Talk:Pamir (ship)

message: I've unintentionally reverted an edit about the Queensbury survey (no idea why I didn't get a message that someone had worked at the article in the meantime):
:Subsequently the UK maritime authorities did a very detailed survey of the Motor Vessel Queensbury, before it docked in Liverpool. The "Queensbury had also loaded grain in Buenos Aires and used the same method of loading as the Pamir. She sailed from Monte Video only twelve hours before the Pamir and went through the same storm that sunk the Pamir. The Queensbury had no movement of her cargo and the officers of the Queensbury were convinced that open or broken hatch covers were the most likely cause of this terrible accident.
I'm hesitant to put it back in, though. I've never heard of this survey before, and I don't buy the argument without further information:
* Motor vessels should not list along a passage (only in severe storm); they also move differently with the regular swell.
* Pamir's bulkhead "along the ship's length" was suspected to "leak" (because this was discovered to happen on board the Passat). Motor vessels usually don't have such a bulkhead because excessive listing is not expected in the first place; the consequences of both the bulkhead and the "leaking" would not be experienced on board the Queensbury.
* What does "same method of loading" mean? Loose grain with some sacks? How many and where? Did they fill the compartments the same way the Pamir did (not filling all of them up to the hatches)?It is suspected that the grain was not stowed sufficiently into the corners of the cargo hold of the Pamir - does that also apply to the Queensbury method? How much did the Queensbury cargo settle down over the course of the voyage? Is that known?
* It is not clear where Queensbury was at the time of the loss of the Pamir: The Pamir took the trade wind route for the sailing vessels which took her close to the route of the hurricane. Queensbury is likely to have traveled further east, which would have spared her the proximity of the hurricane.Which side of the hurricane was she on? (There's evidence suggesting that the navigable quarter of Carrie had actually higher wind velocities than the others.)Apart from that, it's unlikely that both ships traveled at the same speed. Generally, Queensbury seems to have been nowhere close to Pamir at the time of her loss, otherwise they would have had radio contact (which to my knowledge they didn't); and Pamir's radio message was received by vessels up to some 600 nm away if I remember correctly (sorry, I can't look it up at the moment).
* But most of all, what exactly does it tell us if the officers of the Queensbury were convinced of anything?
* How about the UK maritime authorities? What did they find?
* Why does at least some of the commons literature on the Pamir not mention this survey? (I can't tell about all, of course, but I haven't seen it anywhere yet.)
Again, I don't rule out that this information is very interesting and relevant, but I'd ask for more information and/or (preferably) a valid source before putting it back in. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queensbury 

message: What I had originally wanted to ask: Who knows the source of this dubious newspaper article from New Zealand? It was added by an IP, so I can't follow-up on that. I don't like citing it without even knowing where it's from. It could be from the equivalence of the Sun for all we know. Which might go some way in explaining its quality... Apart from that, I doubt its relevancy given that it's getting it all wrong anyways. --Ibn Battuta 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand newspaper article 

message: This shows up on Google maps in the Pacific at 24.487149,-146.777344.  It looks like the coord templates in the article are correct.  Does anyone know what is causing this?   Randall Bart    Talk   19:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Coord problem

message: Is quite unusual in first quoting a report known to be false, at length, and then going through most of its statements to refute them one by one. I think it would be better to rewrite this in such a way that we do not reiterate misleading information before correcting it. -- Theoprakt (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'false coverage' paragraph... 

message: clearly, along with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_(barque)
pamir was one of the last working sail vessels
some discussion here
https://www.shippingwondersoftheworld.com/last_days-sail.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:D00:3CA0:1992:A295:68DF:1781 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs something on last sailing vessels