New Modular ship design

[John Arton]

Stena bulk have unveiled a new ship design that can carry liquid and bulk cargo in detachable modules,seem to recall that a number of years ago Star bulk had ships that could carry acid in one hold but they were a bit of a disaster.
Rgds
J.A.
https://gcaptain.com/stena-bulk-unve...eid=3b737aa316

[Bill Morrison]

Hi John. I seem to recall vessels call L.A.S.H. ships which loaded barges from the stern for quick turn round.

[Ivan Cloherty]

Hi John. I seem to recall vessels call L.A.S.H. ships which loaded barges from the stern for quick turn round.

We used to get them (LASH vessels), Lykes Line in Dubai and Muscat in the 1970's, had them under my Agency. Nothing new really.the Lash vssls lived a short life, as all the barges had to be towed, they were square, so fairly powerful craft, Rather than mooring type craft had to be used. Then shippers and receivers failed to unload/load on time, so barges had to be left behind. They also had them on the Humber (Hull) for them to be towed to and from Goole, anyone who knows the Humber and Ouse with its 6/7 knots current knows you need a strong harbour tug for towing a few square barges in those currents. I wonder if the designers read their history books

[Keith Tindell]

I may be wrong, but many years ago, i had to go to Marchwood military port on many occasions while they were loading ammunition on the Sir Gallahad and the Sir Tristan, and the barges were self propelled with large outboard type engines. These when empty were lashed to the side of the mother ship, ready to put to sea, is that the type of ship described as LASH ?, it was all new to me, this was 40+ years ago, kt

[Ivan Cloherty]

I may be wrong, but many years ago, i had to go to Marchwood military port on many occasions while they were loading ammunition on the Sir Gallahad and the Sir Tristan, and the barges were self propelled with large outboard type engines. These when empty were lashed to the side of the mother ship, ready to put to sea, is that the type of ship described as LASH ?, it was all new to me, this was 40+ years ago, kt

No as Bill (#2) said they were loaded through the stern (bridge & Accomm was on the foc'le) square barges absolutely square were floated in two abreast, each about 500/700 tons capacity (I stand to be corrected) brought to the stern by tugs, and then winched for'd, think there were 8/10 barges in a row, once they were in position they were secured with locking bars and the mother vessel discharged the ballast bringing the barges high and dry in the vessel. Think of a floating drydock scenario with a bridge and propulsion. For the life of me I cannot remember the stern aperture closing system, I cannot recall any cranes on these vessels, the barges were quite deep, about 4/6' draft in ballast and about 7/8 freeboard in ballast. On one run they'd deposit half the barges in Muscat and sail to India to discharge the rest, then pick up loaded barges in India, sail back to Muscat to load the rest and then ail for the USA or Europe. As an Agency we soon let them go as clients, so many factors to deal with and so many expenses incurred, such as time, effort, headaches, relying on third parties which could not always be recovered from owners. The theory was good, but the USA didn't factor in the Arab and Indian mentality of the 70's when attitudes to schedules made the South American manana por la manana look efficient

[j.sabourn]

#4 That same 40+ years ago Keith I was in Portsmouth as the fleet was being assembled we fully expected to be included in the Armada but were later knocked back as we were the only ship the Navy had apart from HMS Reclaim (very out dated ) having any sort of ability of rescuing submariners from a bottomed submarine and our usual place was up off the West Coast of Scotland. The piggy back way of transporting sea going vessels was well in existance then. The Armada that I saw went to every type of vessel imagineable from harbour tugs to aircraft carriers. Piggy backing however is for peace time purposes not for war at sea , where an enemy would get at least a 100 % bonus on every sinking. The lash ships I seem to remember that the theory was that they carried barges to discharge their own cargo whilst still at sea, I might be wrong, in which case it would of been feasable to use such vessels, as troop carriers use that principle all the time. JS

[j.sabourn]

#6 A war that was fought to uphold the principles of a people who wanted to stay under the British Crown. After the war I believe it was the people themselves who chose to remain under UK jurisdiction and not Argentine. Makes todays objectors of their own nationality look pretty un inspiring weak and ineffective and as Brian says should have the courage of their own convictions and move to their Shangri La, most would not be missed. JS...

[Lewis McColl]

If memory serves me right the US navy eventually took over the LASH ships.lash 3.jpg they had a Movable Gantry crane 500ton lift? As said they lifted barges from the stern end.

[Ivan Cloherty]

If memory serves me right the US navy eventually took over the LASH ships.lash 3.jpg they had a Movable Gantry crane 500ton lift? As said they lifted barges from the stern end.

Thanks for that Lewis, certainly grown in size from the ones we used to handle

[Ivan Cloherty]

Looking more closely at this maritime lego system of modular transport (#1), raises the question of how the vessel will act in a normal swell and wave actioned ocean crossing, never mind a storm. It seems to be a naval architects dream but a shipmasters/seamens nightmare. From information available so far it is more or less a powerful tug with rigid attached snake behind it, numerous lego block barges attached to each other by horizontal couplings, more or less like rail carriages, but close coupled. Any other seaman looked at it closely with any comments.

I worked with an integrated ocean tug and barge system 'Calrice Exporter' in the 80's where in the the tug nestled in a 'U' in the barges stern and was locked in hydraulically and safety wires, if I remember correctly the barge was about 20,000 dwcc . Spent a fortnight with her in Sierra Leone, the crew were the unfriendliest bunch you could wish to meet, but their supt was a different kettle of fish, apparently they didn't like Atlantic passages, I could understand why, must have been a bitch in ballast.