Table 1. Comparison of the distance, in nautical miles, for

the NSR and canal alternatives (after Wergeland 1991 and

Mikhailichenko 1992).

Shortest

Difference

Route

NSR distance

canal distance

(%)

Table 2. Comparison of the average speed,

Hamburg to Dutch Harbor

4,200

10,400

60

in knots, of ships using the NSR and ca-

nal alternatives (after Wergeland 1992).

Hamburg to Vancouver

6,635

8,741

24

Number of

Average

Hamburg to Yokohama

6,920

11,430

39

Route

trips

speed

Oslo to Yokohama

7,146

12,013

41

NSR eastbound

4

12.2

NSR westbound

3

10.3

London to Yokohama

7,323

11,655

37

Suez Canal westbound

3

12.9

Computer simulations, the operational experi-

tive with those attained on the Suez and Panama

ence of Russian Noril'sk-type vessels [ice-strength-

Canal routes, the slower speeds for the rest of the

ened, multipurpose cargo ships (Fig. 4) of the high-

year offset the savings in distance. The estimated

est ice classification* (ULA-class)], and actual

speeds that can be attained with the Russian

transit times for other MSC vessels were used to

nuclear-powered LASH (lighter aboard ship) ves-

estimate the mean transit time through various

sel show a freight transportation efficiency that

sections of the NSR for the entire year. The latter

appears more promising. The LASH Sevmorput

two sources were used by Wergeland in develop-

(Fig. 5) is a shallow-draft, icebreaking freighter

ing the data presented in Table 3. Although the

that is designed to transport up to 74 barges (light-

July-through-October Noril'sk speeds are competi-

ers) or 1300 standard cargo containers. It has an

open-water capability of 20 kn but, more impor-

tantly, in ice up to 1.5 m thick it does not require

* The ice classification serves as a measure of a ship's

icebreaker escort. The LASH has, however, proven

ability to navigate safely in ice-covered waters. Unfor-

to be somewhat of an economic failure. Its nuclear

tunately, there is no single world standard, and the