Anyone Interested in Ships

[MarkC]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

An interesting development, India is introducing age limits for ships, 25 years and 30 years depending on ship type.

 

I find it an odd regulation. To lay people it may seem logical that older ships are less safe, or in worse condition, but most people familiar with shipping would not view age in itself as an indicator of whether a ship is safe, environmentally sound etc, at best it is a very blunt instrument.

 

If ships are in good condition, in class and with stat certificates in order then they should be good, assuming all the surveys have been done properly (a big if I know).

 

If well looked after ships can last almost forever, especially if they operate in benign conditions. 

Oil majors have been doing this for many years - a reluctance to use old ships, regardless of their condition.

 

Mind you, I was on a 21 year old ship, a gas tanker, a few years ago, which was being given grief by the Spanish authorities. Politically driven, as confirmed by our Flag State inspectors, who were called in to give us a clean bill of health. Basically the Spanish didn't want any hulls older than 15 years old in their waters. Then, a Spanish flag bunker tanker had a horrendous accident in a Spanish port, sadly with loss of life. This ship was over 30 years old. Suddenly hassling older ships ceased...

[jjb1970]

I really don't have any faith in the Spanish maritime authorities. Their behaviours around the 'Prestige' oil spill disaster were not at all commendable.

[admiles]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

An interesting development, India is introducing age limits for ships, 25 years and 30 years depending on ship type.

 

I find it an odd regulation. To lay people it may seem logical that older ships are less safe, or in worse condition, but most people familiar with shipping would not view age in itself as an indicator of whether a ship is safe, environmentally sound etc, at best it is a very blunt instrument.

 

If ships are in good condition, in class and with stat certificates in order then they should be good, assuming all the surveys have been done properly (a big if I know).

 

If well looked after ships can last almost forever, especially if they operate in benign conditions. 

 

Easy way of drumming up more business for the infamous Alang yards maybe? (tongue only slightly in cheek!) 

[MarkC]

52 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I really don't have any faith in the Spanish maritime authorities. Their behaviours around the 'Prestige' oil spill disaster were not at all commendable.

Absolutely - that was an utter disgrace - and, again, politically driven. For a so-called maritime nation to refuse a port of refuge to a ship in distress was bad enough, but then the way that they treated the Master in the aftermath of the ship foundering was appalling.

[jjb1970]

11 hours ago, MarkC said:

Absolutely - that was an utter disgrace - and, again, politically driven. For a so-called maritime nation to refuse a port of refuge to a ship in distress was bad enough, but then the way that they treated the Master in the aftermath of the ship foundering was appalling.

 

A former colleague who was the senior director - legal in the organization I worked for had very strong feelings about the treatment of the Master (and indeed the chief engineer) and the whole way the case was handled by Spanish authorities. It was more like something you'd expect in a country like Venezuela than a European country. 

[OnTheBranchline]

If Titanic had capsized with a total loss of life - as in If everyone had died and the only thing left was wreckage & bodies, and assuming that it happened so fast the Marconi operators couldn’t have sent out a message

 

How would the legend of the Titanic have been affected - other than being known as ‘the giant ocean liner that simply disappeared’.

[peterfgf]

May I recommend "Titanic: A Fresh Look at the Evidence by a Former Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents" by John Laing, who takes a very measured approach to her sinking.

Peterfgf

[BobM]

31 minutes ago, peterfgf said:

May I recommend "Titanic: A Fresh Look at the Evidence by a Former Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents" by John Laing, who takes a very measured approach to her sinking.

Peterfgf

 

Evening All......

I have a framed copy of an image similar to this taken on 10th April 1912 hanging on my bedroom wall serving as a personal daily reminder on awakening, not to become through the coming day, too cocky, over confident and that all things come to an end, sometimes abruptly.  The sight of those folks on the open deck chills me to the bone as they knew nothing of the horrors that awaited them in under five days time, hence the reason I keep it on the wall!

 

Will search the topic you suggest, thank you.

 

Regards always

Bob

Edited February 9, 2023 by BobM

[WessexEclectic]

9 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

If Titanic had capsized with a total loss of life - as in If everyone had died and the only thing left was wreckage & bodies, and assuming that it happened so fast the Marconi operators couldn’t have sent out a message.

 

If the radio operators had not been able to fix their equipment on the day of the incident...

[OnTheBranchline]

1 hour ago, WessexEclectic said:

 

If the radio operators had not been able to fix their equipment on the day of the incident...

If the radio wasn't working, the Titanic wouldn't have received the ice warnings that caused them to alter course south. Fyi, the wireless broke on the 13th.

It's kind of a freak accident that the first ice they spotted was directly in their path and struck a glancing fatal blow the way it did.

 

Given any other course, it's likely that they would've spotted ice and slowed/stopped for the night, like the many other ships that safely navigated through the region that spring.

Edited February 10, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[The Johnster]

I wonder sometimes if Titanic might have been able to remain afloat long enough for Carpathia to reach her before she sank had the collision with the iceberg been followed up with an order to steam full astern at best manageable speed, but with some starboard helm.  This just might have created enough suction outside the hull at the hole to reduce the ingress of water into the ship, possibly even enough to enable temporary bulkheads to be placed at higher levels than the permanent ones, preventing or reducing the overspill of water into more hull compartments at the tops of the bulkheads that was what doomed her, compartment by compartment.  I very much doubt that the ship could have been saved; I'm sure that the rate at which she was flooding would have eventually overwhelmed her, but later would have been better than sooner and every little might have helped to keep her partially above the water until Carpathia was at least within sight, and possibly even until she was able to take people directly off her..

 

I would not blame anyone aboard for not thinking of such an action, and there may well be good reasons that I have not taken into consideration why it would not have worked at all, but if it had, many more lives could have been saved.  A number of fatalities were inevitable; I remember reading somewhere that the postal workers, for example, were doomed from the moment she hit the berg whatever else had happened, and the loss of a brand new liner on her maiden voyage with a significant number of deaths would no doubt have ensured her notoriety in any case. and likely resulted in similar legislation regarding lifeboats and manning radios, but it would surely have been worth trying had anyone thought of it.

 

She might also have been better off hitting the berg head on at as close to ninety degrees as could be managed.  The impact would have been very violent and probably killed and injured many directly, a brick wall stop from about 25mph with very little time to brace for it, but had the bow crumpled it would have acted as a shock absorber as each bulked head contacted tbe berg at progressivel lower speeds and moments, so that only a smaller number of smaller compartments in the smaller spaces of the bows would have flooded, she might not have sunk at all, and even made New York under her own steam at reduced speed.  Again, one can hardly blame anyone for not attempting to avoid the obstacle; direct ramming is highly counter-intuitive, and we'll never know.  In cases of collisions, ships that are hit in the sides usually sink if the hole extends below the waterline, and those that hit them bow-on usually don't; see Stockholm and Andrea Doria.  Presumably somebody is able to do the sort of ballpark calculation of how much damage is going to result from a ship of that size and momentum hitting a large block of hundreds of thousands of tons of densely solid ice at that sort of speed, and how far back from the stem the crumple zone would extend, but it would be miles beyond me!!!

 

 

[jjb1970]

It's generally much better to hit head on and let the bow take the blow, although it's not very good if the blow is hitting another ship beam on. If the blow is glancing and rips the side open it's much more likely to result in flooding across multiple compartments which is more dangerous. If you go head on it is quite unusual to damage the collision bulkhead, and if the collision bulkhead holds then it is embarrassing and dangerous for anyone in the impact area but the ship shouldn't be in danger of sinking. And you need a massive bump to damage the collision bulkhead.

 

The calculations are quite straightforward, and there are regulatory requirements for intact and damaged stability. Additionally for passenger ships there is also the safe return to port regulations intended to try and ensure ships remain afloat, recognizing that the ship is the best lifeboat. I was on a ship which pranged the bow and ruptured the forepeak, damage looked serious on the outside but was repaired very quickly with no real impact over than the damaged plates. 

 

IMO has just agreed second generation intact stability criteria based on analytical processes rather than a simple assessment against arbitrary acceptance criteria.

[rovex]

Most opinion is that a head on collision would have fatal. The jarring effect distorting the ship, preventing watertight doors from closing properly and causing leaks all ove the shop.

 

[Kickstart]

21 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

If Titanic had capsized with a total loss of life - as in If everyone had died and the only thing left was wreckage & bodies, and assuming that it happened so fast the Marconi operators couldn’t have sent out a message

 

How would the legend of the Titanic have been affected - other than being known as ‘the giant ocean liner that simply disappeared’.

 

Taking a different approach to the answer, I expect it would have resulted in a lot of conspiracy theories still being generated to this day. Depending on how the position of the sinking could be identified, not sure how many bodies or how much wreckage would have been found and identified.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[OnTheBranchline]

The two biggest issues:

1) The helmsmen accidentally steering the wheel the wrong way - probably didn't help. 

2) Throwing the engines into stop/reverse - cut down on the ship's ability to maneuver. 

[62613]

5 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The two biggest issues:

1) The helmsmen accidentally steering the wheel the wrong way - probably didn't help. 

2) Throwing the engines into stop/reverse - cut down on the ship's ability to maneuver. 

1) Instinctive; turning the wheel the same way as you want the rudder to act was a fairly new thing at the time, IIRC.

2) Stopping the engine(s) and using the screws as a brake is a recognised way of slowing a ship more quickly. In that respect, going astern doesn't have the same effect, as the screws would still be thrashing about, even if the engineers had had time to do it. Would it have been possible to do that with the (VTE) centre engine at all? I don't know.

[BobM]

Hi

Everything regarding Titanic, is akin to much in life really, events however they unfold, are perhaps totally out of the control of the individual, second guessing will do nothing as the outcome will always be the result of the preceding sequence.

That ice berg was in the position it was due to natural processes and couldn't be altered, the Titanic was in the same spot for numerous causes natural and man made, economic and cerebral, along with many further, human history is littered with such occasions.

 

Regards always guys,

Bob

[drmditch]

12 hours ago, rovex said:

Most opinion is that a head on collision would have fatal. The jarring effect distorting the ship, preventing watertight doors from closing properly and causing leaks all ove the shop.

 

 

In 1879, the Guion Line's Arizona collided with an iceberg head on. The ship survived. According to Wikipedia, she had only been doing 15knt. I'm sure I've seen a different figure somewhere else.

[rovex]

Just now, drmditch said:

 

In 1879, the Guion Line's Arizona collided with an iceberg head on. The ship survived. According to Wikipedia, she had only been doing 15knt. I'm sure I've seen a different figure somewhere else.

Titanic was doing 22knots and was a lot heavier. The forces exerted across the ship would have massive, like driving a car doing 80 mph into a brick wall

[jjb1970]

Korea betting on nuclear.

 

https://splash247.com/top-korean-shipping-lines-back-nuclear-power/

[rovex]

20 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The two biggest issues:

1) The helmsmen accidentally steering the wheel the wrong way - probably didn't help. 

2) Throwing the engines into stop/reverse - cut down on the ship's ability to maneuver. 

 

I don't know of any evidence that the wheel was turned the wrong way.

 

While Murdoch ordered full astern, they only had 47 seconds between sighting the iceberg and hitting it. It's extremely unlikely that the engine room had time to act on his order or if they did that it had any impact on the speed she was doing 

[Schooner]

14 hours ago, 62613 said:

was a fairly new thing at the time, IIRC.

Not brought into law until 1933 for British-registered vessels. Clause 29 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety And Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, which was implementing a suggestion made at the International Convention for Safety at Sea, 1929.

 

For context the RN had made the change in 1931 (following Admiralty Fleet Order 3296.— Helm Orders. (N.L. 4025/30.—24.12.1930.), though the USN moved in 1913 (General Order 30, Orders Governing the Movements of the Rudder).

 

7 minutes ago, rovex said:

I don't know of any evidence that the wheel was turned the wrong way.

I've not seen any beyond a modern misunderstanding.

[MarkC]

On 10/02/2023 at 09:17, rovex said:

Most opinion is that a head on collision would have fatal. The jarring effect distorting the ship, preventing watertight doors from closing properly and causing leaks all ove the shop.

 

But would it? The bow, back to the Collision Bulkhead, is regarded as what we now refer to, thanks in part to the automotive industry, as a crumple zone. This would have absorbed much of the initial shock, ship's inertia notwithstanding.

 

However - we now know that the ship's steelwork had become more brittle than people thought, due to its temperature dropping to approaching 0 Deg.C because of it being in contact with the extremely cold sea water through which the ship was passing. What effect might that have had? We just don't know.

 

As for frames distorting - perhaps not, as the impact forces from a head on collision would make the longitudinal girders act in compression, and again, the further aft you move, the less effect on the structure.

 

As for the watertight doors - as many of the bulkheads between compartments didn't actually go up to the deckheads, many of them were rendered useless as water progressively filled the forward compartments and overflowed into the next one...

[J. S. Bach]

My only comment on the TITANIC:

 

And the flip side:

 

I (or a friend, it has been many years) have this 78 somewhere. We bought it for the New River song (we both are train nuts!) but just had to listen to the TITANIC song when we go it home; I think the we spun it many times; it was so ..... words fail me here! "It was sad when the great ship went down. ....." almost had us on the floor loao!

[jjb1970]

It's kind of odd how the Titanic remains so emblematic of maritime tragedy. The incident is far from the worst loss of life at sea, even if we exclude war time tragedies (and there were numerous wartime ship losses with staggering loss of life). Some of the bigger tragedies happened much more recently than the Titanic too.