A new reader recently asked why “ships” he saw on the sixth boro showed up on AIS as tugs. An excellent question, and not the first time I’ve heard it. . . . Read the first sentence of the wikipedia definition of “ship.” By that definition, how many ships do you see here? (Doubleclick enlarges most.)
Answer is only one, the orange one. The nearer vessel is a barge. The major difference is that a barge lacks its own means of propulsion: no engine, props, or sails. Barges get moved by a tugboat that may tow, push, or strap-on alongside aka on the wire, in push gear, or on the hip, respectively.
And here?
Answer is . . . one, Maersk Elizabeth.
And here?
Answer is . . . none. Some “tugboats” lack the equipment to tow; they have no winch. Instead, tugs like Laurie Ann Reinauer connect by the bow into a notch designed in the after portion of the barge. Massive pins then lock into structures on the barge inside the notch.
Here?
One ship, Princimar Strength, also shown below with two barges and two tugs alongside.
Here, no ships, just barge RTC 150 pushed by Meredith C. Reinauer.
A large tug . . . Atlantic Salvor and a ship.
Two tugs receding and barge RTC 83 approaching pushed by an unseen Lucy Reinauer.
And finally . . . no ships here, just two barges (Energy 13502 and Charleston) with a tug Eagle Service in between.
All fotos by Will Van Dorp, who could use a bit of help with complexity.
tugster: a waterblog 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 2, 2011 at 9:55 am
Buck
A most excellent lesson!
March 2, 2011 at 10:01 am
tugster
the English language is part of the problem, though. Goods are shipped by …ship … as well as by barge. And then you can also have goods “shipped” by air, by truck . . . Imagine this request at the post office: “Could you air this express?” Adding insult to injury, do shippers benefit from as many subsidies are truckers, trainers, and airers . . . to invent some more confusing terms.
March 4, 2011 at 7:06 am
bowsprite
A US Postal Service clerk informed me that ever since 9/11, mail packages are no longer carried by ship. It is all flown.
Insult and injury: we are gushing through oil like there’s no tomorrow.
March 2, 2011 at 10:10 am
Mage Bailey
Great fun. Thanks for the education. You had me counting tugs as ships there for a moment. Love the gigs, but they look a lot like lifeguard dorry’s here. I did post a long shot for you yesterday: two tugs, one cruise ship, and several small USN worker bees. 🙂
March 2, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Les Sonnenmark
Per the Code of Federal Regulations, 46CFR 44.05-10(c), “A self-propelled barge is a vessel mechanically propelled of the type specially designed for use in limited coastwise and Great Lakes service and capable of transiting interconnecting canals.”
So might we redefine a Piper Cub as a self-propelled kite?
March 2, 2011 at 2:07 pm
tugster
i knew we could inject complexity into this. thanks, les.
March 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm
the "beavis and butthead" voices in my head...
heh. he said strap-on. heh heh heh.
March 2, 2011 at 9:17 pm
eastriver
HA! You’re all out — completely dished! The correct answer is “No ships in these photos.”
A “ship” is a sailing vessel of three or more masts, being fully square-rigged on each mast.
A “steam ship” is a vessel which is propelled by heating water to steam, and using the steam to move pistons.” Very few of these around anymore, and the biggest collection of them is… wait for it… the nuclear Navy.
A “motor vessel” is a vessel propelled by pistons moved by internal combustion. Avid AIS watchers may see so-called “ships” labeled as “MV TRITON” or some such.
Simple, no?
That Wikipedia article is the lamest thing I’ve ever read.
March 2, 2011 at 11:32 pm
tugster
so i’ll concede your point well taken, rob, from a purist’s POV . . . so here’s a new question, rob or anyone . . . how (or maybe when is more a propos) did “ship” come to denote “large motor vessel” as distinguished from large (capacious) unpowered vessel . . .. ie, when did the ship v. barge distinction happen?
March 3, 2011 at 8:28 am
eastriver
Not being home, and no O.E.D. or other reference to hand, I’ll take a flyer.
I think it comes from Britain. The largest of the boats carried on Royal Navy ships was the barge (also carried were gigs, cutters, etc.). Those auxiliaries could either row or sail.
At some point, vessels called “sailing barges” were used on the inland waterways of Britain to carry cargo (the famous Thames barges, used to be one around CT somewhere.) The Dutch used similar vessels inland for cargo, but don’t know what they were called.
I’d bet the nonmotorized cargo carrier “barge” derives from that trend.
The “ship” common usage today is simply a truncation of “steam ship”, e.g. S.S. United States. At least the 6th boro has her own (real) ship.
Complexity! Oops, I see I forgot to mention turbines earlier, sorry…
March 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm
tugster
OED . . . now why didn’t i think of that. and hooray to the sixth boro for having its very own ship!
March 4, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Julian
Tugster,
The “purists definition” comes from the age of sail, and while Her Majesty’s Royal Navy is by all rights a good source, I say that it’s a minimal, rather than maximal, definition.
The United States Navy isn’t too bad a source, and most of her vessels are “ships”. Unless you’re a man of the Silent Service, in which case you travel by “boat”. All submarines in the USN are “boats”.
You might also look at relative sizes to judge “shippyness” (or is it “shippiness”?); a vessel that is routinely carried by another is a “boat” and her carrier is a “ship”.
A capital vessel like an Improved Nimitz carrier seems very “ship like”, but it’s common currency among crew to refer to “the boat”, and no disparagement is meant by that. Indeed, I believe that “boat” is a term of endearment.
If you did have to draw a line, I might ask–to what end? Usually such distinctions owe more to honoring tradition or indulging arbitrary notions. Nonetheless, it might be useful to someone out there to divide the world of Things That Float into vessels that are natively powered by rig or engine and those that are not.
You can look this one up, because I’m not sure: you have a picture of an ATB in this post. I’ve heard in the past that ATBs were engineered workarounds of CFR manning requirements. Without the ATB, the story went, you’d need X+Y crew for certain times, with the ATB, you’d only need X. Or is it X-Y? So certainly shiply definitions have something to do with legal constraint. To paraphrase Kornhauser and Mnookin, “All shiplyness falls under the shadow of the law”. Anyway–check that one out.
Love Les’ comment. Whatever a Piper Cub is legally, it’s still one of the greatest aircraft ever built, and the proof of the pudding is that people have been trying to beat it ever since it took off…
March 5, 2011 at 12:10 am
JED
While manning may indeed be part of the issue in terms of crew number, it is also an issue in crew qualification. An ATB is a tugboat, in a some cases a BIG friggn’ tugboat, but tugboat nonetheless. Tugboats require Tug Captains NOT Ship Captains. Ship Captains cost LOTS more than Tug Captains.
QED