The Undying Dream of Sail Freight
October 6, 2022 2:07 PM Subscribe
In the oil crisis of the '70s, "hardhead" former English teacher Ned Ackerman decided that the future of cargo transport was in its past: under sail. In 1976 he began building the schooner John F. Leavitt, the first cargo vessel built without an engine since 1938. The Leavitt foundered on its very first voyage, to Haiti - a dramatic failure chronicled in the documentary film Coaster (check out the poster). Since then, people continue to try to make the dream work: some efforts have gone by the wayside, like the Vermont Sail Freight Project of 2013-14 and the Salish Sea Trading Cooperative of 2010-15; meanwhile, a new generation even more motivated to engineer climate solutions is giving it a go: the Schooner Appollonia; SailCargo Inc., Timbercoast, and Grain de Sel.
The Hudson River Maritime Museum has a great online exhibition about sail freight focused on the Hudson River/NYC trade, but full of excellent information about the history, constraints, challenges and potential promises of sail freight.
The Hudson River Maritime Museum has a great online exhibition about sail freight focused on the Hudson River/NYC trade, but full of excellent information about the history, constraints, challenges and potential promises of sail freight.
the schooner John F. Leavitt
I miss The Whelk.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:38 PM on October 6, 2022 [29 favorites]
I miss The Whelk.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:38 PM on October 6, 2022 [29 favorites]
just thinking that.
posted by clavdivs at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
I've seen similar comments expressed a few times. Did something happen? Memail me please so as to not derail.
On topic, that's a beautiful boat to have been lost so quickly.
The usually fantastic Low Tech Magazine had a piece on modern sailing boats that touched on freight usage here that's worth a read if you're looking for more on the topic.
posted by jellywerker at 2:54 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
On topic, that's a beautiful boat to have been lost so quickly.
The usually fantastic Low Tech Magazine had a piece on modern sailing boats that touched on freight usage here that's worth a read if you're looking for more on the topic.
posted by jellywerker at 2:54 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
I miss The Whelk.
Kids, if this turns back into the sandwich debate, I swear to god I will turn this car right around.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 3:20 PM on October 6, 2022 [3 favorites]
Kids, if this turns back into the sandwich debate, I swear to god I will turn this car right around.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 3:20 PM on October 6, 2022 [3 favorites]
It’s a little bit of utopia’: the dream of replacing container ships with sailing boats
"Our discussion roved to population growth, consumer demand, the logic of capitalism, our own fallibilities – eating avocados, buying farmed salmon, wearing cheap cotton underwear. We had all driven cars to lunch.
“It’s the growth paradox,” said Jacques. “We understand very well that in order to have a perfect carbon footprint, the best thing would be if the Grain de Sail company did not exist.”"
posted by clavdivs at 3:20 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Our discussion roved to population growth, consumer demand, the logic of capitalism, our own fallibilities – eating avocados, buying farmed salmon, wearing cheap cotton underwear. We had all driven cars to lunch.
“It’s the growth paradox,” said Jacques. “We understand very well that in order to have a perfect carbon footprint, the best thing would be if the Grain de Sail company did not exist.”"
posted by clavdivs at 3:20 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
I swear to god I will turn this car right around.
Sail freighter. Turn this sail freighter right back around. ;D
posted by aniola at 3:34 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
Sail freighter. Turn this sail freighter right back around. ;D
posted by aniola at 3:34 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
The jam is how many shipping containers can you fit on a sail freighter?
posted by Jon_Evil at 5:10 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Jon_Evil at 5:10 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
Articles about this oil tanker that uses sails to be more efficient just came out a few days ago.
posted by overhauser at 5:11 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by overhauser at 5:11 PM on October 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
I wish that I'd sail the darkened seas
On a great big clipper ship
posted by ovvl at 6:15 PM on October 6, 2022 [3 favorites]
(check out the poster)
Very Harlequin - - the artist just needed to zoom back to show the ebony-haired countess standing on her coastside castle balcony.
posted by fairmettle at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
Very Harlequin - - the artist just needed to zoom back to show the ebony-haired countess standing on her coastside castle balcony.
posted by fairmettle at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
¡Check out the wildlife at the shipyard associated with SailCargo Inc!
posted by aniola at 9:11 PM on October 6, 2022
posted by aniola at 9:11 PM on October 6, 2022
I would pay more (but not astronomically more) to sail internationally, if it was an option. Cool post!
posted by latkes at 11:22 PM on October 6, 2022
posted by latkes at 11:22 PM on October 6, 2022
The development of wholly electric powered cargo ships is also worth watching - they can still be wind powered by indirectly. This article provides quite a good overview of the state of the technology - and you can see the Yarra Birkeland electric container ship in action here. This ship - which was delivered into service in March, has a 7MwH battery and carries just over 100 containers at 10 knots over 30 nautical miles. Only really a proof of concept at this stage - but still saving 40,000 truck journeys per year that would have been needed to carry the load overland. She has been designed to become autonomous. Likewise, solar powered ships have reached the stage where we have some reasonable solar powered ferries like Aditya are in use at present and carrying 75 passengers. For larger vessels, hydrogen fuel cells seems like the best immediate route to go. Most commercial ships use electric motors at present already - so converting them to use a hydrogen fuel cell should be possible. "Hydroville" is an existing vessel showing this technology on a modest scale - a little more about that state of that technology.
posted by rongorongo at 11:40 PM on October 6, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by rongorongo at 11:40 PM on October 6, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'm working on a tall ship right now, on which I have several thousand sea miles' experience, so perhaps I can contribute a bit of perspective.
Cargo under sail will never completely go away, because there'll always be someone willing to throw a few pallets on a boat and make a show of doing things the old fashioned way; this post links several such efforts and there are many more.
But sailing doesn't scale today, and the reason that it doesn't scale is that nobody has ever solved the problem of making a large ship move under sail without a colossal amount of human effort.
If you want to understand what that used to look like when taken to its logical extreme, then you can't do any better than to watch this film narrated by Irving Johnson of a voyage around Cape Horn on the Peking in 1928, when she was one of the last giant square riggers still carrying cargo commercially. We are incredibly lucky to have this footage; Johnson is speaking some 60 years after having shot that film as a young cadet, one wild enough to have dragged a 1920s film camera up 17 storeys of rigging in the howling winds of the Southern Ocean and lived to tell the tale as an old man.
That ship was not a leftover of some bygone romantic age; it represents essentially the pinnacle of efficiency that has ever been achieved in sailing as an industrial pursuit. It was launched in 1911, the same year as the Titanic, and was one of a series of 65 ships of the same company built to carry cargo with the greatest possible speed and efficiency. The Peking weighed 8,000 tonnes and at that time she took a crew of 74 working around the clock to sail, 4 hours on, 4 hours off, before the days of safety regulation, when lives were cheap and lost regularly. That efficiency will never be matched, for if you were to sail that ship again today - and you could, since it survives today in Hamburg - it would take a crew of at least twice that to do it safely.
A modern container ship - take the Ever Given, with which we're all familiar - weighs 200,000 tonnes and sails with a crew of 25.
And that, right there, is the reason that cargo is not going back to sailing any time soon: with the greatest efficiency ever actually demonstrated in practice, and safety thrown to the wind, it took SEVENTY FIVE TIMES more crew per weight of ship to move cargo under sail than it does today under engine power. Fuel costs could go up by twenty times and it still wouldn't make economic sense to go back.
One day, when the planet has really, thoroughly run out of extractable oil - and I mean really, because the big ships run on the absolute dregs of the stuff - maybe it will make sense again. But the world will look so different by then that who knows what will be carried; it certainly won't be plastic goods.
But surely, you say, we can do it better today? With fancy materials and mechanisms and electronics and automation, we could build sailing rigs that work without all that human effort and constant, endless maintenance and repair and replacement?
And all I can say to you is: prove it. Because so far nobody has, despite hundreds of years of trying. Yes, we know about automated power kites, and clever retractable wingsails, and the DynaRig and all the other fancy stuff that's been demonstrated. But so far none of it has really been shown to be actually reliable at sea on a long term basis. The state of the art for a sailing ship that you can depend on still looks much the same as it did a hundred years ago, not because nothing has happened in between, but because we had already converged on the best approaches after centuries of refinement.
Sailing is expensive; the wind is free but nothing else is. The sea is a hostile environment that eats away at everything constantly. Everything on a ship has to be continuously maintained, repaired and renewed. Spares and support are far away. Complicated systems don't survive; only those that can be repaired at sea are viable. If you have a way to actually make a sailing rig cheaper to maintain and operate, I have a dozen skippers in my phone book who would like to hear from you.
I hope I'm wrong, and that some of the new ideas work out. But I think a large-scale future for sail freight is still a long way off, and that if it ever comes, it will look much the same as it always used to.
Until then, we'll be out here remembering how to do it, because someone ought to.
posted by automatronic at 12:02 AM on October 7, 2022 [93 favorites]
Cargo under sail will never completely go away, because there'll always be someone willing to throw a few pallets on a boat and make a show of doing things the old fashioned way; this post links several such efforts and there are many more.
But sailing doesn't scale today, and the reason that it doesn't scale is that nobody has ever solved the problem of making a large ship move under sail without a colossal amount of human effort.
If you want to understand what that used to look like when taken to its logical extreme, then you can't do any better than to watch this film narrated by Irving Johnson of a voyage around Cape Horn on the Peking in 1928, when she was one of the last giant square riggers still carrying cargo commercially. We are incredibly lucky to have this footage; Johnson is speaking some 60 years after having shot that film as a young cadet, one wild enough to have dragged a 1920s film camera up 17 storeys of rigging in the howling winds of the Southern Ocean and lived to tell the tale as an old man.
That ship was not a leftover of some bygone romantic age; it represents essentially the pinnacle of efficiency that has ever been achieved in sailing as an industrial pursuit. It was launched in 1911, the same year as the Titanic, and was one of a series of 65 ships of the same company built to carry cargo with the greatest possible speed and efficiency. The Peking weighed 8,000 tonnes and at that time she took a crew of 74 working around the clock to sail, 4 hours on, 4 hours off, before the days of safety regulation, when lives were cheap and lost regularly. That efficiency will never be matched, for if you were to sail that ship again today - and you could, since it survives today in Hamburg - it would take a crew of at least twice that to do it safely.
A modern container ship - take the Ever Given, with which we're all familiar - weighs 200,000 tonnes and sails with a crew of 25.
And that, right there, is the reason that cargo is not going back to sailing any time soon: with the greatest efficiency ever actually demonstrated in practice, and safety thrown to the wind, it took SEVENTY FIVE TIMES more crew per weight of ship to move cargo under sail than it does today under engine power. Fuel costs could go up by twenty times and it still wouldn't make economic sense to go back.
One day, when the planet has really, thoroughly run out of extractable oil - and I mean really, because the big ships run on the absolute dregs of the stuff - maybe it will make sense again. But the world will look so different by then that who knows what will be carried; it certainly won't be plastic goods.
But surely, you say, we can do it better today? With fancy materials and mechanisms and electronics and automation, we could build sailing rigs that work without all that human effort and constant, endless maintenance and repair and replacement?
And all I can say to you is: prove it. Because so far nobody has, despite hundreds of years of trying. Yes, we know about automated power kites, and clever retractable wingsails, and the DynaRig and all the other fancy stuff that's been demonstrated. But so far none of it has really been shown to be actually reliable at sea on a long term basis. The state of the art for a sailing ship that you can depend on still looks much the same as it did a hundred years ago, not because nothing has happened in between, but because we had already converged on the best approaches after centuries of refinement.
Sailing is expensive; the wind is free but nothing else is. The sea is a hostile environment that eats away at everything constantly. Everything on a ship has to be continuously maintained, repaired and renewed. Spares and support are far away. Complicated systems don't survive; only those that can be repaired at sea are viable. If you have a way to actually make a sailing rig cheaper to maintain and operate, I have a dozen skippers in my phone book who would like to hear from you.
I hope I'm wrong, and that some of the new ideas work out. But I think a large-scale future for sail freight is still a long way off, and that if it ever comes, it will look much the same as it always used to.
Until then, we'll be out here remembering how to do it, because someone ought to.
posted by automatronic at 12:02 AM on October 7, 2022 [93 favorites]
Someone on AskMe once recommended that I read a book called "The Way of a Ship," by Alan Villiers, to understand how the big square-masted ships were run in the days before engines. After reading most of that book, I have to agree with everything automatronic says. EVERY component of a square-masted ship must be constantly checked, monitored, and maintained. And if your hull is wood instead of steel, the upkeep gets even more intense. The narrator of the video linked above mentions that the ship in the video had 350 lines -- 350 distinct lengths of rope which had to be learned, handled in unison, and not forgotten even when you thought you were about to die. Because if fifty foot waves are pitching the deck sideways and someone panics and grabs the wrong line, or waits too long to grab the right line, then people will die.
This is not to say that piloting and crewing a modern container ship isn't also a very difficult and dangerous job. But on the whole, it is probably less deadly than it used to be. And it is certainly more efficient in terms of bulk transport.
The shipping industry appears to be making some overtures toward transitioning to hydrogen fuel, but that presents its own suite of engineering problems that will take time and effort to solve
posted by cubeb at 7:01 AM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
This is not to say that piloting and crewing a modern container ship isn't also a very difficult and dangerous job. But on the whole, it is probably less deadly than it used to be. And it is certainly more efficient in terms of bulk transport.
The shipping industry appears to be making some overtures toward transitioning to hydrogen fuel, but that presents its own suite of engineering problems that will take time and effort to solve
posted by cubeb at 7:01 AM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
If you want to understand what that used to look like when taken to its logical extreme, then you can't do any better than to watch this film narrated by Irving Johnson of a voyage around Cape Horn on the Peking in 1928
Wow! That is an incredible film! Definitely worth watching in full.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:37 AM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
Wow! That is an incredible film! Definitely worth watching in full.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:37 AM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
Also don’t want to derail, also want to know what happened to the Whelk!
Well, their last comments are an impressive flurry from early April 2020 about labor organization, solidarity and anti-capitalist action during the pandemic, and now their account's disabled. So my guesses are (1) they're still so busy with progressive causes they don't have time to come back, (2) they got in an argument with other MeFites over who is insufficiently progressive, had comments deleted and closed the account, or (3) we lost them to Covid.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:39 AM on October 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well, their last comments are an impressive flurry from early April 2020 about labor organization, solidarity and anti-capitalist action during the pandemic, and now their account's disabled. So my guesses are (1) they're still so busy with progressive causes they don't have time to come back, (2) they got in an argument with other MeFites over who is insufficiently progressive, had comments deleted and closed the account, or (3) we lost them to Covid.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:39 AM on October 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
I was looking up an old friend from college the other day. Apparently he took a turn toward money at some point and is now working to help oil and gas companies save money by more efficiently finding oil and gas. No wonder he fell out of touch. I hope he's ok with his decision.
Fortunately, efficiency is not always the number one highest possible priority. And somehow, at least one of the links I clicked on is saying that they are actually finding sail cargo to be cost-effective anyway.
Change is frequently hard. Like it says in one of the links or rabbit holes, sail cargo isn't going to happen on a large scale without policy change.
I'd rather live in a world where 150x as many people were employed on safe cargo ships. Can you imagine that world? Instead of going down to the docks and not being able to swim in them because of all the pollution in the water, you go down to the docks and there's a lively port full of sail cargo ships? That's a job I'd love to have; that's a world I want to live in. That's a world we do live in, because people are working on this.
We can get there, if enough of us can see the possibilities.
posted by aniola at 9:01 AM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
Fortunately, efficiency is not always the number one highest possible priority. And somehow, at least one of the links I clicked on is saying that they are actually finding sail cargo to be cost-effective anyway.
Change is frequently hard. Like it says in one of the links or rabbit holes, sail cargo isn't going to happen on a large scale without policy change.
I'd rather live in a world where 150x as many people were employed on safe cargo ships. Can you imagine that world? Instead of going down to the docks and not being able to swim in them because of all the pollution in the water, you go down to the docks and there's a lively port full of sail cargo ships? That's a job I'd love to have; that's a world I want to live in. That's a world we do live in, because people are working on this.
We can get there, if enough of us can see the possibilities.
posted by aniola at 9:01 AM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
More expensive shipping means more local production with higher prices but more local jobs.
I’m convinced by ?Krugman’s? diagnosis that allowing monopolies in the US* causes a lot of our "jobs, but only in 10 cities in the whole country" problem and its knock-ons, so that sounds pretty good to me.
* as long as they don’t immediately make consumer prices higher, and with luck in lawsuits, even then
posted by clew at 10:22 AM on October 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
I’m convinced by ?Krugman’s? diagnosis that allowing monopolies in the US* causes a lot of our "jobs, but only in 10 cities in the whole country" problem and its knock-ons, so that sounds pretty good to me.
* as long as they don’t immediately make consumer prices higher, and with luck in lawsuits, even then
posted by clew at 10:22 AM on October 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
The Whelk lives! He even posts! Just not on here.
posted by Aizkolari at 12:31 PM on October 7, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Aizkolari at 12:31 PM on October 7, 2022 [6 favorites]
automatronic, I clicked on this post rather idly, and your comment made me so glad I did. What a treasure-trove! Thank you.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 1:36 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 1:36 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
automatronic, I agree with your assessment. It's not that I find the freight argument convincing in and of itself, but I'm somewhat drawn to the way that this dream keeps recurring, driven by the same romance that keeps sail training programs (just barely) alive. I come from a tall ships/maritime history background myself, and have lived long enough now to watch the same utopianism keep sputtering up, getting tested, and running out of money, energy, or both. I like what Erik Andrus (of the VT Sail Freight Project) said about peripheralism - projects like this will keep recurring at small scales, because of individual passion and the fact that you cancarve a margin out of a tiny niche market at a tiny scale, but short of total societal reorganization we aren't going to see what he penciled out: fifteen thousand food barges going up and down the Hudson every week. Not gonna happen.
Sail assist and electric/solar vessels - there's probably some progress to be made there.
posted by Miko at 1:59 PM on October 7, 2022
Sail assist and electric/solar vessels - there's probably some progress to be made there.
posted by Miko at 1:59 PM on October 7, 2022
w/r/t the discussion of the Peking: I thought she only carried about 35 crew. Her sister ship Pommern (though 4-masted) carried 26 and Passat 25-35. I also thought it was trade that did that line in, not the efficiency, and just verified with some Googling. The Flying P liners went out of business not because of crew efficiency, but because they couldn't make the route pay on either end - there was no reliable outbound cargo from Germany, and it took too long to gather 8,000 tons of nitrate from Chile.
The Downeasters are another example of sailing ships that were operating concurrent with steam, competitively, until the cost of coal dropped and the Panama Canal was fully operational. The Benjamin F. Packard had a complement of 25 crew. Driven hard, yes. Another thing that cut into profits was difficulty obtaining crew. They often recruited from people released from prison, people with no other job prospects, etc., and used harsh discipline. It wasn't a job people were clamoring for. But into the 20th century, for cargo that wasn't perishable, the combination of voyage time, cargo capacity, and opportunity to backhaul cargo worked out well enough.
I think the lessons of sail freight are that the margins of cargo carrying are always very, very tight. You have to factor in: cost of labor (more expensive now than ever); cost of time at sea; cost of downtime in port; value of cargo; availability of cargo on return trips and future legs, and guaranteed buyers for same; costs of insurance, repair, and regular maintenance; perishability of the cargo; seasonality or deadline-dependent nature of the cargo; and weather interruptions. The main thing that made sail less profitable then was cheap fuel and accelerating expectations for rapidity; what makes it less profitable now is expensive labor and the lack of much of a labor market for people who want this to be their working lives, as well as difficulty competing with the lower costs of goods delivered by other concurrent methods.
posted by Miko at 2:39 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Downeasters are another example of sailing ships that were operating concurrent with steam, competitively, until the cost of coal dropped and the Panama Canal was fully operational. The Benjamin F. Packard had a complement of 25 crew. Driven hard, yes. Another thing that cut into profits was difficulty obtaining crew. They often recruited from people released from prison, people with no other job prospects, etc., and used harsh discipline. It wasn't a job people were clamoring for. But into the 20th century, for cargo that wasn't perishable, the combination of voyage time, cargo capacity, and opportunity to backhaul cargo worked out well enough.
I think the lessons of sail freight are that the margins of cargo carrying are always very, very tight. You have to factor in: cost of labor (more expensive now than ever); cost of time at sea; cost of downtime in port; value of cargo; availability of cargo on return trips and future legs, and guaranteed buyers for same; costs of insurance, repair, and regular maintenance; perishability of the cargo; seasonality or deadline-dependent nature of the cargo; and weather interruptions. The main thing that made sail less profitable then was cheap fuel and accelerating expectations for rapidity; what makes it less profitable now is expensive labor and the lack of much of a labor market for people who want this to be their working lives, as well as difficulty competing with the lower costs of goods delivered by other concurrent methods.
posted by Miko at 2:39 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Grin Tech people (the people who do ebike motors) are also into using their motors on sailboats as solar e-assist. My partner says they have two small sailboats outfitted with their motors and solar panels.
posted by aniola at 3:33 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by aniola at 3:33 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
It looks like the SailCargo people are interested in doing solar fabric if they can find a supplier. My concern with that is what happens at the end of its lifespan? Like when it gets destroyed in a big storm?
posted by aniola at 3:56 PM on October 7, 2022
posted by aniola at 3:56 PM on October 7, 2022
they got in an argument with other MeFites over who is insufficiently progressive, Thanks for Whelkupdate Besides he never really lost a argument:)
I do like the gentile mercantilism aspect and who doesn't like sails. I think it was mentioned that combining passenger with cargo is interesting. There are between 6000-10000 ship wrecks in the Great Lakes were water Transpo is still a thing. How many are not wooden? If a Sail didn't have a back up engine even with updated Nav and weather instruments, it could be dangerous.
It would be interesting to see a Sail/ electric vechile transportation route(s). A business owner moving a few items in bulk and taking on passengers is interesting. For example, the river and coastal shipping in South East Asia. At first read perhaps the mind envisions replacing extisting ships but not really. I think it's more about individualism. I like the way this post was made, thanks Miko.
posted by clavdivs at 3:58 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
I do like the gentile mercantilism aspect and who doesn't like sails. I think it was mentioned that combining passenger with cargo is interesting. There are between 6000-10000 ship wrecks in the Great Lakes were water Transpo is still a thing. How many are not wooden? If a Sail didn't have a back up engine even with updated Nav and weather instruments, it could be dangerous.
It would be interesting to see a Sail/ electric vechile transportation route(s). A business owner moving a few items in bulk and taking on passengers is interesting. For example, the river and coastal shipping in South East Asia. At first read perhaps the mind envisions replacing extisting ships but not really. I think it's more about individualism. I like the way this post was made, thanks Miko.
posted by clavdivs at 3:58 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
Miko, thanks for your thoughts.
I have to admit that I don't know much of the history of the P-liners in particular, but the existence of that film makes it such an accessible example that it seemed the obvious one to use. I hadn't mean to imply that those ships in particular were driven out of trade by inefficiency, but rather just that they exemplify the state of the art in the last days when sail freight was still being used on an industrial scale.
I took my number for the Peking from this document, which says 31 crew and 43 cadets from 1927 when the poop was extended. I figured to include the cadets, since from Johnson's account they were pretty clearly being put to work along with everyone else, but you may be right that an experienced crew would have sailed her with fewer hands, before her training role was expanded. I find it hard to imagine working that ship around the clock with so few, though. Do you know if your figures include everyone aboard, or just "official" crew? My understanding is that younger lads might be found on crews somewhat unofficially in those days.
The number hardly affects the conclusion, in any case. For a modern container ship, the crew-to-weight ratio is equivalent to having the Peking sailing single handed. By any figure, it's a huge difference in human effort.
posted by automatronic at 4:01 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
I have to admit that I don't know much of the history of the P-liners in particular, but the existence of that film makes it such an accessible example that it seemed the obvious one to use. I hadn't mean to imply that those ships in particular were driven out of trade by inefficiency, but rather just that they exemplify the state of the art in the last days when sail freight was still being used on an industrial scale.
I took my number for the Peking from this document, which says 31 crew and 43 cadets from 1927 when the poop was extended. I figured to include the cadets, since from Johnson's account they were pretty clearly being put to work along with everyone else, but you may be right that an experienced crew would have sailed her with fewer hands, before her training role was expanded. I find it hard to imagine working that ship around the clock with so few, though. Do you know if your figures include everyone aboard, or just "official" crew? My understanding is that younger lads might be found on crews somewhat unofficially in those days.
The number hardly affects the conclusion, in any case. For a modern container ship, the crew-to-weight ratio is equivalent to having the Peking sailing single handed. By any figure, it's a huge difference in human effort.
posted by automatronic at 4:01 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
The P liner complement is Al souls aboard, yes. I suppose to Peking’s cadets date to that crossover period between sail training and merchant sail. I don’t think the design of the ships anticipated that and they were able to be manned with a much smaller crew than that. Ackerman’s schooner had a crew of 6, but even for a talk ship, a crew of 26 working hard would do it, and toward the end of the 19th century under all the economic pressures the vessels weee getting bigger but the crews getting smaller.
Ships that carried a lot of cadets/trainees had to figure out how to keep them busy and so they assigned make-work stuff, especially when they were on long tacks — a lot of scrubbing, painting, varnishing, sail repair, skills drills. and additional boat checks and added deck watch positions.
posted by Miko at 4:58 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ships that carried a lot of cadets/trainees had to figure out how to keep them busy and so they assigned make-work stuff, especially when they were on long tacks — a lot of scrubbing, painting, varnishing, sail repair, skills drills. and additional boat checks and added deck watch positions.
posted by Miko at 4:58 PM on October 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
Or, you know, checking seaweed for parasites so that hopefully they could find one to be named after the captain.
posted by aniola at 6:25 PM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 6:25 PM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
But sailing doesn't scale today, and the reason that it doesn't scale is that nobody has ever solved the problem of making a large ship move under sail without a colossal amount of human effort.
[...]
That ship [The Peking] was not a leftover of some bygone romantic age; it represents essentially the pinnacle of efficiency that has ever been achieved in sailing as an industrial pursuit.
When steam ships came out wind tech was dropped like it was hot so that is undoubtedly true at the moment. But ships like The Peking were still limited by material science, controls engineering, electrical technology, no computers or microprocessors etc. of the early 1900s. Today we've got racing sail boats that can sail at twice the wind speed. Modern fighter craft that are intentionally unstable requiring computers to fly. Hydrofoil passenger craft cruising along at 45+ knots.
The pieces are all there to crank out a large multi wingsail wind powered cargo craft that thanks to computer control wouldn't require much if any more staff than a fossil fuel powered ship. Early iterations are unlikely to employ hydro foils I'd imagine.
The problem is logistical. The wind isn't always blowing and doesn't necessarily blow where you want directly. I imagine traversing a canal would be much harder. With those constraints whether a wind powered ship can still make sense when compared to fossil fuel (or hydrogen or battery) powered ship if we force the fossil fuel ship to pay for all externalities would be the determining factor.
posted by Mitheral at 9:19 PM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
[...]
That ship [The Peking] was not a leftover of some bygone romantic age; it represents essentially the pinnacle of efficiency that has ever been achieved in sailing as an industrial pursuit.
When steam ships came out wind tech was dropped like it was hot so that is undoubtedly true at the moment. But ships like The Peking were still limited by material science, controls engineering, electrical technology, no computers or microprocessors etc. of the early 1900s. Today we've got racing sail boats that can sail at twice the wind speed. Modern fighter craft that are intentionally unstable requiring computers to fly. Hydrofoil passenger craft cruising along at 45+ knots.
The pieces are all there to crank out a large multi wingsail wind powered cargo craft that thanks to computer control wouldn't require much if any more staff than a fossil fuel powered ship. Early iterations are unlikely to employ hydro foils I'd imagine.
The problem is logistical. The wind isn't always blowing and doesn't necessarily blow where you want directly. I imagine traversing a canal would be much harder. With those constraints whether a wind powered ship can still make sense when compared to fossil fuel (or hydrogen or battery) powered ship if we force the fossil fuel ship to pay for all externalities would be the determining factor.
posted by Mitheral at 9:19 PM on October 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
My mental reading of automatronic’s post has them looking and sounding just like Willem Dafoe in the Lighthouse. “Do ye think the sails repair themselves, boyo?”
I write this with the utmost affection and respect for a craftsperson in a dangerous field.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:11 AM on October 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
I write this with the utmost affection and respect for a craftsperson in a dangerous field.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:11 AM on October 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
Anyone who likes automatronic's post with a spare half hour should really watch the video.
posted by aniola at 8:59 AM on October 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 8:59 AM on October 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
One of the people who's authoring the "Sail Freighter Fridays" posts for HRMM also did his thesis on it: Sail Freight Revival: Methods Of Calculating Fleet, Labor, And Cargo Needs For Supplying Cities By Sail
posted by Miko at 11:14 AM on October 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 11:14 AM on October 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
I went looking for a hilar ious film that Mystic Seaport used to have in which Alan Villiers, a sail training pioneer and a bit of a nutbar, narrates his home movies from the 1930s taking the ship Joseph Conrad around Cape Horn with a mostly trainee crew. That seems to be under copyright restriction now so it's not online, but excerpts show up in this pretty decent documentary Ghosts of Cape Horn.
posted by Miko at 11:16 AM on October 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 11:16 AM on October 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
Can rongorongo or anyone else explain how the Yarra Birkeland makes economic sense vs say improved rail lines, given the rout it sails? Anything rail needs more employees maybe?
I'm dubious batteries ever make sense for most boats or planes, but at least nuclear works for ships. In fact, the Sevmorput was launched in 1988 and continues operating today. I think smaller reactor designs often pose proliferation risks, but nuclear powers would not mind holding a monopoly on shipping.
We'll never run out of coal, automatronic, so we need some combination of zero-emission alternatives and massively reduced trade ala degrowth.
Assuming air travel dies fast enough, we could maybe transport (rich) people via ferry sized hydrofoil catamarans. It's be extensive and "adventurous", but some tiny ones go fast. I suppose weight and displacement requirements prevent adopting catamarans for cargo?
posted by jeffburdges at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2022
I'm dubious batteries ever make sense for most boats or planes, but at least nuclear works for ships. In fact, the Sevmorput was launched in 1988 and continues operating today. I think smaller reactor designs often pose proliferation risks, but nuclear powers would not mind holding a monopoly on shipping.
We'll never run out of coal, automatronic, so we need some combination of zero-emission alternatives and massively reduced trade ala degrowth.
Assuming air travel dies fast enough, we could maybe transport (rich) people via ferry sized hydrofoil catamarans. It's be extensive and "adventurous", but some tiny ones go fast. I suppose weight and displacement requirements prevent adopting catamarans for cargo?
posted by jeffburdges at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2022
Hydrofoils have only been shown to work for racing sailboats that weigh next to nothing, or relatively small powered craft with a shitload of engine power. The latter are useful for short-range high-speed passenger services where wave heights are low. They can't operate in rough seas and they're not a solution for moving heavy cargo on the open ocean, where waves can routinely be 30ft or more.
They also don't scale up. A large cargo ship weighs tens of thousands of tons. It's only possible for a steel structure of that scale to hold together because it's supported by buoyancy throughout the hull. If you lifted one out of the water on a couple of pillars it would fall apart, and that's before you even think about how to propel it to takeoff speed. It's not practical to build a large hydrofoil cargo ship, not even under engine power, let alone sail.
posted by automatronic at 6:25 PM on October 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
They also don't scale up. A large cargo ship weighs tens of thousands of tons. It's only possible for a steel structure of that scale to hold together because it's supported by buoyancy throughout the hull. If you lifted one out of the water on a couple of pillars it would fall apart, and that's before you even think about how to propel it to takeoff speed. It's not practical to build a large hydrofoil cargo ship, not even under engine power, let alone sail.
posted by automatronic at 6:25 PM on October 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, I realize hydrofoils make zero sense for slow moving cargo, but I asked about non-hydrofoil catamarans for cargo purely for shear surface area, not the usual stability reasons. If you've more deck area then you've more places to put sails and solar.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:00 AM on October 10, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 3:00 AM on October 10, 2022
Can rongorongo or anyone else explain how the Yarra Birkeland makes economic sense vs say improved rail lines, given the rout it sails? Anything rail needs more employees maybe?
The vessel is covering a route between Porsgrunn and Brevik - that route is only about 15km by land - and there aren't any railway links available. It seems like the vessel is being viewed as both a demonstrator of autonomous sea-going ships and of battery power - but with the emphasis on the market for short, simple voyages. I guess they may be able to build an economic case based on reduced labour costs versus trucking, reduced fuel costs and reduced CO2 emissions. In crude terms, the ship appears to have cost about $40 million to buy - (with the Norwegian government covering a third of the cost) it might last 30 years and it would thus replace 1.2 million truck journey's for an equivalent of $33 per trip - maybe $50 after adding in ship fuel and other charges. So - it may still make sense for Yarra even at this point - they could probably could have built a railway line for less but it would have taught them less about an approach they could potentially expand on.
posted by rongorongo at 4:31 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
The vessel is covering a route between Porsgrunn and Brevik - that route is only about 15km by land - and there aren't any railway links available. It seems like the vessel is being viewed as both a demonstrator of autonomous sea-going ships and of battery power - but with the emphasis on the market for short, simple voyages. I guess they may be able to build an economic case based on reduced labour costs versus trucking, reduced fuel costs and reduced CO2 emissions. In crude terms, the ship appears to have cost about $40 million to buy - (with the Norwegian government covering a third of the cost) it might last 30 years and it would thus replace 1.2 million truck journey's for an equivalent of $33 per trip - maybe $50 after adding in ship fuel and other charges. So - it may still make sense for Yarra even at this point - they could probably could have built a railway line for less but it would have taught them less about an approach they could potentially expand on.
posted by rongorongo at 4:31 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, I realize hydrofoils make zero sense for slow moving cargo, but I asked about non-hydrofoil catamarans for cargo purely for shear surface area, not the usual stability reasons. If you've more deck area then you've more places to put sails and solar.
Well, the largest ship in the world right now is a catamaran - the Pioneering Spirit - so it's certainly possible to build large ones, but you won't find that ship any use for moving general cargo. It's for lifting oil rigs into place and laying pipelines.
One problem with large catamarans in general is that ships need to navigate narrow channels. A giant catamaran wouldn't be able to use the Suez or Panama canals, and would be pretty limited in its ability to navigate upriver into ports. Ships need infrastructure - channels into ports need to be dredged, and canals and locks need to be built and maintained. Those costs increase with width and depth, so long, thin, relatively shallow ships are vastly more efficient to build and maintain infrastructure for than wider or deeper ones of the same tonnage. Longer hulls also have reduced drag - see hull speed, or for a deeper understanding, Froude number.
A wider area to put sails on doesn't really help, because you don't want sails in multiple rows - the downwind ones would just be shadowed by the upwind ones. A sailing ship is fastest with the wind coming from the side, or slightly behind - so a single hull with masts in a line is the best solution for presenting the most sail to the wind with minimum drag. Multihulls are advantageous for light sailboats because the wider base provides more ability to counter the force of the wind heeling the boat over, allowing relatively more sail to be used for the same overall size of boat. But heavily loaded ships don't have that problem - the weight of the ship itself provides more than sufficient stability to counter the force on the rig. An additional hull would just increase drag, compared to a longer one of the same profile.
You're right that a catamaran would provide a large surface area for solar, but the numbers for solar powered cargo don't add up - it just wouldn't provide enough power to move a heavy ship. Lightweight solar powered craft are possible; I've been out on a little one on Lake Geneva, and there's a 35-metre seagoing solar catamaran that's been around for a few years, but you only have to glance at that one to realise that it only works because it's so light, and can sit mostly out of the water on two very narrow hulls.
One interesting example of catamarans for freight at a smaller scale was the ill-fated 1970s BACAT (Barge Aboard Catamaran) scheme, in which a catamaran carrier ship would transport unpowered barges across the North Sea rather like shipping containers - they would be floated between the hulls then lifted up on deck, with the last couple being secured between the hulls. At each end of the route, they could be released and taken further inland up smaller rivers and canals by tugs. That general concept, usually called lighter aboard ship (LASH) has been tried a few times and is an interesting way to extend the usefulness of inland waterways, but it really only works in particular circumstances so has never really caught on, as compared to general-purpose containerization.
The BACAT ship was barely a catamaran though - it had a single bow and only split into two hulls further aft.
posted by automatronic at 5:28 AM on October 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Well, the largest ship in the world right now is a catamaran - the Pioneering Spirit - so it's certainly possible to build large ones, but you won't find that ship any use for moving general cargo. It's for lifting oil rigs into place and laying pipelines.
One problem with large catamarans in general is that ships need to navigate narrow channels. A giant catamaran wouldn't be able to use the Suez or Panama canals, and would be pretty limited in its ability to navigate upriver into ports. Ships need infrastructure - channels into ports need to be dredged, and canals and locks need to be built and maintained. Those costs increase with width and depth, so long, thin, relatively shallow ships are vastly more efficient to build and maintain infrastructure for than wider or deeper ones of the same tonnage. Longer hulls also have reduced drag - see hull speed, or for a deeper understanding, Froude number.
A wider area to put sails on doesn't really help, because you don't want sails in multiple rows - the downwind ones would just be shadowed by the upwind ones. A sailing ship is fastest with the wind coming from the side, or slightly behind - so a single hull with masts in a line is the best solution for presenting the most sail to the wind with minimum drag. Multihulls are advantageous for light sailboats because the wider base provides more ability to counter the force of the wind heeling the boat over, allowing relatively more sail to be used for the same overall size of boat. But heavily loaded ships don't have that problem - the weight of the ship itself provides more than sufficient stability to counter the force on the rig. An additional hull would just increase drag, compared to a longer one of the same profile.
You're right that a catamaran would provide a large surface area for solar, but the numbers for solar powered cargo don't add up - it just wouldn't provide enough power to move a heavy ship. Lightweight solar powered craft are possible; I've been out on a little one on Lake Geneva, and there's a 35-metre seagoing solar catamaran that's been around for a few years, but you only have to glance at that one to realise that it only works because it's so light, and can sit mostly out of the water on two very narrow hulls.
One interesting example of catamarans for freight at a smaller scale was the ill-fated 1970s BACAT (Barge Aboard Catamaran) scheme, in which a catamaran carrier ship would transport unpowered barges across the North Sea rather like shipping containers - they would be floated between the hulls then lifted up on deck, with the last couple being secured between the hulls. At each end of the route, they could be released and taken further inland up smaller rivers and canals by tugs. That general concept, usually called lighter aboard ship (LASH) has been tried a few times and is an interesting way to extend the usefulness of inland waterways, but it really only works in particular circumstances so has never really caught on, as compared to general-purpose containerization.
The BACAT ship was barely a catamaran though - it had a single bow and only split into two hulls further aft.
posted by automatronic at 5:28 AM on October 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Sevmorput is an LASH too. I think mostly because nobody wants nuclear powered ships pulling into their ports. I've heard the USSR did not always maintain their ships' reactors so well, which maybe plays some role too. I've no idea if regulations would work for nuclear powered shipping maintained by say France.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:15 AM on October 10, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 6:15 AM on October 10, 2022
Can rongorongo or anyone else explain how the Yarra Birkeland makes economic sense vs say improved rail lines, given the rout it sails? Anything rail needs more employees maybe?
The Yarra Birkland is most likely the result of R&D but knowing nothing about the specifics of the area some reasons it may make more sense than an electrified rail link between the two places:
posted by Mitheral at 10:55 AM on October 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
The Yarra Birkland is most likely the result of R&D but knowing nothing about the specifics of the area some reasons it may make more sense than an electrified rail link between the two places:
- If there is no current rail link (I can't see one on google maps) building a new rail link from scratch is horribly expensive and fraught with environmental, NIMBY, access and regulatory concerns.
- If there is any sort of significant grade or water crossing on the route the cost of mitigating that single feature can easy double the cost or more.
- Rail lines act as unnatural barriers preventing or discouraging the free passage of people and wildlife.
- An unconnected short line requires dedicated maintenance facilities somewhere on the line.
posted by Mitheral at 10:55 AM on October 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Are there good comparisons of energy efficiency between boats and rail? I'd expect boats and level rail work out similar at low speed, with hills costing rail something, but then rail winds up vastly more efficient once speed increases?
posted by jeffburdges at 3:05 PM on October 10, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 3:05 PM on October 10, 2022
automatronic, you have made my day. I am a long-time fan of first, the Hornblower books, and, in recent decades, the Aubrey-Maturin books, which I have read many, many times, and that video of the Peking rounding Cape Horn is a precious discovery. There they are, on film, doing exactly what all those sailors did for hundreds of years during the age of sail! And on my birthday this comes to me, no less. Thank you for that, and for your insightful and informative comment as well.
posted by Well I never at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2022
posted by Well I never at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2022
We've seemingly deduced here that trade must decline dramatically to reduce CO2 emissions. We kinda expect this for several other reasons of course, but it'll maybe become an easier sell the better we understand the limitations of sail freight.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:13 PM on November 4, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 3:13 PM on November 4, 2022
« Older "People today begin to ask the question: what are... | "It won't work!" ... "Why!?" ... "Too many steps!" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by danjo at 2:17 PM on October 6, 2022 [1 favorite]