Breaking News Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapses

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
A small point of detail since I researched standardized shipping containers a few years ago (in the context of certain...debates people were having about Star Citizen).

The MV Dali has a rated capacity of 9,971 TEU, which has led to many media outlets saying things along the line of it carrying almost 10,000 standard shipping containers and that it was only half loaded with approximately 4,700 containers on board. This is incorrect. The TEU rating of a ship is equal to roughly half the number of standard forty-foot "conex" containers it can hold, because TEU stands for "Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit". Container ships are rated in TEU because smaller twenty foot containers are also used in shipping, and it's more convenient to count those as one unit and a standard container as two units.

(For the record, a standard conex is forty feet long by eight feet wide and eight and a half feet tall, while "high cube" containers are one foot taller than regular ones. Conexes are secured using twist-lock connectors on all four corners and can generally be stacked up to nine or ten units high, although this may be less for containers with unusually heavy contents. A pair of twenty-foot conexes can be stacked directly with a single forty, whereas other sizes such as fifty-threes and sixties are rare because they have to be seperate stacks.)

TL;DR: A container ship will typically carry a mix of forty and twenty foot containers, but the majority will be forties. This means that the approximately 4,700 containers that the MV Dali is stated to have been carrying is in fact a typical full cargo load, not a half-empty partial load.
 
Last edited:

Simonbob

Well-known member
TL;DR: A container ship will typically carry a mix of forty and twenty foot containers, but the majority will be forties. This means that the approximately 4,700 containers that the MV Dali is stated to have been carrying is in fact a typical full cargo load, not a half-empty partial load.

Something to note.

A 20' container is rated for 19 958 Kg, and a 40' container, 20 185 Kg.

Despite the doubled volume, 40' containers are about half the mass potential of two 20s.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Something to note.

A 20' container is rated for 19 958 Kg, and a 40' container, 20 185 Kg.

Despite the doubled volume, 40' containers are about half the mass potential of two 20s.

That’s because for reasons of stacking calculations, the maximum mass of a container is standardized at 67,200 pounds regardless of size. The physical shell of the 20’ container is about three thousand pounds lighter, hence its higher maximum mass.

This works out in practical terms because the vast majority of cargo is volume limited, not mass limited.
 

Flintsteel

Sleeping Bolo
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Something to note.

A 20' container is rated for 19 958 Kg, and a 40' container, 20 185 Kg.

Despite the doubled volume, 40' containers are about half the mass potential of two 20s.
All the weight is carried by the corner blocks only, so the total load that can be physically carried is inversely related to container size.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder


So apparently the West Point Mafia in the Pentagon has so utterly gutted the Navy and maritime services, in favor of their land forces meant for COIN in the last couple decades, that the reserve/utility ships the Corp of Engineers or Navy salvage/utility fleet is almost non-existent now.

All the nice logistical bit that would have helped with this crane issue, and a lot of the US maritime logistics capacity in general, is effectively a skeleton of it's former self.

This is why the Army heads needs to stop being allowed to control Navy budgets.


That thread has a lot of fire directed at targets far beyond what's happening in Baltimore. Knew things were decayed but not that what he's alleging is a big reason for it.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Oh, for sure. Turf wars are in no way connected!
:D


LOL! Autocorrupt in action. But we may discuss knee replacment surgery, I suppose. I'm of an age where this is pertinent :p

Sad I edited it so quick it didn't even show edit text on my post lol.

My spelling is so bad on my phone and I get so lazy shitposting. Gets me into bad situations. Though not knee replacement bad.

I have bad knees too though. High School sports and the like wrecked them. I keep getting mild bursitis and freak out the kids when I let them touch my knees and it feels like it's on fire... 🥵:p

This is so off topic lol.

Fire... Like what that guy in the Tweet is directing at the West Point Mafia!
 

Buba

A total creep
And sure China could do it quicker, they would also throw safety regulations to the side.
Besides using work safety practices from early XXth century USA, Chinese firms might botch the job. Not out of malice but simply a mix of rushing things and gaps in expertise.
My spelling is so bad on my phone and I get so lazy shitposting. Gets me into bad situations. Though not knee replacement bad.
Good to hear that things do not descend to level seen at 1:33 below:
 
Last edited:

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Can't break those laws.
It would be massive.
Shipping and ships are something they take serious
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Oh thank goodness.

…watch them ignore that anyway. :(
The penalty for breaking that law is flat out forfeiture and seizure of any illegal dredge in U.S. waters. No one has ever dared, and unfortunately it’s one of the major reasons so few US ports have been able to upgrade to post-Panamax ships.

The domestic dredging fleet is pretty much exactly market sized to handle the permanent long term contracts of keeping American river channels and harbors maintained. That’s overall a good thing, but the market supports little excess capacity for *enlarging* channels and harbors, a task which requires dramatically more dredging capacity but doesn’t substantially increase the permanent dredging load once completed. As a practical example, it took twenty years to deepen the Columbia River channel from 40 feet to 43 feet (1990-2010), and that was with the resources of the Army Corps of Engineers and six major ports.

There are four major dredging companies in Europe, each of which single-handedly has a fleet bigger than the entire United States industry. Put together, they’re about 80% of the global market in dredging — it’s basically those four companies at about 20% market share each, the U.S. as a closed market totaling 15% share, and China having one up-and-coming company that’s most of the remaining 5%. Note that Russia isn’t even on the charts, they used the European companies for 98% of their dredging work and have been completely screwed on that front since the war started.

On the one hand, the Dredging Act has protected the U.S. from that kind of foreign dependency, but it’s also why we are comically behind in being able to handle post-Panamax shipping. As in, when the new Panama Canal locks opened in 2015. . . pretty much every major European port and most major Asian ports were already handling container ships that size, but only THREE American ports could. That number is now about ten, and *none* of our inland waterways can handle full post-Panamax.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Conventional wisdom would've assumed that there would've been a demand to fill in the need for more maritime dredging in the States. Turns out not the case.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Conventional wisdom would've assumed that there would've been a demand to fill in the need for more maritime dredging in the States. Turns out not the case.
There’s a demand, but it’s not *enough* demand to push the market to actually create a surplus of dredging capacity. . . especially since the dredging projects require multi-jurisdictional planning and approval and that’s a very slow process. Also, different types of dredges are optimal for river channels versus ocean harbors, and most of the U.S. industry is pipeline type dredges for river work, keeping our extensive inland waterways maintained.
 

Buba

A total creep
There is an actual law involved here, a 1906 act regulating dredges which states that all dredging ships operating in U.S. waters must not only be U.S. flagged, but built in the United States, owned by a U.S. citizen, and chartered by a U.S. citizen.
Is the ordinance banning cabotage to non-US owned and crewed vessels still in force? The one you mention must be its close kin.
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder


So apparently the West Point Mafia in the Pentagon has so utterly gutted the Navy and maritime services, in favor of their land forces meant for COIN in the last couple decades, that the reserve/utility ships the Corp of Engineers or Navy salvage/utility fleet is almost non-existent now.

All the nice logistical bit that would have helped with this crane issue, and a lot of the US maritime logistics capacity in general, is effectively a skeleton of it's former self.

This is why the Army heads needs to stop being allowed to control Navy budgets.


The penalty for breaking that law is flat out forfeiture and seizure of any illegal dredge in U.S. waters. No one has ever dared, and unfortunately it’s one of the major reasons so few US ports have been able to upgrade to post-Panamax ships.

The domestic dredging fleet is pretty much exactly market sized to handle the permanent long term contracts of keeping American river channels and harbors maintained. That’s overall a good thing, but the market supports little excess capacity for *enlarging* channels and harbors, a task which requires dramatically more dredging capacity but doesn’t substantially increase the permanent dredging load once completed. As a practical example, it took twenty years to deepen the Columbia River channel from 40 feet to 43 feet (1990-2010), and that was with the resources of the Army Corps of Engineers and six major ports.

There are four major dredging companies in Europe, each of which single-handedly has a fleet bigger than the entire United States industry. Put together, they’re about 80% of the global market in dredging — it’s basically those four companies at about 20% market share each, the U.S. as a closed market totaling 15% share, and China having one up-and-coming company that’s most of the remaining 5%. Note that Russia isn’t even on the charts, they used the European companies for 98% of their dredging work and have been completely screwed on that front since the war started.

On the one hand, the Dredging Act has protected the U.S. from that kind of foreign dependency, but it’s also why we are comically behind in being able to handle post-Panamax shipping. As in, when the new Panama Canal locks opened in 2015. . . pretty much every major European port and most major Asian ports were already handling container ships that size, but only THREE American ports could. That number is now about ten, and *none* of our inland waterways can handle full post-Panamax.

So looking into America's much decayed shipbuilding capacity, I found this series of articles off of Marine Link.

2023 Shipbuilding Report.


2022 Shipbuilding Report.


It's basically just reinforcement for what we all generally know already about how there's barely any large size commercial shipping vessels being built in America. John Konrad seems to intimate that this is due in large part due to the Reagan era Government ending shipbuilding construction subsidies while other countries like China have kept their subsidies for commercial and civilian shipbuilding in place.

With that put aside, in regards to what Shadow was saying in regards to only US built dredgers can be used, looking at US Shipbuilding, beyond naval and coast guard ships, the only vessels that America really manufactures much of anything of seem to be dredging ships and small commercial craft like yachts and small passenger boats as well as other small vessels like tugboats and workboats like that. One interesting nugget is all of the vessels being constructed for offshore wind power installation. I wonder if there's similar legislation regarding those vessels as well.

And as always, there's a shortage of US Merchant Mariners and Shipbuilders and everything else.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top