Good one Bob LOL..Pieter that's definitely where some of those office blocks belong :)

Lyndon, I did once post a cruise ship under cattle carrier, and in no time the category had been changed...

Well said Bob

Lyndon: you could call it a bulk people carrier!

Then I hope when I put a cruise ship as a cattle carrier nobody says anything lolol

Bob, sorry, but you referred to a definition and previous discussions. As an enthusiast myself I see in this picture a perfect shot of a self unloading bulkcarrier. Therefore I was surprised that this ship was categorised as a general cargo ship also on this enthusiast site. If I had posted it I would have, and without even thinking, categorised it as bulk carrier.

I don't see the point of getting so technically pedantic on this ship ENTHUSIASTS' site. If the info sources that most members use say that a ship is a general cargo ship, then just let it be so. The alternative is chaos.

“A bulk carrier is any ship designed, constructed and/or used for the carriage of solid bulk cargo.”

As taken from one of three definitions from appendix one of MSC/75/2, related to a Japanese study on bulkcarrier safety. This definition is much broader than the SOLAS one from 1999, which also talks about side and top tanks.

“Bulk Carrier means a ship which is constructed generally with single deck, topside tanks and hopper side tanks in cargo spaces, and it intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk, and includes such types as ore carriers and combination carriers"

The study concludes that the first definition is the easiest one to work with, and I fully agree.

Bob, this vessel serves as a pertinent proof that the IACS definition is not all logical...

The vessel will be classed as a general cargo ship if the hull construction does not comply with the IACS definition of a bulk carrier: ie with single-skinned sides and topside tanks. This subject has been discussed repeatedly on the site with reference to open-hatchers, which have double-skinned hulls and no topside tanks. It has long been the policy on the site that these ships are categorised as single-decked general cargo ships, as they are in the registers.
BTW: this vessel was originally built as a tanker and was rebuilt with a new forepart and cargo section in 2008.

Tony, sorry for being too blunt, I also found that Miramar calls her a cargo ship, but I was simply asking why that would be. As Seaweasel just pointed out, in my opinion she is a self-unloading bulkcarrier.

Good morning, this vessel is described as a self-unloading bulk carrier by her company CSL Australia. She was rebuilt receiving a new bow section in 2008, perhaps her specification sheet can provide more clarity, please see here :

https://www.cslships.com/sites/default/files/acacia_spec_sheet_australia_2018.pdf

Cheers to all, Hans

Pieter, I was simply quoting the facts. You obviously are more informed. Cheers.

Tony, yes, but I would love to see "general cargo" being (un)loaded in this ship...would there be a crew of stevedores inside the ship putting stuff on the conveyor belt, just like loading luggage in a plane?

Pieter, checked with Marine Traffic they classify her as general cargo as does the technical data on this page. Other posts also list as general cargo. Not sure that this helps!

Clyde, great shot, but why is this ship categorised as a general cargo carrier? To me it is a self-unloading bulk carrier. "General cargo" discharge with a conveyor belt system seems a bit strange.

Clyde, great shot of this ship underway. Cheers