Tall ship vs Freighter: which is economically superior?

[PaiMei]

Hi!

We had a discussion last night about the future of sea transportation and especially the question, if a 130 meter Tall ship (4 or 5 mast) would be competitive against a standard multipurpose freighter same size. It would safe a lot of bunker (which makes about 50% of operating cost on a freighter we learned) but it would be probably a lot more expenesive to be build.


The questions were:

What does it cost to build a Tall ship of 130 Meters? We do know that a standard freighter of that size cost about 25 Mio. € (build in Europe) or 25 Mio. $ build in Asia. The Tall ship does not need the main engine which would save some 3 Mio. But the rig would be a real issue. But we had no idea what the rig for a 4 or 5 mast schooner rig oder square rig or whatever would cost.

Does anyone know what the price tag was on the rig of Maltese Falcon or EOS (built by Lürssen in Germany)?

Who would be the designer for such a rig?

Is there any one known in Europe for having a real expertise in that topic? I found some tall ship projects (Sea Cloud Hussar, EOS, Maltese etc.) but not really freighters of >100 Meter.

Thanks for your ideas and your help!

Jan


P.S. I placed a bet of 20 € that the Tall ship would be economically superior. Is this money lost?

[apex1]

Die Wette is verloren Jan!
That bet is lost.

We would see our oceans full of tall ships if there was just a small advantage over a motorship! Wind is not very reliable as we all know, so time schedules are not possible! Additional crew is the largest factor in expenses. And the savings in the engine part is not that dramatic, there still has to be a big, commercial ships engine.

The kite assistance may be a more common approach in a few years. You know Skysails Hamburg!

Regards
Richard

Maltese Falcon was about 100 mio $, almost 40% of that amount was in the rig.

[PaiMei]

I think that is too simple.

Wind is not very reliable. Yes. BUT on certain routes, lets say Spain - Cuba and return we have pretty constant wind systems which would suite the demand für a "more or less" precise timing.

I would agree that the Tall ship is no competitor for a container ship because the schedule is very important. But how about bulk carrier, MPF etc? Coal does not mind if it is 2 or 3 days longer on the way.

Why should extra crew be an issue? Look at Maltese Falcon. They do all the sail handling with hydraulics etc. No need for extra crew.

The bunker savings would be dramatic even if you carry a midsize engine for those occasion where you cannot avoid to hit the doldrums (I would actually gues that with modern routing systems you can reduce this risk to a minimum)

The rig of Maltese was 40m? That could possibly be a killer argument even though I would guess that you can build large rigs for a lot less.

[gonzo]

Cargo is a price driven business. If someone finds a way to save money, they will. Sailing ships are not economically competitive. During the 70's oil crisis, the Japanese experimented with sail assisted crude carriers. They disappeared because they didn't make the money they projected.
The rig would limit the areas the ship could berth because of height restrictions too.
Pai Mei: you claim "the bunker savings would be dramatic even if you carry a midsize engine". The engine needs to be bigger because of the extra windage.

[yipster]

think the reply's are spot on but dont underestimate a tall ships sails
here some time back on a similar thread i got very impressed with tall ships power

[wardd]

2 or 3 days late to unload may make a few people ashore unhappy and screw up their scheduling

[RHP]

Realistically it would have to be a '50/50' motorsailor to ensure schedules would be met, but once a number of orders were secured rig costs would fall dramatically. Tom Perkins invested a fistfull in R&D and MF sailed at 24.9 knots, but to shift a 50,000 tonner mightnt be so straightforward.

I guess there would be an optimum tonnage after which it wouldnt be feasible.

[gonzo]

It still works for small boats. There are coastal traders and passenger boats running on sail alone. However, they service communities that are not on tight schedules and the owner/operators live on small wages.

[apex1]

To the schedules,
a ship has a given time to amortize the capital cost, otherwise you´ll find no bank or fonds to finance it. The more yourneys the junk makes, the sooner the ROI. Lengthening a trip by choosing the old (and somehow reliable) tall ships tracks is´nt possible in todays markets. Even the coal is in a hurry, it is a dead value (bound capital) while underway.

The rig could be far below the cost of Maltese Falcon, but you asked for that.

And as Gonzo said, the engine would be at least of similar size and of course running quite often.

There HAS to be extra crew when there is extra equipment, so easy is that.

And be sure, if nobody else would, Peter Döhle, HAPAG, Rickmers and the rest of the shipping gang in Hamburg would sail, when it was feasible.

Regards
Richard

[gonzo]

Apex1 makes a good point. The old sailing routes followed the favorable winds. With engine power, the shortes route is often possible.

[wardd]

whats the fuel cost per ton of cargo on a big carrier?

[apex1]

whats the fuel cost per ton of cargo on a big carrier?

Of course that depends. But to give you a clue: last year when the fuel was twice the price, we had to pay a additional fee for a 40´container between Asia and W Europe of 275 US$. That will be about the amount it costs today, on a generation 10 ship or larger of course.

Another point:
we have been talking about bulk (coal was the example). There are not many "buk carriers" in the range one could build a sailing ship. Almost all of them are "general cargo" today. That means you could possibly optimize the ship / freight / route relations, but could´nt transport other cargo. And you could not have the deck cranes you need. But that is what makes these general cargo ships profitable. They are flexible to some extend in cargo.

Regards
Richard

[gonzo]

I think the cost should be on fuel per ton per distance per speed.

[apex1]

I think the cost should be on fuel per ton per distance per speed.

Right, I thought just giving a rough idea what it may be about, was what wardd asked for.

[gonzo]

Sure, but he has to take into consideration the penalties for delivering cargo late.

[wardd]

the point is is fuel for delivery a major factor in say cost of goods delivered and sold

[gonzo]

Penalties are also part of the cost of goods. If the risk of incurring them rises, the average freight has to increase to take it into account

[apex1]

Uhh Gonzo,

you should flag this for moderator!
Someone has hijacked your user panel and added a ugly picture to your avatar!



Penalties are also part of the cost of goods. If the risk of incurring them rises, the average freight has to increase to take it into account

Do´nt forget insurance rates. Usually any severe penalty for delay is handled by insurance. But the shipping lines do´nt like increasing insurance rates too much.
resume: sail on schedule, or you´re out of business.

[TollyWally]

In the end, as has been pointed out, time is money. So is everything else, sails don't come cheap, don't last forever, and have an expense associated with handling them whether it be spent on man or machine. I believe it was Gonzo that pointed out there is still a place for sail driven carge with cultures and economies where sufficient time can subsidize and overcome the costs incurred in most other trade routes. It's a romantic notion that will undoubtedly be looked at whenever the price of fuel spikes up, I'd bet against it, LOL I don't always win my bets though. If I did I'd give up my day job!

[mark775]

"on certain routes, lets say Spain - Cuba" - A hotbed of trade, One could conceive of tourists over, tobacco and sugar back (I'm thinking that the tourists might want to fly back)

36597
Not THAT trip again!

[mark775]

Get it?

36598

[PaiMei]

I am sure that most of you are in the industry so know a lot better than me. But let me raise a few points (after having found some more info on the web):

1. Even if "Mr. Döhle an the Hamburg gang" would like to use a Tall ship they couldn´t because it will take another 2-4 years for development and building. And someone has to spend the millions to build a prototype. Probably not really what the "Hamburg gang" is currently willing to do.

2. Why does Enercon, a leading wind energy company, spent millions on building the "E-Ship", fitted with Flettner rotors and auxiliary engine only?

3. Sailing to schedule is key. Yes, but why shouldn´t a sailboat sail according to schedule (or faster). Our famous airline Lufthansa a few years ago simply increased the official "flight time" by some 20% within Germany (longest flight is 1 hour...) and have since then significantly improved their "on time performance". The question is, what average speed you assume on the way between A and B. The old PREUSSEN (130 meters) had a calculated average speed of 10.6 an certain routes. And they ones made it to Chile with 15.6

4. With modern rigg technology and satellite based routing the courses to sail can be a lot straighter.

5. Why do you need an engine bigger than the normal main engine for sail handling? We are probably talking about a simple schooner rig type of boat not square rigged and not Dynarigg. Handled with some hydraulics. As simple as possible.

I still fight for my 20 Euros....


Thanks

[mark775]

Convince some green entity to pay a premium in price and time.
Try talking to Gordon Brown or Barack Obama and they'll likely plot sail power as the course for the future. Realistically, as someone pointed out above, the short response is; "time is money". In a real world, that is, time is money.

[apex1]

Well, that is what you should do, fight for your 20€.
let me reply in your post:


1. Even if "Mr. Döhle an the Hamburg gang" would like to use a Tall ship they couldn´t because it will take another 2-4 years for development and building. And someone has to spend the millions to build a prototype. Probably not really what the "Hamburg gang" is currently willing to do.

They are well ahead of the crowd when it comes to efficiency in worldwide shipping, so they would adopt sensible systems before others do. Not by accident Hamburg (again) is the #1 community in shipping worldwide.
Beluga and others btw are testing the Skysails system since few years now. (not Hamburg, but next door)

2. Why does Enercon, a leading wind energy company, spent millions on building the "E-Ship", fitted with Flettner rotors and auxiliary engine only?

To make a business when feasible, sure. But you did not ask for alternative propulsion in general, you asked for "tall ships", right?

3. Sailing to schedule is key. The question is, what average speed you assume on the way between A and B.

The fastest sensible, nothing else. Shipping companies do´nt install 100.000hp to have the crew enjoy speed, they do it to get the shortest "turnaround time" possible.

4. With modern rigg technology and satellite based routing the courses to sail can be a lot straighter.

Unfortunately not. The global wind and current systems did not change during the past 100 years. A commercial sailing ship is bound to these systems, no matter how efficient the rig.

5. Why do you need an engine bigger than the normal main engine for sail handling? We are probably talking about a simple schooner rig type of boat not square rigged and not Dynarigg. Handled with some hydraulics. As simple as possible.

I would not say bigger than a common one, but about the same size.
You have additional resistance when you are not sailing, that reduces speed, and / or increases power demand.
The same is valid for crew. With each and every additional system aboard, you need more crew to handle and service that. Nothing on a seagoing vessel is just pushing a button, and if, there has to be one maintaining the button.

I still fight for my 20 Euros....
Thanks

Do´nt forget, we have commercial sailing ships operating worldwide! Their freight is meat. And they have to operate on a pretty tight schedule, because when the cattle skin is tanned, they must be near the airport to fly them back home.
When you look in their engine rooms you hardly notice any difference compared to a commercial freighter of similar size (apart from the hughe gennies).
These cruisers operate on a low speed level to make absolutely sure the schedule can be held. Not a good idea when shipping goods. Turnaround is the most important factor in todays shipping activities.

Regards
Richard