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)

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)

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)

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)

• The US Navy's largest battleships, like the Iowa class, were 108 feet and some inches wide, but used to routinely transit the canal, with less than a foot of clearance on either side. So I question this assertion that panamax == 106 feet. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (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)

Chinamax

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

Disambiguation

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)

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)

Contradicting sizes

 Done
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)

Clearly, the different sizes are lock-sizes, not ship's max sizes. Separated. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The widest ships?

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)

Since you source and describe this well, I´d say go ahead and change. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Map/chart/satellite photo

File:Panama Canal Rough Diagram.png

A schematic of the Panama Canal, illustrating the sequence of locks and passages.

This article would very much benefit from a map/chart/satellite photo. Any offers?Arrivisto (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like this? It's already in the Panama Canal article. cmɢʟee☎✉ 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Panamax cruise ships" section

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)

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)

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)

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)

They look pretty fierce to me. My ancient (and long-abandoned) windsurfer would be no contest. Kablammo (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to her re-baptise into Guppy III. Can your wife throw a bottle? -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Section deletion ok with me. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

First post-Panamax ships

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)

Bayonne Bridge Cost Update

 ...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 Roads and Bridges magazine.
http://www.roadsbridges.com/raising-bridge-new-york-style?eid=216700533&bid=975209
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

2019 - Largest Ships

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)

Units of measurement

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)

Agree, StuZealand. 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)

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)