielding 1701 ton/miles per gallon.
A little apples-and-oranges here. UP’s Big Boy, working hard, would burn 7 tons of coal an HOUR to move a train that rarely topped 4000 tons at a speed that seldom reached an honest 24 knots upgrade. Somebody who knows more about modern locomotives than I might want to work out the fuel economics for a 21st century stack train.
One final note - the Panamanians are widening and deepening the Canal, but handling much larger ships will overload the available water supply - and it still won’t be able to handle the huge overhang of an aircraft carrier’s deck.