The world's biggest container ship visits Southampton for the first time

Daily Echo: Marco Polo arriving in Southampton Marco Polo arriving in Southampton

Dwarfing all that has gone before her, she is quite simply the biggest man-made object to move across the face of our planet.

The giant, brand new container ship, CMA CGM Marco Polo, is on a scale never seen before in the long history of the city’s port.

Marco Polo’s arrival in Southampton, proudly flying the Red Ensign, is another prestigious “first’’ for the city and, once again, underlines just what an important role the docks play in the economy of “UK plc’’.

The fact Marco Polo’s owners, the French line, CMA CGM, has opted for the city’s container terminal for the ship’s sole UK call, is recognition of the reputation the operator, DP World Southampton, now has for expertise, efficiency, and ship handling skills within the maritime industry, A ship of superlatives, Marco Polo, is the first of the next generation of super-vessels destined to keep the wheels of international trade constantly turning as she criss-crosses shipping lanes of the world.

Even Cunard’s flagship, the mighty, 151,000-ton, Queen Mary 2, a familiar sight in Southampton, would be over-shadowed by the container ship, which is also far bigger than the nuclearpowered French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, western Europe’s largest warship.

With a length equivalent of well in excess of 100 family saloon cars, Marco Polo, able to carry more than 16,000 containers on her vast decks, will tower over the container berth, where vessels of this size will soon be a regular feature on the city’s skyline in the years ahead.

Locked away within the stacks of anonymous steel containers can be anything from televisions to frozen shrimps, fireworks to soft furnishings, and power tools to clothing.

If China makes it, then it is likely the vast range of products flowing out of the factories in manufacturing centres such as Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, will be brought into the country through Southampton in the piles of metal boxes.

Another two container ships of similar size, each also named after famous explorers, are set to follow Marco Polo during 2013.

Although size does matter when it comes to container ships, Marco Polo has many other features setting her apart from other vessels.

She boasts all the latest environmental technologies such as an electronically controlled engine allowing reduced consumption of fuel, improved hull design which results in lower CO2 emissions, and a ballast water treatment system, in order to preserve the biodiversity of the oceans by not rejecting chemicals into seawater.

It was only last September when Associated British Ports (ABP), owners and operators of Southampton Docks, launched its £150m redevelopment of the container terminal, which will enable the port to continue handling the largest vessels afloat, such as Marco Polo.

Earlier this week, ABP also announced it has received the necessary marine licence to carry out a key component of its dredging programme in the port of Southampton, further improving marine access for large container vessels.

Today, Marco Polo made her dramatic entrance into the Solent, along Southampton Water and then berthed at the city’s container terminal for 24 hours before leaving for Hamburg, Germany.

Built by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering of South Korea, the giant of the seas connects central and south China, the main exporting zones of the Far East industrial powerhouse, with Southampton providing European importers the fastest transit times of the market.

Over the past 20 years or so, the size of container vessels have steadily increased as ship owners look for an economy of scale.

Back in the 1980s the number of containers carried on some ships could be as low as 1,600 but today, with the arrival of Marco Polo, capacity has increased up to ten fold.

Marco Polo, 1,300 feet long, 117 feet wide and with a draft of 52 feet, took the title of the largest container ship afloat from Emma Maersk, built in 2006 and able to carry 15,550 containers.

However the CMA CGM ship will probably only hold the title for one year before the Danish line’s vessels capable of carrying 18,000 containers begin operating.

Nicolas Sartini, CMA CGM Group’s senior vice-president Asia-Europe Lines, said: “It is with great pride that we launch Marco Polo, which is the largest in the world.

“It shows the expertise of the group’s teams, who are able to handle not only the very technical piloting of the ship but also its commercial operations.

“Our entire network of 400 agencies all around the world is active to ensure the successful launching of this ship.’’ Under ABP’s dredging programme a total of 450,000 cubic metres of material will be removed at the Marchwood Moorings, which widen the navigation channel by 30 metres, resulting in improved accessibility for container vessels using the existing berths operated by DP World Southampton.

The port regularly demonstrates its capability to handle ships in excess of 13,000 containers on its existing berth and the dredging will further simplify vessel turning and manoeuvrability.

Doug Morrison, ABP’s Southampton port director, said: “This is another step to ensure that marine access to all container berths meets the future needs of our customers and maintains the port’s position at the forefront of global trade.

“The redevelopment of berths 201 and 202 will allow us to handle the largest vessels on order, and the channel widening works at Marchwood will have the added benefit of ensuring we maintain the highest navigational safety standards in the port.’’ Dredging is expected to have been completed by the spring of next year.

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:17am Sun 9 Dec 12

Cyber__Fug says...

Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ...... Cyber__Fug

11:23am Sun 9 Dec 12

MGRA says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
to be fair to Southy.... it could not naturally berth here, dredging is the reason is can get up the solent.....
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]to be fair to Southy.... it could not naturally berth here, dredging is the reason is can get up the solent..... MGRA

11:34am Sun 9 Dec 12

Just another reader says...

Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.
Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that. Just another reader

11:45am Sun 9 Dec 12

SOLENTDRIFTER says...

Dwarfing all that has gone before her ? - GARBAGE - do your home work and get your facts right - i spent many years of my working life working on VLC & ULC oil tankers not only longer with a wider beam but weighing in at 255,000 tons with a draught of 70 feet in depth - i suggest that the biggest moving man made objects were the two oil tankers 'GLOBTIC LONDON & GLOBTIC TOKYO each with a gross tonage of 500,000 tons - they were built to run between KHARG ISLAND (iran) and JAPAN during the 1970's & 1980s - they were too big to go anywhere else - you could place you new mega size container ship on the fore deck of these tankers and have enough room to drive a bus around it (DAVE ROSS SOUTHAMPTON)
Dwarfing all that has gone before her ? - GARBAGE - do your home work and get your facts right - i spent many years of my working life working on VLC & ULC oil tankers not only longer with a wider beam but weighing in at 255,000 tons with a draught of 70 feet in depth - i suggest that the biggest moving man made objects were the two oil tankers 'GLOBTIC LONDON & GLOBTIC TOKYO each with a gross tonage of 500,000 tons - they were built to run between KHARG ISLAND (iran) and JAPAN during the 1970's & 1980s - they were too big to go anywhere else - you could place you new mega size container ship on the fore deck of these tankers and have enough room to drive a bus around it (DAVE ROSS SOUTHAMPTON) SOLENTDRIFTER

12:06pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Hants Hammy says...

SOLENTDRIFTER wrote:
Dwarfing all that has gone before her ? - GARBAGE - do your home work and get your facts right - i spent many years of my working life working on VLC & ULC oil tankers not only longer with a wider beam but weighing in at 255,000 tons with a draught of 70 feet in depth - i suggest that the biggest moving man made objects were the two oil tankers 'GLOBTIC LONDON & GLOBTIC TOKYO each with a gross tonage of 500,000 tons - they were built to run between KHARG ISLAND (iran) and JAPAN during the 1970's & 1980s - they were too big to go anywhere else - you could place you new mega size container ship on the fore deck of these tankers and have enough room to drive a bus around it (DAVE ROSS SOUTHAMPTON)
I think they were refering to the containerships that call the port of Southampton nothing more we all know there are bigger ships around but not container ships at this time.
[quote][p][bold]SOLENTDRIFTER[/bold] wrote: Dwarfing all that has gone before her ? - GARBAGE - do your home work and get your facts right - i spent many years of my working life working on VLC & ULC oil tankers not only longer with a wider beam but weighing in at 255,000 tons with a draught of 70 feet in depth - i suggest that the biggest moving man made objects were the two oil tankers 'GLOBTIC LONDON & GLOBTIC TOKYO each with a gross tonage of 500,000 tons - they were built to run between KHARG ISLAND (iran) and JAPAN during the 1970's & 1980s - they were too big to go anywhere else - you could place you new mega size container ship on the fore deck of these tankers and have enough room to drive a bus around it (DAVE ROSS SOUTHAMPTON)[/p][/quote]I think they were refering to the containerships that call the port of Southampton nothing more we all know there are bigger ships around but not container ships at this time. Hants Hammy

12:55pm Sun 9 Dec 12

SOLENTDRIFTER says...

Hants Hammy - read the report again - it says :- ' THE BIGGEST MAN MADE OBJECT TO MOVE ACROSS THE FACE OF OUR PLANET' (unquote)
Hants Hammy - read the report again - it says :- ' THE BIGGEST MAN MADE OBJECT TO MOVE ACROSS THE FACE OF OUR PLANET' (unquote) SOLENTDRIFTER

1:04pm Sun 9 Dec 12

housewife says...

How does it compare in size with the tanker that was moored at the Western docks for several years in the 80's?
How does it compare in size with the tanker that was moored at the Western docks for several years in the 80's? housewife

1:15pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in. southy

1:15pm Sun 9 Dec 12

housewife says...

Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish.
.
The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes.
.
The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes.
.
So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.
Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish. . The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes. . The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes. . So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton. housewife

1:25pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

Just another reader wrote:
Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.
True dreadging started in the 1800's here in Southampton, before then it was possible to walk across Southampton waters on a low spring tides, ships could only get in and out of the port on a low neaps tide or higher.
[quote][p][bold]Just another reader[/bold] wrote: Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.[/p][/quote]True dreadging started in the 1800's here in Southampton, before then it was possible to walk across Southampton waters on a low spring tides, ships could only get in and out of the port on a low neaps tide or higher. southy

2:41pm Sun 9 Dec 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo? phil maccavity

3:02pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future. southy

3:04pm Sun 9 Dec 12

geordie says...

housewife wrote:
Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish.
.
The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes.
.
The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes.
.
So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.
I think you are getting confused between Deadweight and gross tonnage. The Burmah Endeavour was around 231,000gt. The figure you have quoted was the deadweight.

Regardless, I think its safe to say that the Marco Polo is certainly the longest ship to have called at Southampton, if not quite the largest in terms of tonnage.
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish. . The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes. . The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes. . So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.[/p][/quote]I think you are getting confused between Deadweight and gross tonnage. The Burmah Endeavour was around 231,000gt. The figure you have quoted was the deadweight. Regardless, I think its safe to say that the Marco Polo is certainly the longest ship to have called at Southampton, if not quite the largest in terms of tonnage. geordie

3:04pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships. southy

3:05pm Sun 9 Dec 12

andyfidler1966 says...

Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?
Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone? andyfidler1966

3:05pm Sun 9 Dec 12

andyfidler1966 says...

Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?
Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone? andyfidler1966

3:07pm Sun 9 Dec 12

geordie says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal? geordie

3:17pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
2 inches could make the difference.
[quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?[/p][/quote]2 inches could make the difference. southy

3:19pm Sun 9 Dec 12

andyfidler1966 says...

andyfidler1966 wrote:
Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?
Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well...
[quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?[/p][/quote]Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well... andyfidler1966

3:19pm Sun 9 Dec 12

andyfidler1966 says...

andyfidler1966 wrote:
Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?
Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well...
[quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?[/p][/quote]Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well... andyfidler1966

3:20pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

geordie wrote:
housewife wrote:
Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish.
.
The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes.
.
The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes.
.
So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.
I think you are getting confused between Deadweight and gross tonnage. The Burmah Endeavour was around 231,000gt. The figure you have quoted was the deadweight.

Regardless, I think its safe to say that the Marco Polo is certainly the longest ship to have called at Southampton, if not quite the largest in terms of tonnage.
I think you find that Air Craft Carrier from the USA was the longest at top deck level, but not at Loading Line level.
[quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish. . The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes. . The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes. . So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.[/p][/quote]I think you are getting confused between Deadweight and gross tonnage. The Burmah Endeavour was around 231,000gt. The figure you have quoted was the deadweight. Regardless, I think its safe to say that the Marco Polo is certainly the longest ship to have called at Southampton, if not quite the largest in terms of tonnage.[/p][/quote]I think you find that Air Craft Carrier from the USA was the longest at top deck level, but not at Loading Line level. southy

3:24pm Sun 9 Dec 12

geordie says...

southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
2 inches could make the difference.
Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference.

But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing?

With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?[/p][/quote]2 inches could make the difference.[/p][/quote]Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference. But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing? With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port. geordie

3:44pm Sun 9 Dec 12

housewife says...

Burmah Endeavour
length 378.4
beam 68.1

Marco polo
length 396m
beam 53.6m

FFS
Echo : please CHECK press releases before regurgitating them as news
Burmah Endeavour length 378.4 beam 68.1 Marco polo length 396m beam 53.6m FFS Echo : please CHECK press releases before regurgitating them as news housewife

4:11pm Sun 9 Dec 12

southy says...

geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
2 inches could make the difference.
Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference.

But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing?

With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.
Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover.
The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker.
Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port.
[quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?[/p][/quote]2 inches could make the difference.[/p][/quote]Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference. But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing? With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.[/p][/quote]Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover. The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker. Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port. southy

5:12pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships.
Not quite true southy.... what you actually said was "and the future container ships many of them will be larger than the emma, and they to will not come up here"
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships.[/p][/quote]Not quite true southy.... what you actually said was "and the future container ships many of them will be larger than the emma, and they to will not come up here" Cyber__Fug

5:29pm Sun 9 Dec 12

StJohn says...

andyfidler1966 wrote:
andyfidler1966 wrote:
Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?
Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well...
Best place to go is Marchwood (magazine lane) Walk as far as you can towards Eling. I think she's moving out tomorrow at some point.
[quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: Erm I thought that I would go down and take some pictures but...do I understand the article to say that she has already been and gone?[/p][/quote]Hmm I went down to Town Quay at lunchtime, and it turns out that I should have popped in to Specsavers as well...[/p][/quote]Best place to go is Marchwood (magazine lane) Walk as far as you can towards Eling. I think she's moving out tomorrow at some point. StJohn

5:36pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships.
Not quite true southy.... what you actually said was "and the future container ships many of them will be larger than the emma, and they to will not come up here"
Going to Dibden Bay then mush!
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]PS Phil if you chat to Ben then he will tell you I all ways said the Emma and her big sister ships.[/p][/quote]Not quite true southy.... what you actually said was "and the future container ships many of them will be larger than the emma, and they to will not come up here"[/p][/quote]Going to Dibden Bay then mush! Fatty x Ford Worker

5:36pm Sun 9 Dec 12

housewife says...

Nice one Echo - change the story to make it match the comments - still POOR journalism.
Hence why I do not buy your rag or contribute to your wages.
Nice one Echo - change the story to make it match the comments - still POOR journalism. Hence why I do not buy your rag or contribute to your wages. housewife

6:27pm Sun 9 Dec 12

The Wickham Man says...

The sight of Southy backtracking and trying to revise all the tripe he has spouted is so funny. he has repeatedly told us that large post panamax ships could never call here because of the Thorn Channel, the width, the depth, the winds, the tides....and here is it - the world's biggest container ship, just where we always said if could get and Dopey argued that it couldn't. He is so desperate not to admit he was wrong he is even quibbling over one or two metres. What a dummy. What a dope.
The sight of Southy backtracking and trying to revise all the tripe he has spouted is so funny. he has repeatedly told us that large post panamax ships could never call here because of the Thorn Channel, the width, the depth, the winds, the tides....and here is it - the world's biggest container ship, just where we always said if could get and Dopey argued that it couldn't. He is so desperate not to admit he was wrong he is even quibbling over one or two metres. What a dummy. What a dope. The Wickham Man

6:30pm Sun 9 Dec 12

The Wickham Man says...

.....And he is still spouting further fiction about walking across SOuthampton Water - it was never possible in human history to walk across Southampton Water at low springs or any other time and if Southy was capable of thinking for hinself (which he isn't) he'd look at an undredged channel to see the natural depth for example the Hamble, which is still 15 feet deep opposite the Harbourmaster's office (see official Admiralty chart datum). That is why the Romans could sail deep drafted galleys up to Clausentum - they'd never make the journey between low tides would they. Thicko.
.....And he is still spouting further fiction about walking across SOuthampton Water - it was never possible in human history to walk across Southampton Water at low springs or any other time and if Southy was capable of thinking for hinself (which he isn't) he'd look at an undredged channel to see the natural depth for example the Hamble, which is still 15 feet deep opposite the Harbourmaster's office (see official Admiralty chart datum). That is why the Romans could sail deep drafted galleys up to Clausentum - they'd never make the journey between low tides would they. Thicko. The Wickham Man

6:34pm Sun 9 Dec 12

SOULJACKER says...

Sheeeesh, If you could read some of your posts!

You sound like a bunch of "Billy no mates" bedroom geeks that sit & try their best to debunk someones point of view if they can.

Open the front door & step outside morons!......There is a whole big wide would out there, go take a look or tap out for Christ's sake :D
Sheeeesh, If you could read some of your posts! You sound like a bunch of "Billy no mates" bedroom geeks that sit & try their best to debunk someones point of view if they can. Open the front door & step outside morons!......There is a whole big wide would out there, go take a look or tap out for Christ's sake :D SOULJACKER

7:01pm Sun 9 Dec 12

lambo83 says...

You lot need to get out more
You lot need to get out more lambo83

7:52pm Sun 9 Dec 12

One Heart....One Vision says...

I really like the fact that the Echo print pictures of these ships as it helps raises the profile of our Port....aswell as doing their job of letting us know what's going on.

Well done Echo Bravo.
I really like the fact that the Echo print pictures of these ships as it helps raises the profile of our Port....aswell as doing their job of letting us know what's going on. Well done Echo Bravo. One Heart....One Vision

8:20pm Sun 9 Dec 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
2 inches could make the difference.
Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference.

But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing?

With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.
Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover.
The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker.
Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port.
Southy
What absolute tripe.
I have experience in the Marine Insurance business and there is no such
caveat!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?[/p][/quote]2 inches could make the difference.[/p][/quote]Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference. But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing? With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.[/p][/quote]Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover. The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker. Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port.[/p][/quote]Southy What absolute tripe. I have experience in the Marine Insurance business and there is no such caveat!! phil maccavity

9:11pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Safehands says...

Southy, the EU do not decide whether ports become hub ports or feeder ports. That is absolute rubbish and shows your ignorance of the subject.
Southy, the EU do not decide whether ports become hub ports or feeder ports. That is absolute rubbish and shows your ignorance of the subject. Safehands

9:15pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Here, There says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
.....And he is still spouting further fiction about walking across SOuthampton Water - it was never possible in human history to walk across Southampton Water at low springs or any other time and if Southy was capable of thinking for hinself (which he isn't) he'd look at an undredged channel to see the natural depth for example the Hamble, which is still 15 feet deep opposite the Harbourmaster's office (see official Admiralty chart datum). That is why the Romans could sail deep drafted galleys up to Clausentum - they'd never make the journey between low tides would they. Thicko.
So now Southy can walk on water...his true identity may soon be revealed ???
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: .....And he is still spouting further fiction about walking across SOuthampton Water - it was never possible in human history to walk across Southampton Water at low springs or any other time and if Southy was capable of thinking for hinself (which he isn't) he'd look at an undredged channel to see the natural depth for example the Hamble, which is still 15 feet deep opposite the Harbourmaster's office (see official Admiralty chart datum). That is why the Romans could sail deep drafted galleys up to Clausentum - they'd never make the journey between low tides would they. Thicko.[/p][/quote]So now Southy can walk on water...his true identity may soon be revealed ??? Here, There

9:34pm Sun 9 Dec 12

MGRA says...

Just another reader wrote:
Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.
um, no thats not correct... most harbours in the world are natural harbours...
[quote][p][bold]Just another reader[/bold] wrote: Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.[/p][/quote]um, no thats not correct... most harbours in the world are natural harbours... MGRA

10:43pm Sun 9 Dec 12

phil maccavity says...

Interesting to know which ports don't require any type of dredging.
Most commercial ports worldwide require capital dredging to deepen or widen existing shipping channels, particularly as ship size increases, as well as maintenance dredging to remove sediment which has accumulated at the bottom of dredged channels.
Interesting to know which ports don't require any type of dredging. Most commercial ports worldwide require capital dredging to deepen or widen existing shipping channels, particularly as ship size increases, as well as maintenance dredging to remove sediment which has accumulated at the bottom of dredged channels. phil maccavity

11:51pm Sun 9 Dec 12

stay local says...

southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
geordie wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ?

I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......
She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght.
The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank.
Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.
Southy
You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port.
Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length.
So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?
With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters.
These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.
Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?
2 inches could make the difference.
Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference.

But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing?

With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.
Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover.
The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker.
Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port.
Southy you muppet the report was completed before 2010 as you well know because it was pointed out to you when you were claiming that a land slip were part of a balcony collapsed (Echo Sunday 28th march 2010) was due to dredging in Southampton water. However at the time you were denying knowledge of it existence. Could you try and either keep your made up facts simple or perhaps not offer any rubbish at all.


southy says...
1:36am Tue 30 Mar 10

stay local wrote:
southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
southy wrote: could this be the results of making southampton shipping channel to deep, the under laying ground bed is slipping down the hill to try and fill in the over deep man made channel, if it is then there's going to be more things like this happening
Wow Southy your knowledge is boundless. Of course this is the reason and not maybe the change in the tilt of the Earth due to the recent earthquake in Haiti, Global warming, the dancing of the lardy butts to the latest disco tune, could it be the decay in the construction materials due to acid rain, or even pollution from Fawley. Surely if it is the “movement of the underlying ground bed, slipping down the hill to fill in the deep man made channel” why did this not affect any of the buildings nearer to Southampton water?
i said could be stay local, underneath is a gravel bed when it rains it filters sub soil little bit at a time though the gravel bed if small patches of clay is that little bit more water log than the rest a bit more will filter though at that spot. normally if a gravel bed is untouch over the 1000's of years the gravel bed becomes a mix of subsoil and gravel. but if you cut a channel though the gravel bed the process starts up again, and with the type of winter we just had it will become more noticeble, this is the second land slip on the eastern shores of southampton water this year.
This is fantastic Southy how did the land slip managed to only make the supporting wall fall down and not cause cracking across the whole block? How was it that the landslip only occurred in the area of Sombourne house and did not affect the other properties near by? Read this report before you comment! http://www.estuary-g uide.net/pdfs/southa mpton_water_case_stu dy.pdf To summarise the report, Southy you are a complete prat and make a fool of your self every time you post a comment! When someone points out the stupidity of your comments you then throw in another unlinked idea that you believes proves your point. “this is the second land slip on the eastern shores of Southampton water this year.” Your words not mine So tell us what when and where, it has happened in the last 12 weeks! Is it hidden in the echo office? Just be brave and name the place and date!
you just made your self look a right prize idiot yet again, is your memory that bad it cant remember, do you suffer from alzheimer dementia or selective memory or some thing. try the other side of the hamble right at the bottom of the southampton water. and yes the echo did report it, it was even on this web site. its to easy to make you look the fool that you are, i think i let some else do it.
Well done Southy I have managed to find the article (despite the specific request to give the date and more information), there is no indication that the dredging of the deep water channel in Southampton water is responsible, it was however suggested by one nut case……yes Southy you again, strangely you did not report that Thatcher was on the dredging barge.

your words "southy, redbridge says...
12:23pm Fri 29 Jan 10

there might be more to this, it also could be what i was saying will happen if they dredge to deep in the approach channels to southampton docks, the valley sides slipping down to fill up the dredge channel,
top layer's of the sea bed being washed away to fill in the dredge channel, so there is less support to keep up the cliff sides, then with all this wet and cold weather has compound the problem."
the only nut case is you, just go's to show how short a memory you got. and like i said then there could be more to it, so you see its the second time its happen on the eastern shores of southampton water.
what it is need now is to sink some bore holes and take samples, and see what is happening find out if the ground is holding or slipping or the subsoil filtering though the gravel bed.

--------------------
---------
Here are some easy answers for you.
if it goes wrong Thatcher did it.

If it is an election the TUSC won it by not standing.

the wobble of the earth did it.

The internet is not true but a conspiracy by Thatcher.

Books in the library are more up to date and accurate than the internet
and must be true ( remember though that Southampton library does have a copy of Thatchers autobiography, and Geoffrey Archers books)

otherwise just put a simple disclaimed on all your posts :-
"irrelevant fantasist please treat as fiction" perhaps you could included that as your TUSC motto?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geordie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: Southy..... isn't this the size that YOU said would never call here ? I know its unusual but you seem to be wrong ......[/p][/quote]She is not the longest Container ship afloat, her size is her width not her lenght. The Emma is still the longest ship afloat, but carrys less containers where she is not as wide. and can not call into Southampton as it would mean that they would need to tow her stren first to get her out of Southampton waters, and it would only take one bad cross wind to push her out of the channel and onto a bank. Every port has it limitations on width, lenght, and draft, this new ship is the max width that the containers cranes opperate and wider and the docks will need to get new cranes in.[/p][/quote]Southy You previously said, on many occasions, that big container ships could not enter Southampton Port. Now you say it is only the Emma Maersk and her sister ships that cannot call Southampton due to their length. So what is the difference in length between the Emma Maersk and the Marco Polo?[/p][/quote]With out getting the books downs a fair bit, I think its about 30 meters. These ships are built to fit certain ports, I was wondering what would be the max width Southampton port could take ans at which dock ( like down in eastern docks could take wider and longer ships, than they could at the container port ) and the more developement in containers ships size there is, the more it will be proven in what was said back in the late mid 60's was right, the container port was built in the wrong place to have a real long future.[/p][/quote]Southy, the Emma Maersk is a massive 2 metres longer than the CMA CGM Marco Polo. Are you telling us that this extra 2 metres would mean that its not possible for the Emma Maersk to theoretically access Southampton container terminal?[/p][/quote]2 inches could make the difference.[/p][/quote]Hi Southy, you are quite right, 2 inches could make all the difference. But you seem pretty certain that the Emma Maersk is too long. Do you know this for definite, or are you just guessing? With regards to width, I don't think there will be any issues once 201/2 are re-developed. Also, approvals just been given for the widening of the channel opposite Marchwood. I would say everything points to a rosy future for Southampton port, no indication of it becoming a 'feeder' port.[/p][/quote]Insurences companys said it was to long, they have a fix limit on all ports for all insurence cover. The EA have not said yes yet to the widing of the Channel at Marchwood, all they have said is that they will do an reseach into the effects on Marine life and land slipage, the tidal ground infront of the power station land can not be dredge as this is mark as Bass nursery feeding grounds and Clam bed breeding stock. it might come to a case that the corner of the Container port might need to be cut off to make the channel wider, and infront of the old reseach center at the power station there is a pipe that runs out to the dolphine marker. Its the EU that decides what will be Hub Ports and what will become feeder ports, Southampton is mark to be a furute Container Feeder Port, and a passenger Hub Port.[/p][/quote]Southy you muppet the report was completed before 2010 as you well know because it was pointed out to you when you were claiming that a land slip were part of a balcony collapsed (Echo Sunday 28th march 2010) was due to dredging in Southampton water. However at the time you were denying knowledge of it existence. Could you try and either keep your made up facts simple or perhaps not offer any rubbish at all. southy says... 1:36am Tue 30 Mar 10 stay local wrote: southy wrote: stay local wrote: southy wrote: stay local wrote: southy wrote: could this be the results of making southampton shipping channel to deep, the under laying ground bed is slipping down the hill to try and fill in the over deep man made channel, if it is then there's going to be more things like this happening Wow Southy your knowledge is boundless. Of course this is the reason and not maybe the change in the tilt of the Earth due to the recent earthquake in Haiti, Global warming, the dancing of the lardy butts to the latest disco tune, could it be the decay in the construction materials due to acid rain, or even pollution from Fawley. Surely if it is the “movement of the underlying ground bed, slipping down the hill to fill in the deep man made channel” why did this not affect any of the buildings nearer to Southampton water? i said could be stay local, underneath is a gravel bed when it rains it filters sub soil little bit at a time though the gravel bed if small patches of clay is that little bit more water log than the rest a bit more will filter though at that spot. normally if a gravel bed is untouch over the 1000's of years the gravel bed becomes a mix of subsoil and gravel. but if you cut a channel though the gravel bed the process starts up again, and with the type of winter we just had it will become more noticeble, this is the second land slip on the eastern shores of southampton water this year. This is fantastic Southy how did the land slip managed to only make the supporting wall fall down and not cause cracking across the whole block? How was it that the landslip only occurred in the area of Sombourne house and did not affect the other properties near by? Read this report before you comment! http://www.estuary-g uide.net/pdfs/southa mpton_water_case_stu dy.pdf To summarise the report, Southy you are a complete prat and make a fool of your self every time you post a comment! When someone points out the stupidity of your comments you then throw in another unlinked idea that you believes proves your point. “this is the second land slip on the eastern shores of Southampton water this year.” Your words not mine So tell us what when and where, it has happened in the last 12 weeks! Is it hidden in the echo office? Just be brave and name the place and date! you just made your self look a right prize idiot yet again, is your memory that bad it cant remember, do you suffer from alzheimer dementia or selective memory or some thing. try the other side of the hamble right at the bottom of the southampton water. and yes the echo did report it, it was even on this web site. its to easy to make you look the fool that you are, i think i let some else do it. Well done Southy I have managed to find the article (despite the specific request to give the date and more information), there is no indication that the dredging of the deep water channel in Southampton water is responsible, it was however suggested by one nut case……yes Southy you again, strangely you did not report that Thatcher was on the dredging barge. your words "southy, redbridge says... 12:23pm Fri 29 Jan 10 there might be more to this, it also could be what i was saying will happen if they dredge to deep in the approach channels to southampton docks, the valley sides slipping down to fill up the dredge channel, top layer's of the sea bed being washed away to fill in the dredge channel, so there is less support to keep up the cliff sides, then with all this wet and cold weather has compound the problem." the only nut case is you, just go's to show how short a memory you got. and like i said then there could be more to it, so you see its the second time its happen on the eastern shores of southampton water. what it is need now is to sink some bore holes and take samples, and see what is happening find out if the ground is holding or slipping or the subsoil filtering though the gravel bed. -------------------- --------- Here are some easy answers for you. if it goes wrong Thatcher did it. If it is an election the TUSC won it by not standing. the wobble of the earth did it. The internet is not true but a conspiracy by Thatcher. Books in the library are more up to date and accurate than the internet and must be true ( remember though that Southampton library does have a copy of Thatchers autobiography, and Geoffrey Archers books) otherwise just put a simple disclaimed on all your posts :- "irrelevant fantasist please treat as fiction" perhaps you could included that as your TUSC motto? stay local

9:59am Mon 10 Dec 12

The Wickham Man says...

MGRA wrote:
Just another reader wrote:
Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.
um, no thats not correct... most harbours in the world are natural harbours...
No that's not correct, or at least it's irrelevant. There are virtually no docks that require no dredging because even the seabeds of "perfect" natural harbours like Sydney Harbour slope up to the shore so you either build quaysides out to deep water at vast expense or you dredge. There are perhaps a dozen ports capable of taking large container ships in the UK and every single one requires repeated dredging. Rotterdam, the biggest in Europe probably needs more dredging than the all of them put together.
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Just another reader[/bold] wrote: Dredging is the reason most big ships can get into most major ports. No dredging, no big ships. It's as simple as that.[/p][/quote]um, no thats not correct... most harbours in the world are natural harbours...[/p][/quote]No that's not correct, or at least it's irrelevant. There are virtually no docks that require no dredging because even the seabeds of "perfect" natural harbours like Sydney Harbour slope up to the shore so you either build quaysides out to deep water at vast expense or you dredge. There are perhaps a dozen ports capable of taking large container ships in the UK and every single one requires repeated dredging. Rotterdam, the biggest in Europe probably needs more dredging than the all of them put together. The Wickham Man

10:05am Mon 10 Dec 12

andysaints007 says...

housewife wrote:
Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish.
.
The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes.
.
The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes.
.
So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.
I think you should do your research a bit better you uninformed plank
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Sorry Echo, but your story is UTTER Rubbish. . The Burmah Endeavour, that was moored in Southampton in the 1980's has a gross weight of 457,841 tonnes. . The Marco Polo is 187,625 tonnes. . So its nowhere NEAR the largest ship to come to Southampton.[/p][/quote]I think you should do your research a bit better you uninformed plank andysaints007

10:19am Mon 10 Dec 12

andysaints007 says...

housewife wrote:
Nice one Echo - change the story to make it match the comments - still POOR journalism.
Hence why I do not buy your rag or contribute to your wages.
yet you cant stop yourself coming on here though can you!! Stick to the washing up you boring boring woman - are you married to Southy by any chance ?
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Nice one Echo - change the story to make it match the comments - still POOR journalism. Hence why I do not buy your rag or contribute to your wages.[/p][/quote]yet you cant stop yourself coming on here though can you!! Stick to the washing up you boring boring woman - are you married to Southy by any chance ? andysaints007

10:23am Mon 10 Dec 12

andysaints007 says...

Google have just announced that 'largest container ship in the world' is the most googled subject this weekend on the internet!!
Mainly by a handful of moaning, whining, whinging, sad, lonely, boring muppets - you all know who you are!!!!! pmsl
Google have just announced that 'largest container ship in the world' is the most googled subject this weekend on the internet!! Mainly by a handful of moaning, whining, whinging, sad, lonely, boring muppets - you all know who you are!!!!! pmsl andysaints007

10:55am Mon 10 Dec 12

mrmunchkin01 says...

This website should settle a few arguments but notice the difference between Length, Width, Tonnage & Beam!


http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_wor
ld's_longest_ships
This website should settle a few arguments but notice the difference between Length, Width, Tonnage & Beam! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_wor ld's_longest_ships mrmunchkin01

12:43pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Cyber__Fug says...

....and as usual, Southy disappears when faced with the truth that he was wrong again.
....and as usual, Southy disappears when faced with the truth that he was wrong again. Cyber__Fug

1:37pm Mon 10 Dec 12

kingnotail says...

Good to see Southampton's favourite pastime (staring aimlessly at large, ugly ships) continues to be well catered for.
Good to see Southampton's favourite pastime (staring aimlessly at large, ugly ships) continues to be well catered for. kingnotail

5:29pm Mon 10 Dec 12

The Wickham Man says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
Sheeeesh, If you could read some of your posts!

You sound like a bunch of "Billy no mates" bedroom geeks that sit & try their best to debunk someones point of view if they can.

Open the front door & step outside morons!......There is a whole big wide would out there, go take a look or tap out for Christ's sake :D
The difference between you and some of the others on this thread is that when we step outside into the world we know what's in it and how it works. You are destined to be the victim of someone else's view if you don't have understanding of your own
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: Sheeeesh, If you could read some of your posts! You sound like a bunch of "Billy no mates" bedroom geeks that sit & try their best to debunk someones point of view if they can. Open the front door & step outside morons!......There is a whole big wide would out there, go take a look or tap out for Christ's sake :D[/p][/quote]The difference between you and some of the others on this thread is that when we step outside into the world we know what's in it and how it works. You are destined to be the victim of someone else's view if you don't have understanding of your own The Wickham Man

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree