Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
1  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Contact Captcha on: August 14, 2018, 11:20:49 am
There are some technical issues around the Captcha software upgrade, but I have asked Henrik to give proper attention.

In the meantime messages can be sent either through the PM system or by email:

Corrections to photo information:
Anything else:
2  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Is there a site problem? on: August 13, 2018, 06:09:32 pm
Henrik has cleaned the site of the 47,000 Tizermedias links and believes that it is now free from that - I seem to be able to access past forum posts OK now.  If anyone has this problem again, please advise here immediately.

Yesterday's outage apparently caused by someone causing heavy server load [no details available] - even Henrik couldn't log in and whole system had to be re-booted.
3  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: Gold Rover & Victoria of Wight on: August 09, 2018, 11:02:32 pm
ASTRAEA is not an AHTS - she'll be there for the wind farm cabling work, with fleetmates ATALANTI and ARTEMIS.

ARTEMIS is in fact an AHTS, but my guess would be that AMBER II will take GOLD ROVER away.
4  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Is there a site problem? on: August 09, 2018, 07:57:30 pm
These are all Forum posts (it seems probably from the oldest going up to mid-2017) and the originators are not involved in any real sense - the Tizermedias page has been added to existing discussion pages, and consequently we cannot see the forum threads affected.  47000 seems high for forum posts, but may well be right.
5  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Is there a site problem? on: August 09, 2018, 05:44:44 pm
Re Tizermedias: Henrik told me a few days ago:
"It's 47.000 posts in the database that have had the Tizermedia tag added to them. I found this now during the week-end. I am working on a solution to get it removed or disabled and also blocked from being added."
Clearly task not completed yet.
6  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Is there a site problem? on: August 08, 2018, 01:59:36 am
I asked Henrik about the plan for https.
He replied: "The plan is to reduce and centralize the number of IP addresses / network connections we have for this site to be only one, so we can use a simple/cheap certificate. The external API's and forum software etc must be in sync with this as well, and we don't want to lose the SEO data like links and URL's that google and other search engines already have stored as this would have a very negative effect on the site."

7  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: LR/IMO numbers on older vessels on: August 05, 2018, 11:47:03 am
Just for info at this point:

There would be a couple issues with using Miramar serial numbers:
1) some IMO numbers being issued (eg yachts in the 1------ series) have already been used by Miramar for other vessels - though I have a hunch that Miramar is changing those existing numbers as those come to light - which raises a question in itself about reliability
2) about one tenth of Miramar's internal numbers are compliant with the IMO number formula, including the 55----- numbers converted from 6-digit LR numbers) and could well be issued as IMO numbers in the future.

The Miramar number set may be subject to copyright, and in any case permission would be required to use it (not that I would expect any resistance from Rodger Haworth).

On the subject immediately to hand, we could stretch our own definition of "LR/IMO number" to include the 1963-1968 unique numbers - there are not very many of them and they could be constructed as and when required. I understand that these numbers will not in future be issued to new ships.

If we are talking more broadly, applying unique numbers to vessels which currently do not have 7-digit LR/IMO numbers nor appear in the Miramar database, would be a mammoth task.    They would have to be called something other than "IMO number". And members would not be able do anything beyond copying numbers already used for the same vessel - there would be no external database to refer to.

I think that it is unlikely that any development that involved software changes to the site could be achieved in the short term.
8  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: LR/IMO numbers on older vessels on: August 03, 2018, 11:14:43 pm
We do not need to dwell further on the particulars of the case above/below, but can address the broader question about ships that did get unique LR numbers, but only six digits because they did not survive to 1969.  This has been discussed before, perhaps on this forum, but certainly in the Admin Forum in 2015, though I cannot recall the outcome.  At present I cannot access any forum threads before some time in 2017 due to the still-unresolved problem of Tizermedias diversions, but for Admin colleagues' reference it is at,14400.0.html.  

Strictly speaking 7-digit unique "IMO numbers" only came into existence on 1/1/1996, but as IMO adopted the existing Lloyd's Register numbering system, this covers all vessels that have appeared in LR from 1969.  In my view all those numbers can be considered as LR/IMO numbers, and that has been our practice for some time.  I am not aware of any objection to that.

The question at hand concerns that ships that had unique 6-digit LR numbers allocated to all existing ships in 1963, and to those added prior to 1969, when the seventh so-called check digit was added at the end.  Those numbers are in principle part of the same series as the later numbers, but LR did not see any point in adding the extra digit as the Register only covered vessels then current.  Prior to 1963 there was no global unique (ie, cradle-to-grave) numbering system in LR or, so far as I know, elsewhere.

Apart from being factual staments, we use IMO numbers for the important practical tank of linking all the images of specific ships regardless of what name they are carrying at the time, or the category that the images are in.  This facility is much valued and works well, but it is limited to those ships that have such numbers (excluding therefore virtually all warships and smaller fishing boats, work-boats, tugs etc and a large proportion of motor yachts as well as all vessels out of service by 1969.

So (with apologies for going on at such length), views are welcome on that.

9  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / LR/IMO numbers on older vessels on: August 03, 2018, 11:13:32 pm
On a member's photo a discussion has arisen about LR/IMO numbers for vessels whose existence ended 1963-1998, and therefore had a unique LR number, but with only 6 digits.  It is more appropriate to discuss this here where it can attract wider viewing and contributions, so I am moving it from

Bjørn Knudsen on Aug 01, 2018 15:46 added ship info, including "LR/IMO No: 5373335"
Phil English on Aug 01, 2018 15:56     
5373335 is not a valid IMO number. It might be a Miramar ID number, or something else. The vessel was scrapped at around the time the 7-digit LR number was introduced, so probably never had an IMO number.  I'm sorry, but can we please stop putting IMO numbers in comments unless they are properly checked?
davidships on Aug 01, 2018 19:22    
5373335 is a compliant 7-digit LR number (as correctly noted by Miramar). Added
simonwp on Aug 02, 2018 08:46    
The IMO# is correct. When the IMO#'s were introduced, vessels already in service adopted their LR# as their IMO#. Which is what happened with this vessel. Maybe it's comments that need to be checked before they are posted!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob Scott on Aug 02, 2018 09:27   
This ship of course never had an IMO number but it did carry the six-digit Lloyd's Register number 537333. If it had survived long enough to have a seventh digit added, it would have been a 5. That would have eventually become IMO number 5373335
Phil English on Aug 02, 2018 09:40    
I knew I was right, Bob. I don't wish to prevent people being helpful, but ships either have a 7-digit IMO number or they do not. If wishes to issue guidance (maybe it has?) on how to treat vessels which never had an IMO number, but had a 6-digit LR number, then I will gladly shut up!
and my conclusion:
Well, let's all draw breath.  This one is a little odd.

There is no doubt that the 6-digit unique LR number was 537333.

Also it is apparently also true that the ship does not appear in the 1969-70 LR, because LR knew she had been scrapped (of course there were many ships that no longer existed in 1969 that got 7-digit LR numbers because LR did not know they had gone - but this is not one of those).

Miramar's practice is to adopt 7-digit LR/IMO numbers as their internal ID where they exist, and create their own internal 7-digit numbers where they don't.  In practice, for vessels with only unique 6-digit LR numbers (issued 1963-1998) Miramar created their own 7-digit numbers by simply adding "5" at the beginning.  These numbers are not consistent with IMO numbers (though approximately one in 10 will produce an apparently correct check digit).

Left to their own devices, Miramar would have given this ship the ID 5537333, but they do think that 5373335 is actually a LR number (and specifically say so on their site).  Their source, perhaps indirectly, is likely to be from the preparatory work under way by LR during 1968.  So we are in a grey area here.

That's the immediate background to this discussion and now preserved here rather than on one photo contribution (and the "IMO number" left there for the time being).  

10  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: Gold Rover on: July 30, 2018, 01:47:11 pm
Southampton VTS will only show pilot movements for the 6th in a few days time.  But it seems likely that if weather is suitable, transfer where there is plenty of searoom to the more manoeuvrable small tugs would be preferable.  AMBER II would not be able to berth her in Camber Docks, I think.

11  Shipspotters all over the world / Trip reports / Re: Little trip on a vintage boat. on: July 28, 2018, 07:27:51 pm
12  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: 38 injured as harbour tour catamaran catches fire during a tour in Spain on: July 27, 2018, 09:38:05 pm
From what is reported it doesn't seem to me that any of those suggestions would have made any difference to this particular incident.  The crew and the passengers seem to have done the right things in the circumstances, first gathering on the bow area (furthest from the flames), and when that became untenable, jumping in the sea, with the crew assisting older passengers and children.  Five have received very serious burns

No doubt an enquiry will determine the actual cause of the fire - galley explosion or collision with the mussel platform are the two rumoured - and there may well turn out to be operational failures, but I doubt that they will turn on anything to do with passenger information.
13  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: The oldest container ship still in service? on: July 27, 2018, 08:22:35 pm
Of these ex-Soviet ships, the third sister MSC IRIS ex-KAPITAN GAVRILOV is the oldest, completed 6/1982 - all three lengthened in 1989.  The 1992 re-engining (why was it, I wonder?) probably nothing to do with the longevity so far, as the two sisters are apparently still running with their original installations.

As expected - and taking container vessels over 10,000gt only - all eleven that are older than MSC IRIS are indeed US-flag vessels, headed by LIHUE, built 7/1971.
14  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Smaller motor yachts - conversions on: July 26, 2018, 09:27:15 pm
A general cut-off at 20m for small private yachts has been established for quite some time, and is on the whole respected.  We see no call or reason to change that.

However, in a small number of cases such yachts are converted from commercial vessels, which in that form are covered by the site - eg fishing or military vessels less than 20m.  We think that it is illogical that an 18.5m retired fishing vessel would continue to be eligible if abandoned (Wreck & Relic) or scrapped, but not if converted to a motor yacht.  Here is a current example (a former Tasmanian fishing vessel):

The Admin group have agreed to accept such vessels in the "motor yachts" sub-category and the Passenger Vessels FAQ has been amended accordingly:

"Vessels must have a minimum LOA of 20 metres/65 feet, any pictures of yachts under this length will not be accepted. The only exceptions will be motor yachts converted from other ship types which have originally qualified in their category."

15  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Is there a site problem? on: July 26, 2018, 08:48:30 pm
Yes.  I noticed it last night and reported it to Henrik.  It happens the same with me to pinned subjects only.  Some members get an "page not available" redirect.
No response yet.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 18 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved