Epic 45% list

[ed_k_tx]

IMO regulations require that the maximum righting arm must be reached at a heeling angle of 25* minimum, and preferably above 30*. They also specify that there must be at least a positive righting arm at 40*. This is for intact stability. Ships are required to not have any opening that would allow downflooding become immersed at less than a 30* heel, and I think the height of cruise ship's promenades is above this.

 

The ship you show is listing from flooding, and this is now damage stability, and the free-surface effect is what is bringing the ship over, and threatening to roll it over.

 

As for the promenade deck being in the water, it would be close, but I still don't think it would happen. Looking at the geometry, the ship is 132 feet wide, so the half breadth is 67 feet. I've found one statement that the promenade deck is 92.5 feet above the keel (can't confirm, just a quick search), and the nominal draft is 28.25 feet. Therefore, the promenade deck is 64.25 feet above the waterline. If the ship heels 45*, the water goes up the side of the ship a distance equal to half the breadth of the ship, so it would go up 67 feet. While this looks like the promenade would be under 2.75 feet of water (at the edge), I feel that the additional buoyancy that comes from submerging this side of the ship would lift it clear. I agree, it would be close, and there would be catastrophic damage to fittings and people, but I don't believe the ship would roll over, given the design stability it is required to have.

 

While ships like the Epic appear to be top heavy, this is not quite correct. While there is more volume above the water than below, the weight is concentrated below the waterline which creates the necessary righting arm when the ship rolls. The taller ships cause more wind heel from the surface area of the ship's side, but incredibly the center of gravity is near the waterline.

 

Dang, I knew I should have stayed awake during those stability classes.;)

KP73

[barnacle_boy]

Which Carnival ships with shafted propulsion have had propulsionproblems? I haven't heard of any.

 

Carnival Sunshine: http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5391

 

Carnival Triumph (her fire was preceded by issues that affected her speed on several cruises):

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5176

 

I'm shocked that, as a former engineer in the industry, that you weren't aware of the problems that Carnival has had over the years regarding their propulsion systems. These two articles, from CC no less, are only from doing a quick search for incidents that happened this year. It's no secret that Carnival's ships tend to have more propulsion issues, even when taking into account their size relative to the industry. It's been that way for quite some time.

[bear3412]

Thanks to all the posters for their info related to this event.

I'm fascinated reading the technicals related to this anomaly the Epic encountered. Fwiw, it was in calm seas, therefore it was a technical glitch, or an error, man made. IMO. Sea state had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm fascinated with the image linked, indicating a 17 degree list.

Is anyone sure the image reflects a 17 degree list. To me it looks like 22-24 degrees.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/09/16/nordlys-2db5b9f8ac128f7e0045c7937ee681f1e0eb5606-s40-c85.jpg

 

We were on the DCL Fantasy chasing Sandy up the FL coast and had some fun with sea states 10/27/12 am. :eek:

 

We were cutting through 34-37 foot seas well. Winds 75- 100 mph. The vessels was handling those seas like a true lady. Then we encountered sets of rogues. Then things changed.

 

After midnight every 45 -60 minutes, we would get hit with something unimaginable. I never knew a vessel that size could be immediately tossed/moved about like that. :eek: But I suppose getting slammed with sets of 18 meter rogues will move anything.

 

The connection here is the vessel listed IMO 20 degrees several times when getting slammed by the rogues. If the linked photo is 17 degrees then I will adjust my statement and say we listed 16.5 degrees, lol. Seriously. The ship had all kinds of damage. Of course I was on the upper deck so ....

 

If this event occurred during the day many more would be hurt. But we would have evidence/video/photos at least. Cabins were damaged, etc. Doors/partitions/chairs permantentaely removed. ;) The first impact was a surprise and all were caught off guard. Even the crew was unprepared. Lots of glassware / merchandise / furnishings / personnel / etc. was relocated. :( Furniture and items were flying through the cabins. Tables and chairs upturned.

 

Many guests after the first couple sets of rogues chose to sleep in the atrium for various reasons.

 

Those not onboard chose to question and doubt our first hand reports, just as is occurring with the Epic reports. I guess it's human nature. But this thread did bring back memories of a list and denial of those not aboard. lol.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to recall/share our experience and the denial of others not aboard. :D , and to listen to my rant. I feel better now. lol.

 

I feel for those that WERE aboard the Epic.

 

:)

Edited December 10, 2013 by bear3412

[NH Cruisers]

IMO regulations require that the maximum righting arm must be reached at a heeling angle of 25* minimum, and preferably above 30*. They also specify that there must be at least a positive righting arm at 40*. This is for intact stability. Ships are required to not have any opening that would allow downflooding become immersed at less than a 30* heel, and I think the height of cruise ship's promenades is above this.

 

The ship you show is listing from flooding, and this is now damage stability, and the free-surface effect is what is bringing the ship over, and threatening to roll it over.

 

As for the promenade deck being in the water, it would be close, but I still don't think it would happen. Looking at the geometry, the ship is 132 feet wide, so the half breadth is 67 feet. I've found one statement that the promenade deck is 92.5 feet above the keel (can't confirm, just a quick search), and the nominal draft is 28.25 feet. Therefore, the promenade deck is 64.25 feet above the waterline. If the ship heels 45*, the water goes up the side of the ship a distance equal to half the breadth of the ship, so it would go up 67 feet. While this looks like the promenade would be under 2.75 feet of water (at the edge), I feel that the additional buoyancy that comes from submerging this side of the ship would lift it clear. I agree, it would be close, and there would be catastrophic damage to fittings and people, but I don't believe the ship would roll over, given the design stability it is required to have.

 

While ships like the Epic appear to be top heavy, this is not quite correct. While there is more volume above the water than below, the weight is concentrated below the waterline which creates the necessary righting arm when the ship rolls. The taller ships cause more wind heel from the surface area of the ship's side, but incredibly the center of gravity is near the waterline.

I really do appreciate your analysis and do believe you are much more educated on that matter than me. But... Would you trust it to be true if you we looking over the port side promenade rail and the ship lists 45 degrees to port? Not me!!!

 

What it comes down too is, that ship no way listed 45 degrees. Even a 45 degree roll, 22.5 degree list each way is way excessive for a cruiseship.

 

(Chengkp75 would know this) On cruise ships the center of gravity is usually designed to be a little higher than other ocean going ships. It is for passenger comfort, as it slows the roll. Not so high as to be inherantly unstable. I don't think anyone though would willingly want to sail through a minimal hurricane, let alone a cat. 2 or more!

 

 

Jon

[chengkp75]

Carnival Sunshine: http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5391

 

Carnival Triumph (her fire was preceded by issues that affected her speed on several cruises):

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5176

 

I'm shocked that, as a former engineer in the industry, that you weren't aware of the problems that Carnival has had over the years regarding their propulsion systems. These two articles, from CC no less, are only from doing a quick search for incidents that happened this year. It's no secret that Carnival's ships tend to have more propulsion issues, even when taking into account their size relative to the industry. It's been that way for quite some time.

 

Sorry, I must have a different perspective. I don't think that something like the Sunshine, where a problem was repaired during a port stay after one leg of a voyage was delayed by 2 hours to be a propulsion problem. I see a ship like the Allure which is running at reduced power for several months, or the Norwegian Star which had to pay fines for willfully violating the PVSA in Hawaii for a couple of months because a pod failed and they couldn't get to Fanning Island as the foreign port, as propulsion problems. While I won't go into whether or not Carnival's maintenance is suspect because problems keep recurring on ships like the Triumph, but at least they were able to attempt repairs while still in operation. Carnival's podded ships have also had problems over the last year.

 

Azipods allow for lower height engine rooms in cruise ships, advantages in ice breaking, and maneuverability for ferries, tugs, and station-keeping vessels. Pods are cost effective for cruise ships, no doubt, but I believe that over the life of the vessel, pods will cost more in maintenance, repair, and drydocking than shafted propulsion units.

[chengkp75]

I really do appreciate your analysis and do believe you are much more educated on that matter than me. But... Would you trust it to be true if you we looking over the port side promenade rail and the ship lists 45 degrees to port? Not me!!!

 

What it comes down too is, that ship no way listed 45 degrees. Even a 45 degree roll, 22.5 degree list each way is way excessive for a cruiseship.

 

(Chengkp75 would know this) On cruise ships the center of gravity is usually designed to be a little higher than other ocean going ships. It is for passenger comfort, as it slows the roll. Not so high as to be inherantly unstable. I don't think anyone though would willingly want to sail through a minimal hurricane, let alone a cat. 2 or more!

 

 

Jon

 

For sure, the ship did not roll 45*. But could it have done so, and righted itself? I believe so. Would everyone onboard needed to change their underwear? You betcha.

 

Actually, it is the metacentric height that determines the period of the roll. That's the distance between the center of gravity and the center of buoyancy. A large metacentric height, and the ship can roll almost on her beam ends and will snap back upright very quickly and uncomfortably. Double hull tankers in ballast have this unfortunate characteristic. A smaller metacentric height will lessen the righting moment, and cause the ship to "hesitate" at the moment of maximum roll, before slowly righting itself. This is a much more comfortable ride, until you start to roll to the area where she "hesitates" because you've run out of righting moment. Container ships with huge deck loads, fully laden tankers, and cruise ships tend to have this roll characteristic.

[chengkp75]

Thanks to all the posters for their info related to this event.

I'm fascinated reading the technicals related to this anomaly the Epic encountered. Fwiw, it was in calm seas, therefore it was a technical glitch, or an error, man made. IMO. Sea state had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm fascinated with the image linked, indicating a 17 degree list.

Is anyone sure the image reflects a 17 degree list. To me it looks like 22-24 degrees.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/09/16/nordlys-2db5b9f8ac128f7e0045c7937ee681f1e0eb5606-s40-c85.jpg

 

We were on the DCL Fantasy chasing Sandy up the FL coast and had some fun with sea states 10/27/12 am. :eek:

 

We were cutting through 34-37 foot seas well. Winds 75- 100 mph. The vessels was handling those seas like a true lady. Then we encountered sets of rogues. Then things changed.

 

After midnight every 45 -60 minutes, we would get hit with something unimaginable. I never knew a vessel that size could be immediately tossed/moved about like that. :eek: But I suppose getting slammed with sets of 18 meter rogues will move anything.

 

The connection here is the vessel listed IMO 20 degrees several times when getting slammed by the rogues. If the linked photo is 17 degrees then I will adjust my statement and say we listed 16.5 degrees, lol. Seriously. The ship had all kinds of damage. Of course I was on the upper deck so ....

 

If this event occurred during the day many more would be hurt. But we would have evidence/video/photos at least. Cabins were damaged, etc. Doors/partitions/chairs permantentaely removed. ;) The first impact was a surprise and all were caught off guard. Even the crew was unprepared. Lots of glassware / merchandise / furnishings / personnel / etc. was relocated. :( Furniture and items were flying through the cabins. Tables and chairs upturned.

 

Many guests after the first couple sets of rogues chose to sleep in the atrium for various reasons.

 

Those not onboard chose to question and doubt our first hand reports, just as is occurring with the Epic reports. I guess it's human nature. But this thread did bring back memories of a list and denial of those not aboard. lol.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to recall/share our experience and the denial of others not aboard. :D , and to listen to my rant. I feel better now. lol.

 

I feel for those that WERE aboard the Epic.

 

:)

 

Not doubting that there was a large rolling event on either the Epic or your Disney cruise. Having seen what a 30-35* roll does, and your description of damage to the joiner work (cabin bulkheads and ceilings), I would estimate that you in fact rolled 20*. The slamming of the seas is what also contributed to the joiner work falling down (I've experienced this several times). I am also not doubting that the Epic probably rolled more than 4-5*, and the Captain minimized it in his announcement. What my basic premise is, is that the ship did not roll 45*. As you say, it is a very unfortunate incident, especially as it was man-made, but when you are living on a moving object, things like this happen now and then.

[Demonyte]

I'm fascinated with the image linked, indicating a 17 degree list.

Is anyone sure the image reflects a 17 degree list. To me it looks like 22-24 degrees.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/09/16/nordlys-2db5b9f8ac128f7e0045c7937ee681f1e0eb5606-s40-c85.jpg

 

Actually, nowhere in the article does it say that the picture is from when the list was already corrected to closer to 17 degrees. As the article says, the list was originally "nearly 22 degrees" and the update about workers being having been able to reduce it to 17 degrees was made later.

 

So I think that you could be correct about your assessment about the list in the picture (I'm too lazy to start measuring it in the Photoshop ;)).

[barnacle_boy]

Sorry, I must have a different perspective. I don't think that something like the Sunshine, where a problem was repaired during a port stay after one leg of a voyage was delayed by 2 hours to be a propulsion problem. I see a ship like the Allure which is running at reduced power for several months, or the Norwegian Star which had to pay fines for willfully violating the PVSA in Hawaii for a couple of months because a pod failed and they couldn't get to Fanning Island as the foreign port, as propulsion problems. While I won't go into whether or not Carnival's maintenance is suspect because problems keep recurring on ships like the Triumph, but at least they were able to attempt repairs while still in operation. Carnival's podded ships have also had problems over the last year.

 

Azipods allow for lower height engine rooms in cruise ships, advantages in ice breaking, and maneuverability for ferries, tugs, and station-keeping vessels. Pods are cost effective for cruise ships, no doubt, but I believe that over the life of the vessel, pods will cost more in maintenance, repair, and drydocking than shafted propulsion units.

 

Below are two lists I have compiled of documented propulsion issues that affected major cruise ships this year. It is clear that not only have shaft and rudder vessels have had issues 33% more often, the severity of those issues are comparable in several instances. Judging by your use of Star and Allure's issues to define your definition of what constitutes a propulsion issue, a vessel that experiences long term reductions in speed before a dry docking, than you must recognize Carnival Triumph and Ventura as fitting into that category just as much as Allure and Millennium. Carnival Destiny/Sunshine has had recurring propulsion issues for much of the past decade. She is notorious for them, and she isn't the only one in the Carnival fleet. For you to have said that you were not aware of any Carnival propulsion issues is mind boggling.

 

Despite your assertion that Carnival's prodded ships have had just as many problems, only one ship (compared to three shaft and rudder Carnival ships), Carnival Legend, has. Furthermore, Carnival Legend fails to meet your criteria for what constitutes a propulsion problem, as it was rectified after a few cruises. Its one thing to craft a specific definition to suit your own argument, it's quite another to not remain consistent with it. Additionally, at no point did I mention Carnival's maintenance program as cause, factor, or relevant.

 

Shaft and rudder:

Carnival Victory

Carnival Triumph

Carnival Destiny/Sunshine

Maasdam

Seven Seas Voyager

Ventura

 

Pods:

Allure

Aurora

Carnival Legend

Millennium

[chengkp75]

Below are two lists I have compiled of documented propulsion issues that affected major cruise ships this year. It is clear that not only have shaft and rudder vessels have had issues 33% more often, the severity of those issues are comparable in several instances. Judging by your use of Star and Allure's issues to define your definition of what constitutes a propulsion issue, a vessel that experiences long term reductions in speed before a dry docking, than you must recognize Carnival Triumph and Ventura as fitting into that category just as much as Allure and Millennium. Carnival Destiny/Sunshine has had recurring propulsion issues for much of the past decade. She is notorious for them, and she isn't the only one in the Carnival fleet. For you to have said that you were not aware of any Carnival propulsion issues is mind boggling.

 

Despite your assertion that Carnival's prodded ships have had just as many problems, only one ship (compared to three shaft and rudder Carnival ships), Carnival Legend, has. Furthermore, Carnival Legend fails to meet your criteria for what constitutes a propulsion problem, as it was rectified after a few cruises. Its one thing to craft a specific definition to suit your own argument, it's quite another to not remain consistent with it. Additionally, at no point did I mention Carnival's maintenance program as cause, factor, or relevant.

 

Shaft and rudder:

Carnival Victory

Carnival Triumph

Carnival Destiny/Sunshine

Maasdam

Seven Seas Voyager

Ventura

 

Pods:

Allure

Aurora

Carnival Legend

Millennium

 

Okay, I give up. Not going to argue the benefits/drawbacks of pods any more on a thread about a ship heeling over. You can like pods, I don't. The average age of the ships you list with shafts is 14.3 years, while the pod ships are 10.75, so the shaft ships have been sailing for nearly 50% longer. And the real measure would be to determine the number of shaft ship problems to the total number of shaft ships, and the same for podded ships. That would show you the reliability. And the Allure is having pod problems within the first 3 years of her career. Thrust bearings are supposed to be designed to last 10 years at minimum.

 

Sorry, kept arguing. Now done, let the thread get back on topic.

Edited December 10, 2013 by chengkp75

[xodezi]

something simliar to this happened to me on my VERY FIRST cruise in 2011... I was on the Sun and we were leaving Key West. Im still not completely sure what happened but I was in absolute heaven sunbathing and all of the sudden, Captain blows the fog horn 3 times, and my lounge chair slides all the way across the deck and i'm basically laying down but looking straight down into the ocean... i hope that makes sense, its hard to describe.. ship righted herself and never happened again.

 

but for a first cruise that was a pretty epic moment but certainly didn't stop me. :D took the Epic in April of this year, and was pretty sea sick the first day... seas were pretty rough the first night out of port, but I think it was due to a storm that had passed through Miami. Quite a few seasoned cruisers were sea sick, actually so I didn't feel like such a pansy.

 

Sailing her again this coming April. :D

 

So glad that no one was hurt during the rocking and rolling.

[chengkp75]

something simliar to this happened to me on my VERY FIRST cruise in 2011... I was on the Sun and we were leaving Key West. Im still not completely sure what happened but I was in absolute heaven sunbathing and all of the sudden, Captain blows the fog horn 3 times, and my lounge chair slides all the way across the deck and i'm basically laying down but looking straight down into the ocean... i hope that makes sense, its hard to describe.. ship righted herself and never happened again.

 

but for a first cruise that was a pretty epic moment but certainly didn't stop me. :D took the Epic in April of this year, and was pretty sea sick the first day... seas were pretty rough the first night out of port, but I think it was due to a storm that had passed through Miami. Quite a few seasoned cruisers were sea sick, actually so I didn't feel like such a pansy.

 

Sailing her again this coming April. :D

 

So glad that no one was hurt during the rocking and rolling.

 

The signal you heard is the signal between ships that they are standing into danger, or "wake up dummy, we're going to collide". So the ship must have used a lot of rudder to avoid a collision, and this rapid turn would cause the ship to heel way over, as I mentioned about the Sky.

[barnacle_boy]

Okay, I give up. Not going to argue the benefits/drawbacks of pods any more on a thread about a ship heeling over. You can like pods, I don't. The average age of the ships you list with shafts is 14.3 years, while the pod ships are 10.75, so the shaft ships have been sailing for nearly 50% longer. And the real measure would be to determine the number of shaft ship problems to the total number of shaft ships, and the same for podded ships. That would show you the reliability. And the Allure is having pod problems within the first 3 years of her career. Thrust bearings are supposed to be designed to last 10 years at minimum..

 

I do not need to prove relative reliability because at no point did I make statement regarding reliability. I have not argued about the benefits/drawbacks of pod vs. shaft and rudder. You are not reading what I am saying. My argument has always been that the number of incidents involving podded ships has been on a general downward trend since their introduction as pod technology, especially those relating to bearings, has improved. I also stated that the number of issues involving podded ships is approximately equal to the number of issues involving ships with shafts and rudders.

 

The following graph was compiled using reported propulsion incidents involving cruise ships over 30,000 GT during the past ten years. I also limited the group to cruise ships built after 1998 (the year the first cruise ship was fitted with pods), to eliminate any advantages or disadvantages in vessel age. This graph is irrefutable evidence of the trend and the subsequent fact that I have been trying to demonstrate throughout our discourse.

 

Certainly Allure is another podded ship that has had her bearings fail long before the end of their intended lifespan, but you cannot ignore that it is significant that, in 2013, she is the exception rather than the rule. That would not have been the case ten years ago.

[kylenyc]

I do not need to prove relative reliability because at no point did I make statement regarding reliability. I have not argued about the benefits/drawbacks of pod vs. shaft and rudder. You are not reading what I am saying. My argument has always been that the number of incidents involving podded ships has been on a general downward trend since their introduction as pod technology, especially those relating to bearings, has improved. I also stated that the number of issues involving podded ships is approximately equal to the number of issues involving ships with shafts and rudders.

 

The following graph was compiled using reported propulsion incidents involving cruise ships over 30,000 GT during the past ten years. I also limited the group to cruise ships built after 1998 (the year the first cruise ship was fitted with pods), to eliminate any advantages or disadvantages in vessel age. This graph is irrefutable evidence of the trend and the subsequent fact that I have been trying to demonstrate throughout our discourse.

 

Certainly Allure is another podded ship that has had her bearings fail long before the end of their intended lifespan, but you cannot ignore that it is significant that, in 2013, she is the exception rather than the rule. That would not have been the case ten years ago.

Your chart shows 20 more incidents involving podded ships over shaft and rudder... Or am missing something. :rolleyes: Also, what is the source of your data, how complete is it, how many podded ships are in operation compared to shafted ships and shouldn't the chart show the percentage of each type of vessel affected rather than the total number of incidents, what is the severity of each incident measured in terms of cost both dollars and downtime... and what would other engineers with real world experience (in addition to cheng) have to say about the reliability and maintenance of such vessels? Irrefutable minds want to know. :D

Edited December 11, 2013 by kylenyc

[barnacle_boy]

Your chart shows 20 more incidents involving podded ships over shaft and rudder... Or am missing something. :rolleyes: Also, what is the source of your data, how complete is it, how many podded ships are in operation compared to shafted ships and shouldn't the chart show the percentage of each type of vessel affected rather than the total number of incidents, what is the severity of each incident measured in terms of cost both dollars and downtime... and what would other engineers with real world experience (in addition to cheng) have to say about the reliability and maintenance of such vessels? Irrefutable minds want to know. :D

 

Below is a list of all major cruise lines with ships of over 30,000GT built in 1998 or after:

 

Brand/Shaft and Rudder/Pod

AIDA 8 0

Azamara 2 0

Carnival 8 6

Celebrity 0 9

Costa 7 4

Crystal 0 1

Cunard 0 3

Disney 4 0

HAL 3 6

NCL 4 8

MSC 12 0

Oceania 5 0

P&O 4 2

Princess 15 0

RCI 1 14

Regent 1 2

Seabourn 3 0

Star 1 0

 

Total 86 53

 

 

List of incidents were compiled from Ross Klein’s site and incidents were either cross referenced with Cruise Critic archives and/or newspaper archives when possible.

 

Again, I cannot stress enough that I am not, and have not been, making the argument that one form of propulsion is more reliable than another. That is another can of worms altogether, and I believe that chengkp75 is right in saying that shafts and rudders are, overall, far more reliable. What I have been saying is that the number of podded propulsion issues has been on a general downward trend since their introduction in 1998. The numbers, illustrated by my graph, irrefutably demonstrate that.

 

chengkp75 at times defined a propulsion issue as one that reduces a ships speed over a considerable period of time and requires a dry docking to be rectified, yet at other times defined a propulsion issue as one that affects as little as three cruises and is fixed while the ship is still afloat. In the interest of compiling a uniform and comprehensive list, every incident, no matter what the severity, was included. But the severity of the issues is a valid concern, and I shall address it as follows.

 

What is evident is that in 2002 a substantial amount of ships fitted with pods (7 out of 19) experienced severe propulsion issues that required either multiple cancellations and/or unscheduled dry-dock visits. In 2012, only Queen Victoria (1 out of 50) experienced propulsion issues that forced her to cancel cruises and receive an unscheduled dry-docking. The numbers speak for themselves, nonetheless I will reiterate the fact that there has been a general downward trend in the number and severity of issues with podded propulsion.

Edited December 11, 2013 by barnacle_boy

[chengkp75]

Below is a list of all major cruise lines with ships of over 30,000GT built in 1998 or after:

 

Brand/Shaft and Rudder/Pod

AIDA 8 0

Azamara 2 0

Carnival 8 6

Celebrity 0 9

Costa 7 4

Crystal 0 1

Cunard 0 3

Disney 4 0

HAL 3 6

NCL 4 8

MSC 12 0

Oceania 5 0

P&O 4 2

Princess 15 0

RCI 1 14

Regent 1 2

Seabourn 3 0

Star 1 0

 

Total 86 53

 

 

List of incidents were compiled from Ross Klein’s site and incidents were either cross referenced with Cruise Critic archives and/or newspaper archives when possible.

 

Again, I cannot stress enough that I am not, and have not been, making the argument that one form of propulsion is more reliable than another. That is another can of worms altogether, and I believe that chengkp75 is right in saying that shafts and rudders are, overall, far more reliable. What I have been saying is that the number of podded propulsion issues has been on a general downward trend since their introduction in 1998. The numbers, illustrated by my graph, irrefutably demonstrate that.

 

chengkp75 at times defined a propulsion issue as one that reduces a ships speed over a considerable period of time and requires a dry docking to be rectified, yet at other times defined a propulsion issue as one that affects as little as three cruises and is fixed while the ship is still afloat. In the interest of compiling a uniform and comprehensive list, every incident, no matter what the severity, was included. But the severity of the issues is a valid concern, and I shall address it as follows.

 

 

 

What is evident is that in 2002 a substantial amount of ships fitted with pods (7 out of 19) experienced severe propulsion issues that required either multiple cancellations and/or unscheduled dry-dock visits. In 2012, only Queen Victoria (1 out of 50) experienced propulsion issues that forced her to cancel cruises and receive an unscheduled dry-docking. The numbers speak for themselves, nonetheless I will reiterate the fact that there has been a general downward trend in the number and severity of issues with podded propulsion.

 

Okay, final answer, and then done. I apparently did misread your statements, and I agree that the number of pod incidents has decreased over the years. Period. I indeed thought you were saying that pod reliability was better than shaft/propeller ships, and so I apologize to you for your time in searching and the others here for putting up with this. I had a long answer, but its not worth it.

[NH Cruisers]

I came across this older cc thread from '06. It gives some perspective to what the different list angles look like head on.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=382621

 

Jon

[bear3412]

I came across this older cc thread from '06. It gives some perspective to what the different list angles look like head on.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=382621

 

Jon

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=7212238&postcount=1

 

Nice. :) This is awesome for me at least. lol. Thanks. I will restate our list aboard the Fantasy as max 17 degrees. Of course I have no idea what I said last time. lol. Point is the list was between 12 - 17 degrees. Perhaps it was less than I thought. But I will say berthing on the upper most decks it felt like 25 degrees. :eek: lol. My wife and DD11 thought we we going to roll over into the seas like the Movies. lol :D That was tough calming them. Needles to say, life jackets were removed from the closets, and at least being studied.

No we didn't install them. I will say after watching several disasters, I wanted rope. I will bring rope and smoke hoods in the future.

 

Skip the beverages and wind machines. Bring killer rope. Why you ask. Well if you are a family how will you lash yourselves together. I searched the cabins. No cords of any kind. Perhaps they don't want you committing suicide. :D Bring rope. IMO

 

I love this visual graphic supplied, it helps me understand the angle of the dangle, and puts it into perspective.

 

You gotta love Bonine. ;) We did ......

 

Thanks :)

Edited December 12, 2013 by bear3412

[NH Cruisers]

At 45* it looks as though the captain could wave his arm out the bridge window and smack the sea!

 

That would be the scariest roll I ever had. I would not care for that!

 

Jon

[voyager89]

I am sailing on the Epic doing a 14 nights transatlantic in October. My first NCL. I was getting really worried after readin some negative reviews. But to be honest I dont care about reviews anymore. As long as it doesnt sink I should be fine :p

 

Maybe it was not the best choise to try a cruise line for the 1st time in a 2 week crossing but well. I really wanted to try NCL. I am really happy with RCCL so far, but changes are always good. I might end up sticking to Norwegian!

[partman57]

Now I am scared. We are leaving to sail Epic next week. That type

of listing makes me very worried.

 

I hope you have a great trip. Please make a post when you return. I am going end of Jan. Would be nice to keep up with how the ship is doing.

[slomotion]

We as glass.

 

Dolly, are you still on the LA-Hawaii Cruise next year?