Talk:MV ACX Crystal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

"ACX"

Is "ACX" the name of a shipping line? I notice there's an ACX Diamond (IMO number: 9360609) and ACX Pearl (IMO number: 9360623) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Container eXpress [1][2] also has ACX Lily (IMO number: 8914271) and ACX Cosmos (IMO number: 9104146)

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

I'm concerned that the location of the collision is given as "Shizuoka, Japan" when the Japan Times (presumably familiar with Japanese geography) reported, per footnote 8, "... U.S. Navy destroyer and cargo vessel collide off Kanagawa." I claim no expertise in all this; I just noticed the possible discrepancy. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 08:30,

It is 34°32′N 139°4′E / 34.533°N 139.067°E on the map in the BBC citation [9]. Does that help? - Bri (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnage

News media continue to draw comparisons between Crystal and Fitzgerald. The culprits include:

Brad Lendon of CNN;
The Guardian; and
BBC the BBC

Television reports make the same error.

If one wishes to compare displacement with tonnage, the proper comparison may be with deadweight tonnage. But it may be that a container ship such as Crystal rarely approaches its rated deadweight, and there likely will be no source identifying its deadweight at the time of the collision, at least until the investigations are complete. Kablammo (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded or full displacement is effectively the total mass of the vessel operationally, but cannot be compared to the merchant ship's deadweight - either actual or maximum (which is the figure in databases). Deadweight excludes the mass of the ship itself. Adding actual deadweight to "light displacement" would, I think, produce the right comparitor - but neither of these are as yet found in any online sources, including NKK class records. Davidships (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Davidships. You are right, of course. I must have had in mind difference between gross and net, and somehow conflated that here.

It seems that even our friends with the Navy makes the same error mentioned above: See 7 US sailors missing after catastrophic collision from the Navy Times, which states that Crystal "a ship that displaces nearly 40,000 tons".

Kablammo (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Times is private enterprise, not a publication of the U.S. Navy. Bri (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And their reporter is ex-USN. Kablammo (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]