Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Bowwave on October 11, 2009, 09:44:37 am
-
The new cruise ship Oasis of the Seas sets sail on 1st of December 09 and what ever you may think of modern cruise vessels this is the biggest yet .
Displacement 220000 tons
Length 361m
Beam 47m
Height above water line 65m
Crew 2165
Passenger capacity 6296
Decks 18
Speed 22kts
Built Aker yard Finland
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/oasis-of-the-seas-cruise-shippin-1.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/oasis-of-the-seas-cruise-shipping-m.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/17761-26-Oasis-Of-The-Seas.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/oasis-of-the-seas-bulbous-bow.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/oasis_of_the_seas_cruise_ship.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/oasis_of_the_seas1_3.jpg)
Bowwave %%
-
This made me laugh. Talk about art reflecting life. %)
From the webiste travel China website
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/hotel/new-nanjiang-hotel-kunming.htm
Kunming New Nanjing Hotel
The New Nanjiang Hotel (Xinnanjiang jiudian) is a 4-star business hotel located in Dongfeng Western Road, which is a prosperous area in Kunming. The hotel is adjacent to Baihui Business Square to its north and Daiguan Business City to its south, neighboring Cui Lake Park. The hotel has a variety of facilities. The contour of the hotel is like a ship, which is sailing on the ocean. The courtyard is elegant with large grounds and underground court yards.
-
I think at these sizes the whole concept becomes rather self defeating. The number of passengers carried by a ship of that size will completely overwhelm the facilities at just about all ports of call, making going ashore a miserable experience.
Of course the cruise company don't want you to go ashore really - they would rather you stayed on board spending money in the shopping mall and on the "extras" which aren't included in the basic cruise package. In which case why bother to fit propulsion engines? It looks like a barge anyway so you could just hire a tug to tow it somewhere new occasionally to act as a floating resort which is all it really is.
Colin
-
Colin you are right about passengers disembarking to go ashore for a few hours, not a good idea. But I suppose ships like these are what the cruising public wants or they would never get built. Esthetics is in the eye of the beholder. To some this is a dream ship to others a nightmare. The bottom line is economics if it makes money then the concept is justified and vindicated.
Bowwave .
{:-{
-
...But I suppose ships like these are what the cruising public wants or they would never get built...
I am not sure I can exactly agree there.
The public wants cruises.
There are cheap cruises and expensive cruises.
It is a fiercley competitve business, and so the cheapest provider wins.
So if the customer of the shipyard is the operator, then it is what the operator wants.
A bit like McDonalds. I think all of us would rather go to a small family restaurant or even a decent chips shop. But they were dearer than McD and were effectivley pushed out of the market.
Market forces aim will often reduce things to the lowest common denominator. i.e. cheapest food service not involving prosecution, or abandonment by the customer. Hence the ubiquitous McD, KFC, Donner Kebab, Weatherspoons etc.
Maybe not what the customer wants, but what the customer is willing to accept. I am sure we would all rather travel on the likes of the old QE2, if we could afford it.
-
On a serious note...eight and a half thousand people on board? I hope that ship never gets into trouble...
Rich
-
in one of the photos a person is taking a photo ? what is holding him upright?
-
in one of the photos a person is taking a photo ? what is holding him upright?
LOL!!! He's developed a unusual talent that guy ha ha!
Anyway, joking aside. It's the result of lens distortion from a wide angle lens (possibly a fish eye lens).
Voyager (ex-photojournalist)
-
Mainly for Bunkerbarge ( as he knows about these things).
Strange hull configuration....what's the longitudinal "bulge" for? BY.
-
Bryan,
That's the accommodation for the budget class passengers; they've got to put them somewhere and the extra weight they provide acts as a secondary stabiliser ...
{-) {-)
-
Mainly for Bunkerbarge ( as he knows about these things).
Strange hull configuration....what's the longitudinal "bulge" for? BY.
There's no bulge, it's an optical illusion from the stitching together of the pictures.
-
I agree with Colin, the logistics of transferring over 6000 passengers ashore, then retrieving them, would be a nightmare for the crew and misery for the passengers. I saw a TV documentary about another Royal Caribbean ship, "Freedom of the Seas", and the crowds in the shopping areas and around the pools were huge, people were literally shoulder to shoulder - not much fun, in my opinion.
As far as a cost comparison with Cunard goes, it seems to me that on a per night basis there is not a lot of difference on similar levels of accommodation, at least, here in Australia.
Peter.
-
Lots of build images here...
http://photos.cruisecritic.com/showphoto.php?photo=12774
:-)
-
The question that goes through my mind is what happens when about 0300 on a black night, in bad weather you have to evacuate the vessel quickly in mid ocean. God forbid.
-
Topic renamed. :-)
-
Is she 'hollow' at the stern?
(http://photos.cruisecritic.com/data/526/000218178-12_Oasis_Of_The_Seas_copy.jpg)
-
Check out the board walk images Martin.
http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/image-gallery.php
-
Is she 'hollow' at the stern?
(http://photos.cruisecritic.com/data/526/000218178-12_Oasis_Of_The_Seas_copy.jpg)
The hollow area at the rear is where Thunderbird 1 lands when there is an emergency...
-
They didn't make a very good job of the paint work did they!!! {-)
-
I always knew the reason for failing my first year @ the University of Wollongong all those yease ago
Displacement 220000 tons
Length 361m
Beam 47m
Height above water line 65m
Crew 2165
Passenger capacity 6296
Decks 18
Speed 22kts
{-) %% >:-o :-) ....Derek
-
Check out the board walk images Martin.
http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/image-gallery.php
Holy Macaroni Batman! :o
-
I think the points made about evacuation are very good ones. Things don't always happen the way that they are tested in the evacuation drills. When the Sea Diamond went down off Santorini in 2007 the ship listed severely which it wasn't supposed to do and getting the passengers off safely also took much longer than anticipated - and the weather was flat calm at the time. Sea Diamond was a minnow compared with the latest pleasure barges.
Another accident waiting to happen is where conventional cruise ships are being sent down to the Antarctic. Not only are the hulls not ice strengthened but if something goes wrong any local rescue services (and there may not be any) could be easily overwhelmed by sheer numbers of survivors so even if you got off the ship in one piece you could die of hypothermia before proper help can be mobilised. There have already been some close calls.
Colin
-
Always lots of interesting discussions around the size of cruise ships and of course the owners/designers/operators/yards will give you a dozen reasons as to why the new vessels are as safe as anything else but to me the big difference is that we have not yet experienced a major incident at sea with anything like a vessel this big. My biggest worry would not be evacuation because the likelyhood of having to evacuate such a vessel nowadays is actually not as statistically probable as a fire, which remains a very real possibility.
The ability to deal with a fire is entirely dependent on the quality and quantity of the fire teams and to me nowadays there is too much left to the descretion of the owners as regards training and equipment. Should the fire become evident to the passengers how the control of those passengers is organised and the quality of the crew would be absolutely critical to a successful outcome.
Until such an incident actually happens on a vessel of this size I really don't think anyone can predict just what will happen and we are venturing ever more deeply into terretory governed by legislation based on what we 'think' may happen.
Interesting pod configuration as well, the QM2 has four, two fixed and two azipods but this one has three azipods.
-
I am waiting for one of our right wing Members to say, "They deserve what they get". I do not mean, long ques at the Pursers Office.
I would certainly say, "I hope they all enjoy it and as long as they are on board there they will not be where I want to be".
Roger
-
Re evacuating a passenger ship due to fire / collision /grounding etc. Anything that involves loss of ship or lives really.
I touched on this subject in one of my offerings on the "Nautical but True thread. But a reminder may be in order.
RFA "Sir Bedivere". Portland harbour. Flat calm. Embarked some dozens of civilian volunteers to act as passengers. Main object of the exercise was to see how the Maritime Authorities (plus Police, Fire Brigades et al) would cope with a major problem "at sea" on a cross channel ferry. To make things interesting we (the ships staff) set off a few smoke bombs and listed the ship a few degrees to stbd. This created genuine panic in some of the volunteers. We also had some crew members dotted about with various injuries...causing even more mayhem. And this was quite mild compared to what was done during a full "work-up" exercise!.
With the ship listed no more than 10* or so the arrival of the Fire Brigade was awaited with interest by the genuine ships company.
They couldn't get on board ....well, the people could, but getting their gear on board was beyond them. All due to the ships list.
When we brought the ship upright again there wasn't much of a problem....but the Fire Brigade thought we were "cheating"! I ask you!
This was all on a calm,sunny summers day no more than half a mile from shore. We would have had no problems lowering the stbd side lifeboats, but it was thought that most of the "volunteers" would freak out with this.
My honest conclusion is akin to Bunkerbarges' statement that "we will have to wait for the disaster to happen before the issue is correctly addressed" (I'm paraphrasing here, but that's how I understood him). Most ships can list to at least 50* before losing stability, so panic at 10* or so would be murderous at larger degrees of heel. And "at sea" it's not feasible to rely on any shore based organisation to come to the rescue. As I've often said, the ship is your lifeboat. But a ship full of shopkeepers, entertainers and others who are not familiar with the ways of the sea will be as much of a problem as would be the paying passengers. My heart sinks (along with the ship) just thinking about it. I don't know what the answer is. I doubt if there is an answer, apart from crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Sorry to be so gloomy.....but at least you will never ever meet me on one of these things. Sleep well, BY.
-
As Bryan says, the proportion of trained crew represented by the navigation and engineering departments becomes smaller and smaller as the ships get bigger and bigger. The total crew may be quite large but the vast majority will be in the hotel services department. On these big ships, indeed on most ships these days, the crew will also be multinational. On both my recent cruises with Thomson a strict boat drill was held immediately after leaving port but I've heard that this isn't always the case.
Just imagine the consequences if two of these ships were to hit each other and catch fire.
Colin
-
I completely agree with the comments previous about 'what happens in an emergency' - one of my concerns should one of these things ever have an issue.
One of the scariest things I have seen on there are the lifeboats, which are double deck loading, holding around 375 (I think) and are stowed in the launching position. No 'swinging out', bowsing tackles, tricing pendants, just take off the gripes and lift the brake, straight down. Having seen many issues with lifeboats before, I think it is a bit of a scary prospect.
The issue with the 'Star Princess' was that the fire was along one side of the accommodation, which in the event of abandonment due to the fire getting out of control, would have rendered at least 5 boats unusable. Now I know that spare raft spaces are available, but not that many! Now change that situation to the Oasis, and you have 1,875 people looking for somewhere to place their bum.....
Touching on a previous question, the arcs extending over the side at the top deck are for jacuzzis which overhang the ships side...
Cheers
Ash
-
Largest cruise liner leaves port
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8333973.stm
-
From today's Southern Evening Echo.
THE biggest cruise ship in the world will be making a brief appearance in The Solent next Monday.
Although there is no fixed time for Oasis of the Seas’ arrival, it is thought she might be in position towards late afternoon.
The 225,000-ton vessel, more than three times the size of Southampton’s former Queen Elizabeth 2, will be stopping in The Solent close to Lee-on-the- Solent while en route from the builders’ yard in Finland to America, where she will enter service in the Caribbean.
Oasis of the Seas is making the diversion to disembark 300 yard workers who sailed from Finland and do not need to be aboard for the Atlantic crossing.
Royal Caribbean, which has a second ship on the same scale under construction, operates the previous record-breaking ship Independence of the Seas from Southampton
-
From today's Southern Evening Echo.
THE biggest cruise ship in the world will be making a brief appearance in The Solent next Monday.
Although there is no fixed time for Oasis of the Seas’ arrival, it is thought she might be in position towards late afternoon.
The 225,000-ton vessel, more than three times the size of Southampton’s former Queen Elizabeth 2, will be stopping in The Solent close to Lee-on-the- Solent while en route from the builders’ yard in Finland to America, where she will enter service in the Caribbean.
Oasis of the Seas is making the diversion to disembark 300 yard workers who sailed from Finland and do not need to be aboard for the Atlantic crossing.
Royal Caribbean, which has a second ship on the same scale under construction, operates the previous record-breaking ship Independence of the Seas from Southampton
Dickie, forgive me; for I realise you are quoting from a Newspaper report. But surely you must have had reservations regarding the statement that she is 3 x the size of the QE2. Newspapers! 3 X the length? Breadth? Depth? I think not. Or are they just talking about the internal space (measured at 100cu.ft per ton). If that's the case then she will certainly be "taller" than QE2, but not all that much longer..or deeper. I would bet that her actual displacement (of water) is not all that much different to that of the QM (2). Just me being pedantic again! Bryan.
-
Dickie, forgive me; for I realise you are quoting from a Newspaper report. But surely you must have had reservations regarding the statement that she is 3 x the size of the QE2. Newspapers! 3 X the length? Breadth? Depth? I think not. Or are they just talking about the internal space (measured at 100cu.ft per ton). If that's the case then she will certainly be "taller" than QE2, but not all that much longer..or deeper. I would bet that her actual displacement (of water) is not all that much different to that of the QM (2). Just me being pedantic again! Bryan.
Bryan
Displacement of Oasis of the Seas is approx 100,000 tons. Gross tonnage is 225,282 tons.
Displacement of QM 2 is approximately 76,000 tons. Gross tonnage is 148,528 tons.
Displacement of QE 2 is approximately 48,923 tons. Gross tonnage is 70,327 tons.
Is that pedantic enough. You will note the difference in size between the Oasis of the Seas and the QM 2. ok2
-
Gross tonnage seems to be the figure regularly quoted, and Oasis is more than 3 times the gross tonnage of QE2 so, in that sense, the newspaper report is correct.
Peter.
-
%% they talk about global warming as the cause of rising sea levels O0......... but here is an alternate example of 225,282 tons = ??? >>:-(...always hard to visualize mass & volume O0 unless I convert it to imaginary 500 gm tubs of margarine or 1kg packs of milk
so if one tonne = 1000kg & 1kg = one litre....just rounded will do as it is sea water
225,282 x 1000 = 225,282,000 litres of water or two hundred & twenty five million, two hundred & eighty two thousand 1 kg packets of milk %) ....Derek
-
Derek, care to do the BBC`s favourite "the height of X number of double-decker buses" or Nelson`s Columns {-).
-
Its now in British waters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224504/Ocean-Of-The-Seas-Worlds-largest-lavish-cruise-ship-squeezes-Danish-bridge-sailing-British-waters.html
-
There was a good program about 'Oasis of the Seas' tonight (on QUEST, Freeview).
... when a ship makes a stop at a port, if you're late back:
1. Are you left behind? If so, who's responsibility is it to get back on ship or home?
2. Are you fined somehow?
3. If you do it a second time ("because I'm such an important person, the ship must wait!"), what happens then?
I once went on the Dover, Boulonge on an old Sealink fishing trawler!... does that count as an ocean cruise?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224504-070E6B86000005DC-422_964x513.jpg)
-
... when a ship makes a stop at a port, if you're late back:
1. Are you left behind?
YES
If so, who's responsibility is it to get back on ship or home?
YOURS
2. Are you fined somehow?
NO
3. If you do it a second time ("because I'm such an important person, the ship must wait!"), what happens then?
SAME THING.
-
Anybody got any idea of her draught? I only ask because that seems to be the only statistic missing rom the previous posts.
In a way it reminds me of something akin to a cake tin....the sort used for cooking cakes in, or even a high sided tea tray. Float one of those and pile a stack of light stuff on it, you'll find that it's devishly difficult to overturn. So perhaps the designers are relying on the beam of the thing rather than the draught to maintain stability. BY.
-
Yes Bryan, 'Form Stability' as with many modern yachts.
The 'Oasis' draws just 30 feet compared with 39 feet for the old Queen Mary. All modern cruise ships are shallow draught to extend the number of ports they can call at. Whilst not unsafe as such, they are not good seakeepers compared with the old liners which were designed to sit in the water rather than on it. They rely on modern weather forecasting to avoid bad weather rather than ride it out. An exception is the Queen Mary 2 which was actually buit as a 'proper' liner.
Colin
-
I have heard all the Cunard vessels are built to higher standard to enable North Atlantic voyages in winter.
-
I have heard all the Cunard vessels are built to higher standard to enable North Atlantic voyages in winter.
True..... as Colin says... we are talking about two different animals here.... those designed purely as floating money mines... the cruise ships, and those that are actuallt liners..the Queens, designed to take the north Atlantic winter on a trip to New York. There was an interesting NatGeo on it I watched recently about the design.
-
I have heard all the Cunard vessels are built to higher standard to enable North Atlantic voyages in winter.
I think that only applies to the Queen Mary 2 (and previously to the QE2). As far as I am aware the new Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are basically off the peg standard cruise ships with fancy paint jobs and upmarket interior decoration.
Colin
-
I think that only applies to the Queen Mary 2 (and previously to the QE2). As far as I am aware the new Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are basically off the peg standard cruise ships with fancy paint jobs and upmarket interior decoration.
Colin
You're probably right colin, certainly the programme was about QM2.
-
Hi Colin, the Queen Vic was strengthened in the bows to cross the Atlantic and is about 50 feet longer than the off the pegs. Also 5000 tons more as well. There is a picture in this forum of her suffering the N. Atlantic while the QE2 hardly notices the Force 5 conditions.
regards Roy
-
Hi Roy,
Yes I've seen the photos! I did see a reference to some modifications and have just done a search. It seems that the standard hull has indeed been given strengthening in certain areas to allow her to be used in a transatlantic capacity. QM2 was built to a higher spec and design right from the start and is reputed to ride very well in bad weather - I hope to find out in September!
Colin
-
Force 5 conditions? Is that considered "rough" or "hazardous" these days? Please, please don't tell me that the H&S brigade have got their sticky little minds into thoughts of banning ships from transitting waters that "may" cause a passenger some discomfort.
Perhaps the day will come when ships built in Europe will be banned from crossing the Atlantic, and only passenger carrying ships built on the eastern seaboard of the USA will be allowed to operate there.
Come to think of it....why isn't there a US yard producing these ships? After all, most of the outfits operating these behemoths are US owned, designed for US passengers and decorated accordingly. Beats me why countries such as Finland and Italy (and a couple of others) seem to have captured the "market".
Or is it because US yards are too busy building ships that are going to be painted an odd shade of grey?
I could well be totally wrong here, but if my memory serves then the US has a history of producing fleets of mass produced stuff and very little in the way of "one-offs".
For many, many years now all ships visiting the USA have had to comply with regulations that don't apply in the rest of the world. Some are sensible, others just plain daft. The sensible ones would include sewage disposal and other sources of pollution. The dafter ones can include sealing up the "meat rooms" because the contents (meant for crew consumption) are not of US origin. I'm also not too sure about the US rules that ban flammable materials (like wood) on board. BY
I'm
-
To continue.....now that the Chinese are becoming the pre-emptive nation, no doubt they will begin building their own cruise-liners. Where will that leave the US? An intriguing prospect,no? BY.
-
Hi Colin, the Queen Vic was strengthened in the bows to cross the Atlantic and is about 50 feet longer than the off the pegs. Also 5000 tons more as well. There is a picture in this forum of her suffering the N. Atlantic while the QE2 hardly notices the Force 5 conditions.
regards Roy
I was on QE2 at that time. we were all laughing at how the new block of flats had all the sailing abilaites of a cat digger. We had to slow down for vicky. She is no more special than any of the other ship in her class. Fincanteria ship yard can alter the lenght of this class very easily as it is all cut and paste and right click design. She has not been mod for the north Atlantic unlike QM2 and the old QE2 which has sailed through a storm of force 11 to 12.
John
-
Bryan,
Another account of that voyage described the conditions as F10. The photos show that it was definitely in excess of F5!
Re US merchant shipbuilding, yes what you say is largely true but don't forget the SS United States which was a masterpiece of sorts although she did rely upon aircraft carrier machinery to achieve her high speed.
The US did build some significant medium size liners during the last Century, notably those designed by William Gibbs for Pacific service although Europe ruled the waves as far as the Atlantic Ferry was concerned. US merchant ships tended to be very strongly built and long lived as a result, a service life of 50 years was not unknown.
Colin
-
John,
There a number of references to the Queen Victoria being modified such as this one from her captain:
However, Queen Victoria was lengthened by approximately
30 feet over the Vista design and as a result has greater transverse stability.
“A lot of this was to give her the capability to do an ocean crossing in a
proper safe, fashion. She has also got extra strengthening in the forward
section that the Vista class ships do not have so that we can comfortably do
a North Atlantic crossing.
Colin
-
I was on QE2 at that time. We had to slow down for vicky.
The 2 skippers during our time on board the QE2 frequently told us that the QE2 could go faster backwards, then the QV could at full speed ahead :-) (Captains Ian McNaught and David Perkins)
After we left Osaka, en route for Honolulu, we ran into Force 10 conditions, but QE2 handled them easily, with little or no discomfort to the passengers. QE2 is, however, a true ocean liner.
Peter.
-
Ah, well then Colin. If (if) it was an F10 sort of storm then I must agree. But people in general do tend to overstate such conditions. No...I didn't forget the "United States" (or the "Savannah"....forgive my spelling)...but how long did they remain in service? The American Mercantile Marine has, throughout my life as a mariner, never ever been a competitive collection of companies. Ruthlessly controlled and regulated by the central government. This "control" (I believe) was the "prime-mover" in the rise of Flags of Convenience. No matter that George W Bush thinks that the word "entrepeneur" is an American word, the USA has plenty of them. And shipowners (particularly the "private" oil carriers) rapidly departed those shores/regulations. Mainly to Panama and Liberia. That still exists. So US shipowners do still have a global presence, just not under obvious US control. It was true until recently that US Law decreed that all US coastal cargo traffic had to be transported in US registered ships. Free trade?
Your point about US ships being built so strongly that they would last for 50 years is a load of hogwash. Most of them only lasted 50 years because they didn't go anywhere. I defy anyone, anywhere, to tell me of any ships that were built stronger/tougher than the ships built by Alfred Holt. And that was because they insured their own ships. Which brings me back to standardisation. Standardisation stultifies innovation. The US commercial shipbuilding just kept on making the same old, same old with tweaks. BY.
-
I have to agree with what you say there Bryan, however ships that don't go anywhere still rot and suffer from reduced plate thickness, although possibly less so if they are laid up in freshwater rivers.
Re longevity I was thinking of the Santa Rosa built in 1958 at Newport News and retired in 2009 as a cruise ship, due I think to not meeting the latest SOLAS standards rather than any structural failure.
Colin
-
Colin....I'm glad that I didn't inadvertently upset you! But a couple more points on the subject of the US Merchant Marine. For a country with such a huge coastline it always surprised me how few US registered general cargo ships were seen around the world compared to the huge European fleets. Also, very seldom did a US ship ever display the "pristine" look that prevailed in the better run European cargo-liner outfits. To be honest, even many of their liners looked distinctly "seedy" and a bit run down when they were berthed (Southampton) beside for instance the ships of the Orient Line.
But I still don't know why they've left the huge cruise liner (build) market alone. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the Japanese have ever entered the market either! Regards. Bryan.