1
Site related news, functions and modules / Pop-up ad at the bottom of the screen
« on: November 23, 2023, 03:37:07 PM »
I don't mind ads, but the pop-up one that now appears at the bottom of the screen is a real pain.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Shipping News and information / Re: cma cgm orderbook
« on: July 15, 2020, 04:37:54 PM »hello
Is someone has the names of the 22 000 teus containerships and 15 000 teus containerships in order for the french company CMA CGM ?
thanks
So far...
CMA CGM CHAMPS ELYSEES
CMA CGM JACQUES SAADE
CMA CGM PALAIS ROYAL
3
Shipping News and information / Re: Marine Traffic
« on: July 15, 2020, 04:18:59 PM »Since this morning, Marine Traffic has not been giving any times on way-points and is asking for an upgrade to access this information. This has always been available on the free version. Any one else noticed this or is it a glitch with my search engine?
Allan
Marine Traffic have been at it again!
A useful feature was to be able to click on a ship icon and then project this forward to a potential waypoint. This would give a date and approximate time at that point.
A recent update has removed that feature unless you subscribe.
For people who only use this occasionally but who have freely given their photos in support of MT, this seems yet another blow.
Steve
4
Shipping News and information / Re: C.Crawley - Fleet List
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:38:20 PM »
Continuing this thread, I noted the VINKEVEEN in October 1978, while a few weeks earlier a water tanker named OSIRIS was seen. I presume this was part of the Crawley fleet.
Steve.
Steve.
5
Shipping News and information / Re: Marine Traffic
« on: May 17, 2020, 08:30:02 AM »that's fine, but when you are logging the actual arrival and departure times it is NOT fine.
Allan
Are you trying to establish port productivity in combination with actual load or discharge rates?
I found the arrival dates and times very useful, and not to discover load or discharge times.
It seems you need to have 400+ photos (plus one or two other caveats) for a free subscription, although that might change also.
MT are being a bit mean spirited here, and having used photos from hundreds of people to get where they are today have now limited some functionality that some people found useful.
Thing is what comes next?
Daft thing is, if you buy the
6
Shipping News and information / Re: Marine Traffic
« on: May 17, 2020, 08:18:23 AM »Another Marine traffic question
The aircraft carrier anchored in the Solent is showing as the Prince of Wales on MT but some facebook images show her as the Queen Elizabeth, can anyone confirm which she is?
Regards
Bob
Bob,
HMS Queen Elizabeth was anchored off Stokes Bay for two weeks quarantine prior to going on deployment. HMS Prince of Wales was alongside in Portsmouth when I saw them on Thursday.
Steve.
7
Help and Advice / Re: Japanese Ship Names
« on: May 04, 2020, 10:45:06 AM »
The annual "Register of Shipping" (Senpaku Meisaisho) contains the names and particulars of all merchant ships registered in Japan.
There are various volumes, or you can get all of them in one CD ROM for about
There are various volumes, or you can get all of them in one CD ROM for about
8
Help and Advice / Scanner recommendations
« on: May 04, 2020, 09:11:47 AM »
Good morning,
I wonder whether anyone could recommend a good slide, negative and print scanner please?
I've seen some reviews online, but gaining the first-hand knowledge of someone who uses them would be helpful.
Many thanks,
Steve.
I wonder whether anyone could recommend a good slide, negative and print scanner please?
I've seen some reviews online, but gaining the first-hand knowledge of someone who uses them would be helpful.
Many thanks,
Steve.
9
Help and Advice / Re: IMO Numbers
« on: May 04, 2020, 08:54:17 AM »I am sure this must have been asked before, but is there a NUMERICAL list of IMO numbers?
I have a photo where the name of the vessel is obscured as are the last 3 digits of the IMO number.
It would be so much easier to plough through a few hundred numbers than thousands.
Any ideas?
It's fairly simple to build your own list using a spreadsheet. The first six digits rise sequentially, while the seventh is a check digit derived from the previous six numbers.
So if you start at, say, 960000, the next one will be 960001 and so on.
The check digit would be calculated with the 1st number multiplied by 7, the 2nd by 6, the 3rd by 5 and so on. All the answers are added up and the last digit from the answer is the check digit.
Using that calculation we can determine that 960000 has a check digit of 9, which is assigned to a Vietnamese cargo ship THAI BINH 35.
960001 has a check digit of 1 which is assigned to another Vietnamese general cargo ship, ROYAL 16 (which IHS bizarrely call a bulk carrier!)
If you don't want to go to all the fuss of calculating the check digit, you can just type in the first few numbers to the search facility on Marine Traffic and a list will pop up.
Hope this helps,
Steve
10
Shipping News and information / Re: COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA - what an idiotic name for a ship
« on: June 27, 2016, 03:38:24 PM »The name is no more idiotic than Maersk Panama; MSC Panama, APL Panama, YM Panama, Nedlloyd Panama etc, etc
I agree. That was the point of the post. COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA was the catalyst.
11
Shipping News and information / Re: COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA - what an idiotic name for a ship
« on: June 27, 2016, 02:01:41 PM »SD7 - what an idiotic name for a person
It's an old nick-name based on my initials.
12
Shipping News and information / COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA - what an idiotic name for a ship
« on: June 27, 2016, 01:30:00 PM »
The first ship to transit the enlarged Panama Canal recently was the COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA
Fairly apt, I suppose.
But the vogue of putting a company name followed by, well almost anything, simply shows an industry devoid of any imagination when it comes to names of ships.
At one time you could learn a thing or two about places in a particular country, famous people, rivers, tribes, or even Latin names for shells.
But now the whole industry has become so dumbed down that I guess a 5-year old has now been put in charge of coming up with ships' names (Boaty McBoatface illustrates this point perfectly).
COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA is perhaps one of the most absurd of this craze, probably on an equal footing to the 'text speak' that's crept in too - NAVIG8, GENER8 and so on.
Someone once said that it was to underpin the 'brand' so that clients around the world would identify with a particular company more easily.
Well I'm sorry. If people are too stupid to put 2+2 together, then they shouldn't have left school.
In the OCL days, ships were named with the suffix 'BAY' and became known as "the Bay boats". Everyone knew what they were, and that was fine. Then P&O merged with Nedlloyd to create a fleet of ships with a dreadful prefix.
In the days prior to Nedlloyd merging many Dutch companies, ships had a suffix of 'Kerk' - Serooskerk, Laarderkerk, Westerkerk and so on. Others were prefixed STRAAT or NEDER. People in the industry knew exactly what ships they were and what company they were dealing with.
Sadly we're now in an age where we aren't allowed to think for ourselves. The shipping industry is now a business that seems to be run by accountants who, as Monty Python pointed out many years ago, "are too boring to be of interest."
Come on people! Be more imaginative! COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA?... yawn!
Fairly apt, I suppose.
But the vogue of putting a company name followed by, well almost anything, simply shows an industry devoid of any imagination when it comes to names of ships.
At one time you could learn a thing or two about places in a particular country, famous people, rivers, tribes, or even Latin names for shells.
But now the whole industry has become so dumbed down that I guess a 5-year old has now been put in charge of coming up with ships' names (Boaty McBoatface illustrates this point perfectly).
COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA is perhaps one of the most absurd of this craze, probably on an equal footing to the 'text speak' that's crept in too - NAVIG8, GENER8 and so on.
Someone once said that it was to underpin the 'brand' so that clients around the world would identify with a particular company more easily.
Well I'm sorry. If people are too stupid to put 2+2 together, then they shouldn't have left school.
In the OCL days, ships were named with the suffix 'BAY' and became known as "the Bay boats". Everyone knew what they were, and that was fine. Then P&O merged with Nedlloyd to create a fleet of ships with a dreadful prefix.
In the days prior to Nedlloyd merging many Dutch companies, ships had a suffix of 'Kerk' - Serooskerk, Laarderkerk, Westerkerk and so on. Others were prefixed STRAAT or NEDER. People in the industry knew exactly what ships they were and what company they were dealing with.
Sadly we're now in an age where we aren't allowed to think for ourselves. The shipping industry is now a business that seems to be run by accountants who, as Monty Python pointed out many years ago, "are too boring to be of interest."
Come on people! Be more imaginative! COSCO SHIPPING PANAMA?... yawn!
13
Shipping News and information / Re: Ships-favourite names,not the ships,but the names,for any reason !
« on: March 11, 2016, 04:56:02 PM »
Interesting to see reference to METALLICA above.
The Greek owner's son was into heavy metal music, so a number of ships in the fleet were named after metal bands.
At least, that's how the story goes!
The Greek owner's son was into heavy metal music, so a number of ships in the fleet were named after metal bands.
At least, that's how the story goes!
14
Shipping News and information / Re: CKYHE ALLIANCE TO STOP CES ASIA - EUROPE SERVICE
« on: March 11, 2016, 04:44:04 PM »
Looks like Evergreen's Asia/North Europe Weekly Express Service 7 (NE7) will continue.
15
Shipping News and information / Re: IMOs
« on: March 05, 2016, 12:22:26 PM »
The IMO numbers started life in the 1960s as a Lloyd's Register number. These were originally 6 digits long and were introduced to replaced the old Register Book Number so each vessel would have a unique ID that would remain with the ship throughout its life. It would also be used for the envisaged computerised databases, among other applications.
At the time it was introduced the first two numbers generally corresponded with the year the ship was ordered or notification of the order received by LR (the American Bureau of Shipping used a similar system, but those reflected the year of build). However some ships only became known well after they were built - Soviet vessels whose LR/IMO numbers begin 8888 spring to mind - so their numbers were out of sequence.
In the main you'll find IMO numbers for ships beginning 64 or 65 to about 90 will be in line with this system. Those ships with numbers beginning 5 simply had the Register Book number for 1964 or 5 (I can't remember which) adapted for the new LR number system.
The 7th digit is a check digit and was introduced in the late 60s. It is calculated from the previous six digits.
LR/IMO numbers are never reused.
All went well until the late 1980s, when it was realised that the computers at the time would have problems retrieving numbers beginning with 0. So it was decided that the numbers would be issued consecutively.
Consecutive numbers are the first six digits as the 7th is calculated. So, all of these would be valid consecutive IMO numbers whether assigned or not:
9534200
9534212
9534224
9534236
9534248
9534250
9534262
9534274
9534286
9534298
9534303
9534315
9534327
While these are not:
9534200
9534201
9534202
9534203
9534204
9534205
9534206
9534207
There really isn't any mystery behind it all. Numbers are simply assigned as and when to place a ship on file. There will be gaps - for example when an order has been cancelled before built. Even those numbers are never reassigned.
The problem will be when LR/IMO number 9999993 is issued - this will be the final number in the present sequence.
The solution, I gather, will be to use unassigned numbers beginning with an 8. Bit of a retrograde step when perhaps something better could be introduced.
We'll see.
Hope this helps,
Steve.
At the time it was introduced the first two numbers generally corresponded with the year the ship was ordered or notification of the order received by LR (the American Bureau of Shipping used a similar system, but those reflected the year of build). However some ships only became known well after they were built - Soviet vessels whose LR/IMO numbers begin 8888 spring to mind - so their numbers were out of sequence.
In the main you'll find IMO numbers for ships beginning 64 or 65 to about 90 will be in line with this system. Those ships with numbers beginning 5 simply had the Register Book number for 1964 or 5 (I can't remember which) adapted for the new LR number system.
The 7th digit is a check digit and was introduced in the late 60s. It is calculated from the previous six digits.
LR/IMO numbers are never reused.
All went well until the late 1980s, when it was realised that the computers at the time would have problems retrieving numbers beginning with 0. So it was decided that the numbers would be issued consecutively.
Consecutive numbers are the first six digits as the 7th is calculated. So, all of these would be valid consecutive IMO numbers whether assigned or not:
9534200
9534212
9534224
9534236
9534248
9534250
9534262
9534274
9534286
9534298
9534303
9534315
9534327
While these are not:
9534200
9534201
9534202
9534203
9534204
9534205
9534206
9534207
There really isn't any mystery behind it all. Numbers are simply assigned as and when to place a ship on file. There will be gaps - for example when an order has been cancelled before built. Even those numbers are never reassigned.
The problem will be when LR/IMO number 9999993 is issued - this will be the final number in the present sequence.
The solution, I gather, will be to use unassigned numbers beginning with an 8. Bit of a retrograde step when perhaps something better could be introduced.
We'll see.
Hope this helps,
Steve.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk