[Post Reply] [*]  Page 6 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page « 14 5 6 7 812 »
Author Message
Novice
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 13th, 2018, 6:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4064
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Cargo ships are generally used to carry cargo as the name suggests, and the may carry up to 12 passengers usually because that was the most a ship could carry without a doctor on board.
Passenger ships are for carrying passengers and maybe some cargo. The confusion is from a long dead bread of combination liners. These were usually cargo ships with the ability to carry a large number of passengers, but cargo was the main load.
To add to the confusion there are those passenger ships with a large cargo capacity, used mainly on shorter trips, such as the Mediterranean sea or various inter island routes in the south pacific.
So it is common sense which dictates what term to use: if the main load is cargo it is a cargo ship, and if the ship has a large number of passengers it is a cargo-passenger ship or a combi-liner. If it is a passenger ship with a large cargo capacity it should categorized as a passenger ship with cargo.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 13th, 2018, 8:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
eswube wrote: *
There's one thing I would discuss and ask for suggestions.
In the archive we have a lot (and will have more) of drawings of Cargo/Passenger Ships (Passenger/Cargo Ships), which, unfortunately, are spread between Cargo Ships type and Passenger Ships type and IMHO that could be bit confusing (both for users and for future uploaders), so preferably I had them all moved into just one of these types (but which?) - or, if we were to keep them split - what criteria should be used for assigning them to either type?
For the US MARAD ships, I'd base it on the use of the C or P series. For example, NS Savannah as P2 N1 40a would be a passenger ship, while SS Santa Mercedes as C4 S 49a would be a cargo ship. This solves most of the US issues, but leaves a few intact. I'd further class the WW1 and post-WW1 transports as passenger ships (as they are drawn in there liner configuration) which would include Maui, American Legion, Hawkeye State, Pan America & President Roosevelt. I'd have to drill and look at the handful of American ships that are not covered by the above broad rules.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 13th, 2018, 8:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8309
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Some people call the Norwegian "Hurtigruten" ships as a ferry.

They mainly take passengers, but at the same time they have a big ro-ro deck, that can take any type of cargo and cars

so it's easy to see where the confusion is.


What about just call them a "Cargo liner" as a broad term. Thuse we have "Cargo ships" and "Cargo liner" instead of multiple terms but only two terms that cover it ...not exactly correct but in the broad term, good enough.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 13th, 2018, 9:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9068
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Thank You all for the answers so far.
Well, it seems that - following Novice's suggestion - if we were to have these ships kept separately ("cargo+some passengers" at "Cargo" and "passengers+substantial cargo" at "Passengers") then somebody would have to check them all, one by one. :(

@TimothyC
Thankfully, so far the problem didn't occured with the MARAD ships. Of course, in this case the belonging to either C or P series could be indeed a decisive factor.

@Heuhen
Problem we have here is that ships in question need to be classified either as Cargo or Passenger, while the (alternatively) "Passenger and Cargo" or "Cargo and Passenger" description are inserted in sub-type.
Speaking of Hurtigruten - I finished uploading Norway earlier today and put large part of them into Passenger TYPE as "Coastal Service Vessel" SUB-TYPE (though some are in the Ro-Ro's - well, You can check for Yourself - in fact I'd be happy if You did and check if everything's ok there).

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 14th, 2018, 9:06 am
Offline
Posts: 6266
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I'm happy with the current Passenger and Cargo split, I think Novice's explanation makes sense. Primary use passengers = Passenger Ship and primary use cargo = Cargo Ship.
Ro-Ro ferries and Ro-Ro cargo are under Ro-Ro ships.
None Ro-Ro ferries under Passenger

I see no reason to further complicate with more TYPE sub-divisions and lumping them all together would feel odd given the pains we've gone to, to split out military ships.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 14th, 2018, 9:44 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9068
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Hood
In principle I'm happy with Passenger/Cargo split as well.
But now someone should check all those that in SUB-TYPE have "Passenger and Cargo" or "Cargo and Passenger". Any volunteers?
(or it will have to be me again? :| )

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 14th, 2018, 2:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4064
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
eswube wrote: *
@Hood
In principle I'm happy with Passenger/Cargo split as well.
But now someone should check all those that in SUB-TYPE have "Passenger and Cargo" or "Cargo and Passenger". Any volunteers?
(or it will have to be me again? :| )
I'll do it. Giving the correct, and as simplified as possible designation will help all.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 14th, 2018, 2:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9068
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Novice
Thank You very much! That's a great news.

EDIT - Uploads:
13 October - Denmark, Norway
14 October - Poland

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 15th, 2018, 7:53 am
Offline
Posts: 6266
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Work on GB has been delayed but I hope to start soon.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 15th, 2018, 9:27 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8309
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I checked the Norwegian folder, couldn't find any major problems, only drawings that deserves to be beautified!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 6 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 14 5 6 7 812 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]