By B.F. Bindia
Four Case Studies
Part Two
The first of the Container Ships
The first container ship entered service in 1956, owned by what was to become the giant American Sea-Land organization. However she was a converted tanker with a capacity of only 60 containers.
In Britain, at the time Blue Funnel was building the ‘Super-P’s, the first true fully cellular container ships were being designed, for two consortiums of nine British shipping lines, Overseas Containers Ltd (OCL) and Associated Container Transportation (ACT).
Design of the OCL ships was in fact carried out by Ocean Fleets, the ship design division of Blue Funnel’s parent Ocean Steamship Co. These were the six 1530 teu 2nd generation ‘Encounter Bay’ class ships comprising “Encounter Bay”, “Discovery Bay”, “Moreton Bay”, “Botany Bay”, “Jervis Bay”and “Flinders Bay”, all of which were built in Germany and entered service in 1968/9.
“Encounter Bay” – OCL 2nd generation
Associated Container Transportation (ACT) were at the same time building, also in Germany, their first ships, the six 1334 teu 2nd generation container ships “ACT 1” to “ACT 6”.
In Germany, entering service for Hapag-Lloyd at the same time (1968) were the “Weser Express”, “Elbe Express”, “Alster Express” and “Mosel Express”. These were the first German full container ships of only 736 teu capacity, entering service only 4 months after the launch of the last ship of the Friesenstein class, the MS “Bayernstein” although not on the East Asian route. However the container ship revolution had started, and in 1972, only 5 years after the “Friesenstein” class entered service, container ships entered service on the East Asian route - at 48,750 DWT 4 times the size of a “Friesenstein” class ship.
The 2nd generation “ACT 2” – the first ACT ships
“Alster Express” – Hapag 1st generation
The development of the container ship now was rapid. Following on quickly after the entry into service of OCL’s ‘Encounter Bay’ class were the six larger ships of their 3rd generation ‘Liverpool Bay’ class, of 2961 teu, in 1972. The ships were: “Liverpool Bay”, “Jervis Bay”, “Cardigan Bay”, “Kowloon Bay” “Tokyo Bay” and “Osaka Bay”. Ben Line and Ellerman Line formed a joint venture called Ben Line Containers Ltd and introduced into service their 3rd generation 2804 teu ships the “Ben Alder”, “Ben Avon” and “City of Edinburgh” in 1972 - 3. Hapag-Lloyd in 1972 introduced their 3rd generation container ships, the “Hamburg Express” class, of 2950 teu.
“Benavon” – Ben Line 3rd generation
These ships were of 49,590 dwt, twin screw with 4 steam turbines of 88,000 shp giving a service speed of 26.5 knots.
“Cardigan Bay” – OCL 3rd generation
Elsewhere, in 1972 the Swedish East Asia line introduced their “Nihon” and the Danish East India Company their “Selandia” and “Jutlandia”.
"Nihon"
“Selandia”
“Selandia” and “Jutlandia”, 34,180 dwt, triple screw with 3 B & W diesels of 75,000 bhp giving a service speed of 28 knots, were the fastest merchant ships in the world.
The container revolution was now firmly established. Container ships quickly grew in size (cargo capacity), took over the express cargo liner services, and many more shipping companies built, operated and developed this type of vessel. The break bulk cargo liners, some like the ‘Benledi’ class only a few years old, were quickly disposed and replaced with container ships. The days of the express break bulk cargo liner were over.
For interests sake, it is worth commenting briefly on a container ship which was once one of the world's three nuclear powered merchant ships.
The German 'Otto Hahn' was the world’s second nuclear powered merchant vessel. Here are some specifications: 1963 start of building, 1964 launching, 1968 commissioning. Length 564 ft, beam 76 ft, draft 30 ft, 16,870 gross tons, 15,000 tdw, speed 15.75 knots, turbine power 11,000 propulsion HP, with a crew of 73 men and 36 researchers and scientists. She was built as an ore carrier at Howaldtswerke, Kiel.
For ten years, 'Otto Hahn' operated without encountering any problems economic realities excepted. On 126 voyages the ship steamed 642,000 nautical miles and transported 776,000 tons cargo. All this time she used just 80 kilograms uranium fuel. Again, a technical success and an economic failure. Decommissioning was decided on in 1978. Three years the ship was nuclear decontaminated at the expense of 11 million dollars.
The 'Otto Hahn' was sold to the Rickmers shipping company of Germany. During 1982-83 she was rebuilt as a container ship with diesel engine propulsion. Her new name became 'Trophy', later on she was renamed 'Norasia Susan' (1983) and 'Norasia Helga' (1985), ‘Hua Kang He’ (1989) and ‘Madre’ some time after that.
How Containerisation affected the ship owning companies
Consolidation became the name of the game. Although some of the existing break bulk shipping companies became operators of container ships in their own right, many of these companies consolidated and operated container ships together under new operating names. These consolidated company groups ultimately became the new container ship operators of the future. Many of these original break bulk shipping companies, which had been in existence for a great many years and some of which were the original pioneers of the routes now to be served by the container ships, were to disappear either completely or as ship owning companies.
Overseas Containers Ltd. (OCL), one of the British pioneers of container shipping, was a consolidation of Alfred Holt (Ocean Steamship - parent of Blue Funnel, Glen Line and Elder Dempster), P & O, Furness Withy (parent of Shaw Savill & Albion), and the British & Commonwealth Shipping Co (parent of Clan Line and Union Castle) formed in 1965. Ocean Steamship had a majority shareholding of 49%, and were the designers of the ships to be operated by OCL, the first true European fully cellular container ships, the “Encounter Bay” class introduced in 1968.
The Alfred Holt name disappeared in 1974 when Ocean Transport & Trading was formed, comprising Blue Funnel, Glen Line and NSMO. Ocean Transport & Trading now formed a partnership with Ben Line to form Ben-Ocean, although the ships were all in Ben Line livery.
Blue Funnel did not become involved with container shipping directly, instead diversifing into tankers, bulk ships, ro-ro and gas carriers.
In 1986, P & O bought out the majority shareholding in OCL, and P & O containers was formed – the name OCL disappeared along with the names of Glen Line, Elder Dempster, Shaw, Savill & Albion, Clan Line and Union Castle.
The other British pioneer of container shipping was Associated Container Transportation (ACT), who introduced their first ship the “ACT 1” in 1968 at the same time as OCL introduced their “Encounter Bay” class. This too was a consolidation, of Cunard (Port Line), Blue Star Line, Ben Line, Harrison Lines and Ellerman Line. In 1991, all ACT ships were sold or transferred, the “ACT 1”, “ACT 2” and “ACT 7” being sold to P & O becoming respectively the “Discovery Bay”, “Moreton Bay” and “Palliser Bay” (old OCL names) and the remaining “ACT 3”, “ACT 4”, “ACT 5”, “ACT 6” and “ACT 10” being transferred to Blue Star, one of the partners. In 1998, these Blue Star ships also came under the P & O umbrella when the Blue Star Line was sold to P & O. These ships retained the Blue Star livery and names until the final ship, and with it the Blue Star Line itself, the “America Star”, went to the breakers in 2003.
“ACT 7” off Wellington, 1991
Ben Line and Ellerman Line, as well as forming part of the ACT consortium, had in 1970 entered into partnership to form Ben Line Containers Ltd. In 1975, after the opening of the Suez canal, Ben Line and Ocean Transport and Trading (comprising Blue Funnel, Glen Line and NSMO) formed a partnership called Ben Ocean to operate conventional liner sailings on the Europe – Far East route.
In Germany, Hapag and NordDeutscher Lloyd jointly opened the first full container service across the Atlantic, using their “Weser Express” class container ships. In 1970 they merged to create Hapag-Lloyd and in 1971 they formed an alliance with NYK and Mitsui OSK lines of Japan, OCL and Ben Line to create the TRIO consortium to start a full container service between Europe and the Far East. In 1997 the Hapag-Lloyd Container Line was formed, one of the largest container shipping companies in operation.
Two years after the sale of OCL to P & O, in 1988, Blue Funnel had sold its last ship and ceased to exist as a ship owner. A mere 10 years after the ‘Super-P’s were sold, the Blue Funnel Line had disappeared.
Ben Line also in the 1970’s diversified into the offshore field, bulk carrier and chemical shipping. By 1991, following the decline in British shipping, Ben Line combined with the Danish East Asiatic Company to operate a weekly service to the Far East, but the following year sold all their remaining ships. In 1996, their only remaining maritime asset was an oil rig.
The Danish East Asiatic Company, owners of the container ships “Selandia” and “Jutlandia”, sold these two ships in 1994 and between then and 1997 divested itself of all ship owning interests and diversified into other areas.
The container shipping revolution had seen many established shipping companies close and disappear, some re-structure and survive, and the creation of some new, pure container, shipping companies.
The effect of Containerisation on the Ports
Containerisation affected the ports as much as it affected the ships and the shipping companies. The ports created around break bulk shipping shared many common features: many were up stream on rivers, they had enclosed basins with restricted lock access, they had godowns for the storage and handling of break bulk cargos, there was limited open land space available and road access was limited. In short, they were unsuitable for the large, high capacity and short turnaround container ships that were being introduced. The locations of these ports meant they were also unsuitable for the handling of these high volume bulk containerised cargos.
Birkenhead Docks, in decline – the home of the Blue Funnel Line
There were three options available; close them, adapt them or build new.
For the purpose of this study, we will look at the effect of containerised shipping on the ports and docks of Britain and Singapore, two extremities of the Europe – Far East express cargo liner service.
1. Britain: – Birkenhead / Liverpool Docks, London Docks, Southampton Docks and Felixstowe container terminal.
The London Docks and the Birkenhead & Liverpool Docks were both developed during the 1850’s, in the age of sail. They remained relatively unchanged for just over 100 years, until containerisation came along at the end of the 1960’s.
These docks were developed for conventional cargo handling, with enclosed non-tidal basins accessible through locks, limited quayside space and row after row of godowns. A rail system was available which, together with road transport, was used for the distribution of goods from the docks. The London Docks were situated near the city centre, some distance up the Thames River. The Birkenhead and Liverpool Docks were similarly situated in their respective city centres, a short distance up the Mersey River.
Royal Albert and King george V docks - 1930
With the advent of containerisation in 1969, the use of these docks declined – for the reasons described above, they were unsuitable for containerised shipping. The Port of London Authority in 1965 began the development of a new container terminal at Tilbury, further down the Thames River, in a race to develop a British container terminal. The Tilbury terminal was ready for the first container ships in 1968 with the full service due to be opened in 1969. However dockers strikes delayed the opening until 1970, by which time the proposed Far East container line link had been won by Southampton. Tilbury did eventually come to succeed as a container port for London, being chosen as the European terminal for OCL,, but plans to expand this success to the other London docks failed. The Royal Docks and Millwall Docks fell into disuse as docks, to ultimately be re-developed into housing, commercial and exhibition centres, recreation centres and – with the Royal Docks – adaptation into an airport.
London City Airport - under construction 1986
Liverpool and Birkenhead docks suffered a similar fate. Although kept open for a short time for what conventional shipping there was, this proved to be uneconomic. Parts of the conventional docks were in-filled for development, other parts were retained for use as museums and other recreation purposes.
In the late 1960’s, Liverpool recognized that the existing dock system would be unsuitable for containerised shipping, and planned a new container terminal at Seaforth, adjacent to the existing Gladstone dock near the entrance to the Mersey River. Gladstone dock was used as a temporary container terminal until Seaforth formally opened in 1971. Currently, Seaforth handles around 300,000 containers a year, servicing mostly the Mediterranean and Atlantic trades.
Aerial view of Liverpool docks, with Seaforth container terminal at the bottom and the old docks in the background.
Liverpool and London are examples where existing dock systems unsuitable for container ships were largely abandoned to shipping and turned over to other uses or re-development, but which have survived as ports in a fashion by creating new facilities dedicated to containerisation.
Felixstowe is another success story, this time of a new port. Opening a small dock basin in 1886, it remained a small, sleepy, east coast port until containerisation came along. It grasped the straw, and in 1967 opened as Britains first purpose built container terminal. It made the most of the high London Port rates and developed within a few years to the UK’s largest container port handling almost 3 million containers per year. Felixstowe can turn around some 7,000 of the largest container ships in the world per year, and has enough quay space to accommodate 14 of these ships at any one time. In addition to being Britains largest container port, it is Europes 4th busiest and ranks 14th in the world.
Felixstowe container terminal prior to its latest expansion, which took place in the area at the top left of the picture.
Southampton was one of the success stories of adaptation, where the existing facilities, designed not for break bulk but passenger shipping, were suitable for adaptation, and subsequent expansion, in their entirety for container shipping. Southampton had long been the terminus for the North Atlantic passenger shipping. The decline in this trade due to the increase of air travel meant that something had to be done. Due to the good sheltered deepwater approaches, and the long quays required for passenger liners, it was decided in 1965 to develop Southampton into a container port. Extra quays were built to handle containers and the ships that carried them, the first phase being complete in 1968. As more container companies chose Southampton as their main UK port, extra berths were built. Rail infra-structure was extended and improved.
Southampton is now the second largest container port in the UK and handles over half of all the UK’s container trade with the Far East.
2. Singapore
Singapore was founded in 1812 as an entre-pot centre, for which it was eminently suitable being situated directly on the Europe – East Asia trade route. Its dock complex was built in the late 1860’s and consisted of an enclosed basin and waterfront quays. It also had a good harbour and anchorage.
The dock complex was similar to many to be found in Britain, be it the small dock at the original Felixstowe port or the Royal Docks at London, but with the addition of extensive waterfront quays. It was built for, and was of course suitable for, conventional break bulk shipping.
The original port at Singapore in the 1960’s, almost unchanged for nearly 100 years. The extensive waterfront quays can be seen with, near the top of the picture, the enclosed, tidal, basin.
With the advent of containerisation, in the late 1960’s, Singapore port had to adapt if it was to retain its position as a prestige port and trading / transshipment centre. It started the development of a container terminal by re-building the Tanjong Pagar wharves (seen in the foreground of the picture above) into a container terminal. The first container ship to use this facility was the MS “Nihon” in June 1972. The older dock basin and waterfront quays were retained and continued to be used.
Singapore port continued to grow and further expansion was needed. In 1992, the Brani Terminal opened. The older dock basin and waterfront quays were next to be re-developed – the basin was filled in and new quays were built. This became the Keppel Terminal, which linked the Brani Terminal to the original Tanjong Pagar and created effectively one massinf container port, which could handle 17 million teu per year making it the second largest container port in the world.
Phase one of a fourth container terminal, Pasir Panjang, is complete and when this terminal is complete in its entirety the port of Singapore will be capable of handling 53 million teu’s per year with berthing for over 50 container ships, making it the world's largest container port.
So we have seen examples of how containerisation has affected existing ports, causing them to close, adapt in whole or in part to containerisation, or to re-build to become effectively entirely new ports.
Tanjong Pagar Docks re-developed into a container terminal
Keppel Terminal, the site of the original docks and dock basin.
The end of a way of life
Containerisation and container ships also spelt the end of a way of life for the seafarer which had existed for a great many years. The term ‘join the Navy and see the world’ has for a long time been one of the recruiting cries of the Royal Navy. In the days of break bulk shipping, it would equally as well have applied to the Merchant Navy.
The days of break bulk shipping were by comparison leisurely. Port turn-arounds were in the order of 7 – 10 days, or longer. It was common for ships, arriving at a port, to spend two or three days riding at anchor while awaiting a berth. This gave the opportunity of ‘shore-runs’ for the crew, the opportunity to see a country and its people in depth and at leisure. These ships by their nature had large crews, to work the cargo handling gear while loading and discharging. There could be interest in seeing cargo loaded and discharged bit by bit, in all its variety – anything from rubber bales to cased oils to boxes of whisky to machinery to vehicles.
The advent of containerisation has changed that. Port turn-arounds now are as little as 1 day, with ships sometimes arriving on one tide and sailing on the next. Opportunities for ‘shore-runs’ are much reduced, any that there are tend to be short and hurried. The loading and discharge of cargo which has become unseen and anonymous in container after container has lost all interest. Crews have shrunk despite the growth in ship size as there is no longer a need to man cargo handling gear, express container ships do not have any ! Seafaring is now seen less and less as a desirable way of life.
It is not the seafarers life that has changed. Life in the docks has changed too. Container terminals have a much greater level of mechanization and automation, thus the need for labour has decreased. The modern container terminal employs far less labour than the older conventional docks. Un-employment is higher in the old port cities. On the positive side, for those employed in the container ports their jobs are permanent and secure – gone are the days of the ‘pool’ and the daily queues of hopefuls seeking work. The same can be said of the seafarer too.
The pace of life in general has stepped up considerably, The continuous push for greater and even greater economies and instantaneous global communications have increased pressure. Containerisation per se cannot be blamed for all of this. There are other factors that have had their influence on life at sea: – computerization, satellite communication, affluence, air travel – all of these and others have combined to change the seafarers lot.
Some would say the changes have been for the good; certainly many have been – but not I suspect all.
Something special
Earlier, the world's three nuclear powered vessels were commented on, the “Otto Hahn” in particular which later was converted into a container ship.
Let us now end with a look at a break bulk liner with a difference – she could be called a one of a kind, the ultimate in break bulk merchant ship design. She was built and entered service during the period described, the advent of the container ship, at the time the “Benledi’s” and the “Westfalia’s” and the “Super-P’s” were around. In terms of break bulk merchant ship design, she was the ultimate – in service as a break bulk ship she was undoubtedly a failure. This failure was not due to containerisation, or at least containerisation had little to do with it although if she had been built as a container ship then perhaps she would not have failed. But then she would undoubtedly not have been the ship she was. The NS “Savannah” as a container ship would definitely not have been the same NS “Savannah” !
“Savannah”