However it seems that many of the older "ro-pax" vessels (like Winston Churchill) have only got bow doors. Thus, are they being incorrectly called "ro-pax" or does "ro-pax" not require both bow and stern doors? If so, is this true with regard to "ro-ro" as well?

And I would think that cars for a vessel with only bow door enter the ship through that door, but how do they leave? Wouldn't they have to turn around somewhere, in order not to be aiming the wrong direction? Or are they backed out?

Sorry for the long questions, unfortunately, most pages having to do with this sort of vessel (barring the ferry companies' pages, I mean enthusiast pages) seem to be in Finnish, if not they are Swedish or if we are really luck we'll find one in the (machine-translatable) Dutch or German.

[ 09-18-2002: Message edited by: Cruiseny ]

I don´t think you can call Winston Churchill a Ro-Pax ship. She is too small to take larger ojects than cars. Your question about the ships that only have bow doors, I´ll remember, when I was young and this is many years ago, I saw when they loaded a passenger/ferry in Ystad destinated to Bornholm. The doors to the car deck was situated on the starboard side, and inside the door there was a large disc, where they placed the car and turned it around. Maybe they have a similar disc in the aft of the car deck so they can turn the cars around.

...it doesn't show up here as needs a dark background. So here's the site.

Pam

[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: PamM ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
CruiseNY here's a car deck layout for a small catamaran showing the turning I was attempting to explain with some vehicles one way etc.

---

Thanks, that really helps, now I can see how these things work .

Only one thing - the site offering Winston Churchill for sale says that she has a stern door. However in pictures I don't see one. If they are correct, she wasn't a good example for this.

Pam explained very well how cars are loaded on "ro-ro" ships. The difference is that you have now 4, 5 or 6 lanes each way.

"Ethimologically", at the origine of the "ro-ro" appellation, the term meant "embark on one end, disembark the other end".

I did embark about 20 times this way on ferries.
But this was before ESTONIA's tragedy (1986 if I remember well).

Immediately after, the bow doors were usually kept closed (sometimes welded aboard some ships) and the cars embarked then from stern, with the "U turn" method Pam described. I then embarked about 30 times that way.
So many "real" ro-ro ferries became then permanently or temporarily one opening embarkation/disembakation.

After several years, when armators had to replace some of these ships, several of them were prefered to have one opening instead of two for avoiding any problem (not all however and some of them do have lateral doors used for emergency or main doors break only).
One, two or three doors, all these ferries were then all considered as "ro-ro" ships. The term has now extended to all of them.

It is to be noted, stern-doors only ferries are much more numerous than bow-doors only ones.
During the very last years (6/7 years), both entrance doors are now re-used more often than during the previous decade, since technical/safety progress has permitted to recover the original "ro-ro" usage in adequation with an improved reglementation (usually well respected in western Europe).

In fact, any ship that allows embarkation/disembarkation of foods or vehicles using the rolling way only, so without cranes/portico, can be considered as "ro-ro".
Of course, some of them are mixed too (ro-ro garages + cranes).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruiseny:

Now: does ro-ro (roll on, roll off) mean that the vehicles have to be able to roll on and roll off without turning, or would a ship like the one in Pam's picture count as ro-ro?

---

"The so-called ro-pax vessel has turned out to be a successful type on many ferry routes, taking he best out of both the ferry and the ro-ro vessel. The point is, that despite its passenger capacity, the ro-pax is a genuine ro-ro vessel with an impressive cargo capacity and truly rational cargo handling." from

I find it interesting that the new Dana Gloria for the Harwich-Ejsberg run is labelled "DFDS Ro-Pax" - this is quite literally what the side of the ship says.

Its sister ship will be designed with a larger passenger accomodation, I wonder if that will also be called ro-pax?

You can have ro-ro cargo ships that have huge stern or quarter ramps and all the cargo is loaded using machinery. Thirty years ago the Swedes put the first 3 of this type on the Trans-Pacific run to Australia replacing 12 ordinary cargo ships plus they carried twice the cargo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:

You can have ro-ro cargo ships that have huge stern or quarter ramps and all the cargo is loaded using machinery.

---

I have also seen a ro-pax referred to as a ro-ro-pax.

"Are you going on a ro-ro, ro-pax, ro-ro-pax, lo-lo or a lo-pax [if there is one]?"
"No Sire, I'm going on a car ferry."

[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: gohaze ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
Thirty years ago the Swedes put the first 3 of this type on the Trans-Pacific run to Australia replacing 12 ordinary cargo ships plus they carried twice the cargo.

---

I know this is rather a silly question, but exactly how does one go across the Pacific from Sweden ?

quote:

---

One big difference with the ferries here is that whilst most of the bigger ones have bow doors they do not have to be watertight as the main cardeck itself is. I was amazed to read in the "Herald of Free Enterprise" Enquiry that at full speed loaded she was a metre by the head and the bow wave was 6 -SIX Metres up the bow doors!!!

---

You've lost me here. How can the car deck be watertight without the door that encloses it being watertight? Isn't it the door that keeps it watertight?

And a ship being a metre by the head - you mean that the bow was a metre lower than the stern?

The deck, which is what you walk on, is itself w/t and stops water going down below.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
Pacific Australia Direct Line owned by Swedish Transatlantic.

---

I should have figured that one out... Of course all ships owned by Swedes don't necessarily go to and from Sweden ...

quote:

---

The deck, which is what you walk on, is itself w/t and stops water going down below.

---

But can't water still come in through the sides, where the doors are, thus still breaching the car deck?

quote:

---

Yes, the bow would be 3.3 ft deeper than the stern. That is how she sank. As she increased speed with the doors not closed properly the bow dropped and the bow wave came up and started to flood the car deck at the same time as the ship started to turn out of the harbour. The water flowed to one side of the deck and was able to flood downwards as well, thereby increasing the capsizing motion - she just kept going.

---

This makes sense... The bow went down... Wave swamps bow, goes through the door, and floods the car deck. Since the ship is already listing to one side as she turns, the water goes to one side and capsizes her.

The bit I don't is about flowing downwards... To where?

I imagine this has something to do with the deck not being w/t, it's obvious that I just can't envision that, since I don't really know which deck it is that's w/t.

I'm assuming that the water went not only through the door, but through the deck that is covering the car deck? Or did it go through the car deck itself (the deck the cars are sitting on) and into whatever is below the car deck?

Sorry, it's just rather difficult dissecting these things without any visuals.

And, just to be a total pain in the neck, I'll throw another question into the mix: what, if anything, is stopping another ro-pax vessel of going the way of Herald of Free Enterprise or Estonia? I mean, the mass media (and not being in Europe this is all we have, I know how wrong it usually is on matters like this) has told us that these vessels are inherently unsafe because the car deck is not divided. So are they still unsafe?

The problem comes when this is breached such as the Estonia or, massively, like the HoFE. The water is trapped on the deck and can only drain downwards or rush around the deck as the ship moves destroying it's stability.

As to whether it can happen again, well yes I would say it can, because my faith in the standards being enforced by the Classification Societies and National Authorities is not great.