restricted by canal dimensions, and a panamax limit of 105.5 feet is commonly used as a design requirement. Cargo Handling Limitations Cargo handling efficiency However, this usually improves with increasing ship size. improvement is far from being proportional to the increase in cargo cubic. If, for instance, an operator wants to increase the carrying capacity (ton/year) of a single ship by, say 50 percent, he must increase the ship capacity by substantially more than 50 percent, depending on the proportion between sea time and port time. The additional ship capacity in excess of 50 percent will essentially function as a warehouse, storing cargo in transit while loading and unloading other consignments. Basis for Standardization A comparison of the ship performance specifications determined for each of the seven operators reveals some important points of commonality. Besides the uniformity of ship type already mentioned, there is a relatively small variation of the principal characteristics. All carriers have panamax beam 105.5 feet or close to it. Drafts vary somewhat, mostly because of differences in stowage factors, but a common design draft of about 30 feet would not be impractical. Depth, being the dimension that least affects the overall design, is not an obstacle to standardization. Length is the dimension that varies the most among the seven carriers. LBP ranged from 614.5 feet to 765 feet, with a mean of 670 feet. However, even this variation can conceivably be accommodated by a common hull design by adding -8 or removing parallel midbody. Hull form parameters show a general trend toward moderately fine lines, with block coefficients ranging from 0.59 to 0.64. Finally, regarding horsepower, the sample of seven carriers spans a moderate range, from 16,500 to 42,500 SHP with a mean of 27,500. A conceptual "standard" design available with optional length, horsepowers, and cargo configurations, was developed to satisfy the requirements of all seven participating operators. The principal features of this design are shown in Exhibit V. Financial Evaluation The financial performances of the custom and standard designs were compared on the basis of Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The performance of the standard design was found superior to the custom designs for five out of seven carriers. For the two remaining carriers the IRR for the custom design was greater than for the standard design by a margin of about 1.5 percent. The differences in financial performance between the custom and composite designs were determined by the interplay between two opposing influences: capital costs being reduced by multiple ship production, favoring the standard design, and operating costs favoring the custom designs due to more suitable hull form and dimensions for a given cargo capacity. Not surprisingly, the standard design showed greater advantage for those operators that require fewer ships. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this investigation support the view that it is technically feasible to develop a standard cargo liner design that can be suitably adapted to meet the requirements of the seven participant operators. Inasmuch as this group of operators constitutes a representative sample of the U.S. cargo liner fleet, the standard design concept developed in this study should be attractive to a large segment of that fleet. The economic comparison of standard and custom designs for each operator shows that the cost reduction resulting from multiple ship production and through optimization of the performance of the standard ship make participation in a standard ship program a financially attractive concept for the majority of the participating operators. The benefits of developing a standardized cargo liner design may be summarized as follows: Benefits to Operators lower ship cost as a result of series production more marketable vessels due to widespread suita- savings on outfitting and spares due to multiple possible enhanced safety due to widespread familiarity of operating personnel with the design enhanced ship performance by concentration of Benefits to Shipbuilders ability to offer lower cost vessels due to series production ability to offer faster delivery due to availability of a well-developed ship design Benefits to Government - reduced construction subsidy due to series production - widespread availability of vessels well suited to A central question regarding the development of a future generation of ships is the dialectical opposition between risks and benefits from new technologies. The conceptual design of the Next Generation Cargo Liner presented in this study is essentially based on available technology, hence it does not pose that problem. On the other hand, it does not take advantage of potential gains in transport efficiency that may be derived from reaching beyond present day practices. We feel that the preliminary design to be developed in Phase II of the Next Generation Cargo Liner study should be supported by extensive research and development work directed toward design areas that offer potentially high research pay-off, such as: hydrodynamics and propulsion (including performance at partial drafts and with various trims), structural optimization (topology, materials, etc.), propulsion plant efficiency, automation, and cargo handling. believe that a superior design from the point of view of operating performance is the strongest selling point for standardization. We In summary, we recommend that the Government continue the development of the Next Generation Cargo Liner initiated by this study, and in particular: encourage construction of standardized cargo-liners by offering incentives to the ship operating industry such as increased subsidy rates for purchases of standardized vessels, or inclusion of some of the vessels's equipment as defense features. concentrate its ship research efforts (machinery |