Fuel consumption on early Container Ships.

Brunopilot
24th August 2015, 15:49
Although such figures are listed in Lloyd's Registers for relatively new vessels, not much data can be found for the first two generations of container ships (1957-1978), especially for steamers.

I understand that at $2,50/ton, consumption considerations were non-existent, but that all changed after 1973.

If anyone can help in providing this data for the early container ship, this researcher would be very pleased.

Tim Gibbs
9th December 2018, 00:14
Very, very belatedly I seem to recall ACT2, 1500 TEU, 30,000 shp, 21 knots, 135 tonnes/day.

makko
9th December 2018, 02:47
Barber Priam, 21 Knots, 52 Tons per day. If I recall correctly. Sulzer 9RND98. 5,500 teu, RoRo.

howardang
9th December 2018, 12:19
Although such figures are listed in Lloyd's Registers for relatively new vessels, not much data can be found for the first two generations of container ships (1957-1978), especially for steamers.

I understand that at $2,50/ton, consumption considerations were non-existent, but that all changed after 1973.

If anyone can help in providing this data for the early container ship, this researcher would be very pleased.
Sailed on Atlantic Causeway (Steam turbine) from new building to 1972. I seem to remember that we worked on around 210 tons per day when steaming.

Howard

david freeman
20th December 2018, 10:02
I just wonder? BP had ss Tankers, and an output shp of within the range you state. 18,000 to some 25,000. There were various plant layouts: however the ones I remember, were two Main boilers, with 600 to 800 psi superheated 800*F to 1000* F and the main turbine plant on the whole was of 'PAMATRADA DESign'.
Two 32.00 dwt tankers were built to 'Pamatrada design, but of admiralty specification, and while the normal/nominal speed of a laden tanker was some 14/15 knots: these two admiralty spec tankers could open up and give a service speed of some 18 knots plus an onion.
It is all in the mind, the normal daily consumption was some 100 tonns of if admiralty some `150 tonns over 24 hours.
The hidden problem was total voyage consumption and BP was nominally NW Europe through Suez to the Persian Gulf+ a prayer if the vessel was delayed at the destination port { some 12/14 days NW Europe to Suez, and then some 12 days to the Persian Gulf= a total of some 28 days or there abouts between bunker ports.
With the Suez crisis and the haul round the cape, some 35 days port to port, bunker capacity for the unforeseen was delicate, unless slow steamed?? Hence the death of the Turbine/steamship, apart from the direct comparison of fuel consumption {motor-steam]. Less bunker space more cargo space greater earning capacity, if one is cynical

dannic
27th December 2018, 01:21
Although such figures are listed in Lloyd's Registers for relatively new vessels, not much data can be found for the first two generations of container ships (1957-1978), especially for steamers.

I understand that at $2,50/ton, consumption considerations were non-existent, but that all changed after 1973.

If anyone can help in providing this data for the early container ship, this researcher would be very pleased.

Early generation steam container ships at 20 knots were over 200 tpd.
Big conventional reefer ships (same company) were 160 tpd at about 18 knots, twin sulzers. Atlantic Conveyor 120 tpd at service speed. Big Ben liner 32 knot service speed were over 250 tpd so re-engined to twin MAN diesels.
Dannic.

callpor
27th December 2018, 15:14
Although such figures are listed in Lloyd's Registers for relatively new vessels, not much data can be found for the first two generations of container ships (1957-1978), especially for steamers.

I understand that at $2,50/ton, consumption considerations were non-existent, but that all changed after 1973.

If anyone can help in providing this data for the early container ship, this researcher would be very pleased.

Brunopilot,

I sailed as 2/O/D on both the G2 ConRo's Atlantic Causeway and Atlantic Conveyor from new in December 1969 until summer 1971 on North Atlantic service. These vessels were equipped with twin Foster Wheeler ESD boilers powering twin Parmatrada turbines. I seem to recall that our daily consumption was 264 tonnes per day of HFO - 44 tonnes per watch for a typical speed of around 23 knots. I maybe wrong, but there are engineers from these vessels on SN who will soon put me right.

Cheers, Chris

Supergoods
28th December 2018, 13:23
I was involved in the operational stability calculations for the Europe-Australia vessels and a little later for the Europe- Far East second generation vessels. Both types were initially steam ships with the Australian vessels having a consumption of 325 tons per day and the larger vessels a consumption of 700 tons per day.
The original transatlantic vessels on a relatively short transatlantic run did not calculate the weight for each container, just an average was good, however the longer runs, for the first time had to actually plan the stability.
We used desk calculators, not computers in those days.
I wish I had kept some of the research calculations, however 8 house moves spread over 3 countries and "get rid of that rubish" wives ensured that it disapeared
Ian

dannic
29th December 2018, 00:41
Some of the larger motor LNG carriers, twin screw B&W ME engines are 170 tpd, as do not use cargo vapour. Qmax i think they are.
Dannic.

Succour
29th December 2018, 06:02
Seasons greetings to all the lads and lassies who contribute to SN.

My recollection on Liverpool Bay and Kowloon Bay was around 300 TPD

Seemed to take an age to pump.

Cheers

Succour

Brunopilot
31st December 2018, 21:23
I was involved in the operational stability calculations for the Europe-Australia vessels and a little later for the Europe- Far East second generation vessels. Both types were initially steam ships with the Australian vessels having a consumption of 325 tons per day and the larger vessels a consumption of 700 tons per day.
The original transatlantic vessels on a relatively short transatlantic run did not calculate the weight for each container, just an average was good, however the longer runs, for the first time had to actually plan the stability.
We used desk calculators, not computers in those days.
I wish I had kept some of the research calculations, however 8 house moves spread over 3 countries and "get rid of that rubish" wives ensured that it disapeared

Ian

I would assume that the Australian traders would be the "Baby" Bay's ( Flinders-Botany etc..) and the Asia Ships the larger bays ( Kowloon, Cardigan etc...) If you can recall the names of some of the vessels, that would give me some pointers in my research.

Supergoods
1st January 2019, 13:27
I was originaly scheduled to move from NZS to OCL in the first group, however, with the Jervis Bay fiasco delivery, OCL would have entered an unknown period with more people than ships. I then was told to hold on for a short trip on the Manapouri in ballast to New Zealand with the return experimental palletised cargo.
The next holding was a 2 month assignment with the shore personal based at Antwerp and Rotterdam, remember the Tilbury blacking of the start up, this gave me experience with the Bay boats as well as the ACT 1 & 2 and other European ships as they appeared from the builders.
Finally I was assigned to the Botany Bay as 2/O/N and did about 6 round trips including the first arrival of a Bay boat in a UK port, Southampton with engine trouble.
When Tilbury finally came on line I was seconded to the terminal staff
to carry out work study for a year. This gave me access to all the ships using the Tilbury terminal.
The ships names were: OCL: Jervis Bay, Botany Bay, Discovery Bay, Encounter Bay, Flinders Bay & Moreton Bay. ACT: ACT1 & ACT 2. Hapag Lloyd: Sydney Express & Melbourne Express. Messageries Maritimes: Kangourou. (The Kangourou was very similar to the OCL vessels, the others were different. All had to be able to use the Tilbury locks to access the terminal).
Instead of returning to the fleet, I accepted a job on the terminal in Southampton and was introduced to the Far East Bay boats: Liverpool Bay, Tokyo Bay, Cardigan Bay and Kowloon Bay.
The job was not as described in the interview and after a year it was time to move on.
Ian

CEJww
30th April 2019, 09:30
Worked on container ships 1982-2000. I'm familiar with ships burning about 125-140 grams per brake horsepower hour. I would suspect they are much lower now.

Stephen J. Card
30th April 2019, 11:22
The EUROLINER (1971) 28 knots, 250 tonnes per day for gas turbines. Departing New York the new SEALAND GALLOWAY was coming in at the end of her maiden voyage. Heard her on the VHF, " Ambrose Pilot, Ambrose Pilot, this is SEALAND GALLOWAY. We are SLOWING down to THIRTY KNOTS!" Her average speed was 35 knots and was burning 500 tonnes/day.


Stephen

harry t.
29th May 2019, 20:48
not much data can be found for the first two generations of container ships (1957-1978), especially for steamers.



In 1978 steam ships were few and far between. I had been with owners discussing the specification for two new container ‘feeder’ ships (costing £17,000,000, then) - similar to that of their first generation, converted cargo vessels, circa.1969, that is, 150meters in length, capacity 370 teu’s, diesel engined, single screw, similar rudder size (small), consuming 34/35tonnes per day for 16 knots and roughly 40 crew.
Suspecting there had been no input from a “deckie”, it was pointed out that four German ships on charter were only 115meters, with a capacity of 450 teu’s, burning 17 tonnes per day for 16 knots, each with a variable pitch prop and a bow thruster. Shorter, greater capacity, half the daily consumption for a similar speed and much greater manoeuvrability - and only 15 of a crew. Reduced port dues etc, much more economical than what they were planning.

stevekelly10
30th May 2019, 17:29
Not Container ships, but I sailed on two 450900 dwt ULCC tankers. built mid 1970's. 45000 shp steam turbine. Fuel consumption was 220 tons, HFO per day, speed 16 knots, but on a good day especially after drydock. I saw them achieve 21 knots :)

OilJiver
31st May 2019, 11:21
Take a bit of stopping Steve.

stevekelly10
31st May 2019, 14:13
Take a bit of stopping Steve.

20 miles, give or take a couple of miles ! :)