Anyone Interested in Ships

[jjb1970]

There have been a few books over the years by journalists going on-board cargo ships and writing about their experiences. A relatively recent one was a journalists who did a trip on one of Maersk's container ships. In my experience they never really seem to work, it's an outsiders view of a world they don't get (assuming they even want to, one of two have struck me as hatchet jobs).

 

[MarkC]

1 minute ago, jjb1970 said:

There have been a few books over the years by journalists going on-board cargo ships and writing about their experiences. A relatively recent one was a journalists who did a trip on one of Maersk's container ships. In my experience they never really seem to work, it's an outsiders view of a world they don't get (assuming they even want to, one of two have struck me as hatchet jobs).

 

Michael Palin's experiences in his "Around the World in 80 Days" trip were probably pretty near the truth of the time, tbh

 

Mark

[njee20]

On 13/03/2023 at 12:36, 62613 said:

How many 400k ton ULCCs were built? I can only think of Shell's Batillus and Bellamya (?) and the Knock Nevis/Seawise Giant. Were there any others?

 

Edit: just thought of a fourth; Pierre Guillaumat

 

Quite a few others, surely? All the TI fleet - TI Oceania, Europe, Asia and Africa, although IIRC only Oceania and Europe are still in active service. I can’t believe they’re the only other ones. 

[New Haven Neil]

35 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Oh, the memories of playing the Bailey Board, especially whilst the Mate was winding up the turbines for discharging..

 

The Yorkie had Kockums combustion control - which worked OK until the Chief - that one - adjusted it.  That buqqered it.  Had to get the makers man out to repair it.  Oh the joy. 

 

Next time he was bored he then withdrew the air start distributor spindle while the main engine (8RND90) was running.  Didn't help, funnily enough.......he went back to the bar while we stopped the engine (the Old Man was NOT pleased) and re-assembled it.

[AncientMariner]

19 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

By Noel Monsert, I have a copy, fascinating read

I’ve just been through my bookshelves, and located “Supership” by Noel Mostert.  The ship involved was “Ardshiel”, and I served as 2nd Mate on her a year or so after the book came out.  Noel Mostert did the round trip from Europe to the Gulf via the Cape of Good Hope and back, so he would have been on board for around two months.

 

Some of the crew members mentioned in the book are former shipmates.  However, I never sailed with the master, who had a bit of a reputation.  He was very much old school, had seen service during WW2, and I seem to recall that at least once he had to take to the boats.

 

Many years later, working as a pilot on board an American-flagged vessel, the Texan Mate mentioned the book to me in conversation, and asked if I knew about it.  That livened up our conversation!

 

John

[Bon Accord]

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Ferguson Marine, accounts overdue.

Is this just an accounting cockup, or a worrying sign of something more significant?

 

 

Political red tape apparently - this was a news story here about a month ago.

As the yard is owned by the Scottish Government the accounts have to be scrutinised and passed by the Scottish Parliament first, this isn't scheduled to happen until next week (I think) as per the parliamentary timetable, whereupon they'll be filed with companies house by the end of the month.

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

Next time he was bored he then withdrew the air start distributor spindle while the main engine (8RND90) was running.  Didn't help, funnily enough.......he went back to the bar while we stopped the engine (the Old Man was NOT pleased) and re-assembled it.

What the actual... 😲

[62613]

2 hours ago, MarkC said:

The two oil tankers I sailed on, the StaT55 Panamax product tankers Scottish Lion and Scottish Eagle, also had steam plant for the cargo pumps - a Babcock M11 watertube boiler & 4x Stal-Laval turbines. The steam plant was more powerful than quite a few steamships, but it didn't count for steam time, as it wasn't for propulsion.

 

Oh, the memories of playing the Bailey Board, especially whilst the Mate was winding up the turbines for discharging...

 

Mark

That was fairly standard for all the ships I was on, except the last, which had electric motor - driven cargo pumps; you used to have to wind the frequency up to about 62 before starting them, to avoid blacking out. The only other one that didn't was a 1959 - built products tanker, which had two pump rooms with reciprocating cargo pumps. The steam was from two Scotch boilers operating at 125 p.s.i. She was also 220V d.c., with Ruston D/Gs and a Bellis and Morcom compound emergency generator; all the electric pumps had a steam stand by. The engine was an exhaust piston H & W. Lovely ship!

[MarkC]

I guess that the closest I've ever been to the "tankeritis" that the VLCC lads (and lasses these days) would go on about will have been the early March 2020 (departed Vlissingen) to 25th June 2020 period, when I finally got off my ship. Was due off at San Juan, but everything shut down, the day before we got there, and we weren't allowed off the ship, very few folk boarded - (the USCG & then pilots) - and all we did after San Juan was load off a VLGC just west of Kingston & discharge in Montego Bay. Backwards & forwards...

 

Mark

[62613]

1 hour ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

The Yorkie had Kockums combustion control - which worked OK until the Chief - that one - adjusted it.  That buqqered it.  Had to get the makers man out to repair it.  Oh the joy. 

 

Next time he was bored he then withdrew the air start distributor spindle while the main engine (8RND90) was running.  Didn't help, funnily enough.......he went back to the bar while we stopped the engine (the Old Man was NOT pleased) and re-assembled it.

Think I'd have been saying, get me off next port!

 

[duncan]

1 hour ago, Bon Accord said:

 

Political red tape apparently - this was a news story here about a month ago.

As the yard is owned by the Scottish Government the accounts have to be scrutinised and passed by the Scottish Parliament first, this isn't scheduled to happen until next week (I think) as per the parliamentary timetable, whereupon they'll be filed with companies house by the end of the month.

 

There is apparently a stoochie starting as senior management appear to have awarded themselves performance bonuses, without govt approval ! 

 

www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ferguson-marine-ps87000-bonus-payments-unacceptable-audit-scotland-4064015

 

[New Haven Neil]

4 hours ago, MarkC said:

What the actual... 😲

 

4 hours ago, 62613 said:

Think I'd have been saying, get me off next port!

 

 

This guy was a real doozie.  Ended up the 2nd punched his lights out while we were changing a liner at sea after a piston seizure - on my 22nd birthday as a treat. 36 hours, rolling like a pig, and Chiefy cam down to hurry us on....wallop.

 

4 months to the day I was on her, and did not set foot on dry land the entire trip - any time alongside was spent nailing bits that fell off (or wrecked by the Chief) back together. Then he gave anyone and everyone who paid off a bad report.  I'm not sure how long he survived at sea, but note he attends company re-unions still.  I don't know how he has the nerve.  The 3rd on that trip is now a Super, I must ask him for a 'report' the next time we  speak, he's a decent bloke.

[KeithMacdonald]

6 hours ago, duncan said:

There is apparently a stoochie starting as senior management appear to have awarded themselves performance bonuses, without govt approval ! 

www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ferguson-marine-ps87000-bonus-payments-unacceptable-audit-scotland-4064015

 

 

Oh dear,

 

Quote

Public spending watchdogs have condemned £87,000 of bonus payments to senior managers at Ferguson Marine as they raised fresh doubts about the completion dates and costs of two hugely-delayed ferries and the future of the Port Glasgow shipyard.

..

Quote

He also raised fresh doubts about the final cost and completion dates of the two ferries being built at the yard, which the Scottish Government took over in 2019. The vessels are already five years late. The first, Glen Sannox, is currently due to be delivered to CalMac by May. Audit Scotland said the cost “remains uncertain”, with the latest estimates suggesting some £9.5 million of further funding is required, which would bring the total to £293m. That is three times the original contract price and includes previous Scottish Government top-ups over the past two years. The watchdog added: “There is also doubt about the longer-term viability of the shipyard, despite sustained investment by the Scottish Government. Further investment in the shipyard and workforce are also needed to help secure future contracts.”

 

[jjb1970]

The problem for the Scottish government is that to turn the yard around they need top quality talent. People with those skills have a price in any circumstances, but to ask them to go to a failed yard, in the media eye, subject to government interference and be expected to wave a magic wand means any of the people who you might truly want are going to price all that in to their salary and bonus demands. That's assuming they would even consider it. Think about it, if you were a manager or CEO of high standing and a good reputation would you risk it by taking a job which is frankly toxic and being expected to pander to backseat drivers?

[jjb1970]

If I was to be flippant, I'd suggest they should hire talent from the Republic of Korea or Japan given that's where the best shipbuilding talent is (along with China, but I'm guessing that one really would be a none-starter) but that'd never work either. The way DSME et al run their yards is that a contract is agreed and that's that, they will deliver what has been agreed at the time which has been agreed or pay damages if things go wrong. What they do not tolerate is interference in their production processes, trying to amend specifications after contract signing etc (unusually, given the purchase contract model in much of the western world, they're not interested in variation orders as the interruption to production costs more than they make from ripping the customer off with expensive variation costs) and they're not shy about telling customers and others such as class to butt out. They get away with it because they deliver ships to the agreed quality criteria on time (and that time is short) to the agreed price, if customers don't llike the flip side of the coin they can always go elsewhere.

[KeithMacdonald]

There are clearly a few "root causes".

 

1) When the company is government-owned, it gives them even more license to meddle and change the requirements (changing horses mid-stream)

 

2) British management and project management practices. A too-deeply embedded ignorance and lack of technical skills high enough in the relevant business. Decisions getting made without sufficient knowledge.

 

3) Contract kharma.

Government gives contract to lowest bidder. The lowest bidder got the bid that low by not including as much provision and contingency for overrun or scope creep (or less than other bidders).

(Been there, got the T-shirt)

Many years ago, I was working on a project for a sub-contractor, contracted to MoD and UK Army. The lead project managers openly laughed and told us how they had got the contract. By bidding on a "minimum viable product" with the barest of all possible specifications. Knowing full well that as soon as the MoD mentioned anything new or changed - bingo!

Oh, sorry, that's a Variation To Contract, we'll have to charge to extra for that.

It was a Standard Operating Procedure in the industry, and a trick that the UK Gov and related departments repeatedly fell for.

 

4) Anything else?

[J. S. Bach]

Same over here, too.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

3) Contract kharma.

Government gives contract to lowest bidder. The lowest bidder got the bid that low by not including as much provision and contingency for overrun or scope creep (or less than other bidders).

(Been there, got the T-shirt)

Many years ago, I was working on a project for a sub-contractor, contracted to MoD and UK Army. The lead project managers openly laughed and told us how they had got the contract. By bidding on a "minimum viable product" with the barest of all possible specifications. Knowing full well that as soon as the MoD mentioned anything new or changed - bingo!

Oh, sorry, that's a Variation To Contract, we'll have to charge to extra for that.

It was a Standard Operating Procedure in the industry, and a trick that the UK Gov and related departments repeatedly fell for.

SOP for certain well-known companies in the rail business too - yet people still keep coming back for more.

[New Haven Neil]

Always the same here too - accountancy driven short-sighted view.  Always costs more in the long run but 'its the cheapest of the three quotes therefore the 'best' course of action. 

 

This view has just cost the department Mrs NHN works for a fortune, due to buying a particular car brand to have nice flashy blue lights put on the top.  Now all off the road.  Nothing new engines won't fix.  If they don't seize again that is. They were warned....but accountants insisted they were 'the best deal'  Pah, I think is the operative word.  No names no pack drill, but they don't have indicators.

[jjb1970]

I worked as a strategic development engineer for one of the big energy companies for a while. Part of that was preparing proposals for new projects including energy supply for large consumers. Running in new circuits from the transmission or distribution systems, putting in CHP plants etc.

 

For government customers the standard approach was to bid low and wait for the variation orders if we won the contract. It was a gamble but I can't recall my employer ever losing on that one. They are obsessed with 'value for money' which actually means 'cheap' (cost and value are not the same) and it usually ends up with hugely bloated costs as the variation orders accumulate and far higher costs than just agreeing the right specification and accepting the associated higher cost at the outset. 

 

What was deeply concerning was that in some cases they didn't know what they wanted. How are you meant to prepare a proposal for a new hospital if one minute they want 1MW and the next it is 15MW? We had a pretty reliable model for hospitals (we had a lot of NHS business) which provided an estimate pretty much bang on what they finally defined but we were accused of trying to rip them off when proposing loads for the project. They also accused me of trying to rip them off when I offered to pay to oversize the supplies and ring fence growth capacity for their use in return for us using the same circuit to feed another potential customer. Yes, I saw an opportunity to hook another client on the cheap, but they were offered a free upgrade and enough surplus capacity to cover any conceivable additional demand through life (power demand only ever seems to go up). A commercial customer would have seen it as a good offer and bitten my hand off (as several did in similar scenarios) as we both win. And don't get me started on the vagaries of digging up roads in London. The highest commercial risk of the projects I did in London was putting in sub-surface supplies as you really don't know what is underneath you. One project they demanded I use a particular route because it was shorter which I refused to do because there was a pinch point about 4m wide with the main gas main for the district, main water supply, existing HV cables, telecom cables and God knows what else already routed through it. I walked away and then they came back as all the other potential vendors refused to even consider that route. I was close to banging my head against brick walls on a regular basis. And only the NHS would put an HR manager in charge of an energy project heading towards three figures with a million on the end for a flagship hospital as a development role.

 

When we worked for commercial customers like chemical companies, oil & gas it was very different. Generally it was a turnkey contract and after signing contracts that was that (unless there were problems and arguments over liquidated damages kicked off).

[jjb1970]

Mermaid Ace in the Tanjong Pagar vehicle terminal.

 

Alas, Tanjong Pagar container terminal looks an increasingly sad sight. What looks like hundreds of straddle carriers parked up out of service, most of the cranes sitting idle, the container yard almost empty. Still a couple of small-ish ships on the Brani side. Looks like closure is near, the new terminal at Tuas is working up and it looks like almost all trade now is in/out of Pasir Panjang and Tuas. Sad for those like me who remember the glory days of the old terminal. It was great for crews as it is very near the centre of Singapore, if you're confident about where you are and don't mind the humidity it is easily walkable to Raffles Place and Marine Bay, or the Civic District and Raffles Hotel. And there is an EW Line MRT station just outside the terminal so you can get almost anywhere easily.

 

Pasir Panjang is OK, that's close to the MRT and not actually that far from the centre (though I wouldn't want to walk it) but Tuas is in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

[jjb1970]

Mein Schiff 5 in Singapore cruise terminal today, nice sunny day.

 

 

[drmditch]

A question from an ignorant person.

A lot of these modern ships seem to be designed without regard to sail area, and potential wind force.

Do they have enough power and rudder area to cope?

 

( I know there was some discussion earlier on the thread.)

[MarkC]

10 minutes ago, drmditch said:

A question from an ignorant person.

A lot of these modern ships seem to be designed without regard to sail area, and potential wind force.

Do they have enough power and rudder area to cope?

 

( I know there was some discussion earlier on the thread.)

Propulsion power - yes - and if they have azimuth pods rather than traditional propeller/rudder, then yes again

 

However, yes, windage is a huge issue, even with large bow thrusters, & stern thrusters if not azimuth equipped. If it's windy then either extra tugs would be required for berthing/unberthing, or port call might be cancelled.

 

FWIW, the same problem is to be had with the huge container ships that operate these days.

 

Mark

[jjb1970]

The problem is torque. Ships have smaller engines than a few years ago to improve EEDI values, combined with very large slow revving propellers and engines tuned for good emissions performance. They're fine at service speed (most of the time) but at low revs they can really struggle because torque is inadequate. We had cases of bulk carriers struggling to get through the barred speed range (over a minute) and ships losing power when manoeuvring at low speed in confined waters in quite modest sea states. The IMO minimum power guidelines address the wrong parameter in addressing power, they should have considered torque.