Anyone Interested in Ships

[Tankerman]

23 hours ago, Torper said:

Some good news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-53877363/waverley-paddle-steamer-finally-sets-sail-after-two-years

 

DT

 

The bad news is that even the BBC is now ignorant of correct English grammar.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Tankerman

[The Johnster]

That’s not news, Tankerman, they’ve been like it for years.  A frequent nautical one is ‘off the coast of x’, as opposed to ‘off x’

[Tankerman]

Not really bad grammar, but it does make me cringe, putting 'the' in front of HMS as in "the HMS Norfolk" as if HMS part of the ships name.

[The Johnster]

Agreed: same for MV, RMS etc.  And one is 'in' or 'aboard' a ship, not on it.  I believe the distinction in that if one is 'in' a ship it is because you are a member of that ship's 'company', but if you are a mere passenger or similarly aboard, you are merely 'aboard', as in 'How many souls aboard Mr Lightoller'.  Not sure where supercargo, which I have been on occasion, come in this matter!  But if you 'served in' a ship if has to be a naval or RNAS vessel, because of the 'service' element.

 

I would tend to include the civilian fitters working on HMS 'Prince of Wales' gun turret mechanisms while she was in action against SMS 'Bismark' as being 'in', part of, her ship's company, as they were hardly passengers or supercargo, but not as 'serving in' her.  This may be incorrect as they were no part of the ship's company in the sense of being registered to her, and not drawing any Naval pay; they were on their company pay rates plus any danger money or overtime they were able to claim.  They were presumably being treated as guests of the Royal Navy (whatever they may have thought about a host who gets his guests involved in a battle with a German Battlecruiser that caused considerable death and destruction aboard 'Prince or Wales', though a 'Prince of Wales' shell damaged 'Bismark's' stern and caused an ultimatetly fatal fuel oil loss.  They would have been messing in Royal Navy messes and eating Royal Navy food, which no doubt prevented them from claiming subsistence allowance from their employers.

 

No doubt there are sea lawyers here who can put me straight.  As a teenager, did a couple of trips with a schoolmate whose father was the agent for the company, in MV 'Luminance', owned by the Barry Steam Navigation Company, a 180 ton coaster that was one of the last ships to load coal from Barry. These expeditions would have been in the summers of 1968 and 9, about a week each.  Her stock in trade was power station coal to places like New Ross, Hayle, and occasionally Brittany or Northern Spain.  Our cruises were to Hayle and New Ross, and we were signed on as deck hands.  This was the limit of my professional seafaring career, and in summer weather and cash in our pockets to hit the fleshpots, we had the time of our lives; whilst aboard, mostly trying to stay out of the way of people who knew what they were doing, but we were regarded as on duty in watches in the proper manner, and did our menial share of spud peeling, swabbing decks, and making tea, whilst imagining ourselves aboard a windjammer in a South China Sea typhoon (one of the old hands stoked this with tales of being on the Flying P Line's Pamir in the 30s out of Penarth, and for all we knew he was the real thing, or close enough for us anyway).

 

I consider myself to have been 'in' her, part of her crew, and with payslips to prove it, but I don't recall having a discharge book or anything as 'proper' as that!  I only served in her to the extent of tea and the engineers' breakfast on a tray.  But it didn't feel like I was aboard her, as a passenger or as something outside the definition of 'ship's company' in the way that my childhood supercargo voyages had, and I certainly didn't get the deference a passenger would have had, nor did I expect or want it; that wasn't what it, whatever it was, was about.  I enjoyed it hugely, didn't learn much, and look back on it with fondness, especially for that girl on hollys with her 'rents in Hayle...

 

 

[62613]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Agreed: same for MV, RMS etc.  And one is 'in' or 'aboard' a ship, not on it.  I believe the distinction in that if one is 'in' a ship it is because you are a member of that ship's 'company', but if you are a mere passenger or similarly aboard, you are merely 'aboard', as in 'How many souls aboard Mr Lightoller'.  Not sure where supercargo, which I have been on occasion, come in this matter!  But if you 'served in' a ship if has to be a naval or RNAS vessel, because of the 'service' element.

 

I would tend to include the civilian fitters working on HMS 'Prince of Wales' gun turret mechanisms while she was in action against SMS 'Bismark' as being 'in', part of, her ship's company, as they were hardly passengers or supercargo, but not as 'serving in' her.  This may be incorrect as they were no part of the ship's company in the sense of being registered to her, and not drawing any Naval pay; they were on their company pay rates plus any danger money or overtime they were able to claim.  They were presumably being treated as guests of the Royal Navy (whatever they may have thought about a host who gets his guests involved in a battle with a German Battlecruiser that caused considerable death and destruction aboard 'Prince or Wales', though a 'Prince of Wales' shell damaged 'Bismark's' stern and caused an ultimatetly fatal fuel oil loss.  They would have been messing in Royal Navy messes and eating Royal Navy food, which no doubt prevented them from claiming subsistence allowance from their employers.

 

No doubt there are sea lawyers here who can put me straight.  As a teenager, did a couple of trips with a schoolmate whose father was the agent for the company, in MV 'Luminance', owned by the Barry Steam Navigation Company, a 180 ton coaster that was one of the last ships to load coal from Barry. These expeditions would have been in the summers of 1968 and 9, about a week each.  Her stock in trade was power station coal to places like New Ross, Hayle, and occasionally Brittany or Northern Spain.  Our cruises were to Hayle and New Ross, and we were signed on as deck hands.  This was the limit of my professional seafaring career, and in summer weather and cash in our pockets to hit the fleshpots, we had the time of our lives; whilst aboard, mostly trying to stay out of the way of people who knew what they were doing, but we were regarded as on duty in watches in the proper manner, and did our menial share of spud peeling, swabbing decks, and making tea, whilst imagining ourselves aboard a windjammer in a South China Sea typhoon (one of the old hands stoked this with tales of being on the Flying P Line's Pamir in the 30s out of Penarth, and for all we knew he was the real thing, or close enough for us anyway).

 

I consider myself to have been 'in' her, part of her crew, and with payslips to prove it, but I don't recall having a discharge book or anything as 'proper' as that!  I only served in her to the extent of tea and the engineers' breakfast on a tray.  But it didn't feel like I was aboard her, as a passenger or as something outside the definition of 'ship's company' in the way that my childhood supercargo voyages had, and I certainly didn't get the deference a passenger would have had, nor did I expect or want it; that wasn't what it, whatever it was, was about.  I enjoyed it hugely, didn't learn much, and look back on it with fondness, especially for that girl on hollys with her 'rents in Hayle...

 

 

 I must admit, that in the ten years I did with BP, I never heard any crew member use the term 'in' when referring to being a member of a ships' company; we were always 'on'. My understanding is that the first is a Royal Navy term, or maybe one of the 'posh' passenger lines as well; the second was more a Merchant Navy term. What expression did your dad use? Strange; I have never asked uncle Donald, who was ex - HMS Worcester, Blue Flue and Ben Line, which term he used.

 

[The Johnster]

My dad, Merchant Navy and scornful of RN culture, would never have used ‘in’ or ‘served in’, he was always ‘on’ or ‘on board‘ his ships.  He would sneer if I used naval terms which I’d ‘only picked up from reading books’; he had a point of course and 2 voyages messing about on a coaster did not equip me to be passing myself off as some sort of old salt Master Mariner like him. 
 

But I’ve picked up a lot from reading books.  Novels were not really much a part of dad’s life; in his view they were trivial and a waste of time, and I think that fact that I loved them irritated him and he thought I was doing it deliberately for that purpose.  In fact he disapproved of my taking any interest in maritime activity at all, and was glad when my eyesight issues prevented my following him into the Merch; he claimed that this was a result of the death and destruction he’d witnessed on the North Atlantic and in the Med during the war.  

[billbedford]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Agreed: same for MV, RMS etc.  And one is 'in' or 'aboard' a ship, not on it.  I believe the distinction in that if one is 'in' a ship it is because you are a member of that ship's 'company', but if you are a mere passenger or similarly aboard, you are merely 'aboard', as in 'How many souls aboard Mr Lightoller'.  Not sure where supercargo, which I have been on occasion, come in this matter!  But if you 'served in' a ship if has to be a naval or RNAS vessel, because of the 'service' element.

 

People have the same problem with islands. You can live on the Isle of Wight, but in Orkney or Shetland. 

[The Johnster]

Never been to any island I haven't been 'on', Bill.  If I'd ever been there I'd have said I was on Lewis but that I was in the Outer Hebrides.  You could say you were on Great Britain, the largest island of the British archipelago, but to say you on Europe or Africa sounds daft; you would be in them.  Orkney and Shetland consider themselves to be continental masses, then; good for them!  You'd say you were in 'The Shetland Islands' or 'The Orkneys' (which seem not to require defintion as islands for this purpose). 

 

But my natural instinct were I to ever visit those wild and lovely places would be to say I was in The Orkneys, but on Mainland, not 'the mainland', and the same would apply in the Shetland Islands; you are on whichever island you are on, and the biggest in both these cases is called Mainland, but as the island you are on is in an archipelago, you are in that archipelago.  I guess that if you refer to 'The Mainland' while you are on Mainland it is taken to mean the land mass of Great Britain.  

 

Locally, we have a similar situation with Gower, a peninsula in West Glamorgan.  Gower residents insist (and who am I to argue with them) that one is either 'on' Gower or 'in' the Gower Peninsular; outsiders make the mistake of being 'on the Gower' or in the sea 'off the Gower', when they should be 'off Gower' or 'off the Gower Peninsula'.  Potential visitors to Gower will often say they are going 'down the Gower', but should be saying 'down Gower', which doesn't scan right somehow, or 'down the Gower Peninsular' which is clumsy and and awkward and begs the superfluous question 'how far down'?

 

My partner is Polish, and claims with some justification that her language is the most difficult in Europe, and it is at least on a par with Welsh with gender, tongue bending dipthongs, and mutations, but I would say that English is more demanding in it's subtleties of meaning and inflection, and because of it's mongrel parentages, more words that have different meanings.  This subtlety is of course what makes it such a fantastically precise and efficient means of communication when it is used correctly.  Living with someone whose first language it is not is revelatory and highly instructive, because it forces you to think about your own usage of it which you have previously and unquestioningly taken for granted.

 

It's a miserable afternoon on the mean inner city streets, and probably at least as bad where you are, and this discourse is a pleasant distraction from it.

[JeremyC]

As an ex Merchant Navy engineer (44 years in the MN) I'd agree with others who say it was 'on' or 'onboard'. The only people I heard using 'in' were ex RN.

[62613]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

People have the same problem with islands. You can live on the Isle of Wight, but in Orkney or Shetland. 

 

Also; Wirral, or The Wirral; and Ukraine, or The Ukraine?

 

[burgundy]

41,000 ton floating car park just off Battery Point at Portishead, heading into Portbury Dock.  

Best wishes 

Eric 

[62613]

22 minutes ago, burgundy said:

41,000 ton floating car park just off Battery Point at Portishead, heading into Portbury Dock.  

Best wishes 

Eric 

 

In a world where function trumps form, car carriers have to be the ugliest ships on today's ocean.

[The Johnster]

Flock of bats, I mean block of flats on water.  OTOH, the big container ships are rather sleek and graceful, at least until some fool puts all those boxes on top of them...

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

In a world where function trumps form, car carriers have to be the ugliest ships on today's ocean.

They're even worse when you're looking at the bow from a fairly low vantage point.  Off Cowes last year.

 

 

 

And they're not much better when they're underway at a reasonable speed - this one was making about 15 knots heading westbound  at the east end of the English Channel separation lanes.  In the vicinity of Foxtrot 3 LV  last year

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[62613]

22 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Flock of bats, I mean block of flats on water.  OTOH, the big container ships are rather sleek and graceful, at least until some fool puts all those boxes on top of them...

 

Most of the first - generation VLCCs looked reasonably 'handsome', especially when fully loaded. Despite what they were like down below, the BP 65 000, 72 000 and 100 000 tonners were easy on the eye. 

[The Johnster]

I find aircraft carriers pretty ugly as well, except Akagi which was so odd as to come out the other side of ugliness into a wierd functional beauty.  I doubt that anyone in the US Navy sees it that way, though!

[billbedford]

Never trust a Unicorn...

 

 

[Kris]

On 24/08/2020 at 17:32, Tankerman said:

 

   On 23/08/2020 at 17:51,  Torper said: 

Some good news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-53877363/waverley-paddle-steamer-finally-sets-sail-after-two-years

 

DT

what a terrible start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54011504

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Kris

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/09/2020 at 19:14, Kris said:

   On 23/08/2020 at 17:51,  Torper said: 

Some good news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-53877363/waverley-paddle-steamer-finally-sets-sail-after-two-years

 

DT

what a terrible start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54011504

 

Sorry to hear that.  I wonder what the weather was like as the paddler does have manoeuvring problems in certain conditions of wind and tide.    We spent about a quarter of an hour waiting to get out of the lock at Swansea back in 2012 because the wind was pushing the Waverley towards the outer wall and she couldn't get steerage way in order to turn head to sea and wind.  in the end somebody jumped ashore with a stern lines and she managed to turn towards the wind and get underway away from the quay and pier but it was a pretty close run thing.

 

Here she is getting ready to sail as we were entering the lock

 

 

Getting underway as we wait to leave the lock

 

 

 

Furiously going astern as she's unable to get her head round to starboard

 

Still trying to get her head round

 

Finally with the stern alongside ready to get a line ashot re to act as a spring to bring her head round

 

And at last on her way

 

 

 

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 20/12/2018 at 14:44, Johann Marsbar said:

One from a few years back (2011 to be precise) - The former Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad train ferry SS Badger arriving at Manitowoc, Wisconsin.....

 

 

A trip I had always wanted to do,and managed to incorporate it on a 3 week tour by car around the US mid-west. At the time, there was some doubt as to whether the (nasty, polluting... etc, etc) would be able to continue on its Lake Michigan service between Luddington, MI and Manitowoc, WI, but thakfully, someone saw sense and allowed it to continue.

Nowadays it just caters for auto & foot passengers, its rail ferry days ending years ago (though the tracks are still in the deck). Still coal fired and a pleasant, if boring, trip across Lake Michigan on the day I travelled. The weather didn't help, and I was the only person who seemed to brave the rain lashed decks on the whole trip!!

 

 

The SS Badger has gained the honour of being desginated as a National Historic Landmark.  We saw the old girl whilst visiting Chicago to stand on Wrigley Field as part of my 'Bucket List'

A bit ugly but reminiscent of the older cross-channel ferries.

 

Stay Safe

 

[Johann Marsbar]

52 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

The SS Badger has gained the honour of being desginated as a National Historic Landmark.  We saw the old girl whilst visiting Chicago to stand on Wrigley Field as part of my 'Bucket List'

A bit ugly but reminiscent of the older cross-channel ferries.

 

Stay Safe

 

 

During my lightning visit to Luddington (which was even shorter than expected as the ferry was late....) it was just about possible to get a photo of the Badger with its out of use sister ship Spartan which is moored there..

 

 

I did actually manage to pay a fairly quick visit to the brewpub in Luddington as it, thankfully, was only about 15 min walk from the boat, though any thoughts of getting any food there went out of the window!

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Johann Marsbar

[MPR]

In and around Torbay this weekend...

 

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting to see that the QM2 has moved westwards - I wonder if they'd got fed up looking at Weymouth?

[MPR]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting to see that the QM2 has moved westwards - I wonder if they'd got fed up looking at Weymouth?

There has been quite a bit of movement of individual vessels over the weeks - first visit for QM2 though, until the last few weeks,  I’d not seen a Cunard ship in the bay since QE2 was last here!

Edited September 7, 2020 by MPR

[Bon Accord]

I suspect they're going to sea every so often for a day or two so as to make fresh water and pump over bilges/treated black water etc as well as giving everything a good run.

Before the advent of onboard internet/TV, there was a favoured anchorage for RFAs and their like not far from Portland/Weymouth which was good holding ground, sheltered and was just outside the 12 mile limit. We always knew it at as the "Triple T" anchorage: Telephone/TV/Tax as you could received the first two from shore based masts and being just outside the 12 mile limit it counted as a tax day!