Anyone Interested in Ships

[New Haven Neil]

I never sailed on steam, but shore power, yes!  You could of course use drydock systems on a motorship, the ones I was familiar with used the afterpeak water tank for cooling alternators and compressors, until shore power was rigged.

 

As for the love of a ship - my first, the Stirling Bridge, nothing special 120,000 ton dwt bulk carrier, but....the first!

 

 

[BobM]

6 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

I was explaining to middle son (14) how to 'cold start' a steamship, he was particularly interested in the surviving US Battleships which in theory at least could be recalled to service.  

 

But he raised an interesting point, when steal ships, large oil burners in particular were dry docked did they ever keep any boilers in steam for auxiliary services as he has seen a picture of Mauretania in dry dock with smoke or steam coming out of the funnels

 

I think this is the picture

 

Hi

I have a transparency of Cunards SS Mauretania that my father took on our return to England in 1965 when we were in Singapore ....strange colour green!

 

Regards

Bob

[The Johnster]

Different Mauretania if it was taken in '65, Bob, there were two of them.  The first, the 4-stacker pictured in the floating drydock (probably at Southhampton), was put into service in 1907, the largest ship in the world at that time until Olympic was put into service, and gained the eastbound Blue Riband on her maiden return voyage, then the westbound in 1909, holding both records for another 20 years.  She was taken out of service in 1934 and scrapped the following year.

 

It may be that a boiler or two was kept in steam for auxiliary services for ship in floating drydocks, as there was no direct connection to shore services.  'Normal' drydocks presumably supplied shore-based electricity and other services to ships.  OTOH, it might be that Mauretania in this photograph has only very recently entered the dock and still has a head of steam to get rid of.  Or both.

 

The second Mauretania was completed in 1938, intended as the spare ship for the 5-day Southampton-New York ferry operated by the Queens (Queen Elizabeth was still under contruction at the time and the ferry was not instituted until after the war).  She had two funnels and looked like a scaled-down Queen Elizabeth; still a very big ship, though!  She was refitted for cruising in 1962 and painted in the same 'strange colour green' livery as Caronia, being taken out of service in 1965.  Your Father must have been on one of her last voyages.

 

I have seen many colour photos of Cunard Liners in which the funnels look more orange than red.  I am not sure whether this was a result of the colour films of the day having trouble with this particular shade or that the paint was prone to fading, but I suspect the former.  I saw the Queens several times in their final years, smart as ever and the funnels were very definitely red, though the California sunshine has done no favours to Queen Mary's since!  Lusitania's funnels were painted all-over black at the time of her sinking, but I do not know if this was a wartime alteration or if her funnels were always black.  Cunard also used grey as a hull colour in peacetime, Queen Mary being launched in this livery and IIRC Aquitania carrying it in her post WW2 service livery.

[BobM]

26 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Different Mauretania if it was taken in '65, Bob, there were two of them.  The first, the 4-stacker pictured in the floating drydock (probably at Southhampton), was put into service in 1907, the largest ship in the world at that time until Olympic was put into service, and gained the eastbound Blue Riband on her maiden return voyage, then the westbound in 1909, holding both records for another 20 years.  She was taken out of service in 1934 and scrapped the following year.

 

It may be that a boiler or two was kept in steam for auxiliary services for ship in floating drydocks, as there was no direct connection to shore services.  'Normal' drydocks presumably supplied shore-based electricity and other services to ships.  OTOH, it might be that Mauretania in this photograph has only very recently entered the dock and still has a head of steam to get rid of.  Or both.

 

The second Mauretania was completed in 1938, intended as the spare ship for the 5-day Southampton-New York ferry operated by the Queens (Queen Elizabeth was still under contruction at the time and the ferry was not instituted until after the war).  She had two funnels and looked like a scaled-down Queen Elizabeth; still a very big ship, though!  She was refitted for cruising in 1962 and painted in the same 'strange colour green' livery as Caronia, being taken out of service in 1965.  Your Father must have been on one of her last voyages.

 

I have seen many colour photos of Cunard Liners in which the funnels look more orange than red.  I am not sure whether this was a result of the colour films of the day having trouble with this particular shade or that the paint was prone to fading, but I suspect the former.  I saw the Queens several times in their final years, smart as ever and the funnels were very definitely red, though the California sunshine has done no favours to Queen Mary's since!  Lusitania's funnels were painted all-over black at the time of her sinking, but I do not know if this was a wartime alteration or if her funnels were always black.  Cunard also used grey as a hull colour in peacetime, Queen Mary being launched in this livery and IIRC Aquitania carrying it in her post WW2 service livery.

Yes I am sorry I should have made my posting clearer that it was the latter built ship, not the earlier referenced build.

Cheers

Bob

[The Johnster]

Absolutely no apology needed, BobM, in fact perhaps I should be apologising for assuming that you didn't know there were two Mauretanias.  The reference to the Mauretania in the floating dry dock followed by your account of your father's voyage in the other Mauretania in 1965 led me to this assumption, for which I had no other grounds...

[MarkC]

My first ship as Chief - the LPG/C "Melrose". Will always have fond memories of her. When Gibsons closed down, I managed to get the photo of her which had hung in the Office.

 

Sadly she sank off the West African coast, back in the early Noughties, IIRC. I'd seen her out there a year or so earlier, looking very run down & sad, so news of her foundering came as no real surprise...

 

Mark

[OnTheBranchline]

On 18/02/2023 at 15:15, New Haven Neil said:

I never sailed on steam, but shore power, yes!  You could of course use drydock systems on a motorship, the ones I was familiar with used the afterpeak water tank for cooling alternators and compressors, until shore power was rigged.

 

As for the love of a ship - my first, the Stirling Bridge, nothing special 120,000 ton dwt bulk carrier, but....the first!

 

 

 

Isn't that the Devonshire's sister?

[KeithMacdonald]

Royal Navy’s new experimental ship departs for trials

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navys-new-experimental-ship-departs-for-trials/

 

XV Patrick Blackett: Look inside the Royal Navy's new testbed ship

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

The NavyX website (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/navyx )

has a picture of another experimental craft.

 

 

Quote

The Royal Navy’s experimentation innovator NavyX has officially welcomed a new autonomous vessel into its service. Named Madfox (Maritime Demonstrator For Operational eXperimentation), it is derived from technology firm L3Harris’ Mast-13 vessel, which for the past 18 months has been operated by Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) on a series of trials with the Royal Navy.  

 

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/26/210326-madfox-vessel

 

L3Harris is another one of those multi-$billion companies most folks are hardly aware of.  The relevance to us (UK) is it's part in building and maintaining the infrastructure for our "eyes in the sky"

 

Quote

As part of the RC-135 based Airseeker/Rivet Joint programme, we deliver strategic and tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. We provide comprehensive carriage, release and interfacing solutions to integrate weapons and stores onto crewed and uncrewed air platforms. ... Our ISR sensors, communications systems and precision, navigation and timing solutions are at the heart of many of the most advanced space platforms, while our awareness and encryption tools ensure that we can protect and defend our most critical infrastructure in space.

 

https://www.l3harris.com/en-gb/united-kingdom?regional_redirect=en-gb

[jjb1970]

I find autonomous is rapidly becoming one of those words like digital, synergy, system and holistic, sprinkled around like magic pixie dust to make the mundane sound exciting and high-tech.

 

In class I was once given an autonomous fuel system to review and approve. This consisted of a fuel oil transfer pump which was started and stopped by level switches in the settling tank. In other words the same sort of automated fuel transfer arrangement used for decades. But it was autonomous.

 

I see similar marketing stuff about autonomous electrical systems on-board, which when examined are the same auto-start, synchronise and load sharing systems ships have used for decades (my first ship as a cadet had such a system in 1990, and it wasn't a new ship).

 

On genuine autonomous ships, it'll be interesting to see how the technology develops. IMO is working on guidelines for autonomous ships, there's some pull from the offshore segment and certain niche short sea segments but very limited interest so far from most of the industry.

Edited February 23, 2023 by jjb1970

[New Haven Neil]

On 21/02/2023 at 13:50, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Isn't that the Devonshire's sister?

 

No, the Devonshire was an LPG tanker - my last ship.  You may mean the Dorsetshire aka Atlantic Bridge, she was a lot smaller, 80k dwt, the Stirling Bridge was 120k dwt.  Both Japanese built though, and similar in configuration for sure.  The Dorset had a Sulzer 8RD90, the last RD in Bibbys.  Awful rotary exhaust valves.  The Stirling was an 9RND90.

 

The Stirling was previously managed by Denholms, and was actually owned by Silver Line and wore their funnel livery, Bibby's managed her at this time, 1978.  All Sea Bridge Consortium boats of course.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by New Haven Neil
add a cylinder!

[MarkC]

6 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I find autonomous is rapidly becoming one of those words like digital, synergy, system and holistic, sprinkled around like magic pixie dust to make the mundane sound exciting and high-tech.

 

In class I was once given an autonomous fuel system to review and approve. This consisted of a fuel oil transfer pump which was started and stopped by level switches in the settling tank. In other words the same sort of automated fuel transfer arrangement used for decades. But it was autonomous.

 

I see similar marketing stuff about autonomous electrical systems on-board, which when examined are the same auto-start, synchronise and load sharing systems ships have used for decades (my first ship as a cadet had such a system in 1990, and it wasn't a new ship).

 

On genuine autonomous ships, it'll be interesting to see how the technology develops. IMO is working on guidelines for autonomous ships, there's some pull from the offshore segment and certain niche short sea segments but very limited interest so far from most of the industry.

Unmanned ships? To me it's still a long way off happening, certainly for anything other than short coastal trade. The redundancy that would have to be built in means that initial costs will be eyewateringly high, and you would have to be incredibly proactive with planned maintenance. When's that going to be done, eh? We do a lot of maintenance whilst trading, thus avoiding down time. OK, by going electric then you simplify machinery, but then the sheer size & weight of your battery packs, using present day technology, cuts down on your cargo carrying capacity, which would mean that you'd need to charge higher freight rates in order to undercut traditional shipping. Yes, fuel cell technology is coming, but not as fast as some would hope.

 

I'm pretty confident that there won't be a massive drive towards, or indeed take up of, unmanned ships during these last years of my career...

 

Mark

 

[SHMD]

Here's a couple of (experimental ? ) autonomous ships( ?! ) I took in Trondeim in 2019.

 

 

 

Kev.

[Schooner]

Interesting...I give it about five years before autonomous (of at least some level) alternative propulsion (inc. wind assist) vessels are under design/construction for all commercial sectors and are the norm in some.

 

It's not about making our current system autonomous, it's that our current system is obsolete and one of the developments making it so is automation. It is expensive at build for all sorts of reasons, but that cost is falling. The cost of manning, carbon emissions, bunkers, and scrapping are all increasing exponentially. We're not quite at the tipping point yet, but it's not far off. The two main impediments have been regulation - finally moving pretty fast - and finance - owners bore the risk and the cost whilst charterers got the benefit, which did not a good incentive make. With both those blocks erroding and technology well up to the tasks that'll be asked of it in the immediate future, I don't think it'll be long before we see the first big moves.

 

I'll set an alarm to check back in 2028!

[KeithMacdonald]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I find autonomous is rapidly becoming one of those words like digital, synergy, system and holistic, sprinkled around like magic pixie dust to make the mundane sound exciting and high-tech.

 

Getting that with job titles as well. When I were a lad (eee by gum) we had "designers". Now they are "systems architects". Presumably for those that don't to be sullied with "engineer" in their job title, just in case people assume they get their hands dirty. But they usually need a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to hold their hand.

[MarkC]

There has been an unmanned vessel operating in the Brevik area of Norway for a while, but it doesn't travel far, only in its fjord, & needs recharging very regularly.

 

I still can't see anything replacing manned ships even in the short sea trade any time soon.

 

Happy to be proved wrong, but I just can't see how it will be accepted either - it's man made, therefore it can go wrong. The sea is a very unforgiving environment.

 

Remember this thought - people are oftentimes horrified when things break; as Engineers, we're oftentimes amazed when things actually work...

 

Mark

[MarkC]

3 hours ago, SHMD said:

Here's a couple of (experimental ? ) autonomous ships( ?! ) I took in Trondeim in 2019.

 

 

 

Kev.

There were some unmanned survey vessels seen on Marine Traffic last weekend, operating between the Tees & the Wear, now I recall. They were reported as being 5 metres in length. Not sure what they were doing, but there was also another small craft in their vicinity. Was it keeping an eye on them?

 

Mark

[The Johnster]

Autonomous ships are suitable for some tasks and unsuitable for others.  Data collection from deep ocean areas is one of the former, and cross-channel or Irish Sea ferries crossing busy shipping lanes possibly one of the latter.

 

There is little point in using autonomous ships where human beings are to be carried anyway, because the human beings have to be given food, shelter, fresh water, heating, ventilation. entertainment, accommodation, and safety equipment, so it costs little extra to supply those things for a crew.  I read a thing last week about a new American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that can remain at sea for twenty years or something without having to refuel; yeah, fine, but she'll need to put in to a port for fresh food, water, and the other supplies for the humans.  True autonomy might be achieved if she only flies off drones...

 

Cargo vessels will usually need humans aboard for handling at close quarters during docking and berthing manoevres, but I am uable to comment about whether it is easier and cheaper (and cost will be the driving force in commercial shipping) to put officers, pilot, and crews aboard by helicopter as she approaches a port and remove them the same way when she sails, bearing in mind that this might be weather-sensitive, or to leave them aboard for the whole voyage. 

 

I can see autonomy being adopted for submarines, though; these are much easier, and probably stealthier, if nobody's aboard!  And of course there is no reason that the technology cannot be retrofitted to existing vessels so that they can be operated manned or autonomously as suitable.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, MarkC said:

as Engineers, we're oftentimes amazed when things actually work...

...despite our best efforts.

[jjb1970]

With respect to reducing GHG emissions, we've seen some ship types reduce EEDI values by more than 50% over the last decade and there are now quite a large number of methanol fuelled container ships under construction and a lot of work on ammonia fuelled ships. Wind assistance is already in use, and has been for many years (conventional sails, aerofoils, flettner rotors, kites) and there have been multiple advances in ship design to improve efficiency. The Koreans are betting on nuclear propulsion. Reducing GHG emissions is not the same as autonomy, technology developers like to conflate the too and claim that autonomous ships will solve the GHG emissions issue, no, changes in energy conversion and energy carriers will solve it.

 

Ships have been highly automated since before I was born. The de-facto standard for machinery spaces has been unattended for decades, the engine room is manned in normal hours for maintenance and operational checks but the machinery operates under control of the engine room management systems and the spaces are unmanned outside normal hours unless entering/leaving port or requested by the bridge. 

 

One problem is that many use autonomous as a synonym for unmanned, which is incorrect. It is quite likely that fully autonomous ships will still carry crews to undertake maintenance activities (and in almost every risk assessment/FMEA/HAZID/critical effects document I reviewed the final level of mitigation was to let a human take control). IMO defined four levels of autonomy:

 

• Degree one: Ship with automated processes and decision support: Seafarers are on board to operate and control shipboard systems and functions. Some operations may be automated and at times be unsupervised but with seafarers on board ready to take control.
• Degree two: Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board: The ship is controlled and operated from another location. Seafarers are available on board to take control and to operate the shipboard systems and functions.
• Degree three: Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board: The ship is controlled and operated from another location. There are no seafarers on board.
• Degree four: Fully autonomous ship: The operating system of the ship is able to make decisions and determine actions by itself.

 

Most people assume degree 4 is what is under discussion, whilst almost every ship in the world could call itself a degree 1 ship. And it should be noted the above relates to operation, most people seem to think that many degree 4 ships will have someone on-board to do maintenance.

 

The pioneer was the Yarra Birkeland:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Yara_Birkeland

 

However, China has an autonomous (degree 4 capable) container ship and the Japanese and Koreans have projects. Europe and the US seem more focused on military applications and work boats (the parts of ship building they still have a good presence in).

 

My concern is with degree 2, anyone expecting seafarers to be on a ship under instructions not to touch anything operational and to leave it all to either an AI on-board or a remote control centre and retain the expertise and competence to leap into action and save the day if it all goes wrong may get a bit of a shock.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

My concern is with degree 2, anyone expecting seafarers to be on a ship under instructions not to touch anything operational and to leave it all to either an AI on-board or a remote control centre and retain the expertise and competence to leap into action and save the day if it all goes wrong may get a bit of a shock.

Aye, there's the rub.

 

That is, in my opinion, one of the biggest challenges we face in many industries and businesses - rail, maritime, aviation or what have you.

 

There is a fundamental disconnect between having a cadre of highly trained, competent and experienced (where they will get their experience is another matter) people to take charge in degraded situations and giving that same cadre virtually nothing to do for >99% of the time.

 

In the rail world, we used to joke that, if the system was running well, some controllers would  deliberately disrupt operations to give themselves the opportunity to sort things out. Increased automation and/or autonomy is the same thing, writ large.

[jjb1970]

Another of the ex-Genting ships in Singapore, Resorts World One (75,338GT), they do like their fancy paint jobs.

 

[MarkC]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

...despite our best efforts.

You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment...

[MarkC]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

There is a fundamental disconnect between having a cadre of highly trained, competent and experienced (where they will get their experience is another matter) people to take charge in degraded situations and giving that same cadre virtually nothing to do for >99% of the time.

 

Indeed so.

 

And in a similar vein, for many years now we in the petrochemicals trades, in order to keep the oil majors happy, have had to man our ships in accordance with what's known as a matrix, where the total sea time IN RANK for Master/Chief Officer, and Chief/Second Engineer, has to equal or exceed so many years. Basically, you have an experienced Master with a freshly promoted Mate (or vice versa); ditto the correlation between Chief & Second Engineer.

 

This has meant that I have seen a steady procession of Second Engineers 'straight out of the box', which is fine by me.

 

However, the oil majors are now making noises about wanting ALL Senior Officers to have a few years' experience in rank before serving in hulls carrying their cargoes. When asked how they expect newly promoted Officers to gain experience, the reply has been "That's not our problem". Oh, but it will be if we can't man the ships per your requirements...

 

You couldn't make it up...

 

Mark

Edited February 24, 2023 by MarkC

[KeithMacdonald]

Is there any truth to this news report?
 

Quote

 

Almost half of large Scottish ferries out of action - A significant chunk of the CalMac ferry fleet is currently out of action, with the repair yard so full of CalMac vessels that ferries are berthed elsewhere in Scotland, waiting for space to open up. There are presently ten vessels over 80 metres in length in the CalMac fleet. Those are the MV Isle of Arran, MV Hebridean Isles, MV Isle of Mull, MV Lord of the Isles, MV Caledonian Isles, MV Isle of Lewis, MV Clansman, MV Hebrides, MV Finlaggan, and MV Loch Seaforth. These vessels usually operate on longer crossings, with high passenger numbers. However, of those ten, MV Isle of Lewis, MV Clansman, MV Caledonian Isles and the MV Hebridean Isles are currently out of action due to technical issues.

 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/almost-half-of-large-scottish-ferries-out-of-action/

 

Or is this BS, because this is a good time of the year to do the maintenance, while demand and traffic are low?