München - missing - foundered 46.15N/27.30W 13.12.78 (all 28*) [Rotterdam-New Orleans, 83 barges]

Re possible damage to nav. instruments it just goes to show the vulnerability of such dependence on electronics and similar equipment.

Malim, the damned steel box and the lash barge appeared on the ecene more or less at the same time, albeit that the box was there a bit earlier. And as you say, the box won the race by rather a large margin.

Modern intermodal operation yes, but if you cast your mind back to the 60s when a huge amount of cargo was discharged from small (by modern standards) cargo ships into barges for onward shipment then they were hugely efficient. Take a look at any photo of the era from the Royals in London or Rotterdam to see what I mean.
The problem is that damned steel box appeared on the scene and took over and consigned the LASH ships - as well as real cargo ships - to history.

I totally agree with Pieter when it comes to the disadvantages of the LASH concept. I just got me one of my books about the sinking of the "München" and the pictures there show that the barges were loaded the same way a conventional cargo ship was loaded - only in a smaller scale. This had to be done in port - so there was no chance to compete with modern intermodal transportation, neither in speed nor in efficency.

The outcome of the investigations into the sinking of the München concluded that a freak wave during a heavy storm crushed one of the bridge windows and the water damage to the navigational instruments made her uncontrollable. (So what Michael below suggested was indeed the cause of her sinking.) To me it is a failed concept as the unit size of the barges is too big to compete with a container and too small to compete with an inland waterway ship, even if the barges are put together in a convoy.

Since my father told me about the sinking of the "München" when i was still a child i was interested in her story. In all the years no evidence surfaced that her design as a LASH-Carrier contributed to her sinking. The most accepted theory is that she was the victim of a rogue wave but also a collision was never ruled.
Her Bridge and accomodation block near the bow made her perhaps more vulnerable to these waves because all equipment necessary for navigation and communication is concentrated here and can be knocked out by a single freak wave - but this is nothing unique to a LASH-carrier.
By the way "München" is no lucky name for ships - the german factory trawler with this name (built 1961) sank near greenland on 25.06.1963.

Hi,Wikipedia has a report about the Múnchen disaster 1n 1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_M%C3%BCnchen

Wade, with respect, I disagree. LASH was a disaster. Remember the LASH ship/s which were lost in the North Atlantic in the 70s and 80s? I don't have their names to recall but I remember a couple of instances when they were lost. Other members, help?

I would not call LASH a "failed concept" more accurately a viable concept with limited application that was overtaken by parallel innovations.