Welcome to Cruise Talk the Internet's most popular discussion forum dedicated to cruising. Stop by Cruise Talk anytime to post a message or find out what your fellow passengers and industry insiders are saying about a particular ship, cruise line or destination.
>>> Reader Reviews >>> CruisePage.com Photo Gallery >>> Join Our Cruise Club.
Latest News...Carnival Cruise Line said today that while rescue and remediation efforts continue in Baltimore Harbor following the collapse of the Key Bridge, it will temporarily move Carnival Legends Baltimore operations to Norfolk, Virginia. Carnival Legend is scheduled to return from its current voyage on Sunday, March 31. It will now return to Norfolk on Sunday, and guests will...
Latest News...Carnival Corporation & plc today announced it has signed an agreement with Meyer Werft shipyard for a fifth Excel-class cruise ship for its namesake Carnival Cruise Line brand, with the delivery set for 2028. In mid-February Carnival Corporation had announced the first newbuild order placed in five years with news that a fourth Excel-class ship would join the Carnival Cruise Line...
Latest News...Four Seasons, together with luxury yachting company Marc-Henry Cruise Holdings Ltd, Joint Owner/Operator, Four Seasons Yachts, and venerated Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri, continues to chart a new course of luxury at sea. As momentum builds towards the inaugural season of Four Seasons Yachts, the first 10 unique voyages are unveiled, each inviting travellers to make the iconic islands...
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:Did the Marco Polo not offer similar cruises, but had an ice strengthened hull?
quote:Icebreakers and Ice Strengthened Vessels:ICE-1A* (or -1A or -1B or -1C) - Vessel which may operate in channels prepared by icebreakers and/or in open waters with smaller ice floes. The Rules are considered to meet the Finnish-Swedish ice class regulations for corresponding classes, and the Canadian arctic regulations for type A,B,C and D ships, respectively.-1A* - Extreme ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 1.0 m are anticipated-1A - Severe ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.8 m are anticipated-1B - Medium ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.6 m are anticipated-1C - Light ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.4 m are anticipatedICE-1A*F - Vessels complying with ice class ICE-1A* and additionally strengthened for regular service in ice-infested waters, to a certain degree independent of ice breaker assistanceICE-C - Vessel which may operate in light ice conditionsICE-05 (or -10 or -15) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with pressure ridges. No ramming anticipated.POLAR-10 (or -20 or -30) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with multi-year ice-floes and glacial ice inclusions. Accidental ramming. Figures indicate nominal ice thickness in dm. Intermediate values may occur.Icebreaker - Vessels intended for ice breaking as main purpose. Used in combination with ICE - 05 (or - 10 or - 15) or with POLAR - 10 (or - 20 or - 30). Repeated ramming.ICE - A* ( or - A or - B) (previous class notations) - Vessels which may operate in ice infested watersIce Breaker (previous class notation) - Vessel for breaking ice
ICE-1A* (or -1A or -1B or -1C) - Vessel which may operate in channels prepared by icebreakers and/or in open waters with smaller ice floes. The Rules are considered to meet the Finnish-Swedish ice class regulations for corresponding classes, and the Canadian arctic regulations for type A,B,C and D ships, respectively.
-1A* - Extreme ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 1.0 m are anticipated
-1A - Severe ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.8 m are anticipated
-1B - Medium ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.6 m are anticipated
-1C - Light ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 0.4 m are anticipated
ICE-1A*F - Vessels complying with ice class ICE-1A* and additionally strengthened for regular service in ice-infested waters, to a certain degree independent of ice breaker assistance
ICE-C - Vessel which may operate in light ice conditions
ICE-05 (or -10 or -15) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with pressure ridges. No ramming anticipated.
POLAR-10 (or -20 or -30) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with multi-year ice-floes and glacial ice inclusions. Accidental ramming. Figures indicate nominal ice thickness in dm. Intermediate values may occur.
Icebreaker - Vessels intended for ice breaking as main purpose. Used in combination with ICE - 05 (or - 10 or - 15) or with POLAR - 10 (or - 20 or - 30). Repeated ramming.
ICE - A* ( or - A or - B) (previous class notations) - Vessels which may operate in ice infested waters
Ice Breaker (previous class notation) - Vessel for breaking ice
[ 11-24-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]
Antarctica is an unforgiving maritime environment and as spectacular the scenery there is risk to cruising her waters. I am not happy to see that so many large cruise vessels are there now with minimal if any ice rating and that is not prudent considering the remoteness and danger of those waters. I would want to see the IAATO crack down of cruiseships with a restriction on passengers on them that can be rescued by no more than two other vessels in less than 6 hours. This would require a great deal of coordination to ensure adequate vessels be within a certain range with a certain capacity but it would exclude any vessel with more than 300pax I believe. I also believe that no vessel with anything less that LR ice class 1C be allowed in Antarctic Peninsula waters but then only with restrictions about how fast, how think pack, etc it can operated in. 1B class would have fewer restrictions and 1A would be basically without restrictions. I do not know the class of every cruise vessel carrying passengers to Antarctica but I believe the only one with 1A or beter class would be the Russian YAMAL and the POLAR STAR. I will try to do a survey of every vessel cruising Antarctica this season with this respective ice rating. It will be interesting to see what the results are.
Michael
regardsMichael
Pam
quote:Originally posted by Marlowe:did you miss type when you show CLIPPER ADVENTURER also as 1A?
quote:Originally posted by Marlowe:Do you want to do that survey of all the ships cruising Antarctica or should I?l
quote:Originally posted by PamM:YAMAL is only L1, broken open ice & light ice conditions. But then there is KAPITAN KHLEBNIKOV LL3, "forcing the way in compact ice field up to 1.5 m thick". Then Akademik Shokalskiy, UL1..
Lots of classification societies do have different classifications... Marlowe and I are referring to the Finnish-Swedish ones, which are also the ones used by Det Norske Veritas. e.g. The ice class of BREMEN and HANSEATIC is actually Germanischer Lloyd's E4 which the GL web site says is the same as ICE-1A* (or 1A Super).
BV and LR don't actually say on their web sites how theirs translate to Finnish-Swedish ice-class - I assumed LR's 1A means the same as the Finnish-Swedish 1A but perhaps not as BV has a 1D, and the Finnish-Swedish classifications go down only to 1C... So perhaps BV's 1D is the same as the Canadian D, which is the Finnish-Swedish 1C? All very confusing !
quote:Originally posted by PamM:YAMAL is only L1, broken open ice & light ice conditions. But then there is KAPITAN KHLEBNIKOV LL3, "forcing the way in compact ice field up to 1.5 m thick". Then Akademik Shokalskiy, UL1.. the Russians have a while different set of various classes, maybe hard to make a direct comparison. Ocean Nova is Ice Class 1D.. it may take you a while Marlowe, but if you have the time it would be a great exercise with interesting results Pam
There are indeed several ice class 'regulation systems' - they also do not apply to ice breakers. (if I am not wrong, Doug posted the 'Baltic' categories)
Other cruise ships with ice strengthened hull would be Minerva, Europa and Holiday Dream.
There is not much on the net on this topic - here is a
nice article
P.S.: Mind you that it seems as if the 'ice class' was NOT the problem with Explorer. I am also very much against ships without ice strengthened hull sailing in these waters but an ice strengthened hull is NOT protecting against damage due to collisions with icebergs.
Does anyone know whether Explorer was a one or two compartment ship?
[ 11-24-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]
the Toronto globe article has some comments that make my mind speculate! A passenger found water in her cabin & notified crew - surely all cabins are above water line & therefor a considerable amount of water was already in ship.Crew thought it might be a leaky pipe & when found it was salt water switched on bilge pumps & closed water tight doors - therefor she was sailing in dangerous waters without w/t doors shut.Owner said Captain told him "no appreciable collision effects" - This satement made me speculate, was it something other than ice. Surely a minimum glacing blow from a small growler could not have caused a relatively small hole in a double hull. Perhaps weld or plate failure contributed, the ship is quite old & has had a hard life in Arctic/Antarctic waters. The pointed corner of a sunken container floating just below the surface might have done it without the crew knowing there had been much of a collision. My final way out thought is - Any submarines in the area! A periscope could have knocked a hole that size in the hull without crew knowing much about it. Pure speculation of my wandering mind!. Eric
I am inclined to agree with your comments as I read that the ship had a double hull.
It could be that after over 30 years of cruising in ice, with the resulting bumping against icebergs, undetected damage to the hull could have been caused.
It was a good thing that everybody was rescued with no injuries or loss of life however with a ship like the Grand Princess cruising in those waters what would be the results if she damaged her hull and started to sink.
I think there would be a large loss of life as that area is not equiped to deal with this sort of problem as has been shown with the problems in just returning the passengers from the MV Explorer to the mainland.
Neil ( Bob )
[ 11-25-2007: Message edited by: Neil Whitmore ( Bob ) ]
What do you mean with undetected damage?
Read again my posting and the one by Eric before mine !
I just followed on with a comment based on what he had said.
I have not said that there was a problem but she did seem to flood very quickly !
I just stated that she does not have a double hull and I asked what you mean by 'undetected damage'. Nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that she had not double hull is certainly not an unimportant detail and it also is not 'nit picking' to ask what you actually meant by your rather speculative statement on the condition of the hull.
Maybe you can explain that - or is this a problem with your lack of knowledge on that matter?
We reap what we sow.
quote:Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):ErnstAs I said it was the posting before mine that said there could be a problem with the hull which could have been damaged with a split in a weld or plate failure with which I agreed !You do not appear to have read this posting by Eric and instead had a go at me as usual !
As I said it was the posting before mine that said there could be a problem with the hull which could have been damaged with a split in a weld or plate failure with which I agreed !
You do not appear to have read this posting by Eric and instead had a go at me as usual !
Well, I actually read the posting of Eric. And no, 'weld and plate failure' is NOT the same as suggesting that damage due to ice has been overlooked while she was in dry dock. This is quite an accusation and I just asked you (politely) to specify what you meant - nothing more and nothing less.
quote:Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):One website report I read about the ship did say that she was built with a double hull, but not being a marine surveyor I would not know.
Nobody is perfect - I just stated that she has no double hull - nothing more and nothing less. One would think that this is no reason to be upset or to be impolite.
[ 11-24-2007: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]
She was only in dry dock last month so I would have thought any hull defect should have been picked up then. How often do ships have an 'x-ray' or similar to check the hull thickness for corrosion and invisible to the naked eye defects? I believe she only has a double bottom rather than a double hull, but I cannot find anything specific to confirm that or otherwise. Anyone know for sure?
Personal insults are not acceptable, even when misspelt.
[ 11-24-2007: Message edited by: PamM ]
Re undetected damage on cruise ships caused by corrosion.
The 1984 built Pacific Sky sprung a leak in March 2003 when enroute from Auckland to Nuku'alofa and had to return to Auckland for repairs.
She now sails as Sky Wonder for the Spanish company Pullmantur Cruises.
quote:Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):Hi AllRe undetected damage on cruise ships caused by corrosion.The 1984 built Pacific Sky sprung a leak in March 2003 when enroute from Auckland to Nuku'alofa and had to return to Auckland for repairs.She now sails as Sky Wonder for the Spanish company Pullmantur Cruises.Neil ( Bob )
Yes, there is damage that can be overlooked or that can hardly be detected during maintenance. It also happens that damage is overlooked that should be detected - nobody denies that. Nevertheless, a bump or leak in the hull due to a collision with ice - or whatever you actually meant with your statement above - is something different. This is actually why I asked you what you meant - it's as simple as that.
quote:Originally posted by Eric:[...] I did come across "strain ageing" & "work hardening". I suspect if we ever get a diffinitive view of what happened they will play a part in the equation of this ship loss. [...]
This is entirely possible. Such material defects (on an atomic scale) are not easy and sometimes impossible to detect. (in advance)Presently it is of course not at all clear what actually caused the vessel to sink. An iceberg (or whatever it was) CAN easily puncture a hull made of flawless steel - so maybe it is not necessary to relate to weakening of the material to explain how she sank. We will see.
Depending on the depth of water that the mv Explorer is now lying in will be a factor in deciding if it is possible to find out what happened to the hull and caused the leak.
With the water temperatures in that area I would not think that it is possible to examine the hull unless it is done, weather permitting, with a remote controlled camera.
Recovery of her would also seem a non starter unless it is possible to do it to prevent polution in the area.
I 'heard' - this has NOT been confirmed - that the hull has been inspected by divers while she was still afloat. Mind you that right now still a lot of stories make the round - and some are contradicting - so this might very well be wrong.
Why, in the name of all that's holy, did the ship operate with open lifeboats, given the geography in which they chose to sail? The stories told by the pax have a significant and common element in focus, namely the misery is sitting in four hours or more in those open lifeboats, exposed to the weather, which although kindly, was still bloody cold.
Just imagine a moderate sea, with spray...and I take it there was some. Imagine worse weather, it is certainly common down there. And yet, the pax and crew had to sit for hours in open boats basically similar to those on Titanic. OK, they had engines. Why could they not the ship have carried the standard, enclosed "tender/lifeboat" now almost universal on all passenger-carying ships?
I believe most tendering was done with inflatables, and there were many about. But they also were not suited for "hanging around" in the elements, waiting for rescue vessels. Suppose said rescue vessels were two days away.....quite likely?
No. I just don't get it.
[ 11-25-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]
quote:Originally posted by Cambodge:[...]No. I just don't get it.[ 11-25-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]
Me neither.
Beside that many at best spooky stories make the round. It seems as if this will be a very interesting investigation.
quote:Originally posted by Cambodge:Why, in the name of all that's holy, did the ship operate with open lifeboats, given the geography in which they chose to sail? [ 11-25-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]
Why, in the name of all that's holy, did the ship operate with open lifeboats, given the geography in which they chose to sail?
Maybe it has to do w/the style of her davits and the ability to handle the bulkier enclosed boats? It seems that many older passenger ships have a combination of open and closed boats w/the closed ones primarily used as tenders. Many older ships have had new davits installed during refits and this ship may have not had new or larger ones installed.
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0.3
More Vacation & Cruise Specials...