Ok. Another alternative to equasis site, please?
The best description of a vessel is always provided by the owner or operator. Many companies have full details of their ships on the web, so that's where I'd go. Secondarily to that, go to the ship's IACS classification status, which can often be accessed directly from a link in Equasis.
Brgds
Phil
I do not agree.
Quite often descriptions / ship type nomenclature / definitions provided by the owner are MISLEADING and WRONG.
They sometimes reflect "internal" company language referring to this company ships only.
It happens, when they want to differentiate, say, between the two major types of ships they operate and they apply the WRONG name to one of these types.
The specialist / professionalist may "detect" this misleading ship type naming "policy", but many (not all) newbies or amateurs / ship enthusiasts may not and they "acquire" bad ship type naming habits / false knowledge... (unfortunately to "spread" it further).
Example:
The company operates two major types (groups) of ships:
- conventional general cargo vessels / semi-container ships
- ro-ro vessels (pure cargo ro-ro vessels, some of which may load or practically, in real life, load and carry at least partial loads of containers - especially on the upper deck).
This company, in its advertising / marketing printed matter or on their website lists its vessels in two main groups named:
- convetional tonnage
- con-ro tonnage.
And I say: WRONG !!!
If these ro-ro ships are "pure" ro-ro ships (with NO holds that can be loaded in lo-lo (vertical) mode), then they are ro-ro ships and that's it! The cannot be named "con-ro", because this is false and wrong.
To clarify:
ro-ro ship
only horizontal mode (through ramps) of loading / discharging between ship and shore possible
no SEPARATE holds with hatch covers that can be loaded vertically (lo-lo mode)
con-ro ship
there are some ro-ro cargo spaces AND (_separate_) lo-lo cargo spaces
ro-lo ship
all or some of cargo spaces (NOT separated) are accessible both through ro-ro (horizontal) and lo-lo (vertical) mode...
justified examples of naming particular ships this and not the other way:
GENCA and sisters from Szczecin Shipyard
- con-ro
they have separate lo-lo hold (fore) and this hold is NOT accessible via ro-ro cargo spaces...
and especially these:
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=67368...were beautiful example of typical con-ro vessels
with (below upper deck) cellular container holds fore of machinery space and superstructure
and ro-ro only spaces (with no hatches on the upper deck) AFT of machinery...
and these:
http://www.shipphotos.co.uk/pages/atlanticcompass.htm...as well.
Transfighter and sisters from Gdynia Shipyard
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1000342- ro-lo
some of their cargo spaces are accessible in ro-ro mode
but at the same spaces they have hatch covers above them, so they may be also serviced in lo-lo mode
(by the way - these ships are also sto-ro vessels at the same time, as they have side-loaders with cargo lifts)
other ro-los:
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1247548http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1248008http://www.workboatsinternational.com/geared-rolo-vessel-stls1185.htmlhttp://www.shipphotos.co.uk/pages/aburdees.htmtypical ro-ro vessels
many, many, many...
- some of which (unfortunately and producing confusion and mess / shambles in nomenclature) are (without any justification) WRONGLY named "con-ros" by their owners...
The fact that the ship may load a _DECK_ cargo (not in holds) of containers (in lo-lo mode) alone is NOT a reason enough to name this ship a "con-ro"...