Talk:Panamax

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Water problem 1 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology for Post-Panamax 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's much easier to build dams and locks to flood an area than it is to cut a massively deep channel between them. 86.1.116.158 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also the lakes behind the locks and dams tame the wild (in rainy season) Chagres River. Hydroelectric power generated by the water in the lakes also power the canal equipment.    Tabletop (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the canal have locks? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Panamax and Canal width 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comparison of sizes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photograph inaccuracy 

message: There appears to be a new, even bigger size called Chinamax    Tabletop (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinamax 

message: Is is possible to have a disambiguation page to differentiate this from the paracetamol/codeine analgesic popular in Australia (similar to "Co-codamol" etc.)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.148.174 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean to say: the is this medicine called "Panamax", AND that medicine has a page on Wikipedia, then yes. Will involve something like "Panamax (medicine)" probably. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The essential dimension of Panamax are different in different places [now]. e.g. "Length: 965 ft (294.13 m)" (text) vs "Length 1,050 ft (320.04 m)" (table). The same problem appears in New Pamamax (I added some figures from an ACP-source myself). I'll take a look into the sources. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, the different sizes are lock-sizes, not ship's max sizes. Separated. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting sizes 

message: The artical says that the USS North Carolina (BB-55) and USS Washington (BB-56), were the widest ships to transet the canal:
"The widest ships to transit are the two North Carolina class battleships, USS North Carolina (BB-55) and USS Washington (BB-56), which have beams of 108 ft (32.92 m).[5]"
The problem is, that while the North Carolina class was 108ft 4 inches wide, the Iowa class has a maximum beam of 109 ft wide - 1 foot wider than their water line beam of 108 ft, and 6 inches wider than the USS North Carolina (BB-55) and USS Washington (BB-56), making the ships of the Iowa class the widest ships to transit the canal.
Stats for North Carolina class BB's
Stats for the Iowa class BB's  
--Gregory JH (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you source and describe this well, I´d say go ahead and change. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The widest ships? 

message: This article would very much benefit from a map/chart/satellite photo.  Any offers?Arrivisto (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this? It's already in the Panama Canal article. cmɢʟee☎✉  20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map/chart/satellite photo 

message: Deos this section serve any purpose?  A comprehensive list would be many dozens of entries long.  I propose to delete it.  Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are designed to be within Panamax (sourced) they can be in the list. Otherwise, indeed, delete it or I want my Guppy II on it too (capacity: 2 pax, 1 crew). -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There were very few passenger vessels from the ocean liner era too large to transit Panama; I don't know offhand of any other than Queen Mary, Normandie, Queen Elizabeth, and France.  Some other liners approached but did not exceed Panamax— Michelangelo, Raffaello, and Canberra— whether by design or otherwise, I do not know.  But very few liners were of a size where Panamax parameters need to have been considered. Some large recent cruise ships have exceeded the Panamax form factor but I think a few classes (Spirit and Vista come to mind) were designed to fit within it. Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on deletion of the section -- except: when a cruise ship is designed to meet Panamax dimensions, it should be on the list (alike warships). It the list ends p empty - themn delete. The rest was a joke (though my Guppy II would qualify for the current list ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They look pretty fierce to me.  My ancient (and long-abandoned) windsurfer would be no contest.  Kablammo (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are invited to her re-baptise into Guppy III. Can your wife throw a bottle? -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: She would prefer to drink the bubbly rather than spill it.  Is it official if the bottle is empty?  Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. How would she like it? Second: we can't have a picture of your wife with an empty bottle, in the press. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Section deletion ok with me. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the section is recreated, it should be cited, and contributors may want to consider using text rather than a list.  It also need not be limited to cruise ships; United States and QE2 were designed to fit through the locks.  Kablammo (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Panamax cruise ships" section 

message: Yamato-class battleship the first post-Panamax ships?  I offer two earlier candidates: Bismarck on the military side and RMS Queen Mary on the civilian. QM was laid down 1 Dec 1930, launched 26 Sep 1934 and made her maiden voyage 26 May 1936. At 1029' LOA (965' LBP) X 118' beam, she handily exceeds Panamax in both dimensions.  Bismarck, 823'(overall) X 118', was laid down 1 July 1936, commisioned 24 Aug 1940.  By comparison, the first Yamato-class (the Yamato herself), 862' (overall) X 128', was laid down 4 Nov 1937 and commissioned 16 Dec 1941, over a year behind Bismarck and a good 5 years behind QM. 
Kev6415 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First post-Panamax ships 

message: ...raise the clearance of the Bayonne Bridge to 215 feet (66 m), at a cost of $1 billion.
A newer cost estimate of $1.29 billion has just come out in <I>Roads and Bridges</I> magazine.<BR>
http://www.roadsbridges.com/raising-bridge-new-york-style?eid=216700533&bid=975209<BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayonne Bridge Cost Update 

message: AS I read this I believe the United States Navy's CVNs - Nuclear Power Aircraft Carriers could fit / transit now. Does anyone disagree? have any CVNs already transiter the the Panama Canal ? Wfoj3 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 - Largest Ships 

message: Throughout this article measurements are stated in metric followed by imperial in parenthesis, and also imperial followed by metric in parenthesis. To be consistent I think it should be all one or the other.
StuZealand (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, . You can pick whichever seems appropriate - probably metric, as this is what is used in the infobox? - and then change the others using the "flip" parameter (order=flip) in the Convert templates. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I don't presently have the time to go through the whole article and edit all the units of measure into metric followed by (imperial). Also don't want to make typos while moving all that text around. StuZealand (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of measurement