This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2014


air freight or air integrator roles, offering an income of 4 times and 40 times greater than the ADX Express, shown in Table 15. Comparing the ADX platform to Fastship, it has 44% of the build costs and 21% of the operational fuel costs, with the same income stream potential. Giving the ADX significant operational advantages over the Fast Ship Atlantic.


The journey from Southampton to New York would take the ADX platform 3 days 14 hours at a service speed of 38Knots. Through implementing the ADX platform with a rail loading system as proposed for the CLF by McCartan [28] as an integral part of a multi-modal logistics network, it could potentially directly compete with the 5 to 6 day delivery time of air freight, see Table 16. Therefore it would be able to have an income 8 times greater than the ADX proposal.


The EU-US freight market and infrastructure analysis in section 2.1 has highlighted a significant issue of long- haul freight truck traffic. By 2040 forecast data indicate that truck travel may reach 460 million miles per day, with areas of recurring peak-period congestion to 34 % of the motorway network in 2040 compared with 10 % in 2011. This will slow traffic on 28,000miles of the NHS and create stop-and-go conditions on an additional 46,000 miles. On this basis, and given the low rail freight volume identified in Figure.1, this proposal will operate on a rail and air integrated system, with local delivery vehicle support. The 5 to 6 day delivery window will inform the logistics chain development. Travel beyond Chicago would require the use of airfreight. Examining the traffic congestion in 2040 shown in Fig.3 offers the opportunity to operate a Clipper service on the Atlantic coast to integrate with rail and road transport in less congested areas of the network. The Wingship proposal by Matjasic et al [29] operates on the same principle as the Pelican platform, but is recognised by the IMO as a marine vessel and has significantly lower build and operational costs. They reported an improved transport efficiency of 87.5% of the Wingship compared to a Boeing 747, which would significantly reduce the CO2 compared to conventional air freight. This Clipper service could transport both passengers and cargo, building on the luxury design heritage of the Pan Am 314s.


2.4(a) Design Specification


Building upon the heritage of the transatlantic liners, such as the exterior form should be sleek and elegant, a contemporary


take on streamline modern styling.


Benchmarking the Queen Mary 2 and contemporary high end luxury hotel interiors, the vessel GA has the following requirements:


 480 guests  232 crew  guest room 24m2 for guest  2 x 250m2 suites


 Mezzanine dining area full beam with natural lighting and views inspired by the Normandie hall of light


 Hull and technical proposal


platform based on ADX


 8000 tonne 544,000 cu-ft cargo capacity  Rail loading system for cargo  2 x cinemas  1 x theatre  Gallery/exhibition space  Working environment connectivity for business users


Activity participation of US travellers within


International business and within Europe have identified the following activities which will be facilitated by the vessel: Art


Gallery/Museum; Concert/Play/Musical


Shopping; Experience Fine Dining. This is supported by the luxury analysis. The design meaning of the vessel is that of a floating hotel which seamlessly integrates with the digital world of business and leisure. The opportunity for the journey on the vessel to be the conference venue or new product exhibition launch, is similar to the design meaning


of a cruise ship becoming the holiday


destination. 2.4(b)


Operational Model


From the analysis of EU-US freight transport volumes, the value of air freight in 2007, was 288 and 55 times greater in value than water freight and multiple modes & mail respectively. Indicating the value of air freight to be 5.2 times higher than multiple modes & mail. By 2040 the value of air freight will be 254 and 36 times greater in value than water freight and multiple modes & mail respectively. Indicating the value of air freight to be 7 times higher than multiple modes & mail.


The Transatlantic freight cost of air freight is a factor of 10 greater than ocean freight, as shown in Table 15. This offers a unique business opportunity for the transatlantic superliner to deliver a proportion of the total air freight and mail in a 5-6 day time window with potentially the same market unit value with less CO2/kg than conventional air freight. As air freight is predicted to have 7 times the value of multiple modes & mail in 2040, it would be reasonable to assume that having as large a proportion as possible of air freight would maximise logistics revenue per journey. On this basis the vessel the vessel will carry both air freight and mail, which will be 36 times greater in value than water freight in 2040. However, given that all truck, rail, water, and pipeline movements that involve more than one mode, including exports and imports that change mode at international gateway, are included in multiple modes & mail, it is not possible to ascertain the actual volume of mail. Analysing the freight volumes of key European trading partners of the US, identified ports to be shared by countries. Belgium will use Rotterdam as the truck transit time from central Belgium to Rotterdam is 2hrs.


© 2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects C-83


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188