Identifying and
distinguishing ships
in databases,
indexes, and other records
Jeremy Lowe,
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~j_lowe/Maritime2.htm
(revised 26 April 2004)
A wide range of records about ships are in use in
libraries, archives and private collections. Increasingly, the indexes and
catalogues and even text references are being computerised. Examples abound.
Most work is being carried out with limited regard to
linking to other records, sometimes even within the same organisation. The
value of doing so is recognised in principle but can seem like too much of a
burden to consider during an under-resourced project with pressing goals of a
backlog in indexing or cataloguing. A likely consequence is that we wind up
doing more efficiently what we have always been doing, but not as efficiently
as we might, and thereby limit the effectiveness and quality of current and
upcoming research and impose avoidable costs on taking advantage of the
opportunities that presently available technology and methods provide. The
electronic searching power of widely, and cheaply, available software is
extraordinary compared with even a few years ago – even that which the ordinary
beginner can have in their living room - and further advances may be
anticipated. However, the technology can only find what records are there to be
found, in the form that they are in. The organisation of the information is
running far behind what the technology can handle. Some quite specific issues
and steps are involved in computerising information so that the technology can
link information from multifarious sources, effectively, or even at all.
What we do about this in the next five years will have
a significant bearing on what research is done in the next ten to fifteen years
and even on whether some is ever done, as a generation of maritime researchers
runs its allotted course of productive energy.
An excellent example of what modern technology can
already offer, is provided by the photograph search facility on the National
Library of Australia site covering all subjects, not just ships. One search on
this site tells you the relevant items in the linked catalogues of some sixteen
contributing libraries. Your selection from the items offered takes you
straight into the images at the contributing library in a way you could never
do as efficiently searching the individual library systems on-line, let alone
in the traditional way by letter, telephone or personal visit - if you even
know of all the libraries to start with. This is modern technology and the
internet at its best but it can only deal with what is there for the technology
to deal with. Search this site on “Cutty Sark” and you get many images of the
well-known clipper ship to choose from. You also get the flying boat of the
same name. There is no direct link to maritime databases with further
information about the original Cutty Sark
or the information that there were several smaller ships that also carried the
same name and that they are not in the collection, let alone the means
to pose such questions as to how many other ships there were of similar type
and then come back to ask which of those are in the image collection. Such
links may eventually follow but they can only link to what is there to be found
in whatever way it is compiled. We are potentially wasting opportunities if we
don’t look at everything that we do in the light of facilitating such links in
the near future and actively argue the desirability of them.
Obviously, it is unrealistic to suggest that anyone
adopt specific practices for the future linking of records according to
protocols that may never be widely adopted but there are simple practices that
can be adopted in recording data in ways that have immediate benefit in using
one’s own records and which one can confidently deduce to be of strategic value
in linking to records in other collections and major databases, currently, and
even more so in the foreseeable future.
There are two distinct, though overlapping elements;
firstly, general referencing in text-type documents and records that, while
computerised, are more in the nature of retrieval systems than databases in the
full sense; and secondly, relational
databases, and data in formats suitably structured for linking through
relational database software. In the latter case in particular, there is a
compelling case for the development of a commonly-accepted system of unique
identifiers performing the role played by Lloyd’s/ IMO numbers for ships built
in the last half century or so, along the lines of the Global Ship Numbering
project that has been trialled under the leadership of Ian Buxton at the Newcastle
University’s School of Marine Science and Technology.
However, even if a complete system of unique ship
identifiers for all historical applications, was promulgated today with the
endorsement of all the world’s leading maritime research organisations and
library and archival professional associations it would take a long time to
resolve issues of maintenance and funding of centralised records, and for
individual ship numbers to be allocated and added to existing records. There is
a compelling case for continuing to make and promote the most effective use of
such unique ship identification information as already exists in many records
that will continue to be widely used, and which, in their written forms, are
unlikely to ever have any new system of identifiers added. This conclusion
points towards making the maximum use of the imperial and national ship
identification systems operated for more than a century by a number of maritime
nations that are already built into many existing records. These systems cannot
meet ship identification needs for ships to which they were never applied but
they provide critical identifying information for a major portion of world
shipping over a period of almost a century and a half, and can meet all or most
of the needs of many national and regional studies. Historical record systems
that don’t exploit them are handicapping themselves and limiting their options
for extension.
The systems of ship official numbers (notably those
adopted for merchant ships by the British Empire in 1855 and the United States
in 1867) cannot meet the full requirements of a global ship numbering system
because not all nations adopted such numbering systems and, obviously, they
cannot cover ships that were destroyed before the numbering systems were
adopted or warships to which they were never applied. However, a very high
percentage of ships owned in these two leading maritime nations and in their
colonies and former colonies did have such a number allocated to them, and
these represent a substantial proportion of all ships in the world (above a
basic minimum size and disregarding strictly indigenous craft) during a lengthy
period. The glass is indeed half empty, but it is also half full and that fact
can be exploited to immediate and long-term benefit.
Ships’ official numbers are embedded in many existing
written and computerised records relevant to maritime history.
In the case of NZ maritime history records and
resources, official numbers are included in British and American shipping
registers, in Watt’s index of NZ ships up to 1950, in Ingram’s well-known
reference on NZ shipwrecks and in some Archives NZ indexes and in Lloyd’s Register from 1872. The main
lack of official numbers in NZ shipping records is in the “Comber Index” of
immigrant ship arrivals, the many and varied records of ship arrivals and
departures at individual ports, tabulations of ship passenger lists, and of
course library and archive catalogues of books and photographs and in book
indexes – even book indexes are starting to go on-line (see http://www.shipindex.org/ for 85,000
mentions). I’m sure that there are essentially similar situations in other
countries.
Using all of these sources in conjunction and more
particularly combining the latter sources with those first mentioned would
benefit greatly from increased use of official numbers in referencing, whether
or not overseas databases are invoked. The quality of all maritime research
will also benefit from more effective record linking in another way as the
systematic electronic matching of records will undoubtedly expose a fair number
of the anomalies and inconsistencies in secondary and even primary sources that
exist in every country in every time, enabling them to be addressed and
corrected rather than perpetuated in ignorance.
One can, of course, always “go away and look it up”
which is fine for those for whom the search itself is half the fun but that
means a continuing drag on productivity that limits what an individual can
research in a day that translates into hard cash if you are paying for travel,
accommodation or merely parking, and, of course, the limitations on what you
can do in a day accumulate to a limitation on what you can do in a lifetime.
There is also a price to be paid in terms of accuracy as the skills involved in
looking up and fully interpreting such information take time and experience to
develop. The greatest personal beneficiaries of all from improved productivity
in linking records may well be the librarians and archivists themselves,
generally trained as librarians or archivists rather than historians,
under-resourced and under pressure to reply to requests for information and
assistance. The users of course, can only benefit from enhancing the
productivity and efficiency of the libraries and archives.
Official numbers also feature prominently over many
years as identifiers in the shipping casualty lists included in the volumes of
the Mercantile Navy List (which
covers the
While I do believe that it is necessary to develop
some comprehensive global numbering system to cover historical ship information
I firmly believe that it is also necessary to use other key identifiers both in
a supporting role and independently and therefore that any effort put into
incorporating ship’s official numbers into one’s own personal or institutional
maritime records will not be wasted. The central records of any global ship
numbering system that may be established some day (or any regional sub-systems)
will benefit from official numbers as a critical piece of differentiating
information so the utility of official numbers will not decrease. Logically,
any linking software should make it as easy and as quick to go from an official
number to the global ship number as vice versa. Moreover, the practice of
recording official numbers has immediate practical benefits to the professional
or other serious researcher for linking one’s own records and reducing the need
to double-check preliminary interpretations – several of my own sets of records
are designed to be linked by ship’s official number and nothing less would do
the job as effectively despite their limitations.
I urge all researchers, librarians and archivists
documenting any shipping records to include official numbers if they are in the
specific record with which they are working, and otherwise to add them from
other sources whenever possible. Even if you do so immediately only for those
records where you can obtain the official number quickly and easily, there will
be an immediate payoff and the eventual task of adding the remainder will be
that much easier.
There are achievable practical steps that can be
undertaken co-operatively to make it much easier for the individual researcher
or organisation to incorporate official numbers (and other ship identifiers)
into their databases.
The task of incorporating official numbers as an
identifier into records in a standard format could be facilitated greatly by
the co-operative development of common resources by local networks of
institutions, professionals and individuals for the purpose. The principle
applies to all uses and users but could be especially beneficial to those
currently cataloguing ship photographs without much particular knowledge of
shipping or ready access to shipping records beyond Lloyd’s Register. Helping them will benefit maritime researchers
through the improved access to the photographs as there are many aspects of the
evolution of ship design not covered in adequate detail in the standard
references which can only be explored further through the study of visual
records.
The obvious first NZ priority would be an on-line
quick-reference list of official numbers and other core recognition information
for those ships on the “Comber list” of immigrant ship arrivals as the majority
of enquirers at the maritime museum libraries are family historians and
genealogists following up passenger arrival lists and information about the
ships upon which their ancestors migrated. The main source of photographs of
the immigrant ships is the collections of the principal museums and libraries
which are currently computerising their catalogues at a rate of knots, or hope
to do so. The development of such a ready-reference resource and the practice
of inclusion of official numbers into their catalogues would allow them to
avoid having to laboriously document ship information unnecessarily because
they could simply provide a link to one or more common files of ship information.
During the course of projects computerising later port arrival and departure
records a reference database for immigrant ships of the “Comber-period”
(1840-1890) could be progressively expanded to add other ships that visited NZ
that would then become available to those recording the visits of the same
ships to other ports. I am currently exploring the practicality of such a
resource. Only 4,000 records are
involved in the first instance.
In the development of any such resource one should
also be keeping in mind the possibility for further outward and sideways
linkages beyond the immediate context. For example, there are similar records
of immigrant ships to Australia that were in both the NZ and Australian
immigrant trades that could usefully be cross-indexed and linked as a potential
further source of information about the
ships in question if linked to a file of NZ immigrant ships by official number.
Looking ahead, there is much to be said for the
principle of adding official number (or any other recognised unique identifiers
where available) after a ship’s name in a book index, providing the means for
future mechanical linkages to references in other books in on-line collections
of indexes. I intend to adopt the practice myself.
My current candidates for other items of core ship
recognition information in addition to
British official number and name, are, where available and applicable:
original name, any other names, American official number, tonnage, place and
year built, and name of builder (although name of builder is not generally
available in earlier periods). Thinking globally, even when one is working with
records of ships that are almost all British, one enhances the international
relevance by providing the link to American records, to one’s own benefit as
well as that of others. The converse also applies. To avoid confusion in the
parallel use of British and American official numbers I have provisionally
adopted ON(Brit.): and ON(US): for written reference. In spreadsheets or
relational databases the different numbers can simply occupy different
columns/fields. I am exploring the practicality of an “official number
translator” file that could eventually make that unnecessary, but if you can
get both readily I’d recommend recording both (see http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~j_lowe/C19Babel.htm
).
A parallel high priority task is some form of
computerised index to Watt’s Index to the
NZ Section of the Register of all British Ships, 1840-1950 pending its
likely eventual complete computerisation by someone, someday, in one form or
another. Watt’s Index is a priceless resource but whether between covers or on
microfiche it has the inherent limitations of any book. The crudest of
computerised indexes would permit searching, sorting and selection of ships by
date or place of construction, type, size etc and linkage to other sets of
records (such as Ingram’s NZ shipwrecks) by official number. (Such an index
could also become a sortable index to scanned images of the original document
pending, or instead of, its computerisation in database form). I am also
pilot-testing a computerised index to Watt.
There is much to be said in principle for combining NZ
and Australian material into a regional Australasian ship index, at least in
the historical period to WWI. Many NZ-registered ships were also registered in
I am also exploring the possibility of an Australasian
ship index. One strand of my ongoing work programme is designed to provide a
working prototype for an official number-based core index for ships registered
in
Conclusions
There is a compelling case for the inclusion of
official numbers as ship identifiers in any computerisation of British and American
ship information, including text and book indexes, for one’s own short and
long-term benefit and for the potential advantages in linking to local and
international databases and networks of databases. Some form of global ship
number referencing system is also necessary for the optimum linking of
databases but I believe that any such system should provide for entry through
official number where available. Much current and ongoing work can use as
identifiers the official numbers that already exist in the records currently
being used by researchers. I believe that official numbers should be able to be
exploited as an entry point to any network of databases and that individuals
will exploit such databases more effectively if they can access them in that
way.
Personal acknowledgments:
I record my appreciation to Ian Buxton and Tony
Millatt for feedback on earlier drafts of this discussion paper. I, of course,
am wholly responsible for the views expressed.
The following appendices are provided to support the
above discussion.
1. Lloyd’s Register/IMO numbers
2. Official Numbers of British ships
3. American and other Official Numbers
4. Official Numbers as a basis for regional lists of
ships for common reference
5. National and regional patterns in the issuing of
British Official Numbers
6. Global Ship Numbers: The Global Ship Numbering
Project
7. Combining identifiers in practice
8. Publications providing sources of official numbers
9. Some practical suggestions for the use of Official
Numbers in personal and institutional records
Appendix 1: Lloyd’s Register/IMO numbers
Over many years, Lloyd’s
Register contains an identifying number for each ship record in a left hand
column but these are specific to the particular volume and year and have no
other utility than in referencing that particular volume.
In the 1960’s, Lloyd’s Register introduced standard
numbers to stay with a particular ship from register to register throughout the
life of the ship and to be used by no other ship. In effect, Lloyd’s Register
established a private enterprise system of world official numbers that was
readily accepted for its practical business advantages. As the numbers were
issued to almost all merchant ships at this time and given that most ships
built in the preceding ten years would still have been in existence when the
numbers were allocated, it can be said that almost all merchant ships that have
existed in the last half century (and many older still) have had a unique LR
number allocated to them.
Originally, the LR numbers consisted of six digits
that were first published in the Lloyd’s
Register for 1966-67, although they were introduced internally earlier.
These were shortly afterwards converted to seven digit numbers by the addition
of a seventh digit. From the1969-70 Register onward, the seven digit numbers
immediately differentiate the LR numbers
from official numbers which do not (yet) exceed six digits. A fairly small
number of ships would have had a six digit standard LR number that was never
upgraded to seven digits.
For most merchant ships built in the last fifty years
or more, the LR number fulfils the function of a world official number that can
be used as a global unique identifier in any tabulation of maritime information
whether electronic or otherwise. There is no apparent reason to use any other
identifier for the many ships to which it applies although official number will
still be useful in a supporting capacity to link to national records that do
not contain the LR number.
For most merchant ships of any significant size, the
LR numbering system became official when adopted by the IMO, (the International
Maritime Organization, originally IMCO, the Inter-Governmental Maritime
Consultative Organization), a United Nations sponsored body established by an
international convention in 1948 that came into force in 1958 and which first
met in 1959.
The IMO adopted the LR numbering scheme in 1987 and
made it generally mandatory in 1996. In 2002 a regulation was adopted for the
visible marking of the IMO number on each ship’s hull or superstructure.
Further work is in hand to extend the application of the numerical referencing.
The IMO regulations apply to passenger ships above 100 tons and cargo ships
above 300 tons though not to ships in certain categories. The full list of
exclusions other than size is: vessels engaged solely in fishing, those without
mechanical means of propulsion, pleasure yachts, ships engaged on special
service such as lightships, hopper barges, hydrofoils and air cushion vessels,
floating docks and similar structures, ships of war and troopships, wooden
ships. Some of the IMO-excluded vessels may, however, still have a LR number
within the same numerical schema so IMO numbers are LR numbers, but LR numbers
are not necessarily IMO numbers, hence LR/IMO as a descriptor.
For further information on IMO numbers refer to www.imo.org/Facilitation/mainframe.asp?topic_id=388
The LR/IMO numbers are issued by Lloyd’s Register –
Fairplay. In addition to recent issues of Lloyd’s
Register, current numbers and ship identification information may be
accessed at http://www.ships-register.com/
(although it is a limitation that the free “Guest Search” can be entered by the
LR/IMO number if you already know it but you cannot use the search to find the
LR/IMO number when you only know the ship’s name). Earlier editions of Lloyd’s Register are the only source I
know of for ships that no longer exist. An on-line archive to which current
registrations are transferred when the ship is destroyed would perform a most
valuable historical function.
Appendix 2: Official Numbers
of British ships
The
Central to this registration system was the issuing of
an “official number” (commonly abbreviated to ON: or “onum”) to identify that
ship, foreshadowing by many decades such later individual identifying systems
as US Social Security numbers and New Zealand IRD numbers, but more effectively
enforced as the number had to be carved into the main hatch beam – the
equivalent of tattooing one’s skin - and a certificate to that effect compiled
by an official authorised for the purpose before registration could be
completed and the ship could put to sea without fear of arrest at its first
port of call. The system applied to all ships of 15 tons and above although
some ships below that tonnage were issued a number.
There were often several ships of the same original
name - occasionally dozens in the case of common popular names - and there were
instances of ships of the same name and type, and even similar age, and even
registered at the same port - one of the reasons that the official number
system was introduced as there was quite enough scope for confusion even when
everybody was acting in complete honesty.
In rare circumstances a ship might be re-registered
later with a new official number (generally when returning to British from
foreign ownership) but as long as one is dealing solely with merchant ships of
15 tons and above, registered in 1855 or later anywhere in the world under the
British flag, then the official number is excellent for differentiating ships
of the same name, tracking name changes through time, identifying multiple
references to a ship in computerised records and linking different computer
datasets. The sole exception to universal certainty is those British ships that
did have more than one British official number (itself a topic of research and
documentation, of course) and the typographical errors that inevitably bug any
system and can only be guarded against by double-checking additional
information after one has made an initial identification or linkage – something
one would have to do with conventional records in any case.
Obviously, something more is needed for those British
ships that did not survive late enough in the 19th century to be
issued an official number and those too small to be issued one even then. I am
using the ship’s original port and year of registration and port registration
folio number in the form PORT/YEAR/FNUM as a clumsy, but unambiguous, surrogate
in the interim. A regional batch of ship numbers within accepted guidelines for
a common global numbering system, would be an improvement on this although
original PORT/YEAR/FNUM is valuable information in its own right so I don’t
begrudge any superseded effort.
Obviously also, identifiers are required for
non-British ships. The parallel and linked use of other national numbering
systems (notably the American) could meet a major part of this need. A single
numerical identifier would avoid the complications of using multiple
identification numbering systems in parallel or jointly but one would want the
official numbers as well for many ongoing practical applications so they would
not be wasted.
Appendix 3: American and other non-British official
numbers
British official numbers are no use for identifying
non-British ships unless they were under the British flag at some point in
their careers. However, the
Early in the 20th century, Britain and the
United States agreed to reserve numbers in the range commencing 200,000 for
American use and those in the range commencing 300,000 for British use, but
both continued to issue numbers in the range below 200,000, as did Sweden and Japan. The
Records earlier than 1867 of international signal
codes issued to American ships are sequentially numbered and could possibly
serve as an identifier for a number of US ships never issued an official number
which could thereby take foreign-trade American shipping coverage back to
nearly the same date as the origin of the British numbering system. For
documentation of a source of these numbers and discussion of their possible
applications refer to Pre-1867AmericanRecords.
International Code of Signals flags (four letter codes
to be used in conjunction with the national flag) may be able to be used as
surrogates for official numbers for ships of those nations that never adopted
official numbering systems (notably the continental European maritime nations).
One would presumably need a translation file for those that spent parts of
their careers under different flags and possibly also for linkages across older
and later systems of flag codes but the concept is worth exploring as a
possible substitute for official numbers when only the signal codes are
available. Lists for France, Hamburg etc are to be found in the British
Mercantile Navy Lists from1860 to 1864 but a new system of codes was adopted
shortly after that.
Appendix 4: British official numbers as a basis for
regional lists of ships for common reference
Individuals and institutions have to limit the scope of
their activities, typically to the country, state/province or region in which
they operate. The British official numbering system can provide a basis for
developing comprehensive datasets of ships having a connection with a British
country or region that can then provide the basis for a core resource to use in
linking miscellaneous institutional and personal datasets and information files
to each other. Given that the British numbering system was Empire-wide, there
is no obstacle to progressively linking any such national/regional resources
into bigger groupings – at worst there would be a certain degree of
duplication.
Different parts of the
Some qualification is required. The system of allocating
blocks of numbers to port registrars dates from early in the system but not
initially. A contemporary newspaper reference indicates that the first thousand
successive numerals were allotted for vessels about to clear outwards from
Ships were most often first registered in the port of
their construction so for ships built after 1855 these blocks of numbers tend
to be indicative of where a ship was built, though not invariably so.
Foreign-built or owned ships coming under British registry would tend to be
issued an official number specific to the port at which the procedure was
carried out which would tend to be the port in which they were owned. Ships
originally registered in some other part of the
Appendix 5: National and regional patterns in the issuing
of British official numbers, with particular reference to
The 1857 to1864 Mercantile Navy Lists were compiled in
official number order with an alphabetic key (from 1865 onward they were
compiled alphabetically). They indicate that numbers up to 30,000 were issued
to ships first issued official numbers in the
Above 30,000, the range 30,000 to 30,200 was evidently
reserved for
A sequence of some 1,200 numbers from the end of the
Ceylonese sequence up to about 32,710 contains predominantly ships registered
in
A guide to the official number ranges applicable to
Australian and
However, it is not quite as clear cut as that. There
are cases of ships with official numbers within what are inferred to be batches
of numbers allocated to Australian and NZ shipping registrars that were not
currently registered at any Australasian port. This would be perfectly logical
if they had been issued official numbers when locally owned in 1855 and then sold
outside
Despite such uncertainties, I am finding the
identified number sequences to be a useful starting point and intend to refine
them and build upon them as a potential Australasian reference tool.
Appendix 6: Global Ship Numbers: The Global Ship
Numbering Project
From the mid 1960’s onward, the LR/IMO numbering system
provides unique identifiers that stay with a ship for life for most classes of
ship. For these ships, this meets the need for a unique identifier that can be
used in all referencing for most ships of all nations. Before then, there are
only the British and national numbering systems which can only ever provide a
partial solution as they do not cover all nations, warships or ships destroyed
before the numbering systems commenced and which are known to overlap and to
have a small element of internal duplication. Historical maritime research
requires some system of allocating unique identifiers before the LR/IMO scheme
became operational to overcome the limitations of the incomplete and
overlapping systems of
A number of people, mostly in the
To assist discussion I have adapted a workshop paper
compiled by Ian Buxton in order to give the GSN concept an additional presence
in cyberspace (refer Buxton2000).
This paper provides a good explanation for those unfamiliar with the concept of
how such a numbering system could be used in practice and proposes a possible
numbering structure that should be seriously considered. The reference to the
original paper is Ian Buxton, Progress
towards a global ship number index, Paper presented to Second Ship
Databases Workshop,
The GSN principle has enormous potential for improving
the efficiency and productivity of any information systems and databases
containing any ships destroyed before the LR/IMO numbering system was
introduced – obviously the majority in most historical applications – and
warships and other ships that Lloyd’s
Register does not cover. I wish the GSN project well and would urge
co-operation and support. However, I would urge the proponents of any such type of proposal to consider
carefully the practical advantages of limiting the work and maximising the
value of existing records in their present form, by exploring flexible ways to
link records containing official numbers to each other and any evolving global
maritime database network in order to make the most effective use of the
numerical identifiers that many ships already have. I think that there must be
strategic value in the combination of a pure-GSN approach with exploiting the
identifiers that are already available in databases, registers and information
systems and widely-used publications.
In these days of exponentially expanding hardware
capacity and clever programming it may even be possible to use official numbers
in place of GSNs where available, with a linked official number translator. The
user could then access such a system through one or more official numbers and
may never need to know that the system uses an official number-linked GSN to
make the connections internally or what that number is. Possibly a GSN may need
to be issued only to ships that never had any official number (or LR/IMO
number), given linkage programming that may not be particularly difficult or
expensive.
I have elaborated this idea in Appendix 7 below.
Appendix 7: Combining
identifiers in practice
There is a potentially huge task when allocating
unique GSNs from scratch in resolving instances of multiple ways of referring
to the same ship. Rather than necessarily working through the hundreds of
thousands of ships under British and American registration since 1855 and 1867
respectively that have not also been allocated a LR/IMO number, the policy
could be adopted of promoting the maximum routine use of official numbers and routeing
any enquiries to/between co-operating databases through databases set up to
record the duplications and switch enquiries to multiple linkages, where
necessary, accordingly.
There would be a need for:
There may not, in fact, necessarily need to be a
single centralised database of all such files for such a purpose, in that
enquiries could be routed through several databases in the process of
co-operative development and progress towards eventual amalgamation or where
they are small, checked manually.
Candidates for (1) are readily identified en masse by
scrolling through volumes of the List of
Merchant Vessels of the United States, Lloyd’s
Register from 1872 onward and the Mercantile
Navy List after c.1872 simply identifying any instances of ships built
under either American or British jurisdiction (and therefore nearly always
initially registered under that jurisdiction*) and
currently registered under the other. The format of the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States (at least in the
period 1891-1923) lends itself very readily to identifying any former British
ships that came under the American flag. A search in the documents for the
relevant jurisdiction of construction within a year or two of construction
should yield the other official number in the country of build (but in practice
one could probably find most by searching in batches in registers at three to
five yearly intervals). My preliminary investigations suggest that the number
of American ships that were also under British jurisdiction at some part of
their lives may well not exceed 1,000 in the period to WWI out of a potential
80-90,000 or so.
* a significant number of ships were built
in Britain (particularly of iron and steel in the latter part of the 19th
century for European or Hawaiian owners) without necessarily having a British
official number issued.
Any databases of modern ships can be searched by
either IMO or official number (in conjunction with flag) and connected to the
other identifier, and potentially on through it to other records.
“Switchboards” using one or more of the above linking
databases along the way might even be able to provide a means to achieve
through the use of existing numerical identifiers much of the advantage of
unique GSNs (without GSNs necessarily ever being allocated where they are not
specifically required). The practical effect would be that of allocating usable
GSN surrogates automatically to many ships existing in a 100-year period,
including many in the category of “pre-20th century wooden sailing
ships” for which the GSN pilot proposal reserved the numbers 7xxxxxxx.
If the software can handle it (and why couldn’t it in
this day and age?), I see strategic advantages in that
Allocating blocks of numbers for use in documenting
ships never allocated any official or IMO number, could well be carried out on
a regional or national basis with the outcome linked into any international
network/s. What amounts to a working prototype has already existed for some
years in the Canadian Heritage/Patrimoine Canadien ship database at http://daryl.chin.gc.ca:8000/basisbwdocs/sid/title1e.html
The Canadian Heritage database uses British official
number as a key identifier, augmented by unofficial numbers in the same field (of seven digits in
the form 9xxxxxx to avoid confusion with actual British official numbers which
have up to six digits*) in order to accommodate those Canadian
ships never allocated an official number. A similar approach with a unique
batch of numbers to supplement British official numbers would be a logical
strategy for a
* However, the result is still open to
confusion with seven digit LR/IMO numbers.
Entering selected 7-digit numbers commencing with 9 in
the Official Number field of the Canadian Heritage database indicates what
types of ships in what period are treated in this way. It appears that around
37,000 ships in this database have been allocated 9xxxxxx numbers. Many of them
represent ships destroyed before official numbers were introduced. However,
some are of a size and date that could be expected to have had official numbers
allocated to them which may indicate uncorrected duplication of reference (this
database was compiled through the merging of a number of sources that have
evidently not yet been fully co-ordinated or standardised) and some are ships
sold outside Canada before 1855 likely to have received an actual official
number elsewhere*. Conceptually speaking, these ships could
be incorporated into the GSN system with the addition of an eighth digit but
there would be limited advantage in doing so until any duplications have been
resolved (and ideally also linked through common numerical identifiers to the
other major Canadian on-line historical ship database at http://www.marmus.ca/registry/
).
*For example, #9018003 the Lord Metcalfe built in Quebec in 1845 of 523 tons and re-registered
in Aberdeen in 1847 could well be the
Lord
Metcalfe 510 tons of
Aberdeen, recorded as official number 6813 in the Mercantile Navy List of 1857 subject to verification.
Neither of the Canadian databases include American
official numbers as well as British ones for onward linking to other data
sources. One would hardly expect them to, given their scope and compilation and
national rather than global objectives, but indications are that users would
find it very interesting if they did have them and links to American databases.
A brief skim through letters A-E of the 1898 volume of the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States turned up several
small Canadian-built vessels under US registration which when tracked back to
the earlier Canadian records found the entries terminating in advice that the
vessel had been wrecked, with no indication that it had been reborn or any hint
to enquire further. Improbable though it may seem, the identifications appear
to be correct as rebuilding from a wreck was a major means by which
foreign-built vessels came under American registration in the period to WWI
when severe restrictions applied to registering foreign-built vessels*. If this search is indicative, there are likely to be several dozen more
that the user from the Canadian end would have no reason to trace further that
would be immediately identified through an international official number
translator file.
*Even Hawaiian-registered vessels required a
special Act of Congress, two years after annexation.
Appendix 8: Publications providing sources of official
numbers
Note: Bureau Veritas registers apparently do not include official numbers.
The Mercantile Navy List from 1857 for all British ships. The MNL is much more comprehensive than Lloyd’s Register. Many British ships
never appear in any issue of Lloyd’s
Register, mostly on account of size, but anything allocated an official
number appears in the MNL unless
wrecked or sold to foreign owners before it could be included. However, sets of
the MNL are much less widely
available than Lloyd’s Register. The
1857 MNL can be purchased cheaply in
facsimile from Elibron Books at www.elibris.com
either in paperback format or as an e-book. Up to 1864 the MNL is compiled in official number order, with an alphabetic index.
Thereafter, it is compiled solely in alphabetic order.
Lloyd’s Register from 1872. Lloyd’s Register puts all
official numbers in a single column which you use in conjunction with the adjacent
information on the current national flag to differentiate by jurisdiction. The
format varies through time. Port registration numbers that are not national
official numbers are also printed in this column but are distinguishable by
nationality.
The List of
Merchant Vessels of the United States, from 1868 for all
Merchant
Sailing Vessels 1867 thru 1885. Compiled
from "List of Merchant Vessels of the
The following on-line
Canadian databases include official numbers http://daryl.chin.gc.ca:8000/BASIS/vessel/public/vessel/sf
and http://www.marmus.ca/registry/
Ships and
Seafarers of Atlantic
The
Charley-Man. A History of Wooden Shipbuilding at
Hawaiian official numbers are documented in Mifflin
Thomas, Hawaiian Interisland Vessels and
Hawaiian Registered Vessels, Seacoast Press,
I have no source other than Lloyd’s Register for Swedish and Japanese official numbers. I would
appreciate the references to the relevant primary sources.
Specifically
Australian and
The Mercantile
Navy List of
The Mercantile
Navy List of Australia and New Zealand 1871 for Australian and NZ ships. An
earlier edition of this publication was issued in 1869 or 1870 but I have not
yet located a surviving copy. It performs a similar function to the Mercantile Navy List issued by the
British Registrar-General of Seamen and Shipping but was compiled and published
independently in
The Register of Australian
and New Zealand Shipping, annually
from 1874 through to the 1930’s (thereafter less regular) for Australian and NZ
ships. It also includes ships registered in
The Index to the
NZ Section of the Register of all British Ships, 1840-1950, compiled by M.
N. Watt and published by the NZ Ship and Marine Society, Wellington in 1963,
commonly referred to as “Watt’s Index”. This
also represents a major Australian resource as many of the ships were owned in
both countries.
Ronald Parsons' Australian
Shipowners and Their Fleets series
Book 1: Northern Rivers of NSW,
1972, 1986
Book 2: Northern
Book 3:
Book 4:
Book 5: Early Australian owners,
1979, 1985
Book 6: Vessels enrolled at
Book 7: Vessels enrolled at
Book 8: Vessels enrolled
Book 9: Vessels enrolled at
Book 10: Vessels enrolled at
Book 11: Vessels enrolled at
Launceston 1830-1859, 1992
Book 12:
Book 13:
Book 14: Ships registered Port
Book 15: Vessels enrolled at
Book 16: Vessels enrolled at
Book 18: Vessels enrolled at
Book 19: Vessels enrolled at
Book 20: Vessels enrolled at
* Book 17 is the history of the Huddart/Parker fleet rather than a regional listing.
Selected other publications by Ronald Parsons
Fremantle register of ships before 1900, 1960, 1971, 1981, 1995
Ketches of
Port
Shipowners registering their ships in early
Sydney [revision of Books
5 and 6], 2003
Shipowners trading to the northern rivers
of NSW [revision of Books
1 and 2], 2003
Ships of
Ships of
Ships of the inland rivers ....., 1987, 1990, 1996, [Gould Books 1996]
Ships registered at Newcastle NSW before
1900, 1974, 1982
Steamships in Colonial
The port of Maryborough: a history, 1976, 1984, 1994
NB:
Some titles vary slightly between editions and in their representation in
library catalogues.
With the recent publication of the
Appendix 9: Some practical suggestions for the use of
official numbers in personal and institutional records
Record all official numbers where available. If only
some are available it is still worth doing so as it will enable at least some
records to be linked and provide a basis for expanding the coverage in future.
Enter data into columns/fields most convenient to the
source in question, then relocate them to a standard layout afterwards.
It is logical to finish up with parallel
columns/fields of UK and US official numbers but when entering data from a
source with almost all of one type rather than the other you could conveniently
type both into one column in the interim, identifying the minority type in some
way such as a letter, then at the end of the task, sorting on that column,
transferring the marked items into a new column and using Find and Replace to
remove the letter. Alternatively, use a column/field for Flag to distinguish
jurisdiction.
The fact that official numbers above 199,999 should
not be duplicated between jurisdictions may be able to be used to accommodate
numbers from different jurisdictions in the same column/field with a minimum of
additional clutter by adding additional leading digits to numbers below 200,000
to one or more jurisdictions in order to differentiate them. However, it will
probably be most satisfactory to differentiate all numbers specific to a
particular jurisdiction in one standard way.
In addition to means of propulsion and rig, original
name, port and year of construction (and builder where known) are all also
useful supplementary information to guard against misinterpretation.
In text, I suggest writing ON(Brit.): and ON(US): to
distinguish the two. Where one is dealing almost entirely with one or the other
it is tempting to state that “all official numbers in this document are British
[or US] unless specified otherwise” but, in principle, it is probably better to
spell it out in the interests of future linking with computerised records one
has not yet heard of. To minimise keystrokes in frequent reference to both
types of official number in text, one could type ONB: or ONU: and do a global
Search and Replace at the end of the job. ONB would suffice to distinguish but
ON(Brit.) is self-explanatory.
Microsoft Access databases are likely to be a commonly
used form for holding and exchanging numerical information about ships (though
less suitable for large databases) because of the universality of Microsoft
products. Access can also accommodate substantial text fields so it is also
suitable for computerising such textual material as book, journal, photograph,
plan and other indexes and textual reference material that one would not generally
think of in the same terms as numerical data,
as the traditional forms of publication predispose one to overlook the
commonality of function. Provided the same system of unique identifiers is
added to these other reference files there is no reason why they should not
also be conveniently linked in a way that permits one search to find all types
of reference in addition to the numerical records.
To return to main Maritime index click here
* * * * * * *