ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: August 05, 2018, 10:04:50 am 
Started by davidships - Last post by Bob Scott
Pieter, I know you have a less than enthusiastic view of Lloyd's Register but, in the absence of anything else that is better and widely accessible, LR will have to be the nearest thing to "the Bible" for our situation

 92 
 on: August 05, 2018, 09:23:05 am 
Started by davidships - Last post by pieter melissen
Bob, thank you for the explanation, it is beyond me why it had to be so complicated, but the issue was rather why we cannot use numbers that "look" like IMO numbers, but will fail the test. (as Miramar obviously does). As long as they are unique, I am fine with that. Lloyds Register is not the Bible, although they sometimes disaggree with that.

 93 
 on: August 05, 2018, 08:10:38 am 
Started by davidships - Last post by Bob Scott
The seventh or “check” digit in an LR/IMO number is computed by an algorithm from the sequential first six digits such as were used in the original LR unique numbering system.
The formula is as follows, using LR no. 537333 as an example
Multiply the first digit (5) x 7 = 35; the second digit (3) x 6 =18; the third (7) x 5 = 35; the fourth (3) x 4 = 12; the fifth (3) x 3 = 9; and the sixth (3) x 2 = 6.
Then add together the units in each result (5 + 8 + 5 + 2 + 9 + 6) = 35. The unit from that result (5) is the check digit, making the final, seven digit number 5373335.
Any LR/IMO number can be checked in this way or the algorithm can be used to add the would-have-been seventh digit to old LR numbers.

 94 
 on: August 04, 2018, 06:45:45 am 
Started by davidships - Last post by pieter melissen
David, for this site, as you state correctly, having a unique number is essential for a number of functions. To me it is of less importance whether that is a "correct" IMO number or anything else. As long as it is really unique, there can be no confusion about which ship we are talking about. Therefore, while covering an interesting point in the history of the LR/IMO numbers the first post in this thread has only academic value as far as the site is concerned. I think in respect we cannot praise MIRAMAR enough for the work they did to get their files organised, and I have absolutely no problem with using their number as a proxy IMO number if needed. It helps us, it helps the site and the site community, even though some of us know that it might be technically incorrect.

In short, be practical, make use of the options and live with the incorrectness.

Perhaps there are people brave enough and with enough free time to sest up a numbering systeem (7-digits?) for the ships that can now not be covered in the site retrieval systems, but as these comprise categories in which I have very little interest, I am not volunteering.
  

 95 
 on: August 03, 2018, 11:14:43 pm 
Started by davidships - Last post by davidships
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 http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,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.




 96 
 on: August 03, 2018, 11:13:32 pm 
Started by davidships - Last post by davidships
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 http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2890363

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 Shipspotting.com 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).  


 97 
 on: August 03, 2018, 12:58:31 pm 
Started by MSC Johnny 2 - Last post by LarryS
That was a nice video on the blog. If the owners were watching I can imagine a slight feeling of trepidation. Luckily the wind was light. Good to see.

 98 
 on: August 02, 2018, 11:40:50 pm 
Started by MSC Johnny 2 - Last post by DeepSeaDiver1000
Thanks for the share.

 99 
 on: August 02, 2018, 04:46:11 pm 
Started by MSC Johnny 2 - Last post by MSC Johnny 2
https://felixstowedocker.blogspot.com/2018/08/two-pleasure-cruisers-are-lifted-onto.html?spref=fb

Pic credit Dean Cable

 100 
 on: August 02, 2018, 03:18:01 pm 
Started by Robert J Smith - Last post by chrisg46
You'll usually find that HHA berthed page notes when a departure time is "confirmed", which might give your lead time, for the first ship of your day . .

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 15 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved