Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce  (Read 2563 times)

Garabaldy

  • Guest
QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« on: December 22, 2008, 11:37:43 am »

Just read an article about QM2 operators are sueing rolls royce for $100 million in damages due to an underdesigned propulsion system resulting in the ship having to be dry docked every 2-3 years to replace bearings in the mermaid pods instead of the standard 5 years.
Logged

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,370
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2008, 12:56:17 pm »

Do you happen to have a link to the article?
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Garabaldy

  • Guest
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2008, 01:10:04 pm »

It was a hard copy magazine in the office but i have managed to find a link to the exact same artical on the magazines website.


http://www.profeng.com/archive/2008/2122/21220015.htm
Logged

cos918

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,202
  • Location: Abingdon
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2008, 04:49:33 pm »

This could be a major problem as most modern cruise ships have these pod drives. I think QV has the same pods as QM2 but she has only 2 instead of 4.

john
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,954
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2008, 05:02:46 pm »

Do QM2's units get more stressed because she is a 30 knot ship?
Logged

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,370
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2008, 05:29:27 pm »

Not really Colin, there are higher loads involved but the units should be designed to withstand those loads with the same percentage factor of safety as any other size unit.

What Carnival UK are saying is that these units were not designed properly to cope with those loads and Rolls-Royce knew that when they sold them.

I'm not sure where they are coming from with the dry dock business though as it is a requirement anyway to do two within five years, unless it is different for a podded propulsion system.
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Ghost in the shell

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,707
  • Go Nuclear! you'll love it
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2008, 06:23:50 pm »

bring back good old fashioned propeller shafs with rudders.
Logged
"xxxxx" the tree huggers, GO NUCLEAR

Peter Fitness

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,017
  • Location: Wyrallah, near Lismore NSW Australia
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2008, 08:34:40 pm »

Having watched the TV documentary on the building of QM2, I seem to remember a delay in the delivery of the engine pods. Apparently this was brought about by bearing failures in pods already in service on other cruise ships. It was stated that Rolls Royce had modified and strengthened the bearings, which should have solved the problem - perhaps not  {:-{

Peter.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,954
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2008, 08:37:11 pm »

Yes Peter, I recall that too.

Colin
Logged

Garabaldy

  • Guest
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2008, 08:42:39 pm »

Thats what i thought about when i read the article too.  Was it also something to do with the lubricant inside the bearings?  It was a while ago when i saw the documentry..
Logged

Peter Fitness

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,017
  • Location: Wyrallah, near Lismore NSW Australia
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2008, 10:30:28 pm »

  It was a while ago when i saw the documentary.

I recorded the doco, then copied it to DVD, so I will have to watch it again to check.

I have an excellent book called "Queen Mary 2; The Birth of a Legend" by Phillip Plisson, which is essentially a photographic record of the construction of QM2. There is no mention in the book about problems with the propulsion units, but there certainly was in the doco.

Peter.
Logged

roycv

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Location: S.W. Herts
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2008, 01:28:47 pm »

Hi all, yes the QV has 2 pods designed and constructed by ABB of Finland.
regards Roy
Logged

Bartapuss

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Deltic's Rule OK!
  • Location: Somewhere up North
Re: QM2 operators sueing Rolls Royce
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2009, 05:52:12 pm »

Ghosty, the pods are more efficient and flexible than conventional shafting and props, hence why they're used greatly in the oil industry for drilling platforms, also the machinery takes up less space inside the hull and is quieter with less vibration along with better steering response and ability to hold vessel position at a fixed point, also maintenance is a cost issue too. Seems that someone at Rolls Royce did not do the math when it came to bearing loadings in this particular application or was it the accountants pennypinching, just my opinion.
Logged
Every time I learn something new, it pushes something old out of my brain - I says wot I likes and I likes wot I say!!!
Pages: [1]   Go Up