Icebreakers

Unless they can transit non-ice rated ships, it will have a hard time competing with the Suez.

mnztr wrote:Unless they can transit non-ice rated ships, it will have a hard time competing with the Suez.

Noted for later reference.

mnztr wrote:Unless they can transit non-ice rated ships, it will have a hard time competing with the Suez.

So Russia's vast and ever expanding rail network doesn't exist to you? The same boats that aren't Arctic treated can use the rail network. The same rail network easily connects to the Caspian Sea, in which both Russia and Iran are in the process of building the North-South Transport Corridor, and apparently India is interested in supporting it.

My point was the Northern sea route as an alternative to the Suez Canal. Nothing to do with moving goods to and from Russia.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

mnztr wrote:Unless they can transit non-ice rated ships, it will have a hard time competing with the Suez.

So Russia's vast and ever expanding rail network doesn't exist to you? The same boats that aren't Arctic treated can use the rail network. The same rail network easily connects to the Caspian Sea, in which both Russia and Iran are in the process of building the North-South Transport Corridor, and apparently India is interested in supporting it.

Rail can never compete with the cost of moving goods by sea over long distances. Once you have to go intermodal there is a load/unload cost. Transport prices air>truck>train>ship

Ships are slower, and take more time to load/unload they all have their purposes. Of course if the sea route is massively longer then the model does not hold. But for large liquid,bulk and containerized cargo ships are generally the cheapest by far.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:Unless they can transit non-ice rated ships, it will have a hard time competing with the Suez.

Noted for later reference.

You do know that an 80K ton ice rated ship costs about the same as a 220K ton non ice rated right?

Rail can never compete with the cost of moving goods by sea over long distances

Normally true because rail lines from New Zealand can't reach any other countries.

Ships do have the advantage of carrying enormous volumes of goods, but a rail line going from Asia to the EU can continuously transport enormous numbers of cargo containers that can stop off and be dropped off in multiple locations throughout Europe... trains can head in any direction to deliver containers which can then be put on trucks and delivered directly to your door. Storms and bad weather generally do not effect trains, and improving infrastructure could allow freight trains to travel rather quickly over enormous distances...

Transport prices air>truck>train>ship

So you agree the difference in costs are not huge... I would suggest that in the US that shipping stuff from Asia to the west coast makes sense but shipping stuff from Asia to the east coast... right now it probably makes rather more sense to ship it to the west coast and transport it by train to the east coast.

Most shipping crates end up on trains or trucks at some point anyway.

You do know that an 80K ton ice rated ship costs about the same as a 220K ton non ice rated right?

If no one uses the NSR except Russian shipping companies then they will get a lot of shipping contracts because they can shorten the trip by 14 days on average.

Obviously some dick might crash theeir ship in the Suez canal and it might take an extra few weeks... critical if you are transporting food or perishables... going by the arctic route might not be possible if you are transporting live animals... though I would think cooking in the Egyptian heat is not a better way to go than freezing to death in the arctic high north.

right now it probably makes rather more sense to ship it to the west coast and transport it by train to the east coast.

it may take a few days less, but it's still cheaper to use the Panama Canal to deliver containers directly to the East Coast. That's also why China wanted to build a bigger Nicaragua Canal.
The Suez Canal will have many more incidents, unless it gets widened along its entire length & its specific navigation procederes followed closely by ships crews & local pilots.

The main bother for the NSR is the recent NATzO propaganda about pollution destroying the fragile Arctic ecosystems. Of course,
the fact that any such pollution will be essentially confined to Russia's coastal zone is not a consideration. So there is pressure to
build ships that use LNG instead of regular shipping grade oil. The whole "ice class" "showstopper" is BS. If there is an icebreaker
escort, then there is no need for ice class ships. The requirements are well known after decades of icebreaker use.



Note how the cleared ice path does not really close. That is because the icebreaker literally breaks up the ice in its path and
the remaining sea ice does not magically expand to fill the gap. It takes a while for the winds and currents to shift the ice
sheet around to close the track. So there is no risk of any crushing of the ship following the icebreaker.

Russia should organize a container ship flotilla festival in December to show all the naysayers what the reality is.

Not all shipments are time sensitive. If they are then air/rail/truck would make sense. Rail is more of a competitor for domestic air freight then sea freight. Will the Northen Sea Route be 14 days less if the ship is plowing through ice? Even then I am not 100% sure it would be a deciding factor. The fuel efficiency of the mega ships is pretty hard to compete with. If you can get these huge ships through, maybe with a slightly upgraded bow or a stern that can deal with ice, then it can work. fuel and labor costs are the key drivers. 20 crew moving 20,000 TEU is mindblowing. That would take 10000 truck drivers and 5-600 train drivers. Fuel efficiency of a ship steaming at 18 knots is far higher then a train. Plus maintining the rail network costs a ton of money. Ships are the most efficient way of moving huge amounts of stuff. the longest freight train is 375 cars. Double stacked the containers would be 5000 cars 4 to a car. Also loading and unloading trains is much less efficient then a ship.

Some ships are for sure, but I think the really big ones have armed guards on them these days. Also they tend to stay away from the risky sea routes. I doubt the USN would mess with ships under Russian protection. Russia has sooooo many ways to retaliate.

An icebreaker would be a pretty useless type of ship if the only ships that could follow them through the ice they have broken a path through have to be ice rated ships.

At minus 60 degrees water freezes quickly but ice is a good insulator so the surface water might freeze quickly but it wont be metres thick in the 1 minute before the next ship sails through the ice broken by the ship in front of it.

If fuel is so damn important their bigger nuclear powered ice breakers could tow quite a few ships behind them and those towed ships could shut down their main engines and just have small generators running to power the lights and heating...

The rail network across Russia has enormous potential for shifting cargo... a rail line through north korea through south korea could result in Japanese goods being put on a ship and taken to South Korea where it gets on a train and travels north through north korea and into Russia and then across Russia to the EU.

The most urgent stuff could fly of course, but rail is a good way of transporting things too as long as your rail service is modern and capable and motivated like the Russian rail service is.

It sounds like truck drivers and sailors get more say than railroad workers in the US... certainly here in NZ more things get moved by truck than train which can't be as efficient... things have to go by truck eventually so often rail loses out because sometimes it is easier to just leave it on a truck and take it to the destination instead of putting on a truck and taking it to a train and then getting it to the right area and then putting it back on another truck to get it to the address.

It could be made much more efficient... perhaps a nuclear powered train could make it affordable... you hear about electric buses and electric cars but not so much electric trucks.

..Japanese goods being put on a ship and taken to South Korea where it gets on a train and travels north through north korea and into Russia and then across Russia to the EU.

If NK & SK roads remain separated, goods could be unloaded at Nakhodka &/ Vladivostok & loaded on trains. Also, if roads/tunnels/bridges r built connecting the  mainland/Transsib with Sakhalin & then Hokkaido, ships won't be needed at all to move goods between Japan & Europe.
China-Iran pact paves way for alternative to Suez
Multiple overland railway corridors across Eurasia featuring cargo trains crammed with freight – the most iconic of which is arguably Chongqing-Duisburg – are a key plank of Belt and Road. The extraordinary confluence between the signing of the Iran-China strategic partnership deal is bound to fuel a renewed drive to Eurasian intergration.

There is alot of talk of electric trucks in the industry, of course Tesla is front an center but also several other companies. The idea of Tesla combining its EV tech with self driving tech is incredibly enticing. But even without drivers, the energy consumption, tires, etc if trucks would make them far less enticing.

When an ice breaker cuts though ice it does not vapourize it, it still leaves a lot large chunks of ice in its path, so if the ship is not ice rated, it has to go very slow.  Time = money. I sometimes wonder if an icebreaker can be built that is like a virtual dock. The large ship would fit into a V dock and actually tie up. There would be rubber everywhere like on a tug boat, The the ice breaker would have pumpjets so the drive can be at the outer edges of the dock. It would slip on the ship  somewhat like a condom. (some ideas only men can come up with lol)

Kinda like this but much larger so that the cargo ship replaces the TUG and the bow section is actually a full on icebreaker:

https://www.rivieramm.com/opinion/opinion/removable-bow-converts-a-tug-into-an-icebreaker-21678

There is alot of talk of electric trucks in the industry, of course Tesla is front an center but also several other companies. The idea of Tesla combining its EV tech with self driving tech is incredibly enticing. But even without drivers, the energy consumption, tires, etc if trucks would make them far less enticing.

The condition of the roads going from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok mean rail makes more sense because Truck really is not an option in such a case.

Batteries would also suffer in the very low temperatures and the problems of needing electricity for heat would drain the batteries much faster than in other places.

I would think in Aussie they could design and build a huge solar panel to sit on the top of the trucks trailers connected to the AC to keep the trailers and cab cooler than they would normally be for free.

When an ice breaker cuts though ice it does not vapourize it, it still leaves a lot large chunks of ice in its path, so if the ship is not ice rated, it has to go very slow.

For it to save 14 days transit time it can't be that slow... or do you think they are doing all this without taking into account the ice...

I sometimes wonder if an icebreaker can be built that is like a virtual dock. The large ship would fit into a V dock and actually tie up. There would be rubber everywhere like on a tug boat, The the ice breaker would have pumpjets so the drive can be at the outer edges of the dock. It would slip on the ship somewhat like a condom. (some ideas only men can come up with lol)

It think there are obvious problems like where in a condom do you fit pumpjets and fuel and if it fits over a ship then each ship would need one... so wouldn't it be cheaper just to make all ships icebreakers?

Icebreakers create a path through ice fields for other ships to sail through... small chunks of ice will not damage a ship and most container ships are rather long and ice floats so it is unlikely a chunk of ice could be dragged under the hull and remain there for the full length of the 200m long ship and present itself to the props to do damage.

Most likely it would have floated out to the side.

Icebreakers are generally designed to render the ice into rather small pieces.

Designed for tugs is one thing but designed for long range transport ships is another.

I wonder if that 14 days saving applies to the winter or just during the summer. When they break ice they slow to 5-7 knots typically The Yamal tankers travel at 5.5 knots at ARC7 conditions and 19.5K in open water. Icebreaking bows are not hydrodynamicly efficient, this is why many of the commercial  ice breaking ships actually reverse when they are in ice breaking mode and have the ice breaking bow on the rear. Typically the ship only needs icebreaker support for a short distance, it can set its engines to run slghtly faster then the docks pumpjet. So there is constant pressure.

When you compare the cost of the Yamal tankers vs the ones Qatar uses (both Korean built) the ice class adds more then 110M/unit cost (190M vs 300M) that is a massive cost difference. Also plowing through ice uses a lot of fuel..(thankfully cheap LNG)

Types of ice can damage ship varies wildly as the properties of different types of ice vary. If you get a chunk of old glacial ice its like steel!!

if built, the Kra Canal across Thailand would save a few days sailing time; if Myanmar is pacified, containers could be sent by rail from China & loaded on ships there, also saving time.
The NSR, even if ice free all year, could never completely replace the Suez Canal.

Tsavo Lion wrote:if built, the Kra Canal across Thailand would save a few days sailing time; if Myanmar is pacified, containers could be sent by rail from China & loaded on ships there, also saving time.
The NSR, even if ice free all year, could never completely replace the Suez Canal.

The NSR would replace the Suez based on destination etc good moving from Asia to Europe would be faster.

Also, no one ever said the NSR would ever fully replace the Suez in all ways, there is no one shipping route that is the answer to all.

Dude, you are so clueless about so many things......your carrier without propulsion idea tho is still your finest moment.

If climate change forecasts are accurate then the Arctic could be ice free for longer and longer periods, and if that is the case thousands of billions of tons of methane locked in permafrost in Siberia is going to be released making things much much warmer.

There are many theories that rather than gradual change there will be tipping points, which when crossed heat things up to the next threshold.

The deltas of major rivers carry plant material that is just dumped into the sea where it settles and rots and forms lime and methane.

The methane is locked into the sea bed but as sea temperatures rise that methane is being released accelerating the process.

When they talk about temperature over the whole planet a few degrees has an enormous effect... an average of 10 degrees colder and you have ice sheets over New York 3km thick and you can walk from Asia to America.

Temperature increases magnify things... it is not the ice caps melting that raises sea levels the most... warmer water is larger by volume than colder water...

But I suspect it is too late to change now... a case of too little too late... if they really want green transport then nuclear powered cargo ships would be the ideal solution with zero carbon emissions...

From a Russian perspective whether it is by rail or sea the North Sea Route, or the trans siberian rail line... both are the shortest fastest route from Asia to the EU with no borders or different countries waters or territory to navigate...

Tender for the construction of dual-fuel icebreakers running on liquefied gas for Rosmorport
entry is in top500 rating
bmpd
May 12th, 7:33

According to the newspaper "Kommersant" in the material of Anastasia Vedeneeva "Icebreakers are looking for a place of creation. "Rosmorport" is playing a contract for the construction of dual-fuel ships ", FSUE" Rosmorport "announced a tender for the construction of dual-fuel icebreakers, including liquefied gas, with a capacity of 12-14 MW. The cost of two vessels should not exceed 18.5 billion rubles, they need to be handed over in 2024. Potential applicants include the Baltic Yantar in cooperation with other shipyards, the Pella site in Hamburg, Helsinki Shipyard Oy and possibly other foreign companies. At the same time, Kommersant's sources at the shipyards assure that both the prices and the terms of the project are greatly underestimated.


700__700_23620_kgnc_1_1 (1)

Model of a dual-fuel icebreaker of project 23620 on liquefied natural gas (LNG) with a capacity of 13 MW developed by the Central Design Bureau "Baltsudoproekt" for FSUE "Rosmorport" (c) sudostroenie.info


FSUE "Rosmorport" announced a tender for the construction of two dual-fuel icebreakers, including LNG, with a capacity of 12-14 MW. The maximum contract price is 18.5 billion rubles. for both ships. The money for their construction is allocated by the budget as part of a comprehensive plan for the modernization of infrastructure. The lead icebreaker is to be built in July 2024 and handed over in September, the completion date for the serial vessel is October 2024, delivery in December.

Sources of Kommersant in the industry find it difficult to name the likely recipient of the contract. Within the framework of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), the Baltic Yantar may enter the tender in cooperation with another shipyard, they believe. In USC "Kommersant" was told that they were analyzing the documentation and the final decision on participation was not made. Pella and its shipyard in Hamburg - Pella Sietas, where an 18 MW icebreaker is already being built for Rosmorport, Helsinki Shipyard Oy (former Arctech Helsinki Shipyard, which commissioned the Polaris LNG icebreaker in 2016) is also named among the contenders. Any foreign shipyard can take part in the competition, for this you need to open a representative office or a branch in the Russian Federation without forming a legal entity, explains one of the sources of Kommersant who is familiar with the situation.

For more than a year the Ministry of Industry and Trade has been trying to oblige state customers to build vessels in the Russian Federation for budgetary money under 44-FZ. According to Kommersant's information, the document on the standard terms of such a contract has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice since February. According to Kommersant's interlocutors, by the end of May, Rosmorport plans to announce a tender for the construction of a second 18 MW icebreaker, the cost of which will be increased to 10.5 billion rubles. (see "Kommersant" dated December 23, 2020). The main contender for this contract remains Pella Sietas, however, the interlocutors point to problems due to the complete lockdown in Germany.

A source familiar with the situation believes that the customer has already made various concessions: revised the cost of building two icebreakers, reduced the volume of the bank guarantee. The main risk is an increase in the exchange rate when purchasing foreign equipment, but let the shipyards hedge the risks, he argues. There are fears that the factories will not meet the deadlines, but it is possible, he believes, that the deadlines can be prolonged without increasing the cost.

One of Kommersant's sources in the industry estimates the cost of one such icebreaker at 13-14 billion rubles. It's not about the high cost of construction, he explains, the icebreaker has a complex specification, the cost of a package of foreign equipment is about € 52 million. Another source told Kommersant that there are calculations for 20 billion rubles. per ship. At the same time, the interlocutors agree that the construction of the lead icebreaker, given the lack of experience in their construction in the Russian Federation, should be allocated at least four years from the date of signing the contract.

Nadezhda Malysheva from PortNews believes that by the time of construction, the icebreakers should have no problems with LNG bunkering. Rosneft announced plans to build an LNG bunkering vessel and meet their needs in the Far East, the expert recalls. In the European part, Ms. Malysheva believes, bunkering is possible in the Baltic, where the bunker Gazprom Neft will arrive in the summer, and in the future it is not excluded that LNG will be shipped through NOVATEK's terminal in Bechevinka.



From the bmpd side, we point out that in 2020 it was reported that the Baltsudoproekt Central Design Bureau, part of the Krylov State Scientific Center (KGNTs), completed the development of a technical design for a dual-fuel icebreaker of project 23620. This is the first Russian project of an icebreaker with a power plant capable of operating on a liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The project was developed as part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan for the Modernization and Expansion of the Main Infrastructure, which provides for the construction of two icebreakers with a capacity of about 12-14 MW ice class Icebreaker7 for the seaport of Arkhangelsk and seaports of the North-Western (Baltic) basin. New icebreakers are needed to ensure year-round operation of the freezing seaports of Russia, as well as to replace icebreakers that have reached their end of life.

By order of FSUE "Rosmorport" specialists of the Central Design Bureau "Baltsudoproekt" developed a technical design of an icebreaker operating on two types of fuel (diesel and LNG), with a capacity of 13 MW, project number 23620. Representatives of the customer, a potential manufacturer of LNG equipment and Russian Maritime Register of Shipping.

Project 23620 is notable for being the first Russian icebreaker with an LNG-powered main power plant. Finnish Polaris is currently the only LNG-powered icebreaker in operation in the world. Project 23620 is also the world's first LNG-powered icebreaker with the DYNPOS-2 dynamic positioning system.

The auxiliary icebreaker of project 23620 is designed for icebreaking support of winter navigation, icebreaking operations in port and near-port waters, berthing areas and auxiliary operations when mooring ships. Also, the icebreaker can be used for independent pilotage of ships and vessels (ship caravans), including, in the summer-autumn period in the seas of the Arctic Ocean and in river estuaries, towing ships and other floating structures, participation in emergency rescue operations and in rendering assistance to ships in distress in ice conditions and on clean water. In addition, the vessel can be used to transport cargo, passengers and special personnel, to provide underwater technical work using crane equipment, a small-sized remote-controlled underwater vehicle and a diving complex,

The vessel has an unlimited navigation area with year-round operation in the Baltic, White, Barents and Pacific seas. It can be operated in the seas of the Arctic Ocean in the autumn-summer period.

To ensure reliable operation in various operating conditions with redundant capacities, the main power plant of the icebreaker includes four main diesel generators, one parking diesel generator and one emergency parking diesel generator. For the storage of LNG in the main hull of the vessel, there are two type "C" tanks.

The propulsion complex of the project 23620 icebreaker includes two Azipod propellers with a total capacity of 13 MW. In the bow there are two tunnel-type thrusters. The pulling force of an automatic double-drum towing winch with a cable-laying machine reaches 110 tons. In the aft part there is a cargo deck, which can accommodate 10- and 20-foot containers. In the bow there is a platform for receiving cargo from helicopters.
To improve the living conditions on the ship, premises for various purposes are provided, including a conference hall, a salon, a sports and recreation complex. To ensure the delivery / rescue of people, including in ice conditions, the icebreaker is equipped with a hovercraft and collective survival kits. The vessel is also equipped with a pneumatic device with an inclined ramp and a platform for carrying out rescue operations and lifting rescued people from the water.

During the development of the project, the specialists of the FSUE "Krylov State Scientific Center" carried out a full range of model tests on their own experimental base, including blowing in a wind tunnel. Icebreaking characteristics, including the ability to overcome continuous flat ice 1.5 m thick, are confirmed by duplicate tests of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "


Icebreaker project 23620 - information

RS class - KM (*) Icebreaker7 [2] AUT1-ICS EPP GFS BWM (T) DYNPOS-2

Length overall - 95.6 m
Maximum width - 22.5 m
Depth amidships - 12.0 m
Draft at design waterline - 8.0 m
Icebreaking capacity - 1.5 m
Full speed - 16 knots
Autonomy in terms of fuel reserves - 25 days.
Crew / special personnel - 22/12 people.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4307316.html

The assembly of Lider icebreaker has begun at the Zvezda shipyard

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/sudmod/na-ssk-zvezda-pristupili-k-sborke-ledokola-lider-60e050a57601597c330f9dcb

I am pretty excited about this one .With NATO being dicks will Russia end up arming this one? a 65K ton ice breaker ...WOW!!