Nom de plume
Well-known member
Could be Egyptian sand dance cattle - they have a head at each end.
Suez blocked.
- Thread starter burgundyben
- Start date
Could be Egyptian sand dance cattle - they have a head at each end.
TLouth7
Active member
Surely it is actually fourteen ships? Seven fat ones and seven thin ones, or am I dreaming?
Kukri
Well-known member
“Years of thin cows” (and the very much rarer “year of fat cows”) is an Ancient Greek shipowning expression!
Biggles Wader
Well-known member
Smells like bullshit to me.
Thistle
Well-known member
Her previous track makes interesting viewing!
Stork_III
Well-known member
Ryanair maritime?
Kukri
Well-known member
Worse. The livestock trade by sea is truly grim, and should be stopped.
We’ve been campaigning to get it stopped for three years now.
Are livestock carriers synonymous with disaster? - Splash247
Frank Holden
Well-known member
I don't think that ship is what it says it is.... that AIS transmission is from one of the tugs or somesuch....
Bajansailor
Well-known member
A quote from the article -
"To avoid such failures, getting away with the monohulled construction is a convincing option. Innately, such hulls are not adequately stable and fit for the purpose as livestock carriers. Replacing the same with a multihull like catamaran or trimaran will significantly enhance the stability which is the most significant weak element of most livestock carriers today. "
A multihull type of hull form sounds very logical to me - although the article also notes that there are very few purpose built livestock carriers.
Most have been converted from old container vessels.
And there are not many old multihull cargo vessels knocking around that could be converted.
And the owners naturally do not want to build a new ship if they can re-fit an old container ship at less cost.
And they do not appear to be too perturbed about drowning a few thousand sheep or cows
And of course, the reason why they have livestock carriers in the first place is because the animals have to be slaughtered the halal way - which in itself is very barbaric.
It would be nice if a law could be established banning this trade - if the folk in Saudi et al want mutton and beef from abroad, I am sure that it would be much cheaper in the long run to import it already processed in reefer containers, rather than 'on the hoof' - and much kinder for the animals as well.
But no, they have to do it the 'traditional' way.
Rappey
Well-known member
Container vessels don't seem the most stable !
Rappey
Well-known member
This thread has been fascinating. With a few on here with specialist knowledge and Kukri being spot on with his thoughts . Who needs the media!
I noticed today on the radio all the "experts" coming out of the woodwork to give their 10p worth yet were silent until the ship was freed. ?
@Kukri , if you don't mind may I ask what your occupation is, or what you do ?
I noticed today on the radio all the "experts" coming out of the woodwork to give their 10p worth yet were silent until the ship was freed. ?
@Kukri , if you don't mind may I ask what your occupation is, or what you do ?
Bilgediver
Well-known member
Maybe another chip is carrying spuds.... They had a cargo share out courtesy of The Underwriters last time the canal was blocked. My brothers crew needed help to eat the apples on the Port Line ship and some were traded for alternatives/
Bilgediver
Well-known member
That's what happens if you get the ship broadside on to a swell which matches the period of roll of the ship. Sitting on the Loo can be a real problem!
DJE
Well-known member
No need for waterproof lining. It's a sea level canal and the water table is never going to be lower than sea level so there is nowhere for it to leak to.Could do with some for my Mill ponds if you've got any left over
I cannot see it being fully lined (and I'm guessing that the lakes at least are natural water retainers) - but the ymight have some porous areas where they need to at least slow down the leakage??? I'm just musing.
Nom de plume
Well-known member
This is something that I have never given a moment's thought to in my life (possibly because it was mostly spent on the sea not the land).
Can you talk me through this please - the canal bank in the photos where the digger is excavating around the bow of the ship seems to be about 6-8' higher than the canal - are you saying that the water table there will be at some height between the canal level and the surface level (even though its desert)?
Gibeltarik
Active member
Should I be worried that the successful re-floating of Evergreen has not been claimed as a BREXIT benefit and a 'world beating achievement ' by the UK Government and ybw member 'mountain' ?
newtothis
Well-known member
Not entirely. A number of freezing works in NZ started doing Halal butchery so they could export to the Middle East. Kept a few of them going during the bad years in the 80s.A quote from the article -
"To avoid such failures, getting away with the monohulled construction is a convincing option. Innately, such hulls are not adequately stable and fit for the purpose as livestock carriers. Replacing the same with a multihull like catamaran or trimaran will significantly enhance the stability which is the most significant weak element of most livestock carriers today. "
A multihull type of hull form sounds very logical to me - although the article also notes that there are very few purpose built livestock carriers.
Most have been converted from old container vessels.
And there are not many old multihull cargo vessels knocking around that could be converted.
And the owners naturally do not want to build a new ship if they can re-fit an old container ship at less cost.
And they do not appear to be too perturbed about drowning a few thousand sheep or cows
And of course, the reason why they have livestock carriers in the first place is because the animals have to be slaughtered the halal way - which in itself is very barbaric.
It would be nice if a law could be established banning this trade - if the folk in Saudi et al want mutton and beef from abroad, I am sure that it would be much cheaper in the long run to import it already processed in reefer containers, rather than 'on the hoof' - and much kinder for the animals as well.
But no, they have to do it the 'traditional' way.
Allan
Well-known member
I would like to thank the true experts on this thread. I have felt much better informed reading this than looking at other media. Also thank you for putting up with us idiots making suggestions that we thought were funny, that must have been very annoying!
Thank you again.
Allan
Thank you again.
Allan
DJE
Well-known member
Groundwater flows downhill from areas with a higher water table to areas with a lower water table. If there is no flow then the water table is level.
Over hundreds of years seepage from the sea saturates all coastal rocks and soils up to sea level. Rainfall over the land seeps into the ground and raises the water table above sea level, this causes the water to flow towards the sea. If there is no rain over the land then the water table will be horizontal at sea level and there will be no flow. The Red Sea and the Mediterranean don't have waterproof linings but they don't drain away because the surrounding rocks and soils are already saturated up to sea level.
If you took the digger a few hundred yards from the canal bank, which is say six or eight feet above water level, and dug a hole ten feet deep then it would fill with water up to the same level as the canal water. This may take some time depending on the permeability of the soil but eventually it would reach this equilibrium level.
Bajansailor
Well-known member
Excellent! Even more cause for banning the trade outright.
