Big steel with a familiar name

[mmd]

Sea trials began in St. Nazaire, France today on the Queen Mary 2. Quite an imposing ship - not the wedding cake confection styling of recent cruise ships, but a nice interpretation of the appearances of the luxury liners of the 'thirties. Check it out here (http://www.cunard.com/QM2/home.asp)

[ahp]

Nothing there of interest. I could not find the engine room(s). It has engines I suppose.

[mmd]

LOL! I think that the lower-class passengers are placed on treadmills located in the steerage compartment. ;)

She is powered by two gas turbines and four diesels (I can't recall the total horsepower, but I'll look about) driving four Mermaid Azipods (two fixed, two azimuthing). This is the first time that this propulsion configuration has been used. Maximum speed is expected to be around 30 knots.

[nedL]

Finally a descent looking cruise ship & not something that looks like some overdone Miami Beach hotel. :D

[mmd]

UPDATE:

BUILDER: Alstom Chantiers de l'Atlantique, Saint-Nazaire, France

GROSS REGISTERED TONNAGE: 150,000 tons

LENGTH: 1131 feet (345 metres)

BEAM: 131 feet (40 metres)

BEAM AT BRIDGE WINGS: 147ft 6in (45 metres)

DRAFT: 32ft 10in (10 metres)

HEIGHT (KEEL TO FUNNEL): 236ft 2in (72 metres)

COST: £534m

PASSENGERS: 2,620

CREW: 1,300

TOP SPEED: Approximately 30 knots (34.5 mph)

POWER: Environmentally-friendly, gas turbine/diesel electric plant developing 157,000 horsepower.

STRENGTH: Extra thick steel hull for strength and stability for Atlantic crossings.

STABILISERS: Two sets

Queen Mary 2 will be:

Five times longer than Cunard's first ship, Britannia.

Longer than three football fields.

Half as long again as London's Canary Wharf Tower is high.

Only 117ft shorter than New York's Empire State Building is high.

And ...

QM2's power plant will produce sufficient electricity to light a city the size of Southampton.

Her whistle will be audible for ten miles.

A photo of the external propulsion units (note the interesting stern bustle form - maybe some of the "big ship" folk here on the forum could opine and elucidate) :
http://www.thisissouthampton.co.uk/hampshire/images/1056451709-1.jpg

... and a pic of her under construction (HUGE!!)
http://www.thisissouthampton.co.uk/hampshire/images/1046172102-27.jpg

[John E Hardiman]

Bustle appears to flatten the flow aft to cause "good" seperation that increases the "apparent" LWL and reduces "squat" without having structure in contact with the flow increasing skin drag. Similar to "stern wedges" and "beaver tails" on high speed combatants, see the SNAME paper from NSWCCD 2-3 years ago for their design and use. Subtle tradoff between skin friction and pressure drag at high speed.

[mmd]

Thanks, John. I was presuming (being the presumptive SOB that I am :D ) that the bustle was to increase buoyancy at the stern to counter the tendency to squat at speed. I hadn't thought of the reduction of skin friction due to dynamic flow effects and the apparent increase in LWL.

[John E Hardiman]

LOL, My mistake... smile.gif All depends on what you call the bustle, the hull flair before the "stern" or the "bliviot" appended to the "real transom"?

[mmd]

The hull flare below the waterline terminating in the flat transverse panel (sub-transom? how the h*** are we s'posed to keep up with the terminology of these weird and wonderful appurtenances? :mad: ) just abaft and above the azipods. And, to further enhance my appearance of incompetence, qu'est-ce c'est "bliviot"?

Apparently I have to re-subscribe to SNAME's "Marine Technology" to keep up on this arcane big steel stuff.

[Dave Fleming]

And, to further enhance my appearance of incompetence, qu'est-ce c'est "bliviot"?
A 'Bliviot' is the maritime equivalent of an onshore 'Blurfl'!

And that calls for a Graemlin...or three.

:D :rolleyes: :D

PS: any photos of the stern/ transom/ black rounded thingy?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Er, John's right. I was about to try to say the same thing less clearly in twice as many words!

I have some doubts about the 30 knots. The Queen Mary (1) had 210,000 shp, for what was probably 31.7 knots - she was a vast ship for her day, and is still a wonderful ship to visit.

[mmd]

Nothing so far, Dave. This (http://www.cunard.com/QM2/PhotoGalleryImages/QM2%20Ship%20Images/QM2_profile%20.jpg) is the profile drawing, from which you can (barely) make out the stern bustle above the azipods. I believe that the actual above-water stern is the classic cruiser-stern shape of the 'thirties vintage luxury liners.

ACB, I'm not so doubtful; with the added hydrodynamic efficiencies of the bulbous bow, bustled stern, lack of appendage drag associated with external shafts & struts, and increased efficiencies of modern highly-skewed propellers, it may well be possible for her to live up to her touted speed. A copy of the naval architect's sea trials report - not the PR blurb about the trials - would be nice to see. ;)

(Edited to reply to ACB)

[ 09-26-2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[Dave Fleming]

Yes Mike, barely is just the word in that artists rendering. I blew it up til just before loosing decent resolution and the 'dimple or tuck' is just on the WL..
Goodness knows I am ***NO, NA nor ME*** but, I'm thinkin' anti squat and smoother wake.
What say you John?
Original was conventional British thinking of the time whilst the French liner Normandie, my favourite of them all, had some bow enhancements from her Russian designer. He, so the story goes, first offered his 'radical' approach to the Soviets was refused, then the Brits showed no interest but the French interested in the Blue Ribbon took him on and the result was the Normandie.
Tragic bumbling end, courtesy of the US NAVY, of the Normandie. I recall many a Sunday drive up the WestSide Highway to my grandparents passing the big salvage operation pierside. Merritt Chapman and Scott had the contract IIRC.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes, the NORMANDIE was in almost every respect a better ship than the Queens, but oddly enough she was a commercial failure - not one of her 139 completed voyages made a profit, whereas the QUEEN MARY (which cost half as much to build) was a moneyspinner from the outset.

In the UK the end of the Depression is dated from the day on which work resumed on the QUEEN MARY; she is a very special ship.

I am sure everyone reading this thread knows the story of how she came to be named, and this being so I should say that Cunard have a QUEEN VICTORIA on the stocks at Fincantieri, but she is a smaller ship than the QM2.

[L.W. Baxter]

POWER: Environmentally-friendly, gas turbine/diesel electric plant developing 157,000 horsepower

:eek:
Massive, yes. Impressive, certainly. Awe-inspiring, without a doubt. Environmentally friendly, relatively speaking?

[mmd]

LOL! Not my prose, L.W. I s'pose it is relative, but I don't know to what.

[John E Hardiman]

mmd: if a "blister" is a non-lifting appendage with the plane of symmetry in the flow direction but not vertical and faired for fore-aft flow; a "bliviot" is an appendage with symmetry in the fore-aft direction but vertical and faired for fore-aft flow. Just a term here in the states, a not-so-well done fairing or thingamajig. As to SNAME, you have to turn over a lot of stones to find a gem or two. But most tech rags are like that, I know of some that plaster “NEW” and “IMPROVED” over things that were done 20 years ago. Like the term “lobster yacht”, I can show ad copy from the mid ‘70’s that used that term, and not by the company that is now viciously trying to enforce the ‘90’s copyright. Same is true with some resin infusion methods, it was being done years before the ill-considered patents.

ABC: I’m with mmd, the hull is much finer, bulb bow, less mechanical losses to the pod system, less parasitic drag, most likely even the weld vs rivet advantage. Remember a US CVN makes [censored] knots with the same hp and nearly the same LWL and [censored] knots at full power ~250,000 shp. They have a similar stern (i.e. submerged transom less the “bliviot”), and about as much windage.

Dave Fleming: The loss of the USS LA FAYETTE (ex Normandie) was caused by the NYFD, over the objections of the US Naval OIC. Read “MUD, MUSCLES, & MIRACLES” a history of USN SUPSALV for a full discussion of what happened and the timeline of the loss. The NYFD by the direction of Mayor Fiorello La Guardia decided to drown a superstructure fire by sealing the deckhouse and flooding it. Not smart… the free surface rolled her over as anyone who is trained to fight shipboard fires would know.

L.W. Baxter : From the point of view of the tons per knot per BTU in (there is a name for this graph, but it escapes me now, the “something” limit, ships have high tons per knot-airplanes have low tons per knot, plot tons vs knots for constant BTUs, curve moves up slightly every decade ), GT is the only way to go (nukes are much better, but I won’t go there; read “The Risks of Not Going Nuclear” from the mid ‘60’s for an insight into deaths per BTU and BTUs in per BTUs out for various power sources). GTs have the same specific fuel consumption (BTU/hp) as a low speed diesel (better if you include lube oil consumption), but way better space/weight per shp considerations. Add to this that almost all the waste heat is recovered for hotel services and you have a plant that is way better than any aircraft, train, bus, car, or even bicycle (ever calculated how many BTUs are expended to produce a single bike frame… better to drive a gas guzzler in terms of passenger miles per non-renewable BTU).

[edit for name change]

[ 09-27-2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[mmd]

Thanks for the definition, John.

[John E Hardiman]

Late your time isn't it? ;)

[mmd]

I don't sleep much - got out of the habit. I also like working late - no interruptions. However, it is time to grab a bit of it. See you in a few hours.

[John E Hardiman]

Just to prove I'm not making this up; here (http://wwwrobot.gmc.ulaval.ca/interne/documentation/proeng/blivot.gif) is a picture of a "bliviot" at http://wwwrobot.gmc.ulaval.ca/interne/documentation/proeng/blivot.gif.

Even though they spelled it wrong.... :D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

One thing is for sure; given a recent history of azipod failures, and ensuing mega-litigation, a lot of people will be having litters of kittens on the trials...

[mmd]

ACB, I noticed during my reading of the QM2 construction that the shipyard had experienced vibration and wear problems with the pods even prior to launch. I've not followed this technology closely at all - not much call for them on yachts and small workboats - so I'm ignorant of what the problems are. Do you know anything about this?

[L.W. Baxter]

Mr. Hardiman-- Thanks for the exposition. My objection, however, was semantic. High efficiency, low emissions, etc., are not the same as being environmentally friendly. The builders of this ship had good reason to build with the latest, most efficient technology, Sierra Club memberships or no. And the differences between a cruise ship and a bicycle cannot be adequately expressed by the ratio of BTU's expended in construction to passenger miles.

The impact of a man-made thing on the environment can't be measured only in BTU's. A ship of this size creates all kinds of side effects that don't relate directly to the consumption of fossil fuels.

One other point; people all over the world use bicycle's to get to work or school, go shopping for food, visit their mother's, etc. This ship, on the other hand, is solely intended for leisure. In that sense, in my view, it is less "friendly" to the environment than an oil tanker. At least the oil tanker is doing something useful! (I'm excepting the Exxon Valdez, et al) ;)

Bear in mind, I'm not a greenpeacer with an anti-human agenda. I like my leisure, and am just as wasteful, I suppose, as the next man. I just think we should save the words "environmentally friendly" for something less...enormous!

[Dave Fleming]

[QUOTE]here is a picture of a "bliviot" /QUOTE]

Ech Och Awch, JohnE, that hurts my eyes.

Good thing it is too early in the day for me to be into the Rum bottle.

<insert big grin here>

[JeffH]

I noticed during my reading of the QM2 construction that the shipyard had experienced vibration and wear problems with the pods even prior to launch. I've not followed this technology closely at all - not much call for them on yachts and small workboats - so I'm ignorant of what the problems are. Do you know anything about this? So happens I have an article about this in front of me. Main shaft bearing failures seem to be the biggest problem, requiring emergency drydocking of several cruise liners. Celebrity's brand-new Infinity, for example, was in the yard for three weeks, which with the cancelling of cruises scheduled for that time was enough to impact the finacial performance of Royal Caribbean, the parent company. Carnival was aslo involved in litigation with ABB (makers of Azipods) in similar failures on its ships. Another line had problems with under-performing motors, which slowed the ship from 24 kts to 20.5, which meant schedules couldn't be kept, which meant more dry-docking, which meant more finacial loss. ABB, for its part, says there have been a "few minor problems that have been solved very successfully."

I used to work on a ship that had six electic-powered azimuthing drives of about 6,000 Kw each, although of a different type. We had a department with five people, four on rotating 12-hour shifts with one supervisor (this was in addition to the normal engineering staff), working 24 hours a day almost exclusively on solving problems with the drive system. Complicated systems have complicated problems with far-reaching consequences.

Jeff

[ 09-28-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: JeffH ]

[Dave Fleming]

The loss of the USS LA FAYETTE (ex Normandie) was caused by the NYFD, over the objections of the US Naval OIC. Read “MUD JohnE, that is true in part.
If the USN 'orficer' in charge had not removed all the French crew( fear of sabotage) perhaps the fire suppression system as well as the watertight doors would have been operable but since no one understood French the chance of saving the Normandie was reduced drastically.
I recall family talking about sabateurs amongst the workmen. The German American Bund was quite active in the greater NY area at that time with big rallies in New Jersey and out on Long Island. Regardless of what the books may say, anti German feeling ran pretty strong in those days.

Geeze Louise, a mountain of KAPOK life jackets in the middle of the grand ballroom and cutting torches all around and NO firewatch nor fire suppression system operable, sigh...

[ 09-28-2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Dave Fleming ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Gosh, this is a good thread!

[mmd]

Isn't it, though, Andrew. smile.gif

JeffH, any indication in your article as to why the bearings are a problem? Maybe loading is too high? Or weak structure allows dynamic distortion? How about thermal problems? You seem to have the best data at hand at the moment; c'mon, share with us! :D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Guessing wildly, but based on some experience of marine system failures following a pattern (main engine bedplate cracking, exhaust gas boiler fires, the VLCC ring frame penetration cracks and side shell detachment in bulk carriers) I suspect a scale effect problem - azipods are being fitted to very large ships and must be correspondingly large units. These can be very hard to identify and cure. I have no proper basis for this guess, just "instinct born of experience".

I'd be very interested to learn more.

[Meerkat]

Could it be that these azipod problems are just teething problems characteristic of any new technology?

I think GT's must be more environmentally friendly since they burn their fuel more completely than does a conventional oil fired boiler and thus there is less polution emitted from the stack?

As it happens, I don't know the story of how the QM I got her name. I presume she's named after Edward VII's consort?

[ 09-29-2003, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Oh good, I can tell the story - which appears to be absolutely true. smile.gif

Edward VII's consort was Queen Alexandra (Princess Alexandra of Denmark). George V, his son, was married to Mary of Teck (Queen Mary), and they were a notably happily married couple.

From Samuel Cunard's first ship, the "Britannia", all Cunarders had names ending in "-ia" ("Mauretania", "Aquitania", "Lusitania", "Campania", "Caronia" and so on).

When the ship known as Hull no 534 at John Brown's shipyard on Clydebank was laid down, she was to be by far the biggest ship in the world.

The Depression hit Cunard's profits and they asked John Brown to stop work. Thousands of shipyard workers were laid off and for two and a half years the half completed hull, on its slipway, towered over one of the most poverty stricken landscapes in Britain. When France (with Government funding) started the "Normandie" there was an outburst of national pride and the Government guaranteed a loan to Cunard to allow the ship to be finished.

The ship had been nameless up to a few days before the launch. The Directors of Cunard held a board meeting and decided on the obvious name.

But they would need the King's permission to use it. They made an appointment for an audience at Buckingham Palace, and waited on the King.

"We would consider it a signal honour, if Your Majesty would consent to us naming our new ship after Britain's best loved Queen!"

Without batting an eyelid, George V turned to his wife, and said, "Congratulations, dear!"

And so the ship was christened, by Queen Mary, just a few days later, not "Victoria", but "Queen Mary"! ;)

[John E Hardiman]

The US Navy is just getting ready to go this route. The big reason for electric drive is the economy that it brings to propulsion vs hotel plants as it removes redundant weight and volume. The bad thing is the high cooling requirements of the motors. This drives the design of the pods to a tractor configuration. A tractor configuration has many more problems associated with the thrust bearing, shaft, and wake vibritory effects than a pusher configuration (or all outboards and trolling motors would be tractors). If the problems can be worked out is yet to be seen.

[Meerkat]

A side question here acb: wheren't there 2 qeens Mary in the British line in the last 100 years? Wasn't the Queen Mother (the former) Queen Mary, consort of George V? I know there are two people who's name are the same that I keep getting confused over. Another Elizabeth perchance (not ER I!)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

King George VI, younger son of George V and Queen Mary, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, who therefore became the Queen Mother (a nicer term than Queen Dowager) when her husband died in 1952 and her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, became Queen - as she still is. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother died last year at the age of 101.

The second of the big Cunarders, the "Queen Elizabeth", (two funnels not three, but otherwise a sister ship of the original "Queen Mary") was named after her, which is why the current flagship is named Queen Elizabeth II after her daughter, our present Queen.

[JeffH]

Well, near as I can tell, the problem is a poorly engineered bearing. Each pod unit has two main shaft bearings, each of about 2 1/2 feet in diameter. The type of bearing is not described, but apparently they are designed to carry the shaft and take the thrust load. After about a month or so of use, the engineers were finding metal fragments in the bearing lubrication system, evidence that the bearings were failing. The ships were operated with reduced power to ease the thrust load on the bearings until new bearings were re-engineered. The replacement bearings were evidently a success, since every ship with an Azipod system installed has been drydocked or delayed launch to have their bearings changed, even if they hadn't had the problems. The impact of all this has been many delayed launches, missed cruises, unscheduled drydocking, missed itineraries, etc. The above mentioned problem with the Celebrity ship cost, even with insurance, $11.5 million. Multiply this by all the ships with Azipod systems (five at least, I think), and you have some major axes swinging.

Andrew: Your comment about bulk carrier side shell failures reminds me of a time when I was going through the Straights of Melacca and saw a ship dead in the water that seemed to have a funny color about midships. Turned out that both sides of one hold had fallen off and I was looking through the ship to the water on the other side. Somebody was having a bad day...

Meercat: Yes, modern gas turbines are the cleanest burning engines of any type yet designed. Diesels have them beat as far as fuel burned per kilowat of output, however, hence the combined installations.

Jeff

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Looking at the casualty figures, Jeff, and the speed at which an ore laden bulker goes down, I would say that was not a bad day, but an incredibly lucky escape!

We all forgot that bulk carriers are far more fragile than (single skin) tankers....

[John E Hardiman]

JeffH; As I understand the problem, the leading (prop end) bearings were a set of spread tapered roller bearing inboard a seal. The problem with the oscillating prop load due to the singluarity of the pod in the wake causes a point overload in the race leading to brinelling of the race and eventual flaking failure. Additionally, the distance between the bearings may have been a little short, which with the overhung load, made the problem of point loading worse. Once the race began to wear, the seals soon went.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I can see that might well be the case.

Could you explain why the cooling requirement necessitates a tractor configuration? This layout is "asking for" wake singularities, surely?

[John E Hardiman]

Power density of the windings causes a lot of heat. They use the accelerated flow over the outercasing to cool the unit. While this may be only marginally better that other configurations, a 1-2 degree drop at the internal tempertures that I understand they have is 3-5% in overall power efficiency. Same reason big transformers have big coolers, and why everyone is looking at high-temp superconductors. Knowing the US Navy, we might end up with silver windings :rolleyes: .

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Thanks. All clear. 20/20 hindsight is the cheapest thing in shipping! Considering that these ships are likely to be operating in tropical waters for much of the time, one can design another way to cool the casing in about thirty seconds, on the back of an envelope, but that is with copious supplies of hindsight!

Unfortunately, with the cruise market in one of its "less buoyant" modes at present, all claims for lost revenue will be pursued vigorously - nice for expert witnesses and lawyers, lousy for everyone else.

Must just go and buy some more silver...

[Meerkat]

Andrew; Thanks for the clarification. I somehow kept thinking that the Queen Mum's given name was Mary (and that George VI is actually George V) and so the confusion. smile.gif

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

'scuse the cut and paste, from Lloyd's List:

Sept 26:

IN AN event crucial to the prestige, not to mention the bottom line, of Chantiers de l’Atlantique parent Alstom, the Queen Mary 2 was due to take its first dip in the Atlantic yesterday evening.

Scheduled to begin three days of sea trials off the southern coast of Brittany, five tugs were standing by to assist the 345 m-long, 74 m-high vessel to leave its outfitting dock shortly after 1700 hrs Paris time so as to take advantage of high water at 1715 hrs.

Some 500 engineers and technicians were aboard the future Cunard transatlantic liner to carry out tests while the vessel carries out a series of forward and backward runs off the Brittany coast.

Chantiers’ trials supervisor, Denis Martineau, indicated that the QM2’s diesel and gas turbine power plant was likely to get an early opportunity to demonstrate its 157,000 horsepower capacity in the fine weather conditions expected in the area yesterday evening.

If this is the case, the vessel can be expected to reach its advertised top speed of 30 knots or nearly 35 miles an hour.

“The sea trials of the Queen Mary 2 are similar to those of a classical passenger ship except that they will last longer, given the number of checks to carry out,” he said.

The trials are due to end on Sunday evening but Chantiers said they could be extended to Monday morning if conditions allow so that the maximum amount of information regarding the new vessel’s performance can be gathered.

A second round of sea trials is scheduled for November, shortly before the delivery of the vessel to Cunard, expected on December 13. A month later, on January 12, the new ship will leave Southampton for its first paying voyage to Fort Lauderdale.

Billed as the largest, longest, tallest, widest and most expensive cruiseship ever built, the 150,000 gt Queen Mary 2 will have capacity for 2,620 passengers and a crew of 1,253.

The £538m ($889.2m) contract for its construction was signed in November 2000 and first steel was cut in January last year.

- Avco, the air conditioning contractor working on the Queen Mary 2, which was recently sacked by Chantiers de l’Atlantique, is expected to go into receivership on Tuesday when it will file for bankruptcy before the Saint Nazaire court of commerce. However, 230 Indians employed directly by the company are continuing to protest over their severance terms.

They have refused the company’s offer of payment of their September salary, holiday entitlements and their flight home to India, saying that this does not represent their full entitlement.

Sept 30th:

THE Queen Mary 2 was given top marks by its designer and future master yesterday after returning to France’s Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard after four days of sea trials off the southern coast of Brittany.

Stephen Payne, the naval architect who designed the future Cunard Line transatlantic cruiseship, indicated that the new “queen” was showing its class two and a half months before it was due to be delivered to its owner.

“We encountered far fewer issues than you would normally expect on a sea trial,” he said, “and QM2 is more manoeuvrable than any ocean liner ever built”.

Master designate Ronald Warwick said that the trial had been a “tremendous success”, adding: “It was great to finally take her out to the open ocean where she belongs.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Eric Sea Frog]

Bon vent et belle mer!

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

wonder how they are getting on now - the inaugural cruise has been put back so the ship will now arrive in Southampton on Boxing Day - which is good for TV coverage, on a non-news day, but any more delay and they are into cancelling the first cruise.

[blacksmith]

Maybe I missed it in the foregoing dialog, but who is the manufcturer(s) of the gas turbines and how many shafts? Like the fact that she looks like a proper liner.

[Leon Steyns]

GE is providing two LM2500+ gasturbines, 25MW each as part of the CODAG package. Read this article (http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIIb/MMIIDec17c.html). No doubt heatexchangers will be applied to accomodate heating and hot water. This three-part configuration (propulsion, electricity and heating) is where the "environmental friendlyness" comes from.

Four shafts, since there are four pods (or seven, if you include the bow thrusters)...

http://www.marinelog.com/IMAGESMMII/LM2500..jpg

[Edited] Here's another article (http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMI/MMIOct01a.html) from the same site with additional numbers. The Diesels are Wärtsilä 16V46 EnviroEngines, 67.2MW total. The entire CODAG-package is worth 115.5MW.

And some more info on different prop/gear-applications from GE Aircraf Engines: http://www.geae.com/engines/ marine/marinegear/spotlight_arrangements.html#arrangement7 (http://www.geae.com/engines/marine/marinegear/spotlight_arrangements.html#arrangement7). Apparently several combinations are feasable besides CODAG for reasons I can't really explain... :(

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[ 11-14-2003, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Leon Steyns ]

[ahp]

Pardon my ignorant question, but are not those propulsion pods down below the hull a bit vulnerable? It seems that many times a large ship is just clearing a channel bottom by a foot or two even when the pilot is doing everything right.

[JeffH]

True, and sometimes less (running over sand bars is routine in the Houston ship channel). However, if you look at the fourth post down, you can see in the photo of the stern the skeg that protects the thrusters from damage. The thrusters themselves don't project below the keel line, anyway.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: November 15, 2003


St. NAZAIRE, France -- A gangway on the world's largest passenger ship, the Queen Mary 2, collapsed Saturday, killing at least 11 people and injuring 20 others, fire officials said.

Dozens of people were reportedly on the passageway leading to the vessel when it collapsed, according to Operational Center Fire and Rescue Center.

The Queen Mary 2 is currently docked at the shipyard where it remains under construction.

It underwent a test voyage in September but finishing touches on the 150,000-ton oceanliner are yet to be completed. The trip was a preparation for a maiden voyage across the Atlantic early next year.

[ken mcclure]

At $1,000 profit per paying passenger, it'll take more than 200 trips (with all passengers booked and paying) to pay her off.

That's a lotta sea miles.

[Art Read]

Jeeze... Most of the victims were visiting school children. Not exactly an auspicious begining. Another "Great Eastern"? Are "modern" sailors less superstitious about such things today? I'm not...

[Leon Steyns]

Horrible... and she hasn't even been christened yet. My condolances to all families affected.

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[brian.cunningham]

:(

[Meerkat]

The news mentioned that a "top cabin" on the premiere voyage is a mere $40,000.

Don't forget that if a passenger is paying $1,000, they're likely to drop that again, if not more, in the various money pits around the ship. Food, some entertainments and shelter might be covered, but there's shopping, gambling and my lady's hair to be done ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

OBP, my boy, OBP (On Board Profits).

Don't forget to tip your stewards.

[Eric Sea Frog]

Thanks,Leon. This might have something to do with subcontracting each and everything contrary to their former fashion, in order to take down the construction costs.
For a higher price they wouldn't have got the deal in a global economy.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

ERic, with respect, I disagree. All modern shipyards, whereaver they are located, make very extensive use of subcontractors. The industry standard figure is that in the case of a simple ship like a tanker or a bulker 30% of value is added by the yard and 70% is bought in, world wide.

For this reason, shipbuilding is an industry which operates in "clusters".

In the case of large passenger ships, the subcontract element is even larger because these ships are so complex, and so much of their fit out is repetition - one modular cabin is much like the next...

Chantiers de L'Atlantique are known for their extremely high level of integration with their subcontractors - more than 200 firms use the Atlantique intranet to merge their CAD/CAM data - and this gives the yard an immense competitive advantage.

I know the parent group are not having a happy time, to put it mildly, but I doubt if the subcontracting issue was causative, here.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Here's a cut and paste from Lloyd's List today:

INVESTIGATORS have begun attempting to establish the cause of the accident which killed 15 people including six children onboard the Queen Mary 2.

Another 32 people, mostly the families of shipyard workers, were also injured when a gangway collapsed during a tour on Saturday afternoon.

Cunard's $800m flagship is nearing completion at the Chantiers de l'Atlantique yard in Saint Nazaire.

Eyewitnesses reported that the 33ft long gangway was crowded with people on a pre-launch tour. "They fell to the ground and then scaffolding collapsed onto them," said one.

The victims were among 600 friends and family of shipyard workers. An official visit involving VIPs was also underway at the time of the accident. Emergency services said the death toll could rise.

More than 50 emergency vehicles and 100 firemen attended the scene and set up an emergency treatment centre. The injured were taken to hospitals in St Nazaire and Nantes.

Alstom has launched an investigation to establish the cause of the accident. The gangway was reportedly fitted by French firm Endel, a unit of utilities giant Suez and was designed to hold far more people than were on it when it collapsed.

A spokesman stressed that company will not officially take ownership of the vessel until December 22.

French prosecutors visited the scene and indicated their initial work would be into "involuntary manslaughter and injuries".

French president Jacques Chirac visited the yard on Sunday and offered his sympathy to the bereaved.

President of Cunard Pamela Conover said; "our thoughts and prayers are with their friends and relatives at this time of sorrow."

At 150,000gt, Queen Mary 2 is the largest passengership ever built and be officially launched in Southampton, where the Queen will name the vessel in a ceremony on 8 January.

Queen Mary 2underwent sea trials last week and is due to sail to its home port next month. The ship is due to begin its inaugural voyage to Florida four days later.

[Eric Sea Frog]

Much too soon to tell, Andrew.
The prosecutor said several technical topics may be involved. It appears, though, that the gangway did not bend. Rather, its fitting to the ship or to the quay would have given.
Such a contraption wasn't designed for such a use, rather to give the workers, in quite smaller numbers than visitors, access to the ship.
The decision made to use it improperly might be the point, as well as improper fastening or some misconception.
BTW, Les Chantiers hired some third world workers for such a low pay that they sued the firm.

[Leon Steyns]

The DoD used to have a system in place called CALS (off the top of my head it stands for Continuous Aquisition & Logistics Support) in order to ensure that operators, manufacturers, suppliers (and also subcontractors and the subcontractor's suppliers and - if applicable - the subcontractor's supplier's supplier, usw) in various levels show compliency with given specifications. Surely a similar system must be in operation in the Marine Industry?!

In Europe the EU-council spent lots of money having a similar sort of methodology developed for the IT Services market (ISPL or IT Services Procurement Library). It isn't ideal and its implications aren't understood widely enough, but it's a start.

Still, it's saddening to see even organisations like NASA somehow seem to be unable to maintain such high-level safety net. I know, I know, cost vs gain. But still... people die because of it... :(

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[Edited:] Great stuff, the Internet. Look what I found about CALS (http://navycals.dt.navy.mil/).

[ 11-17-2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Leon Steyns ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I need a smiley for sarcasm, here, Leo; maybe this one will do: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Oh, yes, we have such a system. we have ISO 9001 for manufacturing and ISO 9002 for services and ISO 16000 as well :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: and we have Classification Societies :rolleyes: :mad: as well :(

[Keith Wilson]

we have ISO 9001 for manufacturing and ISO 9002 for services and . . . We've got 'em too, sort of like a contagious disease, the greatest European export since German right-wing political movements and French automobiles. And no, I don't have the proper growly either - maybe this one? http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/3dlil/nonono2.gif, or this one http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/screama.gif or this one. http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/edoom/let_it_all_out.gif

[ 11-17-2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Leon Steyns]

OK, point taken... redface.gif

:(

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[Edited:] Still like ISO9126, though... :D And to make things worse: I drive a french car... http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/screama.gif

[ 11-17-2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Leon Steyns ]

[John E Hardiman]

Having a gangway fall is not new or even that infrequent around a shipyard (I personally can recall 3 happening with injury where I've worked over the years, and that doesn't include earthquakes or storms when many fall wothout injury). This one was just very high profile. It is very telling how may people are killed or injured each day in the marine field, but don't blip the news's radar screen. It, like traffic fatalies, is just accepted as a cost of doing the work. Sad though :(

But Eric's comment follows my first impression, in my experience most gangway accidents occur when one end comes off its support, not that the gangway fails. When I heard that the scaffolding fell also, I know where I would start looking for a cause.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Getting back to the general discussion, the QM2 does not have an aluminium superstructure. If I may be excused a long cut and paste, here are a couple of excerpts from a paper given at the Seatrade London Convention by her chief designer, Steven Payne:

1. Introduction

The transatlantic route between Europe and North America during its heyday was dubbed, “The Atlantic Ferry”. In the 1930’s steamship companies assisted by their national governments introduced a string of superlative liners such as the German Bremen (1929), Italian Rex (1933), French Normandie (1935), British Queen Mary (1936) and Dutch Nieuw Amsterdam (1938). This was truly the golden era of transatlantic travel. Unfortunately it was short lived as the Second World War saw the loss of Bremen, Rex and Normandie. However, a second golden era occurred in the 1950/60’s when new national liners were once again commissioned; United States (1952), Rotterdam (1959), France (1962), Michelangelo/Raffaello (1965) and finally Queen Elizabeth 2 (1969).

The Queen Elizabeth 2 was different from most of these ships (all except Rotterdam) by virtue of the fact that she was designed as a dual-purpose liner and cruise ship. Cunard’s previous Caronia dating from 1947 had pioneered this duality. Since her introduction into service in 1969 Queen Elizabeth 2 has been operating on transatlantic service and cruises and has sailed over 5 million miles, more than any other passenger liner presently in service. She is now the last survivor of the Ships of State still in commission and is the only passenger liner engaged on the transatlantic route. The ship was previously dubbed the last of the super liners and the last transatlantic liner before plans for Queen Mary 2 became known.

2. Carnival Acquisition: Project Queen Mary

In May 1998 Kvaerner sold Cunard Line to a consortium led by Carnival Corporation. Within a short time Carnival had exercised an option to buy out the consortium and take full ownership of Cunard. Carnival was keen to expand the brand and initiated a design, build and operating feasibility study to look at a new transatlantic liner with cruising capability. This study was codenamed Project Queen Mary.

3. Liner versus Cruise Ship

It was first important to look at and understand the differences between a liner and a cruise ship. In service terms the liner operating on a schedule between two ports, say Southampton and New York, is set a schedule that she is obliged to maintain whatever the weather en route. With truncated turn around times, a late arrival can soon cause chaos for thousands of passengers due to leave and arrive on the ship and if not made up can in extreme circumstances perpetuate through subsequent sailings. A cruise ship on the other hand, usually on a more leisurely service, if delayed by bad weather can invariably miss out a cruise call or can shorten the time in port to make good any time delays. –Obviously a liner sailing between Southampton and New York cannot do this.

The main technical differences between the two types of ship were deemed to be:

The liner has more modest block co-efficients and deeper draughts for good seakeeping
The deeper draught of the liner allows for greater deadweight which in turn provides for increased endurance
The liner invariably has a higher speed potential than the cruise ship
The liner generally has a more comprehensive array of public rooms than the cruise ship
The liner is structurally engineered to maintain speed in inclement weather and has a power service margin to allow her to do so"

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

and here is a bit more from Steven Payne's paper:

"After studying some proposals from shipyards it was decided to commission an in house design for the study. Our main concern was that the shipyards that offered designs were mainly interested in building a cruise ship and not a fully fledged ocean liner with the reserves of strength and speed required for the North Atlantic run. The starting point for the design was an evaluation of the Queen Elizabeth 2. Design aspects that had stood the test of time and that were still relevant to the ship after 30 years of service were retained, whilst other aspects were brought up to date in line with modern cruise ship practice –stores loading, baggage handling, waste disposal etc. It was considered important to introduce new ideas and methods but not at the expense of changing the transatlantic experience of the passengers. QE2’s model, the service expectations and spirit of the transatlantic voyage had to be faithfully retained to continue to attract passengers to the route.

The size of the new ship was obviously an important consideration. It was noted that QE2 was of the maximum dimensions for a vessel to transit the Panama Canal. This she does once a year on her World Cruise. She attains the tonnage size she does by virtue of the fact that her five topmost decks are constructed of aluminium alloy. If she had been built of all steel she would have had to have one deck less due to stability requirements. Unfortunately over time the aluminium has worked and become brittle necessitating continuous expenditure to maintain it in good condition. Since it was envisaged that the new ship would have a life span of 40 years the inclusion of aluminium, with the potential of repeating the problems experienced by QE2, was not deemed desirable. However, to have reverted to all steel construction and retain Panama accessibility would have meant a smaller ship than QE2. This was obviously a non-starter as economy of scale was considered an essential element in providing profitability for such a new high cost liner in a cruise ship world.

In studying QE2’s schedules it was noted that the ship only transited the Panama Canal once a year. It was therefore considered unjustified to restrict the ship to Panama dimensions for one transit a year when she would be penalised in profitability and efficiency for the rest of the year. Ultimately, the designs size was restricted by the terminal port restrictions of Southampton and New York. Length due to the turning basin at Southampton and the length of the new York piers and height due to the clearance under the Verazzano Narrows Bridge at the entrance to New York Harbour."

[Alan D. Hyde]

That is illuminating.

Thank you, Andrew.

Alan