Talk:Container ship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Atlantic route[edit]

How long does it take for a container ship to go form the USA (take New York) accros the Atlantic to Europe (for example to London) ? --Laurenttas 13 November 2004

New York-Newark to Southampton or Felixstowe/UK route was 6 days to cross the atlantic. --217.9.49.2 21 June 2005

helding the stack[edit]

Does anyone know how the stacked containers are held to the ship above the deckline? I know there are little twist-lock things for stacking on railroad cars, but it can't be the same mechanism, it'd be much too tedious. --Benandorsqueaks 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above deck containers are secured with twistlocks at each of the four corners. For vessels, these are now required to be either of the semi-automatic variety or are the newer fully-automatic twistlocks. The semi-automatic twistlocks ratchet to release when a short wire is pulled by a longshoreman with a pole from the deck. The newer fully-automatic twistlocks are designed to ratchet automatically when the gantry crane lifts the container. Additionally the lower few tiers of containers are normally lashed to the deck with rods and turnbuckles for additional securing during transit. --68.208.147.168 16 February 2006

Hatch[edit]

What are the different types of hatchcovers being used in containerships in breakbulks there is a bontoon hatch --61.17.27.53 15 July 2006

"bontoon hatch" is wrong terminology. The hatch is the opening into the ship's hold which is created by the removal of the hatch cover. On breakbulk ships this cover is made of steel and it has a hollow core. This type of hatch cover is called a "pontoon". Container ships have a much heavier and more substantially built hatch cover. The hatch cover of a container ship may weigh 40 long tons.--69.143.150.67 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

decimal / thousands[edit]

Someone is using the . for both a decimal point and a thousands separator. I will fix it now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.186.234 (talk • contribs) 27 September 2006

PLS NOTE THAT THE BIGGEST SHIPS IS NOT UPDATED. I MEAN CMA CGM VESSELS THERE ARE THE LATEST CMA CGM CHRISTOPHE COLOMB AND CMA CGM AMERIGO VESPUCCI (LENGTH 365.5M AND 13344 TEUS) - KINDLY UPDATE :)

Container_ship#Largest_ships[edit]

This table has many defects:

  • no references
  • too long
  • many sisterships could be summed in one class
  • inline presentation

I should at least move it to a separate article, if not removing it for being an eternal source of inaccuracies. --Marc Lacoste 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this comment. In addition, what is/are the 'GT' tabulated in the column bearing this title (I think I know, but this abbreviation occurs nowhere else in the text)? What is their relevance? Similarly, the expression 'DWT' is used in the text but not defined. Shouldn't there be a link to Wikipedia article on Tonnage here? --Paulredfern1 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to replace the table by the table of the German Wikipedia, but also in the table of German Wikipedia the column BRZ should be removed. The reason is, that the interesting number for a container ship is the TDW. This number defines how many filled container with normal weight can be loaded.
Example: The Eamma Maersk carries 11000 container with 14t each. The sum is 154000t. The TDW is 157000. There 3000t for fuel and so on.
The values GT and BRZ are volume values. They are not important and very often there is a confusion also in the source documents - and than the values are wrong --Roland Schmid 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For most I agree with you Roland. From commercial (charterers) aspect the amount of homogeneously loaded 14tons (8'6" high 20ft long) containers that the vessel can carry is the most important value/particular. For this count the vertical centre of gravity is normally taken at 45% of the containers height as well. Since this value is a selling argument it is often given in the descriptions of the vessel. I feel these values should be mentioned in any table about container vessels. For the same reason I do not agree with the notes that are listed underneath the table. So it is probably best to delete the table anyway and only mentione the largest container vessel sailing today.beapeet 10:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list was made with the information provided here. http://www.containership-info.net.tc --Pcpirate16 April 28 2007

PLS NOTE THAT THE BIGGEST SHIPS IS NOT UPDATED. I MEAN CMA CGM VESSELS THERE ARE THE LATEST CMA CGM CHRISTOPHE COLOMB AND CMA CGM AMERIGO VESPUCCI (LENGTH 365.5M AND 13344 TEUS) - KINDLY UPDATE :)

mpg[edit]

what is the mpg [or km/litre].. or, gallons per mile even, of these things (typical, obviously)

when it comes to this size you measure fuel in kilograms per hour/tons per hour usually. the ship i worked in for an example consumed 14 tons of heavy fuel oil every 24 hours at standard speed, she was a mid sized to small ship though. and as type of cargo and hull size also plays in much it's impossible to say what a typical ship would have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.133.2.95 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello check the largest container ship list again... msc daniela, msc danit are much high in teu intake capacity vs emma maersk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeez66613 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLS NOTE THAT THE BIGGEST SHIPS IS NOT UPDATED. I MEAN CMA CGM VESSELS THERE ARE THE LATEST CMA CGM CHRISTOPHE COLOMB AND CMA CGM AMERIGO VESPUCCI (LENGTH 365.5M AND 13344 TEUS) - KINDLY UPDATE :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.125.109 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

This page: "The first container ship was the Ideal-X, a converted T-2 tanker, owned by Malcom McLean, which carried 58 metal containers between Newark, New Jersey and Houston, Texas on its first voyage, in April 1956."

Another Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization: "The first vessels purpose-built to carry containers began operation in Denmark in 1951. Ships began carrying containers between Seattle and Alaska in 1951."

207.189.233.158 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Gord[reply]

Dean & Kemp's Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea says Fairland was the first. Trekphiler 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article also referred to the 1955 Clifford J Rogers voyage, despite saying theIdeal-X was first in 1956. Given the Rogers is better sourced, and noting the Fairland reference above, I've copyedited the section to include the Denmark startup and Rogers voyage and note the Ideal-X only as the first purpose-built US container ship.
This issue was raised a year ago without any changes being made so I assume this is not a matter of much controversy. However, opposing views or comments are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'On This Day' article (April 25,2011) says the SS Ideal X was the World's first container ship. Query container ship and it notes the SS Ideal X is the United States first container ship, and notes purpose built container ships were operating in Europe several years prior. Query SS Ideal X, and that article does not mention it 'First' at all. Driftwood87 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costs[edit]

Does anyone have any information about indusrty building/shipping costs and the cost effectiveness of container ship versus other kinds of shipping? 140.180.166.176 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk[edit]

I've deleted the following self-contradictory text from the Risk section. If the pirates only rob the crew, then the high value of the cargo is not what makes container ships a target for pirates. And the difficulty of getting the cargo off a container ship would imply that piracy is not a significant risk. If piracy is a risk, please sort out the text and give a citation.

The great value of merchandise on these vessels makes them a target for hijackers. Well-organized piracy remains a threat in places such as Indonesia. Although pirates usually limit themselves to robbing the crew; mainly due to the difficulty of finding a suitable anchorage where a container ship can be unloaded without being noticed. Even changing the name of the vessel would be difficult as ships are quite distinctive in appearance.

I have also deleted the reference to MSC Napoli in

It has been estimated that container ships lose over 10,000 containers at sea each year. Most go overboard during a storm, but there are some examples of whole ships being lost, as in the MSC Napoli.

It is true that the Napoli was lost. However, the containers that were lost went overboard in a storm; the ship survived the storm in almost one piece but it was later decided to be beyond economic repair. The rest of the containers were unloaded from the ship in the salvage. However, using it as an example of a "whole ship" lost in a storm suggests that the ship and the cargo were lost. Dricherby (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The container ship casualty in Antwerp mentioned in the article is inaccurate. The incident involved an MSC ro/ro ship not a container ship. The problem occurred when the list compensating tanks were incorrectly operated during loading operations and water spilled in via the stern doors. Ro/ro vessels with their large uninterrupted decks will always be vulnerable to the uncontrolled movement of water on the decks. This is not the case for container vessels, where the free surface potential is far more limited. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TEU[edit]

I find the use of the abbreviation TEU not specific and totally confusing.

The TEU is defined as a 20-ft container equivalent.

Then a ship is defined as 14000 TEU's. Does this mean that the ship can carry 1400 20-ft containers? Such a ship would be some 1200 m long!

If is some equivalent volume then is it cm or cf?

14000 TEU's should mean 14000 20-ft containers, and not include some nebulous undefined coversion factor 65.5.207.221 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.133.2.95 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?[edit]

The sentences reading "Multimodal Transport will be dealt with in Topic V Unit 6. We shall also be dealing with Just in Time manufacturing" in the "History" section look like they were copy-pasted straight out of some textbook to me. That casts doubt on the rest of the paragraph too I expect. 82.6.108.62 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adding a copyright problems box. Felgerkarb (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick googling has found this text verbatim on several other sites. Some look like they are scraping Wikipedia, so I am not sure if they are the original source or not. None of them have any internal reference to a 'Topic V Unit 6' to make me think they are the original source. Felgerkarb (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental improvements[edit]

Perhaps the current modernising trend towards container ships may be mentioned (as set in motion by the Daewoo Triple E ships. Besides MALS/ACES, and heat recovery systems (which can happen trough a steam engine as one the Triple E ships or -perhaps allot better- using a Stirling motor-), the use of a different fuel (mostly LNG) or dual-fuel (fuel oil-LNG) use is also done. For example the Anthony Veder Coral Methane is a ship that can run on both LNG and fuel oil (see http://www.anthonyveder.com/news/item/19/Coral+Methane+-+Anthony+Veder's+first+LNG+tanker+-+takes+to+the+seas , http://www.anthonyveder.com/news/item/35/Steel+cutting+of+eco-friendly+Gas+Tanker+Coral+Energy ) 91.182.124.159 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Container Ship.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Container Ship.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 11, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 20:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Container ship
The Nicholas Delmas, a 196 m (643 ft) long container ship operated by Delmas, unloading at the Zanzibar port in Tanzania. Container ships carry all of their load in large intermodal containers, in a technique called containerization. They form a common means of commercial intermodal freight transport.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
Archive – More featured pictures...

Contradictory capacity[edit]

There are rival claims of 16,000 and 19,000 TEU as the maximum capacity of these ships in the article. Some update is needed, and a citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed passage from "History" which was basically one person's uncited personal opinions.[edit]

I removed the following, completely uncited passage, which in its original form was added by a single edit:

The aforementioned reduction in ship operating costs accrue to companies owning or operating container ships. But for others connected with trade, such as ports, railways, road transporters and trade (exporters and importers), the operating costs have risen exponentially. Several elements of costs that were borne in the past by ship operators are now borne by trade, as standard terms of carriage of goods by sea have now been drastically revised by container-shipping lines. Despite saving in operating costs, shipping freight have not fallen significantly because freight is globally fixed sector-wise by shipping cartels.

In short, containers have helped to optimize the operation of ships, while the additional burden of ancillary costs that has been transferred from ships onto other (i.e. onshore) entities is normally ignored in public perception.

While the entire History section needs more citations, harsh claims like these particularly need some sort of supporting evidence. Wikipedia cannot accept them merely on one person's say-so.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnage/Displacement[edit]

Am wondering about containership capacity in terms of mass/weight. It seems TEU is the only measure given. In that article, it seems the TEU is strictly a measure of volume, though the max gross mass is given as 24 metric tons. While that figure may be the max weight that the container can handle, I presume that a containership cannot be loaded with its maximum number of TEUs (containers) loaded at their maximum weight (???). I have looked in the WP article displacement (ship) but no info there specific to containerships. This link[1] looks authoritative but again has no info specific to containerships. Could someone please elaborate?Wikkileaker (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Guide to Ship Weight and Tonnage..." The Maritime Site. Captain Ben Dinsmore. Retrieved December 5, 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Get a real 2 ships photo?[edit]

The photo of 2 ships passing each other, it's apparently not real. Get a real one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.95.118 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Container ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table Container Ship Size Categories incoherent[edit]

The data in the columns Beam and Draft are different from those in the column Example. --Angelo Mascaro (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crew size[edit]

I'm surprised this entry has no information on crew sizes or positions for container ships. What's the average crew size for a ship of each of the seven classes? 2600:1702:16A1:3600:9C11:A7B5:DBBE:8E6F (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Mark P.[reply]

Singapore is in top 10 too, isn't it?[edit]

Singapore is in top 10 busiest ports, isn't it? Most of the busiest sports are in China (including Hong Kong), but the Port of Singapore has been omitted from the list of top 10 busiest container ports. 120.21.173.32 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starvationer[edit]

In this article the starvationer boat is called a box boat (the first example of containerisation). These are two separate designs of boat. The starvationer ( a very small craft used in the underground canals at Worsley) was not an example of containerisation. The box boat was a larger design, the origin of the narrowboat, which had it's cargo of coal craned in and out in boxes and thus the first example of containerisation. The boxes had bottom doors to discharge the coal. 188.28.53.194 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

largest commercial seaborne vessels?[edit]

I have removed two assertions "Container ships now rival crude oil tankers and bulk carriers as the largest commercial seaborne vessels.

Evergreen Ace -- the largest container ship -- displaces 225,000 tons (see https://ss.shipmentlink.com/tvi1/jsp/TVI1_VesselParticulars.jsp?carrier=A)

The largest supertankers have displacements roughly twice that. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The removed text should be reinserted. First off, displacement is an irrelevant metric for cargo ships, which are measured either by register tonnage (a measure of volume) or deadweight tonnage (a measure of weight). Displacement is only relevent to warships. Secondly, while there were once huge supertankers, they have all been scrapped. In today's world both tankers and container ships are constrained by the dimensions of the Suez canal. Based on register tonnage and physical dimensions, container ships are as large or larger than today's tankers.
Incidently, the link given has no displacement information for the Evergreen Ace. The original poster has completely misunderstood the data that's on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:AC9A:B925:E8D:4ED2 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting claim. It should be reflected in our Oil tanker article, with citations of course.--agr (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which is the interesting claim? If it's the size of tankers, around 300000 deadweight is the "sweet spot". Bigger than that can't go thru the Suez canal or the straight of Malacca (which is relatively shallow). Staying around 300000 gives the greatest route flexibility. There's a few bigger tankers still around, but as far as I know they're all permanently moored as fixed storage now.
if you mean displacement being irrelevant, consider: for a warship the displacement is basically constant, give or take a few hundred tons of ammo and fuel. But consider a tanker (or container ship) fully loaded - say 200000 deadweight and another 60000 for the ship itself is a displacement of 260000 tons. Now assume it's unloaded - displacement is 60000 tons. Or half-loaded between ports, displacement of 160000 tons. It's just not that useful to speak of displacement for cargo ships, it's far more useful to speak of carrying capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:3C:72A1:E690:CF97 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Container_ship&oldid=1216697893"