PDA

View Full Version : BIG NEW LINER



captain kong
03-15-2010, 10:01 AM
This is an interesting video from the Daily Mail web site, with thanks.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1562587976?bctid=71436724001

I would not want to cross the North Atlantic in winter on that one. I would certainly question her stability. I f you had a 70 knot gale on the beam with seas to match she would be on her beam ends and spilling your Rum and cokes.

Celebrity Eclipse

pablo42
03-15-2010, 10:45 AM
More like a floating city Captain.

kevin
03-15-2010, 10:56 AM
The seagoing equivalent of high-rise flats and appeals not at all.

pablo42
03-15-2010, 10:58 AM
The seagoing equivalent of high-rise flats and appeals not at all.

Imagine it when that baby hits a port...

captain kong
03-15-2010, 12:15 PM
If she had a boiler room explosion and flames and smoke pouring through the a/c vents in all the rooms she would be a death trap. No chance of getting all those 4/5000 people off.

Waterways
03-15-2010, 12:17 PM
Papenburg is quite a way inland. How they got that to the sea from there must have been a big task. I would never have thought the river to the sea was deep enough never mind wide enough.

kevin
03-15-2010, 12:37 PM
Papenburg is quite a way inland. How they got that to the sea from there must have been a big task. I would never have thought the river to the sea was deep enough never mind wide enough.

A lot of large liners have quite a shallow draught - so that many more ports are accessible to them.

Waterways
03-15-2010, 12:52 PM
A lot of large liners have quite a shallow draught - so that many more ports are accessible to them.

The draught is approx 25-26 foot for many of them. But that ship yard is the equivalent of building a ship further inland than Warrington.

Many of these larger liners could negotiate the south end docks if the locks were wide enough. The Brunswick Dock can clearly accept a 25 foot draught. If the Eastham locks were wide enough liner with a 25 foot draught could get to Manchester-just as the canal is 26 foot minimum.

Most ships these days are wider and a shallower draught than say 70-80 years ago.

wsteve55
03-15-2010, 10:44 PM
A lot of large liners have quite a shallow draught - so that many more ports are accessible to them.

Would that mean they could capsize,in heavy sea's,etc, more easily?

ItsaZappathing
03-15-2010, 11:37 PM
This is an interesting video from the Daily Mail web site, with thanks.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1562587976?bctid=71436724001

I would not want to cross the North Atlantic in winter on that one. I would certainly question her stability. I f you had a 70 knot gale on the beam with seas to match she would be on her beam ends and spilling your Rum and cokes.

Celebrity Eclipse

So the boats on a cruise can be dodgy. Not sounding to good that!

Waterways
03-15-2010, 11:45 PM
Would that mean they could capsize,in heavy sea's,etc, more easily?

Stabilisers, a lower centre of gravity with all heavy machinery wells spaced on the keel using electric motors to power the propellers and lighter superstructure construction.

pablo42
03-16-2010, 12:09 AM
Stabilisers, a lower centre of gravity with all heavy machinery wells spaced on the keel using electric motors to power the propellers and lighter superstructure construction.

Nice one WW.

captain kong
03-16-2010, 10:34 AM
This is from the Daily Mail Online site
It included phots of the ship passing through the locks.Read more:



Mind the gap: Ocean liner squeezes through lock with just two feet on either side of her
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 7:28 PM on 11th March 2010
Measuring 1,040 feet in length and weighing 122,000 tonnes, the Celebrity Eclipse was always going to make an impact with her mammoth size.
So the ship was forced to make an undignified squeeze through the lock as she left the Meyer Werft shipyard in Papenberg, Germany, on her maiden voyage today.
What’s more the depth of the river and the draft of the ship allowed for mere inches – or even less – beneath her.
With such a narrow margin for error the makers of the ship and the shipyard owners had to carefully monitor the position of the moon and tidal conditions to identify the precise time when the depth of the river would be sufficient for the ship to pass through.
At one point it was such a narrow fit the 121-foot wide ocean liner had as few as two feet on either side of her as she eased through, during a rite of passage known as the conveyance.
The ship is the third of five from Celebrity Cruises’ $3.7billion Solstice Class fleet and features a ten restaurants and even a glass blowing studio.

The company’s fleet sail in Alaska, California, Canada/ New England, the Pacific Coast, Panama Canal, South America and the Caribbean.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257267/Mind-gap-Ocean-liner-squeezes-lock-just-feet-her.html#ixzz0iKnqLJr6

here are the photos

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257267/Mind-gap-Ocean-liner-squeezes-lock-just-feet-her.html#ixzz0iKn9LUsX

Waterways
03-16-2010, 10:57 AM
What's more the depth of the river and the draft of the ship allowed for mere inches, or even less, beneath her. With such a narrow margin for error the makers of the ship and the shipyard owners had to carefully monitor the position of the moon and tidal conditions to identify the precise time when the depth of the river would be sufficient for the ship to pass through.
At one point it was such a narrow fit the 121-foot wide ocean liner had as few as two feet on either side of her as she eased through, during a rite of passage known as the conveyance.

It appears the ship is too big for that type of shipyard. It would have easily been built at Lairds. How can high cost Germany and Finland make these large ship and the UK cannot?

It appears they build the ship in a dry docks and then fill the dock. Lairds do have that facility if it can fit in one of the dry docks there. This yard had everything under cover as well, so no hold-up when rain. Lairds build on a slanted slipway and much in the open, in the rather fashioned way.

I wonder if any fitments were excluded from the vessel until in deep water to reduce draught.

captain kong
03-16-2010, 12:30 PM
The reason why we dont build ships anymore is because the Government does not want ship building or any kind of Industry because of the promises the Government made on global warming and reducing the country`s carbon footprint. That is why Brown did not back the demands to keep Corus steel works open in the north east. 1600 men sacked and the lives of 10,000 others affected, so now we have to import steel from India. Steel works have a lot of heat and carbon, that increased Britains carbon foot print dramatically. So now Brown`s standing in the looney green brigade has now increased.
Phony Bliar refused any backing for Harland and Wolf when they tendered for the building of `Queen Mary 2`, that threw four thousand men out of work, that is not counting all the suppliers for new ships, such as carpets, bed linen and cutlery, and all the products that go into completing a ship, thousands more lost their jobs. H & W were the favourites for the contracts, they wanted financial help just to get started on the $800,000,000 contract. Tony refused. All lost their jobs, never to return.
France, financially poured money into St Nazaire that was going bancrupt, they built it in 17 months, and since then they have never stopped building ships. It has created many thousands of jobs for the French and the money just pours in for that French government investment.
Britain has been dragged down into the cess pits by the stupidity of this govenment. So no ship building. All those skills are being lost, no apprentices being trained to build ships and all the many other Engineerings jobs we once did for the world,
Browns obsession with global warming is the craziest thing ever, No one else bothers, so when people`s sons and daughters are increasingly finding it difficult to find employment, apart from supermarket jobs, Real Jobs, they can blame their parents stupidity for their dogmatic following of New Labour, "I vote Labour because me Dad voted Labour and his Dad before him", attitude, the world has changed, They dont give a dam* about the workers, We must watch our Carbon Foot Print Targets, that is more important than peoples jobs.
We built railways and locomotives and carriages for the world. I know because we carried them as cargo on our ships. Now no cargo no ships. We now have to import all our trains, carriages and railway lines from Italy and the east.
All our Industry has gone to Europe, because of this governments committal to Global Warming Targets that the rest of the world ignores.
That is why we build nothing today, that is why we have millions of people living on the Benefit system, the country is bancrupt,
eg. A man earns 500 a week. he pays the State 120 a week in taxes. State up 120
eg. A man loses his job, Man recieves, 200 in benefit, State loses 200 plus the loss of his tax =
State loss of 320 every week.
What kind of a system is that. That is why we are going Bancrupt with no jobs,
AND THAT IS WHY WE DO NOT BUILD SHIPS ANYMORE.

Waterways
03-16-2010, 12:49 PM
The argument against yours is that they are private companies and should stand on their own feet. H&W should have got the money privately.

The history of the UK is one of the profits being privatised and the eventual and inevitable debts socialised. The taxpayer picks up the tab. The railways was the clear example of this. With the railways the real beneficiaries were the land owners the tracks ran through, and around the stations - who tended to be the railway companies, although others gained greatly as well. They creamed it off as land values rose exponentially and they raised rents. Increased values in land is "unearned income". The owner did nothing to create that wealth, the community does it by spending its taxpaying money on infrastructure. In the case of the Victorian railways, the investors,who were promised great profits, which never came. Those who built them did - in increased, untaxed land values.

The values the railways created since nationalisation that soaked into the ground as increased land values were not reclaimed to pay for the mechanism that created the wealth in the first place - the railways. The land owners creamed off the lot. The way the private railways were financed and run was poor and bound to fail. The profits were privatised and the debts socialised. The taxpayer picked up the tabs out of necessity to keep the shambolic, neglected, exploited network operating for the good of the nation.

The owners walked away but still took with them a ton of money on increased land values. Taxpayers money was used to get the networks modernised, yet the real beneficiaries, the landowners, were not taxed.

Fast, efficient railways boost the economy - they lower the price of essential goods. It is reclaiming the values they create to maintain them that needs addressing. One needs the other. In isolation many railways are supposedly uneconomical. In reality, overall to the community they are far from that. They create economic growth. Imagine London without the Underground, or Liverpool without Merseyrail. These cities would be a lot poorer. We have socialised roads, apart from the odd one or two, but people think rail should be private for some very odd reasons.

The best system is:

Public ownership of rail
Land Value Taxation to fund the infrastructure.


All then benefit, that is "all", even land owners as the infrastructure will be much superior. Fred Harrison, a top economist, very articulately explains very well how finances and essential infrastructure mesh.

Do we need a large ship building industry for the benefit of the nation as we do railways? Governments have been caught by the short term, wanting to keep jobs. In an economic boom why should they fund lame duck industries, when the employees can be employed elsewhere easily? The money is best used to fund wealth creating infrastructure. In times of depression/recession I can see why, but not in good times and until the world-wide Credit Crunch hit us we only had good times with Blair and Brown.

If taxpayers money is to be used for projects it should be for infrastructure that promotes economic growth: transport, hospitals, schools, etc. Then using Land Value Tax the cost of the infrastructure can be reclaimed. Then private enterprise can run over the rails of publicly funded and run infrastructure.

captain kong
03-16-2010, 02:30 PM
I think you are suffering from a little Tunnel Vision there WW.
I was not referring to the Running of the Railways or landowners, but the giovernments policy of closing down industries that are against Browns plans for the carbon footprint of the UK and that is why he and that other whimp Mandelson stood by without a squeek and watch as thousands of working class people were thrown on the scrap heap at Corus. Brown wanted Corus Steel works closed because of his promises to reduce Global warming. That also includes any Industry that has any kind of emissions, close it. must keep the global warming target.
The railways I mentioned were the Manufacture of Railways, locos, carriages, and rails etc., we now have to buy these from Italy. part of the deal for going into Europe.
Ship building, Harland and Wolf, wanted a government loan to pay for wages of good working class workers and british buiilt equipment to start the first phase of the QM2. A ship owner does not pay the builder any money until it is at a certain stage in its construction.
Then the first cheque is paid, and so on until the ship is built and accepted. The ship builder repays the government for the loan.
Four thousand men are then fully employed paying taxes to the government. The prestige of building the finest liner ever built then creates more employment and more orders, everyone including the State, benefits. Now we have thousands of unemployed men on benefits draining the country`s economy. NOW HOW STUPID IS THAT. Today is a different ball game , This is why Britain is falling behind every other country on the planet apart from Somalia. Britain still haves that stupid "Them and us " attitude.
Chantiers de l'Atlantique Shipyard in St Nazaire France was going bancrupt, this Blair government chose not to help any British ship builder and so the French jumped in and said they would build it. The French government invested $E110,000,000, or 33.34% in Chantiers de l'Atlantique Shipyard and now it has prospered, they cannot build ships fast enough while our lads are stood on street corners broke and with no hope. The French government have got all their investment back and making big profits.
That is the daftest of all daft ideas, if it is a private company then let it go to the wall, does not matter if thousands or even millions of british workers are on the dole, as long as we stand by our antiquated ideas. That is why we are in a mess today.
This is why the british workers are losing jobs........
I am still a fully paid up member of a trade union, even though I retired ten years ago. We have B.A. cabin crew going on strike because of the Officials of UNITE are urging them to.
All B.A. has to do is register the Company in Manila and sack all 15,000 employees and employ Filipino cabin staff.
End of strike, End of 15,000 jobs, That attitude is the reason for a lot of unemployment in this country.
All the big Liner Companies, Cunard , P&O, Canadian Pacific and so on and including the whole of the British Merchant Navy have taken their ships under foreign flags and employed third world country staff. This was caused by the Seamens Strikes, which I took part in , during the 50s and 60s, We won our cause and now stand on street corners while talking about it and while Filpinos are doing our jobs. 120,000 seamen lost their jobs.
THAT IS WHY WE DO NOT BUILD SHIPS, RAILWAY STOCK. AND HAVE NO MERCHANT NAVY THAT WAS ONCE THE WORLDS BIGGEST WHEN WE MANUFACTURED FOR THE WORLD.

Waterways
03-16-2010, 06:04 PM
Kong, It is only speculation Brown is running down smokestack industries to meet emissions. The country does not have that much electricity coal fired to what it had as Thatcher used up the gas reserves to generate power, hence why domestic gas prices are through the roof because we have to import gas, forcing people into fuel poverty. Insulation levels in new buildings and extensions is infinitely higher than 15 years ago. Vehicle emissions are to EU standards and hybrids are selling well. We have a rather newish stock of vehicles which means overall lower emissions.

Shipbuilding is a private concern and you are saying the government should give cash to them. In a time of full employment (until CC) that was rather foolish to do. Let these industries sort themselves out. The Germans and Finns did.

Money is better spent underpinning what private enterprise runs on, the infrastructure, and not getting involved. Also reclaim the cost via LVTax. Every time the government bails out something many of them walk off with a load of our cash.

The railways I mentioned were a good example of private enterprise screwing up and the taxpayer having to pick up the tab. The right wing media then blamed the government for trying to get right a total shambles. They should be 100% public owned and run with LVTax financing them. Private companies provide all the equipment and design anyhow. LVT will give us the best infrastructure in the world.

We do not build ships because the builders are just no good at it to others. The shipyard conditions are dire to those in Germany. The same could be said for the car industry. Those owning and running them were just bad at it, then they blamed everyone else except themselves and pointed at unions of course. The designs were just plain bad - look at the Al-agro and Marina. Have you ever read criticism of the owners of industry in the The Daily Mail? I wonder why not?

Understand some basic economics and industrial history....and keep away from the Daily Mail.