Yes, those were the ships (AMCO Voyager and AMCO Trader). If I remember correctly the company was started by a couple of ex-US Line executives who may or may not have had insider knowledge of what the company was going to bid. It was an 80-20 government contract between the lowest bidders which were American Coastal getting 80% and SeaLand 20%.
You are correct they did not win the next contract go around. The winning bids were nearly half the previous contract.
Two of the cars that have moved in the picture are Range Rovers and I think the report mentioned that some of the lashings were inadequate. A Range Rover is heavier than the average car.
RoRo vessels can be of different types. A RoRo carrying containers on Maafi trailers will have a block coefficient different from a ferry or a car carrier because cars and people donāt weigh much. I hated surveys on a car carrier because I couldnāt stand upright in the car decks. I used to regard the ramp deck as the main deck because that was the main structural element of the ship by reason of the plate thickness.
The cargo carried on this deck is usually heavy earthmoving equipment,trucks and buses.
The biggest improvement to safety for car carriers would be accurate cargo weights and most importantly accurate remote tank sounding and draft indicators and set programs for exchanging ballast water.
The question is what is the probability that a cargo shift caused the Golden Ray to capsize?
That data we have is that some car ships have taken extreme rolls so what percentage of the cargo in those cases shifted? In the case of the Cougar Ace about 1% of the cars shifted. The percentage was higher in the case of the Hoegh Osaka and higher still with the Baltic Ace.
The specific reason the cargo shifted in each case is irrelevant because the same issues (inadequate lashing) likely will also exist on the Golden Ray.