Why ships crash

#39 Watched another one of them there shipping programmes narrated by armchair experts, one whom stated that the Maersk'E'Class (photo shown) though very large had been superseded by the larger 'OOCL' class (photo shown) of course the OOCL painted on the hull was 'Orient Overseas Container Lines' and is even shown on their 5000 tonne vessels. There was plenty of other mis-information in the one hour programme and it does beg the question where on earth do they find their nautical experts. He never did say what the OOCL stood for

The competition is now open !! I'll start it off

OoH!Oh! Christ its Large

The second half of my time at sea Tony was mostly on offshore vessels. You know yourself there is a huge difference in ship manouvering between vessels of that class , going alongside another large vessel and tying up is nothing compared with holding a ship on station for hour after hour alongside an installation with no fenders or lines out , apart from hoses which are liable to part if one loses ones own concentration. They were all fast moving diesels the likes of Mirrless marine diesels. The North Sea British vessels were not the leader in suitable vessels for that trade , I would say the Norwegians were and we had their cast offs many a time to work with. Some of the best shiphandlers I have seen were ex fishermen and one who was ex RAF out of the Air Sea Rescue Service. A large percentage of ex deep sea men were too busy being seasick. Cheers JS
I was a latecomer to offshore work compared with some , but even when I started it was the usual thing to tie up to a rig with what is best described as the closest thing to a Mediterranean moor , ships were usually twin screw and a bow thruster. Then the oil companies for different reasons stipulated that tying up was a no goer as ships had to do what we called dodge , so you were left with a ship which was not really adaptable to maintain position for long periods of time. However seamen being seamen managed in most cases to do. It was their livelihood and if they couldn’t they were out of a job. I wonder if the media experts would have called these vessels tankers as well. Cheers JS

#41 Quiz?. OOCL = Onboard Onshore Children are Limited JS

#36 . Alex you weren’t up for a Radar Certificate in 1957 at South Shields were you ? JS

Doing a figure of eight in the English Chanel would have been fun!!

Now a stupid question from a catering crew member.

Is it possible to, as you can on a car, put the gear into nuteral?
Los of such one would consider could take some speed off the ship!

AS to 'crashing' I doubt there is any couch potato who would consider any other way to describe it.

The quickest way normally to take the way off a ship John on old type of vessels was to go though the telegraph movements from Full ahead to half ahead to slow ahead to dead slow ahead to stop. The time lag between these movements would vary from ship to ship , but was quicker than going from full ahead to stop. Going through the movements the ships propellor itself causes a breaking movement to the ships bulk moving through the water , was the quickest way to get the way off these big super colossal vessels which could carry steerage way for up to 6 miles , and they were nautical miles as well . Ships with thrusters and different types of propulsion varied as to their handling , but is a hands on job to find out for yourself and if necessary in your bare feet to get the feel of the ship , that’s only half a joke. JS

May be a drunken helmsman.

John Albert Evans.

John S. #42 Offshore Supply Vessels in the early days were small around 800+ tons and 1500 bhp. with a fixed bow thrust. There was only forward facing controls, so you had to manoeuvre looking over your shoulder going astern. I found this clip of I.O.S. Lady Mariann ( Dutch Flag) in a promotion for British Polar F range engines. It is about 15 minutes into the film.
Bill.

https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/3268

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Morrison

John S. #42 Offshore Supply Vessels in the early days were small around 800+ tons and 1500 bhp. with a fixed bow thrust. There was only forward facing controls, so you had to manoeuvre looking over your shoulder going astern. I found this clip of I.O.S. Lady Mariann ( Dutch Flag) in a promotion for British Polar F range engines. It is about 15 minutes into the film.
Bill.

https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/3268

---

LADY MARIANN-IMO 7045566.Platform supply vessel ,tonnages 456/750,Dimens. 47.2 x 10.1m.2sc.diesel 11.5k.Compl. 19/2/1971 as Yard No. 831 by Verolme,Heusden,NLDS for Intnl Offshore Svces.(Liberia) Ltd. Liberian flag.
1975 Renamed MARIANN TIDE,owners Tidewater Marine Service Inc.and reg'd Panama.
6/1984.Reported Scuttled.

Attachment 34321

Photographed at Pocra Quay,Aberdeen 1974 by Harry van den Berg-ShipSpotting.com

She looks more in line with a pipe carrier judging what looks like more solid sides on her afterdeck. I was on one converted supply vessel In The North Sea with forward only controls but she was changed to stand by safety duties and called if remember correctly the Veesea Topaz. Believe that company went from strength to strength as was the first to see what everyone had been saying including myself that converted supply vessels were more apt than old trawlers . However as a proto type while better she failed into the all round visual capacity this was rectified by putting cameras covering the areas you couldn’t see. Some of the conversion jobs were ex American supply vessels and she was one of them. When you think some of them anchor handlers are now 17000 bhp and the ones we worked barely 3000 makes you wonder how the job still got done . I always thought the Lady boats as they were commonly known as had Australian money tied up somewhere or am I thinking along the wrong tracks. Tidewater I often worked for out here, believe they bought out Seaboard offshore after I left the UK. Cheers JS