Another 40 containers!

[chrisr]

if the cost keeps ratcheting upwards, as it must be, i'm starting to wonder if the owners will declare a general average ?

they must be thinking about it...

cheers,

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by StuM

I don't think the shipping companies are the least bit interested in recovering the goods inside.

I doubt that even the insurers are

So that is why you put a stiff fine (like a million dollars) on ships returning without all their containers. When the insurance companies had to start paying those fines they would start paying attention.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by wingssail

So that is why you put a stiff fine (like a million dollars) on ships returning without all their containers. When the insurance companies had to start paying those fines they would start paying attention.

YM Efficiency - owners/insurers billed by AMSA for K20 million
APL England - looks like K22 million at this stage.

[Discovery 3]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I have this via a ham radio communication this morning.

In the large seas off the East Coast of Australia, another container ship has lost another 40 containers, ironically after the final cleanup from the first 40 containers was completed. They were lost somewhere between Seal Rocks and Sydney, three days ago. Subsequently, they are under the influence of the EAC, and the seas.

So, keep your eyes open, and report any you see, and your coordinates.

Ann

PS. The reported back story is that the ship "lost power", and wound up beam to the 10 m. seas from last weekend's cutoff low, and lost them. I'm wondering if he just was not under command...

Here's a link: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...5b08ea63cf3dc5

Investigators have found the locking devices rusted and faulty just of recent.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Minggat

Having lost power from my tiny diesel, I have learned the root causes and minimized the chance of repeating the experience. I would be interested in learning how a container ship power goes down, expecting that they would be far better ahead of the game than me.

There are incompetent engineers, and there are bad companies and charterers, and there are Captains and Chief Engineers who make tough decisions on whether to proceed or not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and if they do the right thing then sometimes they are replaced with guys who will do the wrong thing when required to do so.



However it is not always about human failure. A ship's diesel propulsion system is really many interdependant systems. The engine itself is the size of a medium sized three story building. You and your wife or GF can dance on the head of a piston and you might need some help to lift an exhaust valve. You can walk into the crankcase. Then there is the start and control air system, fuel system which is a complex system in itself, and what all else. You aren't burning gallons per hour. You are burning tons per day. There is a lot of stress and strain on components. There is a lot of crap in the multiple fuel tanks from various causes and sources. Piston crowns crack. Valves get eroded. Injectors fail. Bearings wear. I have sailed with some very competent engineers and I can tell you that foresight, competence, and the courage to make the correct decisions is not always enough.



How many hours do you think is "a lot" for a diesel engine? How many hours do you think a 30 year old ship's main engine has on it, assuming the typical 90% or so of uptime? It's a different ballgame even though the block diagram of a 40,000 HP diesel and a 14HP diesel are the same. Nevertheless, the failure rate is extremely low, considering the sea miles covered.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

There are incompetent engineers, and there are bad companies and charterers, and there are Captains and Chief Engineers who make tough decisions on whether to proceed or not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and if they do the right thing then sometimes they are replaced with guys who will do the wrong thing when required to do so.



However it is not always about human failure. A ship's diesel propulsion system is really many interdependant systems. The engine itself is the size of a medium sized three story building. You and your wife or GF can dance on the head of a piston and you might need some help to lift an exhaust valve. You can walk into the crankcase. Then there is the start and control air system, fuel system which is a complex system in itself, and what all else. You aren't burning gallons per hour. You are burning tons per day. There is a lot of stress and strain on components. There is a lot of crap in the multiple fuel tanks from various causes and sources. Piston crowns crack. Valves get eroded. Injectors fail. Bearings wear. I have sailed with some very competent engineers and I can tell you that foresight, competence, and the courage to make the correct decisions is not always enough.



How many hours do you think is "a lot" for a diesel engine? How many hours do you think a 30 year old ship's main engine has on it, assuming the typical 90% or so of uptime? It's a different ballgame even though the block diagram of a 40,000 HP diesel and a 14HP diesel are the same. Nevertheless, the failure rate is extremely low, considering the sea miles covered.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by wingssail

So that is why you put a stiff fine (like a million dollars) on ships returning without all their containers. When the insurance companies had to start paying those fines they would start paying attention.

Then they increase their premiums and pass it on to the shippers who pass it on down the line to the consumers.

What works in the long term is better systems.

[NevilleCat]

[QUOTE=RaymondR;3154218]Then they increase their premiums and pass it on to the shippers who pass it on down the line to the consumers.
/QUOTE]

Sorry, but isn't this the thinking that has led to the mess we're all in. Yes they will have to charge accordingly but that's because it is currently a hidden by-cost of the way it all operates at the moment.
Sadly it has been shown time and again that any form of self regulation will be subverted by industrial or personal greed so a financial dis-incentive is the most realistic deterrent.

[chrisr]

for the 21 years before i retired recently i was a director of a shipping company, and during that time i use to get quite worked up about people who know nothing of the industry pontificating about all it's problems and how they should be solved.

however since retirement, i just laugh

cheers,

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by chrisr

for the 21 years before i retired recently i was a director of a shipping company, and during that time i use to get quite worked up about people who know nothing of the industry pontificating about all it's problems and how they should be solved.

however since retirement, i just laugh

cheers,

Presumably you are laughing at the proposed solutions rather than laughing at the problem of containers going overboard.

With your past experience in the industry, what do you recommend as a solution (genuine question)?

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by chrisr

for the 21 years before i retired recently i was a director of a shipping company, and during that time i use to get quite worked up about people who know nothing of the industry pontificating about all it's problems and how they should be solved.

however since retirement, i just laugh

cheers,

Ha! That's a great and healthy outlook for retirement and an excellent defence mechanism on these forums sometimes!
You are right I know nothing about the industry and only care about how it operates insofar as it effects me and the world we leave our kids (which also could include it's role in international "wealth and purpose" redistribution, but that is a perhaps a political rant which has no place on this forum apart from the recognition that the true cost of shipping stuff all over the planet is not represented currently).
Pontification over. Hope you are able to get some great boating up there.

[RaymondR]

[QUOTE=NevilleCat;3154652]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Then they increase their premiums and pass it on to the shippers who pass it on down the line to the consumers.
/QUOTE]

Sorry, but isn't this the thinking that has led to the mess we're all in. Yes they will have to charge accordingly but that's because it is currently a hidden by-cost of the way it all operates at the moment.
Sadly it has been shown time and again that any form of self regulation will be subverted by industrial or personal greed so a financial dis-incentive is the most realistic deterrent.

Insurance is basically an agreement between yourself and a second party to assume a portion of unmanagable financial risk. It does not relieve one of accountability or responsibility. Having unsecured cargo is not an unmanageable risk.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

That is very very sad.

However how do they know it was a container? Any idea how many aircraft they dumped offshore from Sydney after VJDay? Rather a lot... there is an awful lot of junk on the seabed other than containers.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/r...tlossesnsw.pdf

It seems it is all about perspective...'several of these sites have been unintentionally damaged by deep-sea commercial fishing operations.'.....

https://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/dumped@sea.htm

Common cause of sinkings offshore from the Clyde and in the Irish Sea is believed to be submarines coming and going from the Gareloch....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ough-irish-sea

Fine, blame it on every thing else, but if you come back without some of your containers, you PAY!

Sorry, the insurance companies will get tired of paying and raise the rates. The shippers will get tired of paying higher rates and will think about how to avoid the losses.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

There are incompetent engineers, and there are bad companies and charterers, and there are Captains and Chief Engineers who make tough decisions on whether to proceed or not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and if they do the right thing then sometimes they are replaced with guys who will do the wrong thing when required to do so.



However it is not always about human failure. A ship's diesel propulsion system is really many interdependant systems. The engine itself is the size of a medium sized three story building. You and your wife or GF can dance on the head of a piston and you might need some help to lift an exhaust valve. You can walk into the crankcase. Then there is the start and control air system, fuel system which is a complex system in itself, and what all else. You aren't burning gallons per hour. You are burning tons per day. There is a lot of stress and strain on components. There is a lot of crap in the multiple fuel tanks from various causes and sources. Piston crowns crack. Valves get eroded. Injectors fail. Bearings wear. I have sailed with some very competent engineers and I can tell you that foresight, competence, and the courage to make the correct decisions is not always enough.



How many hours do you think is "a lot" for a diesel engine? How many hours do you think a 30 year old ship's main engine has on it, assuming the typical 90% or so of uptime? It's a different ballgame even though the block diagram of a 40,000 HP diesel and a 14HP diesel are the same. Nevertheless, the failure rate is extremely low, considering the sea miles covered.

So sorry, that's tough. if it is too hard, then get out of the business of shipping.

OR...

Take extreme care that in the event of a wallowing ship the containers can't come off.

If they do fall off then your job is at jeopardy because the insurance cost will be extreme for the next trip.

So stop making excuses and stop losing containers.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Then they increase their premiums and pass it on to the shippers who pass it on down the line to the consumers.

What works in the long term is better systems.

It still works. The shippers who do a better job get lower insurance rates and therefore can charge less and get more shipping business.

The high cost ships get scrapped or get better.