by GuestfromEU » December 4, 2022, 12:24 pm
Guest wrote: ↑December 3, 2022, 9:59 am
How are all the new Chinese and Croatian built ships working out in terms of quality and reliability?
It is an apples to oranges comparison. If comparing the ships built on the lakes in the 1960-1970 timeframe, any new ship will have more issues due to significantly more automation and more complex machinery. The actual machinery is just as reliable, if not more. Remember, companies like MAN stopped most production in Europe perhaps 10 years ago and moved to the Far East. Same with many European makers, or now they produce machinery in Europe and Asia, with many shipowners selecting the Asian built machinery for 50% of the cost. Equipment makers offer the same warranty and have the same quality control in both locations - it is bad for business to sell an unreliable product. Ships built 50+ years ago were also designed for 30-40 years of service life. Ocean ships have been built for 20-30 year max service life for many years, now 20 year maximum is the normal. With new emissions regulations a ship built to be compliant now may be beyond economical upgrade life in a shorter time. The truth is nobody knows exactly how the emissions rules will affect the industry as the technology does not yet exist to achieve the IMO mandates by 2050, at least in any economical form.
The cost to build the new Matson ships increased significantly since the last construction a few years ago. That is a result of new mandated technology and machinery cost increases amongst others. Then one needs to consider the cost of machinery. If a Japanese pump maker is selling a basic, simple, reliable design for $25.000 dollars and a European maker sells similar for $45.000 dollars, multiplied by the numerous pumps on a ship, it is easy to see how initial costs accumulate. That is a generic example but the point is made. Shipowners have to balance quality vs. cost and shipowners are notoriously conservative with money. Times changed in many ways since the 1970's and it is unfair to compare a ship like the Equinox or Trillium class with something built at Vickers or Collingwood in the 1960's in terms of "reliability". Reliability is no longer defined as running forever without problems. Now it is taken as an acceptable time running vs. time under repair and cost of repairs, parts, etc. There are different outlooks on repairs too. For example at many companies it is accepted to replace an electric motor under 10 or 20 kW because the cost to repair exceeds the cost of a new motor. Bearings are not expensive but the labour to pay the ship's electrician to spend one day to overhaul a motor is greater than the hour it takes to install a new motor. If the damaged motor needs re-winding or other repairs, the cost certainly is not a wise investment. That outlook is based on repairs at shipyards in China, so the variance in cost differential is multiplied by a greater amount at USA or Canadian shipyards.
The Mark Barker was likely in the 175-200 million dollar range, depending on when the construction contract stated steel prices would be invoiced. The price of shipbuilding plate steel has increased exponentially from 2020 to present. Combined with other equipment shortages and cost increases the total cost could vary a bit. The Mark Barker is a smaller ship than the Matson container ships so less steel is required, and the hull form is less complex which further reduces the cost of plate bending and block erection.
[quote=Guest post_id=251130 time=1670079585]
How are all the new Chinese and Croatian built ships working out in terms of quality and reliability?
[/quote]
It is an apples to oranges comparison. If comparing the ships built on the lakes in the 1960-1970 timeframe, any new ship will have more issues due to significantly more automation and more complex machinery. The actual machinery is just as reliable, if not more. Remember, companies like MAN stopped most production in Europe perhaps 10 years ago and moved to the Far East. Same with many European makers, or now they produce machinery in Europe and Asia, with many shipowners selecting the Asian built machinery for 50% of the cost. Equipment makers offer the same warranty and have the same quality control in both locations - it is bad for business to sell an unreliable product. Ships built 50+ years ago were also designed for 30-40 years of service life. Ocean ships have been built for 20-30 year max service life for many years, now 20 year maximum is the normal. With new emissions regulations a ship built to be compliant now may be beyond economical upgrade life in a shorter time. The truth is nobody knows exactly how the emissions rules will affect the industry as the technology does not yet exist to achieve the IMO mandates by 2050, at least in any economical form.
The cost to build the new Matson ships increased significantly since the last construction a few years ago. That is a result of new mandated technology and machinery cost increases amongst others. Then one needs to consider the cost of machinery. If a Japanese pump maker is selling a basic, simple, reliable design for $25.000 dollars and a European maker sells similar for $45.000 dollars, multiplied by the numerous pumps on a ship, it is easy to see how initial costs accumulate. That is a generic example but the point is made. Shipowners have to balance quality vs. cost and shipowners are notoriously conservative with money. Times changed in many ways since the 1970's and it is unfair to compare a ship like the Equinox or Trillium class with something built at Vickers or Collingwood in the 1960's in terms of "reliability". Reliability is no longer defined as running forever without problems. Now it is taken as an acceptable time running vs. time under repair and cost of repairs, parts, etc. There are different outlooks on repairs too. For example at many companies it is accepted to replace an electric motor under 10 or 20 kW because the cost to repair exceeds the cost of a new motor. Bearings are not expensive but the labour to pay the ship's electrician to spend one day to overhaul a motor is greater than the hour it takes to install a new motor. If the damaged motor needs re-winding or other repairs, the cost certainly is not a wise investment. That outlook is based on repairs at shipyards in China, so the variance in cost differential is multiplied by a greater amount at USA or Canadian shipyards.
The Mark Barker was likely in the 175-200 million dollar range, depending on when the construction contract stated steel prices would be invoiced. The price of shipbuilding plate steel has increased exponentially from 2020 to present. Combined with other equipment shortages and cost increases the total cost could vary a bit. The Mark Barker is a smaller ship than the Matson container ships so less steel is required, and the hull form is less complex which further reduces the cost of plate bending and block erection.