Retired USCG marine inspector here and your fundamental views are true. There are a few others. Each container can hold lets use an average of 60,000 lbs give or take. The design highest stack of a containership is usually 9 high. So 9 high means that the bottom one holds up the weight of the 8 above it with the potential weight of 480,000 lbs (240 tons). Keep that in mind. Now get the ship pitching up and down in large waves and you can potentially double that weight with the shock load as the ship drops down off a large wave and bang! The bottom container crushes and now you have no connection to the ship and over they go! I've inspected hundreds of these ships and they all have one thing in common, a load plan. Heaviest weight down low and lightest ones up high. I have found several ships with lashings missing because the loaders were in a hurry. The lashers are racing against time and keeping up with the crane operator. in the end these ships have become so big that they are causing their own problems. I've had containers split open and the contents rain down on the deck below. The other issue is no one knows how the products in the containers are packed so that adds to the problem.
@@TRPGpilot The Imperial Standard corner of the world, for better or worse, very clearly. No need to act like a festering A-hole about it. Especially in 2022. Now go slap yourself--you earned it. Some people's kids, SMH
Great explanation, thank you for taking the time to paint a picture. What if most of the containers on a ship are empty how does that effect planning, lashing and ship stability? Just asking Thank you again.
@@TRPGpilot They are the last ones to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Nasa has caught up in some respects though. One day, the rest will catch up.
As a crane operator @ the Port of Charleston where the Madrid Bridge discharged its damaged containers, I’d like to offer up some corrections and observations. Twist locks with pull tabs are automatically locked when the container is placed on top of another, providing they are correctly inserted into the corner castings. The tabs are strictly to unlock the twist locks. (There was a period of double pull tab twistlocks that could be both locked and unlocked with rods, but that proved confusing and inconsistent). Todays super Post Panamax ships, that stack containers 8 and 9 high above decks, have gone to a fully automatic twist lock with NO pull tabs what so ever. They are designed to unlock automatically when the container is pulled strait up by the container crane, but stay locked in a rocking side to side motion. I’m not an engineer or physics major, but this seems a little iffy to me in a rough seas condition. I suspect there are several reasons to going to this type of T/L, (reduced labor, faster production, cost), but probably the main reason is that the stacks are just too high now for T/L tabs to be reached with unlocking rods using human labor. I’ve been a container crane operator since the days of manually placed and manually locked T/L’s by longshoremen that used to walk the tiers doing so. Things that would make OSHA throw a red flag in todays operations. Ships also used “bridge clamps” back in the day that would tie the entire top tier together forming one big solid Lego, if you will. Bridge clamps on todays 8 and 9 high stacks would help I’m sure, but that’s a time consuming AND dangerous task to perform that OSHA would not be happy with, and rightfully so!! I would love to see the investigative report, if any, on what actually failed on the Madrid Bridge and others incidents like hers. I still scratch my head on todays new T/L technology and have my own suspicions, but that’s just my observation’s with almost 40 years employment at the SCSPA. Bottom line tho, with the increasing amount of incidents of lost containers overboard, this needs to be addressed and addressed soon. Container ships are getting bigger and bigger! Cheers.
The ships are always at port when they are being tied down; so IDK why they couldn't have climbers on ropes tied into a crane operator and he lowers them to the top deck-- keeps his crane hook high above them as a tie point and 4 or 6 guys on ropes running around the top deck doing "bridge clamps" --- and you could even lash long cables to the top corner on the outside container of each row, which would anchor each end of the "bridge", and already that would be 10x stronger than having those "autolocks alone--- which probably let go in bouncy waters anyway... I just say 4 or 6 guys, so that it's much quick and doesn't tie up the crane operator as long--- but you could still do it with 1 guy I suppose.... I mean, I've seen guys working on transmission power lines from the side of a helicopter--- hanging from a crane hook anchor with ropes and harness is not that far fetched-- and it would likely be quite fast. I climbed tress for 5 years, clearing and cutting them away from power lines and transmission lines in peoples back yards. Rope work is a well established profession. The answer seems very straight forward to me.
Hi Sal, I’d never heard this explanation of the container loss problem before, but to me the solution seems way too simple. Although now after reading through the previous comments, I see that some variations of this idea have been suggested and tried before. Here goes anyway… First let me explain that earlier in life I was at one point a forklift driver moving pallets of cardboard boxed products in a warehouse, and loading them onto trucks. The boxes came off the production line in runs of uniform sizes. Rectangular boxes could be stacked interlocked on a pallet, but square boxes could not be interlocked, and the outer columns of square boxes would hang over the edge of the pallet by a couple of inches to maximize the number loaded on each pallet. This meant that the outside vertical columns of squares were especially prone to tipping and falling outward as the pallets were moved over rough floors, up and down ramps, and around corners. What we discovered was that the entire pallet of 16 vertical square columns could be secured and stabilized by simply installing banding or wrapping around only the top layer of boxes. All layers below were then held firmly in place by the weight and friction of the boxes above, which, being banded together, acted like a “cap” over all the stacks. No other banding was then needed at the lower levels in order for the entire pallet to be completely firm and stable. I don’t see why the same principle wouldn’t apply with a bay of shipping container stacks. Rather than spend lots of time and manpower trying to stiffen the outer stacks from below, simply run long tie cables transversely across several rows of each bay at the top layer only. This would effectively link and thus “solidify” the top layer, which would then keep all containers below locked vertically via their interlocking corners. It doesn’t take very much force to prevent lateral motion at the top of a freestanding stack, since the tie cables would only be stressed at all when an outermost column was thrown sideways. Otherwise the columns are lateral-force neutral, and no tensioning is needed. We actually used rubber bungee cords in the warehouse, partly for ease of fitting. Heavy duty bungees might even work well in this application, or web cargo straps, or light steel cables, depending on weight and handling requirements. Some mechanical engineers should be able to make short work of designing the needed devices using commonly available materials. Installing (and removing) the cables should be a quick, secure, clip-on operation between the containers’ corner blocks. It may only prove necessary to link the outer three or four rows of each 16-row bay to gain adequate anti-tip stability at sea. The potential is of course for lots of saved cargo, plus savings on loading/unloading time and manpower, along with lowered environmental risk. Not to mention fewer insurance and administrative headaches, and general benefits for PR and good customer relationships. I realize that since I am not an industry professional or insider, I may be missing some basic knowledge of fine points that could make this approach less practical. But it at least seems worth mentioning. Best, Steve M.
I was already 5hinking that even ONE cable with turnbuckles could simply hook the top right to the top left container and eliminate tipping. The cables could have a limited stretch section as a shock absorber.
@@garychandler4296 Hi Gary, yes, I think perhaps a hidden challenge here is that the deck of the ship in rough seas may get pitched over at a fairly steep angle, and with the winds and heaving of the waves the forces on the containers can become pretty enormous, including a vertical component trying to lift them out of place at times. That and safety concerns for workers walking on the top of the stacks to install/remove cables - and the time that takes - seem to be the two main issues with our approach. Still, containers shouldn't be allowed to just fall overboard... there should be some better engineering solution possible.
On our deployment to Iraq in sep 2006 we lost one of our armory containers. We all carried our rifles, but we lost all our crew serve weapons aside from a few 249's. What a disaster.
Very interesting. Thank you for posting this video. I live 1,500 miles from the ocean and watched because three 40' x 9' high retired containers are storing junk at my woodworking shop on Wyoming's high, semi-desert prairie. And the beat goes on.
That "risk/benefit" analysis is something all insurance companies engage in and they usually have a large stable of well paid attorneys to deal with claims. I worked as a clerk for one of the bigger insurance defense law firms in Portland, Oregon back in the 1980's, fascinating work but most of our work was with landslide claims from insured parties when the rains would come and pitch million dollar homes into the ocean on the coast. Thanks for another enlightening video on container ships.
We are coming from the era of smaller vessels which had used bridge fittings to secure the containers in a block with the lashing and now we are building larger vessels, stacking containers higher with less securing mechanism. Once containers stacking exceed 4 height above its Lashing force we should consider using bridge fittings for the first 3 containers both port and starboard side.
Yep, I remember those days of manual locking shoes and bridge clamps. I was just commenting to my fellow operators, (many that are too young to remember bridge clamps lol), that they may need to bring back bridge clamps.
Many thanks for a great explanation about these container ship losses. Your presentation has been shared with all of our marine forecasters here at the National Hurricane Center. This really helps us to put into perspective when we are forecasting extreme winds and huge waves over the open Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for the blue water mariners!
The terms you're looking for, Sal, are 'inertia' and 'momentum'. The top of the stack is like an upside-down pendulum and the only thing keeping the stack from toppling at the deck line are the connections at the corners. And I can't imagine that the locking mechanisms are always in pristine working order, to boot.
On these larger ships I think they are going to have to raise the lashing bidges at least two tiers higher in order to attach the lashings higher up in the stow.
This looks like an excellent opportunity to find out the natural frequency of those top 4 stacks in relation to weight of the containers compared to the rolling frequency of the vessel with certain loads. I truly believe these event occur because of matching natural frequencies of vessel roll and unlashed container stacks. Pretty complex set of variables but one could computer model this and avoid resonance peaks during loading, perhaps with the help of ballasting
Exactly so ! If Elon Musk was running this operation - I am sure none of this loss of containers would be going on bc he takes the time to get things right.
think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be - they should lash all outside containers and further up the rows. but suspect that slows down the process of loading an unloading so it's not cost effective
Sal, we need a video game called Cargo Master as the Captain of a Panamax container MV. Maybe a multiplayer game with Chief Engineer and so on. Could be fun...from random weather events, port congestion, and physics of it all.
I found it interesting that it looks like all of the two-level ties on the Madrid were from outboard on the bottom to inboard on the top. That will restrain the containers from tipping _inward_. Which they won't do anyway, since there are more containers there. It won't do diddly to prevent the container from tipping outward. The two-level ties should have been from inboard on the bottom to outboard on the top. It wouldn't always help enough to prevent all loss, but it could have helped a little.
Sal, not sure if it the same today as it was years ago, but my friends family was one who arranged to sell places on ships. I had asked him about containers falling off. He said, they placed high value on the bottom or middle and all of the cheap cargo was at the ends, so if they fell off it was not a big value loss. Notwithstanding, of course weight placement.
@@jannejohansson3383 Good point. I was really mentioning very valuable items. They were put low and middle. Crappy stuff like dollar store stuff on the outside.
This shows the dangers of the container vessel industry forgoing bridgefittings. To save time (money) container companies stopped using these clamps that bound the top container rows together making it one block. Already in the 90s I (master mariner on container vessels) never saw them anymore. Many disasters could have been avoided. The clamps weigh about 3kg and are 30cm long. Not difficult to place.
What about lashing across the top of each stack with cables from the port outermost container all the way across to the starboard outermost container? This would help to tie everything together.
Very interesting and well presented. Question: Lashing or no, the bottom most containers must support the weight of everything above. So Isn't there also a stack failure-mode if/when the bottom containers collapse, making it even easier for the stack to topple?
In the time taken to fit corner interlocks to all corners and lash the first 3~5 containers, I wonder if it is possible to fit a steel hook in place of the interlock (but using similar twist/untwist mechanism to fit the hook) and weave two steel cables from top of stack to cleats on the deck? I guess the next problem would be the weight of the cable - it looks like it needs to be light enough that two people can lash down a stack, but strong enough so as not to plastically deform under load.
How much of an effect does damage to containers (Dents and dings from traffic incidents/handling bumps, or forklift forks from inside) have? And plain old metal fatigue from years of service, especially around the connection pockets. I also wonder how many of these stack collapses are started when the load inside a container shifts.
It depends, In general, If the Corners where the Twist Locks are located are in good shape. It shouldnt be much an issue. LOads inside the container are generally secured by the packer/shipper. It's in the best interest to do so.
With those pathetic cross lashings on the lower layer only, one has to wonder why a lot more containers don't fall off. They need to come up with something a LOT more reliable.
I've always wondered why the structure between rows above deck was not extended higher. Extending the structure to the top, and providing guides would eliminate the need to lash. Given how much longshore labor costs, I would expect over the life of the ship for that to be the cheaper solution.
@@Mic420m Have you ever been in a brainstorming session at work? That is what happens in the comments on You Tube and other forums. Some Ideas work and some don't; but none should be criticized, because people are are at least trying to throw out an idea that might stick. If you do not like a comment I might suggest that you just scroll on by,
@@funnyfarm5555 oh please 🙄 with your everyone deserves a participation trophy philosophy. I explained exactly how twist locks work for the benefit of all - no "brainstorming" required.
One reason is probably the time it takes to load and unload. If the guides extended all the way up then the cranes would need to lift every container above the top of the guides.
A really interesting video and very well explained. I followed the saga closely of ONE APUS, 2 years ago. As you say, it is all about money, get the containers on & off the ship as quickly as possible. If the container falls overboard, it cost the shipping company nothing as they are not liable. It is for those sending goods in a container to make sure their goods are insured.
Interesting video, but (assuming nit-picking mode) the 'twisted ship' scenario assumes the fore and aft losses happened simultaneously. No particular reason why that should be so. A severe parametric roll could shed the forward stack on the roll to port, followed by the aft stack on the starboard roll. A 45 degree roll each way should do it. SCARY. BTDT. But yes, the stack heights are getting crazy. I hope 25K TEUs will be the limit for containerships, like 500K DWT was for tankers. Keep the videos coming.
I sometimes pull containers for the trucking company I work for we do 45,40,20 ft containers the ones u can feel and respect are the 20 ft ones they have 3 axle chassis for these they can put 50,000 lbs in these and are top heavy couldn't imagine 9 high all of it magnified. Lots of math and science Goin on love it. It's like going back to school great knowledge
I would guess that the longer the tie downs were the less effective they are as the angles get steeper and loose lateral stability, unless they were made very long and attach to the ship several stacks over. To make the ship's holding frame guides taller would add complexity, cost, weight and reduce flexability on how locate different size containers. Some years ago a container ship lost a lot of containers, somewhere around either Holland or Spain. One of the theories was there was a harmonic between the ship size, shape and the wave height to cause the waves to slap the side of the ship and push up on the containers. I know oil tankers used to be much larger than they are now. (Suez Canal was closed at the time) They were very restricted where they could go and what ports they could use. Are container ships following the same path of size complexities countering the shipping efficiencies of larger ships?
With a long enough tie, you could just connect the port side top container to the starboard side deck. The added rigidity could be problematic though. Preventing the ship to flex can cause it to crack.
great thing with all those shortages that we just hope our much needed shipment wasnt in one of those lost containers...might not always just be some cheap goods...imagine a container of grafics cards were you have to look hard to find one for less then $1000 and alot of people wait for those ...same goes for alot of other stuff
Just a thought ( this would be a safety nightmare ...), couldn't someone be lowered down in a cage by crane onto the top of the stacks then lash the inside top corners of the containers on the outer of the row to the next container towards the centre? Thinking you'd have to lash say 3 containers to each other on the port side and 3 on the starboard side. You could do the whole row but that might be overkill . Not sure if that makes sense ? It would slow down unloading for sure , cost serious $ too in labour .
It makes sense, and it's not that hard, not that time consuming either. Problem are the crews that cut corners, perform half ass jobs. Crews from different countries, work differently. Some work faster, others slower. Some are problem solvers, and others are not good or are not motivated to do the job properly. Language barriers can lengthen time, and captains not caring enough for the job to be done right.
They HAVE what is called "bridge fittings" to tie the topmost containers side-by-side and fitted on top of the highest containers of the stacks, if the next container of the topmost containers are at the same height. The bridge fittings would keep the topmost containers together if they're fitted. Now the question is, are those bridge fittings being fitted?
@@maxnikolenko2302 The crew DOES NOT do the lashings of containers. Lashings of containers are done by the shore gang. Ship's crew only checks that they are being properly done and make regular checks when the ship is at sea to ensure rhe container laahings do no come loose due to ship's movements at sea. So, the rest of you claims about the crew having problems doing the lashing jobs are not true. Ship's crew are not paid to lash cargo on board a ship while in port. Ship's crew only checks the lashings to ensure the safety of their ship when at sea.
Sal, given that this complex problem can be identified by groups or sections and solved in batches, using the old saying that a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link (member), can the loading practices change to a procedure like airlines use for fuel and baggage planning? Gravity will always rule. I like your examples of Lego block liking to secure a structure. There are a lot of threads (thinking) that make up a load consist and the vehicle/vessel capacity that will carry that load. I enjoy the challenge of studying all the issues but I’m a long way from a comfort zone to arrive at possible solutions. I’ve spent the last 30 years as an arborist dealing with removal of trees close to buildings. The only common ground is problem solving gravity and heavy weight. Keep on top of this discussion.
Can't the loading cranes be equipped with electronics at the cables that weigh every container as it is loaded? then can't such electronics be linked directly to the load calculating computers? Also, can't the crew lash and unlash containers as the ship approaches and leaves port, rather than at the dock? or in the bay waiting to unload? except that LA doesn't have much of a protected bay. except it seems to me that sufficiently long and strong lashing cables might be to heavy for workers to lift and might need to be placed with a crane like the huge hatches on bulk carriers. Also, trucks carry just a bit over their own weight where ships, at least supertankers, carry nearly ten times their own weight. shouldn't that ratio be limited to maybe 6 times? to mandate a minimum structure to cargo ratio?
the coffee fund tip jar donations is worth it for the high tech props, lol. B) I also suspect that there may be a structural element to not adding lashings to the top with the total down forces on the bottom containers in the entire stack, there must be a limit to just how much force a container can take before it buckles from down-force on it.
Thank you for this update. I was going to mention some possible solutions ; but now I see that nobody cares. > How disappointing/ So basically it’s load up as much as you can /as fast as you can. No quality controls. And if stuff gets lost at sea, who cares. > But the thing is -not all merchandise is easily replaced. Because not all resources are infinite.. > I guess everyone is jaded by now. How very sad to see …
if lost containers were treated like other hazmat, the ships would take more care for their cargo. if the liability to other sea going vessels was a priority, then maybe the insurance companies would take a dim view of lost containers. In all other freight hauling (trains ,motor freight, airlines) the loss of the shipment is treated as a crime.
Insurance companies have a license to steal. It's a scapegoat to allow mismanagement to continue with risk-taking where everybody believes it's not going to happen to them o'r not happen on their watch! Enough of the risk taking and let's start being more professional mitigating all risk because of the Benjamins saved with shortcuts and overstacking
In the early seventies I did a couple of trips on a container ship. We carried 1400 containers. 6 deep below deck and up to 5 on deck. As I recall all containers even 5 high were secured with cross braces, I think we called them 'pelicans'. I don't remember ever hearing of any container losses. How times have changed!! I'm a sailor and glad I'm not sailing deep sea with the ever increasing risk of hitting a semi submerged container ! Something definately needs doing to stop this madness.
Wow! Incredible video and information Sal! Thoroughly kept my attention span way up there, just as high as the highest container🤣😂! Thank you for the excellent information Sal!
The longest cross lashings are secured to the bottom of the FIFTH tier container. So, out of 8 tiers, only the top 3 tiers are not lashed down. Instead, the topmost containers are fitted with bridge fittings tying the topmost containers together side-by-side. Or are these bridge fittings not being fitted to "save" time in port?
Looking at the weather analysis maps for the 7th I don't see Very high winds or waves in the area of the vessel however there seems to have been a very long. Swell from the Northwest so I suspect parametric rolling could have been an issue as wave lengths likely were in the range of 900-1200 feet
I worked on her in Charleston. The contributing factors was poorly loaded boxes. You never put a loaded box on an empty box a perfect example is this accident.
Thanks for commenting. I had cargo on that ship and still don't know if it was effected. Is the ship still in Charleston? Do you know where it is headed next? ONE has not been providing any info on this. The reason why they don't care is because they don't pay out at all for these damages, if you want coverage for incidents like this, you need to purchase separate insurance. Insurance claims from ONE APUS were estimated at around $300 Million If the carrier was negligent, they maybe sued by freight forwarders if they have enough of a financial stake to do so, but for the individual shipper, it isn't worth the 100k+ in legal fees to file a lawsuit. Their are freight forwarders suing ONE for the last stack collapse they had
Were those 45 or 53 footers in that stack? The reason I ask, is it looks like they have extensions on the ends. It follows you can load longer and heavier loads in those that might need to be accounted for. Dunno...
Sal, what about a single cross bar at the top row front and back, with small interconnects between boxes instead of the repeated cross lashings all the way up, once the bottom four have been established?
Thanks for an excellent explanation. Using your Lego example, would it be possible to develop a module which ties the topmost containers together which could be removed by the cargo cranes? If so, then the amount of lost containers would/should be reduced.
@@wgowshipping Manual bar placement could be avoided by using frames compatible with existing container handling equipment and fitted with remote actuators so no humans need go atop stacks (except in safety harness for repairs). Locking frames could for example have four corner fittings atop posts for easy handling but their bottoms could have the necessary footprint to (for example) link a container on each side of a central container. There is ample room for protected actuation systems. Of course a containerized safety cage could deliver personnel and equipment for repairs etc. The connecting racks could be inspected with cameras during installation to verify engagement of autolocking fittings while unlocking the rack could be done remotely using central actuation. Alternate option, the connecting racks could be "dumb" platforms with walkways (think skeletonized flat rack) so personnel could be delivered riding the rack, lock and inspect the result, then return to dock via personnel cage or another rack (always maximize option choice). Building test racks is basic work easily done at any local fab shop. For more details those interested should check out the Tandemloc site as their layout and drawings nicely explain many container fitting and handling options.
Oh Sal Back in the good oh days..You did bring up a interesting point of hull twisting We were working on a Sealand mechanical pump and remembered taking a stairway on the bridge down (We were exploring too).we were amazed how far the bottom of hull was (It reminded us of one big open barge ?)Wow...(The ship was empty in for Maintenance)
It looks like the twist locks could be improved , but when the stack leans to one side the weight of the upper containers is transferred to one side wall of the lowest container leaning , causing that side wall to collapse . If there was a way to lash the top containers with a wire rope system delivered to the top of the stack by the Crain on a pallet or special lashing container. Holding the top of the stack together will help stop the stacks from leaning. If you know your heading into ruff seas have the Crain put the pallet or special lashing container on top and a crew can walk on top to lash down the load.
Hi Sal, good job again. You are mostly on track, but I have a couple of comments: You are correct about the "time & money" driving this. Up until last winter and the ONE Apus casualty, historically the annual losses are about 2000 containers per year, out of the roughly 200M containers shipped. A loss rate of only about 0.001%, or 1/100,000. These are numbers that the insurance carriers can easily live with. To reduce the losses significantly would not just require extra lashing and longshore bills, but also a significant reduction in deck capacity of these ships, which is serious $'s. These cost-benefit assessments are looked at periodically to see if the container lashing guidelines should be adjusted. (Many believe that now it is time again based on the last two winter season losses.) You are off on a tangent when you talk about ship twist. Yes containerships twist but this is a very minor contributor to this issue of losses. What is really important is predicting the maximum roll angle which is the major driver of horizontal accelerations of the containers. The container lashing standards specify a "design' roll angle and roll period (based on ship size and ship stability or GM), which assumes a big storm and normal helming of the ship. But there of 'off design' conditions that can exceed this resulting in container losses, like driving the ship too close to a hurricane, or a power failure during a storm, or parametric roll, or just a bigger storm than was assumed to predict the design roll angle. Parametric roll is not at all about ship twist, it's about the wave loading frequency being synchronous with the ships roll period, which amplifies the roll angle. It remains to be seen if any of these was applicable to the Madrid Bridge. The structures between the deck stacks are called Lashing Bridges. They started out as 1-tier high, and as the ships got bigger they are now 2/3/4-tiers high. This is what is required to get reasonable weight stacks up to now 9-high. You can't provide extra lashes to the upper tier containers unless you continue to raise the lashing bridges even higher. The video showing the manual tugging on the twist-lock handle is showing unlocking, not locking. Virtually all twist-locks are 'semi-automatic' (or even fully automatic) today so they automatically lock when being loaded. Semi-automatic twist-locks need to be manually unlocked, like in the video. Your description of the independent stacks and how they are lashed and secured is excellent and accurate. It's also very true that when one stack fails, it pounds up against adjacent stacks every roll, which will eventually cause the single failure to spread transversally across the ship within a single Bay. Also the outboard stacks have additional margins and lashings to account for the wind pressure. If you loose a single outboard stack overboard, then the interior stacks are often vulnerable and not capable of taking the combined max roll angle and wind pressure. Yes, accurate container weights are an issue. It's getting somewhat better with the latest IMO guidelines for terminals, but some incorrect weights (and incorrectly labeled hazardous containers codes) are still not identified and are occasionally getting loaded onboard.
Robert...thanks for the comments. This is why I love doing this channel. Such great expertise comes to bear. I will be sure to note all of this for the next video as I know this will not be the last container loss. Thanks...Sal
do you know why containers can't be stacked criss cross? The ratio is about 5:2 or 5:1 depending on whether they are 20ft or 40ft, why can't they be stacked like lego bricks?
@@HesderOleh Container can only be supported at the 4 strong corner posts. If you were to stack them crisscross you would have bottom corners landing on intermediate soft top rails of the container below.
@@RobertTagg Cool, thanks, I thought that might be the reason, but wasn't sure. Do you think that could be addressed by reinforcing the the locations where the weight would rest? As a way of reducing costs of extra posts you could have a trade off of complexity in loading with FEUs where 2 out of every five had four extra posts on one side so that you could have a 5x5 stack with the containers on each side of the level have post in the middle as if they were corners. The upside would be that 3/5ths of the containers could be current regular containers. I know practically, trying to incorporate changes into a standardized system is almost impossible, but do you think this would work in theory?
I guess then the solution would be to substantially increase the penalty of losing cargo overboard to the point they fix the problem. We can't allow them to just write-off such pollution and go on. This has to be stopped.
5.000.000$ per cont and after it's recovered, price drops to 1.000.000$. There is least one beach what is familiar with Legos.. and only one container box was full of Legos. Still every day beach is loaded, no matter that those plastic types doesn't float!
@@hyperboloidofonesheet1036 "Who issues the fines?" And that's the problem with corporations who have no loyalty to any country and feel they're above any laws.
@@GreeceUranusPutin It's a legitimate question. I'd like to know what legal jurisdictions are involved. As far as I know (which isn't much in this regard), a crime committed in international waters is prosecuted by the country the ship is registered to, but I have to imagine there are many other things involved.
Sal You got it backwards . Pulling down on the pigtail of a twist lock, unlocks it for discharge. They are designed to automatically lock When one box is loaded on top of another. The longshoremen must insert them into the corner castings correctly on the dock for this to happen.
Oh wow Sal ..You bring up a interesting point....Perhaps..could they take the top 6 layers of containers like a flat bed semi truck load .Could they install Hydraulic wrenches on each side of ship at each row of containers...and use the over head containers cranes to help run cables up from the starboard side up and over and down over to Port side a tighten the cables...and like a truck load alternate from left to right of tightens cables..We do see why they only turn buckle the bottom 3-4 rows..How would they ,the crew climb 5. -10 Story tall containers walls.....WoW Sal your explanation of the containers tipping over is amazing....Thank you Sal for your neat Inspiration on this using Cables run over top of each row stacks after the containers shore cranes loads the last containers for that row.....Hopefully the cables would help prevent the outer stacks of containers falling in the water which ,like you pointed out just domino effect 😀....The inter rows.?????
Rationally it seems that even single-lashes in the triangle up to one or two containers below the top outside would prevent this problem. Single lashes (one diagonal) would transfer the force, and would be relatively fast. I would think insurers would require this. \. / \\. // \\\__///
Make your mouse pointer larger. Settings-Mouse-Preferences. Instead of rods, they should use steel cables to attach the top containers to the hull of the ship.
Seems like you could get very large ratchet straps on the top ones go from one top on the outside stack to say the top of the 3rd stack so now instead of just having single rows you have a lashed 3 on each side on the top to make slabs and unlashed in the center
Nice discussion. Color code the containers based on weight where the heaviest are the purple and the lightest are more towards the green end of the spectrum. surely that can help simplify stacking according to weight.
Why don't they cross lash across the tops of the containers to have more lateral rigidity of the stacks? They could do this after leaving port and remove before arrival. Probably only have to do the outer couple stacks on each side.
The Zim Kinston lot over 100 containers overboard in rough seas of the west coast of Vancouver Island in late 2021 en route to Vancouver. A number of other containers caught fire. The Zim Kingston continued down the coast to Victoria where the fire fire was fought and eventually put out. The ship is currently being off loaded in the port of Nanaimo, 90 km north of Victoria. To date, nothing has changed with container ships. None of the containers were recovered and carried by currents are now sunk off the north coast of Vancouver Island.
from an engineering perspective, this has always dumfounded me. the outsides should all be lashed in. I suspect they don't because it slows down loading and offloading
so…did they try using longer rods? say, tide them up in 4, like this 田 as one group and give it a X cross? hypothetically it will stable the bottom 4 stags instead of 2. if it is 9 in a group, it is going to tide up to 6 stags. of cause a longer pole is heavier, how about metal cables or fabric? if i can think it out in 5 minutes, i bet a dollar someone somewhere had already try it before, does it work?
@@wgowshipping I have been reading a number of account of deep water sailors and containers (that do not sink but stay just under the surface) are a huge danger day or night. Thanks for responding!
It seems as though the crane operator would be able to judge weight shifting within the containers while loading or better yet as the container is loaded to start with, we have that type of information right? But then again, they might not all go to the same port I can clearly see layers of the same shipping company and the layers are horizontal rather than vertical which makes sense
Sal, how come container ships don't have stabilizers under the waterline like cruise ships do for passenger comfort? Sure, I understand that there's extra cost and complexity involved in building and operating stabilizers, including increased fuel consumption on account of extra hydrodynamic drag when they're extended, but surely there must be a business case for them in comparison with losing stacks of containers overboard? 🤔
The main reason I would expect to be the MAX. It has been a decade since the largest ships became PANAMAX, or too wide to pass the Panama Canal. The most recent limit we have hit is MaltaMAX, which is too long/wide to pass Malta. Normally, stabilizing fins will need to extend a dozen feet or more on each side, which means a PANAMAX or MaltaMAX ship has to be thinner than before (thus less cargo). I know naval light ships (destroyers and such) will have these equipped on hydraulics that fold them out of the way when at harbor or in a channel, but these are much smaller than even a VLCS. As long as container ships are only losing less than 1% a year in containers failing like this, the 5% or so capacity lost to having a smaller size would be more of an issue. I am mainly surprised that containers don't have a better interlink option.
Just like so many areas of our society - no accountability, no care, no incentive to prevent crazy losses and environmental damage. As someone with a couple of precious things about to take container ship voyages, seeing those stupidly barely-secured stacks makes me angry and worried.
Sal have you ever did a video on how long a large Containers ships run ? It be interesting to know from all the hull twisting ,You would expect hull Cracks ??$ After 8 years or so ??
That Robert Redford movie was the worst most inaccurate sailing movie of all time. I cussed and threw things at the tv Robert Redford owns a sailboat he had to have known the script was bs.Do shipping containers float with the doors open? Got to stop on that movie blood pressure going up. I am ex Navy and have owned 7 sailboats, both of my sons are ABs and my son-in-law is a bosun and has passed the 3rd mate tests. Never install your batteries below the waterline ! Subscriber now
Are the cranes made such that they can stack the containers both athwart ships as well as fore and aft? Are empties stacked exclusively on empties such that they are undisturbed until a final destination? How about winches, one for each row, hard connected to the hull with one inch steel cable which is s6trong out over the entire row athwart ship to a hull attachment point the take up on the winch.
Containers are only stowed fore and aft. Empties are usually loaded with other empties in separate bays. I dont understand what you want the winches to do.
There have been a number of winter storms that brought snow, ice, and high winds to the eastern half of the US in the past few days. I would expect these to have caused rough weather out at sea.
What amazes me is that some of the containers are dangling by one twist-lock! Might it not be quicker to simply loop a cable around, say, one row of three stacks of containers here & there? Or better yet, a frame at the top, laid by the container crane, which ties two stacks together. Doing that in a mathematically staggered pattern would add a lot of strength.
I wonder, as more of these losses happen and ship owner declare general average, if more and more shippers (and their insurers) will become more concerned about adequate care provided for their containers. Such concerns might put pressure on the ship owners to develop and use better container interlocking systems. Or if ship owners try to avoid declaring general average, they might see more economic advantage in taking additional precautions when securing topside cargo.
The reason they’re willing to take the risk is because they don’t take the risk. I had some containers go off the side of the ship. We were told it was an act of God and to go to our insurance carrier to get the pay out. The shipping line paid nothing.
I like your idea. Our semi truck flat bed drivers have to use strapping or chains for securement and size and number matters depending on the article being hauled. Log trucks have to use chains or cables.. I thought after reading another comment; why can't we use cables in an X from one top corner of the stack to the opposite bottom corner of the ship? They would be reasonably fast to secure , especially with some help from the cranes or another device (companies have tarping machines for flatbed semi trailers).. There could also be a strap or two over the top of each row of containers from one side of the ship to the other. As another person stated; the ships take no responsibility/liability and consider the container loss an act of god and you get to deal with your insurance company. So until the world or the courts place some of the liability on the shippers there will be no improvement. Maybe they will start charging like an airline; you pay more for a lower position in the ship.
That’s why there is marine insurance. The insurer will file a claim against the carrier if they believe that the carrier is not entitled to rely upon the defenses listed on the back of the b/l.
Retired USCG marine inspector here and your fundamental views are true. There are a few others. Each container can hold lets use an average of 60,000 lbs give or take. The design highest stack of a containership is usually 9 high. So 9 high means that the bottom one holds up the weight of the 8 above it with the potential weight of 480,000 lbs (240 tons). Keep that in mind. Now get the ship pitching up and down in large waves and you can potentially double that weight with the shock load as the ship drops down off a large wave and bang! The bottom container crushes and now you have no connection to the ship and over they go! I've inspected hundreds of these ships and they all have one thing in common, a load plan. Heaviest weight down low and lightest ones up high. I have found several ships with lashings missing because the loaders were in a hurry. The lashers are racing against time and keeping up with the crane operator. in the end these ships have become so big that they are causing their own problems. I've had containers split open and the contents rain down on the deck below. The other issue is no one knows how the products in the containers are packed so that adds to the problem.
Pounds? In 2022? What cave do you live in? . . .
@@TRPGpilot The Imperial Standard corner of the world, for better or worse, very clearly. No need to act like a festering A-hole about it. Especially in 2022. Now go slap yourself--you earned it. Some people's kids, SMH
@@TRPGpilot Obviously not in your cave.
Great explanation, thank you for taking the time to paint a picture. What if most of the containers on a ship are empty how does that effect planning, lashing and ship stability? Just asking Thank you again.
@@TRPGpilot They are the last ones to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Nasa has caught up in some respects though. One day, the rest will catch up.
As a crane operator @ the Port of Charleston where the Madrid Bridge discharged its damaged containers, I’d like to offer up some corrections and observations. Twist locks with pull tabs are automatically locked when the container is placed on top of another, providing they are correctly inserted into the corner castings. The tabs are strictly to unlock the twist locks. (There was a period of double pull tab twistlocks that could be both locked and unlocked with rods, but that proved confusing and inconsistent). Todays super Post Panamax ships, that stack containers 8 and 9 high above decks, have gone to a fully automatic twist lock with NO pull tabs what so ever. They are designed to unlock automatically when the container is pulled strait up by the container crane, but stay locked in a rocking side to side motion. I’m not an engineer or physics major, but this seems a little iffy to me in a rough seas condition. I suspect there are several reasons to going to this type of T/L, (reduced labor, faster production, cost), but probably the main reason is that the stacks are just too high now for T/L tabs to be reached with unlocking rods using human labor. I’ve been a container crane operator since the days of manually placed and manually locked T/L’s by longshoremen that used to walk the tiers doing so. Things that would make OSHA throw a red flag in todays operations. Ships also used “bridge clamps” back in the day that would tie the entire top tier together forming one big solid Lego, if you will. Bridge clamps on todays 8 and 9 high stacks would help I’m sure, but that’s a time consuming AND dangerous task to perform that OSHA would not be happy with, and rightfully so!! I would love to see the investigative report, if any, on what actually failed on the Madrid Bridge and others incidents like hers. I still scratch my head on todays new T/L technology and have my own suspicions, but that’s just my observation’s with almost 40 years employment at the SCSPA. Bottom line tho, with the increasing amount of incidents of lost containers overboard, this needs to be addressed and addressed soon. Container ships are getting bigger and bigger! Cheers.
Really appreciate the comments and clarifications. It is always great to have people in the field contributing.
Thanks! Sal
The ships are always at port when they are being tied down; so IDK why they couldn't have climbers on ropes tied into a crane operator and he lowers them to the top deck-- keeps his crane hook high above them as a tie point and 4 or 6 guys on ropes running around the top deck doing "bridge clamps" --- and you could even lash long cables to the top corner on the outside container of each row, which would anchor each end of the "bridge", and already that would be 10x stronger than having those "autolocks alone--- which probably let go in bouncy waters anyway... I just say 4 or 6 guys, so that it's much quick and doesn't tie up the crane operator as long--- but you could still do it with 1 guy I suppose.... I mean, I've seen guys working on transmission power lines from the side of a helicopter--- hanging from a crane hook anchor with ropes and harness is not that far fetched-- and it would likely be quite fast. I climbed tress for 5 years, clearing and cutting them away from power lines and transmission lines in peoples back yards. Rope work is a well established profession. The answer seems very straight forward to me.
You're absolutely correct
Did 15 years operating hammerheads in LA/LB.
I learn so much from you. I would've added myself to a waiting list to be in your classroom. Thank you for all you do.
Hi Sal,
I’d never heard this explanation of the container loss problem before, but to me the solution seems way too simple. Although now after reading through the previous comments, I see that some variations of this idea have been suggested and tried before. Here goes anyway…
First let me explain that earlier in life I was at one point a forklift driver moving pallets of cardboard boxed products in a warehouse, and loading them onto trucks. The boxes came off the production line in runs of uniform sizes. Rectangular boxes could be stacked interlocked on a pallet, but square boxes could not be interlocked, and the outer columns of square boxes would hang over the edge of the pallet by a couple of inches to maximize the number loaded on each pallet. This meant that the outside vertical columns of squares were especially prone to tipping and falling outward as the pallets were moved over rough floors, up and down ramps, and around corners.
What we discovered was that the entire pallet of 16 vertical square columns could be secured and stabilized by simply installing banding or wrapping around only the top layer of boxes. All layers below were then held firmly in place by the weight and friction of the boxes above, which, being banded together, acted like a “cap” over all the stacks. No other banding was then needed at the lower levels in order for the entire pallet to be completely firm and stable.
I don’t see why the same principle wouldn’t apply with a bay of shipping container stacks. Rather than spend lots of time and manpower trying to stiffen the outer stacks from below, simply run long tie cables transversely across several rows of each bay at the top layer only. This would effectively link and thus “solidify” the top layer, which would then keep all containers below locked vertically via their interlocking corners.
It doesn’t take very much force to prevent lateral motion at the top of a freestanding stack, since the tie cables would only be stressed at all when an outermost column was thrown sideways. Otherwise the columns are lateral-force neutral, and no tensioning is needed. We actually used rubber bungee cords in the warehouse, partly for ease of fitting. Heavy duty bungees might even work well in this application, or web cargo straps, or light steel cables, depending on weight and handling requirements. Some mechanical engineers should be able to make short work of designing the needed devices using commonly available materials. Installing (and removing) the cables should be a quick, secure, clip-on operation between the containers’ corner blocks. It may only prove necessary to link the outer three or four rows of each 16-row bay to gain adequate anti-tip stability at sea.
The potential is of course for lots of saved cargo, plus savings on loading/unloading time and manpower, along with lowered environmental risk. Not to mention fewer insurance and administrative headaches, and general benefits for PR and good customer relationships.
I realize that since I am not an industry professional or insider, I may be missing some basic knowledge of fine points that could make this approach less practical. But it at least seems worth mentioning. Best, Steve M.
Why not stack them the other direction. Sideways if you will.
I was already 5hinking that even ONE cable with turnbuckles could simply hook the top right to the top left container and eliminate tipping.
The cables could have a limited stretch section as a shock absorber.
@@garychandler4296 Hi Gary, yes, I think perhaps a hidden challenge here is that the deck of the ship in rough seas may get pitched over at a fairly steep angle, and with the winds and heaving of the waves the forces on the containers can become pretty enormous, including a vertical component trying to lift them out of place at times. That and safety concerns for workers walking on the top of the stacks to install/remove cables - and the time that takes - seem to be the two main issues with our approach. Still, containers shouldn't be allowed to just fall overboard... there should be some better engineering solution possible.
If you have not done so, could you speak on salvage of recovered containers found either at sea or washed ashore & found by the citizens at large.
👍
I had a container on ONE APUS. Was lucky, mine didn’t fall into the ocean or damaged.
I was on a 60' sail boat and we missed a partially sunk container by 6'. It scared the poop out of us
On our deployment to Iraq in sep 2006 we lost one of our armory containers. We all carried our rifles, but we lost all our crew serve weapons aside from a few 249's. What a disaster.
Thanks! Ever since the Evergreen ship debacle, you have me hooked on shipping issues!
Very interesting. Thank you for posting this video. I live 1,500 miles from the ocean and watched because three 40' x 9' high retired containers are storing junk at my woodworking shop on Wyoming's high, semi-desert prairie. And the beat goes on.
That "risk/benefit" analysis is something all insurance companies engage in and they usually have a large stable of well paid attorneys to deal with claims. I worked as a clerk for one of the bigger insurance defense law firms in Portland, Oregon back in the 1980's, fascinating work but most of our work was with landslide claims from insured parties when the rains would come and pitch million dollar homes into the ocean on the coast. Thanks for another enlightening video on container ships.
We are coming from the era of smaller vessels which had used bridge fittings to secure the containers in a block with the lashing and now we are building larger vessels, stacking containers higher with less securing mechanism. Once containers stacking exceed 4 height above its Lashing force we should consider using bridge fittings for the first 3 containers both port and starboard side.
Yep, I remember those days of manual locking shoes and bridge clamps. I was just commenting to my fellow operators, (many that are too young to remember bridge clamps lol), that they may need to bring back bridge clamps.
Many thanks for a great explanation about these container ship losses. Your presentation has been shared with all of our marine forecasters here at the National Hurricane Center. This really helps us to put into perspective when we are forecasting extreme winds and huge waves over the open Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for the blue water mariners!
Many thanks!
The terms you're looking for, Sal, are 'inertia' and 'momentum'. The top of the stack is like an upside-down pendulum and the only thing keeping the stack from toppling at the deck line are the connections at the corners. And I can't imagine that the locking mechanisms are always in pristine working order, to boot.
On these larger ships I think they are going to have to raise the lashing bidges at least two tiers higher in order to attach the lashings higher up in the stow.
This looks like an excellent opportunity to find out the natural frequency of those top 4 stacks in relation to weight of the containers compared to the rolling frequency of the vessel with certain loads. I truly believe these event occur because of matching natural frequencies of vessel roll and unlashed container stacks. Pretty complex set of variables but one could computer model this and avoid resonance peaks during loading, perhaps with the help of ballasting
Exactly so !
If Elon Musk was running this operation - I am sure none of this loss of containers would be going on bc he takes the time to get things right.
think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be - they should lash all outside containers and further up the rows. but suspect that slows down the process of loading an unloading so it's not cost effective
Sal, we need a video game called Cargo Master as the Captain of a Panamax container MV. Maybe a multiplayer game with Chief Engineer and so on. Could be fun...from random weather events, port congestion, and physics of it all.
"Sail to Panama canals"
I found it interesting that it looks like all of the two-level ties on the Madrid were from outboard on the bottom to inboard on the top. That will restrain the containers from tipping _inward_. Which they won't do anyway, since there are more containers there. It won't do diddly to prevent the container from tipping outward. The two-level ties should have been from inboard on the bottom to outboard on the top. It wouldn't always help enough to prevent all loss, but it could have helped a little.
Sal, not sure if it the same today as it was years ago, but my friends family was one who arranged to sell places on ships. I had asked him about containers falling off. He said, they placed high value on the bottom or middle and all of the cheap cargo was at the ends, so if they fell off it was not a big value loss. Notwithstanding, of course weight placement.
Hazards must be up, so you can drop those at sea if catching fire, leaking, etc..
@@jannejohansson3383 Good point. I was really mentioning very valuable items. They were put low and middle. Crappy stuff like dollar store stuff on the outside.
This shows the dangers of the container vessel industry forgoing bridgefittings. To save time (money) container companies stopped using these clamps that bound the top container rows together making it one block. Already in the 90s I (master mariner on container vessels) never saw them anymore. Many disasters could have been avoided.
The clamps weigh about 3kg and are 30cm long. Not difficult to place.
Your Video’s are like sitting in your class room I have learned so much about shipping from you Thank You
Fascinating, time and money prevails as always.
I learn something new every time. Thank you.
What about lashing across the top of each stack with cables from the port outermost container all the way across to the starboard outermost container? This would help to tie everything together.
Knowledge when shared increases manifold, very informative video!
Very interesting and well presented. Question: Lashing or no, the bottom most containers must support the weight of everything above. So Isn't there also a stack failure-mode if/when the bottom containers collapse, making it even easier for the stack to topple?
In the time taken to fit corner interlocks to all corners and lash the first 3~5 containers, I wonder if it is possible to fit a steel hook in place of the interlock (but using similar twist/untwist mechanism to fit the hook) and weave two steel cables from top of stack to cleats on the deck?
I guess the next problem would be the weight of the cable - it looks like it needs to be light enough that two people can lash down a stack, but strong enough so as not to plastically deform under load.
How much of an effect does damage to containers (Dents and dings from traffic incidents/handling bumps, or forklift forks from inside) have? And plain old metal fatigue from years of service, especially around the connection pockets.
I also wonder how many of these stack collapses are started when the load inside a container shifts.
It depends, In general, If the Corners where the Twist Locks are located are in good shape. It shouldnt be much an issue. LOads inside the container are generally secured by the packer/shipper. It's in the best interest to do so.
With those pathetic cross lashings on the lower layer only, one has to wonder why a lot more containers don't fall off. They need to come up with something a LOT more reliable.
I've always wondered why the structure between rows above deck was not extended higher. Extending the structure to the top, and providing guides would eliminate the need to lash. Given how much longshore labor costs, I would expect over the life of the ship for that to be the cheaper solution.
Pipe it, lame
@@Mic420m Have you ever been in a brainstorming session at work? That is what happens in the comments on You Tube and other forums. Some Ideas work and some don't; but none should be criticized, because people are are at least trying to throw out an idea that might stick.
If you do not like a comment I might suggest that you just scroll on by,
@@funnyfarm5555 oh please 🙄 with your everyone deserves a participation trophy philosophy. I explained exactly how twist locks work for the benefit of all - no "brainstorming" required.
@@Mic420m The only comment I saw from you was 'Pipe it, lame'. Which I took as telling someone to shut up and considered it somewhat rude.
One reason is probably the time it takes to load and unload. If the guides extended all the way up then the cranes would need to lift every container above the top of the guides.
A really interesting video and very well explained. I followed the saga closely of ONE APUS, 2 years ago. As you say, it is all about money, get the containers on & off the ship as quickly as possible. If the container falls overboard, it cost the shipping company nothing as they are not liable. It is for those sending goods in a container to make sure their goods are insured.
Interesting video, but (assuming nit-picking mode) the 'twisted ship' scenario assumes the fore and aft losses happened simultaneously.
No particular reason why that should be so. A severe parametric roll could shed the forward stack on the roll to port, followed by the aft stack on the starboard roll. A 45 degree roll each way should do it. SCARY. BTDT. But yes, the stack heights are getting crazy. I hope 25K TEUs will be the limit for containerships, like 500K DWT was for tankers. Keep the videos coming.
Great schooling, now I know the dynamics of why this happens. Thank You.
I sometimes pull containers for the trucking company I work for we do 45,40,20 ft containers the ones u can feel and respect are the 20 ft ones they have 3 axle chassis for these they can put 50,000 lbs in these and are top heavy couldn't imagine 9 high all of it magnified. Lots of math and science Goin on love it. It's like going back to school great knowledge
I would guess that the longer the tie downs were the less effective they are as the angles get steeper and loose lateral stability, unless they were made very long and attach to the ship several stacks over. To make the ship's holding frame guides taller would add complexity, cost, weight and reduce flexability on how locate different size containers.
Some years ago a container ship lost a lot of containers, somewhere around either Holland or Spain. One of the theories was there was a harmonic between the ship size, shape and the wave height to cause the waves to slap the side of the ship and push up on the containers.
I know oil tankers used to be much larger than they are now. (Suez Canal was closed at the time) They were very restricted where they could go and what ports they could use. Are container ships following the same path of size complexities countering the shipping efficiencies of larger ships?
With a long enough tie, you could just connect the port side top container to the starboard side deck. The added rigidity could be problematic though. Preventing the ship to flex can cause it to crack.
This man just wanted to host a show where he gets to play with Lego, and I'm not even mad at him for it...😆 🤣 😂
Thank you!
great thing with all those shortages that we just hope our much needed shipment wasnt in one of those lost containers...might not always just be some cheap goods...imagine a container of grafics cards were you have to look hard to find one for less then $1000 and alot of people wait for those ...same goes for alot of other stuff
Just a thought ( this would be a safety nightmare ...), couldn't someone be lowered down in a cage by crane onto the top of the stacks then lash the inside top corners of the containers on the outer of the row to the next container towards the centre? Thinking you'd have to lash say 3 containers to each other on the port side and 3 on the starboard side. You could do the whole row but that might be overkill . Not sure if that makes sense ? It would slow down unloading for sure , cost serious $ too in labour .
It makes sense, and it's not that hard, not that time consuming either. Problem are the crews that cut corners, perform half ass jobs. Crews from different countries, work differently. Some work faster, others slower. Some are problem solvers, and others are not good or are not motivated to do the job properly. Language barriers can lengthen time, and captains not caring enough for the job to be done right.
They HAVE what is called "bridge fittings" to tie the topmost containers side-by-side and fitted on top of the highest containers of the stacks, if the next container of the topmost containers are at the same height. The bridge fittings would keep the topmost containers together if they're fitted. Now the question is, are those bridge fittings being fitted?
@@maxnikolenko2302 The crew DOES NOT do the lashings of containers. Lashings of containers are done by the shore gang. Ship's crew only checks that they are being properly done and make regular checks when the ship is at sea to ensure rhe container laahings do no come loose due to ship's movements at sea.
So, the rest of you claims about the crew having problems doing the lashing jobs are not true. Ship's crew are not paid to lash cargo on board a ship while in port. Ship's crew only checks the lashings to ensure the safety of their ship when at sea.
@@ramimlamnun9452 Well noted: Not since the nineties (was found too time consuming). The disasters are the results.
Sal, given that this complex problem can be identified by groups or sections and solved in batches, using the old saying that a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link (member), can the loading practices change to a procedure like airlines use for fuel and baggage planning? Gravity will always rule. I like your examples of Lego block liking to secure a structure. There are a lot of threads (thinking) that make up a load consist and the vehicle/vessel capacity that will carry that load. I enjoy the challenge of studying all the issues but I’m a long way from a comfort zone to arrive at possible solutions. I’ve spent the last 30 years as an arborist dealing with removal of trees close to buildings. The only common ground is problem solving gravity and heavy weight. Keep on top of this discussion.
Can't the loading cranes be equipped with electronics at the cables that weigh every container as it is loaded? then can't such electronics be linked directly to the load calculating computers? Also, can't the crew lash and unlash containers as the ship approaches and leaves port, rather than at the dock? or in the bay waiting to unload? except that LA doesn't have much of a protected bay. except it seems to me that sufficiently long and strong lashing cables might be to heavy for workers to lift and might need to be placed with a crane like the huge hatches on bulk carriers.
Also, trucks carry just a bit over their own weight where ships, at least supertankers, carry nearly ten times their own weight. shouldn't that ratio be limited to maybe 6 times? to mandate a minimum structure to cargo ratio?
the coffee fund tip jar donations is worth it for the high tech props, lol. B)
I also suspect that there may be a structural element to not adding lashings to the top with the total down forces on the bottom containers in the entire stack, there must be a limit to just how much force a container can take before it buckles from down-force on it.
Off loading these toppled containers must be a challenge
Thanks for the explanation! 🙏
Thank you for this update.
I was going to mention some possible solutions ; but now I see that nobody cares.
> How disappointing/
So basically it’s load up as much as you can /as fast as you can. No quality controls. And if stuff gets lost at sea, who cares.
> But the thing is -not all merchandise is easily replaced. Because not all resources are infinite..
> I guess everyone is jaded by now. How very sad to see …
Another great episode, thanks Sal.
if lost containers were treated like other hazmat, the ships would take more care for their cargo. if the liability to other sea going vessels was a priority, then maybe the insurance companies would take a dim view of lost containers. In all other freight hauling (trains ,motor freight, airlines) the loss of the shipment is treated as a crime.
Insurance companies have a license to steal. It's a scapegoat to allow mismanagement to continue with risk-taking where everybody believes it's not going to happen to them o'r not happen on their watch!
Enough of the risk taking and let's start being more professional mitigating all risk because of the Benjamins saved with shortcuts and overstacking
Thanks for the great explanation. I've always wondered why the top stacks were not secured. 👍
In the early seventies I did a couple of trips on a container ship. We carried 1400 containers. 6 deep below deck and up to 5 on deck. As I recall all containers even 5 high were secured with cross braces, I think we called them 'pelicans'. I don't remember ever hearing of any container losses. How times have changed!! I'm a sailor and glad I'm not sailing deep sea with the ever increasing risk of hitting a semi submerged container ! Something definately needs doing to stop this madness.
Wow! Incredible video and information Sal! Thoroughly kept my attention span way up there, just as high as the highest container🤣😂! Thank you for the excellent information Sal!
The longest cross lashings are secured to the bottom of the FIFTH tier container. So, out of 8 tiers, only the top 3 tiers are not lashed down. Instead, the topmost containers are fitted with bridge fittings tying the topmost containers together side-by-side. Or are these bridge fittings not being fitted to "save" time in port?
Excellent subject and explaination...Thanks Much!
Looking at the weather analysis maps for the 7th I don't see Very high winds or waves in the area of the vessel however there seems to have been a very long. Swell from the Northwest so I suspect parametric rolling could have been an issue as wave lengths likely were in the range of 900-1200 feet
Always an interesting story and great exploration of the topic. Thanks, Sal
I worked on her in Charleston. The contributing factors was poorly loaded boxes. You never put a loaded box on an empty box a perfect example is this accident.
Thanks for commenting. I had cargo on that ship and still don't know if it was effected. Is the ship still in Charleston? Do you know where it is headed next? ONE has not been providing any info on this.
The reason why they don't care is because they don't pay out at all for these damages, if you want coverage for incidents like this, you need to purchase separate insurance. Insurance claims from ONE APUS were estimated at around $300 Million
If the carrier was negligent, they maybe sued by freight forwarders if they have enough of a financial stake to do so, but for the individual shipper, it isn't worth the 100k+ in legal fees to file a lawsuit. Their are freight forwarders suing ONE for the last stack collapse they had
Were those 45 or 53 footers in that stack? The reason I ask, is it looks like they have extensions on the ends. It follows you can load longer and heavier loads in those that might need to be accounted for. Dunno...
Sal, what about a single cross bar at the top row front and back, with small interconnects between boxes instead of the repeated cross lashings all the way up, once the bottom four have been established?
It all goes to time and cost.
This is such an insight into the process.
Thanks for an excellent explanation. Using your Lego example, would it be possible to develop a module which ties the topmost containers together which could be removed by the cargo cranes? If so, then the amount of lost containers would/should be reduced.
They use to place bars across but it took too much time and danger, hence their removal.
@@wgowshipping Manual bar placement could be avoided by using frames compatible with existing container handling equipment and fitted with remote actuators so no humans need go atop stacks (except in safety harness for repairs).
Locking frames could for example have four corner fittings atop posts for easy handling but their bottoms could have the necessary footprint to (for example) link a container on each side of a central container. There is ample room for protected actuation systems. Of course a containerized safety cage could deliver personnel and equipment for repairs etc. The connecting racks could be inspected with cameras during installation to verify engagement of autolocking fittings while unlocking the rack could be done remotely using central actuation.
Alternate option, the connecting racks could be "dumb" platforms with walkways (think skeletonized flat rack) so personnel could be delivered riding the rack, lock and inspect the result, then return to dock via personnel cage or another rack (always maximize option choice). Building test racks is basic work easily done at any local fab shop. For more details those interested should check out the Tandemloc site as their layout and drawings nicely explain many container fitting and handling options.
Oh Sal Back in the good oh days..You did bring up a interesting point of hull twisting We were working on a Sealand mechanical pump and remembered taking a stairway on the bridge down (We were exploring too).we were amazed how far the bottom of hull was (It reminded us of one big open barge ?)Wow...(The ship was empty in for Maintenance)
It looks like the twist locks could be improved , but when the stack leans to one side the weight of the upper containers is transferred to one side wall of the lowest container leaning , causing that side wall to collapse . If there was a way to lash the top containers with a wire rope system delivered to the top of the stack by the Crain on a pallet or special lashing container. Holding the top of the stack together will help stop the stacks from leaning. If you know your heading into ruff seas have the Crain put the pallet or special lashing container on top and a crew can walk on top to lash down the load.
Hi Sal, good job again. You are mostly on track, but I have a couple of comments:
You are correct about the "time & money" driving this. Up until last winter and the ONE Apus casualty, historically the annual losses are about 2000 containers per year, out of the roughly 200M containers shipped. A loss rate of only about 0.001%, or 1/100,000. These are numbers that the insurance carriers can easily live with. To reduce the losses significantly would not just require extra lashing and longshore bills, but also a significant reduction in deck capacity of these ships, which is serious $'s. These cost-benefit assessments are looked at periodically to see if the container lashing guidelines should be adjusted. (Many believe that now it is time again based on the last two winter season losses.)
You are off on a tangent when you talk about ship twist. Yes containerships twist but this is a very minor contributor to this issue of losses. What is really important is predicting the maximum roll angle which is the major driver of horizontal accelerations of the containers. The container lashing standards specify a "design' roll angle and roll period (based on ship size and ship stability or GM), which assumes a big storm and normal helming of the ship. But there of 'off design' conditions that can exceed this resulting in container losses, like driving the ship too close to a hurricane, or a power failure during a storm, or parametric roll, or just a bigger storm than was assumed to predict the design roll angle. Parametric roll is not at all about ship twist, it's about the wave loading frequency being synchronous with the ships roll period, which amplifies the roll angle. It remains to be seen if any of these was applicable to the Madrid Bridge.
The structures between the deck stacks are called Lashing Bridges. They started out as 1-tier high, and as the ships got bigger they are now 2/3/4-tiers high. This is what is required to get reasonable weight stacks up to now 9-high. You can't provide extra lashes to the upper tier containers unless you continue to raise the lashing bridges even higher.
The video showing the manual tugging on the twist-lock handle is showing unlocking, not locking. Virtually all twist-locks are 'semi-automatic' (or even fully automatic) today so they automatically lock when being loaded. Semi-automatic twist-locks need to be manually unlocked, like in the video.
Your description of the independent stacks and how they are lashed and secured is excellent and accurate. It's also very true that when one stack fails, it pounds up against adjacent stacks every roll, which will eventually cause the single failure to spread transversally across the ship within a single Bay. Also the outboard stacks have additional margins and lashings to account for the wind pressure. If you loose a single outboard stack overboard, then the interior stacks are often vulnerable and not capable of taking the combined max roll angle and wind pressure.
Yes, accurate container weights are an issue. It's getting somewhat better with the latest IMO guidelines for terminals, but some incorrect weights (and incorrectly labeled hazardous containers codes) are still not identified and are occasionally getting loaded onboard.
Robert...thanks for the comments. This is why I love doing this channel. Such great expertise comes to bear.
I will be sure to note all of this for the next video as I know this will not be the last container loss.
Thanks...Sal
@@wgowshipping .."I want some LEGO Blocks like Sal has"!!!😩 😳😢 "Sal has ALL the nice toys"!!!
do you know why containers can't be stacked criss cross? The ratio is about 5:2 or 5:1 depending on whether they are 20ft or 40ft, why can't they be stacked like lego bricks?
@@HesderOleh Container can only be supported at the 4 strong corner posts. If you were to stack them crisscross you would have bottom corners landing on intermediate soft top rails of the container below.
@@RobertTagg Cool, thanks, I thought that might be the reason, but wasn't sure. Do you think that could be addressed by reinforcing the the locations where the weight would rest? As a way of reducing costs of extra posts you could have a trade off of complexity in loading with FEUs where 2 out of every five had four extra posts on one side so that you could have a 5x5 stack with the containers on each side of the level have post in the middle as if they were corners. The upside would be that 3/5ths of the containers could be current regular containers.
I know practically, trying to incorporate changes into a standardized system is almost impossible, but do you think this would work in theory?
where do they put the empties ? If they are underneath full then that would be a weak point
Sal, can you get ahold of one of those corner locks and show us exactly how they work. I can't picture how pulling on a cable will activate the lock.
It is featured in the video I linked to in the show notes.
Oil tanker demand will triple in March, buy NAT now!! This stock will reach $3.50! Semper Fi
Thank you for the this educational. Why not constructing the vessel with guide cells extended to the top of the stack over deck?
I guess then the solution would be to substantially increase the penalty of losing cargo overboard to the point they fix the problem. We can't allow them to just write-off such pollution and go on. This has to be stopped.
5.000.000$ per cont and after it's recovered, price drops to 1.000.000$. There is least one beach what is familiar with Legos.. and only one container box was full of Legos. Still every day beach is loaded, no matter that those plastic types doesn't float!
Who issues the fines?
@@hyperboloidofonesheet1036 "Who issues the fines?"
And that's the problem with corporations who have no loyalty to any country and feel they're above any laws.
@@GreeceUranusPutin It's a legitimate question. I'd like to know what legal jurisdictions are involved. As far as I know (which isn't much in this regard), a crime committed in international waters is prosecuted by the country the ship is registered to, but I have to imagine there are many other things involved.
@@hyperboloidofonesheet1036 I wonder if you pollute a country's coast or EEZ if that country can prosecute you.
Sal
You got it backwards .
Pulling down on the pigtail of a twist lock, unlocks it for discharge.
They are designed to automatically lock
When one box is loaded on top of another. The longshoremen must insert them into the corner castings correctly on the dock for this to happen.
My bad on that. I included the video with the details.
Oh wow Sal ..You bring up a interesting point....Perhaps..could they take the top 6 layers of containers like a flat bed semi truck load .Could they install Hydraulic wrenches on each side of ship at each row of containers...and use the over head containers cranes to help run cables up from the starboard side up and over and down over to Port side a tighten the cables...and like a truck load alternate from left to right of tightens cables..We do see why they only turn buckle the bottom 3-4 rows..How would they ,the crew climb 5. -10 Story tall containers walls.....WoW Sal your explanation of the containers tipping over is amazing....Thank you Sal for your neat Inspiration on this using Cables run over top of each row stacks after the containers shore cranes loads the last containers for that row.....Hopefully the cables would help prevent the outer stacks of containers falling in the water which ,like you pointed out just domino effect 😀....The inter rows.?????
Do the ships not have sufficient crew to install additional lashings while underway?
No. Very minimal crews.
Rationally it seems that even single-lashes in the triangle up to one or two containers below the top outside would prevent this problem. Single lashes (one diagonal) would transfer the force, and would be relatively fast. I would think insurers would require this.
\. /
\\. //
\\\__///
how do they get the containers off at the port if they aren't standing upright after loosing some
?
It is difficult.
Cables w hooks.
Make your mouse pointer larger. Settings-Mouse-Preferences.
Instead of rods, they should use steel cables to attach the top containers to the hull of the ship.
Surely there's got to be some sort of quick connect lashing that could be made to stabilize the top layer.
Seems like you could get very large ratchet straps on the top ones go from one top on the outside stack to say the top of the 3rd stack so now instead of just having single rows you have a lashed 3 on each side on the top to make slabs and unlashed in the center
Nice discussion. Color code the containers based on weight where the heaviest are the purple and the lightest are more towards the green end of the spectrum. surely that can help simplify stacking according to weight.
Why don't they cross lash across the tops of the containers to have more lateral rigidity of the stacks? They could do this after leaving port and remove before arrival. Probably only have to do the outer couple stacks on each side.
The Zim Kinston lot over 100 containers overboard in rough seas of the west coast of Vancouver Island in late 2021 en route to Vancouver. A number of other containers caught fire. The Zim Kingston continued down the coast to Victoria where the fire fire was fought and eventually put out. The ship is currently being off loaded in the port of Nanaimo, 90 km north of Victoria. To date, nothing has changed with container ships. None of the containers were recovered and carried by currents are now sunk off the north coast of Vancouver Island.
ruclips.net/video/AsCpKIagguU/видео.html
from an engineering perspective, this has always dumfounded me. the outsides should all be lashed in. I suspect they don't because it slows down loading and offloading
why are the top containers pulling the containers that are lashed down off the ship with them? why don't the interlocks fail before the lashings?
How long was the shop on the water. Did the fasteners have time to work there way apart.
so…did they try using longer rods? say, tide them up in 4, like this 田 as one group and give it a X cross? hypothetically it will stable the bottom 4 stags instead of 2. if it is 9 in a group, it is going to tide up to 6 stags. of cause a longer pole is heavier, how about metal cables or fabric? if i can think it out in 5 minutes, i bet a dollar someone somewhere had already try it before, does it work?
How much of a navigation hazard do partially submerged lost containers pose to smaller ocean going vessels?
There is always the possibility of hull punctures when hitting stray containers. They are more of a danger for smaller ships.
@@wgowshipping I have been reading a number of account of deep water sailors and containers (that do not sink but stay just under the surface) are a huge danger day or night. Thanks for responding!
It seems as though the crane operator would be able to judge weight shifting within the containers while loading or better yet as the container is loaded to start with, we have that type of information right? But then again, they might not all go to the same port I can clearly see layers of the same shipping company and the layers are horizontal rather than vertical which makes sense
Sal, how come container ships don't have stabilizers under the waterline like cruise ships do for passenger comfort?
Sure, I understand that there's extra cost and complexity involved in building and operating stabilizers, including increased fuel consumption on account of extra hydrodynamic drag when they're extended, but surely there must be a business case for them in comparison with losing stacks of containers overboard? 🤔
The main reason I would expect to be the MAX. It has been a decade since the largest ships became PANAMAX, or too wide to pass the Panama Canal. The most recent limit we have hit is MaltaMAX, which is too long/wide to pass Malta. Normally, stabilizing fins will need to extend a dozen feet or more on each side, which means a PANAMAX or MaltaMAX ship has to be thinner than before (thus less cargo). I know naval light ships (destroyers and such) will have these equipped on hydraulics that fold them out of the way when at harbor or in a channel, but these are much smaller than even a VLCS.
As long as container ships are only losing less than 1% a year in containers failing like this, the 5% or so capacity lost to having a smaller size would be more of an issue. I am mainly surprised that containers don't have a better interlink option.
Just like so many areas of our society - no accountability, no care, no incentive to prevent crazy losses and environmental damage. As someone with a couple of precious things about to take container ship voyages, seeing those stupidly barely-secured stacks makes me angry and worried.
Ooh goody, more Lego! Seriously though, could an unbalanced load
due to loss of boxes affect safe ship handling or dangerously stress its hull ?
Would it help any to put the top four layers cross wise, still unattached?
Sal have you ever did a video on how long a large Containers ships run ? It be interesting to know from all the hull twisting ,You would expect hull Cracks ??$ After 8 years or so ??
Modern ships have a service life of between 15 to 25 years. There are older ships out there.
If they did the lashings all the way up would it make the entire load more top heavy?
It would slow down loading and unloading.
Thanks, cool review.
That Robert Redford movie was the worst most inaccurate sailing movie of all time. I cussed and threw things at the tv Robert Redford owns a sailboat he had to have known the script was bs.Do shipping containers float with the doors open? Got to stop on that movie blood pressure going up. I am ex Navy and have owned 7 sailboats, both of my sons are ABs and my son-in-law is a bosun and has passed the 3rd mate tests. Never install your batteries below the waterline ! Subscriber now
I always thought they did it that way because they would rather have the containers fall off than stay tight and pull the ship over on its side.
Are the cranes made such that they can stack the containers both athwart ships as well as fore and aft? Are empties stacked exclusively on empties such that they are undisturbed until a final destination? How about winches, one for each row, hard connected to the hull with one inch steel cable which is s6trong out over the entire row athwart ship to a hull attachment point the take up on the winch.
Containers are only stowed fore and aft.
Empties are usually loaded with other empties in separate bays.
I dont understand what you want the winches to do.
As you say,time, money but also health & safety.
Chair of the department of Political Science, History, Criminal Justice and Legology.
I am using that.
It seems to me that if the containers were stacked perpendicular to the side of the ship it would be much more difficult to tip the stack.
Crazy. Why don't they secure the upper containers together as a unit after leaving dock. Is it a problem with unions
There have been a number of winter storms that brought snow, ice, and high winds to the eastern half of the US in the past few days. I would expect these to have caused rough weather out at sea.
Very informative video
What amazes me is that some of the containers are dangling by one twist-lock!
Might it not be quicker to simply loop a cable around, say, one row of three stacks of containers here & there? Or better yet, a frame at the top, laid by the container crane, which ties two stacks together. Doing that in a mathematically staggered pattern would add a lot of strength.
I wonder, as more of these losses happen and ship owner declare general average, if more and more shippers (and their insurers) will become more concerned about adequate care provided for their containers. Such concerns might put pressure on the ship owners to develop and use better container interlocking systems. Or if ship owners try to avoid declaring general average, they might see more economic advantage in taking additional precautions when securing topside cargo.
The reason they’re willing to take the risk is because they don’t take the risk. I had some containers go off the side of the ship. We were told it was an act of God and to go to our insurance carrier to get the pay out. The shipping line paid nothing.
I like your idea. Our semi truck flat bed drivers have to use strapping or chains for securement and size and number matters depending on the article being hauled. Log trucks have to use chains or cables.. I thought after reading another comment; why can't we use cables in an X from one top corner of the stack to the opposite bottom corner of the ship? They would be reasonably fast to secure , especially with some help from the cranes or another device (companies have tarping machines for flatbed semi trailers).. There could also be a strap or two over the top of each row of containers from one side of the ship to the other.
As another person stated; the ships take no responsibility/liability and consider the container loss an act of god and you get to deal with your insurance company. So until the world or the courts place some of the liability on the shippers there will be no improvement. Maybe they will start charging like an airline; you pay more for a lower position in the ship.
That’s why there is marine insurance. The insurer will file a claim against the carrier if they believe that the carrier is not entitled to rely upon the defenses listed on the back of the b/l.