Merchant Ship Types

Merchant Ship Types provides a broad and detailed introduction to the clas-
sifications and main categories of merchant vessels for students and cadets.
It introduces the concept of ship classification by usage, cargo type, and size,
and shows how the various size categories affect which ports and channels
the types of vessels are permitted to enter. Detailed outlines of each major
vessel category are provided, including:

• Feeder ship;
• General cargo vessels;
• Container ships;
• Tankers;
• Dry bulk carriers;
• Multi-­purpose vessels;
• Reefer ships;
• Roll-­on/roll-­off vessels.

The book also explains where these are permitted to operate, the type of
cargoes carried, and specific safety or risk factors associated with the ves-
sel class, as well as their main characteristics. Relevant case studies are
presented.
The textbook is ideal for merchant navy cadets at HNC, HND, and foun-
dation degree level in both the deck and engineering branches, and serves as
a general reference for insurance, law, logistics, offshore, and fisheries.
Merchant Ship Types

Alexander Arnfinn Olsen

Cover image: Shutterstock

First published 2023

by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa

business

© 2023 Alexander Arnfinn Olsen

The right of Alexander Arnfinn Olsen to be identified as author of this

work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explana-
tion without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-032-37876-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-37875-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-34236-6 (ebk)

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366

Typeset in Sabon
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Dedicated to Captain Kåre B. Olsen
For whom there was nothing more enticing,
disenchanting, and enslaving than the life at sea
3 April 1940–22 March 2020
Contents

List of figures xvii

List of tables xxi
Preface xxiii
Acknowledgements xxix
Abbreviations, glossary and terms used xxxi

Introduction 1
Ship classifications by size 1
Aframax 2
Baltimax 2
Capesize 2
Chinamax 3
Handysize 3
Handymax 4
Malaccamax 4
Panamax and New Panamax 5
Ship dimensions 6
Length 6
Beam (width) 6
Draught 6
Height 7
Cargo capacity 7
Records 7
Expansion of the Panama Canal locks 8
Post-Panamax and Post-Neo panamax ships 8
Qatar Flex (Q-Flex) 10
Qatar Max (Q-Max) 10
Seawaymax 12
Suezmax 12
Valemax 13

vii
viii Contents

Very large and ultra large crude carriers 17

Ship classification by type 17
Naval vessels 17
Wet cargoes 17
Dry cargoes 18
Vehicle carriers 18
Passenger ships 18
Fishing vessels 18
Offshore oilfield vessels 19
Construction vessels 19
Harbour support boats 19
Specialist vessels 19
Ship classification by gears 19

PART I
Dry cargo ships 21

1 Bulk carriers 23
Development of the bulk carrier 25
Categories 25
Fleet characteristics 29
Flag states 29
Largest fleets 29
Ship builders 30
Freight charges 30
Ship breaking 30
Operations 31
Design and architecture 32
Machinery 33
Hatches 33
Hull 34
Safety 35
Stability problems 36
Structural problems 36
Crew safety 37

2 Container ships 39
Size categories 43
Container ship architecture 44
Cargo cranes 44
Cargo holds 46
 Contents ix

Lashing systems 46
The bridge 47
Container fleet characteristics 48
Flag states 49
Vessel purchases 49
Scrapping 50
Largest container ships 50
Freight market 52
Container sector alliances 59
Container ports 59
Losses and safety issues 60

3 Feeder ships 63
Short-sea shipping 63
Short-sea shipping around the world 64
Europe 64
North America 65
Cabotage 66
Note 67

4 General cargo ships 69

Advantages and disadvantages 71
Note 72

5 Reefer ships 73
Development of the reefer ship 75
Refrigerated cargo systems 77
Refrigerated containers 77
Insulated containers 78
Environmental impact 79
Note 80

6 RORO vessels 81
Development of the RORO vessel 83
RORO stowage and securing of cargo 88
Safety aspects 90
Lack of subdivisional bulkheads 90
Maintaining stability 90
Vessel stiffness 91
The cargo doors 92
x Contents

The stern door 92

The bow door 92
Location of lifeboats 93

7 Fishing vessels 97
Development of fishing boats 97
Commercial and industrial fishing vessels 103
Trawlers 103
Seiners 104
Line vessels 106
Other vessels 107
Notes 111

8 Research and scientific vessels 113

Categories of research vessel 113
Hydrographic survey 113
Oceanographic research 114
Autonomous research vessels 115
Technical research ships 115
Environmental Research Ships (AGER) 117
Weather ships 117
Tropical meteorology 122
Fisheries research 123
Naval research 124
Polar research 124
Oil exploration 124
Development of the research vessel 125
Race to the poles (19th century) 125
20th century 127
Between the world wars 128
The post-war period 130
Increasing collaboration 130

PART II
Wet cargo ships 133

9 Chemical tankers 135

10 FPSO and FLNG units 139

Development of the FPSO 140
FPSO records 141
 Contents xi

11 Gas carriers 143

Types of gas carriers 144
Gas carrier codes 145
Gas carriers built after June 1986 (the IGC code) 145
Gas carriers built between 1976 and 1986 (the GC
code) 146
Gas carriers built before 1977 (the existing ship code) 146
Hazards and health effects 146
Toxicity 146
Hazards of ammonia 147
Flammability 148
Frostbite 148
Asphyxia 148
Spillage 148

12 LNG carriers 151

Cargo handling and cycle 153
Cargo containment 154
Moss tanks (spherical IMO type B LNG tanks) 155
IHI (prismatic IMO Type B LNG tanks) 155
TGZ Mark III 156
GT96 156
CS1 157
Re-liquefaction and boil off 157

13 Oil tankers and product carriers 159

Development of the oil tanker 160
Size categories 163
Tanker chartering 165
Fleet characteristics 165
Structural design and architecture 168
Cargo operations 169
Preparations for loading or unloading cargo 170
Loading cargo 170
Unloading cargo 171
Tank cleaning 171
Special use oil tankers 172
Floating storage and offloading units 172
Environmental impact and marine pollution 173
xii Contents

PART III
Passenger vessels 175

14 Cargo liners 177

The last cargo liner: RMS St. Helena (1989) 178

15 Cruise ships 181

Origins of the cruise ship 181
From luxury liners to megaship cruising 183
Cruise lines 184
Shipboard organisation 186
Crewing 187
Business model 189
Cruise ship naming 190
Cruise ship utilisation 190
Regional sectors 191
Shipyards 194
Safety and security 194
Piracy and terrorism 194
Crime on board 195
Overboard drownings 195
Stability 196
Health concerns 196
Norovirus 196
Legionnaires’ disease 197
Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli 197
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 198
Environmental impact 198

16 Cruise ferry 201

Cruise ferry sectors 201
Eastern Baltic Sea 201
Silja Line 203
Viking Line 206
English Channel and Bay of Biscay 209
P&O 209
Brittany Ferries 212
Stena Line 213
North Sea 214
P&O 214
 Contents xiii

Stena Line 215

DFDS Seaways 216
Irish Sea 218
P&O 218
Stena Line 218
Scotland 218
NorthLink Ferries 218
Skagerrak 221
Color Line 221
Mediterranean 222
Grimaldi Lines 222
Moby Lines 223
Note 224

17 Ferries 225
Ferry types 230
Double-ended 230
Hydrofoil 231
Hovercraft 231
Catamaran 231
RORO ferries 232
Cruiseferry/ROPAX 232
Turntable ferry 233
Pontoon and cable ferries 234
Train ferry 234
Foot ferry 234
Docking 235
Sustainability 235

18 Ocean liners 237

Development of the ocean liner 239
Characteristics 245
Size and speed 245
Passenger cabins and amenities 246
Ship builders 247
Shipping companies 247
Routes 248
North Atlantic 248
South Atlantic 249
Mediterranean 249
xiv Contents

Indian Ocean and the Far East 249

Other 249
Maritime disasters and incidents 250

PART IV
Construction and support vessels 251

19 Cable layers 253

20 Construction support vessels 257

Pipelaying ships 257
Heavy lift and crane vessels 257
Drillships 260
Dredgers 262

21 Icebreakers 265
Nuclear icebreakers 269
Function 270
Characteristics 271
Structural design 272
Power and propulsion 273
Polar class icebreakers 275
Polar class notations 275
Requirements 276
Polar Class ships 277
Polar Class 5 and below 277
Polar Class 4 277
Polar Class 3 278
Polar Class 2 and above 278

22 Offshore support vessels 279

Platform support vessels 280
Anchor handling tug supply vessels 282
Diving support vessels 284
Emergency tow vessels 286
National ETV fleets 286
Algeria 286
Finland 287
France 287
Germany 288
 Contents xv

Iceland 288
Netherlands 288
Norway 288
Poland 289
South Africa 289
Spain 289
Sweden 289
Turkey 289
United Kingdom 290
Fireboats 290

23 Tugboats 293
Deep-sea or seagoing tugs 293
Harbour tugs 294
River tugs 295
Salvage tugs 295
Tenders 297
Propulsion systems 298
Kort nozzle 299
Cyclorotor 299
Carousel 300

PART V
Royal Fleet Auxiliary 301

24 Royal Fleet Auxiliary 303

RFA fleet 305

Index 309
List of figures

I.1 Panamax sized container vessel passing through

the Panama Canal 7
I.2 Providence Bay passing through the Panama Canal 9
I.3 LNG carrier Al Aamriya, Milford Haven, Wales 11
I.4 Construction of the Vale Dalian 14
1.1 Bulk carrier Poseidon, Kwinana Bulk Jetty,
Port of Fremantle, Australia 24
1.2 CHL Innovator, leaving the Port of Gdansk, Poland 28
2.1 Container handling 40
2.2 Ideal X 41
2.3 Inside the cargo hold on a container ship 47
2.4 Typical container lashing system on MV Pollux at Torshaven,
Iceland 48
2.5 Container ship unity ready for scrapping, Bangladesh 51
2.6 Tanger Med container terminal, Morocco 60
2.7 Container ship Ever Given stuck in the Suez Canal, Egypt –
24 March 2021 61
3.1 Typical coastal feeder ship Wybelsum 64
4.1 Typical general cargo ship Happy Dynamic 70
5.1 Typical reefer ship Baltic Melody 74
5.2 Reefer containers 78
6.1 Typical ROPAX ferry P&O Pride of Hull 82
6.2 Typical RORO container ship, Rosa Delmas, formerly Rosa
Tucano, at La Rochelle 84
6.3 Car carrier Atlas Leader, arriving Casablanca, Morocco 89
6.4 Inside the hull of a typical RORO vessel 91
6.5 Stern ramp of the Mærsk Willow 93
6.6 Bow door on the GNV Cristal 94
6.7 Typical placement of lifeboats on the ROPAX vessel MS
Lubeck Link, Travemünde, Germany 95
7.1 Traditional river boat used for fishing, Bon River, Vietnam 98
7.2 Inshore fisheries trawler William of Ladram 102
7.3 Fisheries factory ship Kiel at Cuxhaven, Germany 108

xvii
xviii List of figures

7.4 Typical scallop dredger, St Monans Harbour, England 109

7.5 FRV Scotia, entering Aberdeen Harbour, Scotland 110
8.1 Royal Navy hydrographic vessel HMS Enterprise 114
8.2 NOAAS Ronald H. Brown 115
8.3 Weathership Chofumaru 2 118
8.4 RV CEFAS Endeavour at Lowestoft, England 123
8.5 RRS David Attenborough 124
8.6 Petroleum Geo-Services owned seismic vessel Ramform
Challenger, Valletta Harbour, Malta 125
8.7 Discovery, Antarctica, circa 1901 126
9.1 Typical chemical tanker, Triple A, outbound from Rotterdam,
The Netherlands 136
10.1 FPSO Kizomba 140
10.2 FPSO Firenze 141
11.1 Typical type gas carrier Marshal Vasil Evskiy 143
12.1 Typical LNG carrier Gas Spirit 152
12.2 MOSS gas carrier Arctic Princess – Hammerfest, Norway 156
13.1 Typical oil tanker MT Seavigour 159
13.2 Aframax oil tanker Ab Qaiq 163
13.3 MT Exxon Valdez, 24 March 1989, Bligh Reef, Prince
William Sound, Alaska 174
14.1 RMS St Helena, James Bay, Island of St Helena 179
15.1 Marella Explorer at the Liverpool Cruise terminal, England 182
15.2 Color Magic 184
15.3 Cruise ship galley 187
15.4 Carnival Vista off Oranjestad, Aruba 188
15.5 Costa Fortuna docked outside Dubrovnik’s
Old Town, Croatia 192
16.1 Scandlines’ Prins Richard on the Puttgarden-Rødby
‘Vogelfluglinie’ from Puttgarden, Germany to Rødby,
Denmark 202
16.2 St Peter Line’s cruise ferry MS Princess Maria, outside
Helsinki, Finland 204
16.3 Viking Line cruise ferry MS Viking Cinderella departing
Stockholm, Sweden 207
16.4 P&O Ferries, English Channel between Dover, England and
Calais, France 211
16.5 Brittany Ferries’ Barfleur leaving Poole, England, with
Girlfriend in the foreground 213
16.6 P&O North Sea Ferries Pride of York leaving the Humber
Estuary, England 215
16.7 Stena Line ferry Stena Hollandica, departing
Harwich, England 216
16.8 DFDS ferry Princess Seaways 217
16.9 P&O Irish Sea Express 219
 List of figures xix

16.10 Stena Super Fast X, arriving in Dublin, Ireland 219

16.11 North Link Ferries Hrossey on route to the Shetland Isles,
Scotland 221
16.12 Superspeed 1 arriving at Hirtshals Harbour, Denmark 222
16.13 Grimaldi Lines Finclipper in Brindisi, Italy 223
17.1 Excelsior at Séte, France 226
17.2 Red Funnel Line’s Red Eagle, Southampton, England 230
17.3 Sydney Hydrofoil ferry Palm Beach en route from Manly to
Circular Quay, Australia 231
17.4 Hoverspeed, leaving Calais, France 232
17.5 Condor Rapide, approaching the Port of Guernsey 233
17.6 Jutlandia Seaways, Cuxhaven, Germany 233
17.7 Gosport Ferry Spirit of Portsmouth, seen departing
Portsmouth, England, and heading towards Gosport, England 235
18.1 RMS Queen Mary 2 transiting the Suez Canal, Egypt 238
18.2 Vasco da Gama at the Liverpool Cruise terminal, England 247
19.1 Cable ship Ile de Bréhat 254
20.1 Pipelayer Seven Navica, Leith Docks, Edinburgh, Scotland 258
20.2 Heavy-lift vessel Biglift Barentsz in Schiedam, The Netherlands 259
20.3 Dockwise Treasure, off Falmouth, England 260
20.4 ENSCO DS-6 drillship in the Saronic Gulf, Greece 261
21.1 USCG Polar Sea 268
21.2 Russian nuclear icebreaker Arktika 270
21.3 Russian icebreaker Tor 273
21.4 Japanese icebreaker Shirase 276
22.1 Offshore support vessel Balder Viking 281
22.2 Anchor handling tugs at Scrabster, Scotland 283
22.3 Diving support vessel Kingfisher 285
22.4 ERRV Grampian Deliverance, departing Aberdeen Harbour,
Scotland 287
22.5 Fire Boat No. 5, for Hong Kong fire services department 291
23.1 Abeille Bourbon 294
23.2 Tug Michel Hamburg assisting COSCO Shipping Nebula 295
23.3 Tugboat Salvage Mark in Jarvis Quay, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada 296
23.4 Havila Commander, departing Aberdeen Harbour, Scotland 298
24.1 RFA Argus in the Caribbean Sea – Summer 2020 304
24.2 RFA Tidespring 306
24.3 RFA Fort George at the jetty of the naval fuel depot, mouth
of Loch Striven (near Port Lamont), Scotland 307
List of tables

I.1 Panamax vessel dimensions 5

2.1 Container ship size categories 42
2.2 Container loading records (2018–2021) 45
2.3 Largest container ship operators (2021) 49
2.4 Worldwide capacity (1990–2017) 50
2.5 Largest container ships (2017–2021) 53
2.6 Ships on order (2022–2023) 58
2.7 Container sector alliances 59
6.1 Variations of different RORO vessels 82
6.2 Passengers and crew of the MV Estonia 94
13.1 Oil tanker size categories (2007 values) 164
13.2 Time charter equivalent rates, per day (2004–2015) 166
15.1 Busiest cruise destinations, 2013 193
20.1 Drill ship vintages 262
21.1 IACS polar class notations 276
24.1 RFA fleet (as of 2022) 307

xxi
Preface

A cargo ship or freighter is a merchant ship that carries cargo, goods, and
materials from one port to another. Thousands of cargo carriers ply the
world’s seas and oceans each year, managing the bulk of international trade.
Cargo ships are usually specially designed for the task and are often being
equipped with cranes and other mechanisms to load and unload and come
in all shapes and sizes. Today, they are always built of welded steel, and with
some exceptions, have a life expectancy of between 25 and 30 years before
being scrapped. The words cargo and freight have become interchangeable
in casual usage. Technically, ‘cargo’ refers to the goods carried by the ship
for hire, while ‘freight’ refers to the act of carrying of said cargo, but the
terms have been used interchangeably for centuries. The modern ocean ship-
ping industry is divided into two sectors:

• Liner business: typically (but not exclusively) container vessels (wherein

‘general cargo’ is carried in 20 or 40-­foot containers), operating as
‘common carriers’, calling at a regularly published schedule of ports.
A common carrier refers to a regulated service where any member of
the public may book cargo for shipment, according to long-­established
and internationally agreed rules
• Tramp-­tanker business: this is business arranged between the shipper
and receiver and facilitated by the vessel owners or operators, who
offer their vessels for hire to carry bulk (dry or liquid) or break-bulk
(cargoes with individually managed pieces) to any suitable port(s) in
the world, according to a specifically drawn contract, called a charter
party.

Larger cargo ships are operated by shipping lines: companies that specialise
in the handling of cargo in general. Smaller vessels, such as coasters, are
often owned by their operators. Ships are classified in numerous ways. The
purpose of classifying ships is to differentiate between one type of ships and

xxiii
xxiv Preface

another. Cargo ships/freighters can be divided into seven groups, according

to the type of cargo they carry. These groups are as follows:

• Feeder ship;
• General cargo vessels;
• Container ships;
• Tankers;
• Dry bulk carriers;
• Multi-­purpose vessels;
• Reefer ships;
• Roll-on/roll-off vessels.

General cargo vessels carry packaged items such as chemicals, foods, fur-
niture, machinery, motor-­and military vehicles, footwear, and garments.
Container ships (sometimes spelled containerships) are cargo ships that carry
all their load in truck-­size intermodal containers, using a technique called
containerisation. They are a common means of commercial intermodal
freight transport and now carry most seagoing non-­bulk cargo. Container
ship capacity is measured in 20-­foot equivalent units (TEU). Tankers carry
petroleum products or other liquid cargo. Dry bulk carriers carry coal, grain,
ore, and other comparable products in a loose form. Multi-­purpose vessels,
as the name suggests, carry different classes of cargo – for example liquid,
and general cargo – at the same time. A Reefer, reefer ship (or refrigerated),
is specifically designed and used for shipping perishable commodities, which
require temperature-­controlled goods such as fruits, meat, fish, vegetables,
dairy products, and other foodstuffs. Roll on, roll off (RORO or ro-­ro) ships
are designed to carry wheeled cargo, such as cars, trucks, semi-­trailer trucks,
trailers, and railroad cars, which are driven on and off the ship on their own
wheels. Specialised types of cargo vessels include container ships and bulk
carriers (technically tankers of all sizes are cargo ships, although they are
routinely thought of as a separate category.
Cargo ships fall into two further categories that reflect the services they
offer to industry: liner and tramp services. Those on a fixed published schedule
and fixed tariff rates are cargo liners. Tramp ships do not have fixed schedules.
Users charter them to haul loads. The smaller shipping companies and private
individuals operate tramp ships. Cargo liners run on fixed schedules published
by the shipping companies. Each trip a liner takes is called a voyage. Liners
mostly carry general cargo; however, some cargo liners may also carry pas-
senger. A cargo liner that carries 12 or more passengers is called a combination
or a passenger-­run-­cargo line. Cargo ships are categorised partly by cargo
capacity, partly by weight (deadweight tonnage (dwt), and partly by dimen-
sions. Maximum dimensions such as length and width (beam) limit the canal
locks a ship can fit in, water depth (draught) is a limitation for canals, shallow
straits or harbours and height is a limitation to pass under bridges. The most
common categories include dry cargo ships, which includes the following:
 Preface xxv

• Small handy size, carriers of 20,000–28,000 dwt;

• Seawaymax, 28,000 dwt, the largest vessel that can traverse the
St. Lawrence Seaway. These are vessels less than 225.6 m (740 ft) in
length, 23.8 m (78 ft) beam, and have a draught less than 8.08 m
(26.51 ft) and a height above the waterline of no more than 35.5 m
(116 ft);
• Handy size, carriers of 28,000–40,000 dwt;
• Handymax, carriers of 40,000–50,000 dwt;
• Panamax, the largest size that can traverse the original locks of the
Panama Canal, a 294.13 m (965.0 ft) length, a 32.2 m (106 ft) beam,
and a 12.04 m (39.5 ft) draught as well as a height limit of 57.91 m
(190.0 ft). Limited to 52,000 dwt loaded, 80,000 dwt empty;
• Neopanamax, upgraded Panama locks with 366 m (1,201 ft) length,
55 m (180 ft) beam, 18 m (59 ft) draft, 120,000 dwt;
• Capesize, vessels larger than Suezmax and Neopanamax, and must
traverse the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn to travel between
oceans;
• Chinamax, carriers of 380,000–400,000 dwt up to 24 m (79 ft)
draught, 65 m (213 ft) beam and 360 m (1,180 ft) length; these dimen-
sions are limited by port infrastructure in China.

Wet cargo ships include the following:

• Aframax, oil tankers between 75,000 and 115,000 dwt. This is the larg-
est size defined by the average freight rate assessment (AFRA) scheme.
• Q-­Flex or Q-­Max liquefied natural gas carrier for Qatar exports. A
ship of Q-­Max size is 345 m (1,132 ft) long and has a beam of 53.8 m
(177 ft) and 34.7 m (114 ft) high, with a shallow draught of approxi-
mately 12 m (39 ft).
• Suezmax, typically ships of about 160,000 dwt, maximum dimensions
are a beam of 77.5 m (254 ft), a draught of 20.1 m (66 ft) as well as a
height limit of 68 m (223 ft) can traverse the Suez Canal
• VLCC (very large crude carrier), super tankers between 150,000 and
320,000 dwt.
• Malaccamax, ships with a draught less than 20.5 m (67.3 ft) that can
traverse the Strait of Malacca, typically 300,000 dwt.
• ULCC (ultra large crude carrier), enormous super tankers between
320,000 and 550,000 dwt.

The TI-­class super tanker is an ultra large crude carrier, with a draught that
is deeper than the Suezmax, Malaccamax, and New Panamax classes. This
causes Atlantic/Pacific routes to be exceptionally long, such as the long voy-
ages south of Cape of Good Hope or south of Cape Horn to transit between
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Lake freighters, built for the Great Lakes
in North America, differ in design from sea water–going ships because of
xxvi Preface

the difference in wave size and frequency in the lakes. A number of these
ships are larger than Seawaymax and cannot leave the lakes and pass to the
Atlantic Ocean, as they do not fit the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
A ship prefix is a combination of letters, usually, abbreviations, used in
front of the name of a civilian or naval ship that has historically served
numerous purposes, such as identifying the vessel’s mode of propulsion,
purpose, or ownership/nationality. In the modern environment, prefixes are
used inconsistently in civilian service, whereas in government service, the
vessels prefix is seldom missing due to government regulations dictating a
certain prefix be present. Today, the customary practice is to use a single
prefix for all warships of a nation’s navy, and other prefixes for auxiliaries
and ships of allied services, such as coast guards. For example, the modern
navy of Japan adopts the prefix ‘JS’ – Japanese Ship. However, not all navies
use prefixes; this includes the significant navies of China, France [though
France has a NATO designation for its naval prefix, which is FS (French
Ship)], Russia, and Spain, which like France uses the NATO designation SPS
(Spanish Ship) if needed. Historically, prefixes for civilian vessels often iden-
tified the vessel’s mode of propulsion, such as ‘SS’ (steam ship), ‘MV’ (motor
vessel), or ‘PS’ (paddle steamer). Alternatively, they might have reflected a
vessel’s purpose, for example ‘RMS’ (Royal Mail Ship), or ‘RV’ (Research
Vessel). These days, general civilian prefixes are used inconsistently, and fre-
quently not at all. In terms of abbreviations that may reflect a vessel’s pur-
pose or function, technology has introduced a broad variety of differently
named vessels onto the world’s oceans, such as ‘LPGC’ (liquified petroleum
gas carrier), or ‘TB’ (tugboat), or ‘DB’ (derrick barge). In many cases though,
these abbreviations are used for purely formal, legal identification and are
not used colloquially or in the daily working environment.
In terms of vessels used by a nations’ armed services, prefixes not only
primarily reflect ownership – but may also indicate a vessel’s type or pur-
pose as a subset. Historically, the most significant navy was Britain’s Royal
Navy, which has traditionally used the prefix ‘HMS’, standing for ‘His / Her
Majesty’s Ship’. The Royal Navy also adopted nomenclature that reflected a
vessel’s type or purpose, for example HM Sloop. Commonwealth navies
adopted a variation, with, for example, HMAS, HMCS, and HMNZS per-
taining to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, respectively. In the early
days of the United States Navy, abbreviations often included the type of
vessel, for instance ‘USF’ (United States Frigate), but this method was aban-
doned by President Theodore Roosevelt’s Executive Order No. 549 of 1907,
which made ‘United States Ship’ (USS) the standard signifier for USN ships
on active commissioned service. In the United States Navy, that prefix offi-
cially only applies while the ship is in active commission, with only the name
used before or after a period of commission and for all vessels ‘in service’
rather than commissioned status. However, not all navies use prefixes; this
includes the significant navies of China, France, and Russia. From the 20th
 Preface xxvii

century onwards, most navies identify ships by letters or hull numbers (pen-
nant numbers) or a combination of both. These identification codes were,
and still are, painted on the side of the ship. Each navy has its own system:
the United States Navy uses hull classification symbols, whereas the Royal
Navy and most other European and Commonwealth navies use pennant
numbers.
In this book, we will explore each of the main ship categories of merchant
vessels in greater detail.
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the many individuals who have provided me with assis-
tance and material during the writing of this book, with particular thanks to
Captain Reuben Lanfranco, Tony Moore, Aimee Wragg, and Divya Muthu.
Also, to the many colleagues and friends who have answered numerous
queries and added their wealth of experience, I extend my grateful thanks
and gratitude.
Alexander Arnfinn Olsen
Southampton, October 2022

xxix
Abbreviations, glossary and terms used

AC Alternating Current
ACP Panama Canal Authority
AFRA Average Freight Rate Assessment
AHTS Anchor Handling Tug Supply
ANL Australian National Lines
ATB Articulated Tug and Barge
BIBO Bulk In, Bag Out
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosions
CDC US Centres for Disease Control
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
COA Contract of Affreightment
COSCO China Oriental Shipping Company
CS Cable Ship
CV Crane Vessel
DC Direct Current
DFDE Dual Fuel Diesel Electric
DP Dynamic Positioning
DSME Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering
DSV Diving Support Vessel
DWT Deadweight
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
ERRV Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel
ETV Emergency Towing Vessel
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FC Fully Cellular
FEMA US Federal Emergency Management Agency
FLNG Floating Liquefied Natural Gas
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading
FRV Fisheries Research Vessel
FSO Floating Storage and Offloading
FSRU Floating Storage and Regasification Unit
FT Foot / Feet

xxxi
xxxii Abbreviations, glossary and terms used

GARP Global Atmospheric Research Programme

HAPAG Hamburg-­Amerikanische Packetfahrt-­Actien-­Gesellschaft
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
IACS International Association of Classification Societies
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ICBC Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
IGY International Geophysical Year
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ILO International Labour Organisation
IN Inches
ISO International Standards Organisation
ISPS International Ship and Port Security Code
KG Kilogrammes
KM/H Kilometres Per Hour
KTS Knots
LCE Linear Cable Engine
LCTC Large Car and Truck Carrier
LDT Light Displacement Tonnage
LIMS Lanes In Metres
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LOA Length Overall
LOLO Lift On, Lift Off
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LTBP London Tanker Brokers’ Panel
M Metres
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MLWS Mean Low Water Springs
MPH Miles Per Hour
MS Motor Ship
MT Motor Tanker
MV Motor Vessel
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NAVARMA Navigazione Arcipelago Maddalenino
NJ New Jersey (US)
NOAAS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
NY New York (US)
NZALC New Zealand and Australian Land Company
OBO Oil Bulk Ore Carrier
OCV Offshore Construction Vessel
OSV Offshore Supply Vessel
PCC Pure Car Carrier
PCTC Pure Car and Truck Carrier
PIDN Port Inland Distribution Network
PLEM Pipeline End Manifold
 Abbreviations, glossary and terms used xxxiii

PLV Pipe Laying Vessel

PSV Platform Supply Vessel
RAS Replenishment at Sea
RFA Royal Fleet Auxiliary
RMS Royal Mail Ship
ROPAX Roll-on/roll-off Passenger Ship
RORO Roll-on/roll-off
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
RRS Royal Research Ship (UK)
RSHI Jiangsu Rongsheng Heavy Industries
RV Research Vessel
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
SS Steam Ship / Sailing Ship
STOVL Short Take-­Off and Vertical Landing
TEU Twenty-­Foot Equivalent
TFDE Tri Fuel Diesel Electric
TLP Tension Leg Platform
UK United Kingdom
ULBC Ultra Large Bulk Carrier
ULCC Ultra Large Crude Carrier
ULOC Ultra Large Ore Carrier
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Council on Trade and Development
US United States
USCG United States Coastguard
USCGC United States Coastguard Cutter
USS United States Ship
UTC Universal Coordinated Time
VHSS Vereinigung Hamburger Schiffsmakler und Schiffsagenten e. V.
VIP Vacuum Insulated Panels
VLBC Very Large Bulk Carrier
VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier
VLCS Very Large Container Ship
VLOC Very Large Ore Carrier
WMO World Meteorological Organisation
WSV Well Stimulation Vessel
Introduction

Merchant ships are broadly classified based on their size and area of oper-
ation. The classification of a ship is determined at the design stage and
includes the anticipated routes of operation and the purpose of the ship.
The ship’s dimensions play an important role in determining the areas of
operation of any type of merchant vessel. A variety of parameters such as
draught, beam, length overall, gross tonnage, deadweight (dwt) tonnage,
and so forth are taken into consideration when designing and construct-
ing the merchant ship. For example, when designing a ship that will pass
through the Suez Canal, the dimensions of the ship will be decided in such
a way that the ship is able to smoothly transit through the narrowest and
shallowest parts of the canal, in both fully loaded and unloaded conditions.
This is determined by the ship’s load carrying capacity. There are many dif-
ferent classifications and sub-classifications of merchant vessels; therefore,
this book will focus primarily on the main categories that readers are likely
to come across. There are 10 main classifications of ships based on their size.
We use size as the primary determining feature as this is the most obvious
characteristic of the ship. Also, as we mentioned before, there are hundreds
of types of ships from tugboats to oil tankers. We will start by first examin-
ing the main classifications of ships by size, followed by their category. By
category, we mean the dominant type of cargo carried, such as containers,
passengers, refrigerated cargoes, and vehicles.

SHIP CLASSIFICATIONS BY SIZE

In terms of classifying ships by their size, there are 10 categories, which are
most frequently used. These are the Panamax and New Panamax, Aframax,
Chinamax, Handymax, Suezmax, Capesize, Q-Max, Malaccamax, Very
Large (VLCC) and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC), and Seawaymax. As
you might have guessed from the name, these classification types are named
after important seaways. This tells us that the ship in that category is of the
largest size that is permitted to enter that area.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-1 1
2 Merchant ship types

Aframax
The term Aframax is usually used for medium-sized oil tankers with an
approximate weight of 120,000 dead weight metric tonnes (dwt). These
ship sizes gain their title from the average freight rate assessment (AFRA)
schematic devised by the shipping conglomerate Shell in the mid-1950s.
Applied to oil tankers, Aframax vessels can be loaded with over seven
million barrels of crude oil. Aframax tankers ply in areas that have limited
port facilities or lack large ports to accommodate larger oil carriers. The
beam of the vessel is restricted to 32.3 m (106 ft).

Baltimax
Baltimax is a naval architecture term for the largest ship measurements
capable of entering and leaving the Baltic Sea in a laden condition. It is
the Great Belt route that allows the largest ships. The limit is a draught
of 15.4 m (50.52 ft) and a height above the waterline of 65 m (541.33 ft),
which is limited by the clearance of the east bridge of the Great Belt Fixed
Link. Baltimax vessels typically have a maximum length overall of 240 m
(787 ft) and a beam of 42 m (137 ft). This gives a weight of around 100,000
metric tonnes. Nevertheless, there are also certain larger ship types plying
the Baltic Sea. In particular, the B-Max crude oil tanker has a gross dwt of
205,000 metric tonnes, a length overall of 325 m (1066 ft), and a beam of
68 m (223 ft). The largest container ship to traverse the Baltic Sea is the
‘Mærsk Triple E class’ container ship, which has a length overall of 400 m
(1,312 ft) and 165,000 metric tonnes dwt. The Öresund permits a maximum
draught of only 8.0 m (26.24 ft) and is effectively closed to all larger vessels.
The Nord-Ostsee-Kanal also has a shallow draught of 9.5 m (31.16 ft).
Furthermore, many of the ports located on the Baltic Sea limit the ship size.
The iron ore ports of Luleå (Sweden) (11.0 m, 36.08 ft), for example, were
deepened to 13 m (42.65 ft) and Kemi (Finland) has a maximum allowable
draught of 10.0 m (32.80 ft). Even the large port of Klaipėda (Lithuania)
only has a permitted draught of 13.8 m (45.27 ft), which is less than most of
the Baltimax vessels. The largest port on the Baltic Sea is Primorsk (Russia),
which has a maximum permissible draught of 15 m (49.21 ft), which can
accommodate the Baltimax provided they are not fully laden. Alternatively,
the Northern Port in Gdańsk (Poland) can accommodate ships with a maxi-
mum draught of 15 m (49.21 ft) and a total tonnage of 300,000 dwt.

Capesize
Capesize ships are the largest dry cargo ships. They are too large to tran-
sit the Suez Canal (Suezmax limits) or Panama Canal (Neopanamax lim-
its), and so must pass either the Cape Agulhas or Cape Horn to traverse
between oceans. Ships in this class are bulk carriers, usually transporting
 Introduction 3

coal, ore, and other commodity raw materials. The term Capesize is not
applied to tankers. The average size of a Capesize bulker is around 156,000
dwt, although larger ships (normally dedicated to ore transportation) have
been built, up to 400,000 dwt. The large dimensions and deep draughts of
such vessels mean that only the largest deep-water terminals can accommo-
date them.

Chinamax
Chinamax is a standard of ship measurements that allow conforming ships
to use various harbours when fully laden; the maximum size of such ships
is a draught of 24 m (79 ft), a beam of 65 m (213 ft), and a length overall
of 360 m (1,180 ft). An example of ships of this size is the Valemax bulk
carriers (discussed below). The standard was originally developed to carry
exceptionally large loads of iron ore to China from Brazilian port facilities
operated by the mineral mining firm Vale. Correspondingly, ports and other
infrastructure that are ‘Chinamax-compatible’ are those at which such ships
can readily dock. Unlike Suezmax and Panamax, Chinamax is not deter-
mined by locks, channels, or bridges. The Chinamax standard is aimed at
port provisions and the name is derived from the massive dry-bulk (ore)
shipments that China receives from around the globe. In container shipping,
recent classes intended for trade with China have all focused on a ~400 m
(~1,312 ft) length, which deep water container terminals can cater for.

Handysize
Handysize is a naval architecture term used for smaller bulk carriers and
oil tankers with a maximum dwt of up to 50,000 metric tonnes, although
there is no official definition in terms of exact tonnages. Handysize may
also sometimes refer to a span of up to 60,000 metric tonnes, with ves-
sels above 35,000 metric tonnes referred to as Handymax or Supramax.
Their small size allows Handysize vessels to enter smaller ports to pick up
cargoes, and because in most cases, they are ‘geared’ – that is fitted with
cranes – they can often load and discharge cargoes at ports, which lack
cranes or other integrated cargo handling systems. Compared with larger
bulk carriers, Handysize carry a wider variety of cargo types. These include
steel products, grain, metal ores, phosphate, cement, wood logs, woodchips,
and other types of so-called ‘break-bulk cargo’. They are numerically the
most common size of bulk carrier, with 2,000 units in service totalling about
43 million metric tonnes. Handysize bulkers are built by shipyards in Japan,
South Korea, China, Vietnam, the Philippines and India, though a few other
countries also have the capacity to build this class of ship. The most com-
mon industry-standard specification is that the Handysize bulker is about
32,000 metric tonnes dwt on a summer draught of about 10 m (33ft) and
features five cargo holds with hydraulically operated hatch covers, with
4 Merchant ship types

43 metric tonne cranes for cargo handling. Some Handysize are also fitted
with stanchions to enable logs to be loaded in stacks on deck. Such vessels
are often referred to as ‘handy loggers’. Despite multiple recent orders for
new ships, the Handysize sector still has the highest average age profile of
the major bulk carrier sectors.

Handymax
Handymax and Supramax are naval architecture terms for the larger bulk car-
riers in the Handysize class. Handysize class consists of Supramax (50,000–
60,000 dwt), Handymax (40,000–50,000 dwt), and Handy (<40,000 dwt).
The ships are used for less voluminous cargoes, and different cargoes can be
carried in different holds. Larger capacities for dry bulk include Panamax,
Capesize and Very Large Ore Carriers (VLOC), and Chinamax. Handymax
ships typically have a length overall of 150–200 m (492–656 ft), though
certain bulk terminal restrictions, such as those in Japan, mean that many
Handymax ships are just under 190 m (623 ft) in overall length. Modern
Handymax and Supramax designs typically have a dwt of 52,000–58,000
metric tonnes, have five cargo holds and four cranes of around 30 metric
tonnes working load, making it easier to use in ports with limited infra-
structure. Average speeds depend on size and age. The cost of building a
Handymax is driven by the laws of supply and demand. In early 2007, the
cost of building a new Handymax was around US$20 million. As the global
economy boomed, the cost doubled to over US$40 million, as demand for
vessels of all sizes exceeded available yard capacity. Following the global
economic crisis in 2009 and 2010, the cost tumbled to US$20 million. By
2018, the average price of a new Handymax vessel was £23 million.

Malaccamax
Malaccamax is a naval architecture term for the largest tonnage of ship
capable of fitting through the 25m deep (82 ft) Strait of Malacca. Bulk car-
riers and super tankers have been built to this tonnage, and the term is
chosen for very large crude carriers (VLCCs). These vessels can transport
oil from the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia to China. A typical Malaccamax
tanker has a maximum length of 333 m (1,093 ft), a beam of 60 m (197
ft), a draught of 20.5 m (67.3 ft), and a tonnage of 300,000 dwt. Any post-
Malaccamax ship would need to use even longer alternate routes as tra-
ditional seaways such as the Sunda Strait, between the Indonesian islands
of Java and Sumatra, are too shallow for large ships. Other routes would
therefore be required, such as:

• The Lombok Strait [250 m (820 ft)], Dewakang Sill [680 m (2,230 ft)],
Makassar Strait, then either east past Mindanao to the Philippine Sea
or north through the Sibutu Passage and Mindoro Strait;
 Introduction 5

• Ombai Strait, Banda Sea, Lifamatola Strait [1,940 m (6,360 ft)] and
between the Sula Islands and Obi Islands, and the Malacca Sea;
• Or around Australia.

Alternatively, artificially excavated new routes might also be a possibility,

such as by deepening the Strait of Malacca, specifically at its minimum
depth in the Singapore Strait, or the proposed Kra Canal, which would
require extensive excavation.

Panamax and New Panamax

Panamax and New Panamax (or Neopanamax) are terms used for the size
limits for ships travelling through the Panama Canal. The limits and require-
ments are published by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) in a publication
titled ‘Vessel Requirements’. The requirements also provide notices for mar-
iners concerning exceptional dry seasonal limits, propulsion, communica-
tions, and detailed ship design. The allowable size is limited by the width
and length of the available lock chambers, by the depth of water in the
canal, and by the height of the Bridge of the Americas. These dimensions
give clear parameters for ships destined to traverse the Panama Canal and
have influenced the design of cargo ships, naval vessels, and passenger ships
(Table 1.1).
Panamax specifications have been in effect since the opening of the canal
in 1914. In 2009, the ACP published the New Panamax specification, which
came into effect when the Canal’s third set of locks, larger than the original
two, opened on 26 June 2016. Ships that do not fall within the Panamax
sizes are called post-Panamax or super-Panamax. The increasing prevalence
of vessels of the maximum size is a problem for the canal, as a Panamax ship
is a tight fit that requires precise control of the vessel in the locks, resulting
in longer lock time and requiring that these ships transit in daylight. Because
the largest ships traveling in opposite directions cannot pass safely within
the Culebra Cut, the canal effectively operates an alternating one-way sys-
tem for these ships.

Table I.1 Panamax vessel dimensions

Locks Panamax New locks New Panamax
Length 320.04 m (1050 ft)    294.13 m (965 ft) 427 m (1400 ft) 366 m (1,200 ft)
Width 33.53 m (110 ft)    32.31 m (106 ft) 55 m (180.5 ft) 49 m (160.7 ft)
Draught 12.56 m (41.2 ft)    12.04 m (39.5 ft) 18.3 m (60 ft) 15.2 m (49.9 ft)
TEU 5,000 12,000
6 Merchant ship types

Ship dimensions
Panamax is determined principally by the dimensions of the Canal’s original
lock chambers, each of which is 33.53 m (110 ft) wide, 320.04 m (1,050 ft)
long, and 12.56 m (41.2 ft) deep. The usable length of each lock chamber is
304.8 m (1,000 ft). The available water depth in the lock chambers varies,
but the shallowest depth is at the south sill of the Pedro Miguel Locks and
is 12.56 m (41.2 ft) at a Miraflores Lake level of 16.61 m (54.06 ft). The
clearance under the Bridge of the Americas at Balboa is the limiting factor
on a vessel’s overall height for both Panamax and Neopanamax ships; the
exact figure depends on the water level. The maximum dimensions allowed
for a ship transiting the canal using the original locks and the new locks
(New Panamax) are discussed in the following sections.

Length
Overall (including protrusions): 289.56 m (950 ft) with the following
exceptions:

• Container ships and passenger ships: 294.13 m (965 ft);

• Tug-barge combination, rigidly connected: 274.32 m (900 ft) overall;
• Other non-self-propelled vessels-tug combination: 259.08 m (850 ft)
overall;
• New Panamax increases allowable length to 366 m (1,201 ft).

Beam (width)
The maximum permitted width over the outer surface of the shell plating
is 32.31 m (106 ft) with a general exception of 32.61 m (107 ft) when the
vessel’s draught is less than 11.3 m (37 ft) in tropical fresh water. New
Panamax vessels were originally allowed a beam of 49 m (161 ft) although
this was extended in June 2018 to 51.25 m (168.14 ft).

Draught
The maximum allowable draught is 12.04 m (39.5 ft) in tropical freshwater.
The name and definition of tropical freshwater is determined by ACP using
the freshwater Lake Gatún as a reference, since this is the determination
of the maximum draught. The salinity and temperature of water affects its
density, and hence how deep a ship will float in the water. The physical limit
is set by the lower (seaside) entrance of the Pedro Miguel locks. When the
water level in Lake Gatún is low during an exceptionally dry season, the
maximum permitted draft may be reduced. Such a restriction is published
three weeks in advance, so ship loading plans can respond appropriately
(Figure I.1).
 Introduction 7

Figure I.1 Panamax sized container vessel passing through the Panama Canal.

Height
Vessel height is limited to 57.91 m (190 ft) measured from the waterline to
the vessel’s highest point; the limit also relates to New Panamax vessels to
pass under the Bridge of the Americas at Balboa harbour. The only excep-
tion is passage takes place at low water (MLWS) at Balboa, allowing vessels
with a maximum height of 62.5 m (205 ft).

Cargo capacity
Panamax ships typically have a dwt of 65,000–80,000 metric tonnes when
not passing through the Canal and a maximum dwt of 52,500 metric tonnes
during transit. New Panamax ships can carry up to 120,000 metric tonnes
dwt, which is equivalent to 5,000 TEU for Panamex vessels and 13,000 TEU
for New Panamax vessels.

Records
The longest ship ever to transit the original locks was the ‘San Juan
Prospector’, now known as the ‘Marcona Prospector’, an ore-bulk-oil car-
rier, with a length overall of 297 m (973 ft) and a beam of 32 m (106 ft).
The widest ships to transit the Panama Canal were the four US Navy ‘South
Dakota class’ and ‘Iowa class’ battleships, each having a maximum beam of
32.97 m (108.2 ft), leaving less than a 15 cm (6 in) margin of error between
the ship side and the walls of the locks.
8 Merchant ship types

Expansion of the Panama Canal locks

As early as the 1930s, new locks were proposed for the Panama Canal to
ease congestion and to allow larger ships to pass. The project was aban-
doned in 1942. On 22 October 2006, the ACP (with the support of the
Electoral Tribunal) held a referendum for Panamanian citizens to vote on
the Panama Canal expansion project. The expansion was approved by a
wide margin, with support from about 78% of voters. Construction began in
2007, and after several delays, the new locks opened for commercial traffic
on 26 June 2016. Several ports, including the ports of New York and New
Jersey, Norfolk, and Baltimore, all on the East Coast of the United States
(US), increased their depth to at least 15 m (50 ft) to accommodate the New
Panamax ships. In 2015, the Port of Miami achieved the same in a pro-
ject referred to as the ‘Deep Dredge’ and is now the closest United States
deep-water port to the Panama Canal. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Port
of Liverpool Authority commissioned a new container terminal, Liverpool
2, where ships can berth in the tidal river rather than in the enclosed docks,
coinciding with the opening of the widened Panama Canal locks. In Halifax,
Canada, a major expansion of the South End Container Terminal was com-
pleted in 2012, extending the pier and increasing the berth depth from 14.5
to 16 m (from 48 to 52 ft). In 2017, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey raised the clearance of the Bayonne Bridge to 66 m (215 ft) at a cost of
US$1.7 billion, to allow New Panamax ships to reach container port facilities
at Port Newark–Elizabeth Marine Terminal. Previously, only GCT Bayonne,
Global Container (New Jersey) could manage the New Panamax ships. In
April 2012, a controversy erupted between the ports of Savannah, Georgia,
and Charleston, South Carolina, over limited federal funding for dredging
deepening projects. Both state and federal lawsuits filed by environmental
groups in both states opposed the techniques planned to be used in dredging
the Savannah River. Elsewhere in the United States, Jacksonville, Florida, has
pursued its ‘Mile Point’ project with the aim of deepening the St. John’s River
to allow post-Panamax traffic; Mobile, Alabama, has completed the deepen-
ing of its harbour to 14 m (45 ft) for the same reason; and other ports seem
likely to follow. Due to the expansion, demand for the ‘old Panamax’ ships
has plummeted, resulting in ships being traded at scrap value. Some ships, as
young as seven years, have been sold for scrap (Figure I.2).

Post-Panamax and Post-neo-panamax ships

Post-Panamax or Post-neo-panamax denotes ships that are larger than
the Panamax designation and will not fit in the original canal locks. This
includes super tankers and the largest modern container and passenger
ships. The first post-Panamax ship was the RMS Queen Mary, launched
in 1934, with a 39.56 m (118 ft) beam, as she was intended solely for
 Introduction 9

Figure I.2 Providence Bay passing through the Panama Canal.

North Atlantic passenger runs. When she was moved to Long Beach,
California, as a tourist attraction in 1967, a lengthy voyage around the
Cape Horn was required. The first post-Panamax warships were the
Japanese Yamato class battleships, launched in 1940. Until World War II,
the US Navy required that all their warships be capable of transiting the
Panama Canal. The first US Navy warship design to exceed Panamax lim-
its was the Montana class battleship, designed circa 1940, but never built.
This limit was removed by the US Secretary of the Navy on 12 February
1940, with the (never-realised) prospect of a new set of 42.67 m (140 ft)
wide locks to be built for the Canal. In the end, the Essex class aircraft
carriers were designed with a folding deck-edge elevator to meet Panamax
limits, although the limit did not apply to subsequent US aircraft carrier
designs. The construction of the third set of larger locks has led to the
creation of the Neo-panamax or New Panamax ship classification, based
on the new locks’ dimensions of 427 m (1,400 ft) in length, 55 m (180 ft)
beam and 18.3 m (60.0 ft) depth. With the new locks, the Panama Canal
is able to handle vessels with a length overall of 366 m (1,201 ft), 49 m
(160.7 ft) beam although this was later increased by the ACP (effective
1 June 2018) to 51.25 m (168.14 ft) to accommodate ships with 20 rows
of containers and 15.2 m (49.86 ft) draught and a cargo carrying capacity
of up to 14,000 TEU. This compares favourably to the previous limits,
which could only manage vessels up to about 5000 TEU.
10 Merchant ship types

Qatar Flex (Q-Flex)

The Q-Flex is a classification of membrane-type liquefied natural gas carrier.
Q-Flex vessels are propelled by two slow speed diesel engines, which are
claimed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional
steam turbines. Q-Flex carriers are equipped with an on-board re-liquefac-
tion system to handle boil-off gas, liquefy it and return the LNG to the cargo
tanks. This on-board re-liquefaction system reduces LNG losses, which pro-
duces economic and environmental benefits. Q-Flex vessels are equipped
with an on-board re-liquefaction system to handle boil-off gas, liquefy it
and return the LNG to the cargo tanks. The on-board re-liquefaction sys-
tem allows a reduction of LNG loss, which provides increased economic
and environmental efficiencies. Overall, it is estimated that Q-Flex carriers
operate with about 40% lower energy requirements and carbon emissions
than conventional LNG carriers. In August 2008, 16 named Q-Flex LNG
carriers were brought into commission: Al Hamla, Al Gharrafa, Duhail,
Al Ghariya, Al Aamriya, Murwab, Fraiha, Al Huwaila, Al Kharsaah, Al
Shamal, Al Khuwair, Al Oraiq, Umm Al Amad, Al Thumama, Al Sahla, and
Al Utouriya. All these vessels are owned by holding companies established
by the Qatar Gas Transport Company (Nakilat) and different shipping com-
panies, including the Overseas Shipholding Group, Pronav, and Commerz
Real, and are chartered to Qatar’s LNG producers Qatargas and RasGas.
The capacity of the Q-Flex vessel is between 165,000 and 216,000 m3. Up
until the entry into service of the Q-Max carrier, the Q-Flex was the world’s
largest LNG carrier type with a capacity of 1.5 times that of conventional
LNG carriers (Figure I.3).

Qatar Max (Q-Max)

Like the Q-Flex, the Qatar Max or Q-Max is a classification of a mem-
brane-type liquefied natural gas carrier and is the maximum size of the ship’s
ability to dock at the LNG terminals in Qatar. Ships of this type are the
largest LNG carriers in the world. Q-Max vessels have a maximum length
overall of 345 m (1,132 ft), a beam of 53.8 m (177 ft), a draught of approx-
imately 12 m (39 ft), and a height above the water line of 34.7 m (114 ft).
Q-Max vessels have an LNG capacity of 266,000 cu/m (9,400,000 cu/ft),
equal to 161,994,000 cu/m (5.7208 × 109 cu/ft) of natural gas. These
ships are propelled by two slow speed diesel engines burning heavy fuel oil
(HFO), which are claimed to be more efficient and environmental-friendly
than traditional steam turbines. In the event of engine failure, the failed
engine can be decoupled allowing the ship to maintain a maximum speed
of 14 knots. Q-Max vessels are equipped with an on-board re-liquefaction
system to handle boil-off gas, liquefy it and return the LNG to the cargo
tanks. The on-board re-liquefaction system allows a reduction of LNG loss,
which provides increased economic and environmental efficiencies. Overall,
 Introduction 11

Figure I.3 LNG Carrier Al Aamriya, Milford Haven, Wales.

it is estimated that Q-Max carriers operate with about 40% lower energy
requirements and carbon emissions than conventional LNG carriers. The
quoted estimates do however ignore the additional fuel used to re-liquify
boil off gas rather than burn the gas for fuel. The ships run on HFO; how-
ever, the Rasheeda was retrofitted with gas-burning capabilities in 2015.
The first Q-Max LNG carrier was floated out of dry dock in November
2007. The naming ceremony was held on 11 July 2008 at Samsung Heavy
Industries’ shipyard on Geoje Island, South Korea. Known before its nam-
ing ceremony as Hull 1675, the ship was named Mozah by Sheikha Mozah
Nasser al-Misnad. Mozah was delivered on 29 September 2008. Classed by
Lloyd’s Register, Mozah completed her maiden voyage on 11 January 2009,
when the tanker delivered 266,000 cu/m of LNG to the Port of Bilbao BBG
Terminal. As of 2022, Q-Max LNG carriers are operated by STASCo (Shell
International Trading and Shipping Company, London), which is a subsid-
iary of Royal Dutch Shell. The vessels themselves are owned by the Qatar
Gas Transport Company (Nakilat) and chartered to Qatar’s LNG producers
Qatargas and RasGas. In total, contracts were signed for the construction
of 14 Q-Max vessels: Mozah, Al Mayeda, Mekaines, Al Mafyar, Umm Slal,
Bu Samra, Al Ghuwairiya, Lijmiliya, Al Samriya, Al Dafna, Shagra, Zarga,
Aamira, and Rasheeda. All 14 Q-Max ships were delivered between 2008
and 2010.
12 Merchant ship types

Seawaymax
The term Seawaymax refers to vessels, which are the maximum size that can
fit through the canal locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway, linking the inland
Great Lakes of North America with the Atlantic Ocean. Seawaymax vessels
have a maximum length overall of 230 m (740 ft), a beam of 24 m (78 ft),
a draught of 8.1 m (26.51 ft), and a height above the waterline of 35.4 m
(116 ft). Several lake freighters larger than this size cruise the Great Lakes
but cannot pass through to the Atlantic Ocean. The size of the locks limits
the size of the ships, which can pass, and consequently limits the size of the
cargoes they can carry. The record tonnage for one vessel on the Seaway
is 28,502 metric tonnes of iron ore, while the record through the larger
locks of the Great Lakes Waterway is 72,351 metric tonnes. Most new lake
vessels, however, are constructed to the Seawaymax limit to enhance vessel
versatility.

Suezmax
The term Suezmax is used for the largest ships that can pass through the
Suez Canal. The current channel depth of the canal allows for a maximum
of 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught, meaning that few fully laden super tankers can
fit through. This means that they must either unload part of their cargo to
other ships (a process called ‘transhipment’) or pipe their cargo ashore to
via pipeline to a terminal before passing through. The only other alternative
is to bypass the Suez Canal completely and sail around the Cape Agulhas
instead. To try and avoid this, the canal was deepened from 18 to 20 m
(from 59 to 66 ft) in 2009. The typical dwt of a Suezmax ship is about
160,000 metric tonnes and has a beam of about 77.5 m (254.3 ft). Also of
note is the maximum head room – or the ‘air draught’, which sets a limita-
tion of 68 m (223.1 ft). This limitation is because of the Suez Canal Bridge,
which rises some 70 m (230 ft) above the canal. The Suez Canal Authority
produces tables of width and acceptable draught, which are regularly sub-
ject to change. From 2010, the wetted surface cross-sectional area of a ship
was limited by 1006 m2, which means 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught for ships
with the beam no wider than 50.0 m (164.0 ft) or 12.2 m (40 ft) of draught
for ships with a maximum allowed beam of 77.5 m (254 ft). Most Capesize
vessels are too big to pass through the Suez Canal, and therefore need to
travel the Cape route around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Agulhas,
though recent dredging operations mean that many Capesize vessels can
now use the canal. Plans to deepen the draught to 21 m (70 ft) could lead
to a redefinition of the Suezmax specification, as happened to the Panamax
specification after the deepening and widening of the Panama Canal. As we
discussed earlier, the Aframax is a freight rating, not a geographic routing
limiter, for tankers with a capacity ranging between 80,000 and 120,000
metric tonnes dwt. Vessels longer than 400 m (1312 ft) need permission
 Introduction 13

from the Suez Canal Authority to transit the canal. As of 2020, the largest
container ships in service all have a length of (close to) 400 m (1,312 ft) and
a beam and draught that just fits within the limits of the Canal. This issue
was exemplified in 2021 when the ship Ever Given ran aground in the Suez
Canal. This ship has a length overall of 399.9 m (1,312 ft) and a beam of
58.8 m (192.9 ft).

Valemax
Valemax ships are a fleet of VLOC owned or chartered by the Brazilian min-
ing company Vale SA to carry iron ore from Brazil to European and Asian
ports. With a capacity ranging from 380,000 to 400,000 metric tonnes dwt,
the vessels meet the Chinamax standard of ship measurements for limits
on draught and beam. Valemax ships are the largest bulk carriers ever con-
structed, when measured by dwt tonnage or length overall, and are amongst
the longest ships of any type currently in service. The first Valemax vessel,
Vale Brasil, was delivered in 2011. Initially, all 35 ships of the first series
were expected to be in service by 2013, but the last ship was not deliv-
ered until September 2016. In late 2015 and early 2016, Chinese shipping
companies ordered 30 more ships with deliveries arriving between 2018
and 2020. Three additional vessels were ordered by a Japanese shipping
company, bringing the total number of Valemax vessels to 68 as of 2020.
In 2008, Vale placed orders for twelve 400,000-tonne Valemax ships to be
constructed by Jiangsu Rongcheng Heavy Industries (RSHI) in China and
ordered seven more ships from the South Korean Daewoo Shipbuilding &
Marine Engineering (DSME) in 2009. In addition, 16 more ships of equiva-
lent size were ordered from Chinese and South Korean shipyards for other
shipping companies and chartered to Vale under long-term contracts. The
first vessel was delivered in 2011 and the last in 2016. The contract, worth
US$1.6 billion, was the world’s biggest single shipbuilding contract by dwt
tonnage. The first Chinese-built Valemax vessel, Vale China, was launched
at the Nantong shipyard on 9 July 2011 and was delivered on 25 November
2011. Although it was expected that the first Chinese-built Valemax vessel
would call at a Chinese port on its maiden voyage, the ship was diverted to
the new trans-shipment hub Vale, which was constructed in the Philippines.
The second RSHI-built Valemax ship for Vale (Vale Dongjiakou) was deliv-
ered on 9 April 2012, the third (Vale Dalian) on 20 May, the fourth (Vale
Hebei) on 28 September, the fifth (Vale Shandong) on 7 December 2012, the
sixth (Vale Jiangsu) on 23 March 2013, the seventh (Vale Caofeidian) on 22
July 2013, the eighth (Vale Lianyungang) on 22 November 2013, the ninth
(Ore Majishan; renamed before delivery) on 11 July 2014, the tenth (Ore
Tianjin; renamed before delivery) on 18 October 2014, and the eleventh
(Ore Rizhao; renamed before delivery) on 15 December 2014. The twelfth
and last Valemax vessel of the original order by Vale, Ore Ningbo (renamed
before delivery), was delivered on 23 January 2015. On 2 November 2008,
14 Merchant ship types

Oman Shipping Company signed a framework agreement with RSHI for the
construction of four 400,000-tonne vessels to transport iron ore from Brazil
to the Port of Sohar in Oman, where Vale was expected to open a steel plant.
The shipbuilding contract, worth an estimated US$483 million, was signed
in July 2009. Initially, the ships were to be named Jazer, Yanqul, Al Kamil,
and Wafi, but instead were named Vale Liwa, Vale Sohar, Vale Shinas, and
Vale Saham, respectively. The steel cutting ceremony for the first two vessels
was held on 8 July 2010, which were launched on 19 March 2012. Vale
Liwa entered service in August 2012, followed by Vale Sohar in September
2012, Vale Saham in January 2013, and Vale Shinas in March 2013. The
ships received additional strengthening due to the Vale Beijing incident. The
ships built for Oman Shipping Company were later removed from the Det
Norske Veritas registry and moved to other classification societies such as
American Bureau of Shipping and Lloyd’s Register (Figure I.4).
The Chinese shipbuilder’s ability to deliver any of the VLOC ordered by
Vale in time was doubted before the first ship was even built. In May 2011,
it was announced that only two or three Valemax vessels would be delivered
from the Chinese shipyard in 2011 instead of the planned six due to delays
in construction. In the end only, one ship (Vale China) was delivered before
the end of the year. Furthermore, later reports claimed that the ships ordered
by Vale had a capacity of only 380,000 metric tonnes even though, accord-
ing to the Det Norske Veritas database entries, all Chinese-built ships have
a dwt tonnage more than 400,000 metric tonnes, and in the past, Vale has
referred to the ships ordered from Rongcheng as ‘400,000-tonne’ vessels.
The reduction in cargo capacity, at least on paper, may have been due to the

Figure I.4 Construction of the Vale Dalian.

 Introduction 15

reluctance of Chinese officials to accept the 400,000-tonne ships into

Chinese ports. In April 2012, it was reported that Vale had refused delivery
for three Valemax ships recently completed by Jiangsu Rongcheng Heavy
Industries. This was seen as a move against the Chinese officials who had
blocked the admittance of the 400,000-tonne ships to dock in Chinese ports.
These reports however were refuted by RSHI, who called them ‘inaccurate
and unfounded’. On 26 October 2009, Vale ordered four Valemax vessels
from the South Korean shipbuilder Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine
Engineering (DSME) for US$460 million. A further three ships were ordered
from DSME in July 2010, bringing the total order to seven 400,000-metric
tonne Valemax vessels. Despite receiving the order later than the Chinese
shipyard, DSME launched the first Valemax class ore carrier, Vale Brasil, on
31 December 2010 and delivered the ship to Vale in March 2011; the Vale
Brasil was followed by the Vale Rio de Janeiro on 22 September 2011, Vale
Italia on 25 October 2011, Vale Malaysia on 27 March 2012, Vale Carajas
on 29 May 2012 and Vale Minas Gerais on 13 July 2012. The last Valemax
ship to be built by DSME, Vale Korea, was delivered on 9 April 2013. In
addition to the ships Vale ordered for itself, more ships of a comparable size
were ordered by other shipping companies and chartered to Vale under
exclusive long-term contracts. Eight VLOC were ordered from the South
Korean shipbuilder STX Offshore & Shipbuilding in Jinhae, South Korea
(STX Jinhae), and Dalian, China (STX Dalian). The shipping company, STX
Pan Ocean, signed a 25-year contract with Vale in 2009. The dwt tonnage
of the Valemax vessels built by STX, 374,400 tons, was slightly smaller than
that of the similar ships built by DSME and RSHI.
The first STX-built Valemax vessel, Vale Beijing, was delivered by STX
Jinhae on 27 September 2011. Although another vessel was expected to take
delivery later that year, only one ship was delivered. The second ship, Vale
Qingdao, was also delivered by STX Jinhae on 13 April 2012, but the third
and fourth ships, Vale Espirito Santo and Vale Indonesia, were built by STX
Dalian and delivered on 17 September 2012 and 30 October 2012, respec-
tively. The fifth ship, Vale Fujiyama, was again built by STX Jinhae and
delivered on 26 November 2012. The sixth ship, Vale Tubarao, was deliv-
ered by STX Dalian on 30 January 2013. While both two remaining ships
were supposed to be delivered by the end of 2013, only Vale Maranhao
entered service on 29 August 2013. The last Valemax vessel to be built by
STX, originally named Vale Ponta da Madeira but later referred to by its
yard number STX Dalian 1707, was launched sometime in 2015. However,
the vessel was never finished and instead was listed as ‘for sale’ in an unfin-
ished state. In March 2016, it was reported that the last of the original 35
Valemax vessels to be built had been sold for just US$16.8 million. Initially
anonymous, the buyer was later identified as Pan Ocean (formerly STX
Pan Ocean), the shipping company who originally ordered the vessel.
The unfinished vessel was completed by the Chinese shipyard Shanhaiguan
Shipbuilding and named Sea Ponta da Madeira. On 30 April 2007,
16 Merchant ship types

Berge Bulk signed a contract with the Chinese shipbuilding company Bohai
Shipbuilding Heavy Industry for the construction of four 388,000-tonne
VLOC. Although initially scheduled for delivery in 2010, the first vessel,
Berge Everest, was delivered on 23 September 2011, which was followed by
the Berge Aconcagua on 15 March 2012 and Berge Jaya on 12 June 2012.
The remaining ship, Berge Neblina, was initially also scheduled to be deliv-
ered in 2012, but entered service on 4 January 2013. Had Vale not ordered
the Valemax fleet in 2008, these ships would have become the largest bulk
carriers in the world, surpassing Berge Bulk’s own Berge Stahl. The four
ships have since been chartered by Vale and, despite slight differences in
design and contract date predating that of the ships ordered by Vale, they
are also referred to as Valemax vessels.
In March 2016, it was reported that three Chinese companies China
Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), China Merchants Energy Shipping
and Industrial, and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) had ordered 10
Valemax vessels each from four Chinese shipyards with a total price of
US$2.5 billion. The Valemax ships ordered by China Merchants Energy
Shipping would be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (four ships),
Qingdao Beihai Shipbuilding (four ships) and China Merchants Group-
controlled China Merchants Heavy Industry (Jiangsu) (two ships). COSCO
Shipping Corporation awarded the construction of all its ten 400,000-tonne
ore carriers to Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding. ICBC, which would later
hand over the vessels to China Merchants Energy Shipping, announced that
six of its ships would be built by the Chinese privately owned shipyard
Yangzijian Shipbuilding, while the remaining four would be awarded to
Qingdao Beihai Shipbuilding. The first of the 30 Chinese-built second-gen-
eration Valemax vessels, Yuan He Hai, was delivered on 11 January 2018
and the last one of the series, Yuan Qian Hai, in January 2020. In December
2016, the Japanese shipping company NS United ordered a single 400,000
metric tonnes dwt VLOC from Japan Marine United after signing a 25-year
contract with Vale. The vessel, which would become the first Valemax ship
built in Japan, was delivered in December 2019 as NSU Carajas. A second
vessel, NSU Brazil, was ordered in June 2017 and a third (NSU Tubarao)
later that year; both were delivered in late 2020. The new ships are larger
than the previous record holder, the 364,767 tonne Berge Stahl, which had
been the largest bulk carrier in the world since it was built in 1986. While
the draught of the old vessel is the same as that of the Valemax vessels
(23 m, 75 ft), the new ships are 20 m (66 ft) longer and 1.5 m (4.9 ft) wider
than the Berge Stahl and can carry about 10% more cargo. The Valemax
vessels are also the second largest ships in service by dwt tonnage, second
only to the TI-class super tankers, which have a dwt tonnage of over 440,000
metric tonnes. Even so, they are still far from the largest ship ever con-
structed, the Seawise Giant, which was built in 1979 and scrapped as the
Knock Nevis in 2009. The Seawise Giant had a length overall of 458.46 m
(1504.1 ft) and had a dwt of 564,650 metric tonnes.
 Introduction 17

Very large and ultra large crude carriers

VLCC have a dwt tonnage or cargo carrying capacity of between 250,000
and 320,000 metric tonnes. ULCC have a dwt of between 320,000 and
550,000 metric tonnes. Worldwide, VLCCs and ULCCs carry between them
approximately two billion barrels of oil each year.

SHIP CLASSIFICATION BY TYPE

We have already touched on some of the main types of ships that make up
the global merchant fleet such as oil tankers, container ships and bulk carri-
ers. There are dozens of types of ships, and hundreds of sub-types. It would
be a mammoth task to describe them all so we will focus instead on the
main classifications of ships by type. To start with, we need to differentiate
between naval vessels and civilian vessels.

Naval vessels
Naval or military vessels are those which provide the defence of a country’s
sovereignty and protect the nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and
overseas maritime interests. Most coastal states have some form of maritime
defence force. In the United Kingdom, for example, this is the Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy consists of both military class vessels such as warships and
submarines, and civilian manned vessels, which serve as supply ships in the
Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). Although civilian crewed, RFA ships are still
classified as naval vessels as they are always armed, even if only for self-
defence. Because military class vessels do not form part of the global mer-
chant fleet, we will not dwell too much on these types of ships, although we
will examine some of the most common forms of warships in later chapters.
In terms of merchant vessel classifications, we can categorise ships accord-
ing to the primary characteristics of their cargo. By this, we mean we must
differentiate between wet and dry cargoes, stationary and self-moving car-
goes, cargoes that are free flowing and contained, dangerous and non-dan-
gerous cargoes, and vessels that conduct specific roles and functions other
than transporting cargoes.

Wet cargoes
Ships that are designed to carry wet cargoes are typically called tankers.
These are large, fully sealed vessels consisting of large, compartmental-
ised tanks. Tankers can carry almost any type of liquid cargo from crude
and refined oil products, to liquefied natural and petroleum gas, chemi-
cals, fruit juices, wine and even water. As we saw above, there are many
diverse types of tankers based on their size and load carrying capacity.
18 Merchant ship types

It is worth mentioning now – although we will cover this again in more

detail later – that there are four main types of tankers: oil and product tank-
ers, gas carriers, chemical tankers, and foodstuff tankers. Due to the type
of cargo carried, a ship designated as one type of tanker cannot operate as
another to prevent cross-contamination.

Dry cargoes
Dry cargo ships are every other type of ship that is designed to carry cargo
that is not liquified. This is an overly broad definition and could potentially
cover every type of ship from general-purpose, to bulk carriers, to car car-
riers, to livestock carriers, and everything else in between. Because this is
such a broad definition, it is necessary to separate it down into more refined
classifications.

Vehicle carriers
Although vehicles are classified as dry cargo, they are in themselves a dis-
tinct class of vessel in terms of their size and design characteristics. Vehicle
carriers are often classified as either pure car carriers (PCCs) – that is they
only carry cars or small commercial vehicles – and pure car and truck car-
riers (PCTCs). These vessels are capable of transporting cars, commercial
vehicles, including trucks and moving stock, and outsized industry equip-
ment such as earth movers and other vast sized mining equipment.

Passenger ships
Although passengers are, in effect cargo, this is inelegant and so to avoid
such a clumsy definition, we should differentiate between ships that carry
cargo and ships that carry people. The former are cargo ships, and the latter
are passenger ships. Passenger ships include a wide variety of different ship
types from walk-on only passenger ferries, to roll on roll off ferries, cruise
ferries, and cruise ships.

Fishing vessels
As the name suggests, fishing vessels are specially designed ships used for
fishing. Fishing vessels may operate within a country’s inshore area, in which
case they tend to be quite small and return to port the same day; or operate
further out to sea returning to port once every couple of days. These craft
tend to be called fishing boats. Larger fishing vessels which operate far out
at sea for extended periods of time are often classed as trawlers. These ships
process many thousands of metric tonnes of fish and operate like floating
factories. The largest fishing vessels are actual floating factories, processing
tens of thousands of metric tonnes of fish and shellfish every day.
 Introduction 19

Offshore oilfield vessels

Offshore oilfields need constant supplies of food and equipment to keep
operating, often in some of the harshest and most remote areas of the globe.
Oil platforms are supplied by offshore support vessels, which sail from their
home port to the platform and back again in a continuous cycle. Anchor
handling tugs are a type of offshore oilfield vessel, but unlike support or
supply vessels, these ships are fitted with extremely sturdy winches and
chains designed to pull floating platforms from one location to another.
Oilfield operations are complex and there are many types of unique vessels
needed to ensure the oilfield remains operational. Drilling ships, diving sup-
port vessels, fireboats, and seismic vessels all work together to ensure free
flow of oil and gas, powering the global economy.

Construction vessels
Construction vessels are a category of unusual ships, which are specially
designed to conduct complex tasks at sea such as dredging, pipelaying, cable
laying, and mining.

Harbour support boats

Although not strictly ships, tugboats and pilot boats are essential to the
global merchant fleet. Without them, most merchant ships would be unable
to navigate into and out of the port. Pilot boats are small inshore boats that
ferry harbour pilots from shore to the incoming vessel. The pilot then assists
the ship’s captain to bring the vessel safely alongside. Many harbours and
ports require ships over a certain size to have a pilot on board when entering
or leaving the harbour or port limits. Likewise, larger sized vessels often lack
maneuverability and require tugboat assistance to turn or berth.

Specialist vessels
Specialist vessels are every other type of vessel not covered elsewhere. This
includes icebreakers, crane vessels, heavy lift vessels, nuclear waste carriers
and hospital or mercy ships.

SHIP CLASSIFICATION BY GEARS

Some ships are fitted with their own cargo loading and unloading equip-
ment or cranes. These cranes are called gears. A ship that has gears is called
a ‘geared’ ship. Geared ships tend to be smaller in size and are always, albeit
not exclusively, bulk carriers. Geared ships are more expensive to buy and
maintain as they require specially trained gear operators; however, by having
20 Merchant ship types

their own gears, geared ships can operate in ports where there are no availa-
ble loading and unloading facilities. Ships without their own gear are called
‘ungeared’ ships. Ungeared ships make up most vessels in the merchant fleet.
We have now covered the basic principles of ship classifications. We have
seen that there are quite a few ways of classifying ships including whether
they are civilian or military, geared or ungeared, carry passengers or cargo,
and whether the cargo carried is wet or dry, contained, or free flowing. Ship
classification is quite a detailed and complex area, with many other factors
determining the true class of the ship, for instance whether the vessel can
operate in the polar regions (ice class vessels), can carry more than 12 pas-
sengers or has a fuel-type designation (low sulphur fuel oil, heavy sulphur
fuel oil, methane powered, etc.). In Part I of this book, we will explore the
concept of dry goods vessels and the several types of ships that make up this
diverse sector of the global fleet.
Part I

Dry cargo ships

Chapter 1

Bulk carriers

A bulk carrier or bulker is a merchant ship specially designed to transport

unpackaged bulk cargo, such as grain, coal, ore, steel coils, and cement, in
its cargo holds. Since the first specialised bulk carrier was built in 1852,
economic forces have led to continued development of these ships, result-
ing in increased size and sophistication. Today’s bulk carriers are specially
designed to maximize capacity, safety, efficiency, and durability. Bulk
carriers make up 21% of the world’s merchant fleets and range in size
from single-hold mini-bulk carriers to mammoth ore ships able to carry
400,000 metric tonnes dwt. Several specialised designs exist. Some can
unload their own cargo, some depend on port facilities for unloading, and
some even package the cargo as it is loaded. Over half of all bulk carriers
have Greek, Japanese, or Chinese owners and more than a quarter are
registered in Panama. South Korea is the largest single builder of bulk car-
riers, and 82% of these ships were built in Asia. On board bulk carriers,
the crew are responsible for operation, management, and maintenance of
the vessel, taking care of safety, navigation, maintenance, and cargo care,
in accordance with international maritime legislation. Cargo loading oper-
ations vary in complexity and loading and discharging cargo can take as
long as several days. Bulk carriers can be gearless (dependent on terminal
equipment) or geared. Crew numbers range in size from three people, on
the smallest ships, to over 30, on the largest. Bulk cargo can be very dense,
corrosive, or abrasive. This can present safety problems: cargo shifting,
spontaneous combustion, and cargo saturation can threaten the ship. The
use of ships that are old and have corrosion problems was linked to a
spate of bulk carrier sinkings in the 1990s, due to the design of the large
hatchways of bulk carriers. These hatchways are important for efficient
cargo handling but allow the entry of large volumes of water in heavy seas
or stormy weather or if the ship is endangered by sinking. New interna-
tional regulations have since been introduced to improve ship design and
inspection, and to streamline the process for the crew to abandoning ship
(Figure 1.1).

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-3 23
24 Merchant ship types

Figure 1.1 B ulk carrier Poseidon, Kwinana Bulk Jetty, Port of Fremantle,
Australia.

The term bulk carrier has been defined in varying ways. As of 1999, the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) defined a
bulk carrier as ‘a ship constructed with a single deck, top side tanks and
hopper side tanks in cargo spaces and intended to primarily carry dry cargo
in bulk; an ore carrier; or a combination carrier’. Most classification socie-
ties use a broader definition, by which a bulk carrier is any ship that carries
dry unpackaged goods. Multipurpose cargo ships can not only carry bulk
cargo but can also carry other cargoes and are not specifically designed for
bulk carriage. The term ‘dry bulk carrier’ is used to distinguish bulk carriers
from bulk liquid carriers such as oil, chemical, or liquefied petroleum gas
carriers. Small bulk carriers are almost indistinguishable from general cargo
ships, and they are often classified more on the ship’s use than its design.
Various acronyms are used to describe bulk carriers. ‘OBO’ describes a bulk
carrier that carries a combination of ore, bulk, and oil, and ‘O/O’ is used for
combination oil and ore carriers. The terms ‘VLOC’, ‘VLBC’, ‘ULOC’, and
‘ULBC’ for very large and ultra-large ore and bulk carriers were adapted
from the super tanker designations ‘Very Large Crude Carrier’ (VLCC) and
Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC).
 Bulk carriers 25

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BULK CARRIER

Before specialised bulk carriers were developed, shippers had two methods
to move bulk goods by ship. In the first method, longshoremen loaded the
cargo into sacks, stacked the sacks onto pallets, and put the pallets into
the cargo hold with a crane. The second method required the shipper to
charter an entire ship and spend time and money to build plywood bins
into the holds. Then, to guide the cargo through the small hatches, wooden
feeders and shifting boards had to be constructed. These methods were slow
and extremely labour-intensive. As with the container ship, the problem of
efficient loading and unloading has driven the evolution of the bulk carrier.
Specialised bulk carriers began to appear as steam-powered ships became
more popular. The first steam ship recognised as a bulk carrier was the British
collier John Bowes, built in 1852. She featured a metal hull, a steam engine,
and a ballasting system, which used seawater instead of sandbags. These
features helped her succeed in the competitive British coal market. The first
self-unloader was the lake freighter Hennepin in 1902, which operated on
the Great Lakes. This decreased the unloading time of bulk carriers by using
a conveyor belt system to move the cargo. The first bulk carriers with diesel
propulsion began to appear in 1911. Before World War II, the international
shipping demand for bulk products was low – about 25 million metric
tonnes for metal ores. Most of this trade was coastal. However, on the Great
Lakes, bulk carriers hauled vast amounts of ore from the northern mines to
the steel mills on the eastern seaboard. In 1929, 73 million metric tonnes
of iron ore were transported via the Lakes, and an almost equal amount of
coal, limestone, and other products were also shipped. During this period,
two defining characteristics of bulk carriers were beginning to emerge: the
double bottom, which was adopted in 1890, and the triangular structure
of the ballast tanks, which was introduced in 1905. After World War II, an
international bulk trade began to develop among the industrialised nations,
particularly between the European countries, the United States, and Japan.
Due to the economics of this trade, ocean bulk carriers became larger and
more specialised. In this period, Great Lakes freighters increased in size, to
maximise the economies of scale, and self-unloaders became more common
to cut turnaround time. The thousand-footers of the Great Lakes fleets, built
in the 1970s, were among the longest ships afloat, and, in 1979, a record of
214 million metric tonnes of bulk cargo were moved on the Great Lakes.

CATEGORIES

There are different methods used for categorising bulk carriers. The first
is to segregate bulk carriers into one of six major size categories: Small,
Handysize, Handymax, Panamax, Capesize, and Very Large. Very large bulk
26 Merchant ship types

and ore carriers fall into the Capesize category but are often considered
separately. The second method categorises bulk carriers by regional trade.
These are the:

• Kamsarmax. Length overall 229 m (751 ft), refers to a new type of

ship, larger than the Panamax, that are suitable for berthing at the Port
of Kamsar in the Republic of Guinea, where the major loading termi-
nal of bauxite is restricted to vessels not more than 229 m (751 ft).
• Newcastlemax. Maximum beam of 50 m (164 ft) and maximum
length overall of 300 m (984 ft). This refers to the largest vessel able to
enter the Port of Newcastle, Australia, at about 185,000 dwt.
• Setouchmax. About 203,000 dwt, being the largest vessels able to nav-
igate the Setouchi Sea, Japan.
• Seawaymax. Length overall of 226 m (741.4 ft) and maximum draught
of 7.92 m (25.98 ft). Refers to the largest vessels that can pass through
the canal locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway (Great Lakes, Canada).
• Malaccamax. Length overall 330 m (1,082 ft) and maximum draught
of 20 m (65.61 ft) and maximum 300,000 dwt refers to the largest
vessels that can pass through the Straits of Malacca.
• Dunkirkmax. Length overall of 289 m (948 ft) and maximum allow-
able beam 45 m (147 ft) equal to a maximum dwt of 175,000 metric
tonnes for the eastern harbour lock at the Port of Dunkirk, France.

Mini-bulk carriers are prevalent in the category of small vessels with a

capacity of under 10,000 metric tonnes dwt. Mini-bulk carriers carry from
500 to 2,500 metric tonnes, have a single hold, and are designed primarily
for river transport. They are often built to pass under bridges and have
small crews of between three and eight people. Handysize and Handymax
ships are general purpose in nature. These two segments represent 71%
of all bulk carriers over 10,000 dwt and have the highest rate of growth.
This is partly due to new regulations coming into effect, which put greater
constraints on the building of larger vessels. Handymax ships are typically
150–200 m (492 ft–656 ft) in length and 52,000–58,000 metric tonnes dwt,
with five cargo holds and four cranes. These ships are usually general pur-
pose in nature. The size of a Panamax vessel is limited by the Panama Canal
lock chambers, which can accommodate ships with a beam of up to 32.31
m (106 ft), a length overall of up to 294.13 m (964.99 ft), and a draught of
up to 12.04 m (39.5 ft). Capesize ships are too large to traverse the Panama
Canal and must round Cape Horn to travel between the Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans. Prior to enlargement and dredging of the Suez Canal, Capesize
ships could not traverse the Suez and so they needed to go around the Cape
of Good Hope. Recent deepening has permitted ships with a draught of up
to 20 m (66 ft). Capesize bulk carriers are highly specialised: 93% of their
cargo is iron ore and coal. Some ships on the Great Lakes Waterway exceed
Panamax dimensions, but they are limited to use on the Great Lakes, as
 Bulk carriers 27

they cannot pass through the smaller St. Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic
Ocean. Very large ore carriers and very large bulk carriers are a subset of
the Capesize category reserved for vessels over 200,000 dwt. Carriers of this
size are always designed to carry iron ore.
An ore-bulk-oil carrier, also known as combination carrier or OBO, is a
ship designed to be capable of carrying wet or dry cargoes. The idea is to
reduce the number of empty (ballast) voyages, in which large ships only
carry a cargo one way and return empty for another. These are a feature of
the larger bulk trades (e.g., crude oil from the Middle East, iron ore and coal
from Australia, South Africa, and Brazil). The idea of the OBO was that it
would function as a tanker when the tanker markets were good and a bulk/
ore carrier when those markets were good. It would also be able to take
‘wet’ cargo (oil) one way and ‘dry’ cargo (bulk cargoes or ore) the other way,
thus reducing the time it had to sail in ballast (i.e. empty). The first OBO
carrier was the Næss Norseman, built at A.G. Weser for the company
Norness Shipping, owned by the Norwegian shipowner Erling Dekke Næss.
Næss and his chief naval architect, Thoralf Magnus Karlsen, were instru-
mental in conceiving this new type of vessel. Næss Norseman was delivered
in November 1965 and was 250 m (820 ft) long with a beam of 31.6 m
(104 ft), a draught of 13.5 m (44 ft), and a gross register tonnage of 37,965
metric tonnes dwt. OBO carriers quickly became popular among shipown-
ers around the world, and as of 2021, several hundred such vessels have
been built albeit the OBO carrier had its glory days in the early 1970s. By
the 1980s, it became clear that the type required more maintenance than
other vessels, as it was prohibitively expensive to ‘switch’ from wet to dry
cargoes and took valuable time. Moreover, the OBO had much less utility
than originally conceived. If the vessel had carried oil, it could switch to
carrying ore or other dirty bulk cargoes, but not grain or other clean bulk
cargoes. As the 1970s cohort of OBO carriers aged, most of them switched
to being used either as pure tankers or as pure ore carriers. By 2021, OBO
carriers were no longer as common as they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
With few of them being ordered after the 1980s, most existing vessels aged
past their design lifetime and no longer exist. Some shipowners continued to
support the OBO carrier concept and its trading flexibility. SKS, part of the
Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Group, is today operating the largest OBO-fleet in
the world consisting of 10 OBO carriers. The latest OBO carrier in the fleet,
D Whale, was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2010. The design
of these vessels has been significantly improved compared with the vessels
built in the 1970s, and all problems, which were related to the OBO carrier
concept – including many that were common amongst tankers at that time –
have since been designed out. In the 1990s, a smaller number of OBOs from
70,000 to 100,000 metric tonnes dwt were built for Danish and Norwegian
shipowners. A fleet of smaller, ‘river-sized’ (typically no more than several
thousand metric tonnes) ore-bulk-oil carriers were built for use on European
Russia’s waterways, primarily by the shipowner Volgotanker.
28 Merchant ship types

Geared bulk carriers are typically in the Handysize to Handymax size

range although there are a small number of geared Panamax class vessels.
Like all bulk carriers, they feature a series of holds covered by prominent
hatch covers. They have cranes, derricks or conveyors that allows the vessel
to load or discharge its cargo in ports without shore-based equipment. This
gives geared bulk carriers flexibility in the cargoes they carry and the routes
they can travel. Gearless carriers are bulk carriers without cranes or convey-
ors. These ships depend on shore-based equipment at their ports of call for
loading and discharging. They range across all sizes. The larger bulk carriers
(VLOCs) can only dock at the largest ports, with some designed with a sin-
gle port-to-port trade in mind. The use of gearless bulk carriers avoids the
costs of installing, operating, and maintaining cranes. Self-dischargers are
bulk carriers with conveyor belts, or with the use of an excavator, which is
fitted on a traverse running over the vessel’s entire hatch, and that can move
in a sideways direction as well. This allows them to discharge their cargo
quickly and efficiently. Lakers are the bulk carriers prominent on the Great
Lakes between North America and Canada. They are often identifiable by
having a forward house that helps in transiting the locks. Operating in fresh
water, these ships suffer much less corrosion damage and have a much
longer lifespan than saltwater ships. As of 2005, there were 98 lakers of
10,000 dwt or over. BIBO or ‘Bulk In, Bags Out’ bulk carriers are equipped
to bag cargo as it is unloaded. The CHL Innovator, shown below, is a BIBO
bulk carrier. In 1 hour, this ship can unload 300 tonnes of bulk sugar and
package it into 50 kg (110 lb) sacks (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2 CHL Innovator, leaving the Port of Gdansk, Poland.

 Bulk carriers 29

FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

The world’s bulk transport has reached immense proportions: in 2005,

1.7 billion metric tonnes of coal, iron ore, grain, bauxite, and phosphate
were transported by ship. Today, the world’s bulk carrier fleet includes
6,225 ships of over 10,000 dwt and represents 40% of all ships in terms of
tonnage and 39.4% in terms of vessels. Including smaller ships, bulk carri-
ers have a total combined capacity of almost 346 million dwt. Combined
carriers are a small portion of the fleet, representing less than 3% of overall
capacity. In 2020, the lake freighters of the Great Lakes, with 98 ships of
3.2 million total dwt metric tonnes, despite forming a small fraction of the
total fleet by tonnage and only operating 10 months a year, carried one-
tenth of the world’s bulk cargo because of the short trip distance and fast
turnarounds. As of 2018, the average bulk carrier was just over 13 years old.
About 41% of all bulk carriers were less than 10 years old, 33% were over
20 years old, and the remaining 26% were between 10 and 20 years of age.
All the 98 bulk carriers registered in the Great Lakes trade are over 20 years
old and the oldest still sailing in 2009 was 106 years old.

Flag states
As of 2020, the United States Maritime Administration counted 6225 bulk
carriers of 10,000 dwt or greater worldwide. Panama has the highest num-
ber of bulk carriers registered with 1,703 ships, more than any four other
Flag States combined. In terms of the number of bulk carriers registered, the
top five Flag States also include Hong Kong with 492 ships, Malta (435),
Cyprus (373), and China (371). Panama also dominates bulk carrier regis-
tration in terms of deadweight tonnage. Positions two through five are held
by Hong Kong, Greece, Malta, and Cyprus.

Largest fleets
Greece, Japan, and China are the top three owners of bulk carriers, with
1,326, 1,041, and 979 vessels, respectively. These three nations account for
over 53% of the world’s bulk carrier fleet. Several companies have large
private bulk carrier fleets. The multinational company Gearbulk Holding
Ltd. has over 70 bulk carriers. Fednav Group in Canada operates a fleet of
over 80 bulk carriers, including two designed to work in Arctic ice. Croatia’s
Atlantska Plovidba d.d. has a fleet of 14 bulk carriers. The H. Vogemann
Group in Hamburg, Germany, operates a fleet of 19 bulk carriers. Portline
of Portugal owns 10 bulk carriers. Dampskibsselskabet Torm in Denmark
and Elcano in Spain also own notable bulk carrier fleets. Other compa-
nies specialise in mini-bulk carrier operations: England’s Stephenson Clarke
Shipping Limited owns a fleet of eight mini-bulk carriers and five small
30 Merchant ship types

Handysize bulk carriers, and Cornships Management and Agency Inc., reg-
istered in Turkey, owns a fleet of seven mini-bulk carriers.

Ship builders
As with all ship types and categories, Asian companies dominate the con-
struction of bulk carriers. Of the world’s 6,225 bulk carriers, almost 62%
were built in Japan by shipyards such as Oshima Shipbuilding and Sanoyas
Hishino Meisho. South Korea, with notable shipyards owned by Daewoo
and Hyundai Heavy Industries, ranked second among builders, with 643
new buildings between them. China, with large shipyards, including Dalian,
Chengxi, and Shanghai Waigaoqiao, ranked third, with 509 ships. Taiwan,
with shipyards such as China Shipbuilding Corporation, ranked fourth,
accounting for 129 new buildings. Shipyards in these top four countries
have built over 82% of the bulk carriers afloat in 2022.

Freight charges
Several factors affect the cost to move bulk cargo by ship. The bulk freight
market is very volatile. Factors that influence fluctuations include the type
of cargo, the ship’s size, and the route taken. Moving a Capesize load of coal
from South America to Europe can cost anywhere from US$15 to US$25 per
tonne. Hauling a Panamax-sized load of aggregate materials from the Gulf
of Mexico to Japan can cost anywhere between US$40 per tonne to as much
as US$70 per tonne. Some shippers choose instead to charter a ship, paying
a daily rate instead of a set price per tonne. In 2005, the average daily rate
for a Handymax ship varied between US$18,000–US$30,000. Alternatively,
a Panamax ship could be chartered for between US$20,000–US$50,000 per
day, and a Capesize for between US$40,000–US$70,000 per day.

Ship breaking
Ships are removed from the fleet by going through a process of scrapping.
Shipowners and scrap metal buyers negotiate scrap prices based on factors
such as the ship’s empty weight (the light tonne displacement or LDT) and
prices in the scrap metal market. In 1998, almost 700 ships were scrapped
in places like Alang, India, and Chittagong, Bangladesh. This is often done
by ‘beaching’ the ship on open sand, then cutting it apart by hand with
gas torches. This is a particularly dangerous operation that often results in
serious injuries and fatalities, as well as exposure to toxic materials such as
asbestos, lead, and various toxic chemicals. In 2004, some 500,000 metric
tonnes of bulk carrier dwt were scrapped, accounting for 4.7% of that year’s
entire scrapping, with an average price of between US$340 and $350 per
LDT tonne.
 Bulk carriers 31

OPERATIONS

The crew on a bulk carrier typically consists of between 20 and 30 people,

though smaller ships can be managed by as few as eight, and the smallest
by only three people. The crew includes the captain or master, the deck
department, the engine department, and the steward’s department. The
practice of taking passengers on board cargo ships, once almost univer-
sal, is exceedingly rare today and almost nonexistent on bulk carriers. The
International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code has made it even
more difficult for passengers to travel on board merchant vessels, though
some companies still offer travel to senior crew member’s families. During
the 1990s, bulk carriers contributed to an alarming number of shipwrecks.
This led shipowners to commission a study seeking to explain the effect of
numerous factors on the crew’s effectiveness and competence. The study
showed that crew performance on board bulk carriers was the lowest of
all groups studied. Among bulk carrier crews, the best performance was
found on board younger and larger ships. Crews on better-maintained ships
performed better, as did crews on ships where fewer languages were spoken.
Fewer deck officers are employed on bulk carriers than on similarly sized
ships of other types. A mini-bulk carrier carries on average two to three deck
officers, while larger Handysize and Capesize bulk carriers typically carry
four. Liquid natural gas tankers of the same size have an additional deck
officer and unlicensed mariner.
A bulk carrier’s voyages are determined by market forces; routes and car-
goes vary significantly. A ship may engage in the grain trade during the
harvest season and later move on to carry other cargoes or work on a differ-
ent route. On board coastal carriers engaged in the tramp trade, the crew
will often not know the next port of call until the cargo is fully loaded.
Because bulk cargo is so difficult to discharge, bulk carriers spend more time
in port than most other ships. A study of mini-bulk carriers found that it
takes on average twice as much time to unload a ship as it does to load it.
On average, it was found that a mini-bulk carrier spends 55 hours at a time
in port, compared with 35 hours for a lumber carrier of comparable size.
This time in port increases to 74 hours for Handymax and 120 hours for
Panamax class vessels. Compared with the 12-hour turnarounds common
for container ships, 15-hour turnarounds for car carriers, and 26-hour turn-
arounds for large tankers, bulk carrier crews have more opportunities to
spend time ashore.
Loading and unloading a bulk carrier is time-consuming and dangerous.
The process is planned by the ship’s chief officer (chief mate) under the direct
and continued supervision of ship’s captain (or master). International regu-
lations require that the captain and terminal master agree on a detailed plan
before loading and unloading operations begin. Deck officers and stevedores
then oversee the operations. Occasionally, it has been known for loading
32 Merchant ship types

errors to cause a ship to capsize or break in half at the quayside. The loading
method used depends on both the cargo and the equipment available on the
ship and on the dock. In the least advanced ports, cargo is often loaded with
shovels or bags poured from the hatch cover, although this system is being
replaced with faster, less labour-intensive methods. Double-articulation
cranes, which can load at a rate of 1,000 metric tonnes per hour, represent
the most widely used method, and the use of shore-based gantry cranes,
reaching 2,000 metric tonnes per hour, is growing. A crane’s discharge rate
is limited by the bucket’s capacity (from 6 to 40 metric tonnes) and by the
speed at which the crane can take a load, deposit it at the terminal and
return to take the next load. For modern gantry cranes, the total time of the
grab-deposit-return cycle is about 50 seconds. Conveyor belts offer a very
efficient method of loading, with standard loading rates varying between
100 and 700 metric tonnes per hour, although the most advanced ports can
offer rates of 16,000 metric tonnes per hour. Start-up and shutdown proce-
dures with conveyor belts, though, are complicated and require time to oper-
ate safely. Self-discharging ships use conveyor belts with load rates of around
1000 metric tonnes per hour. Once the cargo is discharged, the crew begins
to clean the holds. This is particularly important if the next cargo is of a
different type. The immense size of cargo holds and the tendency of cargoes
to be physically irritating add to the difficulty of cleaning the holds. When
the holds are clean, the process of loading can begin. It is crucial to maintain
the cargo level during loading to keep an even keel. As the hold is filled,
machines such as excavators and bulldozers are often used to keep the cargo
level. Levelling is particularly important when the hold is only partly full
since cargo is more likely to shift. Extra precautions are taken, such as add-
ing longitudinal divisions and securing wood atop the cargo. If a hold is full,
a technique called ‘tomming’ is used, which involves digging out a 2 m (6 ft)
hole below the hatch cover and filling it with bagged cargo or weights. This
helps to lower the ship’s centre of gravity and improves stability.

DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

A bulk carrier’s design is defined by the cargo it carries. The cargo’s density,
also known as its stowage factor, is the key influence. Densities for common
bulk cargoes vary from 0.6 metric tonnes per cubic metre for light grains to
three metric tonnes per cubic metre for iron ore. The overall cargo weight is
the limiting factor in the design of an ore carrier since the cargo is so dense.
Coal carriers, on the contrary, are limited by overall volume since most bulk
carriers can be filled with coal before reaching their maximum draught. For
a given tonnage, the second factor, which governs the ship’s dimensions, is
the size of the ports and the waterways they operate in. For example, a ves-
sel that will pass the Panama Canal will be limited in its beam and draught.
For most designs, the ratio of length-to-width ranges between 5 m (16.4 ft)
 Bulk carriers 33

and 7 m (22.96 ft), with an average of 6.2 m (20.34 ft). The ratio of length-
to-height is between 11 m (36 ft) and 12 m (39 ft).

Machinery
The engine room on a bulk carrier is usually near the stern, under the super-
structure. Larger bulk carriers, from Handymax up, typically have a single
two-stroke low-speed crosshead diesel engine directly coupled to a fixed-pitch
propeller. Electricity is produced by auxiliary generators and/or an alterna-
tor coupled to the propeller shaft. On smaller bulk carriers, one or two four-
stroke diesels are used to turn either a fixed or controllable-pitch propeller
via a reduction gearbox, which may also incorporate an output for an alter-
nator. The average design ship speed for bulk carriers of Handysize and above
is 13.5–15 knots (15.5–17.3 mph or 25.0–27.8 km/h). The propeller speed
is low, at about 90 revolutions per minute, although this depends on the size
of the propeller. As a result of the 1973 oil crisis, the 1979 energy crisis and
the resulting rise in oil prices since 2009, experimental designs using coal to
fuel ships have been assessed since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Australian
National Lines (ANL) constructed two 74,700 ton coal-burner ships called
River Boyne and River Embely. A further two coal-fired bulk carriers were
constructed by TNT named TNT Capricornia and TNT Capentaria, later
renamed Fitzroy River and Endeavor River. These ships were financially
effective for the duration of their lives, and their steam engines were able to
generate a shaft-power of 19,000 horsepower (14,000 kW). This strategy
gave an interesting advantage to carriers of bauxite and similar fuel cargoes
but suffered from poor engine yield compared with the higher maintenance
cost and efficient modern diesels, maintenance problems due to the supply of
ungraded coal and high initial costs.

Hatches
A hatch or hatchway is the opening at the top of the cargo hold. The
mechanical devices, which allow hatches to be opened and closed, are called
hatch covers. In general, hatch covers form between 45% and 60% of the
ship’s breadth, or beam, and 57–67% of the length of the holds. To effi-
ciently load and unload cargo, hatches must be large, but large hatches pres-
ent structural problems. Hull stress is concentrated around the edges of the
hatches, which means these areas must be reinforced. Often, hatch areas
are reinforced by locally increasing the scantlings or by adding structural
members called stiffeners. Both options have the undesired effect of adding
extra weight to the ship. As recently as the 1950s, hatches had wooden
covers that would be broken apart and rebuilt by hand, rather than opened
and closed. Newer vessels have hydraulic-operated metal hatch covers that
can often be operated by one person. Hatch covers can slide forwards, back-
wards, or to the side, lift or fold up. It is essential that the hatch covers are
34 Merchant ship types

fully watertight; unsealed hatches can lead to accidental cargo hold flood-
ing, which is a major cause for bulk carrier sinkings. Regulations regarding
hatch covers have evolved since the investigation into the loss of the British
bulk carrier MV Derbyshire in 1980. The Load Line Conference of 1966
imposed a requirement that hatch covers be able to withstand a load of 1.74
metric tonnes/m2 of sea water, and a minimum scantling of 6 mm (0.23 in)
for the tops of the hatch covers. This was later increased by the International
Association of Classification Societies in their Unified Requirement S21 in
1998. This standard requires that the pressure due to sea water be calculated
as a function of freeboard and speed, especially for hatch covers located
towards the forward portion of the ship.

Hull
Bulk carriers are designed to be easy to build and to store cargo efficiently.
To facilitate construction, bulk carriers are built with a single hull curva-
ture. Also, whilst a bulbous bow allows a ship to move more efficiently
through water, bulk carrier designers have moved towards simple vertical
bows on larger ships. Full hulls, with large block coefficients, are almost
universal, and as a result, bulk carriers are inherently slow. This is offset by
their efficiency. Comparing a ship’s carrying capacity in terms of deadweight
tonnage to its weight when empty is one way to measure a ship’s efficiency.
A small Handymax ship, for example, can carry as much as five times its
weight. In larger designs, this efficiency is even more pronounced. Capesize
vessels can carry more than eight times their dwt tonnage. Bulk carriers have
a cross-section typical of most merchant ships. The upper and lower corners
of the hold are used as ballast tanks, as is the double bottom area. The cor-
ner tanks are reinforced and serve another purpose besides controlling the
ship’s trim. Designers choose the angle of the corner tanks to be less than
that of the angle of repose of the anticipated cargoes. This reduces side-to-
side movement, or ‘shifting’, of cargo, which can endanger the ship. The
double bottoms are also subject to design constraints. The primary concern
is that they are high enough to allow the passage of pipes and cables. These
areas must also be sufficiently large enough to allow the crew and contrac-
tors safe access to perform surveys and maintenance. Conversely, concerns
around excess weight and wasted volume keep the double bottom very
tight. Bulk carrier hulls are made from mild steel. Some manufacturers have
preferred high-tensile steel recently to reduce the tare weight. However, the
use of high-tensile steel for longitudinal and transverse reinforcements can
reduce the hull’s rigidity and resistance to corrosion. Forged steel is used for
some ship parts, such as the propeller shaft support. Transverse partitions
are made of corrugated iron, reinforced at the bottom and at connections.
More recently, ship designers have investigated the possibility of construct-
ing bulk carrier hulls using a concrete-steel sandwich.
 Bulk carriers 35

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, double hulls became increasingly pop-
ular. Designing a vessel with double sides adds primarily to its breadth, since
bulk carriers are already required to have double bottoms. One of the advan-
tages of the double hull is to make room to place all the structural elements
in the sides, removing them from the holds. This increases the volume of the
holds, and simplifies their structure, which helps in loading, unloading, and
cleaning. Double sides also improve the ship’s capacity for ballasting, which
is useful when carrying light goods. The ship may have to increase its draught
for stability or seakeeping reasons, which is done by adding ballast water.
A recent design, called Hy-Con, seeks to combine the strengths of single-hull
and double-hull construction. Short for Hybrid Configuration, this design
doubles the forward-most and rear-most holds and leaves the others
single-hulled. This approach increases the ship’s solidity at key points, whilst
reducing the overall tare weight. Since the adoption of the double hull has
been more of an economic than a purely architectural decision, some argue
that double-sided ships receive fewer comprehensive surveys and suffer more
from hidden corrosion. Despite this opposition, double hulls became a
requirement for Panamax and Capesize vessels in 2005. Freighters are in
continual danger of ‘breaking their backs’, and thus, longitudinal strength is
a primary architectural concern. A naval architect uses the correlation
between longitudinal strength and a set of hull thicknesses called scantlings
to manage problems of longitudinal strength and stresses. A ship’s hull is
composed of individual parts called members. The set of dimensions of these
members is called the ship’s scantlings. Naval architects calculate the stresses
a ship can be expected to be subjected to, add in safety factors, and then can
calculate the required scantlings. These analyses are conducted when trave-
ling empty, when loading and unloading, when partially and fully loaded,
and under conditions of temporary overloading. Places subject to the largest
stresses are studied carefully, such as the hold-bottoms, hatch-covers, bulk-
heads between holds, and the bottoms of ballast tanks. Great Lakes bulk
carriers also must be designed to withstand springing, or developing reso-
nance with the waves, which can cause fatigue fractures. Since 1 April 2006,
the International Association of Classification Societies has adopted the
Common Structural Rules. The rules apply to bulk carriers more than 90 m
(295 ft) in length and require that scantlings’ calculations consider factors
such as the effect of corrosion, the harsh conditions often found in the North
Atlantic, and dynamic stresses during loading. The rules also establish mar-
gins for corrosion, from 0.5 to 0.9 mm (0.01–0.03 in).

Safety
The 1980s and 1990s were a very unsafe period for bulk carriers. Many
bulk carriers sank during this time: 99 were lost between 1990 and 1997
alone. Most of these sinkings were sudden and quick, making it impossible
36 Merchant ship types

for the crew to escape. In fact, more than 650 seafarers were lost during this
period. Due partly to the sinking of the MV Derbyshire, a series of interna-
tional safety resolutions regarding bulk carriers were adopted throughout
the 1990s and 2000s.

Stability problems
Cargo shifting poses a fundamental danger for bulk carriers. The problem is
even more pronounced with grain cargoes since grain settles during a voy-
age and creates extra space between the top of the cargo and the top of the
hold. The cargo is then free to move from one side of the ship to the other
as the ship rolls. This can cause the ship to list, which, in turn, causes more
cargo to shift. This kind of chain reaction can capsize a bulk carrier very
quickly indeed. The 1974 SOLAS Convention sought to control this sort
of problem. The regulations required the upper ballast tanks to be designed
in a manner which could prevent shifting. They also required cargoes to be
levelled, or trimmed, using excavators in the holds. The practice of trimming
reduces the amount of the cargo’s surface area in contact with air. This has
a useful side effect, which is reducing the chances of spontaneous combus-
tion in cargoes such as coal, iron, and metal shavings. Another risk that can
affect dry cargoes is absorption of ambient moisture. When exceptionally
fine concretes and aggregates mix with water, the mud created at the bottom
of the hold shifts easily, producing free surface effect. The only way to con-
trol these risks is by good ventilation practices and by careful monitoring of
the holds for the presence of water. The International Maritime Solid Bulk
Cargoes (IMSBC) Code was introduced to facilitate the safe stowage and
shipment of solid bulk cargoes by providing information on the dangers
associated with certain cargoes and instructions on the procedures to be
adopted when loading such cargoes.

Structural problems
In the year 1990, 20 bulk carriers were sunk, taking with them 94 crewmem-
bers. In 1991, 24 bulk carriers sank, with the loss of 154 souls. This level of
loss focused attention on the safety aspects of bulk carriers. The American
Bureau of Shipping concluded that the losses were ‘directly traceable to fail-
ure of the cargo hold structure’ and Lloyd’s Register of Shipping added
that the hull sides could not withstand ‘the combination of local corrosion,
fatigue cracking and operational damage’. As more studies were conducted,
it became increasingly apparent that certain trends were present in each inci-
dent. Investigations sought to demonstrate that sea water was entering the
forward hatch because of large waves, a poor seal, or metal and structural
corrosion. The extra water weight in hold number one then compromised
the partition to hold number two. This led to water entering hold number
two, altering the trim of the vessel to such an extent that more water entered
 Bulk carriers 37

the holds. With two holds rapidly filling with water, the bow would sub-
merge, and the ship quickly sinks, leaving little time for the crew to react.
Previous practices had required ships to withstand the flooding of a single
forward hold but did not guard against situations where two holds would
flood. The case where two after (rear) holds are flooded is no better, as this
means that the engine room is quickly flooded, leaving the ship powerless
and without propulsion. If two holds in the middle of the ship are flooded,
the stress on the hull can become so great that the ship snaps in two. In addi-
tion to this, various other contributing factors were also identified. Most of
the sinkings involved ships that were over 20 years of age. A glut of ships
of this age occurred in the 1980s, caused by an overestimate of the growth
of international trade. Rather than replacing them prematurely, shipping
companies were compelled, on cost grounds, to keep their ageing vessels in
service. This, coupled with corrosion due to a lack of maintenance, affected
the seals of the hatch covers and the strength of the bulkheads which sepa-
rated the holds. This corrosion is difficult to detect due to the immense size
of the surfaces involved. Advanced methods of loading were not foreseen
when the ships were designed. While the new processes are more efficient,
loading is more difficult to control (it can take over an hour just to halt the
operation), occasionally resulting in overloading the ship. These unexpected
shocks, over time, can damage the hull’s structural integrity. Recent use of
high-tensile steel allows building a structure with less material and weight
whilst retaining a similar level of strength. However, because it is thinner
than regular steel, high-tensile steel can corrode more easily, as well as it can
develop metal fatigue in heavy seas. Considering the number of bulk carriers
sinking, and the evidence arising from the incident investigations, Lloyd’s
Register concluded that the principal cause of these sinkings was the attitude
of shipowners, who allowed ships with known problems to sea. New rules
were adopted in the 1997 amendments to the SOLAS Convention, which
focused on problems such as reinforcing the bulkheads and the longitudinal
frame, more stringent inspections (with a particular focus on corrosion) and
routine in-port inspections. Moreover, the 1997 additions also required bulk
carriers with restrictions (for instance, forbidden from carrying certain types
of cargoes) to mark their hulls with large, easy-to-see triangles.

Crew safety
Since December 2004, Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers have been
required to carry free-fall lifeboats located on the stern, behind the accom-
modation block. This arrangement allows the crew to abandon ship quickly
in case of an emergency. Free-fall lifeboats have attracted significant criti-
cism. One argument against the use of free-fall lifeboats is that the evacuees
require ‘some degree of physical mobility, even fitness’ to enter and launch
the boat. Injuries have occurred during launches, for example, in the event
of incorrectly secured safety belts. In December 2002, chapter XII of the
38 Merchant ship types

SOLAS Convention was amended to require the installation of high-level

water alarms and monitoring systems on all bulk carriers. This safety meas-
ure quickly alerts watch standers on the bridge and in the engine room in the
event of flooding in the holds. In cases of extreme flooding, it is anticipated
that these detectors should quicken the process of abandoning ship.
In this chapter, we have examined ships that are specially designed and
constructed to transport vast quantities of free flowing and loose cargo in
bulk. These bulk carriers are some of the largest vessels ever to be built, and
rival only oil tankers in their length and breadth. In Chapter 2, we will turn
our attention to one of the most common types of ships, the container or
box ship.
Chapter 2

Container ships

The container ship (also called a box ship or containership) is a cargo ship
that carries all its load in truck-size intermodal containers, using a technique
called containerisation. Container ships are a common means of commer-
cial intermodal freight transport and now carry most seagoing non-bulk
cargo. Container ship capacity is measured in 20-foot equivalent units
(TEU). Typical loads are a mix of 20-foot (one TEU) and 40-foot (one FEU –
broadly the equivalent of two TEU) ISO-standard containers, with the latter
being predominant. At present, about 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide
is transported by container ships, and the largest modern container ships
can carry up to 24,000 TEU (e.g. the Ever Ace). Container ships now rival
crude oil tankers and bulk carriers as the largest commercial seaborne ves-
sels in operation. There are two main types of dry cargo, namely bulk cargo
and break-bulk cargo. On the one hand, bulk cargoes, such as grain or
coal, are transported unpackaged in the hull of the ship, in a large volume.
Break-bulk cargoes, on the other hand, are transported in packages, and are
manufactured goods. Before the advent of containerisation in the 1950s,
break-bulk items were loaded, lashed, unlashed and unloaded from ships
one piece at a time. However, by grouping cargo into containers, 28–85 m3
(1000–3000 cu/ft) of cargo, or up to about 29,000 kg (64,000 lbs) can be
moved simultaneously and each container is secured to the ship once in a
standardised manner. Containerisation has increased the efficiency of mov-
ing traditional break-bulk cargoes significantly, reducing shipping time by
as much as 84% and costs by 35%. In 2001, more than 90% of world trade
in non-bulk goods was transported in ISO containers. In 2009, almost one
quarter of the world’s dry cargo was shipped by container, equal to an esti-
mated 125 million TEUs or 1.19 billion tonnes of cargo (Figure 2.1).
The first ships designed to carry standardised load units were used in the
late 18th century in England. In 1766, James Brindley designed the box boat
Starvationer with 10 wooden containers, to transport coal from Worsley
Delph in Lancashire to Manchester via the Bridgewater Canal. Before the
Second World War, the first container ships were used to carry the baggage
of the luxury passenger train Golden Arrow/La Flèche d’Or from London,

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-4 39
40 Merchant ship types

Figure 2.1 C ontainer handling.

England to Paris, France. These containers were loaded in London or Paris

and carried to the ports of Dover or Calais on flat railway cars. In February
1931, the world’s first container ship was launched; the Autocarrier. Owned
by the English railway company Southern Railways, the Autocarrier had 21
slots for containers. The first container ships to be used after the Second
World War were converted from re-purposed surplus war-era T2 tankers. In
1951, the first purpose-built container vessels began operating from
Denmark, and between Seattle and Alaska. The first commercially successful
container ship was the Ideal X (Figure 2.2), a re-purposed T2 tanker, owned
by the American transport magnate Malcom McLean. The Ideal X was fit-
ted with deck mountings that could secure 58 metal containers. The ship
began its maiden voyage as a container ship between Newark, New Jersey
and Houston, Texas. In 1955, McLean purchased the Pan Atlantic Steamship
Company from Waterman Steamship and adapted its ships to carry cargo in
large uniform sized metal containers. By 1956, McLean had built his com-
pany, McLean Trucking, into one of the largest freighter fleets in the United
States. It was not until May 1964, however, that the world’s first fully cellu-
lar (FC) purpose-built container ship, the MV Kooringa, was launched by
the Australian company, Associated Steamships Pty. Ltd., in partnership
with McIlwraith, McEacharn & Co.
 Container ships 41

Figure 2.2 I deal X.

Container ships work by eliminating the individual hatches, holds and

dividers of the traditional general cargo vessel. The hull of a typical con-
tainer ship is a huge warehouse divided into cells by vertical guide rails.
These cells are designed to hold cargo in pre-packed units – the containers.
Shipping containers are usually made of steel, but other materials like alu-
minium, fibreglass or plywood may also be used. They are designed to be
entirely transferrable from and to smaller coastal carriers, trains, trucks, or
semi-trailers. This gives the container its name the intermodal container.
There are several types of containers, categorised according to their size and
functions. Today, about 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide is transported
by container, and modern container ships can carry over 24,000 TEU. As a
class, container ships now rival crude oil tankers and bulk carriers as the
largest commercial vessels in operation. Although containerisation caused a
revolution in the world of shipping, its introduction was not straightfor-
ward. The ports and railway companies and shipowners, in general, were
concerned about the huge costs of developing the new port and railway
infrastructure needed to handle container ships, and for the movement of
containers on land by rail and road. Moreover, trade unions were concerned
about massive job losses amongst port and dock workers, as containers
would eliminate the manual jobs associated with cargo handling. In the
event, it took 10 years of legal battles before container ships would be
pressed into international service. In 1966, the first container liner service
from the United States to Rotterdam commenced.
Importantly, containerisation changed not only the face of shipping, but
also revolutionised world trade. A container ship can be loaded and unloaded
in a few hours compared with the days it takes for a traditional cargo vessel.
This, besides cutting labour costs, has reduced shipping times between ports;
for example, it takes a few weeks instead of months for a consignment to be
delivered from China to the UK and vice versa. This has also resulted in
reduced breakage due to less handling; and less danger of cargo shifting
during passage. But the greatest enhancement is, as containers are sealed
and only opened at the destination, theft has been reduced. Containerisation
has lowered shipping costs and decreased shipping time, and this has in turn
helped the growth of international trade. Cargo that once arrived in cartons,
crates, bales, barrels, or bags now arrive at the destination factory in sealed
containers, with no indication to the human eye of their contents, except
for a product code that machines can scan and computers trace. This system
42 Merchant ship types

of tracking has been so exact that a 2-week voyage can be timed for arrival
with an accuracy of under 15 minutes. It has resulted in trade revolutions
such as on time guaranteed delivery and just in time manufacturing. Raw
materials arrive from factories in sealed containers less than an hour before
they are required for manufacture, resulting in reduced inventory costs.
Exporters load merchandise in boxes that are provided by the shipping com-
panies. They are then delivered to the port by road, rail or a combination of
both for loading onto awaiting container ships. Prior to containerisation,
huge gangs of men would spend hours fitting myriad items of cargo into
different holds. Today, massive gantry cranes are used to place containers in
specific locations on board the ship. When the hull has been fully loaded,
additional containers are stacked on the main deck. The largest container
ships in operation today measure over 400 m (1300 ft) in length and can
carry loads equal to the cargo-carrying capacity of 16–17 pre-World War II
freighter ships (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Container ship size categories

Capacity
Class (TEUs) Length Beam Draught Notes
Ultra Large 14,501– 366 m 49 m 15.2 m With a length of
Container higher (1,200 (160.7 (49.9 400 m (1312 ft),
Vessel ft) and ft) and ft) and a width of
longer wider deeper 59 m (193.5
ft), draught of
14.5 m (47.57 ft),
and a capacity
of 18,270 TEU,
ships of the
Mærsk Triple E
class can transit
the Suez Canal.
New 10,000– 366 m 49 m 15.2 m With a beam
Panamax 14,500 (1200 ft) (160.7 ft) (49.9 ft) of 43 m
or Neo- (141.07 ft), ships
Panamax of the COSCO
Post- 5101– Guangzhou class
Panamax 10,000 are too big to
fit through the
Panama Canal’s
old locks but
could easily fit
through the new
expansion.
(Continued)
 Container ships 43

Table 2.1 (Continued) Container ship size categories

Capacity
Class (TEUs) Length Beam Draught Notes
Panamax 3,001– 294.13 m 32.31 m 12.04 m Ships of the Bay
5,100 (965 ft) (106 ft) (39.5 ft) class are at the
upper limit of
the Panamax
class, with an
overall length
of 292.15 m
(958 ft), beam
of 32.2 m
(105.64 ft),
and maximum
depth of 13.3 m
(43.63 ft).
Feedermax 2,001– Container ships
3,000 under 3,000
Feeder 1,001– TEU are typically
2,000 called feeders.
Small Feeder Up to In some areas
1,000 of the world,
they might be
outfitted with
cargo cranes.

SIZE CATEGORIES

Container ships are distinguished into seven major size categories: small
feeder, feeder, Feedermax, Panamax, Post-Panamax, New Panamax and
Ultra Large. As of December 2012, there were 161 container ships in the
VLCS class (Very Large Container Ships, i.e. more than 10,000 TEU), and
51 ports in the world, which can accommodate them. The size of a Panamax
vessel is limited by the original Panama Canal’s lock chambers, which can
accommodate ships with a beam of up to 32.31 m (106 ft), a length overall
of up to 294.13 m (964.99 ft), and a draught of up to 12.04 m (39.50 ft).
The Post-Panamax category has historically been used to describe ships
with a moulded breadth over 32.31 m (106.00 ft); however, the Panama
Canal expansion project has caused some changes in terminology. The New
Panamax category is based on the maximum vessel-size that can transit
the latest set of locks, which opened in June 2016. The third set of locks
were built to accommodate container ships with a length overall of 366 m
(1201 ft), a maximum width of 49 m (161 ft), and a tropical fresh-water
draught of 15.2 m (50 ft). New Panamax class vessels are wide enough to
carry 19 columns of containers, having a total capacity of approximately
12,000 TEU and of comparable size to a Capesize bulk carrier or a Suezmax
tanker. Container ships under 3000 TEU are called feeder ships or feeders.
44 Merchant ship types

They are small ships that typically operate between smaller container ports.
Some feeders collect their cargo from small ports, drop it off at large ports
for trans-shipment on larger ships, and distribute containers from the large
port to smaller regional ports. Feeder vessels are the most likely to carry their
own deck mounted cargo cranes on board. Lift-on/Lift-off (LOLO, LO/LO
or Lo/Lo) ships are cargo ships with on board cranes to load and unload
cargo. Ships with cranes or other cargo handling equipment are categorised
as geared vessels. As container ships usually have no on-board cranes or
other mechanism to load or unload their cargo, they are therefore dependent
on dockside container cranes to load and unload. However, lift-on lift-off
vessels can load and unload their own cargo unassisted. Lift-on lift-off ves-
sels can operate out of docks with no dockside cargo handling equipment.

CONTAINER SHIP ARCHITECTURE

There are several key points in the design of modern container ships. The
hull, like that of bulk carriers and general cargo ships, is built around a
strong keel. Into this frame is set one or more below-deck cargo holds,
numerous tanks, and the engine room. The holds are topped by hatch cov-
ers, onto which more containers may be stacked. Many container ships have
cargo cranes installed on them, and some have specialised systems for secur-
ing the containers on board. The hull of a modern cargo ship is a complex
arrangement of steel plates and strengthening beams. Resembling ribs, and
fastened at right angles to the keel, are the ship’s frames. The ship’s main
deck, the metal platework that covers the top of the hull framework, is
supported by beams that are attached to the tops of the frames and run the
full breadth of the ship. The beams not only support the deck, but along
with the deck, frames, and transverse bulkheads, strengthen and reinforce
the shell. Another feature of recent hulls is a set of double-bottom tanks,
which provide a second watertight shell that runs most of the length of
a ship. The double-bottoms hold liquids such as fuel oil, ballast water or
fresh water. The ship’s engine room accommodates the main engines and
auxiliary machinery such as the fresh water and sewage systems, electrical
generators, fire pumps, and air conditioners. In most new ships, the engine
room is in the aft portion of the hull.

Cargo cranes
A major characteristic of a container ship is whether it has cranes installed
for managing its cargo. Those that have cargo cranes are called geared ves-
sels and those that do not are called ungeared or gearless vessels. The earliest
purpose-built container ships in the 1970s were all gearless. Since then, the
percentage of geared newbuilds has fluctuated widely, but has decreased
overall, with only 7.5% of container ship capacity in 2009 being equipped
with cranes. While geared container ships are more flexible in that they can
 Container ships 45

visit ports that are not equipped with quayside container cranes, they suffer
from several drawbacks. Firstly, geared ships are more expensive to purchase
than gearless ships. Secondly, geared ships incur greater recurring expenses,
such as maintenance and fuel costs. The United Nations Council on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD) characterises geared ships as a ‘niche mar-
ket only appropriate for those ports where low cargo volumes do not jus-
tify investment in port cranes or where the public sector does not have the
financial resources for such investment’. Instead of the typical rotary cranes,
some geared ships have gantry cranes installed. These cranes, specialised
for container work, can roll forward and aft on rails. In addition to the
additional capital expense and maintenance costs, these cranes load and dis-
charge containers much slower than their shoreside counterparts. The intro-
duction and improvement of shoreside container cranes have been a key to
the success of the container ship. The first crane to be specifically designed
for container work was built at California’s Port of Alameda in 1959. By
the 1980s, quayside gantry cranes were capable of moving containers on a
3-minute cycle, or up to 400 tonnes per hour. By the mid-2000s, this had
improved even more. In March 2010, at the Port Klang in Malaysia, a new
world record was set when 734 container moves were made in a single hour.
This record was achieved using as many as nine cranes to simultaneously
load and unload the MV CSCL Pusan, a ship with a capacity of 9600 TEUs.
As we said above, feeder ships in the 1500–2499 TEU range are more likely
to be fitted with cranes, with more than 60% of this category being geared
ships. Slightly less than one-third of the very smallest ships (from 100 to 499
TEU) are geared, and almost no ships with a capacity of over 4000 TEU are
geared (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Container loading records (2018–2021)

Departure Vessel TEU Port Destination
14 Aug 2021 Ever Ace 21,710 Yantian, China Rotterdam,
Netherlands
08 Apr 2021 CMA CGM 21,433 Singapore Le Havre, France
Jacques Saadé
12 Oct 2020 CMA CGM 20,723 Singapore Le Havre, France
Jacques Saadé
08 May 2020 HMM Algeciras 19,621 Yantian, China Rotterdam,
Netherlands
28 Jul 2019 MSC Gülsün 19,574 Tanjung Pelepas, Algeciras, Spain
Malaysia
01 Jun 2019 Monaco Mærsk 19,284 Tanjung Pelepas, Rotterdam,
Malaysia Netherlands
11 Feb 2019 MOL Tribute 19,190 Singapore Southampton,
England
Aug 2018 Mumbai Mærsk 19,038 Tanjung Pelepas, Rotterdam,
Malaysia Netherlands
46 Merchant ship types

Cargo holds
Efficiency has always been key in the design of container ships. While con-
tainers may be transported on conventional break-bulk ships, cargo holds
for dedicated container ships are specially constructed to speed loading and
unloading, and to efficiently keep containers secure while at sea. A key aspect
of container ship specialisation is the design of the hatches, the openings
from the main deck to the cargo holds. The hatch openings stretch the entire
breadth of the cargo holds and are surrounded by a raised steel structure
called the hatch coaming. On top of the hatch coamings are the hatch cov-
ers. Until the 1950s, hatches were typically secured with wooden boards and
tarpaulins held down with battens. At present, hatch covers may be solid
metal plates that are lifted on and off the ship by cranes, or else articulated
with mechanisms that are opened and closed using powerful hydraulic rams.
Another key component of dedicated container-ship design is the use of cell
guides. Cell guides are strong vertical structures constructed of metal, which
are installed into the ship’s cargo holds. These structures guide containers
into well-defined rows during loading and provide some support for con-
tainers against the ship’s rolling in heavy seas. So fundamental to container
ship design are cell guides that UNCTAD uses their presence to distinguish
dedicated container ships from general break-bulk cargo ships. A system of
three dimensions is used in cargo plans to describe the position of a container
aboard the ship. The first coordinate is the bay, which starts at the front of the
ship and increases aft. The second coordinate is the row. Rows on the star-
board side are given odd numbers and those on the port side are given even
numbers. The rows nearest the centreline are given small numbers, and the
numbers increase for slots further from the centreline. The third coordinate is
the tier, with the first tier at the bottom of the cargo holds, the second tier on
top of that, and so forth upwards. Container ships only take 20-foot, 40-foot,
and 45-foot containers. Forty-five footers can only fit above deck. 40-foot
containers are the primary container size, making up about 90% of all con-
tainer shipping. Since container shipping moves 90% of the world’s freight,
over 80% of the world’s freight moves via 40-foot containers (Figure 2.3).

Lashing systems
Numerous systems are used to secure containers aboard ships, depending
on factors such as the type of ship, the type of container, and the location of
the container. Stowage inside the holds of FC ships is the most straightfor-
ward. These ships typically use simple metal forms called container guides,
locating cones, and anti-rack spacers to lock the containers together. Above-
decks, without the extra support of the cell guides, more complicated equip-
ment must be used. Three types of systems are currently in wide use: lashing
systems, locking systems, and buttress systems. Lashing systems secure
containers to the ship using devices made from wire rope, rigid rods, or
 Container ships 47

Figure 2.3 Inside the cargo hold on a container ship.

chains and devices to tension the lashings, such as turnbuckles. The effective-
ness of lashings is increased by securing the containers to each other, either
by simple metal forms (such as stacking cones) or more complicated devices
such as twist-lock stackers. A typical twist-lock is inserted into the casting
hole of one container and rotated to hold it in place, and then another
container is lowered on top of it. The two containers are locked together
by twisting the handle of the device. A typical twist-lock is constructed of
forged steel and ductile iron and has a shear strength of forty-eight tonnes.
The buttress system, used on larger container ships, uses a system of large
towers attached to the ship at both ends of each cargo hold. As the ship is
loaded, a rigid, removable stacking frame is added, structurally securing
each tier of containers together (Figure 2.4).

The Bridge
Container ships have typically had a single bridge and accommodation unit
towards the stern, but to reconcile demand for larger container capacity with
SOLAS visibility requirements, several contemporary designs have been devel-
oped. As of 2015, most large container ships have the bridge positioned fur-
ther forward, usually just behind the midships, and separate from the exhaust
stack. Some smaller container ships working in European ports and rivers
have liftable wheelhouses, which can be lowered to pass under low bridges.
48 Merchant ship types

Figure 2.4 Typical container lashing system on MV Pollux at Torshaven, Iceland.

CONTAINER FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

As of 2010, container ships made up 13.3% of the world’s fleet in terms of

dwt tonnage. The global total of container ship dwt tonnage has increased
from 11 million dwt in 1980 to 169.0 million dwt in 2010. The combined
dwt tonnage of container ships and general cargo ships, which also often
carry containers, represents 21.8% of the world’s merchant fleet. As of
2009, the average age of container ships worldwide was 10.6 years, making
them the youngest general vessel type, followed by bulk carriers at 16.6
years, oil tankers at 17 years, general cargo ships at 24.6 years, and others
at 25.3 years. Most of the global carrying capacity in FC container ships is
in the liner service, wherein ships trade on scheduled routes. As of January
2020, the top 20 liner companies controlled 67.5% of the world’s FC con-
tainer capacity, with 2673 vessels of an average capacity of 3,774 TEU. The
remaining 6,862 FC ships have an average capacity of 709 TEU each. Most
of the capacity of FC container ships used in the liner trade are owned by
German shipowners, with approximately 75% alone owned by Hamburg
brokers. It is a customary practice for the large container lines to supple-
ment their own ships with chartered-in ships, for example in 2009, 48.9%
of the tonnage of the top 20 liner companies was chartered-in in this manner
(Table 2.3).
 Container ships 49

Table 2.3 Largest container ship operators (2021)

Rank Company Country of registration Fleet capacity
1 Mærsk Line Denmark 4,121,789
2 MSC Switzerland / Italy 3,920,784
3 CMA CGM France 3,049,743
4 COSCO China 3,007,421
5 Hapag Lloyd Germany 1,789,399
6 ONE Japan 1,600,531
7 Evergreen Taiwan 1,345,537
8 Hyundai Merchant Marine South Korea 752,604
9 Yang Ming Taiwan 628,463
10 ZIM Integrated Shipping Israel 409,810

Flag states
International maritime law requires that every merchant ship be registered
in a country, called its Flag State. A ship’s Flag State exercises regulatory
control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly, certify the
ship’s equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution prevention doc-
uments. As of 2006, the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics
counted 2837 container ships of 10,000 long tonnes dwt or greater in global
operation. Panama is the world’s largest Flag State for container ships, with
541 of the vessel class in its registry. Seven other Flag States had more than
one hundred registered container ships. These are Liberia (415), Germany
(248), Singapore (177), Cyprus (139), the Marshall Islands (118), and the
United Kingdom (104). The Panamanian, Liberian, and Marshallese flags
are open registries and considered by the International Transport Workers’
Federation to be flags of convenience. By comparison, traditional maritime
nations such as the United States and Japan only had 75 and 11 registered
container ships, respectively.

Vessel purchases
In recent years, oversupply of container ship capacity has caused prices for
new and used ships to fall. From 2008 to 2009, new container ship prices
dropped by 19–33%, while prices for 10-year-old container ships dropped
by 47–69%. In March 2010, the average price for a geared 500-TEU con-
tainer ship was US$10 million, while gearless ships of 6,500 and 12,000 TEU
averaged prices of US$74 million and US$105 million, respectively. At the
same time, second-hand prices for 10-year-old geared container ships of 500,
2,500, and 3,500-TEU capacity averaged prices of US$4 million, US$15 mil-
lion, and US$18 million, respectively. In 2009, 11,669,000 gross tonnes of
newly built container ships were delivered. Over 85% of this new capacity
was built in South Korea, China, and Japan, with South Korea accounting
50 Merchant ship types

Table 2.4 Worldwide capacity (1990–2017)

Year Capacity (TEUs, m)
1990 1.5
2000 4.3
2008 10.6
2012 15.4
2017 20.3

for the lions share with over 57% of the world’s total. New container ships
accounted for 15% of total new tonnage, which is way behind bulk carriers
at 28.9% and oil tankers at 22.6% (Table 2.4).

Scrapping
Most ships are removed from the fleet through a process known as scrap-
ping. Scrapping is rare for ships under 18 years of age and common for those
over 40 years of age. Shipowners and buyers negotiate scrap prices based on
factors such as the ship’s empty weight (called the light tonne displacement
or LTD) and prices in the scrap metal market. Scrapping rates are volatile
with the price per light tonne displacement swinging from a high of US$650
per LTD in mid-2008 to US$200 per LTD in early 2009, before increasing to
US$400 per LTD in March 2010. As of 2021, over 96% of the world’s con-
tainer ship scrapping activity takes place in China, India, Bangladesh, and
Pakistan. The global economic downturn of 2008–2009 resulted in more
ships than usual being sold for scrap. In 2009, 364,300 TEU worth of con-
tainer ship capacity was scrapped, up from 99,900 TEU in 2008. Container
ships accounted for 22.6% of the total gross tonnage of ships scrapped for
that year alone. Despite the surge, the capacity removed from the fleet only
accounted for 3% of the world’s container ship capacity. By 2021, the aver-
age age of container ships scrapped was 27.0 years (Figure 2.5).

Largest container ships

Economies of scale have dictated an upward trend in the size of container
ships to reduce operating expenses. However, there are certain limitations
to the size of container ships. Primarily, these are the availability of suffi-
ciently large main engines and the availability of a sufficient number of ports
and terminals prepared and equipped to manage ultra-large container ships.
Furthermore, the permissible maximum ship dimensions in some of the
world’s main waterways present an upper limit in terms of vessel growth.
This primarily concerns the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, English Channel
and the Singapore Strait. That said, since even Very Large Container Ships
are vessels with low draught compared with large tankers and bulk carriers,
 Container ships 51

Figure 2.5 C ontainer ship Unity ready for scrapping, Bangladesh.

there is still considerable room for vessel growth. Compared with the cur-
rent largest container ships, a 20,000–22,000 TEU container ship would
only be moderately larger in terms of exterior dimensions than the first iter-
ation of ultra large container ships, the Emma Mærsk class (15,200 TEU).
According to a 2011 estimate, an ultra-large container ship of 20,250 TEU
would measure 440 m × 59 m (1,444 ft × 194 ft), compared with 397.71 m ×
56.40 m (1,304.8 ft × 185.0 ft) for the Emma Mærsk class, with an estimated
dwt of circa 220,000 tonnes dwt. Although such a vessel might be near the
upper limit for a Suez Canal passage, the so-called Malaccamax concept (for
Straits of Malacca) does not apply for container ships, since the Malacca
and Singapore Straits’ draught limit of about 21 m (69 ft) is still above that
of any conceivable container ship design. In the present market situation,
main engines will not present as much of a limiting factor for vessel growth
either. The steadily rising expense of fuel oil in the late 2010s prompted
most container lines to adapt a slower, more economical voyage speed of
about 21 knots, compared with earlier top speeds of 25 or more knots.
Subsequently, newly built container ships can be fitted with a smaller main
engine. The engine types fitted to ships of 14,000 TEU in the mid-2010s
52 Merchant ship types

are sufficiently powerful enough to propel the ultra large container ships
in operation today. Despite this, Mærsk Line, the world’s largest container
shipping company, opted for twin engines (two smaller engines working two
separate propellers) when ordering a series of ten 18,000 TEU vessels from
Daewoo Shipbuilding in February 2011. The ships were delivered between
2013 and 2014. In 2016, some experts believed that the current largest con-
tainer ships are at the optimum size, and could not economically become
any larger, as port facilities would be too expensive, port handling too time-
consuming, the number of suitable ports too low, and insurance costs too
high. In March 2017, the first ship with an official capacity over 20,000
TEUs, the MOL Triumph, was launched at the Samsung Heavy Industries.
The MOL Triumph has a capacity of 20,150 TEUs. Between 2018 and 2021,
a further 15 ultra large container vessels have been delivered with an official
carrying capacity of between 20,119 and 23,992 TEUs (Tables 2.5, 2.6).

Freight market
The act of hiring a ship to carry cargo is called chartering. Outside special
bulk cargo markets, ships are hired by three types of charter agreements: the
voyage charter, the time charter, and the bareboat charter. In a voyage char-
ter, the charterer rents the vessel from the loading port to the discharge port.
With a time-charter, the vessel is hired for a set period, to perform voyages
as the charterer directs. In a bareboat charter, the charterer acts as the ship’s
operator and manager, taking on responsibilities such as providing the crew
and maintaining the vessel. The completed chartering contract is known as
a charter party. UNCTAD tracks two aspects of container shipping prices
in its annual Review of Maritime Trade. The first is a chartering price, spe-
cifically the Price to Time-charter one TEU slot for 14 tonnes of cargo on a
container ship. The second is the freight rate, or comprehensive daily cost
to deliver one-TEU worth of cargo on a given route. As a result of the late-
2000s recession, both indicators showed sharp drops during 2008–2009,
though the market has since shown signs of stabilisation between 2010 and
2020. UNCTAD uses the Hamburg Shipbrokers’ Association (formally the
Vereinigung Hamburger Schiffsmakler und Schiffsagenten e. V. or VHSS
for short) as its main industry source for container ship freight prices. The
VHSS maintains several indices of container ship charter prices. The old-
est, which dates from 1998, is the Hamburg Index. This index considers
time-charters on FC container ships controlled by Hamburg brokers. It is
limited to charters of 3 months or more and is represented as the average
daily cost in US$ for a one-TEU slot with a weight of fourteen tonnes. The
Hamburg Index data is divided into 10 categories based primarily on the
vessel carrying capacity. Two additional categories exist for small vessels of
under 500 TEU that carry their own cargo cranes. In 2007, VHSS started
another index, the New ConTex, which tracks similar data obtained from
an international group of shipbrokers. The Hamburg Index shows some
Table 2.5 Largest container ships (2017–2021)
Length overall Beam
Maximum
# Built Vessel name (m) (ft) (m) (ft) TEU GT Operator Flag
1 2021 Ever Ace 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,992 235,579 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2021 Ever Act 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,992 235,579 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2021 Ever Aim 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,992 235,579 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2021 Ever Alp 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,992 235,579 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2 2020 HMM Algeciras 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Copenhagen 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Dublin 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Gdansk 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Hamburg 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Helsinki 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Le Havre 399.9 1312 61.0 200.1 23,964 228,283 HMM (South Korea) Panama
3 2020 HMM Oslo 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,820 232,311 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Rotterdam 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,820 232,311 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Southampton 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,820 232,311 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM Stockholm 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,820 232,311 HMM (South Korea) Panama
2020 HMM St Petersburg 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,820 232,311 HMM (South Korea) Panama
4 2019 MSC Gülsün 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama

Container ships
2019 MSC Samar 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Leni 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Mia 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Febe 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Ambra 399.9 1312 61.5 202 23,756 232,618 MSC (Switzerland) Panama

53
(Continued)
 54
Merchant ship types
Table 2.5 (Continued) Largest container ships (2017–2021)
Length overall Beam
Maximum
# Built Vessel name (m) (ft) (m) (ft) TEU GT Operator Flag
5 2019 MSC Mina 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Isabella 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Arina 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Nela 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2019 MSC Sixin 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2021 MSC Apolline 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2021 MSC Amelia 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2021 MSC Diletta 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2021 MSC Michelle 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
2021 MSC Allegra 399.8 1312 61.0 200.1 23,656 228,741 MSC (Switzerland) Panama
6 2020 CMA CGM Jacques Saade 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2020 CMA CGM Champs Elysées 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2020 CMA CGM Palais Royal 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2020 CMA CGM Louvre 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2021 CMA CGM Rivoli 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2021 CMA CGM Montmartre 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2021 CMA CGM Concorde 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2021 CMA CGM Trocadero 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
2021 CMA CGM Sorbonne 399.9 1312 61.3 201 23,112 236,583 CMA CGM (France) France
 Length overall Beam
Maximum
# Built Vessel name (m) (ft) (m) (ft) TEU GT Operator Flag
7 2017 OOCL Hong Kong 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
2017 OOCL Germany 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
2017 OOCL Japan 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
2017 OOCL United Kingdom 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
2017 OOCL Scandinavia 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
2018 OOCL Indonesia 399.9 399.9 1312 58.8 193 21,413 210,890 OOCL
(Hong Kong)
8 2018 COSCO Shipping Universe 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2018 COSCO Shipping Nebula 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2019 COSCO Shipping Galaxy 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2019 COSCO Shipping Solar 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2019 COSCO Shipping Star 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2019 COSCO Shipping Planet 400.0 1312.3 58.6 192 21,237 215,553 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
9 2018 CMA CGM Antoine de Saint 00.0 1312.3 59.0 193.6 20,954 219,277 CMA CGM (France) France
Exupéry
2018 CMA CGM Jean Mermoz 400.0 1312.3 59.0 193.6 20,954 219,277 CMA CGM (France) Malta
2018 CMA CGM Louis Blériot 400.0 1312.3 59.0 193.6 20,954 219,277 CMA CGM (France) Malta

Container ships
(Continued)

55
 56
Table 2.5 (Continued) Largest container ships (2017–2021)

Merchant ship types

Length overall Beam
Maximum
# Built Vessel name (m) (ft) (m) (ft) TEU GT Operator Flag
10 2017 Madrid Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2017 Munich Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2017 Moscow Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2017 Milan Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2017 Monaco Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2018 Marseille Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2018 Manchester Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2018 Murcia Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2018 Manila Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2018 Mumbai Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
2019 Maastricht Mærsk 399.0 1309.1 58.6 192 20,568 214,286 Maersk (Denmark) Denmark
11 2017 MOL Truth 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
2018 MOL Treasure 399.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
12 2017 MOL Triumph 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
2017 MOL Trust 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
2017 MOL Tribute 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
2017 MOL Tradition 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,170 210,678 ONE (Japan) Marshall Islands
13 2019 Ever Glory 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,160 219,775 Evergreen (Taiwan) Liberia
2019 Ever Govern 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,160 219,688 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2019 Ever Globe 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,160 219,688 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2019 Ever Greet 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,160 219,688 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
 Length overall Beam
Maximum
# Built Vessel name (m) (ft) (m) (ft) TEU GT Operator Flag
14 2018 Ever Golden 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,079 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2018 Ever Goods 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,079 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2018 Ever Genius 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,079 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2018 Ever Given 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,079 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2018 Ever Gifted 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,352 Evergreen (Taiwan) Singapore
2019 Ever Grade 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 219,158 Evergreen (Taiwan) Panama
2019 Ever Gentle 400.0 1312.3 58.8 193 20,124 217,612 Evergreen (Taiwan) Liberia
15 2018 COSCO Shipping Taurus 399.8 1312 58.7 193 20,119 194,864 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2018 COSCO Shipping Gemini 399.9 1312 58.7 193 20,119 194,864 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2018 COSCO Shipping Virgo 399.9 1312 58.7 193 20,119 194,864 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2018 COSCO Shipping Libra 399.7 1311 58.7 193 20,119 194,864 COSCO (China) Hong Kong
2018 COSCO Shipping Sagittarius 399.7 1311 58.7 193 20,119 194,864 COSCO (China) Hong Kong

Container ships
57
58 Merchant ship types

Table 2.6 Ships on order (2022–2023)

Delivery Operator Number Maximum TEU
2023 Mediterranean 4 × Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding 24,232
Shipping Company 4 × Jiangnan Shipyard
(MSC) 2 × Yangzijiang Shipbuilding
2023 Ocean Network 6 × Imabari Shipbuilding and Japan 24,000
Express (ONE) Marine United
2023 Seaspan ULC 2 × TBC 24,000
2022 Evergreen 6 × Samsung Heavy Industries 23,992
2022 Evergreen 4 × Jiangnan Shipyard 24,004
4 × Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding
2023 Hapag Lloyd 12 × Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine 23,500+
Engineering
2023 OOCL 6 × Nantong COSCO KHI Ship 23,000
Engineering
6 × Dalian COSCO KHI Ship
Engineering

clear trends in recent chartering markets. First, rates were increasing from
2000 to 2005. From 2005 to 2008, rates slowly decreased, and in mid-2008
began a ‘dramatic decline’ of approximately 75%, which lasted until rates
stabilised in April 2009. Rates have ranged from US$2.70 to US$35.40 in
this period, with prices lower on larger ships. The most resilient sized vessel
in this time were those from 200 to 300 TEU, a fact UNCTAD attributes to
lack of competition in this sector. Overall, in 2010, these rates rebounded,
but remained at half of their 2008 values. By 2011, the index showed signs
of recovery for container shipping, and combined with increases in global
capacity, indicating a positive outlook for the sector over the near future.
UNCTAD also tracks container freight rates. Freight rates are expressed
as the total price in US$ for a shipper to transport one TEU worth of cargo
along a given route. Data is given for the three main container liner routes:
US – Asia, US – Europe, and Europe – Asia. Prices are typically different
between the two legs of a voyage, for example the Asia – US rates have been
significantly higher than the return US – Asia rates over recent years. Both
the volume of container cargo and freight rates have dropped sharply. From
2009 to 2019, the freight rates on the US – Europe route were sturdiest,
whereas the Asia to US route fell the most. Liner companies responded to
their overcapacity in several ways. For example, in early 2009, some con-
tainer lines dropped their freight rates to zero on the Asia to Europe route,
charging shippers only a surcharge to cover operating costs. They decreased
their overcapacity by lowering the ship’s speed (a strategy called ‘slow
steaming’) and by laying up ships. Slow steaming increased the length of the
Europe to Asia routes to a record high of over 40 days. Another strategy
used by some companies was to manipulate the market by publishing notices
 Container ships 59

Table 2.7 Container sector alliances

Weekly
Alliance Partners Ships services Ports Port pairs
Ocean Alliance CMA CGM, COSCO Shipping, 323 40 95 1,571
Evergreen
THE Alliance Hapag-Lloyd, HMM, Ocean 241 32 78 1,327
Network Express, Yang Ming
2M Alliance Mærsk Line, Mediterranean 223 25 76 1,152
Shipping Company

of rate increases in the press, and when a notice had been issued by one
carrier, other carriers followed suit. Increasingly, the Trans-Siberian Railway
(TSR) has become a more viable alternative to container ships on the Asia
to Europe route. This railway can typically deliver containers in one-third to
one half of the time of a typical sea voyage.

Container sector alliances

To control costs and maximise capacity utilisation on ever-larger ships, ves-
sel sharing agreements, cooperative agreements, and slot-exchanges have
become a growing feature of the maritime container shipping industry. Since
2015, 16 of the world’s largest container shipping lines have consolidated
their routes and services accounting for 95% of container cargo volumes
moving in the dominant east-west trade routes. Within these alliances, car-
riers remain operationally independent, as they are forbidden by antitrust
regulators in multiple jurisdictions from colluding on freight rates or capac-
ity (Table 2.7).

CONTAINER PORTS

Container traffic through a port is often tracked in terms of twenty-foot

equivalent units or TEU of throughput. As of 2019, the Port of Shanghai
was the world’s busiest container port, with 43,303,000 TEU handled. That
year, 7 of the busiest 10 container ports were in the People’s Republic of
China, with Shanghai in first place, followed by Ningbo (third), Shenzhen
(fourth), Guangzhou (fifth), Qingdao (seventh), Hong Kong (eight) and
Tianjin (ninth). Rounding out the top 10 ports were Singapore (second),
Busan in South Korea (sixth), and Rotterdam in the Netherlands (tenth).
In total, the busiest 20 container ports handled 220,905,805 TEU in 2009,
almost half of the global total estimated container traffic for that year
(465,597,537 TEU) (Figure 2.6).
60 Merchant ship types

Figure 2.6 Tanger Med container terminal, Morocco.

LOSSES AND SAFETY ISSUES

It has been estimated that between 1990 and 2008, container ships lost
2,000 and 10,000 containers at sea, costing US$370 million. A survey for
the 6 years from 2008 through 2013 estimated average losses of individual
containers overboard were 546 per year, and average total losses includ-
ing catastrophic events such as vessel sinkings or groundings at 1679 per
year. Most go overboard on the open sea during storms, but there are some
examples of whole ships being lost with their cargo. When containers are
dropped, they immediately become an environmental threat as they become
‘marine debris’. Once overboard, they fill with water and sink if the contents
cannot hold air. If the container does not sink, it presents major problem
for both ships and the marine environment. As container ships get larger
and stacking becomes higher, the threat of containers toppling into the sea
during heavy seas increases. This results from a phenomenon called ‘para-
metric rolling’, which uniquely affects only container ships and cause a ship
to roll as much as 30–40 degrees during rough seas. This rolling motion
creates a powerful torque on a 10-high stack of containers. This torque
can easily snap the lashings and locks that keep the stack in place, result-
ing in containers tumbling overboard. The threat of piracy is a major con-
cern to all shipping and can cost a container shipping company as much as
US$100 million per year in longer routes and higher transit speeds. Piracy is
a problem that is most prevalent off the coast of East Africa, and especially
around the Horn, though international efforts to reduce maritime piracy
 Container ships 61

Figure 2.7 C ontainer ship Ever Given stuck in the Suez Canal, Egypt – 24 March
2021.

has led to a steady decline in attacks, though the risk remains high. Other
areas subject to maritime piracy include the Nigerian basin, Malacca Straits
and the Persian Gulf. As container ships have continued to expand in length
and width, the problems associated with vessels of this size have become
increasingly apparent. On 23 March 2021, for instance, the Ever Given
blocked the Suez Canal for several days after being blown off course by
high winds. The Ever Given incident was estimated by Lloyds List to cause
losses of US$400 million every hour based on westbound traffic revenues
of US$5.1 billion per day, and eastbound traffic revenues of US$4.5 billion
per day (Figure 2.7).
In this chapter, we have examined the main characteristics of container
ships. In the next chapter, we will look at feeder ships.
Chapter 3

Feeder ships

Feeder vessels or feeder ships are medium-size freight ships. In general, a

feeder designates a seagoing vessel with an average capacity of 300–1,000
TEU. Feeders collect shipping containers from different ports and transport
them to central container terminals where they are loaded onto bigger ves-
sels, or for further transport into the hub port’s hinterland. In that way, the
smaller vessels feed the larger liners, which carry thousands of containers.
Over the years, feeder lines have been established by organisations trans-
porting containers over a predefined route on a regular basis. Feeder ships
are often run by companies that also specialise in short sea shipping. These
companies not only ship freight to and from major ports like Rotterdam
for further shipment, but also carry containers between smaller ports, for
example, between terminals located on the north-west European seaboard
and ports situated in the Baltic Sea. Coastal trading vessels, also known as
coasters or skoots, are shallow-hulled ships used for trade between locations
on the same island or continent. Their shallow hulls mean that they can get
through reefs where deeper-hulled seagoing ships usually cannot. Coasters
can load and unload cargo in shallow ports (Figure 3.1).

SHORT-SEA SHIPPING

The modern terms short-sea shipping, marine highway, and motorways of

the sea, and the more historical terms coastal trade, coastal shipping, coast-
ing trade, and coastwise trade, all encompass the movement of cargo and
passengers by sea along a coast, without crossing an ocean. Throughout the
European Union, short-sea shipping (or a translation thereof) is the term
used by the European Commission. Alternatively, many English-speaking
countries use the British terms coasting trade and coastwise trade. The
United States maintained these terms from its colonial era, including for
the domestic slave trade that shipped slaves by water from the Upper South
to major markets around North America, especially New Orleans. The
United States began regulating general coasting trade as early as 1793, with
‘An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-5 63
64 Merchant ship types

Figure 3.1 Typical coastal feeder ship Wybelsum.

coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same’, which passed
Congress on 18 February that year. Over the years, it has been codified as
Title 46 of the United States Code, chapter 551 (46 USC Ch. 551), ‘Coastwise
Trade’. Some short-sea ship vessels are small enough to travel inland on inland
waterways. Short-sea shipping includes the movements of wet and dry bulk
cargoes, containers, and passengers around the coast (e.g. from Lisbon to
Rotterdam or from New Orleans to Philadelphia). Typical ship sizes range
from 1000 dwt to 15,000 dwt with draughts ranging from around 3 to
6 m (10–20 ft). Typical (and mostly bulk) cargoes include grain, fertilisers,
steel, coal, salt, stone, scrap, minerals, and oil products (such as diesel oil,
kerosene, and aviation fuel), containers, and passengers.

Short-sea shipping around the world

Europe
In Europe, short-sea shipping is at the forefront of the European Union’s
transportation policy. It currently accounts for 40% of all freight moved
throughout Europe. In the United States, short-sea shipping has yet to be
used to the same extent as it is in Europe, although this is slowly chang-
ing. The main advantages promoted for this type of shipping are alleviation
in road traffic congestion, decreased air pollution, and overall cost savings
to the shipper. Shipping goods by ship (one 4,000 dwt vessel is equiva-
lent to between 100–200 average articulated lorries) is more efficient and
 Feeder ships 65

cost-effective than road transport (though the goods, if bound inland, have
to be transferred and delivered by lorry or rail) and is much less prone to
theft and damage. Forty per cent of all freight moved in Europe is classi-
fied as short-sea shipping, but the greater percentage of this cargo moves
through Europe’s heartland on rivers, and not oceans. Between 2010 and
2020, the term short-sea shipping has evolved in a broader sense to include
point-to-point cargo movements on inland waterways as well as inland to
ocean ports for shipment overseas. The contrasting terms deep-sea ship-
ping, intercontinental shipping, and ocean shipping refer to maritime traffic
that crosses oceans. Short-sea shipping is also distinct from inland navi-
gation, for example, between two cities along a river. In Europe, the main
hub of short-sea shipping is Rotterdam (the Netherlands), which is the larg-
est European port, with Antwerp (Belgium) in second place and Hamburg
(Germany) in third place. The Netherlands plays a significant role in this,
having developed a hybrid vessel design able to navigate the sea as well
as the Rhine into the Ruhrgebiet. The Dutch and Belgian main waterways
(Maas, Waal, Amsterdam-Rhine Canal, and the Scheldt) locks and bridges
have been adapted or built accordingly. Because of congestion in the larger
ports, several smaller (container) ports have been developed. The same goes
for the Rhine-ports such as Duisburg and Dortmund, both in Germany. The
ports of Hamburg, Felixstowe (now the largest port in the UK), and Le
Havre are also significant players in short-sea shipping. In the Netherlands,
the sector has seen rapid growth, aided by a tax-enabled investment scheme.
The traditional region for building ‘coasters’ is the province of Groningen,
where most wharfs have side-laying ship slides. The current trend is to have
bare hulls made with labour coming from Poland and or Romania, and then
finishing the ship in the Netherlands.

North America
Cargo movements on the Great Lakes Waterway and St. Lawrence Seaway
system are classified as short-sea shipping under the broader definition.
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation of Canada and its North
American counterpart, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation,
have for the past several years promoted this concept under its marketing
umbrella ‘Hwy H2O’. The concept is intended to use existing capacity on the
2,300 mi (3,700 km) St. Lawrence–Great Lakes corridor in harmony with
rail and truck modes to reduce overland congestion. Great Lakes Feeder
Lines of Burlington, Ontario, Canada, was the first company to operate
a ‘fit for purpose’, European-built short-sea shipping vessel, named Dutch
Runner, which operated on the St. Lawrence Seaway under the Canadian
Flag. During the winter of 2008–2009, she operated a weekly, fixed service
between Halifax and St. Pierre et Miquelon, carrying roll-on/roll-off, break-
bulk, containers, and refrigerated goods. This cargo was loaded and dis-
charged using two 35 tonne cranes. Another Canadian firm, Hamilton-based
66 Merchant ship types

McKeil Marine, operates a fleet of tug-and-barge combinations, which ship

commodities such as tar, fuels, aluminium ingots, and break-bulk cargoes.
Along the St. Lawrence River, McKeil Marine transports aluminium ingots
from a smelter in Quebec to destinations in Ohio, some 944 nm (1086 mi
or 1519 km). One barge carries the equivalent of 22,040 tonne trucks.
America’s Marine Highway is a programme designed to promote inland and
coastal shipping. In 2001, the Port of New York and New Jersey initiated
its Port Inland Distribution Network (PIDN), a project designed to increase
a network of inland points for shipping. The programme also sought to
strengthen rail-port connections. In 2003, the first barge service to com-
mence operation was from the Port of Salem (NJ) on the Delaware River
to the Port of Albany-Rensselaer on the Hudson River (NY). This service
remained in operation until 2006 when it ceased trading.

CABOTAGE

Cabotage is like short-sea shipping, except those goods or passengers are

transported between two places in the same country by a transport oper-
ator from another country. It was originally applied to shipping along the
coastal routes, port to port, but now it applies to aviation, railways, and
road transport as well. Cabotage rights are the right of a company from one
country to trade in another country. Cabotage laws apply to merchant ships
in most countries that have a coastline to protect the domestic shipping
industry from foreign competition, preserve domestically owned shipping
infrastructure for national security purposes, and ensure safety in congested
territorial waters. In the United Kingdom, cabotage is governed by the var-
ious Navigation Acts. Indonesia implemented a cabotage policy in 2005
after previously allowing foreign-owned vessels to operate freely within the
country. In the Philippines, the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines
(Republic Act No. 1937), which is also known as the Cabotage Law, restricts
coastwise trade or the transport of passengers and goods within the coun-
try to vessels with Philippine registry and which must secure a coastwise
license from the Philippines Maritime Industry Authority. After the passage
of Foreign Ships Co-Loading Act or the Republic Act No. 10,668 in 2015,
foreign vessels with cargo intended to be exported out of the country may
dock in multiple ports in the country before transiting to a foreign port.
China does not permit foreign flagged vessels to conduct domestic trans-
port or domestic transshipments without the prior approval of the Ministry
of Transport. While Hong Kong and Macau maintain distinct internal
cabotage regimes from the mainland, maritime cabotage between territory
and the mainland is considered domestic carriage and accordingly is off
limits to foreign vessels. Similarly, maritime crossings across the Taiwan
Strait require special permits from both the People’s Republic of China
and the Republic of China and are usually off-limits to foreign vessels.
 Feeder ships 67

In the European Union, rights to cabotage in newly admitted member

States (in particular, Greece, Spain, and Portugal) were initially restricted
though these provisions and were abandoned following criticisms after the
Paros ferry disaster.1 The Hague–Visby Rules, a convention which imposes
duties on maritime carriers, apply only to ‘carriage of goods by sea between
ports in two different states’, and thus do not apply to cabotage shipping.
However, section 1(3) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (1971)
declares that the Rules ‘shall have effect … where the port of shipment is a
port in the United Kingdom, whether or not the carriage is between ports
in two different States …’. In the United States, the Merchant Marine Act of
1920 (the Jones Act) requires that all goods transported by water between
United States ports be transported on ships that have been constructed in
the United States and that fly the United States Flag, are owned by United
States citizens, and are crewed by United States citizens and United States
permanent residents. The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 states that
no foreign vessels are permitted to transport passengers between ports or
places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port.
In this chapter, we have examined the role of feeder ships, and how they
are an essential function for local and regional merchant shipping. In
Chapter 4, we will look at general cargo ships.

NOTE

1 The MS Express Samina was a French-built ROPAX ferry that struck the charted
Portes Islets rocks in the Bay of Parikia off the coast of Paros Island in the central
Aegean Sea on 26 September 2000. The accident resulted in 82 deaths and the
loss of the ship. The cause of the accident was found to be crew negligence, for
which several members were held criminally liable. Witnesses allege that the crew
was watching the match between Hamburg SV and Panathinaikos FC during the
2000–2001 UEFA Champions League instead of maintaining watch of the vessel.
Chapter 4

General cargo ships

In shipping, break-bulk cargo, also called general cargo, refers to goods that
are stowed on board ship in individually counted units. Traditionally, the
large numbers of items were recorded on distinct bills of lading that listed
them by different commodities. This contrasts with cargo stowed in mod-
ern shipping containers as well as bulk cargo, which goes directly, unpack-
aged and in copious quantities, into a ship’s hold(s), measured by volume
or weight (for instance, oil or grain). The term break-bulk derives from the
phrase breaking bulk – using ‘to break-bulk’ as a verb: to initiate the extrac-
tion of a portion of a ship’s cargo, or to begin the unloading process from
the ship’s hold(s). Ships carrying break-bulk cargo are called general cargo
ships. Break-bulk/general cargo consists of goods transported, stowed, and
handled piecemeal, typically bundled somehow in unit loads for hoisting,
either with cargo nets, slings, or crates, or stacked on trays, pallets, or
skids. Furthermore, batches of break-bulk goods are frequently packaged in
smaller containers, including bags, boxes, cartons, crates, drums, or barrels
and vats. Traditionally, break-bulk cargo was lifted directly into and out of
a vessel’s holds, and this is still mostly the case today. Otherwise, it must be
lifted onto and off its deck, by cranes or derricks present on the dock or on
the ship itself. If hoisted on deck instead of straight into the hold, liftable or
rolling goods must be man-handled and stowed competently by stevedores.
Securing break-bulk and general freight inside a vessel includes the use of
dunnage.1 When no hoisting equipment is available, break-bulk has tradi-
tionally been manually carried on and off ship, over a plank, or it might be
passed from man to man via a human chain. A break-in-bulk point is a place
where goods are transferred from one mode of transport to another, for
example the docks where goods transfer from ship to lorry or rail.
Break-bulk was the most usual form of cargo for most of the history of
shipping. Since the late 1960s, the volume of break-bulk cargo has declined
dramatically, relative to containerised cargo, while the latter has grown
exponentially worldwide. Containerising makes cargo effectively more
homogenous, like other bulk cargoes, and enables the improved economies
of scale. Moving cargo on and off ship in containers is much more efficient,
allowing ships to spend less time in port. Containerisation, once widely

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-6 69
70 Merchant ship types

Figure 4.1 Typical general cargo ship Happy Dynamic.

accepted, reduced shipping, and loading costs by as much as 80–90%.

Break-bulk cargo also suffered significantly from theft and damage.
Although cargo of this sort can be delivered straight from a lorry or train
onto the ship, the most common way is for the cargo to be delivered to the
dock in advance of the arrival of the ship and for the cargo to be stored in
warehouses. When the ship arrives, the cargo is taken from the warehouse
to the quay and then lifted on board by either the ship’s gear (derricks or
cranes) or by quayside cranes. The discharge of the ship is the reverse of
the loading operation. Loading and discharging by break-bulk is labour-
intensive. The cargo is brought to the quay next to the ship and then each
individual item must be lifted on board separately. Some items such as sacks
or bags can be loaded in batches by using a sling or cargo net and others,
such as cartons can be loaded onto trays before being lifted on board. Once
on board, each item must be stowed separately. Before any loading takes
place, any signs of the previous cargo are removed. The holds are swept,
washed if necessary, and any damage to them repaired. Dunnage is laid
ready for the cargo or is just put in bundles ready for the stevedores to lay
out as the cargo is loaded.
There are a great many kinds of break-bulk cargo, including:

• Bagged cargo: Bagged cargo (e.g. coffee in sacks) is stowed on double

dunnage and kept clear of the ship’s sides and bulkheads. Bags are
kept away from pillars and stanchions by covering it with matting or
waterproof paper.
• Baled goods: Baled goods are stowed on a single dunnage at least
50 mm (2 in) thick. The bales must be clean with all the bands intact.
Stained or oily bales are rejected. All fibres can absorb oil and are
liable to spontaneous combustion. As a result, they are kept clear of
 General cargo ships 71

any new paintwork. Bales close to the deckhead are covered to prevent
damage by dripping sweat.
• Barrels and casks: Wooden barrels are stowed on their sides on ‘beds’
of dunnage, which keeps the middle of the side (the bilge) off the deck.
The barrel is stowed with the bung at the top. To prevent movement,
wedges called quoins are put in on top of the ‘beds’. Barrels should
be stowed fore and aft and not athwart ships. Once the first tier has
been loaded, the next tier of barrels fits into the hollows between the
barrels; this is known as stowing ‘bilge and cantline’. Barrels, which
are also known as casks or tuns, are primarily used for transporting
liquids such as wine, water, brandy, whisky, and even oil. They are
usually built in a spherical shape to make them easier to roll and have
less friction when changing direction.
• Corrugated boxes: Corrugated boxes are stowed on a thick layer
of dunnage and kept clear of any moisture. Military and weather-
resistant grades of corrugated fibreboard may be used. They are not
over-stowed with anything other than similar boxes. They are fre-
quently loaded on pallets to form a unit load; where so, the slings that
are used to load the cargo are frequently left on to facilitate discharge.
• Wooden shipping containers: Wooden boxes or crates are stowed on
double dunnage in the holds and single dunnage in the ‘tween decks’.
Heavy boxes are given bottom stowage. The loading slings are often
left on to aid discharge.
• Drums: Metal drums are stowed on end with dunnage between tiers,
in the longitudinal space of the ship.
• Paper reels: Reels or rolls are stowed on their sides and care is taken to
make sure they are not crushed.
• Motor vehicles: Motor vehicles are lifted on board and then secured
using lashings. Great care is taken to prevent damage. Vehicles are
prepared by removing hazardous liquids such as petrol and diesel. This
differs from the RORO vessels wherein vehicles are driven on and off
the ship under their own power.
• Steel girders: Any long heavy items are stowed fore and aft. If they are
stowed athwartship, they are liable to shift if the ship rolls heavily and
could pierce through the side of the ship.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

The biggest disadvantage with break-bulk is that it requires more port

resources at both ends of a ship’s journey, including longshoremen, loading
cranes, warehouses, and transport vehicles. Moreover, they often assume
more dock space due to multiple vessels carrying multiple loads of break-
bulk cargo. Indeed, the decline of break-bulk did not start with containeri-
sation; rather, the advent of tankers and bulk carriers reduced the need for
72 Merchant ship types

transporting liquids in barrels and grains in sacks. Such tankers and carriers
use specialised ships and shore facilities to deliver larger amounts of cargo
to the dock and effect faster turnarounds with fewer personnel once the ship
arrives; however, they do require large initial investments in ships, machin-
ery, and training, slowing their spread to areas where investment to overhaul
port operations and/or training for dock personnel in the handling of cargo
on the newer vessels may not be available. As modernisation of ports and
shipping fleets spreads across the world, the advantages of using container-
isation and specialised ships over break-bulk have sped the overall decline
of break-bulk operations. Alternatively, break-bulk continues to hold an
advantage in areas where port development has not kept pace with shipping
technology; break-bulk shipping requires minimal shore facilities – a quay
for the ship to tie to, dock workers to assist in unloading, and warehouses to
store materials for later reloading onto other forms of transport. As a result,
there are still some areas of the world where break-bulk shipping continues
to thrive. Goods shipped in break-bulk can also be offloaded onto smaller
vessels and lighters for transport into even the most minimally developed
ports in which the normally large container ships, tankers, and bulk carriers
might not be able to access due to size and/or water depth. In addition, some
ports capable of accepting larger container ships/tankers/bulk transporters
still require goods to be offloaded in break-bulk fashion; for example, in the
outlying islands of Tuvalu, fuel oil for the power stations is delivered in bulk
but must be offloaded in barrels.
In this chapter, we have discussed some of the main characteristics of
general cargo ships. Essentially, these types of vessels will carry any cargoes
that can be loaded and unloaded by crane and are usually found in smaller
ports where liners are less likely to be frequent. In the next chapter, we will
be looking at reefer or refrigerated cargo ships.

NOTE

1 Dunnage for securing cargo in holds of ships has evolved from wooden boards
forming ‘cribs’ to modern mechanical, spring-loaded post-and-socket systems,
such as the ‘pogo sticks’ used on US Navy Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships,
which provide underway replenishment of stores, spares, repair parts, ammuni-
tion, ordnance, and liquids in cans and drums. Dunnage segregates cargo in the
hold and prevents the cargo from shifting in response to the ship’s motions.
Chapter 5

Reefer ships

Reefer ships are a type of refrigerated cargo ship typically used to trans-
port perishable cargo, which require temperature-controlled handling, such
as fruits, meat, vegetables, dairy products, and comparable items. Reefer
ships are usually categorised into one of three types: side door vessels, con-
ventional vessels, and refrigerated container ships. Side-door vessels have
water-tight ports on the ship’s hull, which open into a cargo hold. Elevators
or ramps leading from the quay serve as loading and discharging access for
forklifts or conveyors. Inside these access ports or side doors, pallet lifts or
another series of conveyors bring the cargo to the respective decks. This
distinctive design makes the vessels particularly well suited for inclement
weather operations, as the tops of the cargo holds are always closed against
rain and sun. Conventional vessels have a traditional cargo operation with
top opening hatches and cranes/derricks. On such ships, when facing wet
weather, the hatches need to be closed to prevent heavy rain from flooding
the holds. Both aforementioned ship types are well suited for the handling
of palletised and loose cargo. Refrigerated container ships are specifically
designed to carry containerised unit loads where each container has its
individual refrigerated unit. These containers are always 20-foot equivalent
units that are the size of ‘standard’ cargo containers that are loaded and
unloaded at container terminals and on-board container ships. These ships
differ from conventional container ships in their design, power generation,
and electrical distribution equipment. They need provisions made for pow-
ering each container’s cooling system. Because of their ease of loading and
unloading cargo, many container ships are now being built or redesigned to
carry refrigerated containers (Figure 5.1).
Historically, a major use of refrigerated cargo hold type ships was for the
transportation of bananas and frozen meat, but most of these ships have
been partly replaced by refrigerated containers that have a refrigeration
system attached to the rear end of the container. Whilst on the ship these
containers are plugged into an electrical outlet (typically 440 V AC) that
connects into the ship’s power generation. Refrigerated container ships are
not limited by the number of refrigeration containers they can carry, unlike
other container ships, which may be limited in their number of refrigeration

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-7 73
74 Merchant ship types

Figure 5.1 Typical reefer ship Baltic Melody.

outlets or have insufficient generator capacity. Each reefer container unit is

typically designed with a stand-alone electrical circuit and has its own
breaker switch that allows it to be connected and disconnected as required.
In principle, each individual unit could be repaired while the ship is still
underway. Refrigerated cargo is a key revenue for some shipping compa-
nies. On multipurpose ships, refrigerated containers are mostly carried
above the deck, as they must be checked for proper operation. Moreover, a
major part of the refrigeration system (such as a compressor) may fail,
which would have to be replaced or unplugged quickly in the event of a fire.
Modern container vessels stow the reefer containers in cell guides with adja-
cent inspection walkways that enable reefer containers to be carried in the
holds as well as on deck. Modern refrigerated container vessels are designed
to incorporate a water-cooling system for containers stowed below deck.
This does not replace the refrigeration system but facilitates cooling down
of the external machinery. Containers stowed on the exposed upper deck
are air-cooled, while those under deck are water-cooled. The water-cooling
design allows capacity loads of refrigerated containers under deck, as it
enables the dissipation of the high amount of heat they generate. This sys-
tem draws fresh water from the ship’s water supply, which in turn transfers
the heat through heat exchangers and out into the open sea. There are
also refrigeration systems that have two compressors for very precise and
 Reefer ships 75

low-temperature operations, such as transporting a container of blood to

war zones. Cargoes of shrimp, asparagus, caviar, and blood are considered
among the most expensive refrigerated items. Bananas, fruit, and meat have
historically been the main cargo of refrigerated ships.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REEFER SHIP

In 1869, reefers were shipping beef carcasses frozen in a salt-ice mixture from
Indianola, Texas, to New Orleans, Louisiana, to be served in hospitals, hotels,
and restaurants. In 1874, shipping of frozen beef from America to London
began, which developed into an annual trade of around 10,000 short tonnes
(8,900 long tonnes; 9,100 tonnes1). The insulated cargo space was cooled by
ice, which was loaded on departure. The success of this method was limited
by insulation, loading techniques, ice block size, distance, and climate. The
first attempt to ship refrigerated meat was made when the Northam sailed
from Australia to the United Kingdom in 1876. The refrigeration machin-
ery broke down on-route resulting in the loss of the cargo. In 1877, the
steamers Frigorifique and Paraguay carried frozen mutton from Argentina
to France, proving the concept of refrigerated ships, if not the economics.
In 1879, Strathleven, equipped with compression refrigeration systems, suc-
cessfully sailed from Sydney, Australia, to London, England, with 40 tonnes
of frozen beef and mutton as a small part of her cargo. The clipper sailing
ship Dunedin, owned by the New Zealand and Australian Land Company
(NZALC), was refitted in 1881 with a Bell-Coleman compression refrigera-
tion machine. This steam-powered freezer unit worked by compressing air,
then releasing it into the hold of the ship. The expanding air absorbed heat
as it expanded, cooling the cargo in the hold. Using three tonnes of coal a
day, this steam powered machine could chill the hold to 22°C (40°F) below
the surrounding air temperature, freezing the cargo in the temperate climate
of southern New Zealand, and then maintaining it below freezing (0°C;
32°F) through the tropics. Dunedin’s most visible sign of being an unusual
ship was the funnel for the refrigeration plant placed between her fore and
main masts (sometimes leading her to be mistaken for a steamship, which
had been common since the 1840s). In February 1882, Dunedin sailed from
Port Chalmers, New Zealand, with 4331 muttons, 598 lamb, and 22 pig
carcasses, 246 kegs of butter, and hare, pheasant, turkey, chicken, and 2226
sheep tongues, arriving in London after sailing 98 days with its cargo still
frozen. After meeting all costs, the NZALC made a £4,700 profit from the
voyage. Soon after the Dunedin’s successful voyage, an extensive frozen meat
trade from New Zealand and Australia to the United Kingdom developed
with over 16 different refrigerated and passenger refrigerated ships built or
refitted by 1900 in Scotland and northern English shipyards. Within 5 years,
172 shipments of frozen meat were sent from New Zealand to the United
76 Merchant ship types

Kingdom. Refrigerated shipping also led to a broader meat and dairy boom
in Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, which remains the same today.
In 1880, the Nelson brothers of Ireland started shipping live beef from
County Meath, Ireland to Liverpool, England. They successfully expanded
their beef business until their imports from Ireland were insufficient to sup-
ply their rapidly growing business. Nelson decided to investigate the possi-
bility of importing meat from Argentina. The first refrigerated ship they
bought was the Spindrift, which they renamed in 1890 to the SS Highland
Scot. A vessel of 3060 gross, the vessel was fitted with a primitive refrigerat-
ing plant, which operated on the cold-air system. Although not particularly
technologically advanced, even for the time, the vessel became one of the
pioneer vessels in the cross-Atlantic trade of refrigerated meat and other
perishable commodities. Their regularly scheduled shipments and ships
developed into the Nelson Line that was formed in 1880 for the meat trade
from Argentina to the United Kingdom. Refrigeration made it possible to
import meat from the United States, New Zealand, Argentina, and Australia.
All their ships had a ‘Highland’ first name. Nelson Line began passenger
services in 1910 between London, England, and Buenos Aires, Argentina,
and in 1913 came under control of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.
In 1932, Royal Mail Group collapsed, after which Royal Mail Lines, Ltd.
was formed, and Nelson Lines merged into the new company.
The United Fruit Company has used some type of reefers, often combined
with cruise ship passenger accommodations, since about 1889. Because
their cargo mostly consisted of bananas, they were nicknamed the ‘Banana
Fleet’ and their vessels, the eponymous ‘banana boats’. As the ships were
painted bright white, to reflect sunlight and reduce heat build-up in the
holds, in 1910, the company’s ships received the moniker the ‘“Great White
Fleet’. Since bananas are light and the normal shipping route was to Central
America and then back to various North American ports, these ships were
often built as combination cargo ships and what are now called cruise ships
to pay for more of their operating expenses. To avoid American shipping
regulations and taxes, they were registered in six other countries, with very
few now maintaining United States registry. In the 1980s, the United Fruit
Company was taken over by Chiquita Brands International, which now
owns the largest fleet of banana boats in the world, none of which sails
under the United States Flag.
According to the UNCTAD, there were 53,973 registered merchant
ships in the world in 2021, with a total gross tonnage of 2,116,401,000
dwt. Of this, 548 were designed as refrigerated cargo ships. Because of the
proliferation of self-contained refrigerated container systems on container
ships, there are many more ships than those designed for only refrigerated
cargo that are also carrying some refrigerated cargo. As of 2021, the coun-
tries with the largest numbers of reefer ships in their registries are the
world’s two most prominent flags of convenience: Panama (212) and
Liberia (109).
 Reefer ships 77

REFRIGERATED CARGO SYSTEMS

Reefer or refrigerated cargo can be shipped using several different systems,

depending on the type of cargo, the class of vessel, the shipment time and
distance, and the availability of different methods of containment.

Refrigerated containers
A refrigerated container or reefer is an intermodal container (shipping
container) used in intermodal freight transport that is capable of refrigera-
tion for the transportation of temperature-sensitive, perishable cargo such as
fruits, vegetables, meat, and other comparable items. While a reefer will have
an integral refrigeration unit, they rely on external power, from electrical
power points (‘reefer points’) at a land-based site, a container ship, or on
quay. When being transported by road on a trailer or on a railway wagon,
they can be powered from diesel powered generators (‘gen sets’), which
attach to the container. Refrigerated containers are capable of controlling
temperatures ranging from −65°C (−85°F) to 40°C (104°F). Some reefers
are equipped with a water-cooling system, which can be used if the reefer
is stored below deck on a vessel without adequate ventilation to remove the
heat generated. Water cooling systems are more expensive than air current
ventilation to remove heat from cargo holds, and the use of water-cooling
systems is declining. Air cooling and water cooling are usually combined. The
impact on society of reefer containers is vast, allowing consumers all over the
world to enjoy fresh produce at any time of year, without any obvious sign
of quality diminishment. Another refrigeration system sometimes used where
the journey time is short is total loss refrigeration, in which frozen carbon
dioxide ice (or sometimes liquid nitrogen) is used for cooling. The cryogen-
ically frozen gas slowly evaporates, and thus cools the container. The con-
tainer is cooled for as long as there is frozen gas available in the system. These
have been used in railway cars for many years, providing up to 17 days of
temperature regulation. Full-size intermodal containers equipped with these
‘cryogenic’ systems can maintain their temperature for the 30 days needed for
sea transport. Since they do not require an external power supply, cryogen-
ically refrigerated containers can be stored anywhere on any vessel that can
accommodate ‘dry’ (i.e. un-refrigerated) ocean freight containers (Figure 5.2).
Valuable, temperature-sensitive, or hazardous cargo often require utmost
system reliability. This type of reliability can only be achieved through the
installation of a redundant refrigeration system. A redundant refrigeration
system consists of integrated primary and back-up refrigeration units. If the
primary unit malfunctions, the secondary unit automatically starts. To pro-
vide reliable power to the refrigeration units, these containers are often fit-
ted with one or more diesel generator sets. Containers fitted with these
systems may be required for transporting certain dangerous goods to com-
ply with IMO regulations.
78 Merchant ship types

Figure 5.2 R eefer containers.

Insulated containers
Insulated shipping containers are a type of packaging used to ship temper-
ature sensitive products such as foods, pharmaceuticals, organs, blood, bio-
logic materials, vaccines, and chemicals. The term can also refer to insulated
intermodal containers or insulated swap bodies. A variety of constructions
have been developed. Typically, insulated shipping containers are con-
structed of a vacuum flask, similar to a ‘thermos’ bottle, fabricated thermal
blankets or liners, moulded expanded polystyrene foam (EPS, Styrofoam),
other moulded foams such as polyurethane, polyethylene, sheets of foamed
plastics, vacuum insulated panels (VIPs), reflective materials such as metal-
lised film, bubble wrap or other gas filled panels, and other packaging mate-
rials and structures. Some are designed for singular use, while others are
returnable for reuse. Some insulated containers are decommissioned refrig-
eration units. Some empty containers are sent to the shipper disassembled or
‘knocked down’, assembled and used, then knocked down again for easier
return shipment. Shipping containers are available for maintaining cryo-
genic temperatures, with the use of liquid nitrogen. Some carriers offer these
as a specialised service. Insulated shipping containers are part of a com-
prehensive cold chain which controls and documents the temperature of a
product through its entire distribution cycle. The containers may be used
with a refrigerant or coolant such as block or cube ice, slurry ice, dry ice, gel
or ice packs (often formulated for specific temperature ranges), and phase
change materials (PCMs). Some products (such as frozen meat) have suffi-
cient thermal mass to contribute to the temperature control and no excess
coolant is required. A digital temperature data logger or time temperature
indicator is often enclosed to monitor the temperature inside the container
 Reefer ships 79

for its entire shipment. Labels and appropriate documentation (internal and
external) are usually required.
Personnel throughout the cold chain need to be aware of the special
handling and documentation required for some controlled shipments.
With some regulated products, complete documentation is required. The
use of ‘off the shelf’ insulated shipping containers does not necessarily
guarantee proper performance; therefore, several factors need to be consid-
ered, including:

• the sensitivity of the product to temperatures (high and low) and to

time at temperatures;
• the specific distribution system being used, that is the expected (and
worst case) time and temperatures;
• regulatory requirements;
• the specific combination of packaging components and materials being
used.

In specifying an insulated shipping container, the two primary characteris-

tics of the material are its thermal conductivity or R-value, and its thickness.
These two attributes help determine the resistance to heat transfer from
the ambient environment into the payload space. The coolant material load
temperature, quantity, latent heat, and sensible heat help determine the
amount of heat the parcel can absorb while maintaining the desired con-
trol temperature. Combining the attributes from the insulator and coolant
allows analysis of the expected duration of the insulated shipping container
system. It is wise (and sometimes mandatory) to achieve formal verifica-
tion of the performance of the insulated shipping container. Laboratory
package testing might include ASTM D3103-07, Standard Test Method
for Thermal Insulation Performance of Packages, ISTA Guide 5B: Focused
Simulation Guide for Thermal Performance Testing of Temperature Con­
trolled Transport Packaging, and others. In addition, validation of field per-
formance (performance qualification) is extremely useful.

Environmental impact
Parcel to pallet-sized insulated shipping containers have historically been
single-use products due to the low-cost material composition of EPS and
water-based gel packs. The insulation material typically finds its way into
landfill streams, as it is not readily recyclable in most American and European
recycling processes. The development of reusable high-performance ship-
ping containers has been shown to reduce packing waste by 95% while also
contributing significant savings to other environmental pollutants.
In this chapter, we have looked at the basic features of reefer or refriger-
ated ships. These are ships which have been specially designed to carry
chilled and or frozen cargoes. By keeping the cargo refrigerated, the quality
80 Merchant ship types

and lifespan of the cargo is maintained. In the next chapter, we will turn our
attention to roll on or roll off vessels.

NOTE

1 Long tonne, also known as the imperial tonne or displacement ton, is the name
for the unit called the ‘tonne’ in the Imperial system of measurements (the avoir-
dupois system of weights). It was standardised in the 13th century. It is used in
the United Kingdom and several other Commonwealth countries alongside the
mass-based metric tonne defined in 1799, as well as in the United States for bulk
commodities. It is not to be confused with the short tonne, a unit of weight equal
to 2000 lbs (907.18474 kg) used in the United States, and in Canada before
metrication.
Chapter 6

RORO vessels

RORO ships are cargo ships designed to carry wheeled cargo such as cars,
trucks, semi-trailer trucks, buses, trailers, and railroad cars, which are driven
on and off the ship on their own wheels or using a platform vehicle, such
as a self-propelled modular transporter. This contrasts with LOLO vessels,
which use a crane to load and unload cargo. RORO vessels have either
built-in or shore-based ramps or ferry slips that allow the cargo to be effi-
ciently rolled on and off the vessel when in port. While smaller ferries that
operate across rivers and other short distances often have built-in ramps, the
term RORO is reserved for large oceangoing vessels. The ramps and doors
may be in the stern, bow, or sides, or a combination thereof. The RORO
ship offers several advantages over traditional ship types. For the shipper,
the number one benefit is speed. Since cars and lorries can drive straight into
the ship at one port, and off again at the next port, usually within a few min-
utes of docking, this saves substantial time. It also integrates well with other
cargo carrying methods such as containers. This has led to the development
of hybrid vessels that carry both mobile cargoes and containers. Types of
RORO vessels include ferries, cruise ferries, cargo ships, and barges. New
automobiles that are transported by ship are often moved on a large type
of RORO called a pure car carrier (PCC) or pure car/truck carrier (PCTC)
(Figure 6.1).
Elsewhere in the shipping industry, cargo is normally measured by the
tonne, but RORO cargo is typically measured by lanes in metres (LIMs).
This is calculated by multiplying the cargo LIM by the number of decks and
by its width in lanes. Lane widths differ from vessel to vessel, and there are
several industry standards. The most used method for car ferries is a strip of
deck 1 m (3.28 ft) long. A lane is conventionally 2 m (6.56 ft) wide, so that
a lane metre is equivalent to 2 m2 (21.528 ft2). On ferries, the rule of thumb
is that a car on a car ferry will need six lane metres, and a European semi-
trailer 18 lane metres. On PCCs, cargo capacity is often measured in RT or
RT43 units (based on a 1966 Toyota Corolla, the first mass-produced car to
be shipped in specialised car-carriers and used as the basis for RORO vessel
size. One RT is approximately 4 m (13.12 ft) of lane space required to store
a 1.5 m (4.92 ft) wide Toyota Corolla) or in car-equivalent units (CEUs).

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-8 81
82 Merchant ship types

Figure 6.1 Typical roll on roll off ferry P&O Pride of Hull.

The largest RORO passenger ferry is the MS Color Magic, a 75,100 dwt
cruise ferry that entered service in September 2007 for Color Line A/S of
Norway. Built in Finland by Aker Finnyards, the vessel has a length overall
of 223.70 m (733.11 ft) long and a beam of 35 m (114.10 ft), with a maxi-
mum capacity of 550 cars, or 1270 LIM of cargo. The RORO passenger
ferry with the greatest car-carrying capacity is the Ulysses (named after the
novel by James Joyce) and owned by Irish Ferries. Ulysses entered service on
25 March 2001 and operates between Dublin, Ireland, and Holyhead in
Wales. The 50,938 metric-tonne ship has length overall of 209.02 m (685.9
ft), a beam of 31.84 m (104.6 ft), and a maximum carrying capacity of
1,342 cars over 4,101 lane metres of cargo (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 Variations of different RORO vessels

Category Description
ConRO The ConRO (or RoCon) vessel is a hybrid of a RORO and a container ship.
This type of vessel has a below-deck area used for vehicle storage while
stacking containerised freight on the top decks. ConRo ships, such as the
G4 class of Atlantic Container Line, can carry a combination of containers,
heavy equipment, oversized cargo, cars, and commercial vehicles.
A separate internal ramp system within the vessel segregates the cars and
commercial vehicles from other vehicles, Mafi roll trailers, and break-bulk
cargo.
(Continued)
 RORO vessels 83

Table 6.1 (Continued) Variations of different RORO vessels

Category Description
LMSR Large, Medium-Speed RORO (LMSR) refers to several classes of United
States Military Sealift Command (MSC) RORO type cargo ships. Some are
purpose-built to carry military cargo, while others are converted civilian
vessels.
ROLO A ROLO (roll-on/lift-off) vessel is another hybrid vessel type, with ramps
serving vehicle decks but with other cargo decks only accessible when the
tides change or by crane.
ROPAX The acronym ROPAX (roll-on/roll-off passenger) describes a RORO vessel
built for freight vehicle transport along with passenger accommodation.
Technically, this encompasses all ferries with both a RORO car deck and
passenger-carrying capacities, but in practice, ships with facilities for more
than 500 passengers are often referred to as cruise ferries.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RORO VESSEL

At first, wheeled vehicles carried as cargo on oceangoing ships were treated

like any other cargo. Cars had their fuel tanks emptied and their batter-
ies disconnected before being hoisted into the ship’s hold, where they were
chocked and secured. This process was tedious and difficult, and vehicles
were subject to damage and could not be used for routine travel. The first
known Roll On, Roll Off service was a train ferry, started in 1833 by the
Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway, which operated a wagon ferry on
the Forth and Clyde Canal in Scotland. The first modern train ferry, the
Leviathan, was built in 1849. The Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway
was formed in 1842 and the company wished to extend the East Coast Main
Line further north to Dundee and Aberdeen. As bridge technology was not
yet capable enough to provide adequate support for crossing over the Firth
of Forth, which was five miles across, a different solution had to be found.
The company hired the up-and-coming civil engineer Thomas Bouch who
argued for a train ferry with a RORO mechanism to maximise the efficiency
of the system. Ferries were to be custom-built, with railway lines and match-
ing harbour facilities at both ends to allow the rolling stock to easily drive
on and off. To compensate for the changing tides, adjustable ramps were
positioned at the harbours and the gantry structure height was varied by
moving it along the slipway. The wagons were loaded on and off with the
use of stationary steam engines. Although other engineers had similar ideas,
Bouch was the first to put them into effect, and did so with an attention to
detail (such as design of the ferry slip), which led a subsequent President
of the Institution of Civil Engineers to settle any dispute over priority of
invention with the observation that ‘there was little merit in a simple con-
ception of this kind, compared with a work practically carried out in all its
details, and brought to perfection’. The company was persuaded to install
this train ferry service for the transportation of goods wagons across the
84 Merchant ship types

Firth of Forth from Burntisland in Fife to Granton. The ferry itself was built
by Thomas Grainger, a partner of the firm Grainger and Miller. The service
commenced on 3 February 1850 and was called ‘the Floating Railway’. The
floating railway was initially intended as a temporary measure only until
such time as the railway could build a bridge over the Firth of Forth. In fact,
a bridge across the Forth was not completed until 1890, partly because of
the catastrophic failure of Bouch’s Tay Rail Bridge in 1879.
Train-ferry services were used extensively during World War I (1914–
1918). From 10 February 1918, high volumes of railway rolling stock, artil-
lery, and supplies for the Front were shipped to France from the ‘secret port’
of Richborough, near Sandwich on the south coast of England. This involved
the construction of three train-ferries, each with four sets of railway lines on
the main deck to allow for up to 54 railway wagons to be shunted directly
on and off the ferry. These train-ferries could also be used to transport motor
vehicles along with railway rolling stock. Later that month, a second train-
ferry was established from the Port of Southampton on the south-east coast
of England. In the first month of operations at Richborough, 5,000 long
tonnes were transported across the English Channel. By the end of 1918,
this had increased to 261,000 long tonnes. There were many advantages of
the use of train-ferries over conventional shipping in World War I. It was
much easier to move the large, heavy artillery and tanks that this kind of
modern warfare required using train-ferries as opposed to repeated loading
and unloading of cargo. With manufacturers loading tanks, guns, and other
heavy munitions for shipping to the front directly on to wagons, which
could be shunted on to a train-ferry in England and then shunted directly on

Figure 6.2 T
 ypical roll on roll off container ship, Rosa Delmas, formerly Rosa
Tucano, at La Rochelle, France.
 RORO vessels 85

to the French railway network, with direct connections to the front lines,
many man hours of unnecessary labour were saved. An analysis conducted
at the time found that to transport 1,000 long tonnes of war materiel from
the point of manufacture to the front by conventional means involved the
use of 1,500 labourers. When using train-ferries, that number decreased to
around 100 labourers. This was of utmost importance, as by 1918, the
British Railway companies were experiencing a severe shortage of labour
with hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled labourers away fighting
at the front. This meant economies and efficiency in transport had to be
made wherever possible. After the signing of the Armistice on 11 November
1918, train ferries were used extensively for the return of materiel from the
front. Indeed, according to British War Office statistics, a greater tonnage of
materiel was transported by train ferry from Richborough in 1919 than in
1918. As the train ferries had space for motor transport as well as railway
rolling stock, thousands of lorries, motor cars, and ‘B Type’ buses used these
ferries to return from the continent.
During World War II (1939–1945), landing ships were the first purpose-
built seagoing ships enabling road vehicles to roll directly on and off. The
British evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940 demonstrated to the Admiralty that
the Allies needed large, ocean-going ships capable of shore-to-shore delivery
of tanks and other vehicles to facilitate amphibious assaults across the
beaches of Europe. As an interim measure, three 4,000 and 4,800 tonne
tankers, built to pass over the restrictive bars of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela,
were selected for conversion because of their shallow draught. Bow doors
and ramps were added to these ships, which became the first tank landing
ships. The first purpose-built LST design was HMS Boxer. It was a scaled
down design from ideas penned by Winston Churchill. To carry 13 Churchill
type infantry tanks, 27 vehicles and 200 men (in addition to the crew) at a
speed of 18 knots, it could not have the shallow draught that would have
made for easy unloading. As a result, each of the three vessels (HMS Boxer,
HMS Bruiser, and HMS Thruster) ordered in March 1941 had a long ramp
stowed behind the bow doors. In November 1941, a small delegation from
the British Admiralty arrived in the United States to pool ideas with the
United States Navy’s Bureau of Ships regarding the development of ships
and including the possibility of building further Boxer class vessels. During
this meeting, it was decided that the Bureau of Ships would design these
vessels. As with the standing agreement, these would be built by the
Americans so British shipyards could concentrate on building vessels for
the Royal Navy. The specification called for vessels capable of crossing the
Atlantic and the original title given to them was ‘Atlantic Tank Landing
Craft’ (Atlantic (TLC). Calling a vessel 91 m (300 ft) long a ‘craft’ was con-
sidered a misnomer and the type was re-christened ‘Landing Ship, Tank (2)’,
or ‘LST (2)’. The LST (2) design incorporated elements of the first British
LCTs from their designer, Sir Rowland Baker, who was part of the British
delegation. This included sufficient buoyancy in the ships’ sidewalls that
86 Merchant ship types

they would float even with the tank deck flooded. The LST (2) gave up the
speed of HMS Boxer at only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h) but had a similar
load while drawing only 0.91 m (3 ft) forward when beaching. In three sep-
arate acts dated 6 February 1942, 26 May 1943, and 17 December 1943,
the United States Congress provided the authority for the construction of
LSTs along with a host of other auxiliaries, destroyer escorts, and assorted
landing craft. The enormous building programme quickly gathered momen-
tum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the
previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room
for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid
down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Virginia, and the first standard-
ised LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. In total,
23 LST (2) class vessels were commissioned by the end of 1942.
At the end of World War I, vehicles were brought back from France to
Richborough using the train ferry service. During the war, British service-
men recognised the enormous potential of landing ships and craft. The idea
was simple: if you could drive tanks, munitions, and lorries directly onto a
ship and then drive them off at the other end directly onto a beach, then
theoretically you could use the same landing craft to conduct the same oper-
ation in the civilian commercial market, providing there were appropriate
port facilities. From this idea grew the worldwide RORO industry of today.
During the intervening period between the world wars, Lt. Colonel Frank
Bustard formed the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, with a view to
commencing cheap transatlantic travel. Although this never materialised,
during the war, he observed trials on Brighton Sands of an LST in 1943
when its peacetime capabilities were obvious. In spring 1946, the company
approached the Admiralty with a request to purchase three of these vessels.
The Admiralty were unwilling to sell, but after negotiations agreed to let the
ASN have the use of three vessels on bareboat charter at a rate of £13 6s 8d
per day. These vessels, LSTs 3519, 3534, and 3512, were renamed Empire
Baltic, Empire Cedric, and Empire Celtic, respectively, perpetuating the
name of the White Star Line ships in combination with the ‘Empire’ ship
naming of vessels in government service during the war. On the morning
of 11 September 1946, the first voyage of the Atlantic Steam Navigation
Company took place when Empire Baltic sailed from Tilbury in England
to Rotterdam, the Netherlands, with a full load of 64 vehicles for the
Dutch Government. The original three LSTs were joined in 1948 by
another vessel, LST 3041, renamed Empire Doric, after the ASN were able
to convince commercial operators to support the new route between
Preston, northern England, and the Port of Larne in Northern Ireland. The
first sailing of this new route took place on 21 May 1948 by Empire
Cedric. After the inaugural sailing, Empire Cedric continued the Northern
Ireland service, offering initially a twice-weekly service. Empire Cedric
was the first vessel of the ASN fleet to hold a passenger certificate and was
 RORO vessels 87

allowed to carry 50 passengers. Thus, Empire Cedric became the first vessel
in the world to operate as a commercial/passenger ROPAX ferry, and the
ASN became the first commercial company to offer this type of service.
The first RORO service crossing the English Channel began from Dover
in 1953. In 1954, the British Transport Commission (BTC) took over the
ASN under the then Labour Government’s nationalisation policy. In 1955,
another two LSTs where chartered into the existing fleet, Empire Cymric
and Empire Nordic, bringing the fleet strength to seven. The Hamburg ser-
vice was terminated in 1955, and a new service was opened between
Antwerp and Tilbury. The fleet of seven ships was to be split up with the
usual three ships based at Tilbury and the others maintaining the Preston to
Northern Ireland service. During late 1956, the entire fleet of ASN were
taken over for use in the Mediterranean during the Suez Crisis, and the
drive-on/drive-off services were not re-established until January 1957. At
this point, ASN were made responsible for the management of 12 Admiralty
LST (3)s brought out of reserve because of the Suez Crisis but were too late
to see service. The first RORO vessel that was purpose-built to transport
loaded semi-trailers was Searoad of Hyannis, which began operation in
1956. While modest in capacity, it could transport three semitrailers
between Hyannis in Massachusetts and Nantucket Island. In 1957, the US
military issued a contract to the Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company
in Chester, Pennsylvania, for the construction of a new type of motorised
vehicle carrier. The ship, USNS Comet, had a stern ramp as well as interior
ramps, which allowed cars to drive directly from the dock, onto the ship, and
into place. This method of loading and unloading was sped up dramatically.
The USNS Comet also had an adjustable chocking system for locking cars
onto the decks and a ventilation system to remove exhaust gases that accu-
mulated during vehicle loading. During the 1982 Falklands War, the SS
Atlantic Conveyor was requisitioned as an emergency aircraft and helicopter
transport for British Hawker Siddeley Harrier STOVL fighter planes; one
Harrier was kept fuelled, armed, and ready to VTOL launch for emergency
air protection against long range Argentine aircraft. SS Atlantic Conveyor
was sunk by Argentine Exocet missiles after offloading the Harriers to proper
aircraft carriers, but the vehicles and helicopters still on board were lost.
The first cargo ships specially fitted for the transport of massive quantities
of cars came into service in the early 1960s, when Volkswagen AG of
Germany started exporting cars en masse to North America and Canada.
During the 1970s, the market for exporting and importing cars had increased
dramatically and the number and type of ROROs also increased. In 1970,
Japan’s K Line built the Toyota Maru No.10, Japan’s first PCC, followed in
1973 by the European Highway, what was then the largest PCC at that time
with a maximum capacity of 4200 vehicles. Today’s PCCs and their sibling,
the pure car truck carrier, are distinctive ships with a box-like superstructure
running the entire length and breadth of the hull, fully enclosing the cargo.
88 Merchant ship types

They typically have a stern ramp and a side ramp for dual loading of thou-
sands of vehicles (such as cars, trucks, heavy machineries, tracked units,
Mafi roll trailers, and loose statics), and extensive automatic fire control
systems. The PCTC has liftable decks to increase vertical clearance, as well
as heavier decks for ‘high-and-heavy’ cargo. A 6,500 unit car ship, with 12
decks, can have three decks, which can take cargo up to 150 short tonnes
(136 t; 134 long tonnes) with liftable panels to increase clearance from 1.7
to 6.7 m (from 5.7 to 22.0 ft) on some decks, albeit by lifting decks to
accommodate higher cargo, reduces total carrying capacity. These vessels
can achieve a cruising speed of 16 knots at eco-speed, while at full speed can
achieve more than 19 knots. In 2007, the Swedish/Norwegian shipping
company Wallenius Wilhelmsen launched the 8,000-car equivalent unit car
carrier, Faust. This was the first of a new series of large car and truck carriers
(LCTC). Currently, the largest car carrying vessels are the Horizon class
owned by Norwegian company Höegh Autoliners, which have a capacity of
8500 CEU each. The car carrier Auriga Leader, belonging to Japan’s Nippon
Yusen Kaisha, built in 2008 with a capacity of 6,200 cars, was the world’s
first partially solar powered ship.

RORO STOWAGE AND SECURING OF CARGO

ROROs are often considered the workhorses of the sea, with their versa-
tility to transport diverse cargoes and short port turnarounds. Given the
fact that the cargo carrying capacity of any vessel determines the vessel’s
revenue potential, it is important to make optimal use of all available cargo
space. With ROROs, this has become bit of a double-edged sword, with
crews trying to match the unique characteristics of rolling cargo with static
containerised cargo (e.g. awkward shapes, difficulties securing the cargo on
deck, the lack of transverse bulkheads, loading conditions, and stability and
rolling periods). To ensure cargoes are stowed correctly, and using the most
optimum configuration possible, it is important to consider the shipper’s
special advice or guidelines regarding the handling and stowage of individ-
ual vehicles and cargo units. This typically means aligning vehicles in a fore
to aft direction, and as closely together athwartships, so that in the event
of a failure of the securing arrangements, the transverse movement of the
cargo is restricted. This complex arrangement is further complicated by the
need to maintain void spaces around the water spray fire curtains, operating
controls for the bow and stern doors, entrances to accommodation spaces,
ladders, stairways, companionways, access hatches, firefighting equipment,
controls to deck scupper valves, and controls to the ventilation trunk fire
dampers. Moreover, sufficient space must be kept between the front and
rear of each vehicle to allow easy access for passengers and crew members.
Parking brakes, where provided, must be applied fully. For semi-trailers, that
is those trailers uncoupled from the prime mover, must not be supported on
 RORO vessels 89

their landing legs during sea transport, unless the landing legs are specif-
ically designed for use at sea and marked accordingly. The deck plates of
the vessel must also be rated with sufficient strength to support the point
loadings. Where the semi-trailer is not supported by their own landing legs,
trestle supports, or similar devices should be placed in the immediate area of
the drawplates so that the connection of the fifth wheel to the kingpin is not
restricted. Depending on the area of operation, the predominant weather
conditions, and the characteristics of the ship, freight vehicles should be
stowed so that the chassis is kept as static as possible by not allowing free
play in the suspension. This can be done by securing the vehicle to the deck
as tightly as the lashing tensioning device permits or by jacking up the freight
vehicle chassis prior to securing, or, in the case of compressed air suspension
systems, by first releasing the air pressure where this facility is provided.
Since compressed air suspension systems lose air, adequate arrangements
should be made to prevent the slackening of lashings because of air leakage
during the voyage. Such arrangements may include the jacking up of the
vehicle or the release of air from the suspension system where this facility
is provided. Proper securing of any cargo is of absolute importance to the
safety of life at sea. The shape of RORO ships is such that any condition of
instability can lead to disaster (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3 C ar carrier Atlas Leader, arriving Casablanca, Morocco.

90 Merchant ship types

SAFETY ASPECTS

The IMO categorises ships according to their freeboard and internal subdi-
visions. Accordingly, there are two categories: Class A and Class B. Class A
ships are those which have fewer sea openings and are thus better protected
from the sea. They also have stringent subdivision restrictions. Class B ships,
however, are those which have a higher freeboard and are governed by less
stringent subdivision rules. Because of their unique design, RORO ships fall
under the Class B categorisation. This is partly due to the presence of a large
opening to the bow, stern or sides of the vessel, and the lack of integral
transverse subdivision bulkheads from fore to aft. Whilst this might seem
counter-intuitive from a design and safety perspective, it is necessary for the
free flow of mobilised cargo onto and off the vessel. It is worth examining
these design issues in a little more detail to understand the cause, justifica-
tion, and consequences of the vessel design.

Lack of subdivisional bulkheads

As we have mentioned, RORO ships are designed and built without the
standard transverse subdivisional bulkheads found in most other classifica-
tions and categories of ships. The problem with not having transverse sub-
division bulkheads is an adverse one. Transverse bulkheads are incorporated
into the ship’s structure to maintain the damaged stability or watertight
integrity of the ship in the event of any of the compartment’s flooding. To
a much lesser extent, bulkheads may also restrict the spread of fire. The
bulkheads work by dividing the vessel into smaller compartments. Each
compartment is sealed less for access gangways, companionways, and void
spaces for pipes and cables. Should one or more compartments become
flooded, the adjacent compartments should remain sealed and dry. Provided
the ship remains stable, and no further compartments are affected, the ship
will remain afloat. Without these transverse bulkheads, there is nothing to
prevent the progressive flooding of the ship’s hull. This not only causes the
ship to lose inherent buoyancy, but also leads to the development of free
surface effect. Free surface effect is not limited to RORO vessels, as we noted
in the chapter on bulk carriers, but it is fair to suggest that RORO vessels are
more prone, and therefore more likely to be affected by, free surface effect
caused by progressive flooding (Figure 6.4).

Maintaining stability
Every RORO ship, being a Class B type of vessel, has considerable freeboard,
which means it operates at a low draught. RORO ships have multiple tiers
of decks for the stowage of different cargoes. Cars and commercial vehicles
tend to be layered on hoistable or adjustable decks, with trailers and other
large or out of gauge cargoes stowed under and around. This requires higher
 RORO vessels 91

Figure 6.4 Inside the hull of a typical RORO vessel.

overhead clearances. Because of this, the depth of these ships tends to be

extremely high, owing to a high depth to draught ratio. Cargo is stowed up
to the top-most deck, resulting in the rise in the accommodation deck. As a
result of the increased depth to draught ratio, these ships are extremely sen-
sitive to heeling moments. A heeling moment might not only be created by
wind gusts or waves, but also by the shifting of internal cargo. Thus, cargo
latching and locking systems must be regularly checked and ensured to pre-
vent cargo shifts during voyages. Furthermore, heeling moments in lightship
conditions can be prevented by incorporating heeling tanks at the port and
starboard sides. Sadly, there have been many cases of RORO ships capsizing
due to rapid heeling moments, giving the crew extraordinarily little time for
proper evacuation. The sinking of the MV Sewol in Korea, 2014, and the
MS Express Samina (2000), are examples of just how much RORO ships are
at the mercy of the sea.

Vessel stiffness
Though this issue is related to stability, and is quite a complex and technical
subject, it is interesting to discuss, nonetheless. The steel structure of RORO
ships is designed to have an exceptionally low centre of gravity, as cargo is
loaded up to the top-most deck. This offsets the rise in the ship’s centre of
gravity. But due to the risk of rapid heeling, the overall centre of gravity of
92 Merchant ship types

RORO ships must be kept low. Though doing so improves the ship’s stabil-
ity, it creates a problem itself. A reduced centre of gravity will always tend to
decrease the rolling period of the ship. This means it will feel as if the ship is
rolling too fast. Ships are designed, by the nature of their bottom hulls and
ballast conditions, to return to their upright position. Ideally, this should
happen rapidly but not so rapidly as to roll the vessel to the opposite side.
Incidentally, it is this rolling motion that causes seasickness. When a ship
rolls rapidly from one side to its upright centre, it is said to be stiff. Stiffness
places high stresses on cargo lashing systems, which can cause them fail.
When the lashing snaps or splits, rolling cargo can begin to shift leading the
vessel to lose stability.

The cargo doors

Other than doors on the port and starboard sides, RORO ships also have aft
or bow doors fitted with ramps. This facilitates the loading and unloading
of heavier cargoes and rolling stock. Both these door types highlight the
current problems in terms of vessel safety.

The stern door

By necessity of design, stern cargo doors are positioned close to the water-
line of the ship. Where the stern door has not been properly secured, which
is tantamount to gross human error as improper locking as the bridge and
crew are notified by the ship’s systems, as the ship transits out to sea, the
improperly locked stern door may serve as the source of water ingress.
Though this is a consequence of human error, several efforts to alter the
design of these doors have been made, though it is impossible to position
the stern door any higher above the waterline than is currently the case, as
this would inhibit the operation of the stern ramp and the easy free flow of
incoming and outgoing cargo (Figure 6.5).

The bow door

Many types of RORO ships are fitted with bow doors wherein the bow of
the ship is itself a hydraulically hinged structure, which acts as a door, and
out from which a ramp extends for cargo flow in and out of the ship. The
bow of the ship is especially vulnerable to the impact of waves as the ship
surges forward. This impact carries on continuously. Within the required
time, the bow can begin to exhibit extreme stress, and without attention,
will begin warp and fail. When this happens, it is a matter of time before the
bow door is disgorged. One of the worst maritime accidents to occur in the
history of merchant shipping involved this design of ship. The MV Estonia
sank in the Baltic Sea on 28 September 1994 with the loss of 852 passengers
and crew. Only 137 survivors made it ashore out of a full passenger and
 RORO vessels 93

Figure 6.5 S tern ramp of the Mærsk Willow.

crew manifest of 989 people. In the incident involving the MV Estonia, the
bow door securing mechanism failed through a combination of poor main-
tenance and metal fatigue. Between 00:55 and 01:50, a series of particularly
large frontal waves ripped the bow door off the vessel leaving the car decks
hopelessly exposed. As the ship was fully laden, departing the Port of Tallin
with a slight list towards starboard, caused by poor cargo distribution, there
was truly little the crew could have done to save the stricken ship. Although
the main cause of the MV Estonia’s sinking was progressive down flooding
caused by the loss of the bow door, the effect of ‘rapid heeling’ prevented the
crew from evacuating the passengers quickly enough (Figure 6.6, Table 6.2).

Location of lifeboats
This is a matter of concern for all vessels, but especially so for RORO pas-
senger ships. As we know that RORO vessels have a high freeboard, it is
important to note the risk attached to such a design. In the event of rapid
sinking, there have been cases where the lifeboats could not be successfully
deployed from the embarkation deck due to its height above the waterline.
It is due to this risk that most modern ROPAX ships are now equipped with
inflatable chutes, which help passengers slide down from the embarkation
deck, whenever the deployment of lifeboats is impeded (Figure 6.7).
Commercially, RORO ships have been one of the most successful due to
their flexibility, integration into the global logistic chain, and operational
speed. Yet, despite their commercial success, ROROs have always received
94 Merchant ship types

Figure 6.6 B ow door on the GNV Cristal.

Table 6.2 Passengers and crew of the MV Estonia

Nationalities Deaths Survivors Total
Sweden 501 51 5,525
Estonia 285 62 347
Latvia 23 6 29
Russia 11 4 15
Finland 10 3 13
Norway 6 3 9
Germany 5 3 8
Denmark 5 1 6
Lithuania 3 1 4
Morocco 2 0 2
Netherlands 1 1 2
Ukraine 1 1 2
United Kingdom 1 1 2
Belarus 1 0 1
Canada 1 0 1
France 1 0 1
Nigeria 1 0 1
Total 852 137 989
Most passengers on board the MV Estonia were Swedish, although some were of Estonian ori-
gin. Most of the crew, including the master, Captain Arvo Andresson, were Estonian. Captain
Andresson did not survive.
 RORO vessels 95

Figure 6.7 T
 ypical placement of lifeboats on the ROPAX vessel MS Lubeck Link,
Travemünde, Germany.

criticism for their design. In fact, it is those design factors which give ROROs
their success is also in many respects the reason they can so spectacularly
fail. The lack of internal bulkheads, a large cargo access door, poor stability,
low freeboards, poor cargo stowage and securing practices, poor crew train-
ing, and poor provision and maintenance of lifesaving equipment are some
of the major contributors to RORO-related incidents.
In the next chapter, we will look at fishing vessels.
Chapter 7

Fishing vessels

A fishing vessel is a boat or ship used to catch fish in the sea, or on a lake or
river. Many kinds of vessels are used in commercial, artisanal, and recrea-
tional fishing. The total number of fishing vessels in the world in 2016 was
estimated to be about 4.6 million, unchanged from 2006. The fishing fleet
in Asia is by far the largest, consisting of 3.5 million vessels, accounting for
75% of the global fleet. In Africa and North America, the estimated number
of vessels declined from 2014 by just over 30,000 and by 5,000, respectively.
For Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean and Oceania, the numbers have
all increased, largely because of improvements in estimation procedures. It
is difficult to estimate the number of recreational fishing boats, as they range
in size from small dinghies to large charter cruisers, and unlike commercial
fishing vessels, are often not dedicated just to fishing. Prior to the 1950s,
there was little standardisation of fishing boats. Designs varied between
ports and boatyards. Traditionally, the boats were built of wood, but wood
is not often used now because of higher maintenance costs and lower dura-
bility. Fibreglass is used increasingly in smaller fishing vessels up to 25 m
(82 ft), whilst steel is usually used on vessels above 25 m (82 ft) (Figure 7.1).

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING BOATS

Early fishing vessels included rafts, dugout canoes, and boats constructed
from a frame covered with animal hide or tree bark, like a coracle. The old-
est boats found by archaeological excavation are dugout canoes dating back
to the Neolithic Period around 7,000–9,000 years ago. These canoes were
often cut from coniferous tree logs, using simple stone tools. A 7,000-­year-old
seagoing boat made from reeds and tar was found in Kuwait. These early
vessels had limited capability; they could float and move on water but were
not suitable for use in any great distance from the shoreline. The develop-
ment of fishing boats took place in parallel with the development of boats
for trade and war. Early navigators began to use animal skins or woven
fabrics for sails. Affixed to a pole set upright in the boat, these sails gave

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-9 97
98 Merchant ship types

Figure 7.1 Traditional river boat used for fishing, Bon River, Vietnam.

early boats more range, allowing voyages of exploration. Around 4,000 BC,
the Egyptians were building long narrow boats powered by many oarsmen.
Over the next 1,000 years, they made a series of remarkable advances in
boat design. They developed cotton-made sails to help their boats go faster
with less work. Then, they built boats large enough to cross the oceans.
These boats had sails and oarsmen and were used for travel and trade. By
3,000 BC, the Egyptians knew how to assemble planks of wood into a ship
hull. They used woven straps to lash planks together, and reeds or grass
stuffed between the planks to seal the seams. An example of their skill is
the Khufu ship, a vessel 44 m (143 ft) in length entombed at the foot of the
Great Pyramid of Giza around 2,500 BC and found intact in 1954.
At about the same time, the Scandinavians were also building innovative
boats. People living near Kongens Lyngby in Denmark devised the idea of
segregated hull compartments, which allowed the size of boats to gradually
increase. A crew of some two dozen paddled the wooden Hjortspring boat
across the Baltic Sea long before the rise of the Roman Empire. Scandinavians
continued to develop better ships, incorporating iron and other metal into
the design, and developing oars for propulsion. By 1000 AD, the Norsemen
were pre-eminent on the oceans. They were skilled seamen and boat build-
ers, with clinker-built boat designs that varied according to the type of boat.
Trading boats, such as the knarrs, were wide to allow large cargo storage.
Raiding boats, such as the longship, were long and narrow and extremely
fast. The vessels they used for fishing were scaled-down versions of their
cargo boats. The Scandinavian innovations influenced fishing boat design
 Fishing vessels 99

long after the Viking period ended. For example, yoles from the Orkney
Island of Stroma were built in the same way as the Norse boats.
In the 15th century, the Dutch developed a type of seagoing herring drifter
that became a blueprint for European fishing boats. This was the Herring
Buss, used by Dutch herring fishermen until the early 19th centuries. The
ship-type buss has a long history. It was known around 1,000 AD in
Scandinavia as a bǘza, a robust variant of the Viking longship. The first
herring buss was built in Hoorn around 1415. The ship was about 20 m
(65 ft) long and displaced between 60 and 100 tonnes. It was a massive
round-bilged keel ship with a bluff bow and stern, the latter high, and with
a gallery. The busses used long drifting gill nets to catch the herring. The nets
would be retrieved at night and the crews of 18–30 men would set to gib-
bing, salting, and barrelling the catch on the broad deck. During the 17th
century, the British developed the dogger, an early type of sailing trawler or
long liner, which commonly operated in the North Sea. Doggers were slow
but sturdy, capable of fishing in the rough conditions of the North Sea. Like
the herring buss, they were wide-beamed and bluff-bowed, but smaller,
about 15 m (49.2 ft) long, had a maximum beam of 4.5 m (14.7 ft), a
draught of 1.5 m (5 ft), and displacing about 13 tonnes. They could carry a
tonne of bait, three tonnes of salt, half a tonne each of food and firewood
for the crew and return with six tonnes of fish. Decked areas forward and
aft provided accommodation, storage, and a cooking area. An anchor would
have allowed extended periods of fishing in the same spot, in waters up to
18 m (59 ft) deep. The dogger would also have carried a small open boat for
maintaining lines and rowing ashore.
A precursor to the dory type was the early French bateau, a flat bottom
boat with straight sides used as early as 1671 on the St. Lawrence River. The
common coastal boat of the time was the wherry and the merging of the
wherry design with the simplified flat bottom of the bateau resulted in the
birth of the dory. England, France, Italy, and Belgium have small boats from
medieval periods that could be construed as predecessors of the Dory.
Dories appeared in New England fishing towns sometime after the early
18th century. They were small, shallow-draft boats, usually about 5–7 m
(15–22 ft) long. Lightweight and versatile, with high sides, a flat bottom and
sharp bows, they were easy and cheap to build. The Banks dories appeared
in the 1830s. They were designed to be transported on mother ships and
used for fishing cod at the Grand Banks. Adapted directly from the low free-
board, French river bateaus, with their straight sides and removable thwarts,
bank dories could be nested inside each other and stored on the decks of
fishing schooners, such as the Gazela Primeiro, for their trip to the Grand
Banks fishing grounds.
By the early 19th century, fishermen at Brixham in England needed to
expand their fishing area further than ever before due to the ongoing deple-
tion of stocks that was occurring in the overfished waters of South Devon.
The Brixham trawler that evolved there was of a sleek build and had a tall
100 Merchant ship types

gaff rig, which gave the vessel sufficient speed to make long-distance trips
out to the fishing grounds in the ocean. They were also sufficiently robust to
be able to tow large trawls in deep water. The great trawling fleet that built
up at Brixham, earned the village the title of ‘Mother of Deep-Sea Fisheries’.
This revolutionary design made large-scale trawling in the ocean possible
for the first time, resulting in a massive migration of fishermen from the
ports in the South of England, to villages further north, such as Scarborough,
Hull, Grimsby, Harwich, and Yarmouth, which were points of access to the
large fishing grounds in the Atlantic Ocean. The small village of Grimsby
grew to become the largest fishing port in the world by the mid-19th
century. With the tremendous expansion in the fishing industry, the Grimsby
Dock Company was formed in 1846. The dock covered 25 acres (10 ha) and
was formally opened by Queen Victoria in 1854 as the first modern fishing
port. The facilities incorporated many innovations of the time; the dock
gates and cranes were operated by hydraulic power, and the 91 m (300 ft)
Grimsby Dock Tower was built to provide a head of water with sufficient
pressure by William Armstrong.
The elegant Brixham trawler spread across the world, influencing fishing
fleets everywhere. Their distinctive sails inspired the song Red Sails in the
Sunset, written aboard a Brixham sailing trawler called the Torbay Lass. By
the end of the 19th century, there were over 3,000 fishing trawlers in com-
mission in Britain, with almost 1,000 at Grimsby. These trawlers were
sold to fishermen around Europe, including from the Netherlands and
Scandinavia. Twelve trawlers went on to form the nucleus of the German
fishing fleet. Although fishing vessel design increasingly began to converge
around the world, local conditions still often led the development of diverse
types of fishing boats. The Lancashire nobby was used down the north-west
coast of England as a shrimp trawler from 1840 until World War II. The
Manx nobby was used around the Isle of Man as a herring drifter. The fifie
was also used as a herring drifter along the east coast of Scotland from the
1850s until well into the 20th century.
The earliest steam powered fishing boats first appeared in the 1870s and
used the trawl system of fishing as well as lines and drift nets. These were
large boats, usually 24–27 m (80–90 ft) in length with a beam of around
6.1 m (20 ft). They weighed 40–50 tonnes and travelled at 9–11 knots
(10–13 mph; 17–20 km/h). The earliest purpose-built fishing vessels were
designed and made by David Allan in Leith, Scotland, in March 1875, when
he converted a drifter to steam power. In 1877, he built the first screw pro-
pelled steam trawler in the world. This vessel was named Pioneer. She was
constructed of wood with two masts and carried a gaff rigged main and
mizen using booms, and a single foresail. In 1878, he completed Forward
and Onward, two steam-powered trawlers. Allan built a total of 10 boats at
Leith between 1877 and 1881. Twenty-one boats were completed at
Granton, his last vessel being Degrave in 1886. Most of these were sold to
 Fishing vessels 101

foreign owners in France, Belgium, Spain, and the West Indies. The first
steamboats were made of wood, but steel hulls were soon introduced and
were divided into watertight compartments. Steam trawlers were first intro-
duced at Grimsby and Hull in the 1880s, although the steam drifter was not
used in the herring fishery until 1897. By 1890, it was estimated that there
were 20,000 men on the North Sea. The last sailing fishing trawler was built
in 1925 in Grimsby. They were well designed for the crew with a large build-
ing that contained the wheelhouse and the deckhouse. The boats built in the
20th century only had a mizzen sail, which was used to help steady the boat
when its nets were out. The main function of the mast was now as a crane
for lifting the catch ashore. It also had a steam capstan on the foredeck near
the mast for hauling nets. The boats had narrow, high funnels so that the
steam and thick coal smoke was released high above the deck and away
from the fishermen. These funnels were nicknamed woodbines because they
looked like the popular brand of cigarette. These boats had a crew of 12
made up of a skipper, driver, fireman (to look after the boiler), and nine deck
hands. Steam fishing boats had many advantages. They were usually about
6.1 m (20 ft) than the sailing vessels so that they could carry more nets and
catch more fish. This was important, as the market was growing quickly at
the beginning of the 20th century. They could travel faster and further and
with greater freedom from weather, wind, and tide. Because less time was
spent travelling to and from the fishing grounds, more time could be spent
fishing. The steamboats also gained the highest prices for their fish, as they
could return quickly to harbour with their fresh catch. The main disadvan-
tage of the steamboats, though, was their high operating costs. Their engines
were mechanically inefficient, while fuel and fitting out costs were extremely
high. Before the First World War, building costs ranged anywhere between
£3,000 and £4,000, at least three times the cost of the sail boats. To cover
these prohibitive costs, they needed to fish for longer seasons. The higher
expenses meant that more steam drifters were company-owned or jointly
owned. As the herring fishing industry declined, steamboats became too
expensive.
Trawler designs adapted as the way they were powered changed from sail
to coal-fired steam by World War I to diesel and turbines by the end of
World War II. The first trawlers fished over the side, rather than over the
stern. In 1947, the company Christian Salvesen, based in Leith, Scotland,
refitted a surplus Algerine-class minesweeper (HMS Felicity) with refrigera-
tion equipment and a factory ship stern ramp, to produce the first combined
freezer/stern trawler in 1947. The first purpose-built stern trawler was
Fairtry built in 1953 at Aberdeen. The ship was much larger than any other
trawlers then in operation and inaugurated the era of the ‘super trawler’. As
the ship pulled its nets over the stern, it could lift out a much greater haul of
up to 60 tonnes. The Lord Nelson followed in 1961, installed with vertical
plate freezers that had been researched and built at the Torry Research
102 Merchant ship types

Station in Aberdeen. These ships served as a basis for the expansion of ‘super
trawlers’ around the world in the following decades. In recent years, com-
mercial fishing vessels have been increasingly equipped with electronic aids,
such as radio navigation aids and fish finders. During the Cold War, some
countries fitted fishing trawlers with additional electronic gear so that they
could be used as spy ships to monitor the activities of other countries.
Globally, the number of engine-powered vessels has been estimated to be
2.8 million (2016), which represents 61% of all fishing vessels, down from
64% in 2014, as the number of non-motorised vessels has increased, prob-
ably because of improved estimations. In 2016, about 86% of the motorised
fishing vessels in the world were in the length overall class of less than 12 m
(39 ft), the vast majority of which were undecked, and those small vessels
dominated in all regions. Conversely, the largest vessels, classified as those
with a length overall greater than 24 m (78 ft), made up about 2% of the
total fleet. About 1.3 million of these are decked vessels with enclosed areas.
All these decked vessels are mechanised, and 40,000 of them are over
100 tonnes. At the other extreme, two-thirds (approximately 1.8 million) of
the undecked boats are traditional craft of several types, powered only by
sail and oars. Artisan fishers use these boats (Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2 Inshore fisheries trawler William of Ladram.

 Fishing vessels 103

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FISHING VESSELS

As there is no internationally recognised fishing limit, coastal States may

claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which may exceed up to 200 nau-
tical miles and in which fishing may be carried out, if a country has claim
to an EEZ, since this is not an automatic right. Sometimes, when States are
semi-adjacent, they may need to come to an agreement as to the extent of
their EEZs. The EEZ is referred to under articles 55 to 75 of the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This specification of fishing
rights has changed fishing patterns, and, in recent times, fishing boats have
become more specialised and standardised. In the United States and Canada,
large factory trawlers are extensively used, while the huge blue water fleets
operated by Japan and the former Soviet-bloc countries have contracted. In
Western Europe, fishing vessel design is focused on compact boats with high
catching power. Commercial fishing is a high-risk industry, and countries are
introducing regulations governing the construction and operation of fishing
vessels. The IMO1,2 convened in 1959 by the United Nations, is responsi-
ble for devising measures aimed at the prevention of accidents, including
standards for ship design, construction, equipment, operation, and manning.
According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), in 2004,
the world’s fishing fleet consisted of four million vessels. Of these, 1.3 mil-
lion were decked vessels with enclosed areas. The rest were open vessels, of
which two-thirds were traditional craft propelled by sails and oars. By con-
trast, all decked vessels were mechanised. Of the decked vessels, 86% were
found in Asia, 7.8% in Europe, 3.8% in North and Central America, 1.3%
in Africa, 0.6% in South America, and 0.4% in Oceania. Most commercial
fishing boats are small, usually less than 30 m (98 ft) and up to 100 m (330
ft) for a large purse seiner or factory ship. Commercial fishing vessels can be
classified by architecture, the type of fish they catch, the fishing method used,
or geographical origin. The classifications are set by the FAO, who classify
commercial fishing vessels by the type of gear they use.

Trawlers
Trawlers are a type of fishing vessel designed to use trawl nets to catch large
volumes of fish. There are seven primary types of trawlers: the outrigger,
otter trawlers, pair trawlers, side trawlers, stern trawlers, freezer trawlers,
and wet fish trawlers.

• Outrigger trawlers. Outrigger trawlers use outriggers to tow the

trawl. These are commonly used to catch shrimp. One or two otter
trawls can be towed from each side. Beam trawlers, employed in the
North Sea for catching flatfish, are another form of outrigger trawler.
Medium-sized and high-powered vessels tow a beam trawl on each
side at speeds up to eight knots.
104 Merchant ship types

• Beam trawlers. Beam trawlers use sturdy outrigger booms for towing
a beam trawl, one warp on each side. Double-rig beam trawlers can
tow a separate trawl on each side of the trawler. Beam trawling is used
in the flatfish and shrimp fisheries in the North Sea. They are medi-
um-sized and high-powered vessels, towing gear at speeds up to eight
knots. To avoid the boat capsizing if the trawl snags on the sea floor,
winch brakes can be installed, along with safety release systems in the
boom stays. The engine power of bottom trawlers is also restricted to
2,000 HP (1,472 KW) for further safety.
• Otter trawlers. Otter trawlers deploy one or more parallel trawls kept
apart horizontally using otter boards. These trawls can be towed in
midwater or along the bottom.
• Pair trawlers. Pair trawlers are trawlers which operate together towing
a single trawl. They keep the trawl open horizontally by keeping their
distance when towing. Otter boards are not used. Pair trawlers operate
both midwater and bottom trawls.
• Side trawlers. Side trawlers have the trawl set over the side with the
trawl warps passing through blocks, which hang from two gallows,
one forward and one aft. Until the late 1960s, side trawlers were the
most familiar vessel in the North Atlantic deep-sea fisheries. They
evolved over a longer period than other trawler types but are now
being replaced by stern trawlers.
• Stern trawlers. Stern trawlers have trawls, which are deployed and
retrieved from the stern. Larger stern trawlers often have a ramp,
though pelagic, and small stern trawlers are often designed without a
ramp. Stern trawlers are designed to operate in most weather condi-
tions. They can work alone when midwater or bottom trawling, or the
two can work together as pair trawlers.
• Freezer trawlers. Most trawlers operating on high sea waters are freezer
trawlers. They have facilities for preserving fish by freezing, allowing
them to stay at sea for extended periods of time. They are medium to
enormous-sized trawlers, with the same general arrangement as stern
or side trawlers.
• Wet fish trawlers. Wet fish trawlers are trawlers where the fish is kept
in the hold in a fresh/wet condition. They must operate in areas not far
distant from their landing place, and the fishing time of such vessels is
limited.

Seiners
Seiners use surrounding and seine nets. This is a large group ranging from
open boats as small as 10 m (33 ft) in length to ocean-going vessels. There
are also specialised gears that can target demersal species. Purse seiners are
highly effective at targeting aggregating pelagic species near the surface. The
seiner circles the shoal with a deep curtain of netting, using bow thrusters
 Fishing vessels 105

for better manoeuverability. Then, the bottom of the net is pursed (closed)
underneath the fish shoal by hauling a wire running from the vessel through
rings along the bottom of the net and then back to the vessel. The most
important part of the fishing operation is searching for the fish shoals and
assessing their size and direction of movement. Sophisticated electronics,
such as echosounders, sonar, and track plotters, may be used are used to
search for and track schools, assessing their size and movement, and staying
connected with the school while it is surrounded with the seine net. Crows’
nests may be built on the masts for further visual support. Large vessels can
have observation towers and helicopter landing decks. Helicopters and spot-
ter planes are used for detecting fish schools. The main types of purse seiners
are the American seiners, the European seiners, and the Drum seiners.
American seiners have their bridge and accommodation placed forward
with the working deck aft. American seiners are most common on both
coasts of North America and in other areas of Oceania. The net is stowed at
the stern and is set over the stern. The power block is usually attached to a
boom from a mast located behind the superstructure. American seiners use
Triplerollers, which is a type of purse line winch located amidships near the
hauling station, near the side where the rings are taken on board. European
seiners have their bridge and accommodation located more to the after part
of the vessel with the working deck amidships. European seiners are most
common in waters fished by European nations. The net is stowed in a net
bin at the stern and is set over the stern from this position. The pursing
winch is normally positioned at the forward part of the working deck. Drum
seiners have the same layout as American seiners except a drum is mounted
on the stern and used instead of the power block. They are used in Canada
and the USA.
Tuna purse seiners are large purse seiners, normally over 45 m (147 ft),
equipped to manage large and heavy purse seines for tuna. They have the
same general arrangement as the American seiner, with the bridge and
accommodation placed forward. A crow’s nest or tuna tower is positioned
at the top of the mast, outfitted with the control and manoeuvre devices.
A very heavy boom, which carries the power block, is fitted at the mast.
They often carry a helicopter to search for tuna schools. On the deck are
three drum purse seine winches and a power block, with other specific
winches to handle the heavy boom and net. They are usually equipped with
a skiff. Anchor seiners have the wheelhouse and accommodation aft and the
working deck amidships, thus resembling side trawlers. The seine net is
stored and shot from the stern, and they may carry a power block. Anchor
seiners have the coiler and winch mounted transversally amidships. Scottish
seiners are configured the same as anchor seiners. The only difference is that,
whereas the anchor seiner has the coiler and winch mounted transversally
amidships, the Scottish seiner has them mounted transversally in the
forward part of the vessel. In Asia, the seine netter usually has the wheel-
house forward and the working deck aft, in the manner of a stern trawler.
106 Merchant ship types

However, in regions where the fishing effort is a labour-intensive, low-tech-

nology approach, they are often undecked and may be powered by out-
boards motors, or even by sail.

Line vessels
Longliners use one or more long heavy fishing lines with a series of hundreds
or even thousands of baited hooks hanging from the main line by means
of branch lines called ‘snoods’. Hand operated longlining can be operated
from boats of any size. The number of hooks and lines handled depends on
the size of vessel, the number of crew, and the level of mechanisation. Large
purpose-built longliners can be designed for single species fisheries such as
tuna. On such larger vessels, the bridge is usually placed aft, and the gear
is hauled from the bow or from the side with mechanical or hydraulic line
haulers. The lines are set over the stern. Automatic or semi-automatic sys-
tems are used to bait hooks and shoot and haul lines. These systems include
rail rollers, line haulers, hook separators, dehookers and hook cleaners, and
storage racks or drums. To avoid incidental catches of seabirds, an out-
board setting funnel is used to guide the line from the setting position on the
stern down to a depth of 1 or 2 m. Small-scale longliners handle the gear
by hand. The line is stored into baskets or tubs, using a hand cranked line
drum. Midwater longliners are usually medium-sized vessels, which operate
worldwide, purpose built to catch large pelagic species. The line hauler is
usually forward starboard, where the fish are hauled through a gate in the
rail. The lines are set from the stern where a baiting table and chute are
located. These boats need adequate speed to reach distant fishing grounds,
enough endurance for continued fishing, adequate freezing storage, suitable
mechanisms for shooting and hauling longlines quickly, and proper storage
for fishing gear and accessories. Freezer longliners are outfitted with freezing
equipment. The holds are insulated and refrigerated. Freezer longliners are
medium to large, with the same typical characteristics of other longliners.
Most longliners operating on the high seas are freezer longliners. Factory
longliners are equipped with a processing plant, including mechanical gut-
ting and filleting equipment accompanied by freezing facilities, as well as
fish oil, fish meal, and sometimes canning plants. These vessels have a large
buffer capacity. Thus, caught fish can be stored in refrigerated sea water
tanks, and peaks in the catch can also be used. Freezer longliners are large
ships, working the high seas with the same typical characteristics of other
large longliners. Wet fish longliners keep the caught fish in the hold in the
fresh/wet condition. The fish is stored in boxes and covered with ice or
stored with ice in the fish hold. The fishing time of such vessels is limited, so
they operate close to the landing place.
Pole and line vessels are used to catch tuna and skipjack. The fishers stand
at the railing or on special platforms and fish with poles and lines. The lines
have hooks, which are baited, preferably with live bait. Caught tuna are
 Fishing vessels 107

swung on board, by two to three fishermen if the tuna is big, or with an

automated swinging mechanism. The tuna usually releases themselves from
the barbless hook when they hit the deck. Tanks with live bait are placed
round the decks, and water spray systems are used to attract the fish. The
vessels are 15–45 m (49.2–147ft) in length. On smaller vessels, fishermen
fish from the main deck right around the boat. With larger vessels, there are
two different deck styles: the American style and the Japanese style. On
American style boats, the fisher stands on platforms arranged over the side
abaft amidships and around the stern. The vessel moves ahead during fish-
ing operation. With Japanese style boats, the fisher stands at the rail in the
forepart of the vessel. The vessel drifts during fishing operations.
Trollers catch fish by towing astern one of more trolling lines. A trolling
line is a fishing line with natural or artificial baited hooks trailed by a vessel
near the surface or at a certain depth. Several lines can be towed at the same
time using outriggers to keep the lines apart. The lines can be hauled in
manually or by small winches. A length of rubber is often included in each
line as a shock absorber. The trolling line is towed at a speed depending on
the target species, from 2.3 knots up to at least seven knots. Trollers range
from small open boats to large-refrigerated vessels 30 m (98 ft) long. In
many tropical artisanal fisheries, trolling is done with sailing canoes with
outriggers for stability. With intelligently designed vessels, trolling is an eco-
nomical and efficient way of catching tuna, mackerel, and other pelagic fish
swimming close to the surface. Purpose-built trollers are usually equipped
with two or four trolling booms raised and lowered by topping lifts, held in
position by adjustable stays. Electrically powered or hydraulic reels can be
used to haul in the lines.
With Jiggers, there are two types of boat: specialised squid jiggers, which
work mostly in the southern hemisphere and smaller vessels using jigging
techniques in the northern hemisphere for catching cod. Squid jiggers have
single or double drum jigger winches lined along the rails around the vessel.
Strong lamps, up to 5,000 W each, are used to attract the squid. These are
arranged 50–60 cm (19–23 in) apart, either as one row in the centre of the
vessel, or two rows, one on each side. As the squid are caught, they are trans-
ferred by chutes to the processing plant of the vessel. The jigging motion can
be produced mechanically by the shape of the drum or electronically by
adjustment to the winch motor. Squid jiggers are often used during the day
as midwater trawlers and during the night as jiggers. Cod jiggers use single
jigger machines and do not use lights to attract the fish. The fish are attracted
by the jigging motion and artificial bait (Figure 7.3).

Other vessels
Dredgers use a dredge for collecting molluscs from the seafloor. There are
three types of dredges: (a) the dredge can be dragged along the seabed,
scooping the shellfish from the ground. These dredges are towed in a manner
108 Merchant ship types

Figure 7.3 F isheries factory ship Kiel at Cuxhaven, Germany.

similar to beam trawlers, and large dredgers can work three or more dredges
on each side; (b) heavy mechanical dredging units are operated by special
gallows from the bow of the vessel; and (c) the dredger employs a hydraulic
dredge which uses a powerful water pump to operates water jets which flush
the molluscs from the bottom. Dredgers do not have a typical deck arrange-
ment. The bridge and accommodation can be aft or forward. Derricks and
winches may be installed for lowering and lifting the dredge. Echosounders
are used for determining depths. On inland and inshore waters, gillnets can
be operated from open boats and canoes. In coastal waters, they are oper-
ated by small-decked vessels which can have their wheelhouse either aft
or forward. In coastal waters, gillnetting is often used as a second fishing
method by trawlers or beam trawlers, depending on fishing seasons and tar-
geted species. For offshore fishing, or fishing on the high seas, medium-sized
vessels using drifting gillnets are called drifters, and the bridge is usually
located aft. The nets are set and hauled by hand on small open boats. Larger
boats use hydraulic or occasionally mechanical net haulers, or net drums.
These vessels can be equipped with an echosounder, although locating fish is
more a matter of the fishermen’s personal knowledge of the fishing grounds
rather than depending on special detection equipment. Set netters also oper-
ate gillnets. However, during fishing operations, the vessel is not attached to
the nets. The size of the vessels varies from open boats to large-specialised
drifters operating on the high seas. The wheelhouse is usually located aft,
and the front deck is used for handling gear. Normally, the nets are set at
the stern by steaming ahead. Hauling is done over the side at the forepart
of the deck, usually using hydraulic driven net haulers. Wet fish is packed in
containers chilled with ice. Larger vessels might freeze the catch (Figure 7.4).
 Fishing vessels 109

Figure 7.4 Typical scallop dredger, St Monans Harbour, England.

Lift netters are equipped to operate lift nets, which are held from the
vessel’s side and raised and lowered by means of outriggers. Lift netters
range from open boats about 10 m (32 ft) long to larger vessels with open
ocean capability. Decked vessels usually have the bridge amidships. Larger
vessels are often equipped with winches and derricks for handling the lifting
lines, as well as outriggers and light booms. They can be fitted with power-
ful lights to attract and aggregate the fish to the surface. Open boats are
usually unmechanised or use hand-operated winches. Electronic equipment,
such as fish finders and sonar and echo sounders, are used extensively on
larger boats.
Trap setters are used to set pots or traps for catching fish, crabs, lobsters,
crayfish, and other similar species. Trap setters range in size from open boats
operating inshore to larger decked vessels, 20–50 m (65–164 ft) long, oper-
ating out to the edge of the continental shelf. Small-decked trap setters have
the wheelhouse either forward or aft with the fish hold amidships. They use
hydraulic or mechanical pot haulers. Larger vessels have the wheelhouse
forward, and are equipped with derricks, davits, or cranes for hauling pots
aboard. Locating fish is often more a matter of the fishermen’s knowledge of
the fishing grounds rather than the use of special detection equipment.
Decked vessels are usually equipped with an echosounder, and large vessels
may also have a Loran or GPS. Handliners are normally undecked vessels
used for handlining (fishing with a line and hook). Handliners include
110 Merchant ship types

canoes and other small or medium-sized vessels. Traditional handliners are

less than 12 m (39 ft) long, and do not have special gear handling, there is
no winch or gurdy. Locating fish is left to the fishermen’s personal knowl-
edge of fishing grounds rather than the use of special electronic equipment.
Non-traditional handliners can set and haul using electrical or hydraulic
powered reels. These mechanised reels are normally fastened to the gunwale
or set on stanchions close to or overhanging the gunwale. They operate all
over the world, some in shallow waters, some fishing up to 300 m (984 ft)
deep. No typical deck arrangement exists for handliners.
Multipurpose vessels are vessels, which are designed so that they can
deploy more than one type of fishing gear without major modifications to
the vessels. The fish detection equipment present on board also changes
according to which fishing gear is being used. Fisheries research vessels
require platforms, which are capable of towing diverse types of fishing nets,
collecting plankton or water samples from a range of depths, and carrying
acoustic fish-finding equipment. Fisheries research vessels are often designed
and built along the same lines as a large fishing vessel, but with space given
over to laboratories and equipment storage, as opposed to storage of the
catch. An example of a fisheries research vessel is the Scottish vessel FRV
Scotia (Figure 7.5).
In this chapter, we have discussed some of the main types of fishing vessels
used around the world. In the next chapter, we will briefly explore the role
and function of research vessels.

Figure 7.5 F RV Scotia, entering Aberdeen Harbour, Scotland.

 Fishing vessels 111

NOTES

1 This was originally called the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organ­

isation (IMCO) until 1982, when it changed its name to International Maritime
Organisation (IMO).
2 There is no internationally recognised 200 mile fishing limit. There is however an
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which may exceed up to 200 nm in which fish-
ing may be carried out, if a country has claim to an EEZ, as this is not an auto-
matic right. Sometimes, when States are semi-adjacent, they may need to come to
an agreement as to the extent of their EEZs. The EEZ is referred to under Articles
55 to 75 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Chapter 8

Research and scientific vessels

A research vessel (RV or R/V) is a ship or boat designed, modified, or

equipped to conduct research at sea. Research vessels conduct several roles.
Some of these roles can be combined into a single vessel, but others require a
dedicated vessel. Due to the demanding nature of the work, research vessels
are often constructed around an icebreaker hull, allowing them to oper-
ate in polar waters. The research ship has its origins in the early voyages
of exploration. By the time of James Cook’s Endeavour, the essentials of
what today we would call a research ship were clearly apparent. In 1766,
the Royal Society hired Cook to travel to the Pacific Ocean to observe and
record the transit of Venus across the Sun. The Endeavour was a sturdy
vessel, well designed and equipped for the ordeals she would face and fitted
out with facilities for her ‘research personnel’, Joseph Banks. As is com-
mon with contemporary research vessels, Endeavour also conducted more
than one kind of research, including comprehensive hydrographic survey
work. Some other notable early research vessels were HMS Beagle (1820),
HMS Challenger (1858), Terra Nova (1884), Endurance (1912), and HMS
(later RV) Calypso (1943). Many of the names of early research vessels have
been used to name later research vessels, as well as Space Shuttles. In terms
of types of research and scientific ships, there are several core categories,
including hydrographic survey, oceanographic survey, fisheries research,
naval research, polar research, and oil and gas exploration research ships.

CATEGORIES OF RESEARCH VESSEL

There are many distinct types of research vessels employed around the
world. In this chapter, we will briefly examine some of the most common
and historically important types of research vessels.

Hydrographic survey
A hydrographic survey ship is a vessel designed to conduct hydrographic
research and survey. Nautical charts are produced from this information

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-10 113

114 Merchant ship types

to ensure safe navigation by military and civilian shipping. Hydrographic

survey vessels also conduct seismic surveys of the seabed and the underly-
ing geology. Apart from producing the charts, this information is useful for
detecting geological features likely to bear oil or gas. These vessels usually
mount equipment on a towed structure, for example, air cannons used to
generate shock waves that sound strata beneath the seabed, or mounted
on the keel, for example, a depth sounder. In practice, hydrographic survey
vessels are often equipped to perform multiple roles. Some also function as
oceanographic research ships. Naval hydrographic survey vessels often do
naval research, for example, on submarine detection. Examples of hydro-
graphic survey vessels include HMS Hydra (1964) and the CCGS Frederick
G. Creed (1988) and HMS Enterprise (2002) (Figure 8.1).

Oceanographic research
Oceanographic research vessels conduct research on the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of water, the atmosphere, and climate, and to
these ends carry equipment for collecting water samples from a range of
depths, including the deep seas, as well as equipment for the hydrographic
sounding of the seabed, along with numerous other environmental sensors.
These vessels often also carry scientific divers and unmanned underwater
vehicles. Since the requirements of both oceanographic and hydrographic
research are vastly different from those of fisheries research, these boats

Figure 8.1 R oyal Navy hydrographic vessel HMS Enterprise.

 Research and scientific vessels 115

Figure 8.2 N OAAS Ronald H. Brown.

often fulfil dual roles. Recent oceanographic research campaigns include

GEOTRACES and NAAMES. Examples of oceanographic research vessels
include the NOAAS Ronald H. Brown and the Chilean Navy vessel Cabo
de Hornos (Figure 8.2).

Autonomous research vessels

Mechanically and hydrodynamically, autonomous research platforms are
like towed sonar ‘fish’ and ROVs. Operationally, however, known autono-
mous vehicles were initially limited to rivers, lakes, and bays due to naviga-
tion and collision-avoidance issues. Thus, progress in surface vessels lagged
both unmanned aerial vehicles and submarine-types, due to their simpler
operating conditions. Nevertheless, advances in navigation, machine vision
and other sensors, and processing have spread ASVs from highly advanced
models to the undergraduate level.

Technical research ships

The United States Navy used technical research ships throughout the 1960s
to gather intelligence by monitoring, recording, and analysing wireless elec-
tronic communications of nations in various parts of the world. At the time,
these ships were active, the mission of the ships was covert, and discussion
of the true mission was prohibited (‘classified information’). The mission of
116 Merchant ship types

the ships was publicly given as conducting research into atmospheric and
communications phenomena. However, the true mission was an open secret,
and the ships were commonly referred to as ‘spy ships’. These ships carried
a crew of US Navy personnel whose specialty was intercepting wireless elec-
tronic communications and gathering intelligence from those communica-
tions [signals intelligence, communications intelligence, and electronic signals
intelligence (SIGINT)]. In the 1960s, those personnel had a US Navy rating
of Communications Technician (later changed to Cryptologic Technician),
or CT. To transmit intelligence information that had been gathered back
to United States for further processing and analysis, these ships had a
special system named Technical Research Ship Special Communications,
or TRSSCOM (pronounced tress-com). This Earth-Moon-Earth (EME)
communications system used a special gyroscope-stabilised 4.9 m (16 ft)
parabolic antenna. Radio signals were transmitted towards the moon,
where they would bounce back towards the Earth and are received by a
large 26 m (84 ft) parabolic antenna at a Naval Communications Station
in Cheltenham, Maryland (near Washington, DC) or Wahiawa, Hawaii.
Communications could occur only when the moon was visible simultane-
ously at the ship’s location and in Cheltenham or Wahiawa. The gyro sta-
bilisation of the antenna kept the antenna pointed at the moon while the
ship rolled and pitched on the surface of the ocean. These ships were classi-
fied as naval auxiliaries with a hull designation of AGTR, which stands for
Auxiliary, General, Technical Research. Five of these ships were built with
hull numbers of 1–5. The first three ships of this type (USS Oxford, USS
Georgetown, and USS Jamestown) were converted from World War II-era
Liberty ships. The last two ships (USS Belmont and USS Liberty) were con-
verted from Victory ships. The former Liberty ships’ top speed of 11 knots
(13 mph; 20 km/h) limited the first three AGTRs to missions of slow steam-
ing on station with a minimum of transits. The sustained speed of victory
ships of 18 knots (21 mph; 33 km/h) enabled USS Belmont to shadow
Mediterranean Sea operations of the Soviet helicopter carrier Moskva in
1969. All the technical research ships were decommissioned and stricken by
1970. One of these ships’ crew received a Presidential Unit Citation for her-
oism in combat. USS Liberty was attacked, severely damaged, and 34 crew
members killed by shelling, napalm bombing, and torpedoing from Israeli
jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats on 8 June 1967. USS Jamestown
was awarded a Meritorious Unit Commendation along with USS Oxford.
The citation reads (in part)

for meritorious service from 1 November 1965 to 30 June 1969 while

participating in combat support operations in Southeast Asia. Through
research and the compilation of extremely valuable technical data, USS
Jamestown and USS Oxford contributed most significantly to the over-
all security of the United States and other Free World forces operating
 Research and scientific vessels 117

in support of the Republic of Vietnam. Signed E.R. Zumwalt, Admiral,

USN, Chief of Naval Operations.

Environmental Research Ships (AGER)

Three smaller ships, formerly Army Freight Supply (FS) ships converted by
the US Navy to Light Cargo Ship (AKL) vessels and then to Banner-class
environmental research ships, had a similar mission. In contrast to the high
freeboard of the AGTR Liberty and Victory hulls, the AGER decks were low
and vulnerable to boarding from a small craft. USS Pueblo, technically still
in commission, has been held by North Korea since its attack and capture
on 23 January 1968. Three technical research ships were operated as USNS
ships with a Military Sea Transportation Service civilian crew and a US Navy
detachment conducting the mission operations. Two ships were Maritime
Commission C1-M-AV1 types. One, USNS LT. James E. Robinson, was a
VC2-S-AP2 (Victory) type that operated in this role December 1962–April
1964 before being reclassified as AK-274 and resuming cargo operations.

Weather ships
A weather ship, or ocean station vessel, was a ship stationed in the ocean
for surface and upper air meteorological observations for use in weather
forecasting. They were primarily located in the north Atlantic and north
Pacific oceans, reporting via radio. The vessels aided in search and rescue
operations, supported transatlantic flights, functioned as research platforms
for oceanographers, monitored marine pollution, and aided weather fore-
casting by weather forecasters and in computerised atmospheric models.
Research vessels remain heavily used in oceanography, including physical
oceanography and the integration of meteorological and climatological data
in Earth system science. The idea of a stationary weather ship was pro-
posed as early as 1921 by Météo-France to help support shipping and the
coming of transatlantic aviation. They were used during World War II but
had no means of defence, which led to the loss of several ships and many
lives. Overall, the establishment of weather ships proved to be so useful
during World War II for Europe and North America that the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) established a global network of weather
ships in 1948, with 13 to be supplied by Canada, the United States, and
some European countries. This number was eventually cut to nine. The
agreement of the use of weather ships by the international community ended
in 1985. Weather ship observations proved to be helpful in wind and wave
studies, as commercial shipping tended to avoid weather systems for safety
reasons, whereas the weather ships did not. They were also helpful in moni-
toring storms at sea, such as tropical cyclones. Beginning in the 1970s, their
role was superseded by cheaper weather buoys. The removal of a weather
118 Merchant ship types

ship became a negative factor in forecasts leading up to the Great Storm of

1987. The last weather ship was Polarfront, known as weather station M
(‘Mike’), which was removed from operation on 1 January 2010. Weather
observations from ships continue from a fleet of voluntary merchant vessels
in routine commercial operation (Figure 8.3).
The primary purpose of an ocean weather vessel was to take surface and
upper air weather measurements and report them via radio at the synoptic
hours of 0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC).
Weather ships also reported observations from merchant vessels, which
were reported by radio back to their country of origin using a code based on
the 10 mi (16 km) square in the ocean within which the ship was located.
The vessels engaged in search and rescue operations involving aircraft and
other ships. The vessels themselves had search radar and could activate a
homing beacon to guide lost aircraft towards the ships’ known locations.
Each ship’s homing beacon used a distinctly different frequency. In addition,
the ships provided a platform where scientific and oceanographic research
could be conducted. The role of aircraft supports gradually changed after
1975, as the jet aircraft began using polar routes. By 1982, the ocean weather
vessel role had changed too, and the ships were used to support short range
weather forecasting, in numerical weather prediction computer programmes
which forecast weather conditions several days ahead, for climatological
studies, marine forecasting, and oceanography, as well as monitoring

Figure 8.3 Weathership Chofumaru 2.

 Research and scientific vessels 119

pollution out at sea. At the same time, the transmission of the weather data
using Morse Code was replaced by a system using telex-over-radio.
In the 1860s, Britain began connecting coastal lightships with submarine
telegraph cables so that they could be used as weather stations. There were
attempts to place weather ships using submarine cables far out into the
Atlantic. The first of these was in 1870 with the retired corvette Brick some
fifty miles off Land’s End, Cornwall. Although some £15,000 was spent on
the project, it failed. In 1881, there was a proposal for a weather ship in the
mid-Atlantic, but it came to nothing. Deep-ocean weather ships had to await
the commencement of radio telegraphy. The director of France’s meteoro-
logical service, Météo-France, proposed the idea of a stationary weather
ship in 1921 to aid shipping and the coming of transatlantic flights. Another
early proposal for weather ships occurred in connection with aviation in
August 1927, when the aircraft designer Grover Loening stated that ‘weather
stations along the ocean coupled with the development of the seaplane to
have an equally long range, would result in regular ocean flights within ten
years’. During 1936 and 1937, the British Meteorological Office (Met
Office) installed a meteorologist on board a North Atlantic cargo steamer to
take special surface weather observations and release pilot balloons to
measure the winds aloft at the synoptic hours of 0000, 0600, 1200, and
1800 UTC. In 1938 and 1939, France established a merchant ship as the
first stationary weather ship, which took surface observations and launched
radiosondes to measure weather conditions aloft.
Starting in 1939, United States Coast Guard vessels were being used as
weather ships to protect transatlantic air commerce, as a response to the
crash of Pan American World Airways Hawaii Clipper during a transpacific
flight in 1938. The Atlantic Weather Observation Service was authorised by
President Franklin Roosevelt on 25 January 1940. The Germans began to
use weather ships in the summer of 1940. However, three of their four ships
had been sunk by 23 November, which led to the use of fishing vessels for
the German weather ship fleet. Their weather ships were out to sea for
3–5 weeks at a time and German weather observations were encrypted
using Enigma machines. By February 1941, five 100 m (327 ft) United States
Coast Guard cutters were used in weather patrol, usually deployed for
3 weeks at a time, and then sent back to the port for 10 days. As World
War II continued, the cutters were needed for the war effort, and by August
1942, six cargo vessels had replaced them. The ships were fitted with two
deck guns, anti-aircraft guns, and depth charges, but lacked SONAR
(ASDIC), Radar, and HF/DF, which may have contributed to the loss of the
USCGC Muskeget (WAG-48) with 121 personnel on board on 9 September
1942. In 1943, the United States Weather Bureau recognised their observa-
tions as ‘indispensable’ during the war effort. The flying of fighter planes
between North America, Greenland, and Iceland led to the deployment of
two more weather ships in 1943 and 1944. Great Britain established one of
their own 50 mi (80 km) off the west coast of Scotland. By May 1945,
120 Merchant ship types

frigates were used across the Pacific for similar operations. Weather Bureau
personnel stationed on weather ships were asked voluntarily to accept the
assignment. In addition to surface weather observations, the weather ships
would launch radiosondes and release pilot balloons, or PIBALs, to deter-
mine weather conditions aloft. However, after the war ended, the ships were
withdrawn from service, which led to a loss of upper air weather observa-
tions over the oceans. Due to its value, operations resumed after World War
II because of an international agreement signed in September 1946, which
stated that at least 13 ocean weather stations would be maintained by the US
Coast Guard, with five others maintained by Great Britain and two by Brazil.
The establishment of weather ships proved to be so useful during World
War II that the ICAO had established a global network of 13 weather ships
by 1948, with seven operated by the United States, one operated jointly by
the United States and Canada, two supplied by the United Kingdom, one
maintained by France, one a joint venture by the Netherlands and Belgium,
and one shared by the United Kingdom, Norway, and Sweden. The United
Kingdom used Royal Navy corvettes to operate their two stations, and
staffed crews of 53 Met Office personnel. The ships were out at sea for 27
days, and in port for 15 days. Their first ship was deployed on 31 July
1947. During 1949, the Weather Bureau planned to increase the number
of United States Coast Guard weather ships in the Atlantic from five at
the beginning of the year to eight by the year’s end. Weather Bureau
employees on board the vessels worked 40–63 hours per week. Weather
ship G (George) was dropped from the network on 1 July 1949, and Navy
weather ship Bird Dog ceased operations on 1 August 1949. In the
Atlantic, weather vessel F (Fox) was discontinued on 3 September 1949,
and there was a change in location for ships D (Dog) and E (Easy) at the
same time. Navy weather ship J (Jig) in the north-central Pacific Ocean was
taken out of service on 1 October 1949. The original international agree-
ment for a 13-ship minimum was later amended downward. In 1949, the
minimum number of weather ships operated by the United States was
decreased to 10, and in 1954, the figure was lowered again to nine, both
changes being made for economic reasons. Weather vessel O (Oboe) entered
the Pacific portion of the network on 19 December 1949. Also in the Pacific,
weather ship A (Able) was renamed ship P (Peter) and moved 200 mi (320
km) to the east-northeast in December 1949, while weather vessel F (Fox)
was renamed N (Nan).
Weather ship B (Baker), which had been jointly operated by Canada and
the United States, became solely a United States venture on 1 July 1950.
The Netherlands and the United States began to jointly operate weather
ship A (Able) in the Atlantic on 22 July 1950. The Korean War led to the
discontinuing of weather vessel O (Oboe) on 31 July 1950 in the Pacific,
and ship S (Sugar) was established on 10 September 1950. Weather ship P’s
(Peter) operations were taken over by Canada on 1 December 1950, which
allowed the Coast Guard to begin operating station U (Uncle) 1,200 mi
 Research and scientific vessels 121

(2,000 km) west of northern Baja California on 12 December 1950. As a

result of these changes, ship N (Nan) was moved 250 mi (400 km) to the
southeast on 10 December 1950. Responsibility for weather ship V (Victor)
transferred from the US Navy to the US Coast Guard and Weather Bureau
on 30 September 1951. On 20 March 1952, vessels N (November) and U
(Uncle) were moved 20–30 mi (32–48 km) to the south to lie under air-
plane paths between the western United States coast and Honolulu, Hawaii.
In 1956, USCGC Pontchartrain, while stationed with N (November), nota-
bly rescued the crew and passengers of Pan Am Flight 6 after the crippled
aircraft diverted to the clipper’s position and ditched in the ocean. Weather
vessel Q (Quebec) began operation in the north-central Pacific on 6 April
1952, while in the western Atlantic, the British corvettes used as weather
ships were replaced by newer Castle-class frigates between 1958 and 1961.
In 1963, the entire fleet won the Flight Safety Foundation award for their
distinguished service to aviation. In 1965, there were a total of 21 vessels
in the weather ship network. Nine were from the United States, four from
the United Kingdom, three from France, two from the Netherlands, two
from Norway, and one from Canada. In addition to the routine hourly
weather observations and upper air flights four times a day, two Soviet
ships in the northern and central Pacific Ocean sent meteorological rockets
up to a height of 50 mi (80 km). For a time, there was a Dutch weather
ship stationed in the Indian Ocean. The network left the Southern
Hemisphere uncovered. South Africa maintained a weather ship near lati-
tude 40 degrees north, longitude 10 degrees east between September 1969
and March 1974.
When compared with the cost of unmanned weather buoys, weather ships
were prohibitively expensive, with weather buoys quickly replacing the
American weather ships throughout the 1970s. Across the northern Atlantic,
the number of weather ships dwindled over the years. The original nine
ships in the region had fallen to eight after ocean vessel C (Charlie) was
discontinued by the USA in December 1973. In 1974, the US Coast Guard
announced plans to terminate all United States stations, and the last
American weather ship was replaced by a newly developed weather buoy in
1977. A new international agreement for ocean weather vessels was reached
through the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in 1975, which
eliminated Ships I (India) and J (Juliet), and left ships M (Mike), R (Romeo),
C (Charlie), and L (Lima) across the northern Atlantic, with the four remain-
ing ships in operation through 1983. Two of the British frigates were refur-
bished, as there was no funding available for new weather ships. Their other
two ships were retired, as one of the British run stations was eliminated in
the international agreement. In July 1975, the Soviet Union began to main-
tain weather ship C (Charlie), which it would operate through the remain-
der of the 1970s and 1980s. The last two British frigates were retired from
ocean weather service on 11 January 1982, but the international agreement
for weather ships was continued through to 1985. Because of high operating
122 Merchant ship types

costs and budget issues, weather ship R (Romeo) was recalled from the Bay
of Biscay before the deployment of a weather buoy for the region. This recall
was blamed for the minimal warning given in advance of the Great Storm of
1987, when wind speeds of up to 93mph (149 km/h) caused extensive dam-
age to the south of England and the north of France. The last weather ship
to operate was Polarfront, known as weather station M (Mike) at 66 degrees
north, 02 degrees east, run by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.
Polarfront was withdrawn from operation on 1 January 2010. Despite the
loss of designated weather ships, weather observations from ships continue
from a fleet of voluntary merchant vessels in routine commercial operation,
whose number has consistently decreased since 1985.
Beginning in 1951, British ocean weather vessels began oceanographic
research, such as monitoring plankton, casting of drift bottles, and sampling
seawater. In July 1952, as part of a research project on birds by Cambridge
University, 20 shearwaters were taken more than 100 mi (161 km) offshore
on British weather ships, before being released to see how quickly they
would return to their nests, which were more than 450 mi (720 km) away
on Skokholm Island [2.5 mi (4 km) off the coast of Pembrokeshire, Wales].
Eighteen of the 20 birds returned, the first in just 36 hours. During 1954,
British weather ocean vessels began to measure sea surface temperature gra-
dients and ocean waves. In 1960, the weather ships proved to be helpful in
ship design through a series of recordings made on paper tape which evalu-
ated wave height, pitch, and roll. They were also useful in wind and wave
studies, as they did not avoid weather systems, as merchant ships tended to,
and were considered a valuable resource. In 1962, British weather vessels
measured sea temperature and salinity values from the surface down to
3,000 m (9,800 ft) as part of their studies. Upper air soundings launched
from weather ship E (Echo) were of great utility in determining the cyclone
phase of Hurricane Dorothy in 1966. During 1971, British weather ships
sampled the upper 500 m (1,600 ft) of the ocean to investigate plankton
distribution by depth. In 1972, the Joint Air-Sea Interaction Experiment
(JASIN) used special observations from weather ships for their research.
More recently, in support of climate research, 20 years of data from the
ocean vessel P (Papa) was compared with nearby voluntary weather obser-
vations from mobile ships within the International Comprehensive Ocean-
Atmosphere Data Set to check for biases in mobile ship observations over
that period.

Tropical meteorology
Between the years 1959 and 1965, 40 research ships from 23 countries
assayed the Indian Ocean, which till then, was the most unexplored mari-
time environment on earth. In 1958, the American ship Vema began the first
purposeful assay of the ocean, with additional ships joining between 1959
 Research and scientific vessels 123

and 1960: Diamantina (Australia), Commandant Robert Giraud (France),

Vitjaz (USSR), Argo, Requisite (USA), and the Umitaka Maru (Japan). West
Germany followed with the Meteor in 1964/1965. With the commence-
ment of the Global Atmospheric Research Programme (GARP) in 1967, the
WMO and the International Council of Scientific Unions began a global
weather experiment in which the entire atmosphere and the ocean surface
would be observed for the first time. More than 50 ships worked in the
equatorial areas around the globe, collecting oceanographic and meteoro-
logical measurement data for an ‘inventory of world weather’.

Fisheries research
A fisheries research vessel requires platforms capable of towing several types
of fishing nets, collecting plankton or water samples from a range of depths,
and carrying acoustic fish-finding equipment. Fisheries research vessels are
often designed and built along the same lines as a large fishing vessel, but
with space given over to laboratories and equipment storage, as opposed to
storage of the catch. Examples of fisheries research vessel include CEFAS’ RV
CEFAS Endeavour, Marine Scotland’s FRV Scotia (2009), and the Danish
fisheries research vessel Dana IV (1980) (Figure 8.4).

Figure 8.4 RV CEFAS Endeavour at Lowestoft, England.

124 Merchant ship types

Naval research
Naval research vessels investigate naval concerns, such as submarine and
mine detection or sonar and weapons trials. An example of a naval research
vessel is the German Navy’s 3,500 tonne Planet, which is the most modern
naval research vessel within NATO.

Polar research
Polar research vessels are constructed around an icebreaker hull, allowing
them to engage in ice navigation and operate in polar waters. These vessels
usually have dual roles, particularly in the Antarctic, where they function
also as polar replenishment and supply vessels to the Antarctic research
bases. Examples of polar research vessels include the USCGC Polar Star
(1976), RSV Aurora Australis (1989), RSV Nuyina (2015), and the RRS
David Attenborough (2018) (Figure 8.5).

Oil exploration
Oil exploration is performed in several ways, one of the most common
being mobile drilling platforms or ships that are moved from area to area
as needed to drill into the seabed to find out what deposits lie beneath it
(Figure 8.6).

Figure 8.5 R RS David Attenborough.

 Research and scientific vessels 125

Figure 8.6 P
 etroleum Geo-Services owned seismic vessel Ramform Challenger,
Valletta Harbour, Malta.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH VESSEL

Race to the poles (19th century)

At the end of the 19th century, there was intense international interest
in exploring the North and South Poles. The search operations for the
lost Franklin expedition were barely forgotten as Russia, Great Britain,
Germany, and Sweden set new scientific tasks for the Arctic Ocean. In 1868,
the Swedish ship Sofia conducted temperature measurements and oceano-
graphic observation in the sea area around Svalbard. During this year, the
vessel Greenland, built in Norway, operated in the same area under the
German command of Carl Koldeway. In 1868–1869, the ship owner A.
Rosenthal gave scientists the opportunity to come on board his whaling
trips and by 1869, the ship Germania, which was escorted by the Hansa and
led the Second German North Polar Expedition, was built. The Germania
returned safely from the expedition and was used later for further research.
The Hansa, in contrast, was crushed by ice and sunk. In 1874, the Austrian-
Hungarian Tegetthoff as well as the American schooner Polaris met with
the same fate. The Royal Navy ships HMS Alert and HMS Discovery of the
British Arctic Expedition of 1875–1876 were more successful. In 1875, they
left Portsmouth to cross the Arctic Ocean and reach as close as possible to
126 Merchant ship types

the pole. Although they did not reach the pole itself, they brought plenty of
precious observations back. During these years, Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld’s
discovery of the Northeast Passage and first circumnavigation of Eurasia
during the Vega expedition outstood all other expeditions. Fridtjof Nansen’s
famous Fram took deep-sea soundings and conducted hydrographical,
meteorological, and magnetic surveys throughout the polar basin. In 1884,
a press item stating that the American Jeanette had sunk near the Siberian
coast three years earlier, inspired Fridtjof Nansen (Figure 8.7).
Three years following the loss of the Jeanette, some items of equipment
including sou’wester pants were found washed up on the southwestern
Greenland coast. When Nansen heard about this, he deduced that there was
only explanation. These pieces had drifted surrounded by ice via the polar
basin and along the east coast of Greenland until they ended up in Julianehab.
Bits of driftwood, used by the Inuit, were even more enlightening for Nansen,
as they could only have derived from the areas of the Siberian rivers that
flowed into the Arctic Ocean. Nansen realised there was a current which
floated from somewhere between the pole and Franz Josef Land through the
Arctic Ocean to the east coast of Greenland. Nansen planned to freeze a
ship into the ice and to let it float. Unlike other explorers, Nansen supposed
that a well-constructed ship would take him to the North Pole safely. The
success of the expedition depended on the ship’s construction, especially its
resistance against ice pressure. Indeed, neither the Fram nor Nansen, who
impatiently left his ship and ventured towards the pole on foot, achieved

Figure 8.7 D iscovery, Antarctica, circa 1901.

 Research and scientific vessels 127

their goal but Nansen’s theory about the currents was proved correct. While
Nansen was returning from the ice of the Arctic Ocean, his compatriot
Roald Amundsen set off to the Antarctic. On board, the Belgica Amundsen
accompanied the Belgian Antarctic Expedition as a steersman. For this expe-
dition, Adrien de Gerlache purchased the whale catcher Patria for 70,000
francs, overhauled the engine, installed additional cabins, arranged a labo-
ratory, and renamed the ship Belgica. Between 1887 and 1899, biological
and physical observations were conducted to the west of the Antarctic
Peninsula and to the south of Peter I Island. The Belgica became the first
ship to remain over winter in the Antarctic. In 1895, Georg Neumayer,
director of the Hamburg Naval Observatory, launched the slogan ‘off to the
South Pole’ at the Sixth International Geographic Congress. Motivated by
reports of the Norwegian Carsten Borchgrevink, who was the first person to
land on the new continent, the Congress declared the exploration of
Antarctica as the most urgent task for the next several years.

20th century
While Borchgrevink, steering towards the Southern Cross, was on target
for Antarctica, a German, Swedish, and British expedition was preparing to
explore the Southern Ocean. Germany built the expedition ship Gauss for
1.5 million marks at the Howaldtswerke in Kiel. Designed off the model of
the Fram, the Gauss, which weighed 1,442 tonnes and was 46 m (151 ft) long,
had a round hulk to withstand the ice pressure. The Gauss had three masts
and one auxiliary engine of 275 horsepower (205 kW). With a 60-strong
crew, she could operate for almost three years without needing assistance.
From 1901 until 1903, Erich von Drygalski led the German Antarctic expe-
dition and conducted extensive studies in the southern part of the Indian
Ocean. The Swedish expedition under the command of Otto Nordenskjöld
used the old Antarctic, weighing only 353 tonnes, which had already been
used by Borchgrevink in 1895. The expedition, intending to spend the win-
ter in the Antarctic Peninsula, was ill-fated from the beginning. In 1902,
the Antarctic sank. Fortunately, the Argentine gunboat Uruguay rescued all
crewmembers. At the same time, the British Government prompted Dundee
Shipbuilders in Scotland to build a ship for Robert Falcon Scott’s expedi-
tion. The Discovery, weighing 1,620 tonnes, and 52 m (171 ft) in length,
was fitted with an auxiliary motor of 450 horsepower. Nevertheless, during
the expedition, the ship became frozen by ice. Only the relief ship Morning,
sent by the British Admiralty to free her, was able to free her and with Terra
Nova escorted the Discovery back home. Undeterred, the British decided to
return to the Antarctic, this time under the command of the Scottish natu-
ralist, William Spiers Bruce. Bruce had collaborated with the whale catchers
Balaena and Active in the Southern Ocean throughout 1892 and 1893. He
hoped that he could acquire the field-tested Balaena but found the ship too
expensive, buying instead the Norwegian whale catcher Hekla for £2620,
128 Merchant ship types

a ship that had sailed under the Danish flag along Greenland’s coast in 1891
and 1892. For another £8000, he had the ship repaired and provided it with
a new engine. Under the new name Scotia, the ship completed its way into
the Southern Ocean.
At that point, the French vessel Français, a 32 m (105 ft) three-master
arrived in the Antarctic with the French doctor and naturalist Jean-Baptiste
Charcot on board. After his return from the Southern Ocean, Charcot sold
the Français, but in 1908 returned to Antarctica, this time on board the
Pourquoi Pas.
Sir Ernest Shackleton, a member of the ‘Discovery-Expedition’ of 1901,
returned to the Antarctic with the forty-year-old Nimrod. His plan was to
march to the South Pole but was forced to give up just 111 mi (180 km)
before reaching his goal. Shackleton had at first tried to purchase the whale
catcher Bjørn built at the Risør shipyard in Lindstøl, Norway. As Shackleton
could not raise sufficient financing for the expedition, he conceded the ship
to Wilhelm Filchner’s second German Antarctic Expedition. Filchner refur-
bished the ship at the Blohm & Voss dockyard and renamed it Deutschland.
There was sufficient room for 34 crewmembers, while single cabins were
available for the scientists and ship’s officers. In addition, a geologist, mete-
orologist, an oceanographer, and a zoologist shared a laboratory. The expe-
dition, which visited the Southern Ocean between 1911 and 1912, made
substantial contributions to the physical and chemical conditions in the
western part of the southern Atlantic Ocean and the Weddell Sea.
The Japanese arrived in the Southern Ocean in 1911. Ensign Nobu Shirase
explored the eastern part of the Ross Ice Shelf with the Kainan Maru. The
years between 1910 until 1912 were characterised by the ‘great race’
between the Norwegian Amundsen and the Englishman Scott. While Scott
travelled in the 26-year-old Terra Nova, which had escorted him out of the
ice in 1903, Roald Amundsen borrowed the dependable Fram for his South
Pole expedition. During the dramatic race, Australia unobtrusively sent its
first expedition ship, the Aurora, into the Antarctic under the leadership of
Douglas Mawson. An air-tractor, the first airplane to be despatched to the
region, was on board but proved to be useless. The failed attempt to cross
Antarctica, for which Shackleton used the Endurance and Mawson’s Aurora,
was one of the last Antarctic Expeditions before the outbreak of the First
World War.

Between the world wars

After the war, Shackleton was one of the first to reengage in polar explora-
tion. For a new Arctic Expedition, he bought the Foca I which was designed
in Norway and specified for polar areas. Organisational difficulties were
encountered, and Shackleton needed to change his plans, and set course
instead for the Southern Ocean. Unfortunately, Shackleton failed to com-
plete the expedition, having died on board the Quest in 1922. His long-time
 Research and scientific vessels 129

companion Frank Wild assumed the leadership and advanced as far as the
South Sandwich Islands until pack ice forced Wild to turn round and make
for home. Later, the Quest resumed its original role as a sealer. In the period
from 1930 to 1931, H. G. Watkins deployed the Quest for the British Air
Route Expedition, surveying the eastern coast of Greenland in search of a site
for an air base. After the First World War interrupted oceanographic research,
international scientific activities were renewed in 1920. The invention of the
echo sounder in 1912 provided new significance for international marine
research. Henceforth, it was possible to measure the distance from the surface
to the seabed by sending acoustic signals instead of using wires and weights.
The technology was evaluated extensively throughout the war. In 1922, the
American destroyer Stewart took the first echo profile over the North Atlantic
and one year later, completed sonic logging between San Francisco and San
Diego. Between 1929 and 1934, the USS Ramapo completed about thirty pro-
files of the northern Pacific Ocean. In 1927, the German cruiser Emden con-
ducted a series of soundings of the ocean trench to the east of the Philippines.
The German ship Meteor was the first to use the echo sounder for scien-
tific purposes in the 1920s on the German Meteor Expedition. For the first
time, an ocean, the Atlantic, was systematically mapped. The Meteor crossed
the South Atlantic from the ice line to 20 degrees north on 14 mapping pas-
sages. With 67,000 echo soundings, cartographers were able to produce a
modern depth chart. Other geomagnetic and oceanographic mapping expe-
ditions followed starting with the American research ship Carnegie in the
Pacific Ocean from 1928 to 1929; detailed reconnaissance in Indonesia by
the Dutchman Willebrord Snellius; the exploration of the waters around the
Antarctic by the British William Scoresby and Discovery II and the expedi-
tion of the American schooner Atlantis, which sailed from the West Atlantic
to the Gulf of Mexico between 1932 and 1938. The Scandinavian countries
also continued their activities at the end of the 1920s. Danish scientists
devoted themselves to research in marine biology. The oceanographic Dana
Expedition, led by Johannes Schmidt and financed by the Carlsberg
Foundation, was the most important Danish marine expedition of that time.
In March 1914, the Canadian-born British oceanographer John Murray
died, leaving in his will instructions that a new expedition be organised as
soon as the necessary capital could be accumulated. In 1931, his son, John
Challenger Murray set about putting his father’s legacy into action. Murray
had originally intended to enlist the research ships William Scoresby, Dana,
and George Bligh. As all three vessels were unavailable, Murray accepted an
offer from the Egyptian Government to take the Mabahiss instead. The
Mabaniss departed Alexandria on 3 September 1933, returning on 25 May
1934. During this period, under the leadership of Seymour Sewell, the
Mabahiss surveyed the Red Sea, Bay of Biscay, Indian Ocean, and the Gulf
of Oman; an undertaking of more than 22,000 nautical miles (25,476 mi;
41,000 km). During the expedition, various chemical, physical, and biolog-
ical assays were collected.
130 Merchant ship types

Eight years later, a new phase in marine research began. Unlike previously
when expeditions were competitive, countries were now working together
on one combined expedition. The German Altair and the Norwegian
Armauer Hansen performed common measurements on the International
Gulf Stream Expedition, which shed light on the fluctuation of the Gulf
Stream. For this experiment, the German Meteor, the Danish Dana, and the
French air-base vessel Carimare also collaborated to collect and deliver
data. Two flying boats, the Boreas and the Passat, equipped with aerial pho-
tography equipment were positioned on board the German research ship
Schwabenland. The application of this technology over Antarctica proved
revolutionary, with stereo photography used for the first time. On the way
back to Europe, the aircraft carrier conducted oceanographic, biological,
and meteorological observations and every 15–30 minutes took echo
soundings.

The post-war period

Following a hiatus between 1939 and 1946, the major seafaring nations
once again turned their attention to marine research. Leading this was
the United States although other expeditions were launched as well. The
Swedish Albatross expedition of 1947–1948 crossed the equator no less
than 18 times and covered 45,000 nautical miles (51,573 mi; 83,000 km).
Over 200 cores, fastened on a perpendicular, were dragged 0.93 mi (1.5 km)
over the seabed. The second Danish Galathea expedition, from 1950 to
1951, headed by Anton Bruun, concentrated on studying deep sea life and
succeeded in catching live animals from the bottom of the Philippine Trench
at a depth of 10,190 m (33,430 ft), therein proving that life can exist in
even the deepest parts of the ocean. Another significant find of the expedi-
tion was the discovery of a ‘living fossil’, the monoplacophoran Neopilina
galathea, dredged from the bottom of the Mexican Gulf. Already by the
1930s, American scientists had begun to use seismic measuring methods in
flat waters and during the war, physicist Maurice Ewing conducted the first
seismic refractions. The introduction of this geophysical method, as well as
palaeomagnetic research (studying the Earth’s magnetic field preserved in
magnetic iron-bearing minerals), led to a reinvigoration of Alfred Wegener’s
continental drift theory and subsequent development of plate tectonics.
Following the end of the Second World War, the number of missions esca-
lated worldwide. For the period 1950–1960, no less than 110 expeditions
were performed in the Mediterranean Sea alone.

Increasing collaboration
At the beginning of the 1950s, an innovative approach to marine research
methods was emerging. In line with the NOPAC enterprise, the Canadian
and American ships Hugh M. Smith, Brown Bear, Ste. Teherse, Horizon,
 Research and scientific vessels 131

Black Douglas, Stranger, and the Spencer F. Baird, and the Japanese ves-
sels Oshoro Maru, Tenyo Maru, Kagoshima Maru, Satsuma, Umitaka
Maru took part in this study. Working on a grand scale, common inter-
national research programmes got underway during the international geo-
physical year (IGY) 1957/1958. For the exploration of deep-sea circulation
and strong sea currents, 60 research ships from 40 nations were deployed,
including the research ships Crawford, Atlantis, Discovery II, Chain, and the
Argentine sounding vessel Capitan Canepa. During this study, 15 profiles at
intervals of eight latitudes between 48 degrees north and 48 degrees south
were taken. Furthermore, 20 ships from 12 different nations participated in
the Cold Wall enterprise, which was another programme of the IGY. The
research was focused on the Cold Wall, which separates the warm, high-salt
Gulf Stream and the cold, low-salt water masses of the Arctic polar region
and stretches northwest from the Newfoundland banks to the Norwegian
Sea. Later, West Germany participated in the programme with the Antorn
Dohrn and the Gauss. This was Germany’s first participation after World
War II. For the first time, the Soviet Union, which had a fleet of 20 research
ships and one research dive station, took part in an international project
during the IGY. Moreover, the USSR commissioned the research ships
Vityaz (5700 tonnes) and Michail Lomonosov (6,000 tonnes), in addition
to the icebreaker Ob. The IGY marked the beginning of a new exploration
phase in marine research characterised by international cooperation and
synoptic research.
With the Overflow programme, scientists tried to reconnoitre the overflow
of the cold Arctic ground water over the submarine ridge between Iceland
and the Faroe Islands. Nine research ships from five European countries par-
ticipated in the study. This programme was later enlarged with thirteen
research ships from seven countries soon joining the project. Denmark
appointed the Dana and Jens Christian Svabo, Iceland the Bjarni Sæmundson,
Canada the Hudson, Norway the Helland Hansen, the USSR the Boris
Davydov and Professor Zubov, Great Britain the Challenger, Shackleton and
Explorer, and West Germany the Meteor, Walther Herwig, and Meerkatze II.
This completes Part I. In Part II, we will begin to explore the design, role,
and function of wet cargo ships, starting with chemical tankers.
Part II

Wet cargo ships

Chapter 9

Chemical tankers

Chemical tankers are a class of tanker ships designed to transport chemi-

cals in bulk. As defined in MARPOL Annex II, chemical tanker refers to any
ship constructed or adapted for carrying in bulk any liquid product listed in
Chapter 17 of the International Bulk Chemical (IBC) Code. As well as indus-
trial chemicals and clean petroleum products, these ships also often carry other
types of sensitive cargo, which require a high standard of tank cleaning, such
as palm oil, vegetable oils, tallow, caustic soda, and methanol. Oceangoing
chemical tankers range from 5,000 metric tonnes dwt to 35,000 metric tonnes
dwt in size, which is smaller than the average size of other tanker types. This is
due to the specialised nature of their cargo and the size restrictions of the port
terminals where they call to load and discharge. Chemical tankers normally
have a series of separate cargo tanks, which are either coated with specialised
coatings (such as phenolic epoxy or zinc paint) or are made from stainless
steel. The coating or cargo tank material determines what types of cargo a
particular tank can carry. For instance, stainless steel tanks are required for
aggressive acid cargoes such as sulphuric acid and phosphoric acid, while ‘eas-
ier’ cargoes – such as vegetable oil – can be carried in epoxy-coated tanks.
The coating or tank material also influences how quickly the ship’s tanks can
be cleaned. Typically, ships with stainless steel tanks can carry a wider range
of cargoes and can be cleaned more quickly between one cargo and another,
which justifies the additional cost of their construction.
In general, ships carrying chemicals in bulk are classed into one of the
following three types:

• Type 1. Tankers intended to transport products with profoundly seri-

ous environmental and safety hazards requiring maximum preventive
measures to prevent any leakage of cargo.
• Type 2. Tankers intended to transport products with appreciably
severe environmental and safety hazards requiring significant preven-
tive measures to preclude an escape of such cargo.
• Type 3. Tankers intended to transport products with sufficiently severe
environmental and safety hazards to require a moderate degree of con-
tainment to increase survival capability in a damaged condition.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-12 135

136 Merchant ship types

Figure 9.1 Typical chemical tanker, Triple A, outbound from Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Most chemical tankers are IMO 2 and IMO 3 rated since the volume of
IMO 1 cargoes is extremely limited. Chemical tankers often have a sys-
tem for tank heating to maintain the viscosity of certain cargoes, typically
through passing pressurised steam through stainless steel ‘heating coils’
in the cargo tanks. These coils circulate fluid in the tank by convection,
transferring heat to the cargo. All modern chemical tankers feature a
double-hull construction. Most modern vessels have one hydraulically driven
and submerged cargo pump for each tank with independent piping, which
means that each tank can load separate cargo without them being mixed.
Consequently, many oceangoing chemical tankers may carry numerous dif-
ferent grades of cargo on a single voyage, often loading and discharging
these ‘parcels’ at different ports or terminals. This means that the schedul-
ing, stowage planning, and operation of such ships requires an elevated level
of coordination and specialist knowledge, both at sea and on shore. Tank
cleaning after discharging cargo is an especially important aspect of chemi-
cal tanker operations. This is because cargo residue can adversely affect the
purity of the next cargo to be loaded. Before tanks are cleaned, they must be
properly ventilated and checked to be free of potentially toxic or explosive
vapours. Chemical tankers usually have transverse stiffeners on deck rather
than inside the cargo tanks. This ensures that the tank walls are smooth and
thus easier to clean using permanently fitted tank cleaning machines. Cargo
tanks, either empty or filled, are normally protected against explosion by
inert gas blankets. Nitrogen is most often used as the inert gas of choice,
supplied either from portable gas bottles or from a nitrogen generator.
 Chemical tankers 137

Currently, the latest chemical tankers are built by shipbuilders in Japan,

Korea, and China, where most stainless-steel chemical tankers are built.
This is because welding stainless steel to the accuracy required for cargo
tank construction is a difficult skill to acquire. Nations with minor builders
include Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Poland. The largest chemical tanker
operators include Stolt-Nielsen (UK), Odfjell (Norway), Navig8 (UK), and
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) (Japan). Charterers or the end users of the ships
include oil majors, industrial consumers, commodity traders, and specialist
chemical companies.
Chapter 10

FPSO and FLNG units

Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) units are a type of float-
ing vessel used by the offshore oil and gas industry for the production and
processing of hydrocarbons, and for the storage of oil. An FPSO vessel is
designed to receive hydrocarbons produced by itself or from nearby plat-
forms or subsea templates, process them, and store the oil on board until it
can be offloaded onto a tanker or, less frequently, transported through a pipe-
line to an onshore facility. FPSOs are preferred in frontier offshore regions
as they are easy to install and do not require local pipeline infrastructure to
export the oil. FPSOs can be either converted oil tankers (such as the Knock
Nevis, ex-Seawise Giant, which for many years was the world’s largest ship.
It was converted into an FSO for offshore use before being scrapped in
2010) or a vessel built specially for the application. A vessel used only to
store oil (without processing it) is referred to as a floating storage and off-
loading (FSO) vessel. Most FSOs are converted single hull super tankers.
Recent developments in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry have led
to the development and location of LNG processing trains or floating LNG
units (FLNGs). These are typically located above remote smaller gas fields
that would otherwise be uneconomical to develop. The added benefits of
using mobile LNG processing units include reduced capital expenditure and
a minimal impact on the marine environment. Unlike FPSOs, FLNGs allow
full-scale deep processing to the same extent as onshore LNG plants but
with a 25% smaller footprint. The first three purpose-built FLNGs con-
structed were Prelude FLNG by Shell, and the PFLNG1 and PFLNG2
for Petronas (Malaysia), all in 2016. At the other end of the LNG logistics
chain, where the natural gas is brought back to ambient temperature and
pressure, a specially modified ship may also be used as a floating storage and
regasification unit (FSRU). LNG FSRUs receive the LNG from offloading
LNG carriers, and the onboard regasification system provides natural gas
exported to shore through risers and pipelines (Figure 10.1).
The oil produced from offshore production platforms can be transported
to the mainland either by pipeline or by tanker. When a tanker is chosen to
transport the oil, it is necessary to accumulate oil in some form of storage
tank, such that the oil tanker is not continuously occupied during oil

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-13 139

140 Merchant ship types

Figure 10.1 F PSO Kizomba.

production and is only needed once sufficient oil has been produced to fill
the tanker. Floating production, storage, and offloading vessels are particu-
larly effective at storing oil in remote or deep-water locations, where seabed
pipelines are not cost-effective. FPSOs eliminate the need to lay expensive
long-distance pipelines from the processing facility to an onshore terminal.
This can provide an economically attractive solution for smaller oil fields,
which can be exhausted in a few years and do not justify the expense of
installing a pipeline. Once the field is depleted, the FPSO is moved to a new
location. New build FPSOs have a high initial cost (up to US$1 billion) but
require limited maintenance. In addition, the ability to reposition and or
repurpose them means that they can outlast the life of the production facil-
ity by decades. Converting an oil tanker or a similar vessel into an FPSO can
cost as little as US$100 million.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FPSO

Oil has been produced from offshore locations since the late 1940s.
Originally, all oil platforms sat on the seabed, but as exploration moved to
deeper waters and more distant locations in the 1970s, floating production
systems were developed. The first oil FPSO was built in 1977 and installed
above the Shell Castellon field, located in the Spanish Mediterranean. Today,
over 270 vessels are deployed worldwide as oil FPSOs. In 2009, Shell and
 FPSO and FLNG units 141

Samsung announced an agreement to build up to 10 LNG FPSOs. In 2011,

Shell announced the development of the 488 m (1,601 ft) long and 74 m
(242 ft) wide floating LNG facility (FLNG), Prelude, which was to be sit-
uated 124 mi (200 km) off the coast of Western Australia. As of 2022, the
Prelude is the largest and most expensive merchant vessel ever built with an
estimated price tag of over US$12billion. In 2012, the Malaysian oil company
Petronas signed an agreement with Technip of France and DSME of South
Korea to design, construct, install, and commission the world’s first floating
natural gas liquefaction unit. With a length overall of 300 m (984 ft) and a
beam of 60 m (196 ft), and moored 112 mi (180 km) offshore Bintulu, the
Petronas Floating LNG 1 can produce 1.2 metric-tonnes per annum (mpta)
of LNG, increasing Malaysia’s total gas production from 25.7 to 26.9 mpta.
At the opposite (discharge and regasification) end of the LNG chain, the first
ever conversion of an LNG carrier, the Golar LNG, into an LNG FSRU was
conducted in 2007 by Keppel shipyard in Singapore (Figure 10.2).

FPSO records
The FPSO operating in the deepest waters is the FPSO BW Pioneer, built and
operated by BW Offshore on behalf of Petrobras Americas Inc. The FPSO
is moored at a depth of 2600 m (8530 ft) in Block 249 of the Walker Ridge
field in the Gulf of Mexico and is rated for 80,000 bbl/d (13,000 m3/d). The
EPCI contract was awarded in October 2007 with production starting in
early 2012. The FPSO conversion was conducted at the MMHE Shipyard
Pasir Gudang in Malaysia, while the topsides were fabricated in modules at

Figure 10.2 F PSO Firenze.

142 Merchant ship types

various international vendor locations. The FPSO has a disconnectable tur-

ret. This means that the vessel can disconnect on notification of hurricanes
and reconnect with a minimal down time. A contract for an FPSO to operate
in even deeper waters (2,900 m, 9,514 ft) for Shell’s Stones field in the Gulf
of Mexico was awarded to SBM Offshore in July 2013. One of the world’s
largest FPSO is the Kizomba A, with a storage capacity of 2.2 million barrels
(350,000 m3). Built at a cost of over US$800 million by Hyundai Heavy
Industries in Ulsan, Korea, the Kizomba A is operated by Esso Exploration
Angola, which is a subsidiary of the ExxonMobil conglomerate. Located in
1,200 m (3,940 ft) of water, some 200 mi (320 km) offshore from Angola,
it weighs 81,000 metric-tonnes and has a length overall of 285 m (935 ft), a
beam if 63 m (206 ft), and a height above the waterline of 32 m (104.9 ft).
The first FSO to operate in the Gulf of Mexico, the FSO Ta’Kuntah, has
been in operation since August 1998. The FSO, owned and operated by
MODEC, is under a service agreement with PEMEX Exploration and
Production (Mexico). The vessel was installed as part of the Cantarell Field
Development. The field is in the Bay of Campeche, off the coast of Mexico’s
Yucatán Peninsula. She is a converted ULCC tanker with a SOFEC exter-
nal turret mooring system, two flexible risers connected in a lazy-S config-
uration between the turret and a pipeline end manifold (PLEM) on the
seabed, and an offloading system that allows up to two tankers at a time
to moor and load, in tandem or side by side. The FSO is designed to man-
age 800,000 bbl/d (130,000 m3/d) with no allowance for downtime. The
Skarv FPSO, developed and engineered by Aker Solutions for BP Norge, is
one of the most advanced and largest FPSO deployed in the Norwegian
Sea, positioned offshore mid-Norway. Skarv is a gas condensate and oil
field development. The development ties in five sub-sea templates, and the
FPSO has the capacity to include several nearby smaller wells. The process
plant on the vessel can oversee approximately 19,000,000 cubic metres per
day (670,000,000 cu ft/d) of gas and 13,500 cubic metres per day
(480,000cu ft/d) of oil. A 49 mi (80 km) gas export pipe connects to the
Åsgard transport system. Aker Solutions (formerly Aker Kvaerner) devel-
oped the front-end design for the floating production facility as well as the
overall system design for the field and preparation for procurement and
project management of the total field development. The hull is of an Aker
Solutions proprietary ‘Tentech975’ design. BP also selected Aker Solutions
to perform the detail engineering, procurement, and construction manage-
ment assistance (EPcma) for the Skarv field development. The EPcma con-
tract covered detail engineering and procurement work for the FPSO
topsides as well as construction management assistance to BP including
hull and topside facilities. The production started in the field in August
2011. BP awarded the contract for fabrication of the Skarv FPSO hull to
Samsung Heavy Industries (South Korea) and the Turret contract to SBM.
The FPSO has a length overall of 292 m (958 ft), a beam of 50.6 m (166 ft),
a draught of 29 m (95 ft), and can accommodate as many as 100 people in
single berth cabins.
Chapter 11

Gas carriers

A gas carrier, gas tanker, LPG carrier, or LPG tanker is a ship designed to
transport LPG, LNG, CNG, or liquefied chemical gases in bulk. There are
six main types of gas carriers in operation today, namely the fully pressurised
gas carrier; the semi-pressurised gas carrier; ethylene and gas/chemical carri-
ers; fully refrigerated carriers; LNG carriers; and CNG carriers. Gas carriers
transport a wide selection of cargoes, including butadiene, ethylene, LPG,
LNG, CNG, propylene, and chemical gases such as ammonia, vinyl chloride,
ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, and chlorine. Most gas carriers are built in
South Korea (Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine, Hyundai Heavy Industries,
Hyundai Mipo, Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries), China (Jiangnan),
and Japan (Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation, and Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries). Damen Shipyard in the Netherlands has built a small number of
new buildings. In this chapter, we will briefly examine each of these types of
vessels, as well as the gas carrier codes, cargo containment systems, and the
hazards and health effects associated with gas carriers (Figure 11.1).

Figure 11.1 Typical type gas carrier Marshal Vasil Evskiy.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-14 143

144 Merchant ship types

TYPES OF GAS CARRIERS

There are six types of gas carriers in operation: fully pressurised gas carriers,
semi-pressurised gas carriers, ethylene and gas/chemical carriers, fully refrig-
erated ships, LNG carriers, and CNG carriers.

(1) Fully pressurised gas carriers. The seaborne transport of liquefied

gases began in 1934 when a major international company put two
combined oil/LPG tankers into operation. The ships, which were oil
tankers, had been converted by fitting small, riveted, pressure ves-
sels for the carriage of LPG into cargo tank spaces. This enabled the
transport over long distances of substantial volumes of an oil refinery
byproduct that had distinct advantages as a domestic and commer-
cial fuel. LPG is not only odourless and non-toxic, but it also has a
high calorific value and a low sulphur content, making it exceptionally
clean and efficient when burnt. Today, most fully pressurised ocean-
going LPG carriers are fitted with two or three horizontal, cylindrical,
or spherical cargo tanks and have typical capacities ranging between
20,000 and 90,000 cu/m and length overall ranging from 140 to 229
m (459 ft–751 ft). New LPG carriers are designed with a dual-fuel
propulsion system possessing the ability to use LPG or diesel fuel on a
selective basis. Fully pressurised ships are still constructed in numbers
and represent a cost-effective and straightforward way of moving LPG
to and from smaller gas terminals.
(2) Semi-pressurised ships. Semi-pressurised ships carry gases in a semi-
pressurised or a semi-refrigerated state. This approach provides flexi-
bility, as these carriers can load or discharge at both refrigerated and
pressurised storage facilities. Semi-pressurised and semi-refrigerated
carriers incorporate cylindrical, spherical, or bi-lobe shaped tanks car-
rying propane under pressure of 8.5 kg/cm2 (or 121 psi), at a tempera-
ture of −10°C (14°F).
(3) Ethylene and gas/Chemical carriers. Ethylene carriers are the most
sophisticated type of gas carrier as they can carry not only most other
liquefied gas cargoes but also ethylene at its atmospheric boiling point
of −104°C (−155°F). These ships feature cylindrical, insulated, stain-
less steel cargo tanks able to accommodate cargoes up to a maxi-
mum specific gravity of 1.8 at temperatures ranging from a minimum
of −104°C to a maximum of +80°C (176°F) and at a maximum tank
pressure of 4 bar.
(4) Fully refrigerated ships. Fully refrigerated ships are built to carry liq-
uefied gases at a low temperature and atmospheric pressure between
terminals equipped with fully refrigerated storage tanks. However,
discharge through a booster pump and cargo heater makes it possible
to discharge to pressurised tanks as well. The first purpose-built, LPG
tanker was the MT Rasmus Tholstrup, which was built in Sweden
 Gas carriers 145

in accordance with a Danish design. Prismatic tanks enabled the

ship’s cargo-carrying capacity to be maximised, thus making fully
refrigerated ships particularly well suited for carrying large volumes
of cargo such as LPG, ammonia, and vinyl chloride over substan-
tial distances. Today, fully refrigerated ships range in capacity from
20,000 to 100,000 m3 (710,000–3,530,000 cu/ft). LPG carriers in the
50,000–80,000 m3 (1,800,000–2,800,000 cu/ft) size range are often
referred to as VLGCs (very large gas carriers). Although LNG carri-
ers are often larger in terms of cubic capacity, this term is normally
only applied to fully refrigerated LPG carriers. The main type of cargo
containment system used on board modern fully refrigerated ships is
independent tanks with rigid foam insulation. The insulation used is
most commonly polyurethane foam. Older ships may have independ-
ent tanks with loosely filled perlite insulation. In the past, there have
been a few fully refrigerated ships built with semi-membrane or inte-
gral tanks and internal insulation tanks, but these systems attracted
only minimal interest from ship owners.
(5) Liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. Many LNG carriers have
between 125,000 and 135,000 m3 (4,400,000 and 4,800,000 cu/ft)
of carrying capacity, although from 1994, LNG carriers have been
progressively smaller with an average of 18,000–19,000 m3 (640,000
and 670,000 cu/ft).
(6) CNG carriers. CNG carriers are designed for transportation of nat-
ural gas under high pressure. CNG carrier technology relies on high
pressure, typically over 250 bar (2900 psi), to increase the density of
the gas and maximise the possible commercial payload. CNG carri-
ers are economical for medium-distance marine transport and rely on
the adoption of suitable pressure vessels to store CNG during trans-
port and on the use of suitable loading and unloading compressors to
receive the CNG at the loading terminal and to deliver the CNG at the
unloading terminal.

GAS CARRIER CODES

The gas carrier codes, developed by the IMO in London, apply to all gas
carriers regardless of their size. There are three gas carrier codes, the IGC
Code, the GC Code, and the existing ship code, which are outlined in the
following sections.

Gas carriers built after June 1986 (the IGC code)

The IGC Code, which applies to new gas carriers (built after 30 June
1986), is the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk. In summary, this Code is known
146 Merchant ship types

as the IGC Code. The IGC Code, under amendments to The International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), is mandatory for all
new ships. As a proof that a ship complies with the Code, an International
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk must be
transported on board. In 1993, the IGC Code was amended, with new rules
coming into effect on 1 July 1994. Ships, on which construction started on
or after 1 October 1994, must apply the amended version of the Code, but
ships built earlier than 1 July 1994 may continue to comply with the previ-
ous edition of the IGC Code.

Gas carriers built between 1976 and 1986 (the GC code)

The regulations covering gas carriers built after 1976 but before July 1986
are included in the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk. It is known as the Gas Carrier Code or
GC Code in short. Since 1975, the IMO has approved four sets of amend-
ments to the GC Code. The latest amendment was adopted in June 1993.
The amendments have not necessarily been agreed upon by every signing
government. Although the Code is not mandatory, many countries have
implemented it into their national laws. Accordingly, most charterers expect
such ships to meet the Code standards and, as proof of this, to carry on
board a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk.

Gas carriers built before 1977 (the existing ship code)

The regulations covering gas carriers built before 1977 are contained in the
Code for Existing Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk. The content is
like the GC Code, though less extensive. The Existing Ship Code was com-
pleted in 1976 after the GC Code had been written. It therefore summarises
current shipbuilding practice at that time. It remains an IMO recommen-
dation for all gas carriers in this older fleet of ships. The Code is not man-
datory but is applied by some countries for ship registration and in other
countries as a necessary fulfilment prior to port entry. Accordingly, many
ships of this age are required by charterers to meet Code standards and to
transport on board a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied
Gases in Bulk.

HAZARDS AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Toxicity
Vinyl chloride, a product commonly transported on gas carriers, is a
known human carcinogen. It is especially linked to liver cancer. It is not
only dangerous when inhaled but can also be absorbed by the skin. Skin
 Gas carriers 147

irritation and watering of the eyes indicate that dangerous levels of vinyl
chloride may be present in the atmosphere. Caution must be exercised
while dealing with such cargoes, including the use of precautions such as
chemical suits, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), and gas-tight
goggles. Similar safety precautions should be taken when carrying other
toxic cargoes including chlorine and ammonia.

Hazards of ammonia
Ammonia is an extremely hazardous chemical. Exposure to more than 2,000
parts per million (ppm) can be fatal within 30 minutes, whereas exposure
to 6,000 ppm is fatal within minutes. Exposure to as much as 10,000 ppm
is fatal instantly and intolerable to unprotected skin. Anhydrous ammonia
is not dangerous when managed properly, but when not managed carefully,
it can be extremely dangerous. It is not as combustible as many other prod-
ucts that are used and managed every day. However, high concentrations
of ammonia gas can burn and requires precautions to avoid the outbreak
of fire. Mild ammonia exposure can cause irritation to the eyes, nose, and
lung tissues. Prolonged breathing of ammonia vapours can cause suffoca-
tion. When substantial amounts are inhaled, the throat swells shut, causing
the casualty to suffocate. Exposure to vapours or liquid can cause tempo-
rary and permanent blindness. It is the water-absorbing nature of anhydrous
ammonia that causes the greatest injury (especially to the eyes, nose, throat,
and lungs), which can cause permanent damage. It is a colourless gas at
atmospheric pressure and normal temperature, but under pressure readily
changes into a liquid. Anhydrous ammonia has a high affinity for water.
Anhydrous ammonia is a hygroscopic compound, which means it will
seek a moisture source. This includes unprotected skin, which is composed
of approximately 90% water. When a human body is exposed to anhydrous
ammonia, the chemical freeze burns its way into the skin, eyes, or lungs.
This attraction places the eyes, lungs, and skin at the greatest risk because of
their high moisture content. Caustic burns can result when the anhydrous
ammonia dissolves into body tissue. Most deaths from anhydrous ammonia
are caused by severe damage to the throat and lungs from a direct blast to
the face. An additional concern is the low boiling point of anhydrous ammo-
nia. The chemical freezes on contact at room temperature. This causes burns
like, but more severe than, those caused by dry ice. If exposed to severe cold,
the flesh will become frozen. At first, the skin will become red (but turn sub-
sequently white); the affected area is painless, but hard to touch, and if left
untreated, the flesh will die and may become gangrenous. The human eye is
a complex organ made up of about 80% water. Ammonia under pressure
can cause extensive, almost immediate eye damage on contact. The ammo-
nia extracts the fluid and destroys the eye cells and tissue in minutes.
Draining ammonia into the sea whilst pre-cooling the hard-arm or during
disconnection operations is not environment-friendly and should be avoided.
148 Merchant ship types

Even a small quantity of ammonia [as low as 0.45 mg/l (1.6×10−8 lb/cu in)
(LC50)] is hazardous to aquatic life, including edible species of fish such as
cod and salmon. The entry of contaminated seafood into the human food
chain presents considerable problems.

Flammability
All cargo vapours are flammable. When ignition occurs, it is not the liq-
uid which burns but the evolved vapour. Flameless explosions, which result
from cold cargo liquid coming into sudden contact with water, do not
release much energy. Pool fires, which are the result of a leaked pool of cargo
liquid catching fire, and jet fires, which are the result of the leak catching
fire, are serious hazards. Flash fires occur when there is a leak and do not
ignite immediately but after the vapours travel some distance downwind,
at which point they ignite. This is particularly dangerous on ships. Vapour
cloud explosions and boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions (BLEVE)
are the most dangerous hazards on gas carriers.

Frostbite
On gas carriers, cargoes are carried at extremely low temperatures ranging
from 0°C to −163°C (32°F to −261°F). This means that frostbite caused by
exposure of skin to the cold vapours or liquid is a very real hazard.

Asphyxia
Asphyxia occurs when the blood cannot bring a sufficient supply of oxygen
to the brain. A person affected by asphyxia may experience headaches, diz-
ziness, and an inability to concentrate, followed by loss of consciousness.
In sufficient concentrations, any vapour may cause asphyxiation, whether
toxic or not.

Spillage
Compared with oil, there is less industry concern over the spillage of cargoes
from LNG carrying vessels as the gas will quickly vapourise. The LNG sec-
tor is known for having a good safety record regarding cargo loss. By 2004,
there had been close to 80,000 loaded port transits of LNG carriers with no
loss of containment failure. An analysis of several spherical carriers showed
that the vessels can withstand a 90-degree side-on collision with another
similar LNG carrier at 6.6 knots (50% of normal port speed) with no loss of
LNG cargo integrity. This drops to 1.7 knots for a fully loaded 300,000 dwt
oil tanker collision into an LNG carrier. The report also notes that such
collisions are rare. In 2004, HAZID performed a risk assessment of an LNG
spill. Taking account of precautions, training, regulations, and technology
 Gas carriers 149

changes over time, HAZID calculates that the likelihood of an LNG spill is
approximately 1 in 100,000 trips. If the tank integrity of a LNG transport
is compromised, there is a risk that the natural gas contained within could
ignite, causing either an explosion or fire.
In the first of two chapters examining the role and function of gas carrier
type vessels, we have looked at the type of ship, which transports gas in a
vapour state. In the second part of the two chapters, we will look at how gas
is transported in liquid form as LNG.
Chapter 12

LNG carriers

As discussed previously, the LNG carrier is a type of ship designed specif-

ically for transporting LNG. The first LNG carrier, the Methane Pioneer
(5,034 dwt), left the Calcasieu River on the Louisiana Gulf coast on 25
January 1959. Carrying the world’s first ocean cargo of LNG, it sailed to the
United Kingdom where the cargo was discharged. Subsequent expansion of
that trade brought about a large expansion of the LNG fleet where today
giant LNG ships carrying up to 266,000 m3 (9,400,000 cu ft) are operating
worldwide. The success of the specially modified C1-M-AV1-type stand-
ard ship Normarti, which was renamed Methane Pioneer, caused the Gas
Council and Conch International Methane Ltd. to order two purpose-built
LNG carriers to be constructed: the Methane Princess and Methane Progress.
Both ships were fitted with Conch-independent aluminium cargo tanks,
entering the Algerian LNG trade in 1964. These ships had a capacity of
27,000 m3 (950,000 cu/ft). In the late 1960s, opportunities arose to export
LNG from Alaska to Japan. In 1969, trade between TEPCO and Tokyo Gas
was initiated. Two ships, Polar Alaska and Arctic Tokyo, each with a capac-
ity of 71,500 m3 (2,520,000 cu/ft), were built in Sweden. In the early 1970s,
the US government encouraged US shipyards to build LNG carriers, with
a total of 16 LNG ships built in US shipyards. By the late 1970s and early
1980s, the prospect of Arctic-capable LNG ships brought about a renewed
interest in the development of LNG carrier technology and designs. With the
increase in cargo capacity rising to approximately 143,000m3 (5,000,000
cu/ft), new tank designs were developed starting with the Moss Rosenberg,
to the Technigaz Mark III, and Gaztransport’s No.96. Over recent years,
the size and capacity of LNG carriers have increased exponentially. In 2005,
Qatargas pioneered the development of two new classes of LNG carriers:
the Q-Flex and Q-Max. Each ship has a cargo capacity of between 210,000
and 266,000 m3 (7,400,000 and 9,400,000 cu ft) and is equipped with
re-liquefaction plants. At the same time, the development of small-scale
LNG bunker carriers has also increased, in line with the maritime industry’s
move towards greener energy. Some models, such as the Damen LGC 3,000,
are compact enough to fit beneath the life rafts of cruise ships and ROPAX
vessels (Figure 12.1).

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-15 151

152 Merchant ship type

Figure 12.1 Typical LNG carrier Gas Spirit.

In November 2018, South Korean shipbuilders locked in three years’

worth of large-scale LNG carrier contracts totalling more than 50 orders
with a list value of over US$9 billion. This is equal to 78% of LNG-related
shipbuilding contracts, with 14% going to Japanese shipbuilders and 8%
going to Chinese shipyards. These new buildings would boost the global
LNG fleet by some 10%. Of the global fleet, historically, about two-thirds of
LNG carriers have been built in South Korea, 22% by Japan, 7% by China,
and the remainder by a combination of France, Spain, and the United States.
South Korea’s success stems from innovation and price points. For example,
South Korean shipbuilders introduced the first ice-breaker type LNG ves-
sels. In 2017, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering delivered the
Christophe de Margerie, the world’s first icebreaking LNG tanker, with a
dwt of 80,200 metric tonnes, with the option to build a further 14 new
buildings on contract. Her capacity of 172,600 m3 (6,100,000 cu/ft) is equal
to the entire gas consumption of Sweden for a month. She completed her
first revenue voyage from Norway via the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic
Ocean to South Korea. According to SIGTTO data, in 2019, there were
154 LNG carriers on order, and 584 operating LNG carriers worldwide.
A typical LNG carrier has four to six tanks located along the centreline of
the vessel. Surrounding the tanks is a combination of ballast tanks, coffer-
dams, and void spaces; this effectively gives the vessel a double-hull type
design. Inside each tank, there are typically three submerged pumps. There
are two main cargo pumps, which are used in cargo discharge operations
and a much smaller pump, which is referred to as the spray pump. The
spray pump is used for either pumping out liquid LNG to be used as fuel
 LNG carriers 153

(via a vapouriser), or for cooling down cargo tanks. It can also be used for
‘stripping’ out the last of the cargo in discharge operations. All these pumps
are contained within what is known as the pump tower, which hangs from
the top of the tank and runs the entire depth of the tank. The pump tower
also contains the tank gauging system and the tank filling line, all of which
are located near the bottom of the tank. In membrane-type vessels, there is
also an empty pipe with a spring-loaded foot valve that can be opened by
weight or pressure. This is the emergency pump tower. In the event, both
main cargo pumps fail the top can be removed from this pipe and an emer-
gency cargo pump lowered down to the bottom of the pipe. The top is
replaced on the column and then the pump is allowed to push down on the
foot valve and open it. The cargo can then be pumped out. All cargo pumps
discharge into a common pipe, which runs along the deck of the vessel; it
branches off to either side of the vessel to the cargo manifolds, which are used
for loading or discharging. All cargo tank vapour spaces are linked via a
vapour header, which runs parallel to the cargo header. This also has connec-
tions to the sides of the ship next to the loading and discharging manifolds.

CARGO HANDLING AND CYCLE

A typical cargo cycle starts with the tanks in a ‘gas-free’ condition, meaning
the tanks are full of air, which allows maintenance on the tank and pumps.
Cargo cannot be loaded directly into the tank, as the presence of oxygen
would create an explosive atmospheric condition within the tank, and the
rapid temperature change caused by loading LNG at −162°C (−260°F)
could damage the tanks. First, the tank must be ‘inerted’ to eliminate the risk
of explosion. An inert gas plant burns diesel in air to produce a mixture of
gases (typically less than 5% O2 and about 13% CO2 and N2). This is blown
into the tanks until the oxygen level is below 4%. Next, the vessel goes into
port to ‘gas-up’ and ‘cool-down’, as it is still unsafe to load directly into the
tank. The CO2 will freeze and damage the pumps and the cold shock could
damage the tank’s pump column. LNG is brought onto the vessel and taken
along the spray line to the main vapouriser, which boils off the liquid into a
gas. This is then warmed up to roughly 20°C (68°F) in the gas heaters and
then blown into the tanks to displace the ‘inert gas’. This continues until all
the CO2 is removed from the tanks. Initially, the inert gas is vented to the
atmosphere. Once the hydrocarbon content reaches 5% (the lower flamma-
bility range of methane), the inert gas is redirected to shore via a pipeline
and manifold connection by high-duty compressors. The shore terminal then
burns this vapour to avoid the danger of having copious amounts of hydro-
carbons present which may explode. Now, the vessel can be safely ‘gassed
up’ and warmed. Currently, the tanks are still at ambient temperature and
are full of methane. The next stage in the process is the ‘cool-down’. LNG is
sprayed into the tanks via spray heads, which vapourises and starts to cool
154 Merchant ship type

the tank. The excess gas is again blown ashore to be re-liquified or burned
at a flare stack. Once the tanks reach about −140°C (−220°F), the tanks are
ready to bulk load. Bulk loading starts and liquid LNG is pumped from the
storage tanks ashore into the vessel tanks. Displaced gas is blown ashore by
the high-duty compressors. Loading continues until the tanks are typically
98.5% full. This allows for thermal expansion and contraction of the cargo.
The vessel can now proceed to the discharge port. During passage, vari-
ous boil-off management strategies may be used to manage the cargo. Boil-
off gas can be burned in the boilers to provide propulsion, or it can be
re-liquefied and returned to the cargo tanks, depending on the design of the
vessel. Once the vessel reaches the discharge port, the cargo is pumped
ashore using the cargo pumps. As the tank empties, the vapour space is filled
with either gas from ashore or by vapourising some of the cargo in the cargo
vapouriser. The vessel will be either pumped out as much as possible, with
the last residues being pumped out with spray pumps, or else some cargo
may be retained on board as a ‘heel’. It is a customary practice to keep
between 5% and 10% of the cargo after discharge in one tank. This is
referred to as the heel and is used to cool down the remaining tanks that
have no heel before loading. This must be done gradually, otherwise the
tanks will suffer cold shock if loaded directly into warm tanks. Cool-down
can take 20 hours on Moss class vessels and 10–12 hours on membrane-type
vessels, so carrying a heel allows cool-down to be done before the vessel
reaches port. This provides a considerable time (and therefore cost) saving.
If all the cargo is pumped ashore, then on the ballast passage, the tanks will
warm up to ambient temperature, returning the vessel to a gassed up and
warm state. This means the vessel must be cooled again for loading. If the
vessel is to return to a gas-free state, the tanks must be warmed up by using
the gas heaters to circulate warm gas. Once the tanks are warmed up, the
inert gas plant is used to remove the methane from the tanks. Once the tanks
are methane free, the inert gas plant is switched to dry air production, which
is used to remove all the inert gas from the tanks until they have a safe work-
ing atmosphere.

CARGO CONTAINMENT

On most modern LNG carriers, there are four containment systems in use.
Two of the designs are of the self-supporting type, while the other two
are of the membrane type. Today, the French naval engineering company
Gaztransport & Technigaz (GTT) owns the patents. There is a trend towards
the use of the two different membrane types instead of the self-supporting
storage systems. This is most likely because prismatic membrane tanks use
the hull shape more efficiently and thus have less void space between the
cargo and ballast tanks. As a result of this, the Moss class design, when
 LNG carriers 155

compared with the membrane design of equal capacity, is more expensive

to transit the Suez Canal. However, self-supporting tanks are more robust
and have greater resistance to sloshing forces. This means that they will be
considered in the future for offshore storage where inclement weather con-
ditions will be a significant factor.

Moss tanks (spherical IMO type B LNG tanks)

Named after the Norwegian company, Moss Maritime, which designed
them, the IMO type B LNG tanks are spherical in shape. Most Moss class
vessels have four or five tanks. The outside of the tanks has a thick layer of
foam insulation that is either fitted in panels or in contemporary designs
wound round the tank. Placed over this insulation is a thin layer of ‘tinfoil’,
which allows the insulation to be kept dry with a nitrogen atmosphere. This
atmosphere is constantly checked for any methane that would indicate a
leak of the tank. Furthermore, the outside of the tank is checked at three-
monthly intervals for any cold spots that would indicate a breakdown in the
insulation. The tank is supported around its circumference by the equatorial
ring, which is supported by a large circular skirt, known as a data-cou-
ple. This is constructed from a unique combination of aluminium and steel,
which takes the weight of the tank down to the ship’s structure. This skirt
allows the tank to expand and contract during cool-down and warm-up
operations. During cool-down or warm-up, the tank can expand or contract
by about 60 cm (24 in). Because of this expansion and contraction, the pip-
ing into the tank comes in from the top and is connected to the ship’s lines
via flexible bellows. Inside each tank are a set of spray heads. These heads
are mounted around the equatorial ring and are used to spray LNG onto
the tank walls to reduce the temperature. Tanks normally have a working
pressure of up to 22 kPa (3.2 psi) (0.22 bar), but this can be increased for
an emergency discharge. If both main pumps fail to remove the cargo, the
tank’s safety valves are adjusted to lift at 100 kPa (1 bar). The filling line,
which goes to the bottom of the tank, is opened together with the filling
lines of the other tanks on board. The pressure is then raised in the tank with
the defective pumps. This pushes the cargo into the other tanks where it can
be safely pumped out (Figure 12.2).

IHI (prismatic IMO type B LNG tanks)

Designed by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, the self-supporting
prismatic type B (SPB) tank is currently employed on only two vessels.
Type B tanks limit sloshing problems, an improvement over the membrane
LNG carrier tanks, which may break due to sloshing impact, therein impact-
ing the ship’s hull. This is also of prime relevance for FPSO LNG (or FLNG)
vessels.
156 Merchant ship type

Figure 12.2 M OSS gas carrier Arctic Princess, Hammerfest, Norway.

TGZ Mark III

Designed by Technigaz, these tanks are of the membrane type. The mem-
brane consists of stainless steel with ‘waffles’ to absorb thermal contractions
when the tank is cooled down. The primary barrier, made of corrugated
stainless steel [with a thickness of about 1.2 mm (0.047 in)], is in direct
contact with the cargo liquid (or vapour in empty tank condition). This
is followed by a primary insulation, which in turn is covered by a second-
ary barrier made of a material called ‘triplex’. Triplex is a type of metal
foil, which is sandwiched between glass wool sheets and firmly compressed
together. This is covered by a secondary layer of insulation, which in turn is
supported by the ship’s hull structure from the outside. From the inside of
the tank outwards, the layers are:

• LNG cargo;
• Primary barrier of 1.2 mm thick corrugated/waffled 304L stainless
steel;
• Primary insulation (also called the inter barrier space);
• Secondary barrier within a triplex membrane;
• Secondary insulation (also called the insulation space);
• Ship’s hull structure.

GT96
Designed by Gaztransport, the tanks consist of a primary and secondary thin
membrane made of Invar, which has no thermal contraction. The insulation
 LNG carriers 157

is made from plywood boxes filled with perlite. These are continuously
flushed with nitrogen gas. The integrity of both membranes is permanently
monitored for the detection of hydrocarbon vapours within the nitrogen.

CS1
CS1 stands for Combined System Number One. It was designed by the now
merged Gaztransport and Technigaz companies and consists of the best
components of both the Mk III and GT96 systems. The primary barrier
is made of Invar [0.7 mm (0.028 in)], and a secondary layer consisting of
Triplex. The primary and secondary insulation consists of polyurethane
foam panels. Although three vessels with CS1 technology were built, the
established shipyards have decided to maintain production of the separate
Mk III and GT96 types.

RE-LIQUEFACTION AND BOIL OFF

To facilitate transport, the natural gas must be cooled down to approxi-

mately −163°C (−261°F) at atmospheric pressure. At this temperature, the
gas condenses into a liquid. The tanks on board an LNG carrier effectively
function as giant thermoses to keep the liquid gas cold during storage. As
no insulation is perfect, the liquid must be constantly boiled during the voy-
age. According to WGI, on a typical voyage, an estimated 0.1–0.25% of the
cargo converts to gas each day, depending on the efficiency of the insulation
and the roughness of the passage. In a typical 20-day passage, anywhere
from 2% to 6% of the total volume of LNG originally loaded may be lost.
Most LNG carriers are powered by steam turbines connected to marine boil-
ers. These boilers are dual fuel and can run on either methane, oil, or a com-
bination of both. The gas produced through boil off is traditionally diverted
to the boilers and used as a fuel for the vessel. Before this gas is used in the
boilers, it must be warmed up to 20°C by using the gas heaters. The gas is
either fed into the boiler by tank pressure or it is increased in pressure by the
low duty compressors. What fuel the vessel runs on is dependent on many
factors, which include the length of the passage, any requirement to carry
heel for cooldown, the prevailing price of oil versus the price of LNG, and
port requirements for cleaner exhaust. There are three basic modes available:

• Minimum boil-off/maximum oil. In this mode, tank pressures are kept

high to reduce boil off to a minimum and most of the energy comes
from fuel oil. This maximises the amount of LNG delivered but causes
tank temperatures to rise due to lack of evaporation. The high cargo
temperatures can cause storage and offloading problems.
158 Merchant ship type

• Maximum boil-off/minimum oil. With this mode the tank pressures

are kept low. This means there is greater boil-off, but a large amount
of fuel oil is still used. This decreases the amount of LNG delivered but
the cargo will be delivered cold, which many ports prefer.
• 100% gas. Tank pressures are kept at a similar level to maximum
boil off but as this may not be enough to supply the boilers needs,
additional LNG must be ‘forced’ to vapourise. A small pump in one
tank supplies LNG to the forcing vapouriser, where it is warmed and
vapourised back into a gas that is usable in the boilers. In this mode,
no fuel oil is used.

Advances in reliquefication plant technology has allowed boil-off to be reli-

quefied and returned to the tanks. Because of this, vessel designers have been
able to introduce more efficient slow-speed diesel engines (previously most
LNG carriers were steam turbine-powered). Notable exceptions are the
LNG carrier Havfru (built as Venator in 1973), which originally had dual
fuel diesel engines, and her sister-ship Century (built as Lucian in 1974), also
built with dual fuel gas turbines before being converted to a diesel engine
system in 1982. Today, vessels using Dual, or Tri-Fuel Diesel Electric (DFDE/
TFDE, respectively) propulsion systems are in service. Over the past couple
of years, there has been increasing interest in a return to propulsion by
boil-off gas. This is a result of the IMO 2020 anti-pollution regulation that
bans the use of marine fuel oil with a sulphur content greater than 0.5% on
ships not fitted with a flue-gas scrubbing plant. Space constraints and safety
issues typically prevent the installation of such equipment on LNG carriers,
forcing them to abandon the use of the lower-cost, high-sulphur fuel oil and
switch to low-sulphur fuels that cost more and are in shorter supply. In these
circumstances, boil-off gas may become a more attractive option.
In the next chapter, we will examine the final vessel type in Part II, the oil
tanker.
Chapter 13

Oil tankers and product carriers

Ships that carry liquid cargoes (either as a crude or refined product) are
called oil tankers or petroleum tankers. There are two basic types of oil
tankers: crude tankers and product tankers. Crude tankers move enormous
quantities of unrefined crude oil from its point of extraction to oil refiner-
ies. Product tankers, which are much smaller, are designed to move refined
products from refineries to offloading points near consuming markets. Oil
tankers are often classified by their size as well as their occupation. The size
classes range from inland or coastal tankers of a few thousand metric tonnes
dwt to the mammoth ultra large crude carriers (ULCCs) of 550,000 dwt.
Tankers move approximately two billion metric tonnes (2.2 billion short
tonnes) of oil every year. Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency, the
average cost of transporting crude oil by tanker amounts to only US$5 to $8
per cubic metre (US$0.02 to US$0.03 per US gallon). Some specialised types
of oil tankers have also evolved. One of these is the naval replenishment oiler,
a tanker which can fuel a moving vessel. Combination ore-bulk-oil carriers
and permanently moored floating storage units are two other variations of
the standard oil tanker design. Oil tankers have been involved in several
environmentally damaging and high-profile oil spills. As a result, they are
subject to stringent design and operational regulations (Figure 13.1).

Figure 13.1 Typical oil tanker MT Seavigour.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-16 159

160 Merchant ship types

DEVELOPMENT OF THE OIL TANKER

The technology of oil transportation has evolved alongside the oil indus-
try. Although human use of oil reaches as far back as prehistory, the first
modern commercial exploitation dates to James Young’s manufacture of
paraffin in 1850. In the early 1850s, oil began to be exported from Upper
Burma, which was then a British colony. The oil was moved in earthen-
ware vessels to the riverbank where it was poured into boat holds for
transportation to Britain. In the 1860s, Pennsylvanian oil fields became a
major supplier of oil, and a centre of innovation after Edwin Drake struck
oil near Titusville, Pennsylvania. Break-bulk boats and barges were used to
transport this oil in 40 US gallon (150 l) wooden barrels. Transport by bar-
rel had several issues. First, was the weight. An empty barrel weighs about
29 kg (64 lbs) or about 20% of the weight of the full barrel. Second, was the
barrel’s tendency to leak. This meant not only was valuable product being
lost through ullage, but leaks also presented significant slip and fire haz-
ards on board. Third, and most significant, was the cost of purchasing the
barrels in the first place. In the early days of the Russian oil industry, bar-
rels accounted for almost half of all petroleum production costs, as it was
not unusual for each barrel to be used only once. In 1863, two sail-driven
tankers were built on the River Tyne, England. By 1871, the Pennsylvania
oil fields were making limited use of oil tank barges and cylindrical rail-
road tank cars like those in use today. The two English ships were followed
in 1873 by the first oil-tank steamer, Vaderland (Fatherland), which was
built by the Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company for Belgian owners.
The vessel’s use was curtailed by American and Belgian authorities citing
safety concerns.
The modern oil tanker was developed between 1877 and 1885. In 1876,
the brothers of the Swedish pioneer Alfred Nobel, Ludvig and Robert Nobel,
founded the Branobel Company (short for Brothers Nobel) in Baku,
Azerbaijan. During the late 19th century, Branobel would become one of the
largest oil companies in the world. Ludvig Nobel was a pioneer in the devel-
opment of early-age oil tankers. He first experimented with carrying oil in
bulk on single-hulled barges. When he realised this was not terribly efficient,
Nobel turned his attention to self-propelled tankships, although here too he
encountered several problems. The major concern was how to keep the
cargo and fumes away from the engine room to avoid fires. Other challenges
included allowing for the cargo to expand and contract caused by variations
in atmospheric temperature and developing means of ventilating the cargo
tanks. Based on a series of technological advancements and enhancements,
the first successful oil tanker to be built was the Zoroaster, which carried its
246 metric tonnes (242 long tonnes) of kerosene cargo in two iron tanks
joined together by pipes. One tank was positioned forward of the midships
engine room, and the other tank was positioned aft. The ship also featured
 Oil tankers and product carriers 161

a series of 21 vertical watertight compartments, which provided extra buoy-

ancy. The ship had a length overall of 56 m (184 ft), a beam of 8.2 m (27 ft),
and a draught of 2.7 m (9 ft). Unlike later Nobel tankers, the Zoroaster
design was built small enough to sail from Sweden to the Caspian via the
Baltic Sea, Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega, the Rybinsk and Mariinsk Canals,
and then up the Volga River. In 1883, oil tanker design took a large step
forward. Whilst working for the Nobel Company, British engineer Colonel
Henry F. Swan designed a revolutionary tank design. Instead of having one
or two large holds, Swan’s design consisted of several holds spanning the
entire beam of the ship. These holds were further subdivided into port and
starboard sections by a longitudinal bulkhead. Whereas earlier tanker
designs suffered from stability problems caused by free surface effect (where
oil sloshing from side to side could cause a ship to capsize), the inclusion of
longitudinal bulkheads, which divided the ship’s storage space into smaller
tanks, virtually eliminated the problems caused by free-surface effect. This
approach, almost universal today, was first used by Swan in the Nobel tank-
ers Blesk, Lumen, and Lux. Some naval historians point to the Glückauf,
another design of Colonel Swan that was built in England, as being the first
modern oil tanker. This ship adopted the best practices from earlier tanker
designs to create the prototype for all subsequent vessels of this type. It was
the first dedicated steam-driven ocean-going tanker in the world and was
the first ship in which oil could be pumped directly into the vessel hull
instead of being loaded in barrels or drums. It was also the first tanker to be
constructed with a horizontal bulkhead. The Glückauf’s other features
included cargo valves operable from the deck, cargo main piping, a vapour
line, cofferdams for added safety, and the ability to fill a ballast tank with
seawater when empty of cargo. The ship was built in England before being
purchased by Wilhelm Anton Riedemann, an agent for the Standard Oil
Company along with several of her sister ships. The Glückauf was lost in
1893 after grounding in heavy fog.
The 1880s also saw the beginnings of the Asian oil trade. The concept of
shipping Russian oil to the Far East via the Suez Canal was the brainchild
of two men: importer Marcus Samuel (founder of the Shell Transport and
Trading Company) and shipowner/broker Fred Lane. Previous attempts to
ship oil through the Suez Canal were refused by the Suez Canal Company
as being too dangerous. Not accepting the impasse, Samuel and Lane tried
a different tactic and approached the Suez Canal Company directly, asking
for the specifications of a tanker, which would be permitted entry through
the canal. Armed with the canal company’s specific specifications, Samuel
ordered three tankers from the northern English shipbuilder William Gray
& Company. These ships, the Murex, Conch, and Clam, each had a capacity
of 5,010 long tonnes dwt, and formed the Tank Syndicate, forerunner of
today’s Royal Dutch Shell Company. With facilities in Jakarta (Indonesia),
Singapore, Bangkok (Thailand), Saigon (Vietnam), Hong Kong, Shanghai
162 Merchant ship types

(China), and Kobe (Japan), the fledgling Shell company was ready to
become Standard Oil’s first major challenger in the Asian market. On
24 August 1892, Murex became the first tanker to pass through the Suez
Canal. By the time the Shell Trading and Transport Company merged with
Royal Dutch Petroleum in 1907, the company had a fleet of 34 steam-
driven oil tankers compared with Standard Oil’s four case-oil steamers and
16 sailing tankers.
Until 1956, tankers were designed to be able to navigate the Suez Canal.
This size restriction became much less of a priority after the closing of the
canal during the Suez Crisis of 1956. Forced to move oil around the Cape
of Good Hope, shipowners quickly realised that bigger tankers were the
key to more efficient transport. While a tanker of an era of typical World
War II measured 162 m (532 ft) long and had a capacity of 16,500 dwt, the
ultralarge crude carriers (ULCC) built around the 1970s were over 400 m
(1,300 ft) long and had a capacity of 500,000 dwt. Several factors encour-
aged this growth. Increasing hostilities in the Middle East, which inter-
rupted traffic through the Suez Canal contributed, as did the mass
nationalisation of Middle East oil refineries. Fierce competition among
shipowners also played contributing part. Aside from these factors, is a
simple economic advantage: the larger an oil tanker is, the more cheaply it
can move crude oil, and the better it can help meet growing demands for
oil. In 1955, the world saw the launch of the then-largest supertanker, the
SS Spyros Niarchos, which was built by the Vickers Armstrong shipyard in
England for the Greek shipping magnate Stavros Niachos. The SS Spyros
Niarchos had a gross tonnage of 30,708 and 47,500 long tonnes dwt. The
SS Spyros Niarchos would retain her title as the largest vessel afloat until
only 1958 when the American shipowner Daniel K. Ludwig broke the
record for 100,000 long tonnes of heavy displacement. The Universe Apollo
weighed in at a cool 104,500 long tonnes, itself a 23% increase from the
previous record-holder, the Universe Leader, which also sailed under the
Ludwig House Flag. The decisive step in the evolution of the supertanker
(in terms of size) came in 1979 when the world’s largest supertanker was at
the Oppama shipyard in Japan by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd., and
aptly named the Seawise Giant. This ship was built with a capacity of
564,763 dwt, a length overall of 458.45 m (1,504.1 ft), and a draught of
24.61 m (80.74 ft). In total, she had 46 tanks, 31,541 square metres
(339,500 ft3) of deck, and at full load draught, was prevented from navigat-
ing the English Channel. In 1989, the Seawise Giant was renamed the
Happy Giant; renamed again in 1991 as the Jahre Viking; and then the
Knock Nevis in 2004. In that year, she was converted into a permanently
moored storage tanker and remained so until 2009 when she was sold for
the final time; renamed Mont and finally scrapped in India in 2010. At the
time Knock Nevis was scrapped, the world’s largest oil tankers were the
four TI-class sister ships, TI Africa (2002), TI Europe (2002), TI Asia
 Oil tankers and product carriers 163

Figure 13.2 A framax oil tanker Ab Qaiq.

(2003), and TI Oceania (2003). These vessels were the first ULCC super-
tankers to be built in almost 25 years. Boasting a hefty displacement of
67,591 light tonnes and 509,484 metric tonnes fully loaded, and a dwt
tonnage of 441,893 and gross weight tonnage of 234,006, the TI class ships
were the largest afloat but for the Pioneering Spirit, which is a crane ship.
In 2009 and 2010, TI Asia and TI Africa were converted into FSOs, and in
2017, TI Europe was charted to the Norwegian oil company, Statoil, and
converted into an FSO. In 2019, the last remaining ship of the TI class, the
TI Oceania, was converted into an FSO and moored off the coast of
Singapore (Figure 13.2).
Except for the pipeline, the tanker is the most cost-effective way to move
oil today. Worldwide, tankers carry some two billion barrels (3.2 × 1011
litres) annually, and the cost of transportation by tanker amounts to only
US$0.05 per gallon at the pump.

SIZE CATEGORIES

In 1954, the Shell Oil Company developed the ‘average freight rate assess-
ment’ (AFRA) system. This system classified tankers by their assorted
sizes. To make it an independent instrument, Shell consulted the London
Tanker Brokers’ Panel (LTBP). At first, they divided the groups as General
Purpose for tankers under 25,000 metric tonnes dwt; Medium Range for
ships between 25,000 and 45,000 dwt and Long Range for ships that were
larger than 45,000 dwt. As tankers increased in size throughout the 1970s,
the AFRA system underwent some revision. The system was developed for
tax reasons, as the tax authorities wanted evidence that the internal billing
records were correct. Before the New York Mercantile Exchange started
trading crude oil futures in 1983, it was difficult to determine the exact
price of oil, which could change with every contract. Shell and BP, the first
164 Merchant ship types

companies to use the system, abandoned the AFRA system in 1983. They
were later followed by the US oil companies. Despite this, the system is still
used today as a flexible market scale, which takes typical routes and lots
of 500,000 barrels (79,000 m3). Oil tankers carry a wide range of hydro-
carbon liquids ranging from crude oil to refined petroleum products. Their
size is measured in dwt metric tonnes. Crude carriers are among the largest,
ranging from 55,000 dwt Panamax-sized vessels to ultralarge crude carri-
ers (ULCCs) of over 440,000 dwt smaller tankers, typically ranging from
under 10,000 dwt to 80,000 dwt Panamax vessels, carry refined petro-
leum products, and are known as product tankers. The smallest tankers,
with capacities under 10,000 dwt, work near coastal and inland water-
ways. Although they were considered such in the past, ships of the smaller
Aframax and Suezmax classes are no longer regarded as super tankers.
‘Supertankers’ are the largest oil tankers and the largest man-made mobile
structures. They include exceptionally large and ultralarge crude carriers
(VLCCs and ULCCs, respectively) with capacities over 250,000 dwt. These
ships can transport two million barrels (320,000m3) of oil – the equivalent
of 318,000 metric tonnes. By way of comparison, in 2009, the UK con-
sumed about 1.6 million barrels (250,000m3) of oil per day. The colossal
ULCCs commissioned in the 1970s were the largest vessels ever built but
have since been scrapped. A few newer ULCCs remain in service, none of
which are more than 400 m (1,312 ft) long. Because of their size, super
tankers often cannot enter port fully loaded. These ships can take on their
cargo at offshore platforms and single-point moorings. At the other end
of the journey, they often pump their cargo off to smaller tankers at desig-
nated lightering points in inshore waters. Super tanker routes are typically
long, requiring them to stay at sea for extended periods, often around 70
days at a time (Table 13.1).

Table 13.1 Oil tanker size categories (2007 values)

Newbuilding Used
Class Size in DWT Class Size in DWT (US$ m) (US$ m)
General 10,000–24,999 Product 10,000–60,000 43 42.5
Purpose Tanker
Medium 25,000–44,999 Panamax 60,000–80,000
Range
LR1 45,000–79,999 Aframax 80,000–120,000 60.7 58
LR 2 80,000–159,999 Suezmax 120,000–200,000
VLCC 160,000–319,000 VLCC 200,000–320,000 120 116
ULCC 320,000–549,999 ULCC 320,000–550,000
 Oil tankers and product carriers 165

TANKER CHARTERING

The act of hiring a ship to carry cargo is called chartering. Tankers are hired
by four types of charter agreements: the voyage charter, the time charter,
the bareboat charter, and contract of affreightment. In a voyage charter,
the charterer rents the vessel from the loading port to the discharge port.
In a time charter, the vessel is hired for a set period, to perform voyages as
the charterer directs. In a bareboat charter, the charterer acts as the ship’s
operator and manager, taking on responsibilities such as providing the crew
and maintaining the vessel in a seaworthy condition. Finally, in a contract
of affreightment or COA, the charterer specifies a total volume of cargo
to be carried over a specific period and in specific sizes. For example, a
COA could be specified as one million barrels (160,000 m3) of JP-5 in a
year’s time in 25,000-barrel (4,000 m3) shipments. A completed chartering
contract is known as a charter party. One of the key aspects of any char-
ter party is the freight rate, or the price specified for the carriage of cargo.
The freight rate of a tanker charter party is specified in one of four ways:
by a lump sum rate, by rate per tonne, by a time charter equivalent rate,
or by the Worldscale rate. In a lump sum rate arrangement, a fixed price
is negotiated for the delivery of a specified cargo, and the ship’s owner/
operator is responsible for paying all port costs and other voyage expenses.
Rate per tonne arrangements is used mostly in chemical tanker chartering
and differ from lump sum rates in that port costs and voyage expenses are
paid by the charterer. Time charter arrangements specify a daily rate, and
port costs and voyage expenses are also generally paid by the charterer. The
Worldwide Tanker Normal Freight Scale, often referred to as Worldscale, is
established and governed jointly by the Worldscale Associations of London
and New York. Worldscale establishes a baseline price for carrying a metric
tonne of product between any two ports worldwide. In Worldscale nego-
tiations, operators and charterers determine a price based on a percentage
of the Worldscale rate. The baseline rate is expressed as WS 100. If a given
charter party settles on 85% of the Worldscale rate, it would be expressed as
WS 85. Similarly, a charter party set at 125% of the Worldscale rate would
be expressed as WS 125 (Table 13.2).

FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

The global total oil tanker dwt tonnage increased from 326.1 million dwt
in 1970 to 960.0 million dwt in 2005. In 2005, oil tankers made up 36.9%
of the world’s fleet in terms of dwt tonnage. Combined, the dwt tonnage of
oil tankers and bulk carriers represents 72.9% of the world’s merchant ship-
ping fleet. In same year, some 2.42 billion metric tonnes of oil were shipped
by tanker. About 76.7% of this was crude oil, with the remainder consisting
of refined petroleum products. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne
 166
Merchant ship types
Table 13.2 Time charter equivalent rates, per day (2004–2015)
Cargo
Class type Route 2004 2005 2006 2010 2012 2014 2015
VLCC Crude Persian Gulf – Japan $95,250 $59,070 $51,550 $38,000 $20,000 $28,000 $57,000
Suezmax Crude West Africa – Caribbean or $64,800 $47,500 $46,000 $31,000 $18,000 $28,000 $4600
East Coast of North America
Aframax Crude Cross-Mediterranean $43,915 $39,000 $31,750 $20,000 $15,000 $25,000 $37,000
All product Caribbean – East Coast of $24,550 $25,240 $21,400 $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 $21,000
carriers North America or Gulf of Mexico
 Oil tankers and product carriers 167

trade for the year 2005. Combining the amount carried with the distance
it was carried, oil tankers moved the equivalent of 11,705 billion metric
tonne-miles of oil. By comparison, in 1970, 1.44 billion metric tonnes of oil
were shipped by tanker. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne trade for
that year. In terms of amount carried and distance carried, oil tankers moved
6,487 billion metric tonne miles of oil in 1970. This represents a consider-
able increase of 5,218 billion barrels over just 35 years, suggesting world-
wide consumption of oil has almost doubled. The United Nations maintains
statistics about oil tanker productivity, which are stated in terms of metric
tonnes carried per metric tonne of dwt, as well as metric tonne miles of
carriage per metric tonne of dwt. In 2005, for each 1 tonne of dwt of oil
tankers, 6.7 metric tonnes of cargo were carried. Similarly, each 1 tonne dwt
of oil tankers was responsible for 32,400 metric tonne miles of carriage. The
main loading ports are in Western Asia, Western Africa, North Africa, and
the Caribbean, with 196.3, 196.3, 130.2, and 246.6 million metric tonnes of
cargo loaded in these regions alone. The main discharge ports are in North
America, Europe, and Japan with 537.7, 438.4, and 215.0 million metric
tonnes of cargo discharged in these regions.
International law requires that every merchant ship be registered in a
country. This country is called its Flag State. A ship’s Flag State exercises
regulatory control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly,
certify the ship’s equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution pre-
vention documents. In 2007, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
statistics counted 4295 oil tankers of 1000 long tonnes dwt or greater
worldwide. Panama was the world’s largest Flag State for oil tankers, with
528 vessels in its registry. Six other Flag States had more than 200 regis-
tered oil tankers: Liberia (464), Singapore (355), China (252), Russia
(250), the Marshall Islands (234), and the Bahamas (209). The Panamanian,
Liberian, Marshallese, and Bahamian Flags are open registries and consid-
ered by the International Transport Workers’ Federation to be Flags of
Convenience. By comparison, the US and the UK had 59 and 27 registered
oil tankers, respectively.
In 2005, the average age of oil tankers worldwide was 10 years. Of these,
31.6% were under 4 years old and 14.3% were over 20 years old. In 2005,
475 new oil tankers were built, accounting for 30.7 million dwt. The aver-
age size for these new tankers was 64,632 dwt. Nineteen of these were
VLCC size, 19 were Suezmax, 51 were Aframax, and the remainder were of
smaller designs. By comparison, 8.0 million dwt, 8.7 million dwt, and
20.8 million dwt worth of oil tanker capacity was built in 1980, 1990, and
2000, respectively. Ships are removed from the fleet through a process
known as scrapping. Shipowners and buyers negotiate scrap prices based on
factors such as the ship’s empty weight (called the light tonne displacement
or LDT) and prices in the scrap metal market. In 1998, almost 700 ships
went through the scrapping process at shipbreakers in places such as Gadani
(Pakistan), Alang (India), and Chittagong (Bangladesh). In 2004 and 2005,
168 Merchant ship types

some 7.8 million dwt and 5.7 million dwt, respectively, were scrapped.
Between 2000 and 2005, the capacity of oil tankers scrapped each year
ranged from between 5.6 million dwt to 18.4 million dwt. In this same time-
frame, tankers accounted for between 56.5% and 90.5% of the world’s
total scrapped ship tonnage. Within this period, the average age of scrapped
oil tankers ranged from 26.9 to 31.5 years.
In 2005, the price for a new oil tanker in the 32,000–45,000 dwt,
80,000–105,000 dwt, and 250,000–280,000 dwt ranges were US$43 mil-
lion, $58 million, and US$120 million, respectively. In 1985, these vessels
would have cost US$18 million, US$22 million, and US$47 million, respec-
tively. Oil tankers are often sold second hand. In 2005, 27.3 million dwt
worth of used oil tankers were sold. Some representative prices for that
year include US$42.5 million for a 40,000 dwt tanker, US$60.7 million for
an 80,000–95,000 dwt tanker, US$73 million for a 130,000–150,000
dwt tanker, and US$116 million for a 250,000–280,000 dwt tanker. As
an illustrative example, in 2006, Bonheur subsidiary First Olsen paid
US$76.5 million for Knock Sheen, a 159,899 dwt tanker. Daily operating
costs vary, but by current standards, a VLCC costs between US$10,000
and US$12,000 per day.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

Oil tankers have from eight to twelve tanks. Each tank is split into two or
three independent compartments by fore-and-aft bulkheads. The tanks are
numbered with tank one being the forwardmost. Individual compartments
are referred to by the tank number and the athwartships position, such as
‘one port’, ‘three starboard’, or ‘six centre’. The tanks are separated from
each other by a cofferdam. A cofferdam is a small space left open between
two bulkheads, to provide protection from heat, fire, or collision. Tankers
have cofferdams forward and aft of the cargo tanks, and sometimes between
individual tanks. A pumproom houses all the pumps connected to a tanker’s
cargo lines. Some larger tankers have two pumprooms. A pumproom spans
the total breadth of the ship.
A major component of tanker architecture is the design of the hull or
outer structure. A tanker with a single outer shell between the product and
the ocean is said to be ‘single-hulled’. Most newer tankers are ‘double-hulled’,
with an extra space between the hull and the storage tanks. Hybrid designs
such as ‘double-bottom’ and ‘double-sided’ hulls combine aspects of single
and double-hull designs. MARPOL sets out the ambition to phase out sin-
gle-hulled tankers by 2026, although the United Nations decided to phase
out single-hulled tankers by 2010. In 1998, the Marine Board of the US
National Academy of Sciences conducted a survey of industry experts
regarding the advantages and disadvantages of double-hull designs. Some of
the advantages of the double-hull design that were mentioned included the
ease of ballasting in emergency situations, a reduction in the practice of
 Oil tankers and product carriers 169

using saltwater ballast in cargo tanks (therein decreasing corrosion),

increased environmental protection, more efficient cargo discharge opera-
tions, more efficient tank washing, and improved protection in low-impact
collisions and grounding. The same report also listed the following negative
attributes to the double-hull design: higher build costs, greater operating
expenses (e.g. higher canal and port tariffs), difficulties in ballast tank ven-
tilation, the fact that ballast tanks need continuous monitoring and mainte-
nance, increased transverse free surface, increased numbers of surfaces to
maintain, increased risks of explosions in double-hull spaces in the absence
of vapour detection systems, and increased cleaning and maintenance sched-
ules. Despite these considerable drawbacks, double-hulled tankers are
widely considered an improvement on single-hulled designs, especially when
running aground on soft and rocky seabed. Although double-hull designs
are superior in low energy casualties, preventing spillage in small casualties,
in high energy casualties where both hulls are breached, oil can spill through
the double-hull and into the sea. This is no less catastrophic than with sin-
gle-hulled vessels, although spills from double-hulled tankers can be signifi-
cantly higher than designs like the mid-deck tanker, the Coulombi Egg
Tanker, and even pre-MARPOL tankers, as the latter has a lower oil column
and reaches hydrostatic balance sooner.
An oil tanker’s inert gas system is one of the most important parts of its
design. Fuel oil itself is exceedingly difficult to ignite, but its hydrocarbon
vapours are explosive when mixed with air in certain concentrations. The
purpose of the inert gas system is to create an atmosphere inside tanks in
which the hydrocarbon oil vapours cannot burn. As inert gas is intro-
duced into a mixture of hydrocarbon vapours and air, it increases the
lower flammable limit or lowest concentration at which the vapours can
be ignited. At the same time, it decreases the upper flammable limit or
highest concentration at which the vapours can ignite. When the total
concentration of oxygen in the tank decreases to about 11%, the upper
and lower flammable limits converge, and the flammable range disap-
pears. Inert gas systems deliver air with an oxygen concentration of less
than 5% by volume. As a tank is pumped out, it is filled with inert gas and
kept in this safe state until the next cargo is loaded. The exception is in
cases when the tank must be entered. Safely gas-freeing a tank is accom-
plished by purging hydrocarbon vapours with inert gas until the hydro-
carbon concentration inside the tank is under about 1%. Thus, as air
replaces the inert gas, the concentration cannot rise to the lower flamma-
ble limit and is safe.

CARGO OPERATIONS

Operations on board oil tankers are governed by an established body of

best practices and a large body of international law. Cargo can be moved
on or off an oil tanker in several ways. One method is for the ship to moor
170 Merchant ship types

alongside a pier, and connect with cargo hoses or marine loading arms.
Another method involves mooring to offshore buoys, such as a single point
mooring, and making a cargo connection via underwater cargo hoses.
A third method is ship-to-ship transfer, also known as lightering. In this
method, two ships come alongside in an open sea with the oil transferred
manifold to manifold via flexible hoses. Lightering is sometimes used where
a loaded tanker is too large to enter a specific port.

Preparations for loading or unloading cargo

Prior to any transfer of cargo, the chief officer must develop a transfer
plan detailing the specifics of the operation, such as how much cargo will
be moved, which tanks will be cleaned, and how the ship’s ballasting will
change. The next step before a transfer is the pretransfer conference. The
pretransfer conference covers issues such as what products will be moved,
the order of movement, names and titles of key people, particulars of
shipboard and shore equipment, critical states of the transfer, regulations
in effect, emergency, and spill-containment procedures, watch and shift
arrangements, and shutdown procedures. After the conference is complete,
the person in charge on the ship and the person in charge of the shore instal-
lation go over a final inspection checklist. In the US, the checklist is called
a Declaration of Inspection or DOI. Outside the US, the document is called
the ‘Ship / Shore Safety Checklist’. Items on the checklist include ensuring
proper signals and signs are displayed, the secure mooring of the vessel,
the choice of language for communications, the securing of all connections,
confirmation that emergency equipment is in place and operable, and that
no repair work is taking place.

Loading cargo
Loading an oil tanker consists primarily of pumping cargo into the ship’s
tanks. As oil enters the tank, the vapours inside the tank must somehow be
expelled. Depending on local regulations, these vapours may be expelled
into the atmosphere or discharged back to the pumping station by way of
a vapour recovery line. It is common for the ship to decrease water bal-
last during the loading of cargo to maintain proper trim. Loading starts
slowly at low pressure to ensure that the equipment is working correctly
and that the connections are secure. Then, a steady pressure is achieved and
held until the ‘topping-off’ phase when the tanks are full. Topping off is an
extremely dangerous time in handling oil, and the procedure is managed
with extreme care. Tank-gauging equipment is used to tell the person in
charge how much space is left in the tank, and all tankers have at least two
independent methods for tank-gauging. As the tanker reaches maximum
capacity, crew members open and close valves to direct the flow of product
 Oil tankers and product carriers 171

and maintain close communication with the pumping facility to decrease

and finally stop the flow of cargo.

Unloading cargo
The process of transferring oil off a tanker is like loading, except for some
key differences. The first step in the operation is following the same pre-
transfer procedures as used in loading. When the transfer begins, it is the
ship’s cargo pumps that are used to move the product ashore. As in loading,
the transfer starts at a low pressure to ensure that the equipment is working
correctly and that the connections are secure. Then, a steady pressure is
achieved and held during the operation. While pumping, the tank levels are
carefully monitored and key locations, such as the connection at the cargo
manifold and the ship’s pumproom, are constantly supervised. Under the
direction of the person in charge, crew members open and close valves to
direct the flow of cargo and maintain close communication with the receiv-
ing facility to decrease and finally stop the flow of cargo.

Tank cleaning
The tanks must be cleaned from time to time for several reasons. One reason
is to change the type of product carried inside a tank. Also, when tanks are
to be inspected or maintenance must be performed within a tank, it must
be not only cleaned, but made gas-free. On most crude-oil tankers, a special
crude oil washing (COW) system is a part of the cleaning process. The COW
system circulates part of the cargo through the fixed tank-cleaning system to
remove wax and asphaltic deposits. Tanks that carry less viscous cargoes are
washed with water. Fixed and portable automated tank cleaning machines,
which clean tanks with high-pressure water jets, are widely used. Some sys-
tems use rotating high-pressure water jets to spray hot water on all the
internal surfaces of the tank. As the spraying takes place, the brown waste
is pumped out of the tank. After a tank is cleaned, if it is going to be pre-
pared for entry, it will be fully purged. Purging is accomplished by pumping
inert gas into the tank until all traces of hydrocarbons have been sufficiently
expelled. Next, the tank is gas freed, which is usually accomplished by blow-
ing fresh air into the space with portable air-powered or water-powered air
blowers. ‘Gas freeing’ brings the oxygen content of the tank up to 20.8%.
The inert gas buffer between fuel and oxygen atmospheres ensures they are
never capable of ignition. Specially trained personnel monitor the tank’s
atmosphere, often using hand-held gas indicators, which measure the per-
centage of hydrocarbons present. After a tank is gas-free, it may be further
hand-cleaned in a manual process known as mucking. Mucking requires
protocols for entry into confined spaces, protective clothing, designated
safety observers, and the use of airline respirators.
172 Merchant ship types

SPECIAL USE OIL TANKERS

Some sub-types of oil tankers have evolved to meet specific military and
economic needs. These sub-types include naval replenishment ships, oil-
bulk-ore combination carriers, FSOs, and floating production storage and
of FPSOs. Replenishment ships, known as oilers in the USA and fleet tank-
ers in the UK and Commonwealth countries, are ships that provide oil
products to naval vessels whilst underway. This process is called underway
replenishment (USA) or replenishment at sea (RAS; UK). Replenishment at
sea extends the length of time a naval vessel can remain at sea, as well
as increases her effective range. Before ships could replenish at sea, naval
vessels had to enter a port or anchor to take on fuel. In addition to fuel,
replenishment ships may also deliver water, ammunition, rations, stores, and
personnel. An ore-bulk-oil carrier, also known as a combination carrier or
OBO, is a ship designed to be capable of carrying wet or dry bulk cargoes.
This design was intended to provide flexibility in two ways. First, the OBO
should be capable of switching between dry and wet bulk trades based on
market conditions. Second, OBOs should be capable of carrying oil on one
leg of a voyage and return carrying dry bulk, therein reducing the number of
unprofitable ballast voyages the vessel would otherwise be forced to make.
In practice, the flexibility that the OBO design allows has gone unused, as
these ships tend to specialise in either the liquid or dry bulk trade. Also,
these ships have endemic maintenance problems. On the one hand, due to
less specialised design considerations, an OBO suffers more from wear and
tear during dry cargo onload than normal bulk carriers. On the other hand,
components of the liquid cargo system, from pumps to valves to piping, tend
to develop problems when subjected to periods of disuse. These factors have
contributed to a steady reduction in the number of OBO ships worldwide
since they were introduced in the 1970s. The most famous OBO was the
180,000 dwt MV Derbyshire, which broke apart and sank in September
1980 during a Pacific typhoon whilst shipping iron ore from Canada to
Japan. To this date, the MV Derbyshire is the single largest British ship to
be lost at sea.

Floating storage and offloading units

Floating storage and offloading units are used worldwide by the offshore
oil industry to receive oil from nearby platforms and store it until it can
be offloaded onto oil tankers. A similar system, the FPSO, can process the
product while it is on board. These floating units reduce oil production costs
and offer mobility, large storage capacity, and production versatility. FPSOs
and FSOs are often created out of old, stripped-down oil tankers, but can be
made from new-built hulls. The first FPSO to come into use was a recondi-
tioned tanker owned by Shell España in August 1977. These units are usu-
ally moored to the seabed through a spread mooring system. A turret-style
 Oil tankers and product carriers 173

mooring system can be used in areas prone to severe weather. This turret
system allows the unit to rotate which helps minimise the effects of sea
swell and wind. As we mentioned earlier, the largest oil tanker ever built, the
Knock Nevis, was converted into an FPSO before being scrapped.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MARINE POLLUTION

Oil spills have devastating and long-lasting effects on the environment.

Crude oil contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are
exceedingly difficult to clean up and last for years in the sediment and
marine environment. Marine species constantly exposed to PAHs often
exhibit developmental problems, susceptibility to disease, and abnormal
reproductive cycles. By the sheer amount of oil carried, modern oil tankers
provide an existential threat to the marine environment. As discussed above,
a VLCC tanker can carry two million barrels (320,000 m3) of crude oil. This
is about eight times the amount spilt by the Exxon Valdez in March 1989.
In this incident, the ship ran aground and dumped 10,800,000 US gallons
(41,000 m3) of crude oil into the ocean. Despite the efforts of scientists,
environmentalists, and volunteers, over 400,000 seabirds, 1000 sea otters,
and a catastrophic number of fish were killed. Considering the volume of
oil carried by sea, however, tanker owners often argue that the industry’s
safety record is excellent, with only a tiny fraction of a percentage of oil car-
goes carried being spilt. In fact, the International Association of Independent
Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) has observed that ‘accidental oil spills this
decade [2000–2010] have been at record low levels – one-third of the previ-
ous decade and one-tenth of the 1970s – at a time when oil transported has
more than doubled since the mid-1980s’. Oil tankers are only one source
of oil spills. According to the US Coast Guard, 35.7% of the volume of oil
spilt in the US from 1991 to 2004 came from tank vessels (i.e. ships and
barges), 27.6% from facilities and other non-vessels, 19.9% from non-tank
vessels, 9.3% from pipelines, and 7.4% from mystery spills. Only 5% of the
actual spills came from oil tankers, while 51.8% came from other kinds of
vessels. Detailed statistics for 2004 show tank vessels responsible for less
than 5% of the number of total spills but more than 60% of the volume. We
can deduce therefore that whereas tanker spills are much rarer causes of oil
spills, they tend to be several magnitudes more serious (Figure 13.3).
The (INTERTANKO) Pollution Federation has tracked 9,351 accidental
spills that have occurred since 1974. According to this study, most spills
result from routine operations such as loading cargo, discharging cargo, and
taking on fuel oil. Ninety-one per cent of the operational oil spills are small,
resulting in less than 7 metric tonnes per spill. On the other hand, spills
resulting from accidents such as collisions, groundings, hull failures, and
explosions are more numerous, with 84% of these involving losses of over
seven hundred metric tonnes.
174 Merchant ship types

 T Exxon Valdez, 24 March 1989, Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound,

Figure 13.3 M
Alaska.

Following the Exxon Valdez spill, the U.S. passed the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA-90), which excluded single-hull tank vessels of 5000 metric
tonnes or more from US waters from 2010 onwards, apart from those with
a double bottom or double sides, which may be permitted to trade to the US
through 2015, depending on their age. Following the sinkings of Erika
(1999) and Prestige (2002), the EU has passed its own stringent anti-
pollution packages (known as Erika I, II, and III), which also required all
tankers entering EU waters to be double-hulled by 2010. The Erika pack-
ages are controversial because they introduced the new legal concept of
‘serious negligence’. In addition, air pollution from engine operation and
from cargo fires are other serious cause of environmental concern. Large
ships often run off low-quality fuel oils, such as bunker oil, which is highly
polluting and has been shown to be a health risk. Ship fires may result in the
loss of the ship due to a lack of specialised firefighting gear and techniques,
with fires often burning for days on end.
This completes Part II. In the next part, we will discuss passenger ships,
including cargo liners, cruise ships, passenger ferries, cruise ferries, and
ocean lines.
Part III

Passenger vessels
Chapter 14

Cargo liners

A cargo liner, also known as a passenger-cargo ship or passenger-cargoman,

is a type of merchant ship which carries general cargo and often passengers.
They became common just after the middle of the 19th century and eventu-
ally gave way to container ships and other more specialised carriers in the
latter half of the 20th century. The main definition of a cargo liner is ‘a vessel
which operated a regular scheduled service on a fixed route between desig-
nated ports and carries many consignments of different commodities’. Cargo
liners transport general freight, from raw materials to manufactures to mer-
chandise. Many had cargo holds adapted to services, with refrigerator space
for frozen meats or chilled fruit, tanks for liquid cargos such as plant oils,
and lockers for valuables. Cargo liners typically carried passengers as well,
usually in a single class. They differed from ocean liners, which focussed on
the passenger trade, and from tramp steamers, which did not operate on
regular schedules. Cargo liners sailed from port to port along routes and
on schedules published in advance. The steam-powered cargo liner devel-
oped in the mid-19th century with the advancement of technology allowing
bigger steamships to be built. As cargo liners were faster than tramp cargo
ships, they were used for the transport of perishable and high-value goods,
as well as providing passenger service. At first, they were mostly used in
Europe and America as well as across the Atlantic Ocean between Europe
and America. Longer routes, such as that to Oceania, remained in the hands
of sailing ships a little bit longer, due to the inefficiency of the steamship of
the time, until the late-1860s when the 1869 opening of the Suez Canal put
sail ships at a distinct disadvantage.
The use and increased reliability of the compound steam engine gave
greater fuel efficiency and opened these routes up to steamships. Alfred Holt
pioneered the use of this type of engine in his fleet of steamships. By the last
third of the 19th century, it was possible for a steamship to carry enough coal
to travel 6,000 mi (9700 km) before needing to refuel. The opening
of the Suez Canal in 1869 and the Panama Canal in 1914 also made the use
of cargo liners more profitable and made possible regular scheduled
overseas services. Cargo liners soon comprised ‘the greater portion of the
British merchant fleet’, which at that time was the largest in the world.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-18 177

178 Merchant ship type

With a focus on high-value freight, most cargo liners carried a limited number
of passengers, most commonly 12, as British regulations required a doctor for
ships with over twelve passengers on board. The decline of the cargo liner
started in the early 1960s with the introduction of container ships. By the late
1970s, all cargo-liner services had been decommissioned and replaced with
container liners. Several large container vessels still offer a small number of
berths to paying passengers. Typically, a maximum of 12 passengers may be
carried, as the ship would otherwise be legally required to carry a doctor on
board. The recreational facilities are those used by the crew and may be lim-
ited to a lounge, a gym with exercise equipment, and a small swimming pool.

THE LAST CARGO LINER: RMS ST. HELENA (1989)

The RMS St. Helena was one of the last surviving cargo liners and served
the British overseas territory of Saint Helena. She sailed between Cape
Town, South Africa, and Saint Helena with regular shuttles continuing to
Ascension Island. Some voyages also served Walvis Bay en route to and
from, or occasionally instead of, Cape Town. She visited Portland, Dorset
twice a year with normal calls in the Spanish ports of Vigo (northbound)
and Tenerife (southbound) until 14 October 2011, when she set sail on her
final voyage from Portland. On 10 February 2018, she departed for her
last trip from St Helena to Cape Town. At the time of her retirement from
St Helena service, she was one of only four ships in the world still carrying
the status of Royal Mail Ship. Locals, including the local press, have usually
called her the RMS rather than St. Helena, in order not to confuse her with
the island itself. Formerly, Saint Helena Island was occasionally served by
ships of the Union-Castle Line, which ran between the UK and South Africa.
By the 1970s, the number of ships taking this route had declined signifi-
cantly and the Union-Castle withdrew from the route completely at the end
of 1977. As Saint Helena lacked an airfield, the British government had to
purchase a ship to service the remote island and its dependencies from Cape
Town. The British government purchased the part passenger, part cargo ship
Northland Prince to fulfil the role of servicing Saint Helena, and after being
refitted and renamed, this became the first RMS St. Helena. Originally built
in 1963, this converted 3,150 tonne ship had room to carry 76 passengers
and supplies. The ship was used by the Royal Navy during the Falklands
War as a minesweeper support ship. By the 1980s, it was becoming apparent
that the ship was too small for the island’s needs, resulting in the purchase
of the new St. Helena, which was built in 1989. As the island lacks a port
suitable for large ships, the RMS St. Helena anchored near the island and
loaded and unloaded cargo to and from lighters. The new RMS St. Helena,
the last ship to be built in Aberdeen, Scotland, was launched by Hall, Russell
& Company in 1989. The RMS St. Helena was a British registered Class 1
passenger/cargo ship and operated with a complement of 56 officers and
 Cargo liners 179

crew. The vessel was equipped to carry a wide range of cargo, including
liquids, to meet the needs of the population of Saint Helena. She also had
berths for 155 passengers and associated facilities, including a swimming
pool, shop, and lounges. She also had well-equipped medical facilities and
an onboard doctor. In 2012, the ship’s capacity was extended by the addi-
tion of 24 extra cabin berths, and a new gym. AW Ship Management offered
a package deal where passengers could travel in one direction on the RMS
St. Helena and in the other direction by taking Royal Air Force (RAF) flights
to or from RAF Ascension Island and RAF Brize Norton in Brize Norton,
England (Figure 14.1).
In November 1999, the RMS St. Helena broke down en route to the island
and was forced into the French port of Brest to undergo repairs. Many peo-
ple were left stranded on the island with no way in or out whilst the ship
was being repaired. Panic-buying ensued as islanders became concerned
about the non-delivery of vital supplies. This incident intensified calls for the
island to be provided with an airport. On 25 August 2000, RMS St. Helena
suffered a minor engine room fire while sailing from Cardiff to Tenerife on
the first leg of her journey to the island. No one was injured and there was
no considerable damage. In March and April 2017, several Cape Town –
Saint Helena voyages were cancelled because of technical problems with the
propellers, making the island isolated, as the airport was still not opera-
tional. In 2005, the British government announced plans to construct an

Figure 14.1 R MS St. Helena, James Bay, Island of St. Helena.

180 Merchant ship type

airport on Saint Helena, which would lead to the withdrawal from service
of the RMS St. Helena. The airport was initially expected to be operational
by 2010. However, it was not approved until October 2011, with work
commencing in 2012. The estimated cost of the project was £240million
and the airport was due to open in the first quarter of 2016. However, due
to concerns about wind shear, on 26 April 2016 the Saint Helena Government
announced an indefinite postponement to the opening of Saint Helena
Airport. RMS St. Helena had been placed for disposal via London shipbro-
kers CW Kellock but was subsequently restored to service. The voyage orig-
inally intended as her final one began on 14 June 2016 from the UK and
ended on 15 July in Cape Town, calling at Tenerife, Ascension Island, and
Saint Helena. As part of its farewell voyage, Royal Mail organised a letter
exchange with pupils from Cardiff and St. Helena. However, due to the
postponed opening of the airport, the schedule of RMS St. Helena was
extended as an interim measure. The ship was initially scheduled to run until
July 2017, and then February 2018. After the opening of Saint Helena
Airport to scheduled passenger flights on 14 October 2017, RMS St. Helena
was finally withdrawn from service, and her last sailing from Saint Helena
Island was on 10 February 2018.
Freight services for Saint Helena Island have since been taken over by the
MV Helena cargo ship, which does carry a limited number of passengers,
mail, and other express freight by the passenger aircraft. The first passenger
on the MV Helena stated that unlike the RMS Saint Helena, the new ship,
with a lower capacity, is strictly geared towards cargo, although some for-
mer RMS employees had become crew on the new ship. In April 2018, RMS
St. Helena was purchased by MNG Maritime and entered service as a ves-
sel-based armoury in the Gulf of Oman named MNG Tahiti to supply weap-
onry to ships travelling through the high-risk area of heightened pirate
activity in the Indian Ocean. In October 2018, the vessel was resold to
St Helena LLC, Jersey, and in 2019, the ship was refitted to function as a
mobile hub for the race events of the Extreme E electric SUV racing series.
Today, she is used to carry equipment, including cars, to various race loca-
tions worldwide.
In this brief chapter, we have looked at what was arguably the last remain-
ing cargo liner to operate, the RMS St. Helena. Sadly, she was sold in 2019,
effectively marking the end of an era in the history of the Merchant Navy. It
is worth noting that some ship lines continue to offer limited passage on
board though these are increasingly difficult to come by, and prohibitively
expensive, and not particularly pleasant with short port calls and minimal
interaction with the crew. In the next chapter, we will turn our attention to
an entirely different category of passenger vessel, the cruise ship.
Chapter 15

Cruise ships

Cruise ships are large passenger ships used for vacationing. Unlike ocean
liners, which are used for transport, they typically embark on round-trip
voyages to various ports of call, where passengers may go on tours known
as ‘shore excursions’. On ‘cruises to nowhere’ or ‘nowhere voyages’, cruise
ships make tw- to three-night round trips without visiting any ports of call.
Modern cruise ships tend to have less hull strength, speed, and agility com-
pared with ocean liners. However, they have added amenities to cater to
water tourists, with recent vessels being described as ‘balcony-laden floating
condominiums’. As of December 2018, there were 314 cruise ships operat-
ing worldwide, with a combined capacity of 537,000 passengers. Cruising
has become a major part of the global tourism industry, with an estimated
market value of US$29.4 billion per year, and over 19 million passengers
carried worldwide annually as of 2011. The industry’s rapid growth saw
nine or more newly built ships catering to a North American clientele added
every year since 2001, as well as others servicing European clientele until the
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 saw the entire industry shutdown. As of 2022,
the world’s largest passenger ship is Royal Caribbean’s Wonder of the Seas.

ORIGINS OF THE CRUISE SHIP

Italy, a traditional focus of the Grand Tour, offered an early cruise experience
on the Francesco I, flying the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Built
in 1831, the Francesco I sailed from Naples in early June 1833. Aristocrats,
authorities, and royal princes from all over Europe boarded the cruise ship,
which sailed in just over three months to Taormina, Catania, Syracuse,
Malta, Corfu, Patras, Delphi, Zante, Athens, Smyrna, and Constantinople,
delighting passengers with a combination of excursions and guided tours,
dancing, card tables on deck, and parties on board. It was restricted to
the aristocracy of Europe and was not a commercial undertaking. The
British company P&O first introduced passenger cruising services in 1844,
advertising sea tours to destinations such as Gibraltar, Malta, and Athens,
with ships sailing from Southampton, England. The forerunner of modern

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-19 181

182 Merchant ship types

cruise holidays, these voyages were the first of their kind. To this day, P&O
Cruises remains the world’s oldest operating cruise line. The company later
introduced round trips to destinations such as Alexandria in Egypt and
Constantinople, Turkey. It underwent a period of rapid expansion in the
latter half of the 19th century, commissioning larger and more luxurious
ships to serve the steadily expanding market. Some of the most notable ships
of this era included the SS Ravenna built in 1880, which became the first
ship built with a total steel superstructure, and the SS Valetta, built in 1889,
which was the first ship to use electric lights. The cruise of the German
ship Augusta Victoria in the Mediterranean Sea and the Near East from 22
January to 22 March 1891, with 241 passengers [including Albert Ballin,
the German shipping magnate and founder of the Hamburg-Amerikanische
Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG) or Hamburg-America Line, and
his wife], popularised cruises to a wider market. The first vessel built exclu-
sively for luxury cruising was the Prinzessin Victoria Luise, which was
designed by Albert Ballin. The ship was completed in 1900.
The practice of luxury cruising made steady inroads into the more estab-
lished market for transatlantic crossings. In the competition for passengers,
ocean liners – the RMS Titanic being the most famous example – added
luxuries such as fine dining, luxury services, and staterooms with finer
appointments. In the late 19th century, Albert Ballin was the first to send his
transatlantic ships out on long southern cruises during the worst of the
North Atlantic winter seasons. These proved surprisingly popular with other
companies soon following suit. In 1897, three luxury liners, all European-
owned, offered transportation between Europe and North America. In 1906,
the number had increased to seven. British Inman Line owned the City of
Paris, whereas Cunard Line had Campania and Lucania. The White Star
Line owned the Majestic and Teutonic, and the French Compagnie Générale
Transatlantique owned La Lorraine and La Savoie (Figure 15.1).

Figure 15.1 M arella Explorer at the Liverpool Cruise terminal, England.

 Cruise ships 183

From luxury liners to megaship cruising

With the advent of large passenger jet aircraft in the 1960s, intercontinental
travellers started switching from ships to planes, sending the ocean liner
trade into a terminal decline. Certain characteristics of older ocean liners
made them unsuitable for cruising duties, such as high fuel consumption,
deep draught preventing them from entering shallow ports, and cabins
(often windowless) designed to maximise passenger numbers rather than
comfort. Ocean liner services aimed at passengers ceased in 1986, with the
notable exception of transatlantic crossings operated by the British Cunard
Line, catering to a niche market of those who appreciated the several days at
sea. To shift the focus of the market from passenger travel to cruising with
entertainment value, Cunard Line pioneered the luxury cruise transatlantic
service on board the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. International celebrities
were hired to perform cabaret acts onboard and the crossing was advertised
as a vacation itself. Queen Elizabeth 2 also inaugurated the concept of ‘one-
class cruising’, where all passengers received the same quality berthing and
facilities. This revitalised the market as the appeal of luxury cruising began
to catch on, on both sides of the Atlantic. The 1970s television series Love
Boat helped to popularise the concept of cruising as a romantic opportu-
nity for couples. Another ship to make this transition was the SS Norway,
originally the ocean liner SS France, which was converted to cruising duties
as the Caribbean Sea’s first ‘super-ship’. Contemporary cruise ships built in
the late 1980s and later, such as the Sovereign class, which broke the size
record held for decades by the SS Norway, showed characteristics of size
and strength once reserved for ocean liners. In fact, some have undertaken
regular scheduled transatlantic crossings. The Sovereign-class ships were
the first “megaships” to be built for the mass cruising market. They were
also the first series of cruise ships to include a multi-story atrium with glass
elevators. They had a single deck devoted entirely to cabins with private
balconies instead of ocean view cabins. Other cruise lines soon launched
ships with similar attributes, such as the Fantasy class, leading up to the
Panamax-type Vista class, designed such that two-thirds of the ocean view
staterooms have private verandas. As the veranda suites were particularly
lucrative for cruise lines, something which was lacking in older ocean liners,
recent cruise ships have been designed to maximise such amenities and have
been described as ‘balcony-laden floating condominiums’.
There have been nine or more new cruise ships added to the fleet every
year since 2001, including the 11 members of the Vista class, with all being
100,000 metric-tonnes dwt or greater. The only comparable ocean liner to
be completed in recent years has been Cunard Line’s Queen Mary 2, which
was launched in 2004. Following the retirement of her running mate Queen
Elizabeth 2 in November 2008, Queen Mary 2 is the only ocean liner oper-
ating on transatlantic routes, though she also sees significant service on
cruise routes. The Queen Mary 2 was for a time the largest passenger ship
184 Merchant ship types

Figure 15.2 C olor Magic.

before being surpassed by Royal Caribbean International’s Freedom class

vessels in 2006. The Freedom class ships were in turn overtaken by Royal
Caribbean International’s own Oasis class vessels, which entered service in
2009 and 2010. A distinctive feature of the Oasis class ships is the ‘split
open-atrium’ structure, made possible by the hull’s extraordinary width,
with the 6-deck high ‘Central Park’ and ‘Boardwalk’ outdoor areas running
down the middle of the ship, and verandas on all decks. In two short dec-
ades (1988–2009), the largest class cruise ships have grown one-third longer
(from 268 to 360 m, or 879.3–1,181.1ft), almost doubled their beam (32.2–
60.5 m, 105.8–198.6 ft), doubled the total passengers (2,744–5,400), and
tripled in volume (73,000–225,000 dwt). Moreover, the ‘megaships’ went
from a single deck having verandas to all decks with verandas (Figure 15.2).

CRUISE LINES

Operators of cruise ships are known as cruise lines, which are companies
that sell cruises to the public. Cruise lines have a dual character; they are
partly in the transportation business, and partly in the leisure entertainment
business, a duality that carries down into the ships themselves, which have
both a crew headed by the ship’s captain and a hospitality staff headed
by the equivalent of a hotel manager. Among cruise lines, some are direct
descendants of the traditional passenger shipping lines (such as Cunard),
while others were founded in the 1960s specifically for cruising. Historically,
 Cruise ships 185

the cruise ship business has been volatile. The ships are large capital invest-
ments with high operating costs. A persistent decrease in bookings can put
a company in financial jeopardy. Cruise lines have traditionally sold, ren-
ovated, or renamed their ships to keep up with travel trends. Cruise lines
necessarily operate their ships constantly, though if the maintenance is
unscheduled, this can result in thousands of dissatisfied customers. A wave
of failures and consolidations in the 1990s led to many cruise lines being
bought out by much larger holding companies, which continue to operate
as ‘brands’ or subsidiaries of the holding company. Brands not only con-
tinue to be maintained partly because of the expectation of repeat customer
loyalty, but also to offer various levels of quality and service. For instance,
Carnival Corporation & Plc owns both Carnival Cruise Line, whose for-
mer image were vessels that had a reputation as ‘party ships’ for younger
travellers, but have become large, modern, yet still profitable, and Holland
America Line, whose ships cultivate an image of classic elegance. In 2004,
Carnival merged Cunard’s headquarters with that of Princess Cruises in
Santa Clarita, California so that administrative, financial and technology
services could be combined, ending Cunard’s history of operating as a stan-
dalone company (subsidiary) regardless of parent ownership. Cunard did
regain some operational independence in 2009 when its headquarters were
moved to Carnival House in Southampton.
The customary practice in the cruise industry in listing cruise ship trans-
fers and orders is to list the smaller operating company, not the larger hold-
ing corporation, as the recipient cruise line of the sale, transfer, or new order.
In other words, Carnival Cruise Line and Holland America Line, for exam-
ple, are the cruise lines from this common industry practice point of view,
whereas Carnival Corporation & Plc and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., for
example, can be considered the holding corporations of the cruise lines. This
industry practice of using the smaller operating company, not the larger
holding corporation, is also followed in the list of cruise lines and in
member-based reviews of cruise lines. Some cruise lines have specialties; for
example, Saga Cruises only allows passengers over 50 years old on board
their ships, whereas Star Clippers and formerly Windjammer Barefoot
Cruises and Windstar Cruises only operate tall ships. Regent Seven Seas
Cruises operates medium-sized vessels, a class smaller than the mega-ships
operated by Carnival Corporation & Plc and Royal Caribbean and are
designed such that all their suites have balconies. Several specialty lines offer
‘expedition cruising’ or only operate small ships, visiting obscure and dis-
tant destinations such as the Arctic and Antarctica, or the Galápagos Islands.
The John W. Brown, which formerly operated as part of the US Merchant
Marine during World War II before being converted to a museum ship, still
gets underway several times a year for six-hour ‘living history cruises’ that
take the ship through Baltimore Harbour, down the Patapsco River, and into
the Chesapeake Bay. She is also the largest cruise ship operating under the
American Flag on the US East Coast.
186 Merchant ship types

Currently, the three largest cruise line holding companies and operators in
the world are Carnival Corporation & Plc, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.,
and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings. As an industry, the total number of
cabins on all the world’s cruise ships amount to less than 2% of the world’s
hotel rooms.

SHIPBOARD ORGANISATION

Cruise ships are organised much like floating hotels, with a complete hos-
pitality staff in addition to the usual ship’s crew. It is common for the most
luxurious ships to have more crew and staff than passengers. Dining on all
cruise ships is included in the cruise price. Traditionally, the ships’ restau-
rants organise two dinner services per day, early dining and late dining, and
passengers are allocated a set dining time for the entire cruise, although
recently the trend is to allow diners to dine whenever they want. Having
two dinner times allows the ship sufficient time and space to accommodate
all its guests. That said, having two different dinner services can cause some
conflicts with some of the ship’s event programming (such as shows and
performances) for the late diners, but this problem is usually fixed by hav-
ing a shorter version of the event take place before the later dinner service.
Cunard Line ships maintain the class tradition of ocean liners and have sep-
arate dining rooms for several types of suites, whereas Celebrity Cruises and
Princess Cruises have a standard dining room and ‘upgrade’ specialty res-
taurants that require pre-booking and cover charges. Many cruises schedule
one or more ‘formal dining’ nights, where the guests are expected to dress
‘formally’, however that is defined by the ship. The menu is typically more
upscale than usual. Besides the dining room, modern cruise ships often con-
tain one or more casual buffet-style eateries, which may be open 24 hours
and with menus that vary throughout the day to provide meals ranging
from breakfast to late-night snacks. In recent years, cruise lines have started
to include a diverse range of ethnically themed restaurants on board each
ship. Ships also feature numerous bars and nightclubs for passenger enter-
tainment; most cruise lines do not include alcoholic beverages in their fares
and passengers are expected to pay for drinks as they consume them. Most
cruise lines also prohibit passengers from bringing aboard and consuming
their own beverages, including alcohol, whilst on board. Alcohol purchased
duty-free is sealed and returned to passengers when they disembark. There
is often a central galley responsible for serving all major restaurants on
board the ship, though specialty restaurants may have their own separate
galleys. As with any vessel, adequate provisioning is crucial, especially on
a cruise ship serving several thousand meals at each seating. For example,
the Royal Princess requires a quasi ‘military operation’ to load and unload
3,600 passengers and eight metric tonnes of food at the beginning and end
of each cruise.
 Cruise ships 187

Modern cruise ships typically have on board some or all of the following
facilities: buffet restaurant, card room, casino (only open when the ship is at
sea to avoid conflicts with local laws), childcare facilities, one or more cine-
mas, clubs, fitness centres, Jacuzzi and hot tubs, indoor and/or outdoor
swimming pools with water slides, infirmary and morgue, karaoke, library,
lounges, observation lounge, various retail outlets and duty-free shops (only
open when the ship is at sea to avoid merchandising licensing and local
taxes), spa, teen lounges, and theatre with West End and Broadway-style
shows. Some ships have bowling alleys, ice skating rinks, rock climbing
walls, sky-diving simulators, miniature golf courses, video arcades, zip-lines,
surfing simulators, water slides, basketball courts, tennis courts, chain res-
taurants, ropes obstacle courses, and even roller coasters (Figure 15.3).

Crewing
The crew are usually hired on three-to-eleven-month contracts, which may
then be renewed as mutually agreed, depending on the service ratings from
passengers as well as the cyclical nature of the cruise line operator. Most
staff work for 77 hours per week for 10 months continuously followed by
two months of vacation. There are no paid vacations or pensions for ser-
vice, non-management crew, depending on the level of the position and the
type of the contract. Non-service and management crew members get paid

Figure 15.3 C ruise ship galley.

188 Merchant ship types

vacation, medical, retirement options, and can participate in the compa-

ny’s group insurance plan. The direct salary is low according to the North
American standards, though restaurant staff have considerable earning
potential from passenger tips. Crew members do not have any expenses
while on board, as all food and accommodation, medical care, and trans-
portation are included. Many unscrupulous crewing agencies often exploit
the desperation of their employees. Living arrangements vary by cruise line,
but mostly by shipboard position. In general, like most merchant ships, two
crew members share a cabin with a shower, commode, and a desk with a
television set, while senior officers are assigned single berth cabins. There is
a set of facilities for the crew separate from that for passengers, such as mess
rooms and bars, recreation rooms, prayer rooms/mosques, and fitness facili-
ties, with some larger ships even having a crew deck with a swimming pool.
All crew members are required to carry their certificates in accordance with
the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (as Amended), or complete the required
training whilst on board. Crew members need to complete this certification
prior to embarking as it is time-consuming and must be accomplished at the
same time, they perform their daily work activities (Figure 15.4).
For the largest cruise operators, most ‘hotel staff’ are hired from less
industrialised countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, and Central
America. While several cruise lines are headquartered in the USA, like most
international shipping companies, ships are registered in countries such as

Figure 15.4 C arnival Vista off Oranjestad, Aruba.

 Cruise ships 189

the Netherlands, the UK, the Bahamas, and Panama. The International
Labour Organisation’s 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, also known as
the ‘Seafarers’ Bill of Rights’, provides comprehensive rights and protections
for all crew members. The ILO sets rigorous standards regarding hours of
work and rest, health, and safety, and living conditions for crew members,
and requires governments to ensure that ships comply. For cruise routes
around Hawaii, operators are required to register their ships in the USA and
the crew is unionised, so these cruises are typically much more expensive
than in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean.

BUSINESS MODEL

Most cruise lines since the 2000s have priced the cruising experience à la
carte, as passenger spending aboard generates significantly more than ticket
sales. The passenger’s ticket includes the stateroom accommodation, room
service, unlimited meals in the main dining room (or main restaurant) and
buffet, access to shows, and the use of pool and gym facilities, while there is
a daily gratuity charge to cover housekeeping and waiter service. However,
there are extra charges for alcohol and soft drinks, official cruise photos,
internet and wi-fi access, and specialty restaurants. Cruise lines earn signif-
icantly from selling onshore excursions offered by local contractors, often
keeping 50% or more of what passengers spend for these tours. In addition,
cruise ships earn significant commissions on sales from onshore stores that
are promoted on board as ‘preferred partners’ (sometimes as much as 40%
of gross sales). Facilitating this practice are modern cruise terminals with
establishments of duty-free shops inside a perimeter accessible only by pas-
sengers and not by locals (similar in fact to most airports after Security).
Ports of call have often oriented their own businesses and facilities towards
meeting the needs of visiting cruise ships. In one case, Icy Strait Point in
Alaska, the entire destination was created explicitly and solely for cruise
ship visitors. Travel to and from the port of departure is usually the passen-
gers’ responsibility, although purchasing a transfer pass from the cruise line
for the trip between the airport and cruise terminal will guarantee that the
ship will not leave until the passenger is aboard. Similarly, if the passenger
books a shore excursion with the cruise line and the tour runs late, the
ship is obliged to remain until the passenger returns. Luxury cruise lines
such as Regent Seven Seas Cruises and Crystal Cruises promote their fares
as ‘all-inclusive’. For example, the base fare on Regent Seven Seas ships
includes most alcoholic beverages on board ship and most shore excur-
sions in ports of call, as well as all gratuities that would normally be paid
to hotel staff on the ship. The fare may also include a one-night hotel stay
before boarding and the airfare to and from the cruise ship’s origin and
destination ports.
190 Merchant ship types

Cruise ship naming

Older cruise ships have often had multiple owners. It is usual for the trans-
fer of ownership to entail a refitting and a name change. In fact, some older
vessels have had a dozen or so identities. Many cruise lines have a common
naming scheme they use for their ships. Some lines use their name as a prefix
or suffix in the ship name such as the prefixes ‘Carnival’, ‘AIDA’, ‘Disney’,
and ‘Norwegian’, and the suffix ‘Princess’. Other lines use a unique word or
phrase such as the prefix of ‘Pacific’ for P&O Cruises Australia or the suf-
fixes ‘of the Seas’ for Royal Caribbean International and ‘-dam’ for ships of
the Holland America Line fleet. The addition of these prefixes and suffixes
allows multiple cruise lines to use the same popular ship names while main-
taining a unique identifier for each ship. It should be noted that this practice
is not unique to the cruise industry, as many cargo vessel operators also use
prefixes and suffixes in their ship naming conventions.

Cruise ship utilisation

Cruise ships and former liners often find use in applications other than those
for which they were built. Due to slower speed and reduced seaworthiness,
as well as being introduced after several major wars, cruise ships have also
been used as troop transport vessels. By contrast, ocean liners were often
seen as the pride of their country and used to rival liners of other nations
and have been requisitioned during both World Wars and the Falklands War
to transport soldiers and serve as hospital ships. During the 1992 Summer
Olympics, 11 cruise ships docked at the Port of Barcelona for an average of
18 days, serving as floating hotels to help accommodate the large influx of
visitors to the Games. They were available to sponsors and hosted 11,000
guests a day, making it the second-largest concentration of Olympic accom-
modation behind the Olympic Village. This hosting solution has been used
since then in Games held in coastal cities, such as in Sydney in 2000, Athens
in 2004, London in 2012, Sochi in 2014, Rio de Janeiro in 2016 and, had the
Games not been postponed because of COVID-19, in Tokyo 2020 as well.
Cruise ships have been used to accommodate displaced persons during
hurricanes. For example, on 1 September 2005, the US Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) contracted three Carnival Cruise Lines ves-
sels (Carnival Fantasy, the former Carnival Holiday, and the Carnival
Sensation) to accommodate Hurricane Katrina evacuees. In 2017, cruise
ships were used to help transport residents from some Caribbean islands
destroyed by Hurricane Irma, as well as Puerto Rico residents displaced by
Hurricane Maria. Cruise ships have also been used for evacuations, such as
in 2010, in response to the shutdown of British airspace due to the eruption
of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano. In this incident, the newly completed
Celebrity Eclipse was used to rescue 2000 British tourists stranded in Spain
as an act of goodwill by the owners. The ship departed from Southampton
 Cruise ships 191

for Bilbao on 21 April and returned on 23 April. In Australia, a cruise ship

was kept on standby in case inhabitants of Kangaroo Island required evac-
uation in 2020 after a series of bush fires burned rampant across the island.

Regional sectors
Most cruise ships sail the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. Others oper-
ate elsewhere in places like Alaska, the South Pacific, the Baltic Sea, and
New England. A cruise ship that is moving from one of these regions to
another will commonly operate a repositioning cruise while doing so.
Expedition cruise lines, which usually operate small ships, visit certain more
specialised destinations such as the Arctic and Antarctica, or the Galápagos
Islands. The number of cruise tourists worldwide in 2005 was estimated at
some 14 million. The main region for cruising was North America (with
70% of cruises), with the Caribbean islands as the most popular destinations.
The second most popular region was continental Europe (13%), where the
fastest-growing segment is cruising in the Baltic Sea. The most visited Baltic
ports are Copenhagen (Denmark), St. Petersburg (Russia), Tallinn (Estonia),
Stockholm (Sweden), and Helsinki (Finland). The seaport of St. Petersburg,
the main Baltic port of call, received 426,500 passengers during the 2009
cruise season. Between 2008 and 2018, the Mediterranean cruise market
was the fastest-growing cruise market worldwide with Italy winning the
prime position as the number one destination for European cruises and the
number one destination for the whole of the Mediterranean basin. The most
visited ports in the Mediterranean Sea are Barcelona (Spain), Civitavecchia
(Italy), Palma (Spain), and Venice (Italy). In 2013, the first Chinese company
entered the global cruise market. China’s first luxury cruise ship, Henna,
made her maiden voyage from Sanya Phoenix Island International Port
(China) in January 2013.
The Caribbean cruising industry is one of the largest in the world, respon-
sible for over US$2 billion in direct revenue to the Caribbean islands each
year. Over 45,000 people from the Caribbean are directly employed in the
cruise industry. An estimated 17,457,600 cruise passengers visited the
islands in the 2011–2012 cruise year (May 2011 to April 2012). Cruise lines
operating in the Caribbean include Carnival Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruises,
Crystal Cruises, Cunard, Disney Cruise Line, Holland America, Norwegian
Cruise Line, P&O Cruises, Princess Cruises, Pullmantur Cruises, and Royal
Caribbean International with the three largest cruise operators being Carnival
Corporation & Plc, Royal Caribbean International, and Star Cruises/
Norwegian Cruise Lines. There are also smaller cruise lines that cater to a
more intimate feeling among their guests. Many American cruise lines to the
Caribbean depart out of the Port of Miami, with nearly one-third of total
cruises sailing out of Miami. Other cruise ships depart from Port Everglades
(in Fort Lauderdale), Port Canaveral [approximately forty-five miles
(72 km) east of Orlando], New York, Tampa, Galveston, New Orleans,
192 Merchant ship types

Figure 15.5 C osta Fortuna docked outside Dubrovnik’s Old Town, Croatia.

Cape Liberty, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Charleston, Norfolk, Mobile, and

San Juan, Puerto Rico. Some British cruise lines base their ships out of
Barbados for the Caribbean season, operating direct charter flights out of
the UK (Figure 15.5).
The busiest ports of call in the Caribbean for cruising in the 2013 year are
summarised in Table 15.1.
2016 was the most recent year of CLIA (Cruise Lines International
Association) studies conducted around the cruise industry specifically in the
USA and more specifically Alaska. In 2016, Alaskan cruises generated five
million passenger and crew visits, 20.3% of all passenger and crew visits in
the USA. Cruise lines frequently bring passengers to Glacier Bay National
Park, Ketchikan, Anchorage, Skagway, and the state’s capital, Juneau.
Visitor volume is represented by overall visitors entering Alaskan waters
and/or airspace. Between October 2016 and September 2017, Alaska had
about 2.2 million visitors, 49% of those were through the cruise industry.
That 2.2 million was a 27% increase since 2009, and the volume overall
has steadily increased. Visitors spend money when travelling, and this is
measured in two distinct areas: the cruising companies themselves and the
visitors. There are no current numbers for cruise-specific passenger spend-
ing ashore, but the overall visitor expenditure can be measured. Tours
accounted for US$394 million (18%), gifts and souvenirs US$427 mil-
lion (20%), food US$428 million (20%), transportation US$258 million
(12%), lodging US$454 million (21%), and other US$217 million (10%).
 Cruise ships 193

Table 15.1 Busiest cruise destinations, 2013

Rank Destination Pax arrivals
1 Bahamas 4,709,236
2 Cozumel, Mexico 2,751,178
3 US Virgin Islands 1,998,579
4 Sint Maarten 1,779,384
5 Cayman Islands 1,375,872
6 Jamaica 1,288,184
7 Puerto Rico 1,176,343
8 Turks and Caicos Islands 778,920
9 Aruba 688,568
10 Belize 677,350
11 Haiti 643,634
12 Saint Kitts and Nevis 629,000
13 Curacao 610,186
14 Saint Lucia 594,118
15 Barbados 570,263
16 Antigua and Barbuda 533,993
17 Dominican Republic 423,910
18 British Virgin Islands 367,362
19 Bermuda 320,090
20 Dominica 230,588
21 Grenada 197,311
22 Martinique 103,770
23 Bonaire 96,818
24 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 82,974

The second main area of economic growth comes from what the cruising
companies and their crews spend themselves. Cruise liners spend around
US$297 million on the items that come in their packages on board and
ashore as parts of group tours: things like stagecoach rides and boat tours
on smaller vessels throughout their ports of call. This money is paid to the
service providers by the cruise line company. Cruise liner crew are also a
revenue generator, with 27,000 crew members visiting Alaska in
2017 alone, generating about US$22 million. 2017 was also a good year for
job generation within Alaska: 43,300 jobs were created, bringing in
US$1.5 ­billion in labour costs, and a total income of US$4.5 billion was
generated. These jobs were scattered across all Alaska. Southeast Alaska
had 11,925 jobs (US$455 million labour income), the Southwest 1,800
jobs (US$50 million labour income), South Central 20,700 jobs (US$761
million labour income), Interior 8,500 jobs (US$276 million labour income),
Far North 375 jobs (US$13 million labour income).
194 Merchant ship types

SHIPYARDS

The construction market for cruise ships is dominated by three European

companies and one Asian company:

• Chantiers de l’Atlantique of France;

• Fincantieri of Italy with:
o Ancona shipyards (located at Ancona);
o Marghera shipyards (located at Marghera, Venice);
o Monfalcone shipyards (located at Monfalcone, Gorizia);
o Sestri Ponente shipyards (located at Genoa);
• VARD Braila shipyards (located at Braila);
• VARD Søviknes Shipyard (located in Norway);
• VARD Tulcea shipyards (located at Tulcea);
• Meyer Werft of Germany with two shipyards:
o Meyer Turku at Perno shipyard in Turku, Finland;
o Meyer Werft of Germany;
• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan.

A considerable number of cruise ships have been built by other shipyards,

but no other individual yard has reached the volume of hulls achieved by the
abovementioned five companies.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

Piracy and terrorism

As most of the passengers on a cruise are affluent and have considerable ran-
som potential, not to mention a considerable amount of cash and jewellery
on board (e.g. in casinos and shops), there have been several high-profile
pirate attacks on cruise ships, such as on Seabourn Spirit (2005) and MSC
Melody (2009). As a result, cruise ships have implemented various security
measures. While most merchant shipping firms have avoided arming crew
or security guards for reasons of safety, liability, and conformity with the
laws of the countries where they dock, cruise ships have small arms (usually
semi-automatic pistols) stored in a safe accessible only by the captain who
distributes them to authorised personnel such as security or the Master-
at-Arms. The ship’s high-pressure fire hoses can be used to keep boarders
at bay, and often the vessel itself can be manoeuvered to ram pirate craft.
Recent technology to be developed to deter pirates has been the LRAD or
sonic cannon, which was used in the successful defence of the Seabourn
Spirit. A related risk is that of terrorism, the most notable incident being that
of the hijacking of Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, in 1985.
 Cruise ships 195

Crime on board
Passengers entering the cruise ship are screened by metal detectors. Explosive
detection machines include x-ray machines and explosives trace-detection
portal machines (aka ‘puffer machines’) to prevent weapons, drugs, and
other contraband on board. Port and ship security has been tightened since
11 September 2001, such that these measures are like airport security. In
addition to security checkpoints, passengers are often given a ship-specific
identification card, which must be shown to get on or off the ship. This
prevents people boarding who are not entitled to do so and ensures that
the ship’s crew are aware of who is on the ship. The cruise ship’s ID cards
are also used as the passenger’s room key. Most cruise ships make extensive
use of CCTV throughout the vessel. In 2010, the US Congress passed the
Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act after numerous incidents involving
sexual violence, passenger disappearances, physical assaults, and other seri-
ous crimes. In a report issued by the US Congress, it was claimed that

passengers on cruise vessels have an inadequate appreciation of their

potential vulnerability to crime while on ocean voyages, and those who
may be victimised lack the information they need to understand their
legal rights or to know whom to contact for help in the immediate
aftermath of the crime.

Congress went on to state that ‘both passengers and crew committed crimes
and that data on the problem was lacking because cruise lines did not make
it publicly available, multiple countries engaged in investigating incidents
on international waters, and crime scenes could not be secured quickly by
police’. The report recommended the owners of cruise vessels install acoustic
hailing and warning devices capable of working at a distance, install more
security cameras around their ships, install peep holes in passenger cabin
doors, and limit access to passenger cabins to select staff at specific times.
After investigating the death of Dianne Brimble in 2002, a coroner in
Australia recommended that Australian Federal Police officers travel on
ships to ensure a quick response to crime, scanners and drug detection dogs
check passengers and crew at Australian ports, an end to overlaps between
jurisdictions, and Flags of ships be disregarded for nations unable to inves-
tigate incidents thoroughly and competently. The lobby group International
Cruise Victims Association, based in Arizona, North America, also pushes
for more regulation of the cruise industry and supports victims of crimes
committed on cruise ships.

Overboard drownings
Passengers and crew sometimes drown after going overboard in what are
called ‘man-overboard’ incidents (MOBs). Since 2000, more than 300 people
196 Merchant ship types

have fallen off cruise ships or large ferries, which is an average of about
1.5 people each month. Of those, only about 17–25% of people were res-
cued. Critics of the industry blame alcohol promotion for many passen-
ger deaths, and poor labour conditions for crew suicides. They also point
to underinvestment in the latest MOB sensors, a lack of regulation and
consumer protection, and a lack of onboard counselling services for crew
members. The industry blames the irresponsible behaviour of passengers
and says overboard sensors are unreliable and generate false alarms. One
authority on overboard drownings, the maritime lawyer, James Walker, esti-
mates about half of all disappearances at sea involve some factor of foul
play, and that a lack of police authority on international waters allows
sexual predators to go unpunished. According to the Washington Post, a
recent study by economic consultant G.P. Wild – commissioned by the cruise
industry’s trade group and released in March 2019 – argued that cruises are
getting safer over time. The study claims that, even as capacity has increased
55% between 2009 and 2018, the number of overall ‘operational incidents’
declined 37% and the rate of man overboard cases dropped 35%.

Stability
Modern cruise ships are tall but remain stable due to their low centre of
mass. This is due to large open spaces and the extensive use of aluminium,
high-strength steel and other lightweight materials in the upper parts, and
the fact that the heaviest components, the engines, propellers, fuel tanks, etc.,
are located at the bottom of the hull. Thus, even though modern cruise ships
may appear tall, proper weight distribution ensures that they are not top-
heavy. Furthermore, large cruise ships tend to be very wide, which increases
their initial stability by increasing the metacentric height. Although most
passenger ships use stabilisers to reduce rolling in heavy weather, they are
only used for crew and passenger comfort and do not contribute to the
overall intact stability of the vessel. The ships must fulfil all stability require-
ments even with the stabiliser fins retracted.

Health concerns
Norovirus
Norovirus is a virus that commonly causes gastroenteritis in developed
countries and is also a cause of gastroenteritis on cruise ships. It is typi-
cally transmitted from person to person. Symptoms usually last between one
and three days and resolve without treatment or long-term consequences.
The incubation period of the virus averages about 24 hours. Norovirus out-
breaks are often perceived to be associated with cruise ships. According to
the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the factors that
cause norovirus associated with cruise ships include the closer tracking and
 Cruise ships 197

faster reporting of illnesses compared with those on land; the close living
quarters that increases the amount of interpersonal contact; as well as the
turnover of passengers that may bring the viruses on board. However, the
estimated likelihood of contracting gastroenteritis from any cause on an
average seven-day cruise is estimated to be less than 1%. In 2009, during
which more than 13 million people participated in cruises worldwide, there
were nine cruise ship-related reports of norovirus outbreaks. Outbreak
investigations by the CDC have shown that transmission among cruise
ship passengers is primarily person-to-person; potable water supplies have
not been implicated. In a study published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, the CDC reported that; perceptions that cruise ships
can be luxury breeding grounds for acute gastroenteritis outbreaks do not
hold water. A recent CDC report showed that from 2008 to 2014, only
0.18% of more than seventy-three million cruise passengers and 0.15% of
some twenty-eight million crew members reported symptoms of the illness’.
Ships docked in port undergo surprise health inspections. In 2009, ships
that underwent unannounced inspections by the CDC received an average
CDC Vessel Sanitation Programme score of approximately 97 out of a total
possible 100 points. The minimum passing inspection score is 85 out of 100.
Collaboration with the CDC’s Vessel Sanitation Programme and the devel-
opment of Outbreak Prevention and Response Plans has been credited with
decreasing the incidence of norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships.

Legionnaires’ disease
Other pathogens which can colonise in pools and spas including those on
cruise ships include Legionella, the bacterium which causes Legionnaires’
disease. Legionella, and the most virulent strain, Legionella pneumophila
serogroup 1, can cause infections when inhaled as an aerosol or aspirated.
Individuals who are immunocompromised and those with pre-existing
chronic respiratory and cardiac disease are more susceptible. Legionnaires
has been infrequently associated with cruise ships. The Cruise Industry
Vessel Sanitation Programme has specific public health requirements to con-
trol and prevent Legionella.

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli is a form of E. coli and the leading bacterial
cause of diarrhoea in the developing world, as well as the most common
cause of diarrhoea for travellers to those areas. Between 2008 and 2014,
there was at least one reported incident each year of E. coli on international
cruise ships reported to the Vessel Sanitation Programme, though there were
no reported cases in 2015. Causes of E. coli infection include the consump-
tion of contaminated food or water contaminated by human waste.
198 Merchant ship types

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

News outlets reported several cases and suspected cases of coronavi-
rus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with cruise ships in early 2020.
Authorities variously turned away ships or quarantined them; cruise oper-
ators cancelled some port visits and suspended global cruise operations. It
is strongly believed that passengers on board cruise ships played a role in
spreading the disease in some countries, though the scientific evidence sup-
porting this aspersion is limited. After disembarking passengers, many cruise
ships remained docked or at sea near ports with crew members still aboard,
in some cases unpaid though with free room and board. Crew members
are citizens of many different countries, aside from those where the ship is
registered, based, or temporarily stopped. Especially with pandemic-related
travel restrictions and concerns about onboard outbreaks, crew members
could not simply disembark and fly home. After some negotiations, most
cruise companies made special arrangements to allow crew members to
take charter flights back to their home countries. In some cases, the ships
themselves were used to transport crew members to home countries directly.
According to the Miami Herald, Royal Caribbean International was slower
than other companies to make these arrangements; in the meantime, two
crew members died after jumping overboard, and several crew members on
the Navigator of the Seas went on hunger strike demanding to be released.
In total, there were eight suspected suicides or suicide attempts in May and
June 2020. The government of Grenada complained that cruise companies
that promised to pay for onshore quarantines failed to do so, and some
were concerned about crew members being released into Haiti from Royal
Caribbean ships without testing or onshore quarantine.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Cruise ships generate several waste streams that can result in discharges to
the marine environment, including sewage, grey water, hazardous wastes,
oily bilge water, ballast water, and solid waste. They also emit air pollutants
to the air and water. These wastes, if not properly treated and disposed of,
can be a significant source of pathogens, nutrients, and toxic substances with
the potential to threaten human health and damage aquatic life. Most cruise
ships run (primarily) on heavy fuel oil (HFO) or bunker fuel, which, because
of its high sulphur content, results in sulphur dioxide emissions worse than
those of equivalent road traffic. The international MARPOL IV-14 agree-
ment for sulphur emission control areas require less than 0.10% sulphur in
marine fuel, contrasting with HFO. Cruise ships may use 60% of the fuel
energy for propulsion, and 40% for hotel functions, but loads and distri-
bution depend on sea conditions. Some cruise lines, such as Cunard, have
taken steps to reduce environmental impact by refraining from discharges
 Cruise ships 199

at sea (the Queen Mary 2, for example, has a zero-discharge policy) and
reducing their carbon dioxide output each year. Cruise ships require electri-
cal power, normally provided by diesel generators, although an increasing
number of new ships are fuelled by LNG. When docked, ships must run
their generators continuously to power the on-board facilities, unless they
can use onshore power, where available. Some cruise ships already support
the use of shore power, while others are being adapted to do so.
Chapter 16

Cruise ferry

A cruise ferry is a ship that combines the features of a cruise ship with a
ROPAX ferry. Many passengers travel with the ships for the cruise experi-
ence, staying only a few hours at the destination port or not leaving the ship
at all, while others use the ships as a means of transportation. Cruise ferry
traffic is concentrated in the seas of Northern Europe, especially the Baltic
Sea and the North Sea. However, similar ships traffic across the English
Channel as well as the Irish Sea, Mediterranean, and even on the North
Atlantic coast around Canada. Cruise ferries also operate from India, China,
and between Australia and Tasmania. In the northern Baltic Sea, two major
rival companies, Viking Line and Silja Line, have for decades competed on
the routes between Turku and Helsinki in Finland and Sweden’s capital
Stockholm. Since the 1990s, Tallink has also risen as a major company in
the area, culminating with the acquisition of Silja Line in 2006. The Baltic
Sea is crossed by several cruise ferry lines, the largest being Viking Line, Silja
Line, Tallink, St. Peter Line, and Eckerö Line.

CRUISE FERRY SECTORS

Eastern Baltic Sea

Upon departure from or arrival in Helsinki, Baltic Sea cruise ferries pass the
island fortress of Suomenlinna. Tallink and Viking Line operate competing
cruise ferries on the routes between Stockholm – Turku and Stockholm –
Helsinki, calling in Åland (Mariehamn or Långnäs). Additionally, Tallink
sails between Stockholm – Mariehamn – Tallinn and Stockholm – Riga.
Tallink, Viking Line, and Eckerö Line compete on the Helsinki – Tallinn
route, which is also the busiest route in the Baltic Sea, and was travelled
by over 7.5 million people in 2018. Baltic routes are mostly served by new
ships purpose-built for the passage. Older cruise ferries from the Baltic serve
as ferries on other seas, or in some cases, as cruise ships. Viking Line and
Eckerölinjen also operate short routes from Sweden to Åland, sailing on
Kapellskär – Mariehamn and Grisslehamn – Berghamn. Birka Line, owned

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-20 201

202 Merchant ship type

by Eckerö, also operates short cruises out of Stockholm. GTS Finnjet (1977)
is the first cruise ferry, as she was the first ferry to offer cruise-ship quality
services and accommodations. The first generation of cruise ferries operating
from Finland to Sweden was highly influenced by Finnjet’s interior and exte-
rior designs. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the route connecting Helsinki
to Tallinn became highly lucrative, which led to Estonia-based company
Tallink to grow and rival the two long-established companies operating in
the Eastern Baltic, Viking Line, and Silja Line. Tallink purchased Silja Line in
2006. The size of Baltic cruise ferries is limited by various narrow passages in
the Stockholm, Ålandian, and Turku archipelagos, meaning that ships with
a length overall more than 200 m (656 ft) cannot service these routes. The
single narrowest point is Kustaanmiekka strait outside Helsinki, although
ships making port at the city’s west harbour do not have to pass through
the strait. Viking and Silja Line have wished to keep their terminals in the
South Harbour, however, as it is located within the proximity of Helsinki
city centre. The longest ships to maintain a scheduled service through the
Kustaanmiekka strait were MS Finnstar and her sisters with a length overall
of 219 m (718 ft). The longest ship to have ever navigated through the nar-
rows past Suomenlinna sea fortress was MS Oriana (260 m, 853 ft), but that
was only possible due to extremely clear weather conditions (Figure 16.1).
To allow for duty-free sales on routes between Finland and Sweden,
Baltic Sea cruise ferries stop in Åland on the way. This often happens in the
middle of the night, with the ships staying at the Åland Islands for less than
an hour. Passengers board and depart the ships via walking tunnels con-
necting the ship directly to the terminal building. The expansion of the EU
has limited the growth of the industry, as duty-free sales on intra-EU routes
are no longer possible. However, as Åland is outside the EU customs zone,

Figure 16.1 S candlines’ Prins Richard on the Puttgarden-Rødby ‘Vogelfluglinie’

from Puttgarden, Germany to Rødby, Denmark.
 Cruise ferry 203

duty-free sales are still possible on routes making a stop at Mariehamn or

other harbours on the islands. Another popular destination is Estonia with
its lower taxes on alcohol. The ferries have attracted criticism for their low
prices of alcoholic beverages, which has been argued that it encourages
passengers to become drunk and act irresponsibly. Due to the cheap price of
the cruises and the availability of duty-free alcohol [which makes it cheaper
than on ‘land’ (both Finland and Sweden have a strict taxation regime for
alcohol], it is common for groups to hold parties involving the consumption
of vast amounts of alcohol. Many Finns also buy snus1 from ferries, as its
sale is illegal in Finland due to the EU regulations.

Silja Line
Silja Line is a Finnish cruise ferry brand operated by the Estonian ferry
company AS Tallink Grupp, for car, cargo, and passenger traffic between
Finland and Sweden. The former company Silja Oy, today Tallink Silja Oy, is
a subsidiary of the Tallink Grupp, handling marketing and sales for Tallink
and Silja Line brands in Finland as well as managing Tallink Silja’s ship-
board personnel. Another subsidiary, Tallink Silja AB, manages marketing
and sales in Sweden. Strategical corporate management is performed by the
Tallink Grupp, which also owns the company’s fleet of ships. As of 2018,
four ships service two routes under the Silja Line brand, transporting about
three million passengers and 200,000 cars every year. The Silja Line ships
have a market share of around 50% on the two routes served. The history of
Silja Line can be traced back to 1904 when the two Finnish shipping compa-
nies, Finland Steamship Company (Finska Ångfartygs Aktiebolaget, FÅA for
short) and Steamship Company Bore, started collaborating on the Finland–
Sweden traffic. The initial collaboration agreement was terminated in 1909
but was re-established in 1910. After the end of World War I in 1918, a
new agreement was made that also included the Swedish Rederi AB Svea.
Originally, the collaboration agreement applied only on services between
Turku and Stockholm but was later adopted to the Helsinki–Stockholm
route in 1928. As a precursor to the policies later adopted by Silja Line,
each of the three companies ordered a near-identical ship for the Helsinki–
Stockholm service to coincide with the 1952 Summer Olympics, which were
held in Helsinki. In the end, only Finland SS Company’s SS Aallotar was
ready in time for the Olympics. At the same time, the city of Helsinki con-
structed the Olympia Terminal in Helsinki’s South Harbour, which Silja Line
ships still use today (Figure 16.2).
Realising that car-passenger ferries would be the dominant traffic form of
the future, the three collaborating companies decided to form a daughter
company, Oy Siljavarustamo/Siljarederiet AB. The new company started
operations with used ships, which were not particularly well-fitted for the
role they were meant for, but in 1961, Silja took delivery of the new
MS Skandia, the first purpose-built car-passenger ferry to operate in the
204 Merchant ship type

Figure 16.2 St Peter Line’s cruise ferry MS Princess Maria, outside Helsinki,
Finland.

northern Baltic Sea. The MS Skandia’s sister ship, the MS Nordia followed
the next year culminating with the launch of the MS Fennia in 1966. Two
more ships based on the Skandia design, MS Botnia and MS Floria, were
delivered in 1967 and 1970, respectively. Despite the establishment of Silja,
FÅA, Bore, and Svea also continued to operate on the same routes with their
own ships. This led to a complex situation where four different companies
were marketed as one entity. In Finland, they went by the name Ruotsinlaivat
(‘Sweden’s Ships’ or ‘Ships to Sweden’), whereas in Sweden, the preferred
terms were Det Samseglande (roughly ‘the ones that sail together’),
Finlandsbåten (‘Finland’s Ships’), or Sverigebåten (‘Sweden Ships’). In both
countries, the names of all four companies were usually displayed alongside
the group identity. In 1967, three of Silja’s rival companies had formed a
joint marketing and coordination company, Viking Line, which was to
become Silja Line’s main rival for the next two decades. FÅA, Bore, and Svea
soon realised that a similar arrangement would be preferable to their cur-
rent fragmented image, and in 1970, a substantial change was conducted
within the organisations: Silja Line was established as a joint marketing and
coordination company between FÅA, Bore, and Svea, and the ships of
Siljavarustamo were divided between the three companies. All Silja Line
ships were painted in the same colour scheme, with a white hull and super-
structure, with Silja Line and the seal’s head logo on the side in dark blue.
Each company retained their own funnel colours so that it was easy to dis-
tinguish which ship belonged to which company even from a distance:
 Cruise ferry 205

Svea’s funnels were white with a large black ‘S,’ FÅA’s were black with two
white bands, and Bore’s were yellow with a blue and white cross. Already
before the reorganisation, Silja had ordered two new ships from Dubigeon-
Normandie SA of Nantes to begin year-round services between Helsinki and
Stockholm. Until then, the route was offered during the summer season
only. In 1972, these vessels were delivered to FÅA and Svea as MS Aallotar
and MS Svea Regina, respectively. Passenger numbers on the Helsinki route
grew fast, and already in 1973, it was decided that the three companies
would each order a ship of identical design from the same shipyard to
replace the current Helsinki – Stockholm ships. These were delivered in
1975, with the first being MS Svea Corona, followed by MS Wellamo, and
the last, MS Bore Star. However, winter passenger numbers were insufficient
for three ships, and as a result, MS Bore Star was chartered to Finnlines
during the winter season of 1975–1976 and 1976–1977. In 1976, Finland
SS Co changed its name to Effoa (the Finnish phonetic spelling of FÅA).
During the latter part of the 1970s Effoa’s old ferries, MS Ilmatar and MS
Regina cruised the Baltic, Norwegian fjords, and the Atlantic (from Málaga)
under the marketing name Silja Cruises.
In 1979, Svea and Effoa again decided to order new ships for the Helsinki–
Stockholm route, which would be the largest ferries of their time. Bore,
however, decided not to participate in building new ships, and in 1980,
opted to bow out of passenger traffic altogether (Bore Line still exists as a
freight-carrying company). Their two ships were sold to Effoa and their
shares of Silja Line were split between the two other companies. In Finland,
and later in Sweden, a large maritime strike in the spring of 1980 stopped
ferry traffic completely and prompted Effoa to terminate the Silja Cruises
service. Despite the difficulties, Silja’s first real cruise ferries, MS Finlandia
and MS Silvia Regina, entered service in 1981, which led to a 45% increase
in passenger numbers. Later in the same year, Johnson Line purchased
Rederi AB Svea, and the former Svea ships received Johnson Line’s blue and
yellow colours. The positive experiences with the new Helsinki ships
prompted Effoa and Johnson Line to order a further two ships built on a
similar principle for traffic on the Turku (Finland) to Stockholm route,
which were delivered in 1985 and 1986 as MS Svea and MS Wellamo.
Although similar in proportions and interior layout, the new ships sported
an attractive streamlined superstructure instead of the box-like superstruc-
ture of the MS Finlandia and Silvia Regina. In 1987, Effoa purchased the
GTS Finnjet, and from the beginning of 1987, the prestigious but unprofit-
able Queen of the Baltic Sea joined Silja Line’s fleet. Later in the same year,
Effoa and Johnson Line jointly purchased Rederi Ab Sally, one of the own-
ers of the rival Viking Line. The other Viking Line partners forced the new
owners to sell their share in Viking, but Effoa and Johnson Line retained
Vaasanlaivat/Vasabåtarna, Sally Cruises, Sally Ferries UK, and Commodore
Cruise Line. Although the purchase of Sally had no effect on Silja Line’s
traffic for the time being, it proved to be important later. Finally, 1987 saw
206 Merchant ship type

another order of new ships for the Helsinki–Stockholm route, which would
again be the largest ferries built at that time, which were eventually named
MS Silja Serenade and MS Silja Symphony. Not revealed at the time, the new
ships had a 140 m (459 ft) promenade street running along the centre of the
ship, a feature never seen before on a vessel, but by the first decade of the
21st century, commonly found on Royal Caribbean International’s and
Color Line’s newer ships.
In late 1989, Wärtsilä Marine, the shipyard building Silja’s new cruise
ferries, went bankrupt, which led to the ships being delivered later than had
been planned. To ensure the delivery of their ferries, both Effoa and Johnson
Line purchased a part of the new Masa-Yards established to continue ship-
building in Wärtsilä’s former shipyards. In 1990, Effoa and Johnson Line
merged to form EffJohn. As a result, the seal’s head logo replaced the col-
ours of each individual owner company on the funnel. In November, the
new MS Silja Serenade made its maiden voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm,
approximately seven months after the originally planned delivery date. MS
Silja Symphony was delivered the following year. Although popular and
sporting a successful design, the new ships proved expensive. This expense,
coupled with economic depression in the early 1990s, forced EffJohn to cut
costs, which resulted in Wasa Line and Sally Cruises being merged into Silja
Line in 1992. Also in 1992, MS Svea and MS Wellamo were modernised and
renamed Silja Karneval and Silja Festival, respectively. In January 1993, it
was reported that Silja Line had chartered the MS Europa, a ship under
construction for Rederi AB Slite, one of the owners of Viking Line. Because
of financial troubles, Slite could not pay for their new ship, and the shipyard
decided to charter it to Silja instead. Later in the same year, Silja joined
forces with Euroway on their Malmö (Sweden) – Travemünde (Germany) –
Lübeck (Germany) route. The route proved unprofitable and was termi-
nated in the spring of 1994. In September 1994, the worst peace-time
maritime disaster on the Baltic Sea occurred with the sinking of the MS
Estonia. Silja Europa, Silja Symphony, and Finnjet all assisted in searching
for survivors from the disaster. Silja Festival was berthed opposite the MS
Estonia in Tallinn the day before the sinking but arrived in Helsinki after the
MS Estonia sank, and so did not come to her aid. The Estonia sinking led to
passenger numbers dropping, which did not help Silja’s precarious financial
situation. Although the company had achieved its ambition of becoming the
largest operator of cruise ferries on the Baltic Sea, having finally overtaken
Viking Line in 1993, the company was not doing financially well. In 1995,
Effjohn changed its name to Silja Oy Ab, before changing it again three
years later to Neptun Maritime.

Viking Line
Viking Line Abp is a Finnish shipping company that operates a fleet of ferries
and cruise ferries between Finland, the Åland Islands, Sweden, and Estonia.
 Cruise ferry 207

The history of Viking Line can be traced back to 1959, when a group of
seamen and businessmen from the Åland Islands province in Finland formed
Rederi Ab Vikinglinjen, purchasing a steam-powered car ferry, the SS Dinard
from the UK. The vessel was renamed the SS Viking and began service on the
route between Korpo (Finland), Mariehamn (Åland), and Gräddö (Sweden).
In the same year, the Gotland-based Rederi AB Slite began a service between
Simpnäs (Sweden) and Mariehamn. In 1962, a disagreement caused a group
of people to leave Rederi Ab Vikinglinjen and form a new company, Rederi
Ab Ålandsfärjan, which began a service linking Gräddö and Mariehamn
the following year. Soon the three companies, all competing for passengers
between the Åland Islands and Sweden, realised that they eventually all
stood to lose from the mutual competition. In 1965, Vikinglinjen and Slite
began collaborating, and by the end of July 1966, Viking Line was estab-
lished as a marketing company for all three companies. At this time, Rederi
Ab Vikinglinjen changed its name to Rederi Ab Solstad, to avoid confusion
with the marketing company. The red hull livery was adopted from Slite’s
Ålandspilen service (taken from the colour of the company chairman’s wife’s
lipstick). In 1967, Rederi Ab Ålandsfärjan changed its name to SF Line, and
in 1977, Rederi Ab Solstad was merged into its mother company Rederi
Ab Sally. Because Viking Line was only a marketing company, each owner
company retained their individual fleets and could choose on which routes
to set their ships. Each company’s ships were easy to distinguish by name: all
Sally ships had a ‘Viking’ prefix to their names, Slite took their names from
Roman and Greek mythologies, whilst SF Line’s names ended with -ella in
honour of the managing director’s wife, Ellen Eklund (Figure 16.3).
During the 1970s, Viking expanded and overtook Silja Line as the largest
shipping consortium on the Northern Baltic Sea. Between 1970 and 1973,
Slite and Sally took delivery of five identical ships built at Meyer Werft
Germany, namely MS Apollo and MS Diana for Slite, and MS Viking 1, MS

Figure 16.3 V
 iking Line cruise ferry MS Viking Cinderella departing Stockholm,
Sweden.
208 Merchant ship type

Viking 3 and MS Viking 4 for Sally. MS Viking 5, delivered in 1974, was an

enlarged version of the same design. These so-called Papenburg sisters are
considered one of the most successful ship designs of all time, with the ship-
yard building a further three additional sisters of the original design for
Transbordadores for service in Mexico: Coromuel, Puerto Vallarta, and
Azteca. In 1973, Viking Line started service on the Turku–Mariehamn–
Stockholm route, directly competing with Silja Line for the first time. The
next year, Sally began Viking Line traffic between Helsinki and Stockholm.
For the next decade, this route stayed separate, whereas, on all other routes,
the three companies operated together. By the latter half of the 1970s, Sally
was clearly the dominant partner in the consortium. In 1980, they took
delivery of three new ferries (MS Viking Saga, MS Viking Sally, and MS
Viking Song), the largest ships to have sailed under Viking’s colours. This
further established their dominance over the other partners, although SF
Line did take delivery of the new MS Turella and MS Rosella in 1979–1980
and Slite’s MS Diana II in 1979. In the early 1980s, Sally started expanding
their operations to other operational areas. This would become the compa-
ny’s failure, as those operations proved unprofitable and made Sally unable
to invest in new tonnage for the Viking Line service. In 1985, Viking’s brand-
new MS Mariella, at that time the largest ferry in the world, replaced MS
Viking Song on the Helsinki–Stockholm service, breaking Sally’s monopoly
on the route. The next year, Slite took delivery of MS Mariella’s sister, MS
Olympia, forcing Sally out of the Helsinki to Stockholm route completely.
While SF Line and Slite were planning additional newbuilds, Sally was in an
extremely poor position financially, and in 1987, Effoa and Johnson Line,
the owners of Silja Line purchased Sally. As a result, SF Line and Slite forced
Sally to leave the Viking Line consortium in 1988. Between 1988 and 1990
SF Line took delivery of three new ships (MS Amorella, MS Isabella, and MS
Cinderella) while Slite took delivery of two (MS Athena and MS Kalypso).
Unfortunately, Wärtsilä Marine, the shipyard building one of SF Line’s new-
builds and both of Slite’s, went bankrupt in 1989. SF Line avoided the finan-
cial repercussions of Wärtsilä’s bankruptcy as their vessel, the MS Cinderella,
had been continuously paid for as her construction progressed. Hence, it
was SF Line who owned the almost completed ship when the shipyard went
bankrupt. Slite however had signed a more traditional type of contract; the
MS Kalypso was to be paid for on delivery. Since the shipyard owned the
unfinished ship, this led to an increased cost for the MS Kalypso, approxi-
mately 200 million SEK more than had been originally envisaged. In the
end, despite the financial problems, by 1990, Viking Line had the largest and
newest cruise ferry fleet in the world.
In 1989, Slite started planning the MS Europa, which was to be the jewel
in the company’s crown; she was to be the largest and most luxurious cruise
ferry in the world. Unfortunately for them, Sweden entered a monetary crisis
during the construction of the ship, which led to the devaluation of the Swe­
dish krona (SEK). This in turn meant that the cost for the MS Europa increased
 Cruise ferry 209

by 400 million SEK. When the time came to take delivery of the new ship,
Slite did not have the funds to pay for her and their main funders (the
Swedish bank Nordbanken, who were also the main funders of Silja Line)
refused to loan the money needed to purchase the ship. Eventually, the ship
ended up in Silja Line’s fleet and Slite was forced to declare bankruptcy in
1993. Following the bankruptcy of Rederi AB Slite, SF Line was left as the
sole operator under the Viking Line brand. The remaining two Slite ships,
MS Athena and MS Kalypso, were auctioned in August 1993. SF Line made
a bid for the MS Kalypso, but both ships ended up sold to the newly estab-
lished Malaysian cruise ship operator Star Cruises. In 1995, SF Line changed
their name to Viking Line. Between 1994 and 1996, the company operated
a fast ferry service from Helsinki to Tallinn during the summers on char-
tered catamaran ships. In 1997, they purchased MS Silja Scandinavia from
Sea-Link Shipping AB and renamed her MS Gabriella for the Helsinki–
Stockholm service. It was reported that around the same time plans were
made to construct a pair of new ships for the Helsinki–Stockholm service so
that Viking could better compete with Silja on that route, but these plans
were shelved. In 2006, Sea Containers Ltd, who had become the main owner
of Silja Line in 1999, put Silja Line and their cargo-carrying subsidiary
SeaWind Line for sale, except for the GTS Finnjet and MS Silja Opera. Both
ships were transferred to Sea Container’s direct ownership and were eventu-
ally sold. In a seminar held in January 2010, Viking Line began negotiations
with nine different shipyards about the possibility of constructing a pair of
60,000-tonne ships to replace the MS Amorella and MS Isabella on the
Turku–Stockholm service. The possibility of using liquefied natural gas
engines and other emission-reducing technologies was researched, whilst the
ships would include various features akin to those found onboard cruise
ships such as Royal Caribbean International’s MS Oasis of the Seas. In
October 2010 Viking Line signed a letter of intent with STX Turku for a
57,000 metric-tonne cruise ferry for the Turku–Stockholm route. Two
months later, the formal order for the new ship was placed. The new ship
christened Viking Grace, was laid down on 6 March 2012 and launched on
10 August 2012. The ship entered service in January 2013. Viking Line had
an option for a sister ship but announced in May 2012 that they have
decided not to build it. Viking Line revealed in November 2016 that a letter
of intent had been signed with Chinese shipyard Xiamen Shipbuilding for
the construction of a 63,000 metric-tonne cruise ferry that would on com-
pletion replace the MS Amorella in the Viking Line fleet.

English Channel and Bay of Biscay

P&O
The British shipping company P&O is credited with establishing the first
ferry services in the UK in the late 1960s in the North Sea and the English
210 Merchant ship type

Channel. In the late 1970s, P&O was affected by a reduction in traditional

shipping activities, which saw the sale of several of its businesses and assets.
This continued into 1985 with the sale of its cross-channel ferry activities
to European Ferries, which at the time consisted of services on the Port
of Dover–Boulogne and Southampton–Le Havre routes. In January the
following year, P&O purchased a 50.01% interest in European Financial
Holdings Ltd, which held 20.8% of shares in European Ferries, followed
in 1987 with the purchase of the remaining shares of the European Ferries
Group whose ferry services were trading as Townsend Thoresen. Following
the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in March 1987, the operations of
Townsend Thoresen were renamed P&O European Ferries on 22 October
1987, with operations from Portsmouth, Felixstowe, and Dover. Following a
consultation with the Competition Commission beginning on 28 November
1996, P&O European Ferries split into three separate subsidiaries: P&O
Portsmouth, P&O North Sea, and the creation of a joint venture between
P&O and the Swedish ferry company Stena Line’s UK subsidiary Stena Line
(UK) Ltd to create P&O Stena Line in Dover. In April 2002, P&O announced
its intention to purchase Stena Line’s 40% share of the joint venture. The
purchase was completed by August, and in October 2002, the Portsmouth
and North Sea operations were merged with the Dover operations to create
P&O Ferries Ltd, jointly managing all services from its head office, Channel
House in Dover. In September 2004, P&O Ferries Ltd conducted a business
review that concluded with the announcement of the closure of several of its
long-term Portsmouth-based routes, leaving only the Portsmouth – Bilbao
route in operation. These closures were blamed on the expansion of low-
cost airlines and the increasing usage of the Channel Tunnel as a faster alter-
native to ferry operations. In 2006, the P&O Group, including P&O Ferries,
was sold to Dubai-based DP World. Shortly afterwards, it was taken over by
Dubai World. On 15 January 2010, P&O Ferries announced that it would
be closing the Portsmouth – Bilbao route by the end of September to coin-
cide with the end of its existing charter for the Pride of Bilbao. This meant
that the closure of the final route served by P&O Ferries in Portsmouth. In
January 2019, P&O Ferries announced that its British fleet would be ref-
lagged from Dover to Limassol, Cyprus, in response to Britain’s exit from the
EU in 2019. The reason given was ‘for operational and accounting reasons’.
Cyprus is a member of the EU and a Flag of Convenience; reflagging P&O’s
vessels would allow P&O to continue to benefit from EU tax arrangements.
In response, the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union condemned the
reflagging of P&Os fleet as ‘pure opportunism’, saying that the company’s
‘long-term aim has always been to switch the UK fleet to a tax haven regis-
ter’. On 20 February 2019, DP World announced it had repurchased P&O
Ferries from Dubai World in a deal worth £322m (Figure 16.4).
P&O’s Portsmouth operations began with their acquisition of Normandy
Ferries’ Portsmouth – Le Havre route, branding it as P&O Normandy
Ferries and offering a twice-daily service, initially competing with both
 Cruise ferry 211

Figure 16.4 P
 &O Ferries, English Channel between Dover, England and Calais,
France.

Brittany Ferries and Townsend Thoresen. In 1985, P&O sold its ferry oper-
ations to European Ferries before returning to the market in 1987 with its
takeover of European Ferries that same year, this time employing the P&O
European Ferries brand. Following the acquisition in 1987, P&O European
Ferries operated routes from Portsmouth to Cherbourg and Le Havre. The
Cherbourg route was operated by the Super Viking class of vessels, namely
the Pride of Cherbourg (1) and Pride of Winchester until 1994 when they
were replaced by the two jumbo-sized ‘Super Vikings’, Pride of Cherbourg
(2) and Pride of Hampshire. On the Le Havre route, the jumbo ‘Super
Vikings’ Pride of Hampshire and Pride of Le Havre initially serviced the
route supported at various times by chartered in freight vessels or trans-
ferred ‘European’ class vessels. However, their low capacity meant that by
1991, larger vessels were required; this was eventually solved by the intro-
duction of two German-built vessels, Pride of Le Havre (2) and the ­in 1994.
In 1993, P&O opened a new route from Portsmouth to Bilbao, Spain, using
the Pride of Bilbao operating a twice-weekly service. This was the longest
route that P&O Ferries operated and was often late arriving due to the
weather conditions in the Bay of Biscay. The Pride of Bilbao was an arche-
typical cruise ferry. Built for Viking Line, the Pride of Bilbao was operated
by P&O Ferries between Portsmouth and Bilbao from 1993 to 2010. The
Bilbao route remained the only Portsmouth operation, until 15 January 2010,
212 Merchant ship type

when P&O Ferries announced they would withdraw the service at the end
of Pride of Bilbao’s charter. The vessel completed her final voyage on 28
September 2010 and was returned to Irish Continental Group, from whom
she had been chartered since the route’s inception. This marked the end of
P&O’s operations from Portsmouth.

Brittany Ferries
Brittany Ferries is the trading name of the French shipping company,
BAI Bretagne Angleterre Irlande SA and was founded in 1973 by Alexis
Gourvennec. The company operates a fleet of cruise ferries between the UK,
Ireland, and Spain, and between Spain and Ireland and the UK. Collaborating
with fellow Breton farmers, Gourvennec lobbied for improvements to
Brittany’s infrastructure, including better roads, a telephone network, edu-
cation, and port access. By 1972, he had successfully secured funding and
work to develop a deep-water port at Roscoff. Although Gourvennec had
no desire to run a ferry service, existing operators showed little appetite
for the opportunity. The company began operations on 2 January 1973
between Roscoff in Brittany and Plymouth in the southwest of England,
using the freight ferry Kerisnel, a former Israeli tank carrier. The compa-
ny’s primary aim at that time was to exploit the opportunities presented by
Britain’s entry into the European Common Market, the forerunner to the
EU, to export directly to markets in the UK. In 1974, Kerisnel was replaced
by Penn-Ar-Bed, which carried both passengers and vehicles. It was at this
time the BAI company adopted the name Brittany Ferries. In late 2009, the
new Poole – Santander freight-only service was deemed a success and the
frequency of service was doubled with two services a week operated by
Cotentin. In November 2009, Armorique was laid up, with major changes
to the fleet announced in December 2009. Barfleur was withdrawn from
service at the end of January 2010 after 18 years of service on the Poole–
Cherbourg route. The service was temporarily served by Armorique, which
came back into service earlier than originally planned. The Poole–Santander
service reverted to one sailing a week with Cotentin covering freight on the
Poole–Cherbourg service in the absence of Barfleur. Condor Vitesse contin-
ued to operate one round sailing a day in the summer months between the
two ports. Cap Finistère ran the route between Portsmouth and Santander
twice a week and operated three round trips a week between Portsmouth
and Cherbourg. In September 2010, Brittany Ferries announced plans to
serve the Portsmouth–Bilbao route recently abandoned by P&O Ferries.
The route started on 27 March 2011 (Figure 16.5).
On 21 September 2012, Brittany Ferries cancelled sailings indefinitely fol-
lowing two days of wildcat strikes caused by crew members who were
unhappy with changes in working terms and conditions. Meetings took place
between management and unions to negotiate the management proposals.
A vote was taken on 30 September by union members to decide if the
 Cruise ferry 213

Figure 16.5 B rittany Ferries’ Barfleur leaving Poole, England with Girlfriend in
the foreground.

management proposals would be accepted. The crew members accepted the

proposal and services resumed on 2 October after 12 days without services.
During this period, Brittany Ferries made special arrangements with P&O
Ferries and MyFerryLink to accept tickets on the Dover–Calais route. Unused
tickets were refunded. Services on the Poole – Cherbourg route were not
affected as these were being operated by Condor Ferries. In 2018, Brittany
Ferries commenced service between Cork, Ireland, and Santander. This was
cancelled and effectively replaced in February 2020 by the Rosslare–Bilbao
service which runs twice weekly, with a seasonal service between Rosslare
and Roscoff now offered. From late March 2020, due to the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic, Brittany Ferries was forced to cancel all passenger sail-
ings until 15 May 2020 after British government advice was issued against
all travel. On 23 July 2020, Brittany Ferries announced the launch of a new
Rosslare–Cherbourg service. On 19 August 2020, because of the ongoing
COVID crisis, the company confirmed it was reducing services from the end
of August and laying up various ships starting with Armorique and Bretagne.
On 20 July 2021, Brittany Ferries announced at a press conference in Paris
that it had secured a charter with Stena RORO for two E-Flex class vessels.
The new vessels were to replace the MV Normandie on the Portsmouth–
Caen route and MV Bretagne on the Portsmouth – St Malo Route. The char-
ter is expected to run for 10 years with the option to purchase after 4 years.

Stena Line
In 1998, Stena’s operations from Dover and Newhaven were merged with
P&O European Ferries to form P&O Stena Line, 40% of which was owned
214 Merchant ship type

by Stena and 60% by P&O. In 2002, P&O acquired all of Stena’s shares in
the company, thus becoming the sole owner of P&O Stena Line, which soon
changed its name to P&O Ferries.

North Sea
P&O
P&O’s involvement in the North Sea ferry routes began with a 35%
stake in North Sea Ferries owned by its subsidiary, the General Steam
Navigation Company. North Sea Ferries began operations on 17 December
1965 sailing on the Hull (England) to Rotterdam (Netherlands) route, a
route which critics predicted would not survive. The numbers proved them
wrong, however, and in the first year, 54,000 passengers were carried. By
1974, demand for capacity was greater than could be supplied, and two
vastly bigger vessels, Norland and Norstar, which were at that time the
largest ferries in the world, were introduced to the route. The two vessels
Norwind and Norwave were transferred to a new route, Hull (England)
to Zeebrugge (Belgium) operating a nightly service departing 30 minutes
after the Rotterdam service set sail. The two routes remained unchanged,
except for the Ministry of Defence chartering Norland for service with the
British Task Force to the Falkland Islands in 1982. By the mid-1980s, the
two routes were becoming increasingly popular, and in 1987, the larger
Norsun and Norsea were introduced on the Hull – Rotterdam route, with
the two displaced vessels moving to the Hull – Zeebrugge route and the
sale of both Norwind and Norwave. As part of the success of the routes,
dedicated freight routes were introduced from Teesport to both Rotterdam
and Zeebrugge on a nightly basis. However, the ships quickly began to
struggle to cope with demand, and in 1994, new super freighters were
introduced on the Hull routes. A new river berth was therefore constructed
to accommodate the freight-only vessels; however, they were still small
enough to pass through the lock at King George Dock if required. By
1996, P&O owned a 50% stake in North Sea Ferries, with the other 50%
owned by the Dutch shipping company, Royal Nedlloyd Group. In a mul-
timillion-pound deal, P&O purchased Royal Nedlloyd Group’s stake, and
North Sea Ferries was rebranded to P&O North Sea Ferries. Continuing
success saw the purchase of two new super ferries, each weighing 60,000
metric tonnes from Fincantieri, entering service in 2001 as the Pride of
Rotterdam and the Pride of Hull and once again holding the title of the
‘world’s largest ferry’. Norsea and Norsun were refitted and returned to
P&O North Sea Ferries on the Hull – Zeebrugge route as the Pride of
York and Pride of Bruges. Following P&O’s acquisition of P&O Stena
Line in 2002, P&O North Sea Ferries was merged and rebranded with
P&O’s Portsmouth and Dover operations under the current P&O Ferries
Ltd name (Figure 16.6).
 Cruise ferry 215

Figure 16.6 P
 &O North Sea Ferries Pride of York leaving the Humber Estuary,
England.

Stena Line
Stena Line is a Swedish shipping line company and one of the largest
ferry operators in the world. The company services routes in and around
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Sweden, and the UK. Stena Line is a major operating unit of Stena AB,
itself a part of the Stena Sphere. Stena Line was founded in 1962 by Sten A.
Olsson in Gothenburg, Sweden, which still serves as the company’s head-
quarters, when he acquired Skagenlinjen, a local service operating between
Gothenburg and Frederikshavn, Denmark. In 1972, Stena Line was one of
the first ferry operators in Europe to introduce a computer-based reserva-
tion system for the travel business area. In 1978, the freight business area
also started operating a computer-based reservation system. During the
1980s, Stena acquired three other ferry companies starting in 1981 with
the Sessan Line, Stena’s biggest competitor on lucrative Sweden to Denmark
routes. The company was acquired and incorporated into Stena Line. The
acquisition included Sessan’s two large newbuilds, Kronprinsessan Victoria
and Prinsessan Birgitta, which became the largest vessels operated by Stena
at that time. In 1983, Stena acquired the Varberg-Grenå Linjen, and two
years later also, the right to that company’s former name, Lion Ferry. Lion
Ferry continued as a separate marketing company until 1997 when it was
216 Merchant ship type

fully incorporated into Stena Line. In 1989, Stena acquired yet another ferry
company, Stoomvaart Maatschappij Zeeland (SMZ), which at the time
traded under the name Crown Line. SMZ’s Hook of Holland to Harwich
route was fully absorbed into Stena Line, which continues to operate to this
day. In 2000, Stena Line purchased yet another Scandinavian ferry operator:
Scandlines AB. In November 2006, Stena ordered a pair of ‘super ferries’
with a gross tonnage of 62,000 dwt from Aker Yards, Germany, which were
delivered in 2010, with an option for two more ships of the same design.
The new ferries are amongst the largest in the world and are operated on
Stena’s North Sea route from the Hook of Holland to Harwich. The exist-
ing ships on the North Sea route were transferred to the Kiel (Germany) –
Gothenborg (Sweden) route, whereas the ships from Kiel would transfer to
the Gdynia (Poland) to Karlskrona (Sweden) route. These new ferries were
launched in 2010, with Stena Hollandica entering service on 16 May 2010,
and Stena Britannica entering service on 9 October 2010 (Figure 16.7).

DFDS Seaways
DFDS Seaways is a Danish shipping company that operates passenger
and freight services across northern Europe. Following the acquisition of
Norfolkline in 2010, DFDS restructured its other shipping divisions (DFDS
Tor Line and DFDS Lisco) into the previously passenger-only operation
of DFDS Seaways. DFDS Seaways renewed its fleet in 2006, purchasing

Figure 16.7 S tena Line ferry Stena Hollandica, departing Harwich, England.
 Cruise ferry 217

MS King of Scandinavia and MS Princess of Norway to replace the last ships

still in service that dated from the 1970s. The company has acquired a repu-
tation for purchasing used ships, as well as for taking over the build contracts
or taking delivery of newbuilds originally ordered by other companies. The
last time DFDS Seaways ordered a newbuild of its own was in 1978. DFDS
Seaways stopped serving Sweden in 2006 when MS Princess of Scandinavia
was taken out of service and the Copenhagen to Oslo service stopped call-
ing at Helsingborg (Sweden). In May 2008, DFDS made its plan public to
close the loss-making England to Norway service on 1 September 2008.
MS Queen of Scandinavia, the ship that was used for that service, has since
been chartered to St Peter Line. In July 2010, DFDS acquired Norfolkline
from Mærsk, after which the Norfolkline routes and vessels were fully inte-
grated into DFDS Seaways. Following the acquisition of Norfolkline, DFDS
Seaways now controlled the Dover to Dunkirk (France) route. The company
launched the new Dover to Calais (France) route in February 2012. In 2018,
DFDS ordered three ROPAX newbuild vessels – one was an E-Flex class
on charter from Stena RORO, which entered service as the Côte d’Opale
in August 2021, and two ROPAXs for Baltic Sea operations. The first of
the Baltic twins, named Aura Seaways, was launched in late 2020 and had
an inclination test in 2021. The sea trials took place in the middle of 2021
(Figure 16.8).

Figure 16.8 D FDS ferry Princess Seaways.

218 Merchant ship type

Irish Sea
P&O
In 1971, P&O purchased the remains of Coast Lines, which had been
operating in the Irish Sea since 1913. In December 1974, P&O founded
Pandoro Ltd to provide transport operations to Ireland. Several different
routes were started and ceased operating as the Irish ‘Troubles’ affected the
car and passenger market to Northern Ireland. In 1993, Pandoro added
a service operating between Rosslare, Ireland, and Cherbourg, France, to
its Ardrossan – Larne, Liverpool – Dublin and Fleetwood – Dublin routes.
P&O Irish Sea was formed in 1998, following the merger of the Cairnryan-
based service of P&O European Ferries (Felixstowe) Ltd and Pandoro Ltd
(who operated routes between England, Scotland and France to Ireland). The
following year in 1999, the new P&O Irish Sea announced its intentions to
purchase a purpose-built ROPAX vessel from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
of Japan for the Liverpool to Dublin route. This would see the transfer of
the European Leader (ex-Buffalo) back to the Fleetwood route. In 2004,
P&O closed its Fleetwood to Larne services with the sale of all interests.
In addition to the service rights, European Leader, European Pioneer, and
European Seafarer were sold to the Swedish Stena Line group. At the same
time, P&O announced the closure of the Mostyn to Dublin service due to
low passenger numbers. This led to the sale of European Ambassador and
European Envoy for further service in Europe. In 2010, P&O Irish Sea was
absorbed back into the parent company. In January 2016, it was announced
that the seasonal Troon to Larne service would cease with immediate effect
due to the unprofitability of the route. The service ended for the 2015 season
in September of that year (Figure 16.9).

Stena Line
In 1990, Stena Line doubled in size with the acquisition of Sealink British
Ferries from Sea Containers. This first became Sealink Stena Line, then Stena
Sealink Line, and finally Stena Line (UK), which now operates all Stena’s
ferry services between Great Britain and Ireland (Figure 16.10).

Scotland
NorthLink Ferries
NorthLink Ferries (also referred to as Serco NorthLink Ferries) is an opera-
tor of passenger and vehicle ferries, as well as ferry services, between main-
land Scotland and the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland. Since July
2012, it has been operated by the international services company, Serco. The
subsidised Northern Isles ferry services, previously run by P&O Scottish
Ferries, were put out to tender in 1999. A joint venture between Caledonian
MacBrayne and The Royal Bank of Scotland, named NorthLink Orkney and
 Cruise ferry 219

Figure 16.9 P &O Irish Sea Express.

Figure 16.10 S tena Super fast X, arriving in Dublin, Ireland.

220 Merchant ship type

Shetland Ferries, won the contract and began operation in October 2002.
A variety of factors, including competition from rival operator Pentland
Ferries, the Norse Island Ferries group created by local hauliers concerned
about NorthLink’s proposed freight pricing, and higher-than-expected
operation costs, contributed to financial difficulties within the company. In
response, the Scottish Executive Transport Group (now Transport Scotland)
made additional subsidy payments of £0.6 million and agreed to restructure
subsidy payment timing. In mid-2003, the company indicated that it would
be unlikely to complete its contract due to the ongoing financial difficul-
ties. NorthLink defaulted on its lease payments for the vessels in July and
August 2003, and in April 2004, the then Scottish Executive announced
that the service would be re-tendered due to NorthLink’s inability to fulfil
the terms of its contract. The company continued to operate under interim
arrangements until April 2006, whilst a new contract was secured. On 19
July 2005, the Scottish Executive announced that three companies – V Ships,
Irish Continental Ferries, and Caledonian MacBrayne, had bid to provide
ferry services to the Northern Isles. Irish Continental, however, withdrew
its bid in October 2005, leaving two potential operators on the closing date
of 1 December 2005. Both the remaining bids complied with the contract
requirements, but Caledonian MacBrayne’s lower bid meant that it was
awarded the contract. Caledonian MacBrayne formed a company named
NorthLink Ferries Limited, which adopted the branding and vessels of its
predecessor and began operating the Northern Isles ferry services on 6 July
2006. The Northern Isles ferry service was re-tendered in 2011–2012 as
NorthLink Ferries Limited’s contract ended. Initially, the contract’s two ser-
vices (Aberdeen to Lerwick and Aberdeen/Lerwick to Scrabster-Stromness)
were to be de-bundled. Eligible bids for the services were received from
Pentland Ferries (which expressed interest in the Scrabster-Stromness service
only), Sea-Cargo A/S (which expressed interest in the Aberdeen-Lerwick ser-
vice only), P&O Ferries, Shetland Line (1984) Limited (part of local haulage
and freight company Streamline Shipping Group), Serco, and the incumbent
NorthLink Ferries Limited. The Scottish Government subsequently re-bun-
dled the routes when insufficient interest was shown in the separate routes
(Figure 16.11).
On 4 May 2012, Transport Scotland announced that Serco was the pre-
ferred bidder. This decision was legally challenged in the Court of Session by
rival bidder Shetland Line (1984) Limited on the basis that the Scottish
Government had allegedly not considered that they had scored higher than
Serco for their proposed service, suspending the securement of the contract.
On 29 May 2012, however, the court overturned the suspension and Serco
was confirmed as the new operator, ending Caledonian MacBrayne’s 10-year
involvement with Northern Isles ferry services. Each contract lasts for a
period of six years and is worth £243 million. Serco, using the vessels and
branding of its predecessor, began operation of Northern Isles ferry services
at 15:00 on 5 July 2012. It stated that it planned to make no changes to
fares or timetables for the remainder of 2012 and that it planned to
 Cruise ferry 221

Figure 16.11 N orth Link Ferries Hrossey on route to the Shetland Isles, Scotland.

‘overhaul catering, seating and onboard entertainment’ in the future. In

Spring 2013, NorthLink rebranded and launched new on-board services
such as ‘sleep pod’ reclining seats and a premium lounge. The contract was
due to end in 2018, but Serco received an 18-month extension. Arguments
have been put forward by the RMT union to bring the service into public
ownership. In February 2020, Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish Minister for
Energy, Connectivity and the Islands, announced that NorthLink’s contract
would be re-awarded by the end of March of that year.

Skagerrak
Color Line
Color Line AS is the largest cruise ferry line operating on routes to and from
Norway. The company is also one of the leading ferry operators in Europe.
Color Line has roots in the ferry business that go back more than one hun-
dred years, although the present company was only established in 1990 when
two Norwegian shipping companies, Jahre Line and Norway Line merged.
Jahre Line had operated ferries between Oslo (Norway) and Kiel (Germany)
since 1961, whilst Norway Line had operated ferries from Norway to the
UK and the Netherlands since 1986. During 1990, Color Line also took over
the Fred. Olsen Lines cruise ferry operations, thereby expanding the traffic
area of the new company to cover the Norway to Denmark routes. During
the first half of the 1990s, Color Line expanded its tonnage by lengthen-
ing its existing ships or by the acquisition of larger second-hand ships.
The company began operating fast ferries between Norway and Denmark
during the summer of 1996. Initially, the operations were in collabora-
tion with SeaContainers but were run without them from 1997 onwards.
222 Merchant ship type

Figure 16.12 S uperspeed 1 arriving at Hirtshals Harbour, Denmark.

In October of the same year, Color Line took over the operations of Larvik
Line, its competitor on the Norway to Denmark route. In September 1998,
Color Line acquired both the Color Hotel Skagen and Scandi Line, which
operated two ferries on the short routes connecting Norway and Sweden.
Towards the end of 1998, the Norway – England operations were sold to
Fjord Line. For the 1999 summer season, the (former) Scandi Line ships
received new Color Scandi Line liveries. They were fully incorporated into
the Color Line fleet in 2001 (Figure 16.1).
During the 2000s, Color Line began investing heavily in new tonnage,
with MS Color Fantasy, MS Color Magic, MS Superspeed 1, and MS
Superspeed 2 supplanting much of the older tonnage between 2004 and
2008. In April 2008, the company announced the closure of the Oslo
(Norway) to Hirtshals (Denmark) service from 6 May 2008 onwards. In
January 2017, Color Line announced that it had signed a letter of intent
with the Ulstein Verft shipyard to build a new ferry with a hybrid drivetrain
for the Sandefjord (Norway) to Strömstad (Norway) route, with delivery
expected in 2019. The keel was laid in April 2018 in Poland and the ship
was launched in November 2018.

Mediterranean
Grimaldi Lines
The Italian company Grimaldi Group employs around 30 ROPAX vessels
for the mixed transport of goods and passengers in the Mediterranean Sea,
the Baltic Sea, and the North Sea. With a fleet consisting mostly of modern
 Cruise ferry 223

and comfortable ferries, cruise ferries, and a luxury catamaran, the Group
transports rolling freight, cars, and passengers between the main European
ports under the Grimaldi Lines, Minoan Lines and Finnlines brands. Fleet
improvement initiatives have involved the two flagships of the Group’s
ROPAX fleet. The two state-of-the-art cruise ferries Cruise Roma and Cruise
Barcelona – both operating since 2008 – underwent major lengthening and
refurbishment works at the beginning of 2019, which further increased their
energy efficiency and made them the first ships in the Mediterranean with
Zero Emission in Port technology. In fact, thanks to the installation of mega
lithium-ion batteries that are recharged during navigation, the vessel can cut
emissions to zero during port stays. Each of the sister vessels can currently
carry up to 3,500 passengers, 3,700 linear metres of rolling cargo, and 271
cars. In December 2019, Finnlines finalised a new order for the construction
of two ROPAX units, which are expected to be delivered by 2023. These
new ships, which will inaugurate the innovative Superstar class, will be
larger and more technologically advanced than the existing units belonging
to the Star class. This investment is aimed at increasing energy efficiency and
further reducing the emissions generated by transport activities in the Baltic
Sea, while at the same time raising the quality of the services offered to the
company’s passengers (Figure 16.13).

Moby Lines
Moby Lines (Moby Lines SpA) is an Italian shipping company that operates
ferries and cruise ferries between the Italian or French mainland and the
islands of Elba, Sardinia, and Corsica. The company was founded in 1959
under the name Navigazione Arcipelago Maddalenino (often abbreviated
to NAVARMA). In 2006, Moby Lines purchased Lloyd Sardegna, which
was known for using Warner Bros. Looney Tunes characters as the external
livery of its ships. NAVARMA was founded in 1959 by Achille Onorato and

Figure 16.13 G rimaldi Lines Finclipper in Brindisi, Italy.

224 Merchant ship type

started traffic from Sardinia to the islands on the coast of Sardinia with the
small ferry MS Maria Maddalena, which was purchased from Denmark. In
February 1966, NAVARMA purchased a second ferry, MS Bonifacio, and
started service between Sardinia and Corsica. The company slowly expanded,
purchasing another ferry in 1967 and taking delivery of two newbuilds in
1974 and 1981. With the larger fleet, new routes to the Italian mainland were
also introduced. In 1982 the company acquired the MS Free Enterprise II
from Townsend Thoresen, and renamed her the MS Moby Blu, painting her
in the ‘blue whale’ livery that later came to characterise Moby Lines. The
Moby Blu was over twice the size of NAVARMA’s previously largest ship.
By 1988 four additional larger ferries (all with Moby-prefixed names) had
joined the NAVARMA fleet and additional routes to the Italian mainland
were opened. In 1991 one of the ferries of the fleet, the Moby Prince, partic-
ipated in the worst disaster to befall the Italian merchant navy since World
War II, resulting in 140 deaths. By comparison, the Costa Concordia disaster
in 2012 caused 32 fatalities. During the early 1990s, NAVARMA acquired
further used ferries, which replaced the Moby ferries acquired in the 1980s.
During the same time, ‘Moby Lines’ was adopted as the official company
name. From 1996 onwards, the company fleet had grown radically with
the addition of new, larger and faster tonnage, including the newly built
fast cruise ferries Moby Wonder, Moby Freedom, and Moby Aki. In 2003,
Moby Lines entered an agreement with Warner Bros. to paint their vessels
in liveries featuring Looney Tunes characters. However, only the larger ships
were given such liveries, with the company’s smaller ships either having sim-
ilar graphics not featuring the Looney Tunes characters, or simply featuring
the Moby Lines’ whale logo. In 2020, in a departure from Moby Lines’
signature business model of acquiring vintage tonnage for its routes, it was
announced that steel cutting had started for Moby Lines’ two newbuild vessels
on order from the Guangzhou Shipyard. These newbuilds would be 238 m
(784 ft) long and 69,500 metric-tonnes dwt, and specifically designed for the
7-to-9-hour Livorno-Olbia ferry crossing. These newbuild twins are ear-
marked to replace Moby Aki and Moby Wonder in 2022.
In this chapter, we have discussed the role and function of the cruise ferry,
a sort of hybrid type vessel, which is used to transport passengers and vehi-
cles over longer distances than might be expected of the more typical ferry.
Because cruise ferries combine many of the luxuries and hospitality traits of
cruise ships, but also move cargo from port to port, the cruise ferry occupies
a rather odd position in the categories of merchant vessels.

NOTE

1 Snus is a tobacco product, originating from a variant of dry snuff in early

18th-century Sweden. The sale of snus is illegal in all the EU countries except for
Sweden. It is the most common type of tobacco product in Norway and is also
available in Switzerland.
Chapter 17

Ferries

A ferry is a vessel used to carry passengers, and sometimes vehicles and

cargo, across a body of water. A passenger ferry with many stops, such
as in Venice, Italy, is sometimes called a water bus or water taxi. Ferries
form a part of the public transport systems of many waterside cities and
islands, allowing direct transit between points at a capital cost much lower
than bridges or tunnels. Ship connections of much larger distances (such as
over long distances in water bodies like the Mediterranean Sea) may also
be called ferry services, especially if they carry vehicles. The concept of the
ferry dates from antiquity, as far back as ancient Greece (12th to 9th centu-
ries BC). The profession of the ferryman is embodied in Greek mythology
in Charon, the boatman, who transported souls across the River Styx to the
Underworld. Speculation that a pair of oxen propelled a ship having a water
wheel can be found in the fourth century in the Roman literature ‘Anonymus
De Rebus Bellicis’. Although impractical, there is no reason it could not
work and such a ferry, the Experiment, modified by using horses, was used
on Lake Champlain in 19th-century America. In 1871, the world’s first ferry
ship was designed in Istanbul. The iron steamship, Suhulet (meaning ‘ease’
or ‘convenience’) was designed by the general manager of Şirket-i Hayriye
(Bosporus Steam Navigation Company), Giritli Hüseyin Haki Bey and built
in Britain. The vessel weighed 157 metric tonnes, had a length overall of
45.7 m (155 ft), a beam of 8.5 m (27 ft), and a draught of 3 m (9 ft). She
could sail at six knots (6.9 mph, 11.11 km/h) with the side wheel turned by
its 450 horsepower, single-cylinder, two-cycle steam engine. Launched in
1872, Suhulet’s unique features consisted of a symmetrical entry and exit
for horse carriages, along with a dual system of hatchways. The ferry oper-
ated on the Üsküdar-Kabataş route, which is still serviced by modern ferries
today (Figure 17.1).
The world’s largest ferries are typically those operated in Europe, with
different vessels holding the record depending on whether length, gross ton-
nage, or car vehicle capacity is the metric. In the USA, the first steam-ship
ferry started operation between New York City, New York, and Hoboken,
New Jersey. This service began on 11 October 1811, using inventor John
Stevens’ ship the Juliana. The oldest American ferry service still in operation

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-21 225

226 Merchant ship types

Figure 17.1 E xcelsior at Séte, France.

today is the Elwell Ferry, a cable ferry in North Carolina, which began in
1905, and travels 100 m (110 yds), shore to shore, with a travel time of
5 minutes. A contender for the oldest ferry service in continuous operation
is the Mersey Ferry from Liverpool to Birkenhead, England. In 1150, the
Benedictine Priory at Birkenhead was established. The monks used to charge
a small fare to row passengers across the estuary. In 1330, Edward III
granted a charter to the Priory and its successors forever: ‘the right of ferry
there… for men, horses, and goods, with leave to charge reasonable tolls’.
However, there may have been a short break following the Dissolution of
the monasteries after 1536. Another claimant as the oldest ferry service in
continuous operation is the Rocky Hill – Glastonbury Ferry, running
between the towns of Rocky Hill and Glastonbury, Connecticut. Established
in 1655, the ferry has run continuously since, only ceasing operation every
winter when the river freezes over. A long-running saltwater ferry service is
the Halifax/Dartmouth ferry, running between the cities of Halifax and
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, which has run year-round since 1752, and is cur-
rently managed by the region’s transit authority, Metro Transit. That said,
the Mersey Ferry predates it as the oldest saltwater ferry.
The busiest seaway in the world, the English Channel, connects Great
Britain and mainland Europe, with ships sailing from the British ports of
Dover, Newhaven, Poole, Portsmouth, and Plymouth to French ports, such as
Calais, Dunkirk, Dieppe, Roscoff, Cherbourg-Octeville, Caen, St Malo, and
Le Havre. The busiest ferry route to France is the Dover to Calais crossing
with approximately 9,168,000 passengers using the service in 2018. Ferries
from Great Britain also sail to Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and
Ireland. Some ferries carry tourist traffic, but most also carry freight, and
some are exclusively for the use of freight lorries. In Britain, car-carrying fer-
ries are sometimes referred to as RORO for the ease by which vehicles can
 Ferries 227

board and leave. The busiest single ferry route in terms of the number of
departures is across the northern part of Øresund, between Helsingborg,
Scania, Sweden, and Elsinore, Denmark. Before the Øresund bridge was
opened in July 2000, car and ‘car and train’ ferries departed up to seven times
every hour. This has since been reduced, but a car ferry still departs from each
harbour every 15 minutes during the daytime. The route is around 2.2 nauti-
cal miles (2.5 mi; 4.1 km) and the crossing takes 22 minutes. Today, all ferries
on this route are constructed so that they do not need to turn around in the
harbours. This also means that the ferries lack stems and sterns since the ves-
sels sail in both directions. Starboard and port-side are dynamic, depending
on the direction the ferry sails. Despite the short crossing, the ferries are
equipped with restaurants (on three out of four ferries), cafeterias, and kiosks.
Passengers without cars often make a double or triple return journey in the
restaurants; for this, a single journey ticket is sufficient. Passenger and bicycle
passenger tickets are inexpensive compared with longer routes.
Large cruise ferries sail in the Baltic Sea between Finland, Åland, Sweden,
Estonia, Latvia, and Saint Petersburg, Russia, and from Italy to Sardinia,
Corsica, Spain, and Greece. In many ways, these ferries are like cruise ships,
but they can also carry hundreds of cars on car decks. Besides providing
passenger and car transport across the sea, Baltic Sea cruise ferries are a
popular tourist destination unto themselves, with multiple restaurants,
nightclubs, bars, retail outlets, and entertainment on board. Also, many
smaller ferries operate on domestic routes in Finland, Sweden, and Estonia.
The southwest and southern parts of the Baltic Sea have several routes for
heavy traffic and cars. The ferry routes of Trelleborg-Rostock, Trelleborg-
Travemünde, Trelleborg-Świnoujście, Gedser-Rostock, Gdynia-Karlskrona,
and Ystad-Świnoujście are all typical transport ferries. On the longer part of
these routes, simple cabins are available. The Rødby-Puttgarden route also
transports day passenger trains between Copenhagen and Hamburg, and on
the Trelleborg-Sassnitz route, it also has capacities for the daily night trains
between Berlin and Malmö. In Istanbul, ferries connect the European and
Asian shores of the Bosphorus, as well as the Princes Islands and nearby
coastal towns. In 2014, İDO transported 47 million passengers, the largest
ferry system in the world. The world’s shortest ferry line is the Ferry Lina In
Töreboda, Sweden. It takes around 20–25 seconds and is hand powered.
Due to the number of large freshwater lakes and length of shoreline in
Canada, various provinces and territories have ferry services. BC Ferries
operates the third largest ferry service in the world, which carries travellers
between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland on the coun-
try’s west coast. This ferry service operates on other islands including the
Gulf Islands and Haida Gwaii. In 2015, BC Ferries carried more than eight
million vehicles and 20 million passengers. In Vancouver, SeaBus operates as
Canada’s east coast inter- and intra-provincial ferry and coastal service,
providing a large network operated by the federal government under
CN Marine and later Marine Atlantic. Private and publicly owned ferry
228 Merchant ship types

operations in eastern Canada include Marine Atlantic, serving the island of

Newfoundland, as well as Bay, NFL, CTMA, Coastal Transport, and STQ.
Canadian waters in the Great Lakes once hosted numerous ferry services,
but these have been reduced to those offered by Owen Sound Transportation
and several smaller operations. There are also several commuter passenger
ferry services operated in major cities, such as Metro Transit in Halifax, and
Toronto Island ferries in Toronto. There is also the Société des traversiers du
Québec. The MV Spokane, sailing from Edmonds to Kingston, is one of the
10 routes served by Washington State Ferries. Washington State Ferries
operates the most extensive ferry system in the continental US and the sec-
ond largest in the world by vehicles carried, with 10 routes on Puget Sound
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca serving terminals in Washington and
Vancouver Island. In 2016, Washington State Ferries carried 10.5 million
vehicles and 24.2 million riders in total. The Alaska Marine Highway System
provides service between Bellingham, Washington, and various towns and
villages throughout Southeast and Southwest Alaska, including crossings of
the Gulf of Alaska. AMHS provides affordable access to many small com-
munities which otherwise would have no road connection or airport access.
The Staten Island Ferry in New York City, sailing between the boroughs
of Manhattan and Staten Island, is the nation’s single busiest ferry route by
passenger volume. Unlike riders on many other ferry services, Staten Island
Ferry passengers do not pay any fare to ride it. New York City also has a
network of smaller ferries, or water taxis, that shuttle commuters along the
Hudson River from locations in New Jersey and Northern Manhattan down
to the midtown, downtown and Wall Street business centres. Several ferry
companies also offer services linking midtown and lower Manhattan with
locations in the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, crossing the city’s East
River. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in February 2015
that New York City would begin an expanded Citywide Ferry Service some
time in 2017 linking the isolated communities of Manhattan’s Lower East
Side, Soundview in The Bronx, Astoria, and the Rockaways in Queens and
the Brooklyn neighbourhoods of Bay Ridge, Sunset Park, and Red Hook.
These new services would link into existing ferry landings in Lower
Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan. This service was launched as NYC
Ferry in May 2017. The New Orleans area also has many ferries in opera-
tion that carry both vehicles and pedestrians. Most notable is the Algiers
Ferry. This service has been in continuous operation since 1827 and is one
of the oldest operating ferries in North America. In New England, vehi-
cle-carrying ferry services between mainland Cape Cod and the islands of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket are operated by The Woods Hole,
Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority, which sails year-
round between Woods Hole and Vineyard Haven as well as Hyannis and
Nantucket. Seasonal service is also operated from Woods Hole to Oak Bluffs
from Memorial Day to Labour Day. As there are no bridges or tunnels con-
necting the islands to the mainland, The Steamship Authority ferries in addi-
tion to being the only method for transporting private cars to or from the
 Ferries 229

islands, also serves as the only link by which heavy freight and supplies such
as food and fuel can be trucked to the islands. Additionally, Hy-Line Cruises
operates high speed catamaran service from Hyannis to both islands, as
well as traditional ferries, and several smaller operations run seasonal
passenger-only services primarily geared towards tourist day-trippers from
other mainland ports, including New Bedford, (New Bedford Fast Ferry)
Falmouth, (Island Queen ferry and Falmouth Ferry), and Harwich (Freedom
Cruise Line). Ferries also bring riders and vehicles across Long Island Sound
to such Connecticut cities as Bridgeport and New London, and to Block
Island in Rhode Island from points on Long Island.
Transbay commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area was primarily ferry
based until the use of personal vehicles expanded in the 1940s and most
bridges in the area were built to supplant ferry services. By the 1970s, ferries
were primarily used by tourists with Golden Gate Ferry, an organisation
under the ownership as the same governing body as the Golden Gate Bridge,
left as the sole commute operator. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
prompted restoration of service to the East Bay. The modern ferry network
is primarily under the authority of San Francisco Bay Ferry, connecting with
cities as far as Vallejo. Tourist excursions are also offered by Blue & Gold
Fleet and Red & White Fleet. A ferry serves Angel Island (which also accepts
private craft). Alcatraz is served exclusively by ferry service administered by
the National Park Service. Until the completion of the Mackinac Bridge in
the 1950s, ferries were used for vehicle transportation between the Lower
and the Upper Peninsulas of Michigan, across the Straits of Mackinac in the
US. Ferry service for bicycles and passengers continues across the straits for
transport to Mackinac Island, where motorised vehicles are completely pro-
hibited. This crossing is made possible by three ferry lines, Arnold Transit
Company, Shepler’s Ferry, and Star Line Ferry. A ferry service runs between
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Muskegon, Michigan, operated by the Lake
Express. Another ferry SS Badger operates between Manitowoc, Wisconsin,
and Ludington, Michigan, with both crossing Lake Michigan. Mexico has
ferry services managed by Baja Ferries that connect La Paz located on the
Baja California Peninsula with Mazatlán and Topolobampo. Passenger fer-
ries also run from Playa del Carmen to the island of Cozumel.
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles
280 mi (450 km) across the Bass Strait, the body of water that separates
Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea condi-
tions. These not only run overnight but also include day crossings in peak
time. Both ferries are based in the northern Tasmanian port city of Devonport
and sail to Melbourne. The double-ended Freshwater-class ferry cuts an
iconic shape, as it makes its way up and down Sydney Harbour New South
Wales, Australia, between Manly and Circular Quay. In New Zealand, fer-
ries connect Wellington in the North Island with Picton in the South Island,
linking New Zealand’s two main islands. The route is 57 mi (92 km) and is
run by two companies: the government owned Interislander, and the inde-
pendent company Bluebridge. The passage takes about 3 and a half hours.
230 Merchant ship types

FERRY TYPES

Ferry designs depend on the length of the route, the passenger or vehicle
capacity required, speed requirements, and the water condition the vessel
must deal with.

Double-ended
Double-ended ferries have interchangeable bows and sterns, allowing them
to shuttle back and forth between two terminals without having to turn
around. Well-known double-ended ferry systems include the BC Ferries, the
Staten Island Ferry, Washington State Ferries, Star Ferry, several ferries on
the North Carolina Ferry System, and the Lake Champlain Transportation
Company. Most Norwegian fjord and coastal ferries are double-ended
vessels. All ferries from southern Prince Edward Island to the mainland of
Canada were double ended. This service was discontinued upon completion
of the Confederation Bridge. Some ferries in Sydney, Australia, and British
Columbia are also double ended. In 2008, BC Ferries launched the first of
the Coastal-class ferries, which at the time were the world’s largest dou-
ble enders. These were surpassed as the world’s largest double-enders when
P&O Ferries launched their first double-ender, called the P&O Pioneer,
which is due to enter service in September 2022 (Figure 17.2).

Figure 17.2 R ed Funnel Line’s Red Eagle, Southampton, England.

 Ferries 231

Hydrofoil
Hydrofoils have the advantage of higher cruising speeds, succeeding hover-
craft on some English Channel routes where the ferries now compete against
the Eurotunnel and Eurostar trains that use the Channel Tunnel. Passenger-
only hydrofoils also proved a practical, fast, and economical solution in the
Canary Islands, but were recently replaced by faster catamaran ‘high speed’
ferries that can carry cars. Their replacement by the larger craft is seen by
critics as a retrograde step given that the new vessels use much more fuel
and foster the inappropriate use of cars in islands already suffering from the
impact of mass tourism (Figure 17.3).

Hovercraft
Hovercraft was developed in the 1960s and 1970s to carry cars. The largest
was the massive SR.N4, which carried cars in its centre section with ramps
at the bow and stern between England and France. The hovercraft was
superseded by catamarans, which are as fast and are less affected by sea and
weather conditions. Only one service now remains, a foot passenger service
between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight run by Hovertravel (Figure 17.4).

Catamaran
Since 1990 high speed catamarans have revolutionised ferry services, replac-
ing hovercraft, hydrofoils, and conventional monohull ferries. In the 1990s,
there were a variety of builders, but the industry has consolidated to two
builders of large vehicular ferries between 60 and 120 m (196–393 ft).

Figure 17.3 S ydney Hydrofoil ferry Palm Beach en route from Manly to Circular
Quay, Australia.
232 Merchant ship types

Figure 17.4 H overspeed, leaving Calais, France.

Incat of Hobart, Tasmania, favours a Wave-piercing hull to deliver a smooth

ride, while Austal of Perth, Western Australia, builds ships based on SWATH
designs. Both these companies also compete in the smaller river ferry indus-
try with several other ship builders. Stena Line once operated the largest
catamarans in the world, the Stena HSS class, between the UK and Ireland.
These waterjet-powered vessels, displaced 19,638 metric tonnes, accommo-
dating 375 passenger cars and 1500 passengers. Other examples of these
super-size catamarans are operated by the Condor Ferries fleet with the
Condor Voyager and Rapide (Figure 17.5).

RORO ferries
RORO ferries are large conventional ferries named for the ease by which
vehicles can board and leave (Figure 17.6).

Cruiseferry/ROPAX
A cruiseferry is a ship that combines the features of a cruise ship with a
roll-on/roll-off ferry. They are also known as ROPAX for their combined
roll-on/roll-off and passenger design. Fast ROPAX ferries are conventional
ferries with a large garage intake and a large passenger capacity, with con-
ventional diesel propulsion and propellers that sail over twenty-five knots
(29 mph; 46 km/h). The pioneer of this class of ferries was the Attica Group,
which introduced the Superfast I between Greece and Italy in 1995.
 Ferries 233

Figure 17.5 C ondor Rapide, approaching the Port of Guernsey.

Figure 17.6 J utlandia Seaways, Cuxhaven, Germany.

Turntable ferry
The turntable ferry MV Glenachulish (built in 1969), which operates
between Glenelg on the Scottish mainland, and Kylerhea, on the Isle of Skye,
is the last manually operated turntable ferry in the world. This type of ferry
allows vehicles to load from the ‘side’. The vehicle platform can be turned.
234 Merchant ship types

When loading, the platform is turned sideways to allow sideways loading of

vehicles. Then, the platform is turned back, in line with the vessel, and the
journey across water is made.

Pontoon and cable ferries

Pontoon ferries carry vehicles across rivers and lakes and are widely used
in less-developed countries with large rivers where the cost of bridge con-
struction is prohibitive. One or more vehicles are transported on a pontoon
with ramps at either end for vehicles to drive on and off. Cable ferries are
usually pontoon ferries, but pontoon ferries on larger rivers are motorised
and able to be steered independently like a boat. Noticeably, short distances
may be crossed by a cable or chain ferry, which is usually a pontoon ferry,
where the ferry is propelled along and steered by cables connected to each
shore. Sometimes, the cable ferry is human-powered by someone on the
boat. Reaction ferries are cable ferries that use the perpendicular force of
the current as a source of power. Examples of a current propelled ferry are
the four Rhine ferries in Basel, Switzerland. Cable ferries may be used in
fast-flowing rivers across short distances. With an ocean crossing of approx-
imately 1900 m, the cable ferry between Vancouver Island and Denman
Island in British Columbia is the longest in the world. Free ferries operate in
some parts of the world, such as at Woolwich in London, England (across
the River Thames); in Amsterdam, Netherlands (across the IJ waterway);
along the Murray River in South Australia, and across many lakes in British
Columbia. Many cable ferries operate on lakes and rivers in Canada, among
them a cable ferry that charges a toll operates on the Rivière des Prairies
between Laval-sur-le-Lac and Île Bizard in Quebec, Canada. In Finland,
there were 40 cable ferries in 2009, on lakes, rivers, and between Finland’s
many islands.

Train ferry
A train ferry is a ship designed to carry railway vehicles. Typically, one level
of the ship is fitted with railway tracks, and the vessel has a door at either or
both the front and rear to give access to the quayside.

Foot ferry
Foot ferries are small craft used to ferry foot passengers, and often also
cyclists, over rivers. These are either self-propelled craft or cable ferries. Such
ferries are, for example, to be found on the lower River Scheldt in Belgium
and in particular the Netherlands. Regular foot ferry service also exists in
the capital of the Czech Republic, Prague, and across the Yarra River in
Melbourne, Australia at Newport. Restored, expanded ferry service in the Port
of New York and New Jersey uses boats for pedestrians only (Figure 17.7).
 Ferries 235

Figure 17.7 G osport Ferry Spirit of Portsmouth, seen departing Portsmouth,

England, and heading towards Gosport, England.

DOCKING

Ferries often dock at specialised facilities designed to position the ship for
loading and unloading, called a ferry slip. If the ferry transports road vehi-
cles or railway carriages, there will usually be an adjustable ramp called an
apron that is part of the slip. In other cases, the apron ramp will be a part of
the ferry itself, acting as a wave guard when elevated and lowered to meet
a fixed ramp at the terminus – a road segment that extends partially under-
water or meet the ferry slip.

SUSTAINABILITY

The contributions of ferry travel to climate change have received less scru-
tiny than land and air transport and vary according to factors like speed and
the number of passengers carried. Average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
by ferries per passenger kilometre seem to be 0.12 kg (4.2 oz). However,
18-knot (21 mph; 33 km/h) ferries between Finland and Sweden produce
0.221 kg (7.8 oz) of CO2, with total emissions equalling a CO2 equivalent
of 0.223 kg (7.9 oz), while 24–27 knot (28–31 mph; 44–50 km/h) ferries
between Finland and Estonia produce 0.396 kg (14.0 oz) of CO2 with total
236 Merchant ship types

emissions equalling a CO2 equivalent of 0.4 kg (14 oz). With the price of oil
at elevated levels, and with increasing pressure from consumers for meas-
ures to tackle global warming, several innovations for energy and the envi-
ronment were put forward at the 2018 Interferry Conference in Stockholm.
According to the company Solar Sailor, hybrid marine power and solar wing
technology are suitable for use with ferries, private yachts, and even tank-
ers. Alternative fuels are becoming more widespread on ferries. The fastest
passenger ferry in the world Buquebus, runs on LNG, while since 2015
Sweden’s Stena has operated its 1,500 passenger ferries on methanol. Both
fuels reduce emissions considerably and replace costly diesel fuel. Megawatt-
class battery electric ferries operate in Scandinavia, with several more sched-
uled for operation. As of 2017, the world’s biggest purely electric ferry was
the MF Tycho Brahe, which operates on the Helsingør–Helsingborg ferry
route across the Øresund between Denmark and Sweden. The ferry weighs
8414 metric-tonnes and an electric storage capacity of more than 4 MWh.
Since 2015, Norwegian ferry company Norled has operated e-ferry Ampere
on the Lavik-Opedal connection on the E39 north of Bergen. Further
north on the Norwegian west coast, the connection between Anda and
Lote was the world’s first route served only by e-ferries. The first of two
ships, MF Gloppefjord, was put into service in January 2018, followed by
MF Eidsfjord. The owner, Fjord1, commissioned a further seven battery-
powered ferries to be in operation from 2020. A total of 60 battery-powered
car ferries have been operational in Norway since 2021. Since 15 August
2019, Ærø Municipality has operated e-ferry Ellen between the southern
Danish ports of Fynshav and Søby, on the island of Ærø. The e-ferry can
carry 30 vehicles and two hundred passengers and is powered by a battery
of 4.3 MWh (5800 bhp). The vessel can sail up to 22 nautical miles (25 mi;
41 km) between charges – seven times further than previously possible for
an e-ferry. The EU, which supported the project, has stated it aims to roll out
100 or more of these ferries by 2030.
Chapter 18

Ocean liners

Ocean liners are a type of passenger ship primarily used as a form of trans-
portation across seas or oceans. Liners may also carry cargo or mail and may
sometimes be used for other purposes (such as for pleasure cruises or as hos-
pital ships). Cargo vessels running to a schedule are sometimes called liners.
The category does not include ferries or other vessels engaged in short-sea
trading, nor dedicated cruise ships where the voyage itself, and not transpor-
tation, is the prime purpose of the trip. Nor does it include tramp steamers,
even those equipped to manage limited numbers of passengers. Some shipping
companies refer to themselves as ‘lines’ and their container ships, which often
operate over set routes according to established schedules, as ‘liners’. Ocean
liners are usually strongly built with a high freeboard to withstand rough
seas and adverse conditions encountered in the open ocean. Additionally,
they are often designed with thicker hull plating than is found on cruise ships
and have large capacities for fuel, food, and other consumables on long voy-
ages. The first ocean liners were built in the mid-19th century. Technological
innovations such as the steam engine and steel hull allowed larger and faster
liners to be built, giving rise to competition between world powers of the
time, especially between the United Kingdom and Germany. Once the domi-
nant form of travel between continents, ocean liners were rendered obsolete
by the emergence of long-distance aircraft after World War II. Advances in
automobile and railway technology also played a role in diminishing their
presence. After the retirement of the Queen Elizabeth 2 in 2008, the only
ship still in service as an ocean liner is Cunard’s RMS Queen Mary 2.
Ocean liners were the primary mode of intercontinental travel for over a
century, from the mid-19th century until they began to be supplanted by
airliners in the 1950s. In addition to passengers, liners carried mail and
cargo. Ships contracted to carry British Royal Mail used the designation
RMS. Liners were also the preferred way to move gold and other high-value
cargoes. The busiest route for liners was on the North Atlantic with ships
travelling between Europe and North America. It was on this route that the
fastest, largest, and most advanced liners travelled, though most ocean liners
historically were mid-sized vessels, which served as the common carriers of
passengers and freight between nations and among mother countries and

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-22 237

238 Merchant ship types

their colonies and dependencies in the pre-jet age. Such routes included
Europe to African and Asian colonies, Europe to South America, and migrant
traffic from Europe to North America in the 19th and first two decades of
the 20th centuries, and to Canada and Australia after World War II.
Shipping lines are companies engaged in shipping passengers and cargo,
often on established routes and schedules. Regular scheduled voyages on a
set route are called ‘line voyages’ and vessels (passenger or cargo) trading on
these routes to a timetable are called ‘liners’. The alternative to liner trade is
‘tramping’ whereby vessels are notified on an ad hoc basis as to the availa-
bility of a cargo to be transported. (In older usage, ‘liner’ also referred to
ships of the line, that is, line-of-battle ships, but that usage is now rare.) The
term ‘ocean liner’ has come to be used interchangeably with ‘passenger
liner’, although it can refer to a cargo liner or cargo-passenger liner. The
advent of the Jet Age and the decline in transoceanic ship service brought
about a gradual transition from passenger ships to modern cruise ships as a
means of transportation. For ocean liners to remain profitable, cruise lines
modified some of them to operate on cruise routes, such as the SS France.
Certain characteristics of older ocean liners made them unsuitable for cruis-
ing, such as high fuel consumption, deep draught preventing them from
entering shallow ports, and cabins (often windowless) designed to maximise
passenger numbers rather than comfort. The Italian Line’s SS Michelangelo
and SS Raffaello, the last ocean liners to be built primarily for crossing the
North Atlantic, could not be converted economically and had short careers
(Figure 18.1).

Figure 18.1 R MS Queen Mary 2 transiting the Suez Canal, Egypt.

 Ocean liners 239

DEVELOPMENT OF THE OCEAN LINER

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution and the
inter-continental trade rendered the development of secure links between
continents imperative. Being at the top among the colonial powers, Great
Britain needed stable maritime routes to connect various parts of the British
Empire: the Far East, India, Australia, etc. The birth of the concept of
international water and the lack of any claim to it simplified navigation.
In 1818, the Black Ball Line, with a fleet of sailing ships, offered the first
regular passenger service with an emphasis on passenger comfort, from
England to the USA. In 1807, Robert Fulton succeeded in applying steam
engines to ships. He built the first ship that was powered by this technol-
ogy, the Clermont, which succeeded in travelling between New York City
and Albany, New York, in 30 hours before entering regular service between
the two cities. Soon after, other vessels were built using this same inno-
vation. In 1816, the Élise became the first steamship to cross the English
Channel. Another important advance came in 1819 when the SS Savannah
became the first steamship to cross the Atlantic Ocean. She left the city of
Savanna, Georgia, and arrived in Liverpool, England, in 27 days. Most of
the distance was covered by sailing; steam power was not used for more
than 72 hours during the passage. The public enthusiasm for the innovative
technology was not high, as none of the 32 people who had booked a seat
boarded the ship for that historic voyage. Although the SS Savannah had
proven that a steamship was capable of crossing oceans, the public were not
yet prepared to trust such means of travel on the open sea, and, in 1820, the
steam engine was removed from the ship. Work on this technology contin-
ued and a new step was taken in 1833. Royal William managed to cross the
Atlantic by using steam power for the entire voyage. The sail was used only
when the boilers were cleaned. There were still many sceptics, however, and
in 1836, the Irish scientific writer Dionysius Lardner declared that ‘as the
project of making the voyage directly from New York to Liverpool, it was
perfectly chimerical, and they might as well talk of making the voyage from
New York to the moon’. The last step towards long-distance travel using
steam power was taken in 1837 when SS Sirius left Liverpool on 4 April
and arrived in New York 18 days later, that is 22 April, after a turbulent
crossing. Too little coal was prepared for the crossing, and the crew had to
burn cabin furniture to complete the voyage. The journey took place at a
speed of 8.03 kn (9.2 mph; 14.87 km/h). The voyage was made possible
using a condenser, which fed the boilers with fresh water, avoiding having
to periodically shut down the boilers to remove the salt. However, the feat
was short-lived. The next day, SS Great Western, designed by railway engi-
neer Isambard Kingdom Brunel, arrived in New York. She left Liverpool
on 8 April and overtook Sirius’s record with an average speed of 8.66 kn
(9.96 mph; 16.03 km/h). The race for speed had commenced, and, with it,
the tradition of the Blue Riband.
240 Merchant ship types

With the SS Great Western, Isambard Kingdom Brunel laid the founda-
tions for new shipbuilding techniques. He realised that the carrying capacity
of a ship increases with the cube of its dimensions, whilst the water resist-
ance only increases as the square of its dimensions. This means that large
ships are more fuel-efficient, something especially important for long voy-
ages across the Atlantic. Constructing large ships was therefore more profit-
able. Moreover, migration to the Americas increased enormously. These
movements of population were a financial windfall for the shipping compa-
nies, some of the largest of which were founded during this time, including
P&O of the United Kingdom in 1822 and the Compagnie Générale
Transatlantique of France in 1855. The steam engine also allowed ships to
provide regular service without the use of sails. This aspect particularly
appealed to the postal companies, which leased the services of ships to serve
clients separated by the ocean. RMS Umbria and her sister ship RMS Etruria
were the last two Cunard liners of the period to be fitted with auxiliary sails.
Both ships were built by John Elder & Co. of Glasgow, Scotland, in 1884.
They were record breakers by the standards of the time, and were the largest
liners then in service, plying the Liverpool to New York route.
In 1839, Samuel Cunard founded the Cunard Line and became the first to
dedicate the activity of his shipping company to the transport of mail, thus
ensuring regular services on a given schedule. The company’s vessels operated
the routes between the United Kingdom and the United States. In 1840,
Cunard Line’s RMS Britannia began its first regular passenger and cargo ser-
vice by steamship, sailing from Liverpool to Boston that year. As the size of
ships increased, the wooden hull became increasingly fragile. Beginning with
the use of an iron hull in 1845, steel hulls eventually solved this problem. The
first ship to be both iron-hulled and equipped with a screw propeller was the
SS Great Britain, a creation of Brunel. Her career was, however, disastrous
and short. She was run aground and stranded at Dundrum Bay in Northern
Ireland, in 1846. In 1884, she was retired to the Falkland Islands where she
was used as a warehouse, quarantine ship, and coal hulk until she was scut-
tled in 1937. The American company Collins Line equipped its ships with
cold rooms, heating systems, and various other innovations, but the opera-
tion proved prohibitively expensive. The sinking of two of its ships was a
further major blow to the company, which was dissolved in 1858. In the same
year, Brunel built his third and last giant, the SS Great Eastern. The ship was,
for 43 years, the largest passenger ship ever built with a capacity to carry
4,000 passengers. Her career was marked by a series of failures and incidents,
one of which was an explosion on board during her maiden voyage.
Many ships owned by German companies like Hamburg America Line
and Norddeutscher Lloyd were sailing from major German ports, such as
Hamburg and Bremen, to the USA during this time. In 1858, the SS Austria
suffered a catastrophic fire off the coast of Newfoundland. The ship, built in
Greenock and sailing between Hamburg and New York twice a month, sank
with the loss of all but 89 of the 542 passengers on board. In the British
 Ocean liners 241

market, Cunard Line and White Star Line (the latter after being bought by
Thomas Ismay in 1868) competed strongly against each other in the late
1860s. The struggle was symbolised by the attainment of the Blue Riband,
which the two companies achieved several times around the end of the cen-
tury. The luxury and technology of ships were also evolving. Auxiliary sails
became obsolete and disappeared completely at the end of the century.
Possible military use of passenger ships was envisaged and, in 1889, RMS
Teutonic became the first auxiliary cruiser in history. In the time of war,
these ships could be easily equipped with cannons and used in cases of con-
flict. In 1870, the White Star Line’s RMS Oceanic set a new standard for
ocean travel by having its first-class cabins amidships, with the added amen-
ity of large portholes, electricity, and running water. The size of ocean liners
increased from 1880 to meet the needs of immigration to the USA and
Australia. The SS Ophir was a 6,814 tonne steamship owned by the Orient
Steamship Co. and was fitted with refrigeration equipment. She plied the
Suez Canal route from England to Australia during the 1890s, up until the
years leading to World War I when she was converted into an armed mer-
chant cruiser. In 1897, Norddeutscher Lloyd launched the SS Kaiser
Wilhelm der Grosse. She was followed three years later by three sister ships.
The ship was both luxurious and fast, managing to steal the Blue Riband
from the British. She was also the first of the 14 ocean liners with four fun-
nels that emerged around that time. The ship needed only two funnels, but
more funnels gave passengers a feeling of safety and power. In 1900, the
Hamburg America Line competed with its own four-funnel liner, SS
Deutschland. She quickly obtained the Blue Riband for the company. This
race for speed, however, was a detriment to passengers’ comfort and gener-
ated strong vibrations, which made her owner lose any interest in her after
she lost the Blue Riband to another ship owned by Norddeutscher Lloyd.
She was only used for 10 years for transatlantic crossing before being con-
verted into a cruise ship. From 1900 to 1907, the Blue Riband remained in
German hands.
In 1902, the American businessman J.P. Morgan embraced the idea of a
maritime empire comprising many companies. He founded the International
Mercantile Marine Co., a trust that originally comprised only American
shipping companies. The trust then absorbed the British company’s Leyland
Line and White Star Line. Seeing this as a risk to British maritime suprem-
acy, the British government decided to intervene to regain the ascendancy.
Although German liners dominated the market in terms of speed, British
liners dominated in terms of size. RMS Oceanic and the Big Four of the
White Star Line were the first liners to surpass SS Great Eastern as the larg-
est passenger ships afloat. Their owner was American (as mentioned above,
White Star Line had been absorbed into J.P. Morgan’s trust; however, faced
with this major competition, the British government contributed financially
to Cunard Line’s construction of two liners of unmatched size and speed,
under the condition that they be available for conversion into armed
242 Merchant ship types

cruisers if and needed by the Royal Navy). The result of this partnership was
the completion in 1907 of two sister ships: the RMS Lusitania and RMS
Mauretania, both of which won the Blue Riband during their respective
maiden voyages. The latter retained this distinction for 20 years. Their great
speed was achieved using turbines instead of conventional expansion
machines. In response to the competition from Cunard Line, White Star Line
ordered the Olympic-class liners at the end of 1907. The first of these three
liners, RMS Olympic, completed in 1911, had a fine career, although punc-
tuated by incidents. This was not the case for her sister, the RMS Titanic,
which sank on her maiden voyage on 15 April 1912, resulting in several
changes to maritime safety practices. As for the third sister HMS Britannic,
she never served her intended purpose as a passenger ship, as she was drafted
in World War I as a Hospital Ship and sank after hitting a sea mine in 1916.
At the same time, France tried to mark its presence with the completion
in 1912 of the SS France, which was owned by the Compagnie Générale
Transatlantique. Germany soon responded to the competition from the
British. From 1912 to 1914, Hamburg America Line completed a trio of
liners significantly larger than the White Star Line’s Olympic-class ships. The
first to be completed, in 1913, was SS Imperator. She was followed by SS
Vaterland in 1914. The construction of the third liner, SS Bismarck, was
temporarily paused by the outbreak of World War I. Sadly, World War I was
a challenging time for the liners. Some of them, like the SS Mauretania, SS
Aquitania, and SS Britannic, were transformed into hospital ships during
the conflict. Others became troop transports, while some, such as the SS
Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, participated as warships. Troop transportation
was extremely popular due to the liners’ enormous size. Liners converted
into troop ships were painted in dazzle camouflage to reduce the risk of
being torpedoed by enemy submarines. Despite this, the war marked the loss
of many liners. SS Britannic, whilst serving as a hospital ship, sank in the
Aegean Sea in 1916 after she struck a mine. Numerous incidents of torpedo-
ing took place and large numbers of ships were sank. SS Kaiser Wilhelm der
Grosse was defeated and scuttled after a fierce battle with HMS Highflyer
off the coast of west Africa, while her sister ship SS Kronprinz Wilhelm
served as a commerce raider. The torpedoing and sinking of RMS Lusitania
on 7 May 1915 caused the loss of 128 American lives at a time when the
United States was still neutral. Although other factors came into play,
the loss of American lives in the sinking strongly pushed the USA to favour
the Allied Powers and facilitated America’s entry into the war. The losses
sustained by the Allied Powers was compensated through the Treaty of
Versailles in 1919. This led to the awarding of many German liners to the
Allies. The Hamburg America Line’s trio (SS Imperator, SS Vaterland, and
SS Bismarck) was divided between the Cunard Line, White Star Line, and
the United States Lines, while the three surviving ships of the Kaiser class
were requisitioned for use by the US Navy. The Tirpitz, whose construction
was delayed by the outbreak of war, eventually became the RMS Empress of
 Ocean liners 243

Australia. Of the German superliners, only the SS Deutschland avoided this

fate on account of her poor condition.
After a period of reconstruction, the shipping companies recovered
quickly from the damage caused by the First World War. The ships, whose
construction was started before the war, such as SS Paris of the French Line,
were completed and put into service. Prominent British liners, such as the SS
Olympic and the SS Mauretania, were also put back into service and had a
successful career in the early 1920s. More modern liners were also built,
such as SS Île de France (completed in 1927). The United States Lines, hav-
ing received the SS Vaterland, renamed her Leviathan and made her the
flagship of the company’s fleet. Because all USA registered ships counted as
an extension of the United States territory, the National Prohibition Act
made American liners alcohol-free, causing alcohol-seeking passengers to
choose other liners for travel and reducing profits for the United States
Lines. In 1929, Germany returned to the scene with the two ships of
Norddeutscher Lloyd, SS Bremen and SS Europa. Bremen won the Blue
Riband from Britain’s SS Mauretania after the latter had held it for 20 years.
Soon, Italy also entered the scene. The Italian Line completed SS Rex and SS
Conte di Savoia in 1932, breaking the records of both luxury and speed
(SS Rex won the westbound Blue Riband in 1933). France re-entered with
the SS Normandie of the French Line Compagnie Générale Transatlantique.
The ship was the largest ship afloat at the time of her completion in 1932.
She was also the fastest, winning the Blue Riband in 1935.
A crisis arose when the USA drastically reduced its immigrant quotas,
causing shipping companies to lose a large part of their income forcing
them to adapt to new revenue streams. The Great Depression also played a
significant role, causing a drastic decrease in the number of people crossing
the Atlantic and at the same time reducing the number of profitable trans-
atlantic voyages. In response, shipping companies redirected many of their
liners to the more profitable cruise service. In 1934, in the UK, Cunard Line
and White Star Line were seriously financially challenged. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, proposed to merge the two compa-
nies to solve their financial problems. The merger took place in 1934 and
launched the construction of the RMS Queen Mary while progressively
sending their older ships to be scrapped. The RMS Queen Mary was the
fastest ship of her time and the largest for a brief period, capturing the Blue
Riband twice off the SS Normandie. The construction of a second ship, the
RMS Queen Elizabeth, was interrupted by the outbreak of World War II.
From the start of the conflict, German liners were requisitioned, and many
were turned into barracks ships. It was during this activity that the SS
Bremen caught fire and was scrapped in 1941. During the war, RMS Queen
Elizabeth and RMS Queen Mary provided distinguished service as troop-
ships. Many liners were sunk causing great loss of life; in World War II, the
three worst disasters involved the loss of the Cunarder Lancastria in 1940
off Saint-Nazaire to German bombing while attempting to evacuate troops
244 Merchant ship types

of the British Expeditionary Force from France, with the loss of more than
3000 lives; the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff, after the ship was torpedoed
by a Soviet submarine, with more than 9000 lives lost, making it the deadli-
est maritime disaster in history; and the sinking of SS Cap Arcona with more
than 7000 lives lost, both in the Baltic Sea, in 1945. SS Rex was bombarded
and sunk in 1942, while SS Normandie caught fire, capsized, and sank in
New York in 1942 while being converted for troop duty. The SS Empress of
Britain was attacked by German planes, then torpedoed by a U-boat, when
tugs tried to tow her to safety on 28 October 1940.
After the war, some ships were again transferred from the defeated nations
to the winning nations as war reparations. This was the case of the SS
Europa, which was ceded to France and renamed Liberté. The US Govern­
ment was extremely impressed with the service of the Cunard’s RMS Queen
Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth as troopships during the war. To ensure
reliable and fast troop transport in case of a war against the Soviet Union,
the US Government sponsored the construction of the SS United States and
entered it into service for United States Lines in 1952. She won the Blue
Riband on her maiden voyage in that year and held it until Richard Branson
won it back in 1986 with Virgin Atlantic Challenger II. One year later, in
1953, Italy completed the SS Andrea Doria, which later sank in 1956 after
a collision with MS Stockholm.
Before World War II, aircraft had not posed a significant economic threat
to ocean liners. Most pre-war aircraft were noisy, vulnerable to severe
weather, few had the range needed for transoceanic flights, and all were
expensive and had a small passenger capacity. The war accelerated the
development of large, long-ranged aircraft. Four-engine bombers such as the
Avro Lancaster and Boeing B-29 Superfortress, with their range and massive
carrying capacity, were natural prototypes for post-war next-generation air-
liners. Jet engine technology also accelerated due to the wartime develop-
ment of jet aircraft. In 1953, the De Havilland Comet became the first
commercial jet airliner; the Sud Aviation Caravelle, Boeing 707, and Douglas
DC-8 followed, and much long-distance travel was done by air. The Italian
Line’s SS Michelangelo and SS Raffaello, launched in 1962 and 1963, respec-
tively, were two of the last ocean liners to be built primarily for liner service
across the North Atlantic. Cunard’s transatlantic liner, RMS Queen Elizabeth
2, was also used as a cruise ship rather than as an ocean liner. By the early
1960s, 95% of passenger traffic across the North Atlantic was by aircraft.
Thus, the reign of the ocean liners ended. By the early 1970s, many passen-
ger ships continued their service in the cruising industry. In 1982, during the
Falklands War, three active or former liners were requisitioned for war ser-
vice by the British Government. The liners RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 and
SS Canberra, were requisitioned from Cunard and P&O to serve as troop-
ships, carrying British Army personnel to Ascension Island and the Falkland
Islands to recover the Falklands from invading Argentine forces. The P&O
educational cruise ship and former British India Steam Navigation Company
 Ocean liners 245

liner Uganda was requisitioned as a hospital ship and served after the war
as a troopship until the RAF Mount Pleasant station was built at Stanley,
which could manage trooping flights. By the first decade of the 21st century,
only a few former ocean liners were still in existence, some like SS Norway,
were sailing as cruise ships while others, like the RMS Queen Mary, were
preserved as museums, or laid up at pier side like the SS United States. After
the retirement of the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 in 2008, the only ocean liner
in service was the RMS Queen Mary 2, built in 2003–2004, used for both
point-to-point line voyages and for cruises.
Four ocean liners that were made before World War II survive today, as
they have been preserved as museums and hotels. The Japanese ocean liner
Hikawa Maru (1929) has been preserved in Naka-ku, Yokohama, Japan, as
a museum ship, since 1961. RMS Queen Mary (1934) was preserved in
1967 after her retirement and became a museum and floating hotel in Long
Beach, California. In the 1970s, SS Great Britain (1843) was preserved, and
now resides in Bristol, England, as another museum. The latest ship to
undergo preservation is MV Doulos (1914), which became a dry berthed
luxury hotel on Bintan Island, Indonesia. Post-war ocean liners still extant
are the SS United States (1952), docked in Philadelphia since 1996; the SS
Rotterdam (1958), moored in Rotterdam as a museum and hotel since 2008;
and the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 (1967), a floating luxury hotel and museum
at Mina Rashid, Dubai, since 2018. MV Astoria (1948) (originally MS
Stockholm, which collided with Andrea Doria in 1956) was in active service
for Cruise & Maritime Voyages until operations ceased in 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2021, the ship was purchased at the line’s
bankruptcy auction by a US-based investor group who intended to use her
for island cruises from Lisbon. In August of that year, it was repurchased by
Brock Pierce to be transformed into a hotel along with MV Funchal. In
2021, MV Funchal (1961) was purchased by Brock Pierce for over US$1
million. Originally operated by the Portuguese shipping company Empresa
Insulana de Navegação, it is currently being renovated into a hotel.

CHARACTERISTICS

Size and speed

Since their beginning in the 19th century, ocean liners have had to meet grow-
ing demands. The first liners were small and overcrowded, leading to unsan-
itary conditions on board. Eliminating these problems required larger ships,
to reduce the crowding of passengers, and faster ships, to reduce the duration
of transatlantic crossings. The development of iron and steel hulls and steam
power allowed for these technological advances. The ship’s SS Great Western
(1340 tonnes) and SS Great Eastern (18,915 tonnes) were constructed in
1838 and 1858, respectively. The record set by the SS Great Eastern was not
246 Merchant ship types

beaten until 43 years later in 1901 when RMS Celtic (20,904 tonnes) was
completed. Tonnage then grew profoundly: the first liners to have a tonnage
that exceeded 20,000 were the Big Four of the White Star Line. The Olympic
class ocean liners, first completed in 1911, were the first to have a tonnage
that exceeded 45,000. SS Normandie, completed in 1935, had a tonnage of
79,280. In 1940, RMS Queen Elizabeth raised the record of size to a tonnage
of 83,673. She was the largest passenger ship ever constructed until 1997.
In 2003, RMS Queen Mary 2 became the largest, at 149,215 metric-tonnes.
In the early 1840s, the average speed of liners was less than 10 knots
(11 mph; 18 kp/h), with a crossing of the North Atlantic taking about
12 days. In the 1870s, the average speed of liners increased to around 15
knots (17 mph; 27 km/h) with the duration of a transatlantic crossing short-
ened to around 7 days. This owed to the technological progress made in the
propulsion of ships: rudimentary steam boilers gave rise to more elaborate
machineries and the paddlewheel gradually disappeared altogether, replaced
first by one helix and then by two helix propellers. At the beginning of the
20th century, Cunard Line’s RMS Lusitania and RMS Mauretania reached a
speed of 27 knots (31 mph; 50 km/h). Their records seemed unbeatable, and
most shipping companies abandoned the race for speed in favour of size,
luxury, and safety. The advent of ships with diesel engines, and of those whose
engines were oil-burning, such as the SS Bremen, in the early 1930s,
relaunched the race for the Blue Riband. The SS Normandie won it in 1935
before being snatched by RMS Queen Mary in 1938. It was not until 1952
that SS United States set a record that remains today: 34.5 knots (39.7 mph;
63 km/h) taking only 3 days and 12 hours to cross the Atlantic from New
York to Southampton.

Passenger cabins and amenities

The first ocean liners were designed to carry mostly migrants. On board
sanitary conditions were often deplorable and epidemics were frequent. In
1848, maritime laws imposing hygiene rules were adopted, which drastically
improved the on-board living conditions. Gradually, two distinct classes
developed: the cabin class and the steerage class. The passengers travelling
on the former were wealthy passengers and they enjoyed certain comforts
associated with that class. The passengers travelling in steerage were mem-
bers of the middle or working classes. In that class, they were packed in large
dormitories. Until the beginning of the 20th century, they did not always
have bedsheets and meals. An intermediate class for tourists and members
of the middle class gradually appeared. The cabins were then divided into
three classes. The facilities offered to passengers developed over time. In
the 1870s, the installation of bathtubs and oil lamps caused a sensation on
board RMS Oceanic. In the following years, the number of amenities became
numerous, for example smoking rooms, lounges, and the promenade deck. In
1907, RMS Adriatic even offered Turkish baths and a swimming pool. In the
1920s, SS Paris was the first liner to provide a movie theatre (Figure 18.2).
 Ocean liners 247

Figure 18.2 Vasco da Gama at the Liverpool Cruise terminal, England.

SHIP BUILDERS

The British and Germans were the most famed in shipbuilding during the
great era of ocean liners. In Ireland, Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast
were particularly innovative and succeeded in winning the trust of many
shipping companies, such as White Star Line. These gigantic shipyards
employed a substantial portion of the local population and built hulls,
machines, furniture, and lifeboats. Among the other well-known British
shipyards were Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson, the builder of RMS
Mauretania, and John Brown & Company, the builder of RMS Lusitania.
Germany had many shipyards on the coast of the North Sea and the Baltic
Sea, including Blohm & Voss and AG Vulcan Stettin. Many of these ship-
yards were destroyed during World War II, though a few managed to recover
and continue building ships. In France, major shipyards included Chantiers
de Penhoët in Saint-Nazaire, made famous for building the SS Normandie.
This shipyard merged with Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire shipyard to form
the Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard, which has built ships including the
RMS Queen Mary 2.

SHIPPING COMPANIES

Although there were many British shipping companies, two were particularly
distinguished: Cunard Line and White Star Line. Both were founded during
the 1830s and were engaged in intense competition against one another,
possessing the largest and fastest liners in the world until the mid-20th
century. It was not until 1934 that financial difficulty caused the two to
248 Merchant ship types

merge, forming Cunard White Star Ltd. P&O also occupied a large part of
the liner business. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company operated as a
state-owned enterprise with its close relationship with the government. Over
the course of its history, it took over many shipping companies, becoming
one of the largest companies in the world before legal problems led to
its liquidation in 1931. On the continent, two rival companies, Hamburg
America Line (often referred to as ‘HAPAG’) and Norddeutscher Lloyd,
competed in Germany. The First and Second World Wars dealt much dam-
age to the two companies, both forced to renounce their ships to the winning
side in both wars. The two merged to form the modern-day shipping major,
Hapag-Lloyd, in 1970. The ocean liner industry in France also consisted
of two rival companies: the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique (com-
monly known as ‘Transat’ or ‘French Line’) and Messageries Maritimes.
The Compagnie Générale Transatlantique operated on the North Atlantic
route with well-known liners such as SS Normandie and SS France, while
Messageries Maritimes operated throughout the French colonies in Asia
and Africa. Decolonisation in the second half of the 20th century led to
a sharp decline in profit for Messageries Maritimes, and it merged with
Compagnie Générale Transatlantique in 1975 to form the Compagnie
Générale Maritime. The Netherlands had three main companies: Holland
America Line, which operated mostly on the North Atlantic route and with
well-known ships like the SS Nieuw Amsterdam and SS Rotterdam. Unlike
the French and German industry, the Holland America Line had no domes-
tic rivals and thus only had to compete with foreign lines. The other two
Dutch lines were the Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland (SMN), other-
wise known as the Netherland Line and the Koninklijke Rotterdamsche
Lloyd (KRL). Both offered regular service between the Netherlands and
the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch colony in Southeast Asia now known as
Indonesia. In Italy, the Italian Line was founded in 1932 because of a merger
of three companies. It was known for operating liners such as SS Rex and
SS Andrea Doria. In the US, the United States Lines tried to impose itself on
the international scene but failed to compete with its European rivals. The
Japanese established Nippon Yusen, also known as NYK Lines, which ran
trans-Pacific liners such as the Hikawa Maru and the Asama Maru.

ROUTES

North Atlantic
The most important of all routes taken by ocean liners was the North
Atlantic route. It accounted for a large part of the clientele, who trav-
elled between the ports of Liverpool, Southampton, Hamburg, Le Havre,
Cherbourg, Cobh, and New York City. The profitability of this route came
from European migration to North America. The need for speed influenced
 Ocean liners 249

the construction of liners for this route, and the Blue Riband was awarded
to the liner with the highest speed. The route was not without danger, how-
ever, as storm and icebergs were (and continue to be) common in the North
Atlantic. Many shipwrecks occurred on this route, among them the RMS
Titanic.

South Atlantic
The South Atlantic was the route frequented by liners bound for South
America, Africa, and sometimes even Oceania. The White Star Line had
some of its ships, such as the Suevic, on the Liverpool-Cape Town-Sydney
route. Given there was little competition in the South Atlantic as there was
in the North Atlantic, the incidence of shipwrecks was less. The German
shipping company, Hamburg Süd, is the most famous operator of this route,
with the famed SS Cap Arcona.

Mediterranean
The Mediterranean Sea was frequented by many ocean liners. Many com-
panies benefited from migration from Italy and the Balkans to the US.
Cunard’s RMS Carpathia served on the Gibraltar-Genoa-Trieste route.
Similarly, Italian liners crossed the Mediterranean Sea before entering the
North Atlantic Ocean. The construction of the Suez Canal opened the
Mediterranean as a popular route to Asia.

Indian Ocean and the Far East

Colonisation made Asia particularly attractive to shipping companies. As
early as the 1840s, P&O organised trips to Calcutta via the Suez Isthmus,
as the canal had not yet been built. The time it took to travel on this
route to India, Southeast Asia, and Japan was long, with many stopovers.
The Messageries Maritimes operated on this route, notably in the 1930s,
with its motor ships. Similarly, the La Marseillaise, put into service in
1949, was one of the flagships of its fleet. Decolonisation in the 1960s
and 1970s caused many of these routes to flounder and eventually cease
altogether.

Other
The construction of ocean liners was, in some respects, a result of nation-
alism. The revival of power of the German Navy stemmed from the clear
affirmation of Kaiser Wilhelm II to see his country become a major sea
power, capable of rivalling Britain. Thus, the SS Deutschland (1900) had
the honour of becoming the nation’s name bearer, an honour she lost after
250 Merchant ship types

10 years of a disappointing career. RMS Lusitania and RMS Mauretania

(1907) were built with the help of the British Government with the desire
that the United Kingdom would regain its prestige as the world’s preeminent
sea power. The SS United States (1952) was the result of a desire by the US
government to possess a large and fast ship that was convertible into a troop
transport. The SS Rex and SS Conte di Savoia (1932) were constructed at
the demands of Benito Mussolini. Finally, the construction of SS France in
1961 was a result of Charles de Gaulle’s desire to build on French national
pride and was financed by the French Government. Some liners did gain
great popularity. SS Mauretania and SS Olympic had many admirers during
their careers, and their retirement and scrapping caused certain sadness. The
same was also true of Île de France, whose scrapping aroused strong emo-
tion from her admirers.

MARITIME DISASTERS AND INCIDENTS

Some ocean liners are known today because of their sinking with great loss
of lives. In 1873, RMS Atlantic struck an underwater rock and sank off
the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada, killing at least 535 people. In 1912, the
sinking of the RMS Titanic, which took approximately 1,500 lives, high-
lighted the overconfidence of the shipping companies in their ships, such as
the failure to have sufficient lifeboats on board. Safety measures at sea were
re-examined following the incident. Two years later, in 1914, RMS Empress
of Ireland sank in the St. Lawrence River after colliding with another ship.
A total of 1,012 people lost their lives. Among the other sinkings are the
torpedo sinking of the RMS Lusitania in 1915, which resulted in the loss
of 1198 lives and provoked an international outcry, the naval mine sinking
of the HMHS Britannic in 1916, and that of MS Georges Philippar, which
caught fire and sank in the Gulf of Aden in 1932, killing 54 people. In 1956,
the sinking of SS Andrea Doria, with the loss of 46 lives, after a collision
with MS Stockholm made the headlines throughout Europe. In 1985, the
Italian liner MS Achille Lauro was hijacked off the coast of Egypt by mem-
bers of the Palestinian Liberation Front, resulting in the death of one of the
hostages. In 1994, she caught fire and sank off the coast of Somalia.
This completes Part III. In Part IV, we will turn our attention towards the
various types of vessels used in the offshore supply and support sector.
Part IV

Construction and support

vessels
Chapter 19

Cable layers

A cable layer or cable ship is a deep-sea vessel designed and used to lay under-
water cables for telecommunications, electric power transmission, military,
or other purposes. Cable ships are distinguished by large cable sheaves for
guiding cable over the bow or stern or both. Bow sheaves, some exception-
ally large, were characteristic of all cable ships in the past, but newer ships
are tending towards having stern sheaves only. The names of cable ships are
often preceded by ‘CS’ as in CS Long Lines. The first transatlantic telegraph
cable was laid by cable-layers in 1857–1858. It briefly enabled telecom-
munication between Europe and North America before misuse resulted in
the failure of the line. In 1866, the SS Great Eastern successfully laid two
transatlantic cables, securing future communication between the continents.
Cable layers have unique requirements related to having long idle periods
in port between cable laying or repairs, operation at low speeds or stopped
at sea during cable operations, extended periods running astern (less fre-
quent as stern layers are now common), high manoeuverability, and a fair
speed to reach operation areas. As such, modern cable layers differ from
their predecessors. There are two main types of cable-layers: cable repair
ships and cable-laying ships. Cable repair ships, like the Japanese Tsugaru
Maru, tend to be smaller and more manoeuverable; they are capable of
laying cable, but their primary job is fixing or repairing broken sections of
cable. A cable-laying ship, like the CS Long Lines, is designed to lay new
cables. Such ships are bigger than repair ships and less manoeuverable; their
cable storage drums are also larger and are set in parallel so one drum can
feed into another, allowing them to lay cable much faster. These ships are
also generally equipped with a linear cable engine (LCE) that helps them lay
cable quickly. By locating the manufacturing plant near a harbour, the cable
can be loaded into the ship’s hold as it is being manufactured (Figure 19.1).
The newest design of cable layers, though, is a combination of cable-
laying and repair ships. An example is the USNS Zeus (T-ARC-7), the only
US naval cable layer-repair ship. USNS Zeus uses two diesel-electric engines
that produce 5,000 horsepower each and can carry her up to 15 kts (17
mph; 27 km/h). She can lay about 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of telecommuni-
cations cable to a depth of 2,700 m (9,000 ft). The purpose of USNS Zeus

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-24 253

254 Merchant ship types

Figure 19.1 C able ship Ile de Bréhat.

was to be a cable ship that could do anything required of her, so the ship was
built to be able to lay and retrieve cable from either the bow or the stern
with ease. This design was like that of the first cable ship, the SS Great
Eastern. To ensure that the cable is laid and retrieved properly, specially
designed equipment must be used. Different equipment is employed on
cable-laying ships depending on what the specific job entails. To retrieve
damaged or mislaid cable, a grapple system is used to gather the cable from
the ocean floor. There are several types of grapples, each with certain pros
and cons. The grapples are attached to the vessel via a grapple rope.
Originally, these were manufactured from a mix of steel and manila lines
but are now made from synthetic materials. This ensures that the line is
strong yet can flex and strain under the weight of the grapple. The line is
pulled up by reversing the LCE. The LCE is used to feed the cable down to
the ocean floor; however, this can also be reversed and used to bring the
cable back up in the event it requires repair. The engines can feed 244 m
(800 ft) of cable every minute. However, cable ships are usually limited to 8
kts (9.2 mi; 14.8 km/h) while laying cable to ensure the cable lies on the sea
floor properly, and to compensate for any small adjustments in course that
might affect the cables’ position. This is important as the cable needs to be
located for preventative and corrective maintenance. LCEs are also equipped
with a brake system that allows the flow of cable to be controlled or stopped
should problem arise. A common system often found on modern vessels is
 Cable layers 255

the fleeting drum. This is a mechanical drum, which is fitted with eoduldes
(raised surfaces on the drum face). The eodules help slow and guide the
cable into the LCE. Cable ships also use ‘ploughs’, which are suspended
under the vessel. The ploughs use jets of high-pressure water to bury the
cable as much as 0.91 m (3 ft) under the sea floor. This prevents fishing ves-
sels from snagging the cables as they thrall their nets.
When coaxial cables were introduced as submarine cables, a new issue
with cable-laying was encountered. These cables had periodic repeaters
in line with the cable and powered through it. Repeaters overcame signifi-
cant transmission problems on submarine cables. The difficulty with laying
repeaters is that there is a bulge where they are spliced into the cable, and
this causes problems passing through the sheave. British ships, such as the
HMTS Monarch and HMTS Alert, solved the problem by providing a trough
for the repeater to bypass the sheave. A rope connected in parallel to the
repeater went through the sheave which pulled the cable back in to the
sheave after the repeater had passed. It was normally necessary for the ship
to slow down while the repeater was being laid. American ships, for a time,
tried using flexible repeaters which passed through the sheave. However, by
the 1960s, they were also using rigid repeaters like the British system.
Another issue with coaxial repeaters is that they are much heavier than the
cable. To ensure that they sink at the same rate as the cable (which can take
some time to reach the bottom) and keep the cable straight, the repeaters are
fitted with parachutes.
In this chapter, we have examined the role and function of the oddity that
is the cable ship. In the next chapter, we will look at some of the main types
of offshore construction support vessels.
Chapter 20

Construction support vessels

PIPELAYING SHIPS

A pipelaying ship is a maritime vessel used in the construction of subsea

infrastructure. It serves to connect oil production platforms with refiner-
ies on shore. To accomplish this goal, a typical pipelaying vessel carries a
heavy lift crane, used to install pumps and valves, and equipment to lay pipe
between subsea structures. Lay methods consist of J-lay and S-lay and can
be reel-lay or welded length by length. Pipelaying ships make use of dynamic
positioning systems or anchor spreads to maintain the correct position and
speed while laying pipes. The most recent ships are capable of laying sub-
sea pipework in water depths of more than 2,500 m (8,202 ft). The term
pipe laying vessel or pipelayer refers to any vessel capable of laying pipe
on the ocean floor. It can also refer to dual activity ships. These vessels are
capable of laying pipe on the ocean floor in addition to their primary job.
Examples of dual activity pipelayers include barges, modified bulk carriers,
modified drillships, semi-immersible laying vessels, and others. The major-
ity of pipelaying vessels are owned and operated by oil and gas companies
(Figure 20.1).

HEAVY LIFT AND CRANE VESSELS

A crane vessel, crane ship, or floating crane is a ship with a crane special-
ised in lifting heavy loads. The largest crane vessels are used for offshore
construction. Conventional monohulls are used, but the largest crane ves-
sels are often catamaran or semi-submersible types, as they have increased
stability. On a sheerleg crane, the crane is fixed and cannot rotate, and the
vessel, therefore, is manoeuvred to place loads. In medieval Europe, crane
vessels which could be flexibly deployed in the whole port basin were intro-
duced as early as the 14th century. During the age of sail, the sheer hulk
was used extensively as a floating crane for tasks that required heavy lift.
At the time, the heaviest single components of ships were the main masts,
and sheer hulks were essential for removing and replacing them, but they

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-25 257

258 Merchant ship type

Figure 20.1 P ipelayer Seven Navica, Leith Docks, Edinburgh, Scotland.

were also used for other purposes. Some crane vessels had engines for pro-
pulsion, others needed to be towed with a tugboat. In 1920, the 1898-built
battleship USS Kearsarge was converted to a crane ship when a crane with
a capacity of 250 tonnes was installed. Later renamed Crane Ship No.1,
she was used, amongst other things, to place guns and other heavy items
on other battleships under construction. In 1939, Crane Ship No.1 was
used to raise the sunk submarine, USS Squalus. In 1942, the crane ships
aka ‘Heavy Lift Ships’ SS Empire Elgar (PQ16), SS Empire Bard (PQ15),
and SS Empire Purcell (PQ16) were sent to the Russian Arctic ports of
Archangel, Murmansk, and Molotovsk (since renamed Sererodvinsk). Their
role was to enable the unloading of the Arctic convoys where port instal-
lations were either destroyed by German bombers or were non-existent (as
at Bakaritsa quay in Archangel). In 1949, J. Ray McDermott had Derrick
Barge Four built, a barge that was outfitted with a revolving crane capable
of lifting 150 tonnes. The arrival of this type of vessel changed the direction
of the offshore construction industry. Instead of constructing oil platforms
in parts, jackets and decks could be built onshore as modules. For use in the
shallow part of the Gulf of Mexico, these barges proved extremely useful
and resilient (Figure 20.2).
In 1963, Heerema converted a Norwegian tanker, Sunaas, into a crane
vessel with a capacity of 300 tonnes, the first one in the offshore industry
that was ‘ship-shaped’. Following the refit, the Sunaas was renamed Global
Adventurer and was the first vessel of its kind to operate in the harsh envi-
ronment of the North Sea. In 1978, Heerema had two semi-submersible
crane vessels built, Hermod and Balder, each with one 2,000 tonnes and
 Construction support vessels 259

Figure 20.2 H eavy-lift vessel Biglift Barentsz in Schiedam, The Netherlands.

one 3,000 tonne crane. Both were later upgraded to a higher capacity. This
type of crane vessel was much less sensitive to sea swell, so it was possible
to operate in the North Sea even during the winter months. The high sta-
bility also allowed for heavier lifts than was possible with a monohull. The
larger capacity of the cranes reduced the installation time of a platform
from a whole season to just a few weeks. Inspired by this success, similar
vessels were built. In 1985, DB-102 was launched for McDermott, with
two cranes with a capacity of 6000 metric tonnes each. Micoperi ordered
M7000 in 1986, which was designed and built with two cranes of 7000
metric tonnes each. Due to the oil glut in the mid-1980s, however, the
boom in the offshore industry ended, resulting in a series of collabora-
tions. In 1988, a joint venture between Heerema and McDermott was
formed, HeereMac. In 1990, Micoperi was forced to apply for bankruptcy.
Saipem, at the beginning of the 1970s, a large heavy lift contractor, but
only a small player in this field at the end of the 1980s, acquired M7000
from Micoperi in 1995, later renaming it Saipem 7000. In 1997, Heerema
took over DB-102 from McDermott after the discontinuation of their
joint venture. The ship was renamed Thialf and, after an upgrade in 2000,
both cranes were increased to 7,100 metric tonnes. Up until 2019, Thialf
was the largest semi-submersible crane vessel in the world, whereafter she
was surpassed by the SSCV Sleipnir, a US$1 billion vessel built for Heerema
(Figure 20.3).
260 Merchant ship type

Figure 20.3 D ockwise Treasure, off Falmouth, England.

DRILLSHIPS

A drillship is a merchant vessel designed for use in exploratory offshore

drilling of new oil and gas wells or for scientific drilling purposes. In most
recent years, the vessels are used in deep-water and ultra-deep-water appli-
cations and are equipped with the latest and most advanced dynamic posi-
tioning systems. The first drillship was the CUSS I, designed by Robert F.
Bauer of Global Marine in 1955. By 1957, the CUSS I had drilled in 121 m
(400 ft) deep waters. In 1961, Global Marine started a new drillship era.
They ordered several self-propelled drillships each with a rated centreline
drilling of 6,096 m (20,000 ft) wells in water depths of 182 m (600 ft). The
first was the 1961 CUSS (Glomar) II, a 5,500 dwt tonne vessel, costing
around US$4.5 million. Built by a Gulf Coast shipyard, the vessel was twice
the size of the CUSS I and became the world’s first purpose-built drillship.
In 1962, the Offshore Company elected to build a new type of drillship,
larger than that of the Glomar class. This new drillship would feature the
first-ever anchor mooring array based on a unique turret system. The vessel
was named Discoverer I. The Discoverer I had no main propulsion engines,
meaning she had to be towed out to the drill site (Figure 20.4).
The drillship can be used as a platform to conduct well maintenance or
completion work such as casing and tubing installation, subsea tree installa-
tions, and well capping. Drillships are often built to the design specifications
set by the oil production company and/or investors. From the first drillship
CUSS I to the Deepwater Asgard, the fleet size has been growing ever since.
In 2013, the worldwide fleet of drillships topped 80 ships, more than double
its size in 2009. Drillships are not only growing but also are becoming capa-
ble of performing innovative technology-assisting operations from academic
 Construction support vessels 261

Figure 20.4 E NSCO DS-6 drillship in the Saronic Gulf, Greece.

research to ice-breaker class drilling vessels. Drillships are just one way to
perform diverse types of offshore drilling. This function can also be per-
formed by semi-submersibles, jack-ups, barges, or platform rigs. Drillships,
however, have the functional ability of semi-submersible drilling rigs and
have a few unique features that separate them from all others. The first fea-
ture is the ship-shaped design. A drillship has greater mobility and can move
quickly under its own propulsion from drill site to drill site in contrast to
semi-submersibles and jack-up barges and platforms. Drillships can also
save time sailing between oilfields worldwide. A typical drillship takes
approximately 20 days to transit from the Gulf of Mexico to the Angola
offshore basin. Comparatively, a semi-submersible drilling unit must be
towed and takes on average 70 days to cover the same distance. Although
drillship construction costs are much higher than that of semi-submersibles,
their utility and mobility ensure drillship owners can charge higher day rates
and get the benefit of lower idle times between assignments. Table 20.1
depicts the industry’s way of classifying drill sites into different vintages,
depending on their age and water depth:
The drilling operations are incredibly detailed and in-depth. A marine
riser is lowered from the drillship to the seabed with a blowout preventer
(BOP) at the bottom that connects to the wellhead. The BOP is used to
quickly disconnect the riser from the wellhead in times of emergency or in
any needed situation. Underneath the derrick is a moonpool, an opening
through the hull covered by the rig floor. Some modern drillships have larger
derricks that allow dual activity operations, for example simultaneous
262 Merchant ship type

Table 20.1 Drill ship vintages

Drillship Launch date Water depth (m; ft)
CUSS I 1961 106.6 m (350 ft)
Discoverer 534 1975 2,133 m (7000 ft)
Enterprise 1999 3,048 m (10,000 ft)
Inspiration 2009 3,657 m (12,000 ft)

drilling and casing handling. All drillships have what is called the moon
pool. The moon pool is an opening on the base of the hull and depending on
the mission the vessel is on, drilling equipment, small submersible crafts and
divers may pass through the moon pool. Since the drillship is also a vessel,
it can easily relocate to any desired location. But due to their mobility,
drillships are not as stable compared to semi-submersible platforms. To
maintain their position, drillships often use their anchors or use the ship’s
computer-controlled system on board to run their dynamic positioning. One
of the world’s renowned drill ships is Japan’s ocean-going drilling vessel the
Chikyū, which is a research vessel. The Chikyū has the remarkable ability to
drill a hole of 4 mi (6.4 km) into the seabed, which brings it to a depth of
4.34 mi [7 km (7,000 m or 23,000 ft)] below the seabed. This is more than
four times that of any other drillship. In 2011, the Transocean drillship the
Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 set the world water-depth record at 3,107 m
(10,194 ft) whilst conducting directional drilling in India.

DREDGERS

Dredging is the excavation of material from a water environment. Reasons

for dredging include improving existing water features; reshaping the land
and water features to alter drainage, navigability, and commercial use;
constructing dams, dikes, and other controls for streams and shorelines;
and recovering valuable mineral deposits or marine life having commercial
value. In all but a few situations, the excavation is undertaken by a specialist
floating plant, known as a dredger. Dredging is conducted in many sepa-
rate locations and for many different purposes, but the main objectives are
usually to recover material of value or use, or to create a greater depth of
water. Dredgers are classified as either suction or mechanical. Dredging has
significant environmental impacts. It can disturb marine sediments, leading
to both short-term and long-term water pollution, destroy important seabed
ecosystems, and can release human-sourced toxins captured in the sediment.
Dredging is a four-part process: (1) loosening the material; (2) bringing the
material to the surface (together extraction); (3) transportation; and (4) dis-
posal. The extract can be disposed of locally or transported by barge or in
a liquid suspension through pipelines. Disposal can be to infill sites, or the
 Construction support vessels 263

material can be used constructively to replenish eroded sand that has been
lost to coastal erosion, or constructively to create seawalls, building land,
or create whole new landforms such as viable islands in coral atolls. Several
ancient authors refer to harbour dredging. The seven arms of the Nile were
channelled, with wharfs built at the time of the pyramids (4000 BC). There
is evidence to suggest that extensive harbour building occurred in the east-
ern Mediterranean from around 1000 BC and the disturbed sediment lay-
ers give evidence of dredging. At Marseille, dredging phases are recorded
from 300 BC onwards, with the most extensive activity occurring during
the first century AD. Moreover, the remains of three dredging boats have
been uncovered; they were abandoned at the bottom of the harbour during
the first and second centuries AD. In modern times, dredging machines were
used during the construction of the Suez Canal in the late 1800s, and have
continued since to the present day, throughout numerous expansions, and
general maintenance. The completion of the Panama Canal in 1914, the
most expensive U.S. engineering project at the time, relied extensively on
dredging.
Chapter 21

Icebreakers

An icebreaker is a special-purpose ship or boat designed to move and navi-

gate through ice-covered waters and provides safe waterways for other boats
and ships. Although the term usually refers to ice-breaking ships, it may also
refer to smaller vessels, such as the icebreaking boats that were once used on
the canals of the UK. For a ship to be considered an icebreaker, it requires
three traits that most normal ships lack: a strengthened hull, an ice-clearing
shape, and the power to push through sea ice. Icebreakers work by clearing
paths through frozen-over water or pack ice. The bending strength of sea ice
is low enough that the ice breaks usually without a noticeable change in the
vessel’s trim. In cases of very thick ice, an icebreaker can drive its bow onto
the ice to break it under the weight of the ship. A build-up of broken ice in
front of a ship can slow it down much more than the breaking of the ice
itself, so icebreakers have a specially designed hull to direct the broken ice
around or under the vessel. The external components of the ship’s propul-
sion system (propellers, propeller shafts, etc.) are at a greater risk of damage
than the vessel’s hull, so the ability of an icebreaker to propel itself onto the
ice, break it, and clear the debris from its path successfully is essential for
its safety.
Prior to ocean-going ships, ice-breaking technology was developed on
inland canals and rivers using labourers with axes and hooks. The first
recorded primitive icebreaker ship was a barge used by the Belgium town of
Bruges in 1383 to help clear the town moat. The efforts of the ice-breaking
barge were successful enough to warrant the town purchasing four such
ships. Ice-breaking barges were continuously used during the colder winters
of the Little Ice Age with growing use in the Low Country where a signifi-
cant amount of trade and transport of people and goods took place. Over
the course of the 15th century, the use of ice breakers in Flanders
(Oudenaarde, Kortrijk, Leper, Veurne, Diksmuide, and Hulst) was readily
established. The use of the ice-breaking barges expanded throughout the
17th century where every town of some importance in the Low Country
used some form of icebreaker to keep their waterways clear. Prior to the

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-26 265

266 Merchant ship types

17th century, the specifications of icebreakers are unknown. The specifica-

tions for ice-breaking vessels show that they were dragged by teams of
horses and the heavy weight of the ship was pushed down on the ice break-
ing it. They were used in conjunction with teams of men with axes and saws,
and the technology behind them did not change much until the Industrial
Revolution (1760–1840).
Ice-strengthened ships were used in the earliest days of polar exploration.
These were originally wooden and based on existing designs, but reinforced,
particularly around the waterline with double planking to the hull and
strengthening cross members inside the ship. Bands of iron were wrapped
around the outside. Sometimes, metal sheeting was placed at the bows, at the
stern, and along the keel. Such strengthening was designed to help the ship
push through ice and to protect the ship in case it was ‘nipped’ by the ice.
Nipping occurs when ice floes around a ship are pushed against the ship,
trapping it as if in a vice, causing damage. This vice-like action is caused by
the force of winds and tides acting on the ice formations. The first boats to
be used in the polar waters were those of the Indigenous Arctic people. Their
kayaks were small human-powered boats with a covered deck, and one or
more cockpits, each seating one paddler who stroked a single or dou-
ble-bladed paddle. Such boats, of course, had no icebreaking capabilities,
but they were light and fitted well to be carried over the ice. In the ninth and
10th centuries, the Vikings expanded throughout the north of Europe, even-
tually North Atlantic, and eventually crossing to Greenland and Svalbard in
the Arctic. The Vikings, however, were fortunate in that they operated their
ships in waters that were ice-free for most of the year, on account of the
conditions of the Medieval Warm Period. In the 11th century, in North
Russia, the coasts of the White Sea, named so for being ice-covered for over
half of the year, started being settled. The mixed ethnic group of the Karelians
and the Russians in the North-Russia that lived on the shores of the Arctic
Ocean became known as Pomors (‘seaside settlers’). Gradually, they devel-
oped a special type of small one- or two-mast wooden sailing ships, used for
voyages in the icy conditions of the Arctic seas, and later, on the Siberian
rivers. These earliest icebreakers were called Kochi. The Kochi’s hull was
protected by a belt of ice-floe resistant, flush skin-planking along the varia-
ble waterline and had a false keel for on-ice portage. If a Koch became
squeezed by the ice-fields, its rounded bodylines below the water-line would
allow for the ship to be pushed up out of the water and onto the ice with
minimal damage.
In the 19th century, similar protective measures were adopted to modern
steam-powered icebreakers. Some notable sailing ships at the end of the
Age of Sail also featured the egg-shaped form like that of the Pomor boats,
for example, the Fram, used by Fridtjof Nansen and other Norwegian Polar
explorers. Fram was the first wooden ship to sail the farthest north
(85°57′N) and farthest south (78°41′S). As such, she was one of the
 Icebreakers 267

strongest wooden ships ever built. An early ship designed to operate in icy
conditions was the 51 m (167 ft) wooden paddle steamer, City Ice Boat
No.1, which was built for the city of Philadelphia by Vandusen & Birelyn
in 1837. The ship was powered by two 250 horsepower (190 kW) steam
engines and her wooden paddles were reinforced with iron coverings. With
a rounded shape and strong metal hull, the Pilot of 1864 was an important
predecessor of modern icebreakers with propellers. The ship was built on
the orders of the merchant and shipbuilder Mikhail Britnev. She had the
bow altered to achieve an ice-clearing capability (20 degree raise from the
keel line). This allowed the Pilot to push herself on the top of the ice and
consequently break it. Britnev fashioned the bow of his ship after the shape
of old Pomor boats, which had been navigating icy waters of the White Sea
and the Barents Sea for centuries. The Pilot was used between 1864 and
1890 for navigation in the Gulf of Finland between Kronstadt and
Oranienbaum, thus extending the summer navigation season by several
weeks. Inspired by the success of Pilot, Mikhail Britnev built a second sim-
ilar vessel Boy (English: Breakage) in 1875 and a third Booy (English:
Buoy) in 1889. The freezing winter of 1870–1871 caused the Elbe River
and the port of Hamburg to freeze over, causing a prolonged halt to navi-
gation and huge commercial losses. Carl Ferdinand Steinhaus reused the
altered bow of the Pilot’s design by Britnev to make his own icebreaker,
Eisbrecher I.
The first true modern sea-going icebreaker was built at the turn of the
20th century. This vessel was the icebreaker Yermak, which was built in
1897 at the Armstrong Whitworth naval yard in England under contract
from the Imperial Russian Navy. The ship borrowed the main principles
from Pilot and applied them to the creation of the first polar icebreaker,
which was able to run over and crush pack ice. The ship displaced 5,000
tonnes, and its steam-reciprocating engines delivered 10,000 horsepower
(7,500 kW). The ship was decommissioned in 1963 and was scrapped in
1964, making it one of the longest-serving icebreakers in history. At the
beginning of the 20th century, several other countries began to operate
purpose-built icebreakers. Most were coastal icebreakers, but Canada,
Russia, and later, the Soviet Union, also built several oceangoing icebreak-
ers up to 11,000 tonnes in displacement. Before the first diesel-electric ice-
breakers were built in the 1930s, icebreakers were either coal- or oil-fired
steamships. Reciprocating steam engines were preferred in icebreakers due
to their reliability, robustness, good torque characteristics, and ability to
reverse the direction of rotation quickly. During the steam era, the most
powerful pre-war steam-powered icebreakers had a propulsion power of
about 10,000 shaft horsepower (7,500 kW). The world’s first diesel-electric
icebreaker was the 4,330 tonne Swedish icebreaker Ymer in 1933. At
9,000 hp (6,700 kW) divided between two propellers in the stern and one
propeller in the bow, she remained the most powerful Swedish icebreaker
268 Merchant ship types

Figure 21.1 U SCG Polar Sea.

until the commissioning of Oden in 1957. Ymer was followed by the

Finnish Sisu, the first diesel-electric icebreaker in Finland, in 1939. Both
vessels were decommissioned in the 1970s and replaced by much larger
icebreakers in both countries, the 1976-built Sisu in Finland and the 1977-
built Ymer in Sweden (Figure 21.1).
In 1941, the US started building the Wind class icebreaker. Research in
Scandinavia and the Soviet Union led to a design that had a very strongly
built short and wide hull, with a cutaway forefoot and a rounded bottom.
Powerful diesel-electric machinery drove two stern and one auxiliary bow
propeller. These features would become the standard for post-war ice-
breakers until the 1980s. Since the mid-1970s, the most powerful die-
sel-electric icebreakers have been the formerly Soviet and later Russian
icebreakers Ermak, Admiral Makarov, and Krasin, which each have nine
12-cylinder diesel generators producing electricity for three propulsion
motors with a combined output of 26,500 kW (35,500 hp). In the 2020s,
these will be surpassed by the new Canadian polar icebreaker, CCGS John
G. Diefenbaker, which will have a combined propulsion power of 36,000
kW (48,000 hp). In Canada, diesel-electric icebreakers started to be built
in 1952, starting with the HMCS Labrador (which was transferred later to
 Icebreakers 269

the Canadian Coast Guard), using the USCG Wind-class design but with-
out the bow propeller. Then in 1960, the next step in the Canadian devel-
opment of large icebreakers came when CCGS John A. Macdonald was
completed at Lauzon, Quebec. A bigger and more powerful ship than the
HMCS Labrador, CCGS John A. Macdonald was an ocean-going ice-
breaker able to meet the most rigorous polar conditions. Her diesel-elec-
tric machinery of 15,000 horsepower (11,000 kW) was arranged in three
units transmitting power equally to each of the three shafts. Canada’s larg-
est and most powerful icebreaker, the 120 m (390 ft) CCGS Louis S.
St-Laurent, was delivered in 1969. Her original three steam turbine, nine
generator, and three electric motor system produced some 27,000 shaft
horsepower (20,000 kW). A multi-year mid-life refit project (1987–1993)
saw the ship receive a new bow and a new propulsion system. The new
power plant consists of five diesels, three generators, and three electric
motors, providing the same propulsion power. On 22 August 1994, Louis
S. St-Laurent and USCGC Polar Sea became the first North American sur-
face vessels to reach the North Pole. The vessel was originally scheduled to
be decommissioned in 2000; however, a refit extended the decommission-
ing date to 2017. It is now planned to be kept in service through the 2020s
pending the introduction of a new class of polar icebreakers for the Coast
Guard.

NUCLEAR ICEBREAKERS

Russia currently operates all existing and functioning nuclear-powered

icebreakers. The first one, NS Lenin, was launched in 1957 and entered
operation in 1959, before being officially decommissioned in 1989.
It was both the world’s first nuclear-powered surface ship and the first
nuclear-powered civilian vessel. The second Soviet nuclear icebreaker was
NS Arktika, the lead ship of the Arktika class. In service since 1975, she
was the first surface ship to reach the North Pole, on 17 August 1977.
Several nuclear-powered icebreakers were also built outside the Soviet
Union. Two shallow-draft Taymyr class nuclear icebreakers were built
in Finland for the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. In May 2007, sea tri-
als were completed for the nuclear-powered Russian icebreaker NS 50
Let Pobedy. The vessel was put into service by the Murmansk Shipping
Company, which manages all eight Russian state-owned nuclear icebreak-
ers. The keel was originally laid in 1989 by Baltic Works of Leningrad, and
the ship was launched in 1993 as NS Ural. This icebreaker was intended
to be the sixth and last of the Arktika class and is currently the world’s
largest icebreaker (Figure 21.2).
270 Merchant ship types

Figure 21.2 R ussian nuclear icebreaker Arktika.

FUNCTION

Today, most icebreakers are needed to keep trade routes open where there
are either seasonal or permanent ice conditions. While the merchant vessels
calling ports in these regions are strengthened for navigation on ice, they
are usually not powerful enough to manage the ice by themselves. For this
reason, in the Baltic Sea, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and
along the Northern Sea Route, the main function of icebreakers is to escort
convoys of one or more ships safely through ice-filled waters. When a ship
becomes immobilised by ice, the icebreaker must free it by breaking the ice
surrounding the ship and, if necessary, open a safe passage through the ice
field. In difficult ice conditions, the icebreaker can also tow the weakest ships.
Some icebreakers are also used to support scientific research in the Arctic
and Antarctic. In addition to icebreaking capability, the ships need to have
good open-water characteristics for transit to and from the polar regions,
facilities and accommodation for the scientific personnel, and cargo capacity
for supplying research stations on the shore. Countries such as Argentina
and South Africa, which do not require icebreakers in domestic waters, have
research icebreakers for conducting studies in the polar regions. As offshore
drilling moves to the Arctic seas, icebreaking vessels are needed to supply
cargo and equipment to the drilling sites and protect the drillships and oil
platforms from ice by performing ice management, which includes, for exam-
ple, breaking drifting ice into smaller floes and steering icebergs away from
the protected asset. In the past, such operations were conducted primarily
in North America, but today, Arctic offshore drilling and oil production is
 Icebreakers 271

also going on in various parts of the Russian Arctic. The US Coast Guard
uses icebreakers to help conduct search and rescue missions in the icy, polar
oceans. US icebreakers serve to defend economic interests and maintain the
presence of United States in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. As the icecaps
in the Arctic continue to melt, there are more passageways being discovered.
These navigation routes cause an increase of interests in the polar hemi-
spheres from countries all over the world. The US polar icebreakers must
continue to support scientific research in the expanding Arctic and Antarctic
oceans. Every year, a heavy icebreaker must perform Operation Deep Freeze,
clearing a safe path for resupply ships to the National Science Foundation’s
facility, McMurdo, in Antarctica. The most recent multi-month excursion
was led by the Polar Star, which escorted a container and fuel ship through
treacherous conditions before maintaining the channel free of ice. Without a
heavy icebreaker, America would not be able to continue its polar research
in Antarctica, as there would be no way to reach the science foundation.

CHARACTERISTICS

Icebreakers are often described as ships that drive their sloping bows onto the
ice and break it under the weight of the ship. This only happens in very thick
ice where the icebreaker will proceed at a walking pace or may even have to
repeatedly back down several ship lengths and ram the ice pack at full power.
More commonly the ice, which has a low flexural strength, is easily broken
and submerged under the hull without a noticeable change in the icebreak-
er’s trim while the vessel moves forward at a high and constant speed. When
an icebreaker is designed, one of the main goals is to minimise the forces
resulting from crushing, breaking the ice, and submerging the broken floes
under the vessel. The average value of the longitudinal components of these
instantaneous forces is called the ship’s ice resistance. Naval architects who
design icebreakers use the so-called h-v-curve to determine the icebreaking
capability of the vessel. It shows the speed (v) that the ship can achieve as a
function of ice thickness (h). This is done by calculating the velocity at which
the thrust from the propellers equals the combined hydrodynamic and ice
resistance of the vessel. An alternative means to determine the icebreaking
capability of a vessel in different ice conditions such as pressure ridges is
to perform model tests in an ice tank. Regardless of the method, the actual
performance of new icebreakers is verified in full-scale ice trials once the
ship has been built. To minimise the icebreaking forces, the hull lines of an
icebreaker are usually designed so that the flare at the waterline is as small
as possible. As a result, icebreaking ships are characterised by a sloping or
rounded stem as well as sloping sides and a short parallel midship to improve
manoeuverability in ice. However, the spoon-shaped bow and round hull have
poor hydrodynamic efficiency and seakeeping characteristics and make the
icebreaker susceptible to slamming, or the impacting of the bottom structure
of the ship onto the sea surface. For this reason, the hull of an icebreaker is
272 Merchant ship types

often a compromise between minimum ice resistance, manoeuverability in

ice, low hydrodynamic resistance, and adequate open water characteristics.
Some icebreakers have a hull that is wider in the bow than in the stern.
These so-called ‘reamers’ increase the width of the ice channel and thus
reduce frictional resistance in the aft section as well as improve the ship’s
manoeuverability in ice. In addition to low friction paint, some icebreakers
use an explosion-welded abrasion-resistant stainless steel ice belt that further
reduces friction and protects the ship’s hull from corrosion. Auxiliary sys-
tems such as powerful water deluges and air bubbling systems are used to
reduce friction by forming a lubricating layer between the hull and the ice.
Pumping water between tanks on both sides of the vessel results in continu-
ous rolling that reduces friction and makes progress through the ice easier.
Experimental bow designs such as the flat Thyssen-Waas bow and a cylindri-
cal bow have been tried over the years to further reduce the ice resistance
and create an ice-free channel.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Icebreakers and other ships operating in ice-filled waters require additional

structural strengthening against various loads resulting from the contact
between the hull of the vessel and the surrounding ice. As ice pressures
vary between different regions of the hull, the most reinforced areas in the
hull of an ice-going vessel are the bow, which experiences the highest ice
loads, and around the waterline, with additional strengthening both above
and below the waterline to form a continuous ice belt around the ship.
Short and stubby icebreakers are built using transverse framing in which
the shell plating is stiffened with frames placed about 400–1,000 mm (1–3
ft) apart as opposed to longitudinal framing used in longer ships. Near the
waterline, the frames running in a vertical direction distribute the locally
concentrated ice loads on the shell plating to longitudinal girders called
stringers, which in turn are supported by web frames and bulkheads that
carry the more spread-out hull loads. While the shell plating, which is in
direct contact with the ice, can be up to 50 mm (2 in) thick in older polar
icebreakers, the use of high-strength steel with yield strength up to 500 MPa
(73,000 psi) in modern icebreakers results in the same structural strength
with smaller material thicknesses and lower steel weight. Regardless of
the strength, the steel used in the hull structures of an icebreaker must
be capable of resisting brittle fracture in low ambient temperatures and
high loading conditions, both of which are typical for operations in ice-
filled waters. If built according to the rules set by a classification society
such as the American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas or Lloyd’s
Register, icebreakers may be assigned an ice class based on the level of ice
strengthening in the ship’s hull. It is usually determined by the maximum
ice thickness where the ship is expected to operate and other requirements
 Icebreakers 273

Figure 21.3 R ussian icebreaker Tor.

such as limitations on ramming. While the ice class is generally an indica-

tion of the level of ice strengthening, not the actual icebreaking capability
of an icebreaker, some classification societies such as the Russian Maritime
Register of Shipping have operational capability requirements for certain
ice classes. Since the 2000s, the International Association of Classification
Societies (IACS) has proposed adopting a unified system known as the
Polar Class (PC) to replace classification society-specific ice class notations
(Figure 21.3).

POWER AND PROPULSION

Since World War II, most icebreakers have been built with diesel-electric pro-
pulsion in which diesel engines coupled to generators produce electricity for
propulsion motors that turn the fixed pitch propellers. The first diesel-electric
icebreakers were built with direct current (DC) generators and propulsion
motors, but over the years, the technology advanced first to alternating cur-
rent (AC) generators and finally to frequency-controlled AC-AC systems. In
modern diesel-electric icebreakers, the propulsion system is built according
to the power plant principle in which the main generators supply electricity
for all onboard consumers and no auxiliary engines are needed. Although
the diesel-electric powertrain is the preferred choice for icebreakers due to
the good low-speed torque characteristics of the electric propulsion motors,
icebreakers have also been built with diesel engines mechanically coupled
274 Merchant ship types

to reduction gearboxes and controllable pitch propellers. The mechanical

powertrain has several advantages over diesel-electric propulsion systems,
such as lower weight and better fuel efficiency. However, diesel engines are
sensitive to sudden changes in propeller revolutions, and to counter this,
mechanical powertrains are usually fitted with large flywheels or hydro-
dynamic couplings to absorb the torque variations resulting from propel-
ler-ice interaction. The 1969-built Canadian polar icebreaker CCGS Louis
S. St-Laurent was one of the few icebreakers fitted with steam boilers and
turbogenerators that produced power for three electric propulsion motors.
It was later refitted with five diesel engines, which provide better fuel econ-
omy than steam turbines. Later, Canadian icebreakers were built with diesel-
electric powertrains. Two PC icebreakers operated by the US Coast Guard
have a combined diesel-electric and mechanical propulsion system that con-
sists of six diesel engines and three gas turbines. While the diesel engines
are coupled to generators that produce power for three propulsion motors,
the gas turbines are directly coupled to the propeller shafts driving control-
lable pitch propellers. The diesel-electric power plant can produce up to
13,000 kW (18,000 hp), while the gas turbines have a continuous combined
rating of 45,000 kW (60,000 hp).
The number, type, and location of the propellers depend on the power,
draft, and intended purpose of the vessel. Smaller icebreakers and icebreak-
ing special purpose ships may be able to do with just one propeller while
large polar icebreakers typically need up to three large propellers to absorb
all power and deliver enough thrust. Some shallow draught river icebreakers
have been built with four propellers in the stern. Nozzles may be used to
increase the thrust at lower speeds, but they may become clogged by ice.
Until the 1980s, icebreakers operating regularly in ridged ice fields in the
Baltic Sea were fitted with the first one and later two bow propellers to cre-
ate a powerful flush along the hull of the vessel. This increased the icebreak-
ing capability of the vessels by reducing the friction between the hull and the
ice and allowed the icebreakers to penetrate thick ice ridges without ram-
ming. However, the bow propellers are not suitable for polar icebreakers
operating in the presence of harder multi-year ice and thus have not been
used in the Arctic. Azimuth thrusters remove the need of traditional propel-
lers and rudders by having the propellers in steerable gondolas that can
rotate 360 degrees around a vertical axis. These thrusters improve propul-
sion efficiency, icebreaking capability, and manoeuverability of the vessel.
The use of azimuth thrusters also allows a ship to move astern in ice without
losing manoeuverability. This has led to the development of double-acting
ships, vessels with the stern shaped like an icebreaker’s bow, and the bow
designed for open water performance. In this way, the ship remains econom-
ical to operate in open water without compromising its ability to operate in
difficult ice conditions. Azimuth thrusters have also made it possible to
develop new experimental icebreakers that operate sideways to open a wide
channel through the ice.
 Icebreakers 275

POLAR CLASS ICEBREAKERS

As mentioned above, PC refers to the ice class assigned to a ship by a classi-

fication society based on the Unified Requirements for PC Ships developed
by the IACS. Seven PCs are defined in the rules, ranging from PC1 for year-
round operation in all polar waters to PC7 for summer and autumn oper-
ation in thin first-year ice. The IACS PC rules should not be confused with
the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code)
mandated by the IMO. The development of the PC rules began in the 1990s
with an international effort to harmonise the requirements for marine oper-
ations in the polar waters to protect life, property, and the environment.
The guidelines developed by the IMO, which were later incorporated in the
Polar Code, referred to the compliance with Unified Requirements for Polar
Ships developed by the IACS. In May 1996, an ‘Ad-Hoc Group to establish
Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR)’ was established with one
working group concentrating on the structural requirements and another
working on machinery-related issues. The first IACS PC rules were pub-
lished in 2007. Prior to the development of the unified requirements, each
classification society had its own set of ice class rules ranging from Baltic
ice classes intended for operation in first-year ice to higher vessel categories,
including icebreakers, intended for operations in polar waters. When devel-
oping the upper and lower boundaries for the PCs, it was agreed that the
highest Polar Class vessels (PC1) should be capable of operating safely any-
where in the Arctic or the Antarctic waters at any time of the year, while the
lower boundary was set to existing tonnage operating during the summer
season, most of which followed the Baltic ice classes with some upgrades
and additions. The lowest PC (PC7) was thus set to a similar level to the
Finnish-Swedish ice class 1A. The definition of operational conditions for
each PC was intentionally left vague due to the wide variety of ship opera-
tions conducted in polar waters (Figure 21.4).

Polar class notations

IACS has established seven different PC notations, ranging from PC1 (the
highest) to PC7 (the lowest), with each level corresponding to the opera-
tional capability and strength of the vessel. The descriptions given in the
rules are intended to guide owners, designers, and administrations in select-
ing the appropriate PC to match the intended voyage or service of the vessel.
Ships with sufficient power and strength to undertake ‘aggressive operations
in ice-covered waters’, such as escort and ice management operations, can
be assigned an additional notation ‘Icebreaker’. The lowest PCs (PC6 and
PC7) are equivalent to the two highest Finnish-Swedish ice classes (1A Super
and 1A, respectively). However, unlike the Baltic ice classes intended for
operation only in first-year sea ice, even the lowest PCs consider the possi-
bility of encountering multi-year ice (‘) (Table 21.1).
276 Merchant ship types

Figure 21.4 J apanese icebreaker Shirase.

Table 21.1 IACS polar class notations

Polar class Ice description (based on WMO sea ice nomenclature)
PC 1 Year-round operation in all polar waters
PC 2 Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions
Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice
PC 3
inclusions
Year-round operation in thick first-year ice, which may include old ice
PC 4
inclusions
Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice
PC 5
inclusions
Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice, which may include
PC 6
old ice inclusions
Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice, which may include old ice
PC 7
inclusions

Requirements
In the PC rules, the hull of the vessel is divided longitudinally into four
regions: the bow, the bow intermediate, the midbody, and the stern. All lon-
gitudinal regions except the bow are further divided vertically into the bot-
tom, the lower, and the ice belt regions. For each region, a design ice load
is calculated based on the dimensions, hull geometry, and ice class of the
vessel. This ice load is then used to determine the scantlings and steel grades
of structural elements such as shell plating and frames in each location.
 Icebreakers 277

The design scenario used to determine the ice loads is a glancing impact
with ice. In addition to structural details, the PC rules have requirements for
machinery systems such as the main propulsion, steering gear, and systems
essential for the safety of the crew and survivability of the vessel. For exam-
ple, propeller-ice interaction should be considered in the propeller design,
cooling systems and seawater inlets should be designed to work also in ice-
covered waters, and the ballast tanks should be provided with effective
means of preventing freezing. Although the rules require the ships to have
suitable hull form and sufficient propulsion power to operate independently
and at continuous speed in ice conditions corresponding to their PC, the
ice-going capability requirements of the vessel are not clearly defined in
terms of speed or ice thickness. In practice, this means that the PC of the
vessel does reflect the actual icebreaking capability of the vessel.

POLAR CLASS SHIPS

The IACS PC rules apply for ships contracted for construction on or after
1 July 2007. This means that while the vessels built prior to this date may
have an equivalent or even a higher level of ice strengthening, they are not
officially assigned a PC and may not in fact fulfil all the requirements in the
unified requirements. In addition, particularly Russian ships and icebreakers
are assigned ice classes only according to the requirements of the Russian
Maritime Register of Shipping, which maintains its own ice class rules par-
allel to the IACS PC rules.

Polar Class 5 and below

Although several ships have been built to the two lowest PCs (such as the
Peruvian PC7 Carrasco), corresponding to the two highest Baltic ice classes,
there are only a handful of vessels assigned ice class PC5 or higher. While
the 2012-built drillship Stena IceMAX has a hull strengthened according
to PC4 requirements, the vessel is not capable of independent operation
in ice and has ice class PC6. The South African polar research vessel S. A.
Agulhas II, also delivered in 2012, was the first ice-capable vessel built to
ice class PC5. In 2012, the Royal Canadian Navy awarded a contract to
construct several offshore patrol vessels, the Harry DeWolf class offshore
patrol vessel, with a hull designed to meet PC5+ requirements. Eight ships
were planned to be built, six for the navy, and two for the Canadian Coast
Guard. The first ship was commissioned in 2021.

Polar Class 4
The Canadian-flagged icebreaking bulk carrier Nunavik, operated by
Fednav and used to transport copper and nickel from the Nunavik Nickel
278 Merchant ship types

Project, was built to ice class PC4 in 2014. The Finnish icebreaker Polaris
was built in 2016 to the same ice-class with additional Lloyd’s Register class
notation ‘Icebreaker (+)’ where the last part refers to additional structural
strengthening based on analysis of the vessel’s operational profile and poten-
tial ice loading scenarios. RRS Sir David Attenborough, operated by British
Antarctic Survey, has a PC4 hull and a PC5 propulsion system.

Polar Class 3
The Netherlands-based ZPMC-Red Box Energy Services operates two PC3
class deck cargo ships, Audax and Pugnax, both of which were built in
2016. The Norwegian icebreaking polar research vessel, Kronprins Haakon
and the Chinese Research Vessel, Xue Long 2 are both rated PC3. The
Australian Icebreaker, RSV Nuyina, is rated PC3 Icebreaker (+).

Polar Class 2 and above

In December 2017, the French cruise ship operator Compagnie du Ponant
announced an order for an icebreaking PC2 ice class cruise ship capable of
taking tourists to the North Pole. The vessel was delivered in July 2021. By
late 2021, the US Coast Guard had ordered two out of three planned heavy
polar icebreakers referred to as Polar Security Cutters with a PC2 rating.
The proposed Canadian polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard,
CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, is designed to ice class PC2 Icebreaker (+) class
standards.
As of 2022, no ships have been built to PC1, the highest ice class specified
by IACS.
Chapter 22

Offshore support vessels

Offshore vessels (OSVs) are ships that specifically serve operational pur-
poses such as oil exploration and construction work out at sea. There are a
variety of OSVs, which not only help in the exploration and drilling of oil
and gas but also for providing necessary supplies for offshore installations
such as food and fresh water, machinery and replacements, chemicals, mud,
and a variety of other products that are needed to keep the offshore oil and
gas industry operating. Offshore ships also provide services delivering and
relieving personnel to and from the platforms. As mentioned above, OSVs
are a collective of many diverse types of vessels, though they can be classi-
fied into the following main categories:

• Oil exploration and drilling vessels;

• Offshore support vessels;
• Offshore production vessels; and
• Construction/Special purpose vessels.

Each of these categories comprises a variety of vessels. For example, oil

exploration vessels, as the name suggests, help in the exploration and drill-
ing of offshore oil and gas. The main types of exploration vessels are drill
ships, jack-up vessels, semi-submersible vessels, offshore barges, floating
platforms, and tenders. Certain OSVs provide the necessary manpower and
technical reinforcement required so that the operational processes of these
platforms continue smoothly and without interruption. These vessels are
referred to as offshore support vessels or offshore supply vessels. Offshore
supply vessels transport the required structural components to the desig-
nated offshore sector along as well as supply freight and personnel. The
constructional aspect of these vessels is purpose-built to suit specific oper-
ational demands, for example, having a helicopter landing deck or a fully
manoeuverable gear (crane). Some of the main types of offshore support
vessels are as follows:

• Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) vessels;

• Seismic vessel;

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-27 279

280 Merchant ship type

• Platform supply vessels (PSVs);

• Well intervention vessels;
• Accommodation ships; and
• Offshore production vessels.

Offshore production vessels refer to those vessels that help in the produc-
tion process conducted by drilling units. FPSOs, which we covered ear-
lier, are an excellent example of ships that can be used in the production
of offshore oil and gas. In addition to FPSOs, some of the other types of
vessels included in this category are single point anchor reservoir (SPAR)
platforms, shuttle tankers, and tension leg platforms (TLPs). Ships that pri-
marily aid in the construction of various high seas structures are referred
to as offshore construction vessels (OCVs). Other OSVs of these type also
include those that provide anchorage and tugging assistance and those
types of ships that help in the positioning of deep sub-water cable and pip-
ing lines. These vessels include diving support vessels (DSVs), crane vessels
(CVs), and pipe laying vessels (PLVs). In addition to these, those ships that
provide aid in case of emergencies at sea and those types of vessels that
undertake research and analysis activities are also included in the OSV cat-
egory. The ever-growing need to explore and suitably harness the valuable
commodities beneath the seabed has led to substantial growth in the need
and demand for offshore ships. Coupled with the advantages of scientific
research and technological advancement in offshore maritime technology,
the present-day fleet of OSVs is a clear portrayal of the huge strides taken
by the maritime sector.

PLATFORM SUPPORT VESSELS

Platform supply vessels (PSVs) are a type of ship specially designed to sup-
ply offshore oil and gas platforms. These ships range from 50 to 100 m
(160–330 ft) in length and accomplish a variety of tasks. The primary func-
tion of most of these vessels is logistic support and transportation of goods,
tools, equipment, and personnel to and from offshore oil platforms and
other offshore structures. In recent years, a new generation of PSVs entered
the market, usually equipped with Class 1 or Class 2 dynamic position-
ing systems. Military applications are also under development as with the
Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System. PSVs belong to the broad category
of OSVs that include PSVs, CVs and well stimulation vessels (WSVs), anchor
handling tug supply vessels (AHTS), and OCVs. Larger OSVs have extensive
sophisticated equipment, including remotely operated underwater vehicles
(ROVs), and tend to accommodate a larger number of personnel, often in
excess of 100 people. A primary function of the PSV is to transport supplies
to the oil platform and return other cargoes to the shore. Cargo tanks for
drilling mud, pulverised cement, diesel fuel, potable and non-potable water,
 Offshore support vessels 281

and chemicals used in the drilling process comprise the bulk of the cargo
spaces. Fuel, water, and chemicals are always required by oil platforms.
Certain other chemicals must be returned to shore for proper recycling or
disposal; however, crude oil product from the rig is usually not a supply
vessel cargo. Common and specialty tools are transported on the large decks
of these vessels. Most carry a combination of deck cargoes and bulk cargo
in tanks below the deck. Many ships are constructed (or re-fitted) to accom-
plish a particular job. Some of these vessels are equipped with a firefight-
ing capability and fire monitors for fighting platform fires. Some vessels
are equipped with oil containment and recovery equipment to assist in the
clean-up of a spill at sea. Other vessels are equipped with tools, chemicals,
and personnel to ‘work over’ existing oil wells for the purpose of increasing
the wells’ production (Figure 22.1).
The crew on these ships can number up to 36 members, depending on the
size, working area, and whether the vessel is DP equipped or not. CVs and
drillships often have 100–200 people on board including a resolute project
team. Crews sign on to work and live aboard the ship for an extended
period, which is often followed by a similar period of shore leave. Depending
on the ship’s owner or operator, the time on board varies from 1 to 3 months
with 1 month off. Work details on PSVs, like many ships, are organised into
shifts of up to 12 hours. Living on board the ship, each crew member and
worker will have at least a 12-hour shift, lasting some portion of a 24-hour
day. Supply vessels are provided with a ‘bridge’ area for navigating and
operating the ship, machinery spaces, living quarters, galley, and mess room.

Figure 22.1 O
 ffshore support vessel Balder Viking, arriving Aberdeen Harbour,
Scotland.
282 Merchant ship type

Some have built-in work areas and communal areas for entertainment. The
large main deck area may sometimes be used for portable housing. Living
quarters consist of cabins, lockers, offices, and spaces for storing personal
items. Living areas are provided with wash basins, showers, and toilets. The
galley or cooking and eating areas on board ship will not only be stocked
with enough supplies to last the intended voyage but also with the ability to
store provisions for several more months if required. A walk-in size cooler
and freezer, a commercial stove and oven, deep sinks, storage, and counter
space are available for the crew member responsible for food preparation
and cooking. Eating areas typically have coffee machines, toasters, micro-
wave ovens, cafeteria-style seating, and other amenities needed to feed a
diligent crew in often difficult conditions.

ANCHOR HANDLING TUG SUPPLY VESSELS

Anchor handling tug supply (AHTS) vessels are built to manage anchors
for oil rigs, tow them to locations, and use them to secure the rigs in place.
AHTS vessels sometimes also serve as emergency response and rescue ves-
sels (ERRVs) and as supply transports. Many of these vessels are designed to
meet the harsh conditions of the North Sea and can undertake supply duties
between land bases and drilling sites. They also provide towing assistance
during tanker loading, deep water anchor handling, and towing of threat-
ening objects. AHTS vessels differ from PSVs in being fitted with winches
for towing and anchor handling, having an open stern to allow the deck-
ing of anchors, and having more power to increase the bollard pull. The
machinery is specifically designed for anchor handling operations. They also
have arrangements for quick anchor release, which is operable from the
bridge or other normally manned location in direct communication with
the bridge. The reference load used in the design and testing of the towing
winch is twice the static bollard pull. Even if AHTS vessels are customised
for anchor-handling and towing, they can also undertake, for example, ROV
(remotely operated underwater vehicle) services, safety and rescue services,
and supply duties between mainland and offshore installations. During
anchor handling operations, the heavy machinery and related equipment
are repeatedly pushed to their extreme limits in very hostile environments.
This means breakdowns do happen, although not frequently. Because of
rough seas, it is common for the vessel to inadvertently brush against the
installation, or to push up against the high-tension wires and chains. AHTS
are purpose-built with strengthened hulls and are completely different from
typical harbour tugs, and even ocean-going tugs. The latest anchor handling
tugs are designed to withstand the toughest maritime conditions, keeping in
mind safety, comfort, and crew effectiveness. This makes them the superior
choice for operations in remote offshore oil and gas fields. All AHTS vessels
have certain attributes and characteristics in common, including:
 Offshore support vessels 283

• A superior bollard pull and a higher engine rating (BHP), which makes
them powerful enough for specialised jobs such as anchor handling;
• A combination of multiple thrusters (bow and stern) with twin-screw
CPP systems, providing excellent vessel handling features that allow
such vessels to work in almost any sea condition;
• A large volume of strengthened deck space astern of the accommoda-
tion areas allows even the largest of the anchors, heavy wires, chains,
buoys, and other related equipment to be stowed and overseen.
• An extremely powerful multi-drum system catering twin winches, one
each for towing and anchor handling purposes. These are separate
from the combination of other spare drums and work winches used
especially for towing and deep-water anchor handling.
• Sufficient anchor chains can be stowed on board these vessels due to
the availability of larger capacity chain lockers.

Despite their name, AHTS are multipurpose vessels that can even perform
the duties of ordinary PSVs, such as carrying large quantity of water, fuel,
and deck cargo. Similarly, the AHTS vessels can be used in many of the
diverse applications required of support ships servicing the offshore oil
and gas industry. As well as performing towing operations, rig moves, and
anchor work for rigs, semi-submersibles, and construction barges, AHTS
vessels execute general supply duties by carrying dry and liquid cargo such
as cement, mud, fresh water, and fuel oil. If ocean-going tugs are not read-
ily available, then the AHTS vessels can be used instead for such duties as
salvaging and rescue. Today, AHTS are progressively being used for towing
and anchor handling of newer offshore structures such as the tension leg
platforms (TLPs) and gravity-based platforms (Figure 22.2).

Figure 22.2 A nchor handling tugs at Scrabster, Scotland.

284 Merchant ship type

DIVING SUPPORT VESSELS

A diving support vessel is a type of offshore ship that is used as a floating base
for professional diving projects. Commercial diving support vessels emerged
during the 1960s and 1970s, when the need arose for offshore diving opera-
tions to be performed below and around oil production platforms and asso-
ciated installations in open water in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.
Until that point, most diving operations were carried out from mobile oil
drilling platforms, pipe-lay, or crane barges. The diving system tended to be
modularised and craned on and off the vessel as a package. As permanent
oil and gas production platforms emerged, the owners and operators were
not keen to give over valuable deck space to diving systems because after
they came on-line, the expectation of continuing diving operations was low.
However, as equipment fails or gets damaged, and there was a regular, if
not continuous, need for diving operations in and around oil fields, it was
quickly realised that some form of offshore diving capability was needed.
The solution was to put diving packages on ships. Initially, these tended to
be oilfield supply ships or fishing vessels; however, keeping these types of
ships ‘on station,’, particularly during inclement weather, made the diving
operation dangerous, problematic, and seasonal. Furthermore, seabed oper-
ations usually entailed the raising and lowering of heavy equipment, and
most such vessels were not equipped for this type of operation. This is when
the dedicated commercial diving support vessel started to emerge. These
were often built from scratch or heavily converted pipe carriers or other
utility-type ships (Figure 22.3).
The key components of the diving support vessel are (1) dynamic position-
ing or DP. Controlled by a computer with input from position reference sys-
tems (DGPS, transponders, light taut wires, or RadaScan), the vessel will
maintain the ship’s position over a dive site by using multi-directional thrust-
ers, whilst other sensors compensate for swell, tide, and prevailing winds; and
(2) saturation diving systems. For diving operations below 50 m (164 ft), a
mixture of helium and oxygen (heliox) is required to eliminate the narcotic
effect of nitrogen when breathed in under pressure. For extended diving oper-
ations at depth, saturation diving is the preferred approach. A saturation sys-
tem is installed on the ship. A diving bell transports the divers between the
saturation system and the work site, which is lowered through a ‘moon pool’
at the bottom of the ship, usually with a support structure ‘cursor’ to support
the diving bell through the turbulent waters near the surface. There are sev-
eral support systems for the saturation system on a diving support vessel,
usually including a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and heavy lifting equip-
ment. Most of the vessels currently operating in the North Sea were built in
the 1980s. The semi-submersible fleet, the Uncle John, and similar have
proven to be too expensive to maintain and too slow to move between fields.
Therefore, most existing designs are monohull vessels with either a one or a
twin bell dive system. Although there was little innovation between the 1980s
 Offshore support vessels 285

Figure 22.3 D iving support vessel Kingfisher.

and early 2000s, high oil prices around 2004 spurred the market for subsea
developments in the North Sea significantly. This led to a scarcity of diving
support vessels. In response, contractors ordered several new build vessels,
which entered the market in 2008. These vessels are built and designed not
only to support diving activities, but also to support ROV operations with
dedicated hangar and LARS for ROVs, seismic survey operations, and
cable-laying operations, etc. Owing to these modern-day vessels, they may
have at any time 80–150 project personnel on board, including divers, diving
supervisors and superintendents, dive technicians, life support technicians
and supervisors, ROV pilots, ROV superintendents, survey teams, and of
course the client’s representatives. For all these personnel to conduct their
contracted job with an oil and gas company, a professional crew navigate and
operate the vessel as per the requirements and instructions of the diving or
ROV or survey team superintendents. However, the ultimate responsibility
lies with the master of the vessel for the safety of everyone on board. In
expanding the utility of the vessel, just like liveaboard dive boats, these ves-
sels, in addition to the usual domestic facilities expected by hotel guests, have
specialised mix gas diving compressors and reclaim systems, gas storage and
gas blending facilities, as well as purpose-built saturation chambers where the
divers in compression live. These vessels are designed to be hired by diving
service-providing companies or directly by oil and gas contractors who then
hire a diving or ROV or survey service-providing company. This company
286 Merchant ship type

uses the vessel as a platform for performing their contracted duties. Despite
diving from a DSV makes it possible to undertake a wider range of opera-
tions, the platform presents some inherent hazards, and equipment and pro-
cedures must be adopted to manage these hazards as well as the hazards of
the environment and diving tasks.

EMERGENCY TOW VESSELS

An emergency tow vessel, also known as emergency towing vessel (ETV), is

a multipurpose ship used by state authorities to tow disabled vessels on the
high seas to prevent further hazards to shipping and the marine environ-
ment. The disabled vessel is either towed to a haven or kept in place against
wind and current until commercial assistance by tugboats can arrive on site
or until the vessel has been repaired to the extent of being able to manoeuvre
on its own. The need for ETVs as a preventive measure has arisen since the
number of available commercial salvage tugs was reduced while potential
dangers from individual vessels have increased. Globally, there are more
ETVs positioned in and around the European continent coastline than any-
where else in the world. For example, Spain has 14 ETVs, Turkey has 11,
Germany operates eight, Norway has seven, France has five, Sweden has
three, and the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, Iceland, and Finland each
have one official emergency tugboat. Australia also operates emergency
response vessels. The UK’s four-strong ETV fleet was to be disbanded in
September 2011 due to budget cuts, but the two vessels operating in Scottish
waters received an extension of the contract until the end of 2011. As of
2022, the UK has no government-owned ETV capability. Distressed vessels
that request the service of towing vessels have the means to make towing as
safe as possible. Oil tankers have emergency towing equipment fixed at the
forward and aft part of the vessel that will allow connecting the towing line.
The connection of these apparatuses to the vessel’s hull is reinforced accord-
ing to class requirements. Bulk carriers and general cargo vessels are not
required to have a specialised emergency towing arrangement. Depending
on the vessel’s type and keel laid date, in accordance with the MSC 256(84)
standard, they must have on board an emergency towing procedure manual.
This ship-specific manual describes procedures that will allow the vessel to
be towed using its own equipment. The procedure should make use of the
standard mooring equipment like mooring ropes, bits, rollers, and Panama
chock (Figure 22.4).

National ETV fleets

Algeria
In 2010, Algeria ordered three tugboats of the Bourbon class, which were
already in use by the French harbours at Brest and Cherbourg. The ships
 Offshore support vessels 287

Figure 22.4 E RRV Grampian Deliverance, departing Aberdeen Harbour, Scotland.

were built by STX OSV in Norway and STX Tulcea in Romania. The first
vessel El Moundjid was ready for delivery in December 2011, with the two
others scheduled for delivery in June and September 2012. With a bollard
pull of 200 metric tonnes and a speed of 20 kts (23 mph; 37 km/h), the
Algerian ETVs are an improved version of the French Bourbon class. They
are based in Oran and Skikda. By acquiring these three ships, Algeria became
the leading Mediterranean nation in terms of marine salvage as of 2012.

Finland
The Ministry of the Environment operates the YAG Louhi. The ship is listed
as a multipurpose oil recovery vessel and can be used for emergency towing,
firefighting, icebreaking, mine-laying, oil and chemical spill response, as well
as other rescue operations. The vessel has a bollard pull of 60 metric tonnes.
YAG Louhi is based at the Port of Upinniemi approximately 24 mi (40 km)
west of Helsinki in the Archipelago Sea.

France
For assistance and salvage, five ocean-going tugs and their crews are ready to
respond around-the-clock. These are the Abeille Bourbon, based in Brest, with
a bollard pull of 200 metric tonnes; the Abeille Liberté, based in Cherbourg,
with a bollard pull of 200 metric tonnes; the Abeille Flandre, based in Toulon,
with a bollard pull of 160 metric tonnes; the Abeille Languedoc, based in La
Rochelle, with a bollard pull of 160 metric tonnes; and the Jason, also based
in Toulon, with a bollard pull of 124.2 metric tonnes. The tugs are chartered
by the French government and manned by a civilian crew.
288 Merchant ship type

Germany
Responsible for the German ETV flotilla is the Central Command for
Maritime Emergencies (CCME), based in Cuxhaven. The German concept of
emergency towing prescribes a maximum response time of two hours for any
incident in German coastal waters. This requires three ETVs in the North Sea
and five in the Baltic Sea despite having a smaller area to cover. The equip-
ment and performance of the vessels have been adapted to the size of the ves-
sels in the respective areas of operation and include the ability to operate in
shallow waters. Moreover, it is mandatory to have one vessel with 200 metric
tonnes of bollard pull and 100 metric tonnes each in the North Sea and Baltic,
respectively. Both ship types are also required to be able to operate under haz-
ardous conditions such as explosive areas and gas leaks. Four out of the eight
German ETVs are multipurpose vessels owned by the Federal Waterways and
Shipping Administration and are part of the German Federal Coast Guard,
while another four have been chartered from tug companies. Since 2001 a
cooperation agreement with the Netherlands comprised the Dutch ETV and
the German Nordic, which replaced the ETV Oceanic. Operating in the North
Sea are the Nordic (East Frisian Islands, based in Cuxhaven, bollard pull of
201 metric tonnes); Mellum [5 nmi (28 mi; 9.3 km)] southwest Heligoland,
bollard pull of 100 metric tonnes); and the Neuwerk: 5 nmi (5 mi; 9.3 km)
southwest Süderoogsand (Nordfriesland), bollard pull of 113 metric tonnes).
Operating in the Baltic Sea are the vessels Bülk (Kiel Fjord, bollard pull of
40 metric tonnes); Scharhörn (Hohwacht Bay, between Kiel and Fehmarn,
bollard pull of 40 metric tonnes); Baltic (Warnemünde, bollard pull of 127
metric tonnes); Arkona (Stralsund, bollard pull of 40 metric tonnes); and
Fairplay 25 (Sassnitz, Rügen, bollard pull of 65 metric tonnes).

Iceland
Iceland operates the ICGV Þór (English: ICGV Thor). With a bollard pull of
approximately 110 metric tonnes, the Icelandic Coast Guard vessel is capa-
ble of towing-stricken tankers of up to about 200,000 metric tonnes dwt.

Netherlands
The Netherlands Coastguard operates one ETV on charter from Svitzer
Wijsmuller, the Ievoli Amaranth, and is based in Den Helder.

Norway
The Norwegian Coast Guard owns three Barentshav class OPV multi-
purpose vessels and operates another multipurpose vessel named NoCGV
Harstad on charter. Their main purpose is the prevention of pollution by oil
tankers along the Norwegian coastline. Therefore, the ships can also be used
 Offshore support vessels 289

in the ETV role with a bollard pull exceeding 100 metric tonnes. In addi-
tion, Norway also charters the Beta, bollard pull of 118 metric tonnes; the
Normand Jarl, bollard pull of 150 metric tonnes; and the North Crusader,
bollard pull of 144 metric tonnes.

Poland
The Polish Ministry of Transport operates one ETV on charter, the tug
Kapitan Poinc, with a bollard pull of 74 metric tonnes.

South Africa
The tug Smit Amandla (bollard pull of 181 metric tonnes) is based in the
port of Cape Town.

Spain
The Sociedad de Salvamento y Seguridad Marítima has a total of 14 mul-
tipurpose vessels for search and rescue (SAR) and pollution prevention
duties. These are the Don Inda Class, consisting of two sister ETVs based
on Ulstein’s UT 722 L design (bollard pull of 228 metric tonnes); the Luz de
Mar Class, comprising two sister ETVs (bollard pull of 128 metric tonnes);
the Alonso de Chaves_ (bollard pull of 105 metric tonnes); the Punta Salinas
(bollard pull of 97 metric tonnes); the Punta Mayor (bollard pull of 81 metric
tonnes); and the María de Maeztu Class, comprising seven sister ETVs, each
with a bollard pull of 60 metric tonnes.

Sweden
The Swedish Coast Guard operates three EVTs of the same type. Built by
Damen, these multifunctional patrol and emergency response vessels have
a bollard pull of 100 metric tonnes each. They were brought into operation
in 2009 and 2010. The fleet consists of the Poseidon (KBV 001), based in
Gothenburg; the Triton (KBV 002), based in Slite on Gotland; and Amfitrite
(KBV 009), based in Karlskrona.

Turkey
The Turkish Directorate General of Coastal Safety operates 11 ETVs along
with numerous SAR, oil spill response, and firefighting vessels throughout the
Bosphorus and Dardanelles, where the organisation has a de jure monopoly
for marine salvage along with the Sea of Marmara. Some of these ETVs also
serve as escort tugs for vessels passing through Bosphorus and Dardanelles,
which make up the Turkish Straits System, one of the busiest and most dan-
gerous seaways in the world. The organisation also deals with navigational
aids around the Turkish coastline, SAR operations, pilotage at both straits
290 Merchant ship type

and some Turkish ports and, most importantly, the Turkish Straits Vessel
Traffic Systems (VTS). The Turkish ETV fleet currently comprises the Gemi
Kurtaran, bollard pull of 75 metric tonnes; the Kurtarma 1, bollard pull of
53 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 2, bollard pull of 53 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 3,
bollard pull of 70 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 4, bollard pull of 70 metric tonnes;
Kurtarma 5, bollard pull of 65 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 6, bollard pull of 66
metric tonnes; Kurtarma 7, bollard pull of 60 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 8,
bollard pull of 60 metric tonnes; Kurtarma 9, bollard pull of 105 metric
tonnes; Kurtarma 10, bollard pull of 105 metric tonnes; Seyit Onbasi, Oil
spill response vessel; and the Nene Hatun, bollard pull of 205 metric tonnes.

United Kingdom
The UK’s ETV vessels were chartered by the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency (MCA) for use in pollution control or towing vessels that were
in difficulty. The vessels were a combination of tugboat, anchor handler,
fireboat, and buoy tender. As of 2010, four ETVs, Anglian Prince, Anglian
Princess, Anglian Sovereign, and Anglian Monarch, were based in strategic
locations around the United Kingdom, with two covering the south coast of
England, at Falmouth in Cornwall and Dover in Kent, and two in Scottish
waters, at Stornoway the Western Isles (the Outer Hebrides), and Lerwick
in the Northern Isles (Shetland and Orkney). The four-strong ETV fleet was
intended to be operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and maintained
at 30 minutes readiness to sail, with one tug allocated to each of the four
operating areas on a rotational basis, accounting for maintenance sched-
ules. The Dover station was funded jointly by French maritime authorities.
A fifth tug, the Anglian Earl, was an anchor handling and salvage tug not
only extensively used on commercial work, but also fitted the ETV crite-
ria, and functioned as cover for any of the four ETV stations as and when
required. In 2010, the Government announced, as part of the Department
for Transport’s share of cuts in the Comprehensive Spending Review, that
the ETV fleet would no longer be funded by the MCA from September
2011, saving £32.5m over the Spending Review period. The Department
stated that ‘state provision of ETVs does not represent a correct use of tax-
payers money and that ship salvage should be a commercial matter between
a ship’s operator and the salvor’. On 30 September 2011, it was announced
that the two ETVs operating in the Minch and the Shetland Islands would
receive a moratorium of three months with interim funding provided by the
British government.

FIREBOATS

A fireboat or fire-float is a specialised type of watercraft with pumps

and nozzles designed for fighting shoreline and shipboard fires. The first
 Offshore support vessels 291

fireboats, dating to the late 18th century, were tugboats, retrofitted with
firefighting equipment. Older designs derived from tugboats and modern
fireboats more closely resembling seafaring ships can both be found in ser-
vice today. These ships are frequently used for fighting fires on docks and
shoreside warehouses, as they can directly attack fires in the supporting
underpinnings of these structures. They also have an effectively unlimited
supply of water available, pumping directly from below the hull. Fireboats
can be used to assist shore-based firefighters when other water is in low
supply or is unavailable, for example during the Loma Prieta earthquake
in San Francisco, in 1989. Some modern fireboats are capable of pumping
tens of thousands of gallons of water per minute. An example is the fireboat
operated by the Los Angeles Fire Department, the Warner Lawrence, which
has the capability to pump up to 38,000 US gallons per minute (2.4 m3/s;
32,000 imp gal/min) and up to 122 m (400 ft) into the air. Fireboats are
most usually seen by the public when welcoming a new cruise ship with
a display of their water-moving capabilities, throwing large arcs of water
in every direction. Occasionally, fireboats are used to carry firefighters,
Emergency Medical Technicians, and medical doctors with their equipment
to islands and other boats. In some regions, fireboats may be used as ice-
breakers, such as the Chicago Fire Department’s Victor L. Schlaeger, which
can break 20.3–30.4 cm (8–12 in) of ice. They may also carry divers or
surface water rescue workers (Figure 22.5).

Figure 22.5 F ire Boat No.5, Hong Kong fire services department.
Chapter 23

Tugboats

A tugboat or tug is a marine vessel that manoeuvres other vessels by pushing

or pulling them, with direct contact or a tow line. These boats typically tug
ships that cannot move well on their own, such as those in crowded har-
bours or narrow canals, or those that cannot move at all, such as barges, dis-
abled ships, log rafts, or oil platforms. Some are ocean-going, and some are
icebreakers or salvage tugs. Early models had steam engines, and modern
ones have diesel engines. Many have deluge guns, which help in firefighting,
especially in harbours.

DEEP-SEA OR SEAGOING TUGS

Seagoing tugs (deep-sea tugs or ocean tugboats) fall into four basic catego-
ries. The standard seagoing tug with model bow, tows exclusively by way
of a wire cable. In some rare cases, such as some US Navy fleet tugs, a syn-
thetic rope hawser may be used for the tow in the belief that the line can be
pulled aboard a disabled ship by the crew owing to its lightness compared
with wire cable. The ‘notch tug’ can be secured by way of cables, or more
commonly in recent times, synthetic lines that run from the stern to the tug
to the stern of the barge. This configuration is used in inland waters where
sea and swell are minimal because of the danger of parting the push wires.
Often, this configuration is employed even without a ‘notch’ on the barge,
but in those cases, it is preferable to have ‘push knees’ on the tug to stabilise
its position. Model bow tugs employing this method of pushing always have
a towing winch that can be used if sea conditions render pushing inadvis-
able. With this configuration, the barge being pushed might approach the
size of a small ship, with the interaction of the water flow allowing a higher
speed with a minimal increase in power required or fuel consumption.
The ‘integral unit’, or ‘integrated tug and barge’ (ITB), comprises specially
designed vessels that lock together in such a rigid and strong method as to
be certified as such by authorities (classification societies) such as the
American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, the Indian
Register of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas, and several others. These units

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-28 293

294 Merchant ship types

Figure 23.1 A beille Bourbon.

stay combined under any sea conditions and the tugs usually have poor
sea-keeping designs for navigation without their barges attached. Vessels in
this category are legally considered to be ships rather than tugboats, and
barges must be staffed accordingly. These vessels must show navigation
lights compliant with those required of ships rather than those required of
tugboats and vessels undertow.
‘Articulated tug and barge’ (ATB) units also use mechanical means to
connect to their barges. The tug slips into a notch in the stern and is attached
by a hinged connection, becoming an articulated vehicle. ATBs use Intercon
and Bludworth connecting systems. ATBs are staffed as a large tugboat,
having between seven and nine crew members. The typical American ATB
displays navigational lights of a towing vessel pushing ahead, as described
in the 1972 COLREGS (Figure 23.1).

HARBOUR TUGS

Compared with seagoing tugboats, harbour tugboats that are employed

exclusively as ship assist vessels are smaller and their width-to-length ratio
is often higher, due to the need for the tugs’ wheelhouse to avoid contact
with the hull of a ship, which may have a pronounced rake at the bow and
stern. In some ports, there is a requirement for certain numbers and sizes
 Tugboats 295

Figure 23.2 Tug Michel Hamburg assisting COSCO Shipping Nebula.

of tugboats for port operations with gas tankers. Also, in many ports, tank-
ers are required to have tug escorts when transiting in harbours to render
assistance in the event of mechanical failure. The port mandates a minimum
horsepower or bollard pull, determined by the size of the escorted vessel.
Most ports will have several tugs that are used for other purposes than
ship assist, such as dredging operations, bunkering ships, transferring liq-
uid products between berths, and cargo operations. These tugs may also be
used for ship assist as needed. Modern ship assist tugs are ‘tractor tugs’ that
employ azimuth stern drives (ASDs), propellers that can rotate 360 degrees
without a rudder, or cycloidal drives (Figure 23.2).

RIVER TUGS

River tugs are also referred to as towboats or push boats. Their hull designs
would make open ocean operations dangerous. River tugs usually do not
have any significant hawser or winch. Their hulls feature a flat front or bow to
line up with the rectangular stern of the barge, often with large pushing knees.

SALVAGE TUGS

A salvage tug, known historically as a wrecking tug, is a specialised type

of tugboat that is used to rescue ships that are in distress or in danger of
296 Merchant ship types

sinking or to salvage ships that have already sunk or run aground. Few tug-
boats have ever been truly fully dedicated to salvage work; most of the time,
salvage tugs operate towing barges, platforms, ships, or performing other
utility tugboat work. Tugs fitted out for salvage are found in small quan-
tities around the world, with higher concentrations near areas with both
heavy shipping traffic and hazardous weather conditions. Salvage tugs are
used by specialised crew experienced in salvage operations (called salvors).
The ships carry specialist equipment, including extensive towing provisions
and extra tow lines and cables, with provisions for towing from both the
bow and stern and at irregular angles, extra cranes, firefighting gear, deluge
systems, hoses and nozzles, and a range of mechanical equipment such as
common mechanical repair parts, compressed air gear, diving equipment,
steel for hull patches, welding equipment, and pumps. Overall, total demand
for salvage tug services has significantly decreased from its peaks in the
years around World War II. The increasing sensitivity of societies and legal
systems to environmental damage and the increasing size of ships has offset
the decline in the number of salvage operations undertaken. Accidents such
as major oil tanker groundings or sinkings may require extensive salvage
efforts to try to minimise the environmental damage such as that caused by
the Exxon Valdez (1989) oil spill, or the Amoco Cadiz (1978) and Torrey
Canyon (1967) disasters (Figure 23.3).

Figure 23.3 Tugboat Salvage Mark in Jarvis Quay, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
 Tugboats 297

TENDERS

A ship’s tender, usually referred to as a tender, is a boat, or a larger ship, used

to service or support other boats or ships. This is done by transporting peo-
ple or supplies to and from shore or another ship. A second and distinctly
different meaning for tender is small boats carried by larger vessels, to be
used either as lifeboats, as transport to shore, or both. For a variety of rea-
sons, it is not always advisable to try to tie a ship up at a dock; the weather
or the sea might be rough, the time alongside might be short, or the ship too
large to safely fit. In such cases, tenders provide the link from ship to shore
and may have a remarkably busy schedule of back-and-forth trips while the
ship is in port. On cruise ships, lifeboat tenders fulfil double duties, serving
as tenders in day-to-day activities, but fully equipped to function as lifeboats
in an emergency. They are transported on davits just above the promenade
deck and may appear to be regular lifeboats, but they are usually larger and
better-equipped. Current lifeboat tender designs favour catamaran mod-
els since they are less likely to roll in calm to moderate conditions. They
typically carry up to 100–150 passengers and two to three crew members.
Before these ships were mass-produced, the main way to board a larger ship
(ocean liners) was to board a passenger tender. Passenger tenders remained
based at their ports of registry, and when a ship came through the area, the
tender would tie up with the ship and embark passengers on an elevated
walkway. These vessels were larger, had a greater passenger capacity, and a
broader sense of individuality in their respective companies than the more
modern tenders seen today. Because of their increased size, lifeboats and life
preservers were commonplace on board these ships (with two boats being
the standard amount for an average tender) (Figure 23.4).
Before the technologies that allow submarines and destroyers to operate
independently matured by the latter half of the 20th century (and signifi-
cantly during the World War II), they were heavily dependent upon tenders
to perform most maintenance and supply. Their hull classification symbols
in the US Navy were, respectively, AS and AD, while general repair ships
were AR. Naval tenders fell out of use during the late 20th century, as the
speed and range of warships increased (reducing the need for advanced
basing). By the end of the 20th century, all the tenders in the US Navy had
been inactivated except for two submarine tenders. Not completely willing
to wean itself from tenders altogether – but with an eye towards reducing
costs – the last two tenders remaining in active service have now been oper-
ationally turned over to the Military Sealift Command. Emory S. Land-
class submarine tenders USS Emory S. Land and USS Frank Cable are now
manned and operated by a ‘hybrid’ crew. The commanding officer and
approximately 200 technicians are Naval personnel, while the operation of
the ship is performed by civilian mariners. Prior to the turn-over, both ships
had more than 1,000 sailors. While at this time the ships still bear the AS
classification, the primary mission of both ships has been expanded well
298 Merchant ship types

Figure 23.4 H avila Commander, departing Aberdeen Harbour, Scotland.

beyond submarines to include service and support of any Naval vessel in

their operational area. Under the traditional Navy classification, both ships
should be reclassified as AR (auxiliary repair); however, since now operated
by the MSC, it is doubtful that such a reassignment will occur. USS Emory
S. Land is forward deployed in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia, while USS
Frank Cable is forward deployed in the Pacific at Polaris Point, Apra
Harbour, Guam. Such forward deployments are designed to provide service
and support at the very great distances of the Western Pacific.
Two tenders, SS Nomadic and SS Traffic, were built for the White Star
Line by Harland and Wolff to serve the liners RMS Olympic and RMS
Titanic at Cherbourg. Nomadic survives as a museum ship and is the last
remaining vessel built for the White Star Line still in existence.

PROPULSION SYSTEMS

The first tugboat, Charlotte Dundas, was built by William Symington in

1801. She had a steam engine and paddle wheels and was used on the rivers
of Scotland. Paddle tugs proliferated thereafter and were a common sight
for a century. In the 1870s schooner, hulls were converted to screw tugs, and
fitted with compound steam engines and scotch boilers, providing as much
as 300 bhp. Within a few decades, steam tugs were used in every harbour
around the world for towing and ship berthing. Tugboat diesel engines typ-
ically produce between 500 and 2,500 kW (~ 680–3,400 bhp), but larger
 Tugboats 299

boats (used in deep waters) can have power ratings of up to 20,000 kW

(~ 27,200 hp). Tugboats usually have an extreme power to tonnage ratio;
normal cargo and passenger ships have a power to tonnage radio [in Kw:
gross registered tonnage (GRT) of 0.35–1.20], whereas large tugs typically
are 2.20–4.50 and small harbour-tugs are 4.0–9.5. The engines are often the
same as those used in railroad locomotives but typically drive the propel-
ler mechanically instead of converting the engine output to power electric
motors, as is common for diesel-electric locomotives. For safety, tugboat
engines often feature two of each critical part for redundancy. A tugboat
is typically rated by its engine’s power output and its overall bollard pull.
The largest commercial harbour tugboats in the 2000s–2010s, used for
towing container ships or similar, had around 60–65 short tonnes-force
(530–580 kN) of bollard pull, which is described as fifteen short tonnes-force
(130 kN) above ‘normal’ tugboats. Tugboats are highly manoeuvrable, and
various propulsion systems have been developed to increase manoeuvrabil-
ity and increase safety. The earliest tugs were fitted with paddle wheels, but
these were soon replaced by propeller-driven tugs. Kort nozzles (see below)
have been added to increase thrust-to-power ratio. This was followed by
the nozzle-rudder, which omitted the need for a conventional rudder. The
cycloidal propeller (see below) was developed prior to World War II and
was occasionally used in tugs because of its manoeuvrability. After World
War II, it was also linked to safety due to the development of the Voith
Water Tractor, a tugboat configuration that could not be pulled over by its
tow. In the late 1950s, the Z-drive or (azimuth thruster) was developed.
Although sometimes referred to as the Aquamaster or Schottel system, many
brands exist, including Steerprop, Wärtsilä, Berg Propulsion, and so forth.
These propulsion systems are used on tugboats designed for tasks such as
ship docking and marine construction, whereas conventional propeller and
rudder configurations are more efficient for port-to-port towing.

Kort nozzle
The Kort nozzle is a sturdy cylindrical structure around a special propeller
having minimum clearance between the propeller blades and the inner wall
of the Kort nozzle. The thrust-to-power ratio is enhanced because the water
approaches the propeller in a linear configuration and exits the nozzle the
same way. The Kort nozzle is named after its inventor (Ludwig Kort, 1934),
but many brands now exist.

Cyclorotor
The cycloidal propeller is a circular plate mounted on the underside of the
hull, rotating around a vertical axis with a circular array of vertical blades
(in the shape of hydrofoils) that protrude out of the bottom of the ship.
Each blade can rotate itself around a vertical axis. The internal mechanism
300 Merchant ship types

changes the angle of attack of the blades coordinated with the rotation of
the plate, so that each blade can provide thrust in any direction, like the
collective pitch control and cyclic in a helicopter.

Carousel
A recent Dutch innovation is the carousel tug, winner of the Maritime
Innovation Award at the Dutch Maritime Innovation Awards Gala in 2006.
It adds a pair of interlocking rings to the body of the tug, the inner on the
boat, the outer on the ship by winch or towing hook. Since the towing point
rotates freely, the tug is exceedingly difficult to capsize.
In this penultimate chapter, we have looked at some of the main types and
the defining features of tugboats. In the next and final chapter, we will dis-
cuss the role and function of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). The RFA is an
unusual creation in that it is a fleet of merchant-type vessels (ROROs, sup-
port vessels, and fleet tankers), which are manned by civilian seafarers but
sail under the authority of the Royal Navy.
Part V

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Chapter 24

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) is the naval auxiliary fleet owned by the
UK’s Ministry of Defence. The RFA provides vital logistical and operational
support to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines by ensuring the Royal Navy
is supplied and supported by providing fuel and stores through replenish-
ment at sea (RAS), transporting Royal Marines and British Army person-
nel around the world, providing medical care, and transporting equipment
and materiel wherever British Forces are active. In addition, the RFA acts
independently providing humanitarian aid, counter-piracy, and counter-
narcotic patrols together with assisting the Royal Navy in preventing conflict
and securing international trade. The RFA is a uniformed civilian branch of
the Royal Navy. This means that the RFA personnel are civilian employees
of the Ministry of Defence and members of the Royal Naval Reserve and
Sponsored Reserves. Although RFA personnel wear Merchant Navy rank
insignia on their uniforms, they are classed as part of the Naval Service. RFA
vessels are commanded and crewed by RFA officers and ratings, just as any
other merchant vessel, but are augmented with regular and reserve Royal
Navy personnel who perform specialised functions such as operating and
maintaining helicopters or providing hospital facilities. Royal Navy person-
nel are also needed to operate the shipboard weapons, such as the Phalanx;
however, a certain number of defensive weapons (such as the Bushmaster
30mm cannon) are operated by RFA personnel. It is worth mentioning that
although the RFA is a civilian component of the Royal Navy, the fact that
RFA vessels are armed (defensively) means that they are recognised as com-
batant ships under the Geneva Convention. This means that RFA crews are
not afforded the same protections as purely civil merchant vessels.
The RFA was first established in 1905 to provide coaling ships for the
Royal Navy in an era when the change from sail to coal-fired steam engines
as the main means of propulsion meant that a network of bases around the
world with coaling facilities or a fleet of ships able to supply coal was nec-
essary for the British Fleet to operate away from its home country. Since the
Royal Navy of that era possessed the largest network of bases around the
world, initially, the RFA took a minor role. It was not until World War II
that the Royal Navy recognised the true worth of the RFA, as British

DOI: 10.1201/9781003342366-30 303

304 Merchant ship type

warships were often far from available bases, either due to the enemy cap-
turing British or Allied bases or as is the case in the Pacific, due to the sheer
distances involved. World War II also saw naval ships staying at sea for
much longer periods than had been the case since the days of sail. During
this time, techniques for the RAS were developed. The auxiliary fleet com-
prised a diverse collection, with not only RFA ships, but also commissioned
warships and merchantmen as well. After 1945, the RFA became the Royal
Navy’s main source of support in the many conflicts that the Royal Navy
was involved in. The RFA performed important service to the Far East Fleet
off Korea from 1950 until 1953, when sustained carrier operations were
mounted in Pacific waters. During the extended operations of the Konfrontasi
in the 1960s, the RFA was also heavily involved. As the network of British
bases overseas shrank during the years when the British Empire diminished,
the Royal Navy became increasingly reliant on the RFA to supply its ships
during routine deployments. The RFA played an integral role in the largest
naval war since 1945, the Falklands War in 1982 between Britain and
Argentina. In that conflict, one RFA vessel was lost, and another was irrep-
arably damaged. The RFA has received further battle orders from service in
the first Gulf War (1990–1991), the Kosovo War (1998–1999), the
Afghanistan Campaign (2001–2021), the invasion of Iraq (2003–2011), and
latterly, the civil war in Syria (2011–present). In July 2008, the RFA was
presented with a Queen’s Colour, an honour unique to a civilian organisa-
tion (Figure 24.1).

Figure 24.1 R FA Argus in the Caribbean Sea – Summer 2020.

 Royal Fleet Auxiliary 305

RFA FLEET

Ships in RFA service carry the ship prefix RFA, and fly the Blue Ensign defaced
with an upright gold killick anchor. All Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are built and
maintained to Lloyd’s Register and Department for Transport standards. The
most significant role provided by the RFA is RAS; therefore, the mainstay
of the current RFA fleet is the replenishment class of ships. The Wave class
are ‘Fleet Tankers’, which not only primarily provide underway refuelling
to Royal Navy ships but can also provide a limited amount of dry cargo.
The Tide class are ‘Fast Fleet Tankers’, which were ordered in February
2012 and delivered in 2017. From 2022, only the Tide class are expected to
remain active with both Wave class vessels being placed in extended readi-
ness (uncrewed reserve). The Fort Victoria is a ‘one-stop’ replenishment ship,
capable of providing underway refuelling and dry cargoes (i.e. rearming,
victualling, and spares). The older Fort Rosalie class ships provided only dry
cargoes. Both Fort Rosalie class vessels were placed in reduced (base main-
tenance period) or ‘extended readiness’ (uncrewed reserve) in June 2020.
The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review stated that three new ‘Fleet
Solid Support’ Ships were to be built and bidding for the contract was to
start in late 2016. In 2019, this competition was stopped in the face of criti-
cism that the competition permitted bids to build the ships from outside the
United Kingdom. In May 2020, then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace stated
that the competition was likely to restart in September 2020; however, the
start was then delayed to the ‘spring’ of 2021. The 2021 Defence White Paper
confirmed that both Fort Rosalie class ships would be decommissioned and
eventually replaced by new Fleet Solid Stores Support Vessels. In October
2021, both ships were sold to Egypt (Figure 24.2).
The Wave class, Tide class, and Fort Victoria incorporate aviation facili-
ties, providing aviation support and training facilities as well as vertical
replenishment capabilities. They are capable of operating and supporting
Merlin and Lynx Wildcat helicopters, both of which are significant weapons
platforms. The presence of aviation facilities on RFA ships allows for them to
be used as ‘force multipliers’ for the task groups they support in line with
Royal Navy doctrine. The RFA is tasked with the role of supporting Royal
Navy amphibious operations through its three Bay class dock landing ships
(LSD). Typically, one Bay class is also assigned as a permanent ‘mothership’
for Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels in the Persian Gulf. The 2021
Defence White Paper proposed the acquisition of a new class of up to six
Multi-Role Support Ships to support littoral strike operations. These seemed
likely to replace the Bay class ships by the 2030s. In the interim, the White
Paper proposed to upgrade one of the Bay class vessels with permanent
hangar facilities to conduct the littoral strike role. The unique support ship in
the fleet is the aviation training ship Argus, a converted RORO ship. She is
tasked with peacetime aviation training and support. On active operations,
she becomes the primary casualty receiving ship (PCRS), a hospital ship. She
cannot be described as such and is not afforded such protection under the
306 Merchant ship type

Figure 24.2 R FA Tidespring.

Geneva Convention, as she is armed. She can, however, venture into waters
too dangerous for a normal hospital ship. Argus completed a refit in May
2007 intended to extend her operational life to 2020. As of 2021, Argus was
still in service but expected to retire from service in 2024. The 2021 Defence
White Paper did not specifically mention her replacement. However, her
functions are likely eventually to be taken over by the new Fleet Solid Stores
Support ships approved for acquisition in the 2021 Defence White Paper.
The Point class sealift ships were acquired in 2002 under a £1.25 billion
($156 billion) private finance initiative with Foreland Shipping known as
the ‘Strategic Sealift Service’. These ships are civilian merchant navy vessels
leased to the Ministry of Defence as and when needed. Originally, six ships
were part of the deal, allowing the Ministry of Defence the use of four of the
ships with two being made available for commercial charter. These latter
two were released from the contract in 2012. The Ministry of Defence also
contracts to secure fuel supplies for facilities overseas. This requirement was
maintained through the charter of the vessel Mærsk Rapier. The ship was
tasked with supplying fuel to the UK’s various naval establishments at home
and overseas, as well as providing aviation fuel to RAF stations at Cyprus,
Ascension Island, and the Falklands. The Ministry of Defence chartered the
vessel to commercial companies during periods when she was not in use for
defence purposes. Since the end of the contract for the use of Mærsk Rapier,
a further contract for the use of another tanker, renamed the Raleigh Fisher,
was secured (Figure 24.3).
As of 2022, there are 11 ships in service with the RFA with a total dis-
placement of approximately 329,000 tonnes. These figures exclude mer-
chant navy vessels under charter to the Ministry of Defence (Table 24.1).
 Royal Fleet Auxiliary 307

 FA Fort George at the jetty of the naval fuel depot, mouth of Loch
Figure 24.3 R
Striven (near Port Lamont), Scotland.

Table 24.1 RFA fleet (as of 2022)

Replenishment
Entered
Class Ship Pennant service Displacement Type
Tide Class RFA Tidespring A136 2017 39,000 metric Replenishment
FRA Tiderace A137 2018 tonnes Tanker
RFA Tidesurge A138 2019
RFA Tideforce A139 2019
Wave Class RFA Wave A389 2003 31,500 metric Fast Fleet Tanker
Knight tonnes
RFA Wave Ruler A390 2003
Fort Victoria RFA Fort A387 1994 33,675 metric Multirole
Class Victoria tonnes Replenishment
Dock Landing
Entered
Class Ship Pennant Service Displacement Type
Bay Class RFA Lyme Bay L3007 2007 16,160 metric Dock Landing
RFA Mounts L3008 2006 tonnes Ship Auxiliary
Bay
RFA Cardigan L3009 2006
Bay

(Continued)
308 Merchant ship type

Table 24.1 (Continued) RFA fleet (as of 2022)

Aviation support/Casualty evacuation
Entered
Class Ship Pennant service Displacement Type
RFA Argus A135 1988 28,081 metric Aviation training
tonnes and primary
casualty
receiving ship
Ministry of Defence Sealift / Support Vessels
Entered
Class Ship Owner Service Displacement Type
Point Class MV Hurst Point Foreland 2002 23,000 metric RORO Sealift
MV Eddystone Shipping 2002 tonnes
MV Hartland 2002
Point
MV Anvil Point 2003
MV Raleigh James 2005 35,000 metric Tanker
Fisher Fisher tonnes
& Sons
Index

A Shipping Nebula, 55, 295

Shipping Planet, 55
Alternating Current (AC), 273 Shipping Sagittarius, 57
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Shipping Solar, 55
14, 36, 272, 293 Shipping Star, 55
Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS), Shipping Taurus, 57
19, 279, 280, 282, 283, 290 Shipping Universe, 55
Articulated Tug and Barge (ATB), 294 Shipping Virgo, 57
Australian National Lines (ANL), 33 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), 89,
Average Freight Rate Assessment 143, 145
(AFRA), xxv, 2, 163 Contract of Affreightment, 165
Crane Vessel (CV), 19, 257, 258, 259,
B 280
Cuss I, 260, 262
Berge
Aconcagua, 16
Everest, 16 D
Jaya, 16
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine
Neblina, 16
Engineering (DSME), 13, 15,
Stahl, 16
30, 52, 58, 143, 152
Blue Riband, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244,
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 14, 272,
246, 249
293
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour
Direct Current (DC), 273
Explosions (BLEVE), 148
Diving Support Vessel (DSV), 19, 280,
Bridge of the Americas, 5–7
284, 285
Brittany Ferries, 211–213
Bulk In, Bag Out (BIBO), 28
E
C Emergency
Cable Ship (CS), 253, 254, 255 Response and Rescue Vessel (ERRV),
China Ocean Shipping Company 282
(COSCO), 16 Towing Vessel (ETV), 286, 287, 288
Shipping Galaxy, 55 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 17,
Shipping Gemini, 57 103, 111
Shipping Libra, 57 Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), 78

309
310 Index

F H
Fisheries research vessel (FRV), 110, Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-
113, 114, 123 Actien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG),
Scotia, 110, 123 182, 248
Floating Liquefied Natural Gas Lloyd, 49, 58, 59, 248
(FLNG), 139, 141, 155 Harbour, Balboa, 6, 7
Floating Production Storage and Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), 10, 198
Offloading (FPSO), 139–142, HMS
155, 172, 173, 280 Alert, 125
Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO), Beagle, 113
139, 142, 163, 172 Boxer, 85, 86
Floating Storage and Regasification Britannic, 242
Unit (FSRU), 139, 141 Bruiser, 85
Food and Agriculture Organisation Calypso, 113
(FAO), 103 Challenger, 113
Discovery, 125
Endurance, 113
G Felicity, 101
Gas carrier Highflyer, 242
Aamira, 10 Hydra, 114
Al Aamriya, 10 Terra Nova, 127
Al Dafna, 11 Thruster, 85
Al Ghariya, 10
Al Gharrafa, 10
I
Al Ghuwairiya, 11
Al Hamla, 10 Industrial and Commercial Bank of
Al Huwaila, 10 China (ICBC), 16
Al Kharsaah, 10 International
Al Khuwair, 10 Association of Classification
Al Mafyar, 11 Societies (IACS), 34, 35, 273
Al Mayeda, 11 Association of Independent Tanker
Al Oraiq, 10 Operators (INTERTANKO),
Al Sahla, 10 173
Al Samriya, 11 Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO),
Al Shamal, 10 117, 120
Al Thumama, 10 Convention for the Prevention
Al Utouriya, 10 of Pollution from Ships
Amad, Umm Al, 10 (MARPOL), 168
Bu Samra, 11 Convention for the Safety of Life at
Duhail, 10 Sea (SOLAS), 24, 146
Fraiha, 10 Convention on Standards of
Lijmiliya, 11 Training, Certification and
Moza, 11 Watchkeeping for Seafarers
Murwab, 10 (STCW), 188
Rasheeda, 11 Geophysical Year (IGY), 131
Shagra, 11 Maritime Organisation (IMO), 77,
Umm Al Amad, 10 90, 103, 145, 146, 155, 158,
Zarga, 11 275
Gauss, 127, 131 IMO Class 1, 136
Global Atmospheric Research IMO Class 2, 136
Programme (GARP), 123 IMO Class 3, 136
 Index 311

Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Neo-Panama, 8, 9, 42

(IMBC) Code, 36 Panama, xxv, 1, 3–9, 12, 25, 26, 28,
Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS), 30, 31, 35, 37, 42, 43, 164, 183
31 Post-Panamax, 5, 8, 9, 42, 43
Standards Organisation (ISO), 39 Seaway, xxv, xxvi, 1, 12, 26
Suez, xxv, 1, 2, 3, 12, 43, 164, 166,
167
J Vale free, 13–16
Jiangsu Rongsheng Heavy Industries Maersk, 217
(RSHI), 13 Emma, 51
Line, 49, 52, 59
Maastricht, 56
L Madrid, 56
Manchester, 56
Lake
Manila, 56
Freighter, xxv, 12, 25, 29
Marseille, 56
Gatún, 6
Milan, 56
Great, xxv, 12, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35,
Monaco, 45
65, 228, 270
Moscow, 56
Miraflores, 6
Mumbai, 45
Lanes In Metres (LIMS), 81
Munich, 56
Large Car and Truck Carrier (LCTC),
Murcia, 56
88
Rapier, 306
Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT), 30,
Triple E class, 2, 42
167
Willow, 93
Lift On, Lift Off (LOLO), 44, 81
Mafi trailer, 82, 88
Linear Cable Engine (LCE), 253
Methane, 20, 153–155, 157
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), xxv, 10,
Pioneer, 151
11, 17, 139, 141, 143–145,
Princess, 151
148, 149, 151–158, 199, 209,
Progress, 151
236
Motor Ship (MS)
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), 11,
Anglian Princess, 290
143–145
Anglian Sovereign, 290
Lloyd
Anglian Monarch, 290
Hapag, 49, 58, 59, 248
Anglian Prince, 290
List, 61
Aallotar, 203
Norddeutscher, 240, 241, 243, 248
Achille Lauro, 194, 250
Register, 11, 14, 36, 37, 272, 278,
Amorella, 208, 209
293, 305
Apollo, 162, 207
London Tanker Brokers’ Panel (LTBP),
Athena, 208, 209
163
Bonifacio, 224
Bore Star, 205
M Botnia, 204
Cinderella, 207, 208
Max Color Fantasy, 222
Afra, xxv, 1, 2, 12, 163, 164, 166, Color Magic, 82, 184, 222
167 Diana, 207
Balti, 2 Diana II, 208
China, xxv, 1, 3, 4, 13 Estonia, 92–94, 206
Handy, xxv, 1, 3, 4, 25, 26, 28, 30, Express Samina, 91
31, 33, 34 Fennia, 204
Malacca, xxv, 1, 4, 26, 51 Finlandia, 205
312 Index

Finnstar, 202 Viking Song, 208

Floria, 204 Wellamo, 205, 206
Herald of Free Enterprise, 210 Motor Tanker (MT)
Herald of Free Enterprise II, 224 Amoco Cadiz, 296
Gabriella, 209 Exxon Valdez, 173, 174, 296
George Phillipar, 250 Torrey Canyon, 296
Ilmatar, 205 Motor Vessel (MV)
Isabella, 208 Anvil Point, 308
Kalypso, 208, 209 Astoria, 245
King of Scandinavia, 217 Bretagne, 213
Maria Maddalena, 224 CSCL Pusan, 45
Mariella, 208 Derbyshire, 34, 36, 172
Moby Blu, 224 Doulos, 245
Moby Prince, 224 Eddystone free, 308
Moby Wonder, 224 Funchal, 245
Moby Freedom, 224 Glenachulish, 233
Moby Aki, 224 Hartland Point, 308
Nordia, 204 Helena, 178, 179, 180
Oasis of the Seas, 209 Hurst Point, 308
Olympia, 208 Kooringa, 40
Oriana, 202 Normandie, 213, 243, 244, 246, 248
Princess Maria, 204 Raleigh Fisher, 306, 308
Princess of Norway, 217 Sewol, 91
Princess Seaways, 217 Spokane, 228
Princess of Scandinavia, 217 Mussolini, Benito, 250
Queen of Scandinavia, 217
Queen of the Baltic Sea, 205
Regina, 205 N
Rosella, 208
NOAAS Ronald H. Brown, 115
Silja Europa, 206
Navigazione Arcipelago Maddalenino
Silja Festival, 206
(NAVARMA), 223
Silja Karneval, 206
New
Silja Opera, 209
Jersey (US) (NJ), 8, 40, 66, 225, 228,
Silja Scandinavia, 209
234
Silja Serenade, 206
York (NY) (US), 8, 66, 163, 165,
Silja Symphony, 206
191, 225, 228, 234, 239, 240,
Silvia Regina, 205
244, 246, 248
Skandia, 203, 204
Zealand, xxvi, 75, 76, 229
Stockholm, 244, 245, 250
and Australian Land Company
Superspeed, 1, 222
(NZALC), 75
Superspeed, 2, 222
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Svea, 205, 206
(NATO), xxvi, 124
Svea Corona, 205
Nuclear Ship (NS)
Svea Regina, 205
50 Let Pobedy, 269
Turella, 208
Arktika, 269, 270
Viking 1
Lenin, 269
Viking 2
Ural, 269
Viking 3, 208
Viking 4, 208
Viking 5, 208 O
Viking
Viking Grace, 209 Offshore
Viking Saga, 208 Construction Vessel (OCV), 255,
Viking Sally, 208 257, 280
 Index 313

Supply Vessel (OSV), 279 Roll On, Roll Off Passenger Ship
Oil Bulk Ore Carrier (OBO), 172 (ROPAX) do it again and
Roll On, Roll Off (RORO)
Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), 305
P Royal Mail Ship (RMS)
P&O Atlantic, 267
Cruises, 182, 190, 191 Britannia, 257
Ferries, 210–214, 220, 230 Carpathia, 266
Norsea, 214 Empress of Ireland, 267
Norsun, 214 Etruria, 257
North Sea Ferries, 214, 215 Lusitania, 265–267
Norwave, 214 Mauretania, 265, 266
Norwind, 214 Oceanic, 260
Portsmouth, 210, 214 Olympic, 261, 298
Pride of Bilbao, 211, 212 Queen Elizabeth, 2, 255, 263
Pride of Bruges, 214 Queen Elizabeth, 255
Pride of Cherbourg, 211 Queen Mary, 2, 255, 263, 265
Pride of Hampshire, 211 Queen Mary, 37, 262–263
Pride of Hull, 82, 214 St. Helena, 202, 203
Pride of Le Havre, 211 Teutonic, 260
Pride of Rotterdam, 214 Titanic, 205, 261, 266, 267
Pride of Winchester, 211 Umbria, 240
Pride of York, 214, 215 Royal Research Ship (UK)
Stena Line, 210, 213–216, 218, 232 David Atttenborough, 124, 278
Panama Authority, 5
Canal, 2, 5, 7–9, 12, 26, 32, 42, 43, S
50, 177, 263
Pedro Miguel Locks, 6 San Juan Prospector, 7
Pipe, Laying, Vessel, (PLV), 257, 280 Marcona Prospector, 7
Pipeline End Manifold (PLEM), 142 Seawise Giant, 16, 139, 162
Platform Supply Vessel (PSV), 280 Knock Nevis, 16, 139, 162, 173
Port Inland Distribution Network Knock Sheen
(PIDN), 66 Shell
Pure, Car, and, Truck, Carrier, (PCTC), España, 172
18, 81, 87 Royal Dutch, 11, 161, 162
Pure Car Carrier (PCC), 18, 81 International Trading and Shipping
Company, 11
Q Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing
(STOVL), 87
Qatar Gas and Transport Company, Size
10, 11 Cape, xxv, 1–4, 12, 25–27, 30, 31,
Qatargas, 10, 11, 151 34, 35, 37, 43
Q-Flex, xxv, 10, 151 Handy free, 4, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33
Q-Max, xxv, 1, 10, 11, 151 SS
Aallotar, 203, 205
R Andrea Doria, 244, 245, 248, 250
Aquitania, 242
Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), 280, Austria, 240
282, 284 Badger, 229
Replenishment at Sea (RAS), 72, 124, Bismarck, 242
159, 172, 303, 305, 307 Bremen, 243, 246
Research Vessel (RV), xxvi, 110, Britannic, 242
113–115, 117, 123–125, 262, Canberra, 244
277, 278 Cap Arcona, 244, 249
314 Index

Conte di Savoia, 243, 250 Kingdom (UK), 8, 17, 41, 49, 55,
Deutschland, 128, 241, 243, 249 65–67, 75, 76, 80, 94, 120,
Empire Bard, 258 121, 137, 151, 164, 167, 172,
Empire Elgar, 258 178, 181, 189, 192, 205, 207,
Empire Purcell, 258 209, 210, 212, 215, 218, 221,
Europa, 243, 244, 206 232, 237, 239, 240, 243, 250,
France, 183, 238, 242, 248, 250 265, 286, 290, 305, 300, 303,
Great Britain, 240, 245 306
Great Eastern, 240, 241, 245, 253, Nations (UN), 103, 167, 168
254 Nations Council on Trade and
Great Western, 239, 240, 245 Development (UNCTAD), 45,
Îlle de France, 243, 250 46, 52, 58, 76
Imperator, 242 States Centres for Disease Control
Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, 241, 242 (US CDC), 196, 197
Kronprins Haakon, 278 States Coastguard (USCG), 119–121,
Kronprinz Wilhelm, 242 173, 271, 274, 278
Liberté, 244, 278 States Coastguard Cutter (USCGC)
Mauritania, 242, 243, 250 Muskeget woman, 119
Michelangelo, 238, 244 Polar Sea, 268, 269
Normandie, 243, 244, 246–248 Polar Star, 124, 271
Norway, 183, 245 Pontchartrain, 121
Olympic, 243, 250 States Ship (USS)
Ophir, 241 Belmont, 116
Paris, 243, 246 Emory S. Land, 297, 298
Raffaello, 238, 244 Frank Cable, 297, 298
Rex, 243, 244, 248, 250 Georgetown, 116
United States, 244–246, 250 Jamestown, 116
Vaterland, 242, 243 Kearsarge, 258
STX, 15 Liberty, 116
Dalian, 15 Oxford woman, 116
Jinhae Offshore & Shipbuilding, 15 Pueblo, 117
OSV, 287 Ramapo, 129
Pan Ocean, 15 Squalus, 258
Tulcea, 287 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC),
Turku, 209 118
Suez Canal, xxv, 1, 2, 12, 13, 42, 50,
51, 61, 155, 161, 162, 177,
238, 241, 249, 263 V
Vacuum Insulated Panels (VIP), 78
T Vereinigung Hamburger Schiffsmakler
und Schiffsagenten e. V.
Tension Leg Platform (TLP), 280, 283 (VHSS), 52
Tri Fuel Diesel Electric (TFDE), 158 Vale, 15, 16
Beijing, 14, 15
U Brasil, 13, 15
Caofeidian, 13
Ultra Carajas, 15
Large Bulk Carrier (ULBC), 24 China, 13, 14
Large Crude Carrier (ULCC), xxv, Dalian, 13, 14
17, 24, 159, 164 Dongjiakou, 13
Large Ore Carrier (ULOC), 24 Espirito Santo, 15
United Fujiyama, 15
 Index 315

Hebei, 13 Large Container Ship (VLCS), 43,

Indonesia, 15 50
Italia, 15 Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), xxv,
Jiangsu, 13 4, 24
Korea, 15 Large Ore Carrier (VLOC), 4, 27
Lianyungang, 13 Virgin Atlantic Challenger II, 244
Liwa, 14
Malaysia, 15
Maranhao, 15 W
Minas Gerais, 15
Wallenius Wilhelmsen, 88
Ningbo, 13, 59
Wave Class
Ponta da Madeira, 15
Knight RFA, 307
Qingdao, 15, 59
Ruler RFA, 307
Rio de Janeiro, 15
Well Stimulation Vessel (WSV), 280
Rizhao, 13
World Meteorological Organisation
Saham, 14
(WMO), 121
Shandong, 13
Shinas, 14
Sohar, 14 Y
Tianjin, 13
Tubarao, 15, 16 Yuan
Very He Hai, 16
Large Bulk Carrier (VLBC), 25, 27 Qian Hai, 16