wait… what lightship ??
Your empty car without fuel oil water and w/o driver and paxes is a “light car”
1 Like
ummm… cool… I’m glad we clarified this…
Wait… are you saying that “lightship” refers to the weight of the ship after they empty it??
When I read the word “lightship”, I think of an entirely different vessel…
I guess they could have moored a lightship by the bridge ruins, to improve visibility at night… better safe than sorry…
OK so you think it should be “light ship”?
Not so, according to Britannica:
Great fun trying to find some wrong spelling in posts from “non-native English speakers”, right?
Well, not many here can claim to be born to speak and write “Queen*s own English”.
Most here use some variety of the English language (i.e “American English”, “Australian English” etc.) or any number of dialects and “pidgin” variety of the English language.
What sounds correct to you, may not be correct to others, so bear with us “non-native English speakers”. We do as good as we can, while struggling to use a foreign language. (How’s your French?)
PS> When in doubt there is always the “(D)Oxford Dictionary” to tell you the correct English spelling.
(Pun will be understood by the old Engineers among us)
OK so you think it should be “light ship”?
Actually, no… my issue wasn’t with spelling, I simply was unfamiliar with this meaning of “lightship” !!
In spite of years of following this site and forums, I’ve never seen the word used before… now I know!!
Thank you for the article, BTW; it explained the issue just fine for me…
Good old 
sarcastic Ombugge at his best I can see here 
this is funny , as i have never even thought that below can be interpreted in such a way It just hit me now
I would not aspire to be your enemy
1 Like
I can detect a pro and savvy guy by what he says.
I will leave the privilege of calculating lightship weight to You Sir
Cheers
1 Like
Those wikipedia folks always confuse people. Now I know m/v Dali was
10 000 TEU Class
and NOT post-PANAMAX Class as per below.
_Container ship - Wikipedia 1.pdf (295.7 KB)
We learn as we go thx to knowlegable & friendly people willing to share.
Thank You
1 Like
Alias spowiednick,
thanks for your research, Wikipedia tells it correctly without many words.
On the other hand, concerning Beam and container capacity, the Dali can be classed as post-panamax (any ship wider than 32.31m) as well as neo-panamax (not wider than 49m and upwards from 10,000TEU capacity. Choose what you want, I will no blame you.
By the way, realize what immense growth in size and capacity of containervessel took place during the last half century : from 2000TEU (my first design) to over 20,000TEU and from max. 32.31m to over 50m wide!!
1 Like
Hello all
Some trivia. Just in case some of you did not catch the (D)Oxford dictionary dig, he means the Doxford marine diesel engines. These are opposed piston engines - meaning 2 pistons in one cylinder liner with the fuel injectors in between. These Doxfords (British), FIAT (Italy), MAN (German - before they bought B&W), along with Sulzer (Winterthur, Switzerland) and B&W (Copenhagen, Denmark) were the main engines until about the 70s. Think Doxford, FIAT and MAN stopped production late 60s/early 70s. I used to hear stories from the senior engineers when I first started my career. Well, just a few years later, MAN bought B&W and Wartsila bought Sulzer. Looks like CSSC (China Shipbuilding) now owns the Sulzer/Warsila line called WIN GD (Winterthur gas and diesel).
1 Like
Hello Spowiednick, all
Wise guys … :-)! So lightship is about 32k tons (displacement - DWT). Wonder what the dwt is on the 12.2 m draft. Looking at the pics/videos I question if this accurate. Looks to be deeper in the water considering the load draft is 15.2 meters. I think this info is from the AIS - probably one of the inputs that is seldom reliable. The vessel is almost ‘cubed’ out with plenty of dwt remaining. Heck of a lot of empties/light containers or …? Thoughts?
1 Like
Throw other factors into the decisions loading a vessel “full” Route, steaming time, port and canal cost. Bunker availability and cost. Cargo flows and rates.
When Dali was planned two routes possible, Suez or Cape. Suez is roughly 5 days faster 2500 miles shorter has bunkers available about half way. Pay the toll and have war risk. You can load the ship heavier though. More revenue and have her available to load in Asia sooner
If Cape bunkers in Africa uncertain cost and availability a question. It’s the safe option. Best bunker more last US port, uses up DW capacity and limits cargo lift.
Sometimes it’s better to have longer transits. Multiply reduced cargo lift by # of vessels in rotation 5 days can take a lot of capacity out of your trade . Tight space makes high freight rates, empty space means lower rates.
The Suez vs Cape decision is one often made with liner operators and a reason you see variable total TEU on board.
or about or moloo
Can not dive in it as Dr.Salvatore self-proclaimed solicitors keep me busy. Instead of tonning it down for his own good they heat it up.
To my liking of course
Some suffer from cognitive dissonance and I am suspicious that it is not about the facts of the case but about egos and “we crowd” group thinking. One of our own got exposed so we need to kill the attacker …
Hurrey , lets anihilate the SOB foreigner and irritating thorn. , when the best way to defend Dr.Salvattore is just to ignore my post .Simple as that.
Cheers
1 Like
You are obviously very bright as well as knowledgeable on regs, rules and standards. At least you managed to make the less fortunate understand the difference between container size designations. Even the Synergy group memo made the same mistake.
So, perhaps a chill pill for a couple of days? You never know … NTSB may contact you for assistance! 
1 Like