Feeder Vessel Route-Fit Checklist

A feeder vessel can look suitable on its particulars and still fail the service you intend to run. It may reach one terminal only on a tide, carry too little cargo at the controlling draft, or need more time for the rotation than your advertised departures allow. Before shortlisting, put each candidate against the same route brief: every port call, every loaded leg and the complete service timetable.

This checklist produces a route-fit decision sheet. For capacity bands and general configuration choices, use our container ship sizes guide. For general specification priorities and deployment choices, see our feeder container ship buyer’s guide. Here, the task is to establish which candidate can meet a defined operation, which assumptions still need evidence, and which restrictions would change the service.

1. Freeze the service assumptions before comparing ships

Write a dated brief naming the port rotation, terminals, departure frequency and seasonal operating period. Record expected cargo by leg rather than using one average load for the entire loop. Separate committed demand from forecast growth, and include empty repositioning and refrigerated cargo.

• Port sequence: terminal and berth, intended arrival window, alternative berth and any canal or restricted approach.
• Cargo cases: peak loaded TEU, actual container counts by size, gross weights including container tare, empties and simultaneous reefer demand on each leg.
• Timetable: berth departure deadlines, connection cut-offs, sailing distances and realistic port stays.
• Operating basis: intended loading conditions, bunker strategy, seasonal weather assumptions and reserve time.

Use the same brief for every candidate. If one offer assumes a lighter cargo mix or a different terminal, mark that difference before comparing the results.

2. Build a port-limit matrix with dated evidence

Create one row per terminal call and approach restriction. A port’s general maximum vessel size is not confirmation that a particular berth will accept your ship. Obtain current information from the relevant port authority, terminal and local agent, and identify which party must confirm acceptance.

Do not subtract the vessel’s draft from a published depth and treat the remainder as an approved clearance. Water levels, survey information, squat and local requirements need competent assessment. A tide-dependent call also needs a timetable allowance: an acceptable arrival draft alone does not establish reliable weekly access.

This is acquisition screening. The vessel’s master and operating team must develop the actual passage plan. The IMO Guidelines for Voyage Planning describe appraisal, planning, execution and monitoring, with planning extending from berth to berth.

3. Request a loading case for the controlling leg

Identify the leg where cargo demand and access restrictions are hardest to reconcile. Ask the owner or technical team for a preliminary loading assessment using your container mix, gross weights, departure consumables and arrival requirements. Repeat it for other materially different legs, including any heavy export leg or empty repositioning peak.

The result should state the proposed intake and drafts, the assumptions behind them, and the remaining restrictions. Have the appropriate technical team check stability, strength, securing and stack limits, container positions and operational suitability using the vessel’s approved information. A brochure’s homogeneous capacity figure is a useful comparison input, but it does not establish intake at your route’s restricted draft.

Record reefer demand as a number of containers requiring simultaneous supply, with their sizes and operating assumptions. A forty-foot reefer occupies two TEU but remains one container requiring an electrical connection. Ask for evidence that suitable positions and electrical capacity support the proposed case. For how to examine the equipment’s condition, use the separate container cargo-system inspection guide.

4. Check the whole rotation against the promised frequency

Calculate each sea leg using a credible passage-speed assumption, then add port time, approaches and pilotage, expected waiting and a stated recovery allowance. Keep the components separate so the same hours are not counted twice. Test whether the resulting arrivals fit berth and tidal windows; a total duration that appears acceptable can still miss a specific connection.

Initial rotation check: sea passage hours + port and approach hours + waiting allowances + recovery time = estimated loop hours.

For evenly spaced weekly departures, an initial arithmetic check is the loop duration divided by 168 hours, rounded up to a whole number of ships. This is a starting point for deployment planning. Maintenance coverage, positioning, terminal windows and schedule resilience can require a different arrangement. Ask for speed and consumption evidence at relevant drafts and conditions, rather than adopting a trial or design speed as a guaranteed service speed.

Port assumptions deserve the same scrutiny as sailing speed. The IMO’s ship-port interface guidance highlights coordination between terminal operations and nautical services. For a purchase shortlist, ask the terminal or agent to substantiate the turnaround assumption used in your calculation.

5. Compare two candidates on identical assumptions

Illustrative example only: the following vessels, limits and operating figures are invented to demonstrate screening. They are not current inventory, port advice or verified vessel performance.

Assume a three-port loop of 1,200 nautical miles, one departure each week, and 60 hours in total for ports, approaches and expected waiting, excluding sea passage. Add 12 hours of recovery time. The controlling terminal permits a maximum operating draft of 7.2 m under the assumed conditions, subject to its separate clearance requirements. The critical leg needs 900 TEU, including 80 forty-foot reefers: 160 TEU within that total and 80 electrical connections.

Candidate B has the larger advertised capacity, but fails the defined service case. Candidate A clears the assumed numerical thresholds; it still needs evidence for loading, performance, terminal compatibility and timed arrivals. Neither a larger TEU figure nor a positive screening result replaces those checks.

Test a delay scenario before advancing A. An additional six hours of waiting would take its loop to 170.3 hours, beyond the 168-hour weekly cycle. Establish whether the included recovery time is adequate for the route, what recovery measures are feasible and whether any change remains commercially workable. Do not assume extra speed is available without checking its operational and fuel implications.

6. Close the shortlist with explicit conditions

Summarise each candidate in one decision sheet. Keep unresolved evidence visible rather than blending it into a score that hides a critical restriction.

• Advance: the defined cases meet the screening requirements, with supporting evidence recorded and verification work identified.
• Hold: acceptance, loading or performance evidence is missing; assign an owner and deadline.
• Reject for this service: a confirmed restriction prevents the planned operation.
• Rework the service: the candidate requires a different cargo commitment, terminal, frequency or fleet deployment; evaluate the revised case separately.

Attach the route brief, dated port matrix, loading cases, timetable and open-items list to any request for full particulars. Keep price negotiation and market comparisons in the container ship cost guide; the decision here is whether a vessel deserves further assessment for your specific service.

To discuss candidates from our container vessel inventory, send the rotation, terminal limits, peak cargo by leg, reefer demand and required departure frequency through our enquiry form. Include vessel references if you already have a shortlist.