Accommodation and support vessel

[Edward Ticu]

I see a lot a vessel with that classification and i think a new category needs.

[Phil English]

It's a good thought Edward, but I doubt it would work. It's difficult to define such vessels. Many modern, large offshore support vessels are multi-role, performing functions such as accommodation, maintenance, diving support, firefighting, etc. Such ships are commercially referred to as construction support vessels (CSVs). In addition, many bog-standard AHTSs and PSVs can also be swiftly adapted to accommodation support or CSV purposes, with the addition of deck modules, cranes, etc.

To be honest, the offshore categories here on shipspotting are a bit of a minefield as it is, simply because of the reasons outlined above. Adding even more offshore sub-categories, I feel, would only complicate and make it more difficult for members to decide where to place their photos.

Brgds
Phil

[Edward Ticu]

On Equasis site to Edda Fides ship, type of ship is "Accommodation Ship Offshore Support Vessel". So Offshore sub-category is o.k. in my opinion.

[Bjarne Pettersen]

Her main purpose is to act as a Flotel.
She has voith schneider propulsion with DynPos.

The gangway on her bow will connect to the rig.

[Phil English]

On Equasis site to Edda Fides ship, type of ship is "Accommodation Ship Offshore Support Vessel". So Offshore sub-category is o.k. in my opinion.

Yes, accommodation support is Edda Fides's primary function. There are also a small number of dedicated offshore accommodation barges and ships, some of which are converted ferries. The problem lies with the many offshore service vessels that can be used in an accommodation role, but accommodation is not their primary function. It's no good using Equasis either, as that's too generalistic and sometimes doesn't differentiate between the ship's original construction type and what it's commercially being used for. I'm afraid it's a no-go as far as I'm concerned, as it will just cause too much confusion. The main "offshore" category is, I believe, perfectly sufficient for such specialist and niche offshore ship types.

Brgds
Phil

[Edward Ticu]

Ok. Another alternative to equasis site, please?

[Phil English]

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

[Edward Ticu]

Ok. Thanks.

[polsteam]

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=1247548
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1248008
http://www.workboatsinternational.com/geared-rolo-vessel-stls1185.html
http://www.shipphotos.co.uk/pages/aburdees.htm


typical 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"...

[Phil English]

Polsteam,

I disagree that you disagree. As I said, the best description of a vessel is always provided by the owner or operator. By that, I mean the FULL description. It tells you everything you need to know about the ship's purpose. What you have done is highlight another point I was making, that is that there are few clear-cut ship type definitions in the shipping World. Whilst I would concur with your definition of a con-ro, an owner is perfectly entitled to define it differently, depending on how he wishes to trade the vessel. The fact that it disagrees with your definition - or mine - is irrelevant. The commercial viability of the ship is what counts and if a ro-ro can carry a significant number of TEUs, it is not misleading or wrong to say so. Many owner descriptions are legally binding documents used in chartering. If they describe the ship incorrectly, there would be literally hundreds of legal disputes, and there isn't.

Brgds
Phil

Brgds
Phil

[polsteam]

Polsteam,
Whilst I would concur with your definition of a con-ro, an owner is perfectly entitled to define it differently, depending on how he wishes to trade the vessel. The fact that it disagrees with your definition - or mine - is irrelevant. The commercial viability of the ship is what counts and if a ro-ro can carry a significant number of TEUs, it is not misleading or wrong to say so.

Sorry, but you cannot dispute my definition of con-ro. And the owner is not entitled (should not be entitled) to apply "con-ro" term to WHATEVER he wishes. Con-ro is con-ro and that's it. This is definitive.
Ships and shipping is TECHNOLOGY and "firm science" (not humansim or literature). There is no place here for "licencia poetica"...  Nomenclature in such "technical wise" business as shipping is should be strict, firm and consistent, whenever possible.


It is NOT irrelevant, whether it (owner's definition) disagrees with "my" definition, because it is NOT MY definition, but it is what is tought at Naval Architecture university studies / lectures. And this is right, because it makes order (tidyness) in ship types nomenclature and is quite logical.

The same thing should be named in the same way by everyone.
"Own way" in nomenclature is anarchy and disorder (and is confusing).

When a ship is a pure ro-ro (with no cellular container holds serviced in lo-lo mode), then it should NOT be named a "con-ro", because - simply - it is NOT a con-ro.

One should not confuse and mix names (and use / apply them HOWEVER HE WISHES), because THIS leads to communication errors.

Science and systematics (also in ship names) is useful and makes life easier. It is practical. It is not "an art for itself".


There are some "funny" ships, "hybrids", mixing several various types of ships in one or very hard to define. In such cases there is, indeed, some space for "freedom" in nomenclature. To some extend also because the mentioned "strange" ships are either a young type (not mature on the market, so there is also some time left to define them firmly, to let the name "crystalize") or are "appearing" on earth in very small quantities (which also makes "crystalizing" the nomenclature for them more difficult).


But in examples I provided the differences between the ships are quite obvious and easy to define, therefore - in such cases - firm and widely agreed nomenclature should be applied. for the sake of clarity, precision and easiness of communication, and as a way to do things professionally...
In such obvious cases, owners should not be entitled to "impose" their internal (wrong, mistaking, misleading) nomenclature and "spread the diseases" of improper ship types naming...

[Phil English]

Polsteam,

No, you are wrong. I didn't dispute your definition of a con-ro. You are looking at it from a naval architecture viewpoint. What applies in that realm doesn't necessarily apply commercially. Anyway, why be so insistent and dogmatic? Try chilling a bit and seeing other perspectives.

[BobS]

Phil/Polsteam:
That nothing is ever straightforward and simple in shipping was one of the first things I came to realise when I became a journalist for the shipping industry.
For instance, one of the problems I kept coming up with back in the 1980s was that, whereas the likes of Lloyd