Talk:Panamax

Categories

Ships are arranged in several informal categories as to draft, as are ports (according to the largest category of ship they can handle). From least to greatest :

• Handy Size, aka "Handymax" (10-60,000 tons)
• Panamax (60-80,000 tons)
• Aframax (80-120,000 tons) (aka Cape Size)
• Suezmax (120-200,000 tons)

Ore/oil ports, handling

• VLCC (200-320,000 tons)
• ULCC (320,000 tons and more)

LCC stands for Large Crude Carrier

IIRC, even the largest war vessels are at most "Suezmax." Some of the world's most important ports are also less deep, and handle less tonnage, than their ore/oil equivalents. — Anonymous

Please sign your posts! — Johantheghost 10:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• handymax: a dry bulk vessel with deadweight between 35,000 to 50,000 tons [1]

• Aframax tankers are usually between 80,000 and 120,000 deadweight tons [2]

— Johantheghost 10:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Water problem 1

The Panama canal cannot be enlarge because of a shortage of water.... would it matter if the freshwater in the canal were replenished with saltwater available in large quantities in the nearby oceans? -- Tabletop 11:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pumping salt water, with the associated species of fish, clams, weeds, invertebrates, etc., would constitute a massive environmental impact on the lake, and could potentially destroy what is currently a healthy tropical ecosystem. As you will see in the Panama Canal article, water recycling schemes have been proposed; these would involve pumping fresh water that is being drained from the locks back up, and would hence have a very minimal impact. -- Johantheghost 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The recycling scheme requires a holding tank of size equal to the lock itself.

Tabletop 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That would work, but I don't think it's required — since the water draining from the locks is fresh, it can be pumped into the lake... ? Johantheghost 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A tank at the same level of the lock would require less energy for pumping, than pumping the freshwater back up to the lake. There is also the point that it is desirable that the pumping be done very quickly, and the pipes necessarily have to be of a very great diameter. A tank beside the lock could have lots of big short pipes, while the pipes back up to the lake would necessarily be much longer, and the number of pipes might be fewer for lack of space.

Tabletop 11:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Terminology for Post-Panamax

Now that the expansion of the canal has been approved the term post-panamax needed to be split in two:

• one term for ships too big for the original canal, but small enough for the enlarged canal.
• another term for ships too big even for the enlarged canal.

Suggestions?

Tabletop 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the canal have locks?

Seeing as the oceans on either side are at the same height, I'm not sure why there would be locks, and I don't think the article answers this. Would this then mean that they decided to build two equal sets of locks in height at each end so that the mid section of the canal would either be above or below sea level so that they wouldn't have to do massive excavation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.131.183 (talk • contribs)

The inland lake is above sea level. --Voidvector 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Panamax and Canal width

The canal itself has a width of 110ft

Panamax max width is 106ft

edit: just seen that this error is only in the comparison table

83.236.170.29

May be comparison table should modified to compare old and new as well as lock and ship dimensions. I propose this modification:

Comparison of sizes

Class	Old Locks	Panamax Ship	New Locks	New Panamax Ship
Length	1050 ft (320.04 m)	965 ft (294.13 m)	1400 ft (426.72 m)	1200 ft (365.76 m)
Width	110 ft (33.53 m)	106 ft (32.31 m)	180 ft (54.86 m)	160 ft (48.8 m)
Depth/Draft	41 ft (12.50 m)	39.5 ft (12.04 m)	60 ft (18.29 m)	50 ft (15.24 m)
TEU		5,000		13,000

77.93.195.195 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Photograph inaccuracy

Before I edit this, I just wanted to drop in here for record keeping. The last photo on the right shows a car-carrier and is captioned "Panamax ship transiting the Panama canal. Note the hull's unique construction designed to allow passage." The hull shape on this ship is not the result of needing to fit the canal, but rather necessitated by the large volume of storage needed. This particular type of ship carries automobiles and as a result storage is at a premium on the ship. I am looking for official sourcing, but my main information comes from 8 years as a ships officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.129.204 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Different words!

Tabletop (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)