The Finer Points of Ship Construction

Scott:

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but I am afraid I am on vacation and have no ref materials with me whatsoever, but I will have a look at the thread and see if I can contribute anything off the top of my head beyond common knowledge.

Regarding the Queen Mary's fuel, yes, it was Bunker C that required preheating of the fuel to bring the oil to a proper viscosity in order to obtain correct particle size for atomization. QM used the same system as the old Mauretania (after conversion) -- the Walsend system. I am at a loss if Olympic used the same manufacturer or if WS went with a competitor (or even HW built it in-house).

Mark:

I'm not sure of when the cracks developed in QE2's picture windows, but it was fairly early and continues to this day. Eric Sauder has some great pictures of the retrofitted doublings (and they really look awful because each is a different size). If I can get the pic, I will post it. Almost every window sports them.

As for QE2 being the acme of marine design ... well... John Brown went out of business during construction and Cunard almost followed them into the abyss. That doesn't help with personnel continuity and design implementation.

As you probably know, her turbines were faulty and Cunard at the last minute changed her from a 3 class to a 2 class ship.

The layout of her galleys was universally hated by the kitchen staff as pretty to look at but impossible to work. It got so bad that for quite a while, QE2 closed down her pastry kitchens and served Sara Lee out of the box. One pastry chef I know tells of spending hours unboxing confections -- and then clipping the coupons so Cunard could redeem them with the next order.

Of the Magradome and the thrust enhancing propellor shrouds ... we will not speak.

Bill Sauder
 
I forgot to mention that Cunard had a cheap flash and changed the QE2 design from 4 (3 working/1 spare)to 3 boilers.

Maybe things would have gone better for her if that spare boiler was available everytime the lube oil leaked into the feed water and shut the system down.
 
You mean passengers don't like sitting in the dark??? With no air coniditioner and other niceties. Of course when power goes usually so does the food. Open free bar.
 
Hi!

Goodness! Please accept my apologies for leaving this thread so long. I fear I might forget it again, but I'll try not to and here goes...

Once again, Bill, thanks for an informative post. I know you are busy so it's all the more appreciated. I remember now about the faulty turbines, although I had forgotten since I read it in Gary Buchanen[sic]'s book.

While we're on the topic, I wonder how long the QE2 will remain in service. She seems to be going strong, but she is getting old in ship terms. Kind of like the Norway. Still, it will be wonderful to see her with the Queen Mary 2. I was in Liverpool recently and there were several proud articles in the Echo.

It is really unfortunate that the QM2 could not be built in Britain; I just hope that those two new massive 60,000 ton Royal Navy carriers (planned for 2010) and their fifty-year maintainance contracts will be awarded to struggling British yards. We might have the fourth largest navy and economy in the world, but that does not translate to profitable shipbuilding unfortunately.

Returning to the subject of the Queen Mary, I understand she was built very strong, and she certainly stood up to the Atlantic and thirty-one years of hard service. Yet such a large ship surely isn't built to last that long -- I know there have been rumours of failing rivets in her hull, but I hope and understand that those rumours are false.

Ships generally get retired for competitive reasons rather than structural or maintainance problems, or at least they used to; but from a naval architect's viewpoint is there anything to prevent a ship being designed to last fifty years of service? Costs may be high at first, so I suppose that counts against the idea, especially considering that the ship will need modernisation. Cunard spent quite a bit on Aquitania, refurbishing her accommodation, etc. (and she coped well with the depression), and she certainly lasted long, albeit due to Adolf. Although, especially from the 1940s, she was ageing rapidly, and had shown some minor troubles as early as 1924, I get the impression that it was primarily due to her outdated accommodation that she was withdrawn from service, rather than unsolvable mechanical/structural problems. I understand the post-war economic problems, so I suppose she could have been overhauled and refitted, but there was not sufficient necessity, or funds. Perhaps Steve Anderson has something on this as well?

Best regards,

Mark.
 
It occurs to me that ships are built to last. It is the situations and conditions in which the ship is put coupled with it's up keep that determine a ships life IMO. I spend a good junk of my time in the late winter early spring months working on and inspecting ships built back in the 1920's on the Great Lakes. The lakes of course being fresh water, but the conditions in which these ships are placed can be just as hazordous as open sea, especially considering the way they where built and how they are loaded. What has keep these boats in service is there up keep and the style in which the company has chosen to operate the vessel. The Coast Guard still operates vessels that where built in World War 2. Some of which have been transplanted from an ocean setting to a fresh water setting.

Cunard (so I have been told) is very well known for taking care of it's ships. That is why the Queens lasted into the 1960's. The Norway has gone through at least 2 complete overhauls. A ship is usually required to go through such a overhaul every 30 years or so, with a mandatory Coast Guard drydocking every 5. The overhaul includes things like replacing bottom plates updates to machinery and equipment and SOLAS guidelines. Without looking I know the QE2 will need to make some minor changes to meet the SOLAS deadline in 2010, but not nearly as many as the Norway. Mike Standart reported that NCL is considering extending the ships life past that deadline. The reason being that NCL has consistantly made up grades to the ship to meet the company and client needs. Something that the orginal design of the ship has allowed for. This isn't always the case, as in the Olympic and Aquitania's case.

Tanks, and freight ships are routinely run until there mid twenties if not a tad earlier. The reason being shotty up keep. Ships used by foreign countries (excluding Britain, Canada, Norway, Denmark and France) are often under flags which allow them to operate under questionable conditions. It is cheaper in the long run to run a ship till it is ready to fall apart and replace it with a new one then to constantly give it the attention a ship needs during its service life. This is why the United States so rigoursly inspects foregin vessels, but even the mighty U.S. Coast Guard can not catch them all.

The term "service life" to me should be plural. After a complete refit a ship should be good for another 20 years provided that it is well taken care of.

Another quick life ender is how well a ship is repaired after an accident. The QE2 is testiment to that. Historically from an economic point of view the cruise companies oftern retire a ship for it's age, not related to structure or mechanics but it's facilities. You will notice that Carnival has begun to phase out it's first new builds built in the 1990's. They no longer meet what the company and it's clientel want. So they are building the Conquest Class of ships.

In the same respect you can think of the Titanic and Olympic Class vessel being an upgrade from its predecesser. The other ships where small, and not nearly as luxurious as the Olympic Class and when Cunard upped the buck, White Star needed to do the same. Also by this token the Coast Guard (as mentioned above) is phasing out it's World War 2 era ships with newer more technologically advanced ships.

Out of a good chunk of the ships that I have investigated for one reason or another, there accident or incident was due to shotty upkeep.

The loss of the tanker "Erica" in the 1990's (something I have intimate knowledge of) is a perfect example of what can happen to a newer ship that isn't taken care of or built properly.

I would encourage a peak into the Hyundi Shipbuilding site or a look at the documentary about that institution. There is a lot of good info on the subject.
 
In addendum about the Norway:

Some quick research shows that the Norway didn't have any structural or mechanical problems in 2002 that where reportable to USCG as of October of 2002. Another sign that NCL is taking care of there ship. During the vessels safety inspection and Passenger Re-Certification she did well. Only minor housekeeping issues where addressed.
 
Mark asked: "but from a naval architect's viewpoint is there anything to prevent a ship being designed to last fifty years of service?"

Not at all. In fact, some really large and expensive warships more and more tend to have very long service lives. Royal Navy aircraft carriers have served quite well over the years, notably World War Two designs, and have served even longer in foreign hands. An example of that is the Minas Gerais (ex-HMS Vengence) which was only recently replaced by the Sao Paulo (ex-Foch).

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the three Invincables find new homes with other navies when they finally pay off. U.S. Navy nuclear powered carriers have proven to be surprisingly durable, and the newest ships of the class are being designed with reactors cores that are good for a 50 year service life.

The key here is maintainence which needs to be pretty lavish because of the punishment any ship takes in a salt water environment. This seems to be a problem with merchent vessels. Another problem with merchent vessels is the need to remain competative over their lifetimes. I was reading an article on the tankers built for BP in the late 50's to early 60's which, while large for the time, were quickly outmoded by the very large tankers that started to come off the slips. Four of them, all built in 1962, were scrapped by 1976.
 
Thanks Erik and Mike for your detailed posts.

I found especially interesting the analysis of the QE2 and Norway. I think it is an important point that these vessels have enjoyed plenty of overhauls and modifications, which was not necessarily the case for their predecessors. Personally, I can't help wondering if Cunard will keep the QE2 in service as long as is physically possible, even if profits decline; although they are a business.

Thinking of the 1987 re-engineering, it must have been incredible how much work was done. Possibly she was as good as new then -- you pointed out Erik that ships might be good for another twenty years after a big overhaul.

I find it incredible that that company is already scrapping vessels built in the 1990s -- even if that was the last millenium [sic?]. Surely if their hulls were sound then rebuilding their interiors to suit trends would be cheaper?

Going back to the mention of collisions with other vessels, I continue to be amazed that Olympic came through the 1911 Hawke collision as well as she did. Her engines were going at 65 r.p.m. when the starboard one actually seemed to jolt, then pull up and was stopped; Hawke's nose had whacked the shaft. That could have resulted in pretty bad damage -- and it did, but I mean even worse damage where the ship might have been needing months worth of repairs. She was well built.

Hyundai would be a good area for me to look at. I find South Korea an interesting country; some of the company's car manufacturing plants are doing very well and they've a reputation for quality. Employees can get low-cost homes and other bonus packages in their contracts.

Mike, you do well to point out those naval vessels that have lasted so long. To be honest that surprised me, in the sense that naval ships have to be up-to-date with the latest defence equipment -- but I suppose refits will see to that.

Four tankers lasting only fourteen years surprised me. Some vessels of that time were extended, if I remember rightly, increasing their capacities. But then again some have said that bulk carriers that should be phased out after fifteen years of service and poor maintainance.

I suppose the key, as you've pointed out, is maintainance -- cash strapped companies might skimp on repairs for a few years to save money, but you end up loosing it because the ship deteriorates so much more, I'd guess.

Going back to vessels of the pre-WWI era, I think they all suffered during the war. Olympic more so than any other -- driven really hard, often overloaded, and slammed into tough seas regularly to get to Halifax on time. They did not give her the overhauls she needed, to the extent that by the end of 1918 or start of 1919, plumbing troubles for instance were surfacing; these were comprehensively renewed in 1919-20.

But also Imperator; she didn't sail, but rusted like anything. Bismarck slowly crumbled. Leviathan was given a massive refit in 1922-23 as you know which was estimated to add another ten years to her life -- seems funny, because that would have made for a nineteen-year career even without guessing for the depression! Did they know something we don't? I don't think anyone bothered to guess how long Olympic's 1920 refit would make her last, for she was looking brand new after it -- then again, only eight years later so much of her accommodation was changed and modernised. I guess her 1933 refit would have given her ten more years.

Thanks again for some very informative posts. Food for thought. (Speaking of which, did you know thinking hard can make you loose weight, because your brain uses calories to feed it?! One more excuse to think about technical matters.)

Best regards,

Mark.
 
I'm not really surprised at the short service lives of the BP tankers. When they came out, they were in something like the 40,000 deadweight ton class. They didn't have a prayer of being competitive when the really big 100,000 tonners and above started to come out of the building docks.

On the matter of naval vessels, the problem of equipment becoming obsolete has shortened the lives of more warships then any other cause that I can think of. Especially when they are built around specific and very bulky weapons systems like the now obsolecent Seadart missile such as what is carried by the Royal Navy's type 42. Overage and worn out hulls and machinary don't help one bit.

Sorry for the quick post, but we have to take one of our cats to the vet. We can discuss more about this later if you're interested. (As if you wouldn't be!)
wink.gif
 
Captain Wood, I toured a couple of treasury class coast guard ships in the past year. I Even got a treat of special access into the boiler room of the Taney in Baltimore. (Its amazing what you get when you ask!) The ladder down was at least 30 feet perhaps more nearly straight down Our guide said it was 50 feet but he might have been pulling our leg. All I could think about was how difficult this companionway must have been to navigate in rough seas. My point is we were told these ships were retired after 50 years not for structural or mechanical reasons but economic ones. Apparently her 1936 steam plant took 60% of her crew to operate. I suppose Cunard must have had similar thoughts in mind in the mid 80s. I have read that the fuel requirements when QE2 shifted to diesel in 87 dropped significantly.

Mark, regarding Carnival I was once told of a board meeting where Micky Arison head of Carnival asked why such thick and expensive teak decking was being laid on the newbuilds of the early 1990s. The shipyard yards answer was 50mms of teak is what it takes to last 20+ years. Micky response was "who says I will keep these ships 20+ years?" So 35 mm of teak was laid and 10 years or so later its time to get rid of these ships. For Carnival it is all part of a plan to run through ships fast.

Brian


http://www.baltomaritimemuseum.org/taney/taney.html
 
Thanks Mike and Brian for more interesting points.

Brian, I find it incredible that Carnival went for a poorer standard of finishing and construction. By the sound of it, if the rest of the ship is fitted like that, then you have no choice but to keep them in service. From an environmental viewpoint, it's disgusting. I still feel building one solid ship and modernising it as the need may be would be better. That way you don't need to build two hulls. Still, environmental concern doesn't seem to go with many companies unfortunately; an evil of capitalism. Talking of teak decking, it would be interesting to see how thick Olympic's was.

I wonder how long Leviathan might have lasted otherwise.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
As Brian pointed out Carnival isn't interested in the length of life but only the cost of it currently. Cruise ship companies don't make money on older ships (the Norway and QE2 are exceptions). Part of the reason for less teak or lesser quailty is the weight and height of the newer superstructures. They are often made of newer light weight material. The more teak the more weight.

As for the enviroment, companies would be far more likely to agree to make there ships safer if it didn't cost so much to do so. Some of the requirements are idiotic and make little to no sense, especially when comparing them overall.
 
Socialist/Communist regimes are no better, and sometimes a lot worse then free market nations when it comes to environmental irresponsibility. Anyone who doesn't believe that, just go into a Russian seaport...especially one that was or is a naval base. You'll see sunken hulks of old and not so old warships just about everywhere. Some of the subs rotting away at the waterfront are nuclear powered as well, and it's all the Russian naval authorities can do to keep them from settling to the bottom. On photo I saw had one submarine being kept on the surface by being literally lashed to two different hulls that were in no danger of sinking.

Eventually, they'll have to deal with this, and it's going to be a cast iron b!~~~ of a job!

When you get right down to it though, all this really proves is that no system has a patant on damaging the environment. When expediency is in a contest with the environment, expediency tends to win out.
 
Hi Mark,

Re: Olympic's decking. Are you wondering how thick the remaining decking was at the end of her life? That I can't answer, but I would like to know the myself. However, according to original specifications, the decks were laid in 5" wide by 3" thick planks of yellow pine in most areas, with pitch pine of the same dimensions used in the "working areas" such as the forecastle. This planking may have been a bit thicker around the chain ramps and windlasses - I'm not certain. Teak was only used for the margins, and not in all areas. Yellow pine is an extremely durable wood that is lighter in weight and less costly than teak and it cleans up beatifully, looking almost white when freshly scrubbed. When cared for properly, it is just as durable as its more expensive counterpart.

I don't know what B&V laid down on the weather decks of the Leviathan or Majestic.

In any of the surveys or maintenance reports you came across, did they ever mention any replacement of decking?

Best,

Scott Andrews
 
Most of your middle east/African Classification Societies lend to untrustworthy practices when it comes not only to maintence but enviromental policy as Mike pointed out. In some of these countries they just drive a ship on the beach and the workers jump aboard and start peeling it apart. Leaving the oil and lubrication oils all over the beach.

Enviromental policy at sea has always (ever since my career began) been somewhat of a hot subject in the U.S.. Most ships get caught doing things they shouldn't, not because of some secret squirrel company desire to pollute the earth as some would like to believe. But just a basic breakdown in communication from the Eningeering Department to the Skipper/OOD, that is usually followed by a breakdown in communication between the ships owner the government/state where the ship is. Deck officers don't always understand what the snipes in the engine room mean, and rathe then carry on a long conversation to find out, they just give permission figuring that the engineers (who have no navigation training or equipment) know where the ship is and where the and what they can/can not dump.

Another thing that can add to the mix is the fact that sometimes skippers and those in charge of departments demand things that can't be accomplished in a certain time frame, then someone junionor who doesn't no any better does the big bad thing that gets the ship in trouble. That is the case in Alaska when a P&O boat got caught dumping garbage bags over the side.

I have been known to tell a Chief Engineer the following:

"Listen Chief, I don't care if you and your boys have to get out and push us, but we ARE getting underway in a half hour, I am bringing in the lines in a HALF OF AN HOUR so you better stop talking and start working"

That is usually accompanied by a big click noise while he slams the phone down and I am sure my name being used in vain on the other end.

I actually had a chief and his crew leave the boat and start stripping on the pier, when I asked what they where doing he told me, to which I replied: "Don't be smart a#@ and get back to work". Unfortunatly that was the trip my wife chose to accompany me on and I haven't heard the end of it yet.

That was one of those "Laker Stories" that my wife says I tell to often.
 

Similar threads

Z
Construction
Replies
2
Views
1K
Zachary Lloyd
Z
Dan Kappes
Construction Delays
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Zhang Beichen
Zhang Beichen
R
Construction Not Completed
Replies
8
Views
2K
Brian R Peterson
B
M
Definition of fitting out vs hull construction
Replies
2
Views
2K
Michael H. Standart
M
J
Was asbestos used in construction of famous steamships
Replies
10
Views
6K
James Alexander Carlisle
J
Back
Top