A little help with a ship design, please?

[dan40]

There is a market for almost anything, but how large is that market? Most cruisers are not interested in a 3 day cruise combined with a trip to Europe.

Business people are NOT interested in taking 3 days to get to Europe and neither would be non cruiser tourists.

In shipping of any kind the absolute rule is FILL THE SHIP!!! Plus 3 day trips? What happens on day 7? A day off? Fiscally irresponsible. Keep going? Then you have constantly changing departure days.

This is reinventing fire. We have better ways to make fire today. Its nothing new, it fills a need that vanished with the 707.quote]

 

The 3 day crossing is the absolute maximum to allow for one round trip per week. The proposed schedule includes a 10 hour stopover at each end, enough time for passenger disembarkation and embarkation along with refuelling and taking onboard supplies for the following voyage.

 

As such, to ensure regular weekly departures, the ship would have to be able to cross in 3 days.

 

I get what you're saying about the business travelers, the ship would not be suitable for them. At the moment I see it as a possible compromise for those who enjoy cruising to spend 3 days relaxing on a ship rather than X hours cramped up in an airplane. I know this would be a niche market and not appeal to the masses. Are there 1500 people a week who would want to use it? Maybe there are. This is why all the feedback I'm getting (positive and negative) is so valuable!

 

Cruise ship schedules use the embarkation and departure days as the same day. A ship on a 7 day cruise schedule arrives in its home port on Sunday at 7 to 8 AM. Turns around the pax and supplies and sails at 4PM that same Sunday.

That's why I questioned a 3 day crossing taking only 6 days. A 10 hour turn around at each end just to keep a weekly schedule is a massive waste of money.

I'm neither positive nor negative on your idea. But I can present multiple problems to overcome. I do believe the small ship idea is not workable. It is not a ferry boat. It must operate as an ocean liner.

[Nunu]

 

Cruise ship schedules use the embarkation and departure days as the same day. A ship on a 7 day cruise schedule arrives in its home port on Sunday at 7 to 8 AM. Turns around the pax and supplies and sails at 4PM that same Sunday.

That's why I questioned a 3 day crossing taking only 6 days. A 10 hour turn around at each end just to keep a weekly schedule is a massive waste of money.

I'm neither positive nor negative on your idea. But I can present multiple problems to overcome. I do believe the small ship idea is not workable. It is not a ferry boat. It must operate as an ocean liner.

 

What if it had the big screen?

[ShipsInBergen]

 

Cruise ship schedules use the embarkation and departure days as the same day. A ship on a 7 day cruise schedule arrives in its home port on Sunday at 7 to 8 AM. Turns around the pax and supplies and sails at 4PM that same Sunday.

That's why I questioned a 3 day crossing taking only 6 days. A 10 hour turn around at each end just to keep a weekly schedule is a massive waste of money.

I'm neither positive nor negative on your idea. But I can present multiple problems to overcome. I do believe the small ship idea is not workable. It is not a ferry boat. It must operate as an ocean liner.

 

I think we're reading from different pages. I haven't plucked the 3 day crossing from thin air and just decided to add a 10 hour turnaround to fill up the week.

 

10 hours is a reasonable time to allow for a turnaround at each end (I started by working back from this number). This leaves a required crossing time of just over 3 days each way to keep to a weekly round trip.

 

With the schedules, for a service offering a mode of transport the crossing time will be stated as the time the ship actually takes to cross. Airlines don't include check-in time in the flight duration, for example. Sorry if there was any confusion over this. Again, thanks for the feedback (sorry if I'm sounding a bit defensive!)

[ShipsInBergen]

The days of ocean liner crossing may not be over.

 

Look how air travel halted with Icelandic volcano eruption.

And how air travel halted on 911.

 

And there are people who will not fly.

 

3 day, or rather 72 hour crossing would not leave a dead day.

3 day one way, 3 days other, loss of time going East, regain time

going West, need for turnaround time 12 hours each turn. That equals

seven days.

 

I also think that with 3 day travel, people might re-think.

I can't lose a week. But If I leave on Friday and arrive on Monday, that

also works for business. And with a ship I arrive fresh. And I can work while traveling. I think the availability of cellphone and internet services

at a non-exorbitant rate would be a selling amenity.

 

Also no weight limit, or practically none, on luggage.

If I am moving to Europe, or have extensive sales materials, etc.

Which brings the point, that the ship can make money by shipping,

just like airlines, do on air freight.

What would industry do if one could ship heavy items that are too

costly to send by air freight, by express surface transport. Regular

shipping is too slow, Air freight too high -- Express surface transport, just right.

 

I think this is an exciting project.

 

Thanks for that post and for your support. It sums up many of the reasons I feel there may be a market for a ship like this!

[ShipsInBergen]

I've just added a couple of very basic cabin layouts to the blog, including the smallest cabin, a 2-berth inside (with bunks) at just 69sqft. I know several people have expressed a dislike for bunks, but these would by no means be the only accommodation available. I expect a number of people would be prepared to book these rooms with the considerably cheaper price tag. Without them the ship would not be economically viable.

 

Let me know what you think (bearing in mind that it simply isn't a possibility to have cabins which compare in size to equivalent categories on cruise ships).

[tinlizzy]

You could make entire decks just like crew quarters. 2 bunk beds per cabin, 2 cabins share one bathroom and market them to students taking a gap year.

[dan40]

I've just added a couple of very basic cabin layouts to the blog, including the smallest cabin, a 2-berth inside (with bunks) at just 69sqft. I know several people have expressed a dislike for bunks, but these would by no means be the only accommodation available. I expect a number of people would be prepared to book these rooms with the considerably cheaper price tag. Without them the ship would not be economically viable.

 

Let me know what you think (bearing in mind that it simply isn't a possibility to have cabins which compare in size to equivalent categories on cruise ships).

 

Look at the size of MSC's new ships inside and oceanview cabins. They are quite small but still adequate in space. MSC has cruise experience and a HUGE amount of shipping experience.

[gatour]

What percentage of the cabins would be bunk beds. I also come down on the side that bunk beds would be a tough sale.

 

The other issue is the speed that has to be maintained to meet schedule. I think the US Navy has a few decent size ships, but I would hate to know their fuel consumption. The speed thing also pays into passenger comfort. The Atlantic can be pretty rough, so going at the speeds you are suggesting could make for some very sick passengers.

 

Interesting thought project you embarked on and look forward to seeing it evolve.

[dan40]

What percentage of the cabins would be bunk beds. I also come down on the side that bunk beds would be a tough sale.

 

The other issue is the speed that has to be maintained to meet schedule. I think the US Navy has a few decent size ships, but I would hate to know their fuel consumption. The speed thing also pays into passenger comfort. The Atlantic can be pretty rough, so going at the speeds you are suggesting could make for some very sick passengers.

 

Interesting thought project you embarked on and look forward to seeing it evolve.

 

Like cars, there are cheap cars and there are fast cars, but there are NO cheap, fast cars!

[ShipsInBergen]

What percentage of the cabins would be bunk beds. I also come down on the side that bunk beds would be a tough sale.

 

The other issue is the speed that has to be maintained to meet schedule. I think the US Navy has a few decent size ships, but I would hate to know their fuel consumption. The speed thing also pays into passenger comfort. The Atlantic can be pretty rough, so going at the speeds you are suggesting could make for some very sick passengers.

 

Interesting thought project you embarked on and look forward to seeing it evolve.

 

I'm looking at having around 110 of the 2-berth inside cabins with bunk beds (so around 15% of all passengers). The majority of cabins will be standard rooms with 2 lower berths and 3rd and 4th fold-down beds to accommodate 4 in each cabin at a very heavily reduced rate for 3rd/4th passengers.

 

The speed, fuel consumption and seakeeping are all going to be massive headaches, but there would be little point in me doing this study if it was going to be easy! There is currently a class of 150m high speed ferries operating at around 40 knots in some quite serious seas, so I think it could be possible. With a combination of good hull design (axe bow) and intelligent fin stabilisers I expect to reduce motions considerably to ensure a comfortable passage.

 

At the end of the day it's a concept design so I wanted to push the limits as far as I could to see what happens!

[docksider21]

Hi

 

I might re-allocate the two bunk cabin as single cabins.

Presumably you will need to market to person crossing over solo.

And person traveling as a couple will not want bunk beds.

 

The upper berth is ok only if you figure it as "extra" space.

Can college age young people do a bunk. Yes.

Can middle age people even get in a bunk if they wanted to.

Likely not.

 

Cabins with a shared bath will be a hard sell for Americans.

 

69 sq ft is not my sense of ideal. But I really love

your use of space. For a solo cabin, this would not

be bad.

You have balcony cabin, and perhaps this is a must.

Do you have the twin/queen layout with interior or

ocean view only. Balconies will have little utility

in the winter. And present certain difficulties

in strong wind/high waves. I would include

a traditional promenade as all pax (even balcony ones)

will need "walking around space."

 

The marketing question is

whether this is compared to a cruise (too short and too small).

Or too air flight (longer but more comfortable).

 

What if you can ports?

 

Sail from Boston to Plymouth?

Will that cut even nautical mi to be significant?

[ShipsInBergen]

Hi

 

I might re-allocate the two bunk cabin as single cabins.

Presumably you will need to market to person crossing over solo.

And person traveling as a couple will not want bunk beds.

 

The upper berth is ok only if you figure it as "extra" space.

Can college age young people do a bunk. Yes.

Can middle age people even get in a bunk if they wanted to.

Likely not.

 

Cabins with a shared bath will be a hard sell for Americans.

 

69 sq ft is not my sense of ideal. But I really love

your use of space. For a solo cabin, this would not

be bad.

You have balcony cabin, and perhaps this is a must.

Do you have the twin/queen layout with interior or

ocean view only. Balconies will have little utility

in the winter. And present certain difficulties

in strong wind/high waves. I would include

a traditional promenade as all pax (even balcony ones)

will need "walking around space."

 

The marketing question is

whether this is compared to a cruise (too short and too small).

Or too air flight (longer but more comfortable).

 

What if you can ports?

 

Sail from Boston to Plymouth?

Will that cut even nautical mi to be significant?

 

I agree that the 69sqft interior cabins would work well as solo cabins. the problem is, again, space. The ship would need to take around £600,000 per crossing (each way) between the 1500 passengers, meaning an average of £400pp. As such, these small cabins would need to be sold for £600 per crossing, which is high for a solo traveller but reasonable if 2 people on a budget are prepared to book the smaller rooms for a lower price. Of course they would be available for a solo traveler to book, but I don't think it would be possible to offer any reduction on the full 2-person fare.

 

Whilst the cabins are small, they are much, much larger than an economy airline seat! I think that's the angle that would need to be taken!

 

The marketing thing is starting to confuse me a bit. I don't think this is suitable for the business market as it simply takes too long. Nor is the ship intended for cruises as such. The reason I would be targeting existing cruisers is because they are most likely to see the appeal of a sea voyage with all the normal cruise ship food and facilities, just a little less space.

 

That said, it would certainly need to be advertised as a viable alternative to flying for the leisure market, some of whom may be able to spare the 3 days to avoid the stress of flying and experience a much more pleasant crossing.

 

So I guess at the moment it's kind of a 'best of both' in my mind. Trouble is, that makes it the 'worst of both' too for some people, so the marketing would need to be pitched just right. Sort of high-speed (for a ship) but relaxing too. Difficult. Luckily this sort of thing is way, way down the line for this design!

[dan40]

I agree that the 69sqft interior cabins would work well as solo cabins. the problem is, again, space. The ship would need to take around £600,000 per crossing (each way) between the 1500 passengers, meaning an average of £400pp. As such, these small cabins would need to be sold for £600 per crossing, which is high for a solo traveller but reasonable if 2 people on a budget are prepared to book the smaller rooms for a lower price. Of course they would be available for a solo traveler to book, but I don't think it would be possible to offer any reduction on the full 2-person fare.

 

Whilst the cabins are small, they are much, much larger than an economy airline seat! I think that's the angle that would need to be taken!

 

The marketing thing is starting to confuse me a bit. I don't think this is suitable for the business market as it simply takes too long. Nor is the ship intended for cruises as such. The reason I would be targeting existing cruisers is because they are most likely to see the appeal of a sea voyage with all the normal cruise ship food and facilities, just a little less space.

 

That said, it would certainly need to be advertised as a viable alternative to flying for the leisure market, some of whom may be able to spare the 3 days to avoid the stress of flying and experience a much more pleasant crossing.

 

So I guess at the moment it's kind of a 'best of both' in my mind. Trouble is, that makes it the 'worst of both' too for some people, so the marketing would need to be pitched just right. Sort of high-speed (for a ship) but relaxing too. Difficult. Luckily this sort of thing is way, way down the line for this design!

 

 

The going rate for a transatlantic in an aft balcony cabin [220sf] with a very large balcony is $90. to $100.00 per day. Only suites are more money. A bunk bed inside cabin would be quite a bit below that. And that is on a large ship with full amenities. Main Dining, buffet, Specialty Restaurants. Theater shows, spas, etc., etc. And they have difficulty filling the ship for 2 crossings per year.

 

400 P for 3 days is $193.33 pppd. Way over the going rate

[ShipsInBergen]

The going rate for a transatlantic in an aft balcony cabin [220sf] with a very large balcony is $90. to $100.00 per day. Only suites are more money. A bunk bed inside cabin would be quite a bit below that. And that is on a large ship with full amenities. Main Dining, buffet, Specialty Restaurants. Theater shows, spas, etc., etc. And they have difficulty filling the ship for 2 crossings per year.

 

400 P for 3 days is $193.33 pppd. Way over the going rate

 

I really don't think that's a sound comparison.

 

Transatlantic repositioning cruises are trips the ship would have to make anyway. With 6-7 days at sea and a 14-day trip in total, they are not as popular as standard cruises but are a great opportunity for passengers to pick up a cheap cruise (I have one booked myself for next april). This is not what cruise ships are designed for and not how they make their money.

 

The design I am proposing would operate a realiable, regular line voyage, and as such would serve an entirely different purpose to the cruise ship repositioning trips. The £400pp/per crossing average ticket price includes the fare for a journey which the passenger would otherwise be making by plane (replacing airfare) and 3 nights of comfortable accommodation including food and entertainment so the journey becomes a pleasant part of the holiday, with no jetlag, DVT risk, general discomfort, etc.

 

That is where I believe the appeal lies in this concept and that is why I feel the proposed ticket price is actually very reasonable. I agree that it is still very uncertain whether or not a sustainable market for this actually exists, but in general there have been enough positive reations at this stage to encourage me to develop the design further.

[docksider21]

I think Dan40 is on the mark on the price question.

 

I just checked Cunard. Best price T/A is USD $ 995. ppd.

 

Wonderful shipboard experience. So what is the upside of TRANSAXE.

 

Faster time. But if I really want fast I can fly for USD $ 550, and that

looks like its round-trip. The keys here are:

 

1. Engineering. How fuel efficient can the design be

for high speed.

2. What non-passenger revenue can you project?

Cargo does not need food, drink, bathrooms, etc. etc.

So it is an important revenue factor.

3. What non-ticket passenger revenue to anticipate.

 

It may not be a business model right now,

but it is still a great research/design project.

 

Keep at it, UKcruise88.

[ShipsInBergen]

I think Dan40 is on the mark on the price question.

 

I just checked Cunard. Best price T/A is USD $ 995. ppd.

 

Wonderful shipboard experience. So what is the upside of TRANSAXE.

 

Faster time. But if I really want fast I can fly for USD $ 550, and that

looks like its round-trip. The keys here are:

 

1. Engineering. How fuel efficient can the design be

for high speed.

2. What non-passenger revenue can you project?

Cargo does not need food, drink, bathrooms, etc. etc.

So it is an important revenue factor.

3. What non-ticket passenger revenue to anticipate.

 

It may not be a business model right now,

but it is still a great research/design project.

 

Keep at it, UKcruise88.

 

In response to the first part of your post, the upsides of picking TransAXE over QM2 (and don't get me wrong, I think QM2 is absolutely fantastic!) would be:

 

1- Journey made in half the time, allowing people to take the ship without it being the holiday in itself.

2- Much lower base price of $325pp (£900 per crossing for a 4 berth inside cabin). Very cramped I know, and a different experience overall, but I feel 2 legitimate reasons which may carve a market for such a ship.

 

Also I think you've hit the nail on the head in that it doesn't need to be a working business model at this stage. I know, of course, that any good ship design has to prove that it can turn a profit for the owners (and I have spent a fair amount of time estimating and analysing the costs to check I'm not way off the mark), but that is not the main reason I am developing this idea. I see a lot of value in working on hull design and developing an accommodation layout where space is at such a premium. It's great that others are interested in this and very interesting to hear other people's opinions on the idea!

[gatour]

I take it this design exercise has fell by the wayside? Checked the website and it also petered out shortly after the initial messages on this thread.

[ShipsInBergen]

I take it this design exercise has fell by the wayside? Checked the website and it also petered out shortly after the initial messages on this thread.

 

It's still very much on the cards. I'm currently 4 months into a world trip (without a computer) having graduated from uni last summer. When I get back in may I will be working on the project nearly full-time so will post back here with any developments!

[gatour]

Thank you for the reply.

 

I enjoy doing thought experiments, and it was nice to see some one take it to the next stage.

 

Please keep us posted, once you get back.