Anyone Interested in Ships

[jjb1970]

This one is a long way from home, the brand new Ro-Ro ferry Finnsirius alongside in Tanjong Pagar en-route from the builders yard (Weihai in China) to the Baltic.

[jjb1970]

The cable ship Asean Explorer off Marina Bay.

 

[jjb1970]

Something to keep in mind is that there is a world of difference between steam reciprocating engines and steam turbines. Steam reciprocating engines were woefully inefficient, maintenance intensive and really didn't have that much going for them other than they were relatively easy to manufacture (hence their continued use in a lot of wartime austerity ships, corvettes etc). Steam turbines on the other hand did have positive attributes that offset their lower efficiency such that prior to the 1973 oil crisis there were categories of ship for which there was no definitive answer for whether steam or motor was better. Many of the ocean going container ships built prior to the oil crisis (or still under construction) were steam turbine powered as it was easy to get very high shaft horsepower, they were very fuel tolerant and things like maintenance costs pretty good compared to an equivalent motor ship. After the oil crisis and as diesels were able to operate reliably on fuel grades such as 380cSt HFO steam turbine died a death except for niche applications such as LNG carriers where they operated with boil off gas.

[jjb1970]

Before things went horribly wrong with the two LNG ferries at Ferguson the Scottish government were pressuring CMAL to build hydrogen fuelled ferries at the same yard to make it a global leader in hydrogen fuelled ships. Looking at the state of things I shudder to think how that might have went, CMAL dodged a bullet there.

[KeithMacdonald]

13 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

You're quite wrong.

 

Err, about what? I made no claim as to which company adopted which technology.

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, about what? I made no claim as to which company adopted which technology.

 

Well you blatantly did, otherwise why bring the history of David MacBrayne into your answer to the OP which only asked of the IOMSPC and the railway steamers?

Particularly since it's followed by the comment "Combinations of vested interests and government interference management probably put a stop to what would have been good fleet management."

As I have stated in my reply, MacBrayne's "fleet" management was actually rather good and forward thinking for it's time.

[Bon Accord]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something to keep in mind is that there is a world of difference between steam reciprocating engines and steam turbines. Steam reciprocating engines were woefully inefficient, maintenance intensive and really didn't have that much going for them other than they were relatively easy to manufacture (hence their continued use in a lot of wartime austerity ships, corvettes etc). Steam turbines on the other hand did have positive attributes that offset their lower efficiency such that prior to the 1973 oil crisis there were categories of ship for which there was no definitive answer for whether steam or motor was better. Many of the ocean going container ships built prior to the oil crisis (or still under construction) were steam turbine powered as it was easy to get very high shaft horsepower, they were very fuel tolerant and things like maintenance costs pretty good compared to an equivalent motor ship. After the oil crisis and as diesels were able to operate reliably on fuel grades such as 380cSt HFO steam turbine died a death except for niche applications such as LNG carriers where they operated with boil off gas.

 

The other reason certain specific operators stuck with steam reciprocating engines was a requirement for sustained low speeds coupled with the need for reasonably rapid engine movements with no limit on their number, which is where turbine and motorships were at a disadvantage.

Hence how many tugs, dredgers, salvage vessels etc were still built with up and downers even into the 1960s, whilst recip powered cable ships were favoured until well after the war. When the latter were working cables, for the purposes of station keeping they had to run at very low revs - often astern as the cable sheaves were on the bow - for long periods.

When BR built their last paddle steamer in 1953 it didn't even have a Triplex, she was instead fitted with a two cylinder compound...

[jjb1970]

There are usually outlier/niche applications which favour solutions which wouldn't be ideal for more conventional use. I knew cable layers kept reciprocating engines for a long time.

[JeremyC]

On 01/08/2023 at 12:48, johnofwessex said:

My wife was watching 'Who Do You Think You Are' last night, the subject was Adrian Ramsey.

 

His Grandfather served on HMS Ulster Queen in WW2

 

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

 

The Belfast Steamship Co. received three 3,700 ton Harland and Wolff-built motorships in 1929 and 1930, the world's first diesel cross-channel ships. Ulster Queen was the second of these.[2]

 

From what I can see, almost all 'non railway' Irish Sea ferries, and indeed some railway ones like Princess Victoria were Motor Ships from this point, ditto the Belgium ships, some of which were good for 25 knots.

 

At the same time Captain Shippick and his backers were building some very nice motor ships for cross channel day excursions like

 

https://www.derbysulzers.com/shipqueenchannel.html

 

I understand that the economics of motor ships were not always that straightforward, and that many British Shipbuilders recommended steam because they built there own engines however Dennys had a Sulzer licence and Harland & Wolff built diesel engines before WW2 

 

So why did the railways and the Isle of Man Steam Packet stick with steam until the mid 1960's?  Yes we got some lovely ships like Manxman and Maid of Kent  BUT they were not cheap to run 

 

 

Somewhere I read a paper (I think it was someone's PhD thesis) on why British Shipowners stayed with coal fired steam longer and were slow to adopt diesel power compared to Continental owners. As well as the reasons mentioned above another major reason suggested was that many shipowners also had large financial interests in the coal industry.

Edited August 2, 2023 by JeremyC

[62613]

On 02/08/2023 at 16:07, JeremyC said:

Somewhere I read a paper (I think it was someone's PhD thesis) on why British Shipowners stayed with coal fired steam longer and were slow to adopt diesel power compared to Continental owners. As well as the reasons mentioned above another major reason suggested was that many shipowners also had large financial interests in the coal industry.

It was a paper for the IMarE. I think it may well be on this thread somewhere; I can remember downloading it. It was British - specific, describing such engines as the Still 🤮 and the Fullagar, and another where the pistons were stationary, and the liner moved🫣. Some of the reasons for the slow adopption of the large - bore slow - speed diesel were as you mentioned, vested interested in coal production (particularly in the North - East of England), and the innate conservatism of British shipowners. Yet; all 10 British merchants in the Pedestal convoy were motorships; I wonder whether that was something to do with the trades they were involved with, i.e. long passages to India and the Far East?

[Bon Accord]

After a 4 year hiatus, our annual "jolly boys outing" ran again yesterday for trip on Waverley from Greenock to Brodick (with time ashore) and return.

 

 

On arrival in Brodick on the east side of the ferry pier.

 

Returning to Greenock.

 

Having discharged all passengers at Greenock Custom House Quay, she then proceeded 'light' upriver to Glasgow Plantation Quay Science Centre, which was to be her berth for the night.

[Bon Accord]

On 02/08/2023 at 10:53, jjb1970 said:

This one is a long way from home, the brand new Ro-Ro ferry Finnsirius alongside in Tanjong Pagar en-route from the builders yard (Weihai in China) to the Baltic.

 

I presume this is one of a series to replace the Finnstar class which run from Travemunde?

When I was last up the Baltic in the freight Ro-Ros Beachy Head/Longstone (on charter to Transfennica) there were only seven ships on the Finland run that were faster than us: the five Finnstar sisters and two Superfasts which ran from Rostock. Those seven ships could all manage 25-30 knots when flat out.

Everything else we were able to overtake, so the OOW rarely needed to look astern!

All pre massive fuel prices/financial crisis of course.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Bon Accord

[jjb1970]

On 04/08/2023 at 02:39, 62613 said:

It was a paper for the IMarE. I think it may well be on this thread somewhere; I can remember downloading it. It was British - specific, describing such engines as the Still 🤮 and the Fullagar, and another where the pistons were stationary, and the liner moved🫣. Some of the reasons for the slow adopption of the large - bore slow - speed diesel were as you mentioned, vested interested in coal production (particularly in the North - East of England), and the innate conservatism of British shipowners. Yet; all 10 British merchants in the Pedestal convoy were motorships; I wonder whether that was something to do with the trades they were involved with, i.e. long passages to India and the Far East?

 

That'd be back in those far off days when IMarEST as it is now called used to publish genuine papers, issue their proceedings to members and had an interest in marine engineering. I was a fellow of IMarEST but left a couple of years ago. The final straw was being told outreach to disabled people wasn't a priority after I questioned why in all their excellent outreach to get more females into marine engineering (which I fully support) they said nada zip nilch about disabled people. They should know better than anyone that marine engineering has loads of roles (design engineering, design approval surveyor, technical management, efficiency optimization etc) for which being disabled is no barrier. However, while I now see a lot of ladies in maritime, disabled people are pretty much absent.

[jjb1970]

4 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

 

I presume this is one of a series to replace the Finnstar class which run from Travemunde?

When I was last up the Baltic in the freight Ro-Ros Beachy Head/Longstone (on charter to Transfennica) there were only seven ships on the Finland run that were faster than us: the five Finnstar sisters and two Superfasts which ran from Rostock. Those seven ships could all manage 25-30 knots when flat out.

Everything else we were able to overtake, so the OOW rarely needed to look astern!

All pre massive fuel prices/financial crisis of course.

 

Not sure where this one will be deployed but it's interesting that they paid to put it alongside in Tanjong Pagar. When the new IoM ferry was in Singapore to do some work a few weeks ago they just got to sit in the anchorage.

[The Johnster]

On 03/08/2023 at 19:39, 62613 said:

Yet; all 10 British merchants in the Pedestal convoy were motorships; I wonder whether that was something to do with the trades they were involved with, i.e. long passages to India and the Far East?

 

Quite possibly, but they were selected because they could maintain the required speed for Pedestal (my dad was 3/O on Melbourne Star), rather than for the type of engines.  There were no Allied tankers that could maintain the speed, hence the chartering of Ohio; America was still maintaining a pretence of being neutral at the time.

[KeithMacdonald]

@jjb1970 - with your expertise, you can probably make more sense of this than me.

 

Quote

Spot rates for shipping containers have been rising for four weeks. The latest data from the Drewry World Container Index composite shows the most significant weekly gain in the index in more than two years. The 23-month slump in ocean-freight costs appears to be ending. 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/global-container-rates-jump-most-two-years

 

Is this just a temporary blip, or something more significant?

[billbedford]

Probably just the Climate Crisis kicking in....

Edited August 5, 2023 by billbedford

[MarkC]

Here's a good one - according to an article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, since the sulphur limits on HFO were lowered, and thus shipping emissions reduced, there has been a reduction in cloud cover, leading to an increase in sea temperatures...

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/05/disappearing-clouds-causing-rise-ocean-temperatures/

 

Now, if this is true, then haven't the scientific geniuses (sic) who advise on such things actually shot themselves in the foot? I think I want to see more meat on the bones of this report, tbh, but if it's true then it's definitely an "oops" moment...

 

My apologies - I can't now take a quote from the article, which I saw yesterday - our on board internet has just been <improved> by *experts* ashore, and as a consequence I can't access the Telegraph via the satellite link at present. Hopefully we'll be on 4G via the GSM network again soon...

 

Mark

[billbedford]

I've read that some genius has suggested that ships should be encouraged to make white smoke to make more 'clouds'. 

 

However, it appears the recent warming has more to do with the new undersea volcano in Samoa dumping shed-loads of water vapour into the stratosphere. 

 

It can't be long before some greenie says that volcanos should be banned.

[jjb1970]

22 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

@jjb1970 - with your expertise, you can probably make more sense of this than me.

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/global-container-rates-jump-most-two-years

 

Is this just a temporary blip, or something more significant?

 

At the moment I'm not trying to make sense of anything as there are so many unusual conditions at play in shipping. The most rational part of it is that the shipping lines have been pretty disciplined in reducing capacity to remove excess and push rates up, and the market has been through an extraordinary period which has disrupted normal trends and performance.

[jjb1970]

The Telegraph is just catching up with something that was known about before IMO made the sulphur cap decision. It's not clouds, it's sulfate aerosols. Two different issues are mixed up, climate change emissions and local emissions. SOx emissions was/is a public health issue and a local environmental issue with particulate and SOx leading to quite a few undesirable impacts. IMO took an informed decision that the benefits of reducing SOx emissions outweighed the GHG cost from lowering sulfate aerosols (and the increase in GHG emissions from refineries to make cleaner fuel, well documented by CONCAWE well ahead of the IMO decision). 

[jjb1970]

The LNG carrier British Achiever passing between Changi Beach and Pulau Ubin (an undeveloped island popular for days out as it is one of the few areas of Singapore which hasn't been developed), showing how close ships come to the beach.

 

[jjb1970]

A large dredger and cable ship transiting the same passage, that's a big dredger, the Malaysian flag Inai Kenanga, just over 41,000DWT.

 

[johnofwessex]

Interesting

 

So ASEAN have their own cable ships?

[62613]

On 05/08/2023 at 04:58, The Johnster said:

 

Quite possibly, but they were selected because they could maintain the required speed for Pedestal (my dad was 3/O on Melbourne Star), rather than for the type of engines.  There were no Allied tankers that could maintain the speed, hence the chartering of Ohio; America was still maintaining a pretence of being neutral at the time.

What I was hinting at was that diesel engines are more economical for the same power output; doubtless steam turbines could have produced the the same power, but with a much higher fuel consumption, and given the services they were on (Blue Star, Port Line, and Shaw Savill to Australia and NZ, and Blue Funnel to India and H.K.), it made sense to reduce fuel costs and the space required to store it.