# A bit of a mystery!!



## davierh (Aug 16, 2005)

Can anyone please help me. Why has the DWT of the vessel below gone from 168,398 to 200,510 when its overall dimensions remained the same.
Was it to do with her being converted?? If so to WHAT!
Also was she scrapped at Kaohslung as per Miramar or much later as INDICATED by her still being in Lloyds Register in 1985.
Or is the dwt a typing error??

DETAILS=
Pacific Maru 1982=Ruby Transporter
IMO 7222621 OBO Flag Japan
Gross =94,004 Dwt =168,398
Length o/a= 297.490m Beam =47.45m
Builder Sumitomo Uraga Yard no 1001
Launched 30-6-1972

One of three sisters Bristol Maru and Hampton Maru being the others,these other two vessels maintained their DWT as Pacific Maru above at168,398

According to Mirimar BU=broken up, Kaohslung 6-1-1983
But still in Lloyds Register 1985-1986 as Ruby Transporter obo dwt= 200,510
In Clarksons 1972 as Pacific Maru 165,740 dwt
In Clarksons 1981 as Pacific Maru 165,740 O/ B/O CONVERTED
Any help greatfully received Many thanks
Richard.

(K)


----------



## non descript (Nov 18, 2005)

Richard, 
I would not wish to advance the wrong answers to a very reasonable and I have no direct knowledge of this ship you mention, but whilst the LOA and BEAM are not going to change, the DRAFT can change, so taking the proverbial ‘box-like structure’ one can gain a greater deadweight merely by allowing her to have a deeper draft.

To give as an example, a ship like _*Waterman N*_ (Ex: Hyundai Giant) 259,586 DWT, Bulk Carrier, Built 1985, has an LOA of 382.00 and a beam of 45.00 has a TPC of 161 metric tones. So we can see, if she is allowed under the Load Line Rules to have a greater draft, an increase of 1 metre would give her 16,100 MT greater deadweight. Frankly for a ship to go from 168,398 to 200,510 (whilst retained the same LOA & BEAM) is a little difficult to imagine, so I do wonder if there was a typo error?
(Thumb) 
Mark


----------



## Roger Jordan (May 9, 2008)

Hello Richard
The tonnages shown for PACIFIC MARU in Lloyd’s Register (LR) as 168K dwt are correct for the vessel in its state for carrying ore cargoes only. A different set of tonnages (including gross and net) applied when the vessel was used as a tanker.
This practice is partly explained in Lloyd’s Register books in the tonnages section of the explanatory notes.
As far as I can determine from Lloyd’s Shipping Index (LSI), PACIFIC MARU never did any oil voyages throughout its career; and according to entries in Lloyd’s Confidential Index (LCI) in 1982 and 1983 she had been “adapted for ore cargoes”. 
The recorded change in deadweight tonnage occurred in June 1983 when the vessel was named RUBY TRANSPORTER, and it jumped to 200,510, which might have suggested a change to oil cargo usage. This tonnage change is shown in both Lloyd’s Shipping Index and for one issue in Lloyd’s Confidential Index. But this is very confusing because the vessel continued to do ore voyages (Port Hedland/Kaohsiung; Sepetiba/Kaohsiung) during its brief career as RUBY TRANSPORTER.
The vessel left Sepetiba on 9 August 1983 for Kaohsiung, where it arrived previous to 6 November 1983. Lloyd’s Shipping Index did not record a precise date of arrival. It seems it did a loaded ore voyage to Kaohsiung and presumably after discharge moved to a scrap berth.
The owner of RUBY TRANSPORTER, Far Eastern Navigation Corp Ltd, of Taipei, was beneficially owned by WH Eddie Hsu (later described in LCI as “in severe financial difficulties”), and among the many vessels in the group were several OBOs, which, according to LR, LCI, and LSI, had "variations" in tonnage measurements during their careers. Maybe Eddie Hsu “re-adapted” RUBY TRANSPORTER to carry much larger cargoes of ore. Pure speculation on my part.
Regards
Roger


----------



## rickles23 (Oct 13, 2006)

Hi,
Apparently the Titanic was the same build as her sisters but because she had part of her superstructure enclosed it made her 'heavier' than the two sisters so she was then wrongly called the biggest ship of the time. I'll look up the figures later and post.
Regards


----------



## davierh (Aug 16, 2005)

Gents
Many many thanks for your quick replies at least I have some answers
Kind Regards to all
Richard.


----------



## rickles23 (Oct 13, 2006)

*GRT and NRT*

Hi, 
I have finally found the figures I was after.

GRT. Measurement of Volume not Weight.

Amount of Space contained within the outtline of the ship,
including the superstructure.

If the proportion of GRT taken up by machinery etc is deducted 
the result is NRT.

GRT - Proportion = NRT

Olympic 45,324 GRT

Olympic 20,847 NRT

Titanic had the forward half of A Deck Promenades enclosed

Titanic 46,328 GRT

Titanic 21,831 NRT

Olympic Weight 52,000 (Displacement Tons)

Titanic Weight 52250 (Displacement Tons)

Fully Laden 66,000 Weight (Displacement Tons)

Both ships were the same in Lenght, Beam and Height

Confused? I am.
Regards


----------



## david freeman (Jan 26, 2006)

*Differnt Tonnage for the same physical diemensions*

About the time you question the tonnage of the vessel mentioned above: IMO and as a result the loadline rules changed with reqards hull scantlings, and allowed for the same frame and steel work thicknesses highed loades/stresses (T.P.I- tons per inch loadings): Hence deeper draft loadings: hence an increase in DWT for tankers. I belive this was for single skinned tankers of the day. The result was that the Loadline rules where applied by the classification societies.
It caused a few problems, not least the rudder stock upper packing joint in the steering flat, which had to withstand the extra head of water on the loaded passage.


----------

