JohnQuote:
Originally Posted by j.sabourn
Found some phots of the now St Barbara (EX MV Seaforth Clansman)
Kind regrds
Stuart.
Printable View
JohnQuote:
Originally Posted by j.sabourn
Found some phots of the now St Barbara (EX MV Seaforth Clansman)
Kind regrds
Stuart.
Tony asked Stuart to forward some photos he sent me to the site as I was unsure how to do on the computer I have. However I meant for them to go in the Gallery with the other ships. Are you able to do this ? They are the ex. Seaforth Clansman. Thanks a lot, if cant do at your end will try again from this end with photos I received privately .Thanks John Sabourn.
Sorry John, they are both copyrighted and the first one is too small. We are unable to include copyrighted photos in our gallery for obvious reasons.
Thanks Tony, saves me a job of trying to figure out to send. To tell the truth did not even notice the copyright at the bottom left hand corner until had another look. Regards John Sabourn.
For me small ships were best. Agree with John Sutton and Trader.
Big tanker and container ship docks mostly in horrible places.
VLCCs yuk mono buoy to monobuoy. Round the Cape nothing to see but sea, might as well be on a weather ship.
Deck sports! How jolly and u can trot up and down the main deck.
So far as ship handling goes that most of us enjoy. Some VLCC Masters even make a mess of anchoring their own ships no wonder they only do it 6 times a year. Short sea traders and coasters are unfairly paid less, but are often the best seamen from the school of hard knocks.
Unfortunately they seem to have disappeared under the British flag.
Saw on the news that these humungous boxboats can save 175 tonnes of bunkers per day by slowing down giving, by their figures, a saving of £500,000 per trip from far east. It's a bit scary to think these boats use more in bunkers than a lot of the boats I worked on could carry as cargo!
Regards
Calvin
20 odd years ago working on some of the more modern tonnage then, the 12 to 15000 h.p.anchor handlers in some cases had 4 engines, 2 on each shaft. These are not big ships deadweight wise but burned about 40 tons a day on 4 engines when towing etc. Normally went on 2 main engines, one on each shaft the other 2 being declutched. There are much bigger Horse Power ships now so their burnout must be much more. When you think back to the old 10.000 ton cargo ship burned about 10 ton a day, shows the differences today on the financial side of shipping. When people argue about crew wages, it makes me wonder, as even in the 50/60s wages were about the lowest thing on the deficit side of a record of earnings of a ship.Insurance was even higher than such. What is the price of fuel now, work it out for yourself. Crews wages is a small deficit always was and always will be. Cheers John Sabourn.
Re. Charter rates on the spot market which varied according to the financial situation of the time regarding the price of oil. I can quote the Seaforth Clansman on charter to the MOD as have always said was a very good charter and would have been quite prepared to go into retirement from if ship had stayed and I hadnt been moved on to others. She was on I believe a 10 year Charter, 10,000 pounds a day, fuel and all breakages of gear paid for by the charterers. The only outlay was crews wages and Insurance. Wages I would say was below 500 pounds a day, food also was paid by charterer. Depreciation on vessel also Insurance, either would probably be above wages bill. A nice little earner for the owners. This was on 1980 figures. Other similar vessels on the private side would probably have been on a higher daily rate, but were on the spot market and was not always steady money for the shipowner. When people talk about the decline of British crews in the MN and blame high wages, I always stick my tongue in cheek and try to keep quite. My heart bleeds for the British shipowner. Cheers John Sabourn