# Tanker Question for the experts



## Captian Dag (Oct 26, 2008)

What was the largest tanker with mid-body wheelhouse/accomadations?


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

A 250,000 tonnes tanker was built by SSK for Chinese's company.


----------



## BlythSpirit (Dec 17, 2006)

This one, the Energy Transport, was pretty big at 217,153 dwt:
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/229177/title/energy-transport/cat/503


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

Many thanks. that was the one. A little bigger then the KOTC tankers been built at the same time which I was working on


----------



## exsailor (Dec 18, 2005)

'Idemitsu Maru' was of bigger Gross Tonnage, Length and Beam than 'Energy Transport' but was of slightly less DWT (209,413).
http://www.aukevisser.nl/supertankers/part-1/id50.htm


----------



## Captian Dag (Oct 26, 2008)

Impressive Photos on aukevisser web site. Thanks gentlemen for all replies.


----------



## Captian Dag (Oct 26, 2008)

Another question I have:
is any of these classic mid-cabin tankers still in service

regards,
CDag


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

I have not seen one for almost thirty years. Certainly not in the last twenty. The layout was, unquestionably, more dangerous with low-flash cargoes, more inconvenient in many respects and in general the aft bridge layout offered better sight lines from the wheelhouse anyway.


----------



## Captian Dag (Oct 26, 2008)

found this small one that may still be in service
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1388146

This photo is my favorite:
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1269142

What is your favorite??????


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

Captian Dag said:


> found this small one that may still be in service
> http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1388146
> 
> What is your favorite??????


What a sweet little thing!

My favourite went to the knackers in 1997.


----------



## jamesgpobog (Feb 18, 2012)

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> What a sweet little thing!
> 
> My favourite went to the knackers in 1997.



It's for sale...


----------



## exsailor (Dec 18, 2005)

Captian Dag said:


> found this small one that may still be in service
> http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1388146



Looks like she is still in service.
http://news.yahoo.com/russias-defence-ministry-russian-navys-oil-tanker-calls-180052375.html


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Might be handy for shipping our surplus Fresh Water from the North of England to the South, mind you it will cost you!!


----------



## Jim F (Dec 10, 2008)

My Mother in Law.


----------



## BlythSpirit (Dec 17, 2006)

> I have not seen one for almost thirty years. Certainly not in the last twenty. The layout was, unquestionably, more dangerous with low-flash cargoes, more inconvenient in many respects and in general the aft bridge layout offered better sight lines from the wheelhouse anyway.


I don't understand that, surely all crude oil loaded into ships are stabilized to an international standard to ensure they don't blow up, regardless of the ships construction of accommodation and bridge house.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

BlythSpirit said:


> I don't understand that, surely all crude oil loaded into ships are stabilized to an international standard to ensure they don't blow up, regardless of the ships construction of accommodation and bridge house.


Crude oils are not stabilised - they are a low flash cargo because of the volatile fractions. These days they are carried under inert gas.

This construction pre-dated inert gas systems; what seems to have happened more than once was that gases from the cargo sat just above the deck between the centrecastle and the after house, which was sheltered from the wind, and were ignited, flashing into the centrecastle and on occasion the cargo tanks - the centre castle was of course built over cargo tanks.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

BlythSpirit said:


> I don't understand that, surely all crude oil loaded into ships are stabilized to an international standard to ensure they don't blow up, regardless of the ships construction of accommodation and bridge house.


Have a look at this photo in the Gallery - one of the comments below the photo gives further links. There used to be a mid-ships accommodation block/centrecastle where the hole is shown. It was blown completely off.

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/161867/title/stanvac-japan/cat/523


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> - the centre castle was of course built over cargo tanks.


Not a nice place to live at all....

I believe that after the Stanvac Japan blew up Stanvac modified the design of their next new build... Stanvac Horizon .. to bridge aft....

She was one of three built for different owners ... 2 ended up bridge aft... one bridge midship ( british flag Olsen ship... name escapes me..ended up as Marland)

That was the start of the major shift to bridge aft everywhere, afaik.


----------

