The MARINA “Magic Meter”

The MARINA “Magic Meter” is not something that can be found in a dictionary or a reference book. This is just a term by some ship spotters to describe the syndromes where:

  1. Ships from Japan will be modified and structures or scantlings are added and yet the Gross Tonnage (GT) which is a measure of the volume of the ship will stay the same/unchanged or like Ripley’s “Believe It Or Not” the GT will even go down! Or less worse, the GT will remain the same. And much less worse, the GT will marginally increase.

  2. Another variation is some of the ships (passenger and cargo) will have unmodified superstructures and yet again the GT will go down too.

  3. Still another variation is the length and/or the breadth of the ship will go down and along with it the GT (and Net Tonnage) of the ship will go down. This is the Philippine version of “shrinking” a ship without it being brought to a kiln drier.

The MARINA “Magic Meter” is of course not available for free. Like many “accommodations” in government, some kind of “transaction” has to take place. Otherwise, it would not happen. For a company to benefit, of course, the regulating agency personnel has to benefit too. With less GT, benefits can accrue like less docking cost, less towing cost (use of tugs), less insurance cost maybe and some other cost-saving benefits. Ask any nautical designer and they will tell you that.

Some companies are very good in the employment of this “tool”. Some else are not that very fond of this. However, one deleterious effect of these shavings is we have so few entries in the first edition of the book, “The Great Passenger Ships of the World” by Frank Heine and Frank Lose which was published in 2010 in Germany. Since they relied on the official GT, and the cut-off is 10,000gt, many of our otherwise-qualified ships were not included. Actually, no ship of Negros Navigation Company was included in that while Aboitiz Shipping Corp., Sulpicio Lines and even Carlos A. Gothong Lines Inc. have liners included in that book. The Philippine Ships Spotters Society (PSSS) knows because it was the contributor of the Philippine ship photos in that book and in fact because of that contribution PSSS has a complimentary copy of that book.

ray-smith

I have been asked before which among the liner companies was the most notorious for shrinking the GT. I have been coy before but the actual answer is Negros Navigation Company. Well, figures don’t lie and I am just stating the truth. Their St. Peter The Apostle, St. Joseph The Worker, San Paolo, Mary The Queen, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ezekiel Moreno, San Lorenzo Ruiz, Princess of Negros, Sta. Florentina and Sta. Maria all had lower GTs here compared to when they were in Japan. And we all know all of them had added structures. If we go by official figures, it would be the Sta. Ana that will be their biggest ship outside of St. Michael The Archangel because it is one of the very few ships of Negros Navigation which showed increased GT after modification here. And nobody in his right mind would claim Sta. Ana was the second-biggest ship ever of Negros Navigation Company.

If comparisons of liners’ GTs between different shipping companies are made the more this will be a stuff of laughing sessions. Like the sister ships SuperFerry 2 and SuperFerry 5 made it to the book of Frank Heine and Frank Lose but the sister ships St. Peter The Apostle and St. Joseph The Worker both did not because the NENACO ships are just a little over half the size of the two Aboitiz Transport System (ATS) liners, officially (guffaw!). And the smallest original Aboitiz liner, the SuperFerry 3 is significantly bigger than the Mary, Queen of Peace, also officially. Can anybody believe that? I can make other comparisons but NENACO might cringe and sue me (they shouldn’t, they are the biggest liner company now).

Maybe many will guess that the much-maligned Sulpicio Lines is also a big violator in GT shavings, too. Well, not that much really. Only the Philippine Princess, Surigao Princess and Cagayan Princess showed declines in GT while structures were added while Princess of the Pacific, Manila Princess and Boholana Princess GTs remained the same when the three all had additional structures. Meanwhile, the old Aboitiz Shipping Corporation played it straight – all the GTs of their modified ships rose, as should be. Later, as WG&A and ATS, all the GT of their acquired ships from abroad increased too when structures were added. That also goes true for their subsidiary Cebu Ferries Corporation.

4628988751_ebc3287472_z

For William Lines, the GTs of Dona Virginia, Manila City, Ozamis City, Tacloban City and the first Zamboanga City all declined. For Sweet Lines, they played generally straight although the GT increases were minimal. If the GT declined, it was the work of the previous local owner before they acquired it. The old Carlos A. Gothong Lines Inc. (CAGLI) was also good in the shaving game. Among their ships that showed GT declines while structures were added were the Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of the Rule, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Ozamis Bay 1 and Butuan Bay 1.

Among the major Cebu regional shipping companies, Trans-Asia Shipping Lines Inc. (TASLI) and Cokaliong Shipping Lines Inc. (CSLI) also played it straight generally. If scantlings were added then the GTs rose, as it should. The others, well, it seemed on some of their ships they tried to make savings through shavings (pun intended) and that included the defunct Viva Shipping Lines of Batangas. Starlite Ferries and Montenegro Shipping Lines Inc. (MSLI) were, however, generally honest.

One effect of these shavings is some ferries that should be over 1,000 gross tons have less than 1,000 gross tons officially. That means they are not in the list of Shippax International, a European database and publisher when they should be. In Bicol, however, there are ships which should be less than 1,000 gross tons that are over 1,000 gross tons. Before there was a rule that ferries over 1,000 gross tons can sail in Typhoon Signal Number 1. And so they bloated the GTs of their ships!

8437968813_cb35e414f5_z

This shaving of GT is not much of a phenomenon in the smaller ships including the basic, short-distance ferry-ROROs. If there was a shaving it generally happened this way – there were added structures but the GT simply did not move. And adding some structures are generally done in these ships to add some passenger space. That was the style of shaving there. Anyway, one problem maybe is there might not be people in MARINA who can compute GTs and NTs. They have more lawyers than marine engineers and what they know to compute are legal fees and dues on the ships and shipping companies. Yes, they studied fuzzy math in college.

In cargo ships, the shavings are less common. They usually don’t add structures unlike in the ferries and they just declare the Japan GTs (not in Aleson Shipping though whose local GTs of cargo/container ships are generally higher than its Japan GTs). However, some cargo ships add some extensions in the stern for the crew’s benefit. Usually this is not reflected in GT increase. Tankers and tugs follow the pattern of the cargo ships. These don’t add scantlings and decks and they just declare the Japan GT.

It is in the liner sector where shavings are the greatest. There are some liners that the true GTs are really so far off the actual GTs. However, most of that is rectified now since most of the liners came from Aboitiz Transport System. That shipping company was generally honest in GTs and the GTs were retained under 2GO.

Meanwhile, in recent years, LCTs are coming from China that have high GTs. The liners that came here that went to China first have high GTs too compared to their Japan GTs. Well, who knows if it is the correct one? Like I believe the assertion of a PSSS Moderator-mariner who said the 7,878gt of the 157-meter long, 4-deck SuperFerry 19 is too low.

When will be the time all our ships will have accurate and reliable GTs? The answer is I don’t know.

vinz

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s