Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

What's up with Carnival?Aanother ship can't meet max speed.

GROUCHPUSS

By GROUCHPUSS,
in Carnival Cruise Lines

 Share

Recommended Posts

BallFour4

BallFour4

Posted
Posted
... For those ships with shafted propulsion systems (non-pods), each propulsion motor typically has two sets of windings in them, each providing half the power the motor is rated at. These two windings are fed by two separate systems, so in effect you have 4 propulsion systems. Each can operate independently of any other. So, the ship may, in fact, be operating on 3 out of 4 systems, which would still not give full speed, but gives multiple redundancy.

You shared this in the explanation for the Liberty if my memory is correct. And that is what led to the Liberty and Valor swap due to the Cozumel/ Galveston run needing full power.

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thorncroft

Thorncroft

Posted
Posted

You shared this in the explanation for the Liberty if my memory is correct. And that is what led to the Liberty and Valor swap due to the Cozumel/ Galveston run needing full power.

 

 

 

Splendor will be doing the dinner cruise circuit in Biscayne Bay before you know it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TAD2005

TAD2005

Posted
Posted
You can't use a propulsion system "over 100% capacity". And the systems are designed to operate at 100% capacity 100% of the time. For those ships with shafted propulsion systems (non-pods), each propulsion motor typically has two sets of windings in them, each providing half the power the motor is rated at. These two windings are fed by two separate systems, so in effect you have 4 propulsion systems. Each can operate independently of any other. So, the ship may, in fact, be operating on 3 out of 4 systems, which would still not give full speed, but gives multiple redundancy.

 

All the technical kaka aside, I don't think very highly of a cruise line continuing to run a ship with a partially defective propulsion system and asking the paying public to just "suck it up" and deal with the total change in itineraries, and by the way, here's $25 bucks to appease you. That redundancy you mention is designed to prevent total disasters where a ship is stranded at sea and needs to limp home at 5 knots, or worse, be towed home. You don't blow off a 25% reduction (your estimate) in propulsion power just to avoid cancelling cruises and losing money. This is playing a craps game with your guest's comfort, enjoyment and possible safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cruisincat90

cruisincat90

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

 

So, I just got back from a 4 night cruise on Paradise. On our first sea day, February 24th, the ship shuttered to a stop, and the officers all got on their phones. The Capitan announced something about alpha team to engine room one for a training exercise. The fire doors shut (buffet staff send very confused and didn't know how to direct people around on the deck) and according to put dinner mates the announcements were piped into the cabins (unlike most announcements). It may have been completely unrelated and an actual "training exercise" but the stopping, lack of pre-drill announcement to ensure that passengers didn't panic, and the fact that they didn't do it at port (where I've been told is typical) makes me question it.

 

Just wanted to share my experience in case those of you who know technical information about ships can use it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greyowls

greyowls

Posted
Posted
Interesting about the lawsuits.

 

If you don't like the itinerary are they giving you a refund? You could then book another ship.

 

 

When I called today they said you can cancel for a full refund if done tonight by 11pm,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angiet75

Angiet75

Posted
Posted

Actually if you were on one of the cruises that had the itinerary changed you have until tomorrow at midnight to change your cruise with no penalty. No refunds are allowed, but you can choose another cruise. I know because they called me today to change over after i called to request and was told no yesterday. Then John Heald posted it to my question that we can change today, and it is on the CCL F page

**

We do apologize for the change however for Today and Tomorrow only through midnight, guests booked on the Paradise are allowed to change ship/saildate, provided it is to a comparable sailing and duration. This offer would not be applicable for Holiday or Special Sailings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimbo5544 "Live from...." Rare

jimbo5544

Posted
Posted
Right. Not maintenance. But, it was built by Fincantieri who has a long history of sketchy reliability. It's good to see Carnival moving away from them slowly but surely.

 

 

I believe the engines are not from Fincantieri...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bennettanddebbie

Bennettanddebbie

Posted
Posted

 

I believe that as others have posted, most of these recent CCL slowdowns are on ships that do not have azipods, and what you are seeing is the aging of the propulsion motors and their control systems, perhaps due to insufficient maintenance, or because the components in use have never reached this age before, and the maintenance schedule does not have sufficient historical data to accurately predict failure rates.

 

 

 

Hmmmm......

 

Maybe along with cutting entertainment, cabin service, and tablecloths, could Carnival be cutting maintenance?

 

 

Bennett of BennettAndDebbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimbo5544 "Live from...." Rare

jimbo5544

Posted
Posted
Hmmmm......

 

Maybe along with cutting entertainment, cabin service, and tablecloths, could Carnival be cutting maintenance?

 

 

Bennett of BennettAndDebbie

 

 

Table cloths and engine maintenance .... I see the link. Or maybe not

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
All the technical kaka aside, I don't think very highly of a cruise line continuing to run a ship with a partially defective propulsion system and asking the paying public to just "suck it up" and deal with the total change in itineraries, and by the way, here's $25 bucks to appease you. That redundancy you mention is designed to prevent total disasters where a ship is stranded at sea and needs to limp home at 5 knots, or worse, be towed home. You don't blow off a 25% reduction (your estimate) in propulsion power just to avoid cancelling cruises and losing money. This is playing a craps game with your guest's comfort, enjoyment and possible safety.

 

I think that most marine industry safety specialists, including the USCG, and all of the classification societies that provide insurance underwriting for the ships, would disagree with your interpretation of "playing craps" with guest's safety. 90% of the time, itineraries are designed so the ship does not need full speed, both to save fuel costs and also to provide a cushion in case there is maintenance or a failure that could result in less than full power.

 

It might not even be a propulsion problem at all, but a generator capacity problem. Paradise has six diesel generators, and she needs all six of them to make full speed. There may be a failure of a component in one of the engines or generators that requires a couple of months lead time to deliver. As with my comment above about designing itineraries where full power is not required is the fact that these engines need overhaul at regular intervals. This is typically about every 2 years, so 3 engines would be scheduled for complete overhaul every year. This is a full tear down and part renewal, just as if you had a new engine put in your car every two years, and takes about 2-3 weeks to complete. So, in any given year, the ship is sailing around for 6-9 weeks of the year (11-17% of the time) with one engine out of service for an extended period of time, and no one is any wiser. I suppose you would recommend that the ship be taken out of service to do engine overhauls as well, since this affects the top speed of the ship?

 

I will again point out that 95% of the world's shipping goes out to sea every day with only one propulsion system (propeller) connected to one diesel engine, and given the industry's safety standards, this is considered to be completely sea-worthy, so the multiple redundancies of a modern cruise ship makes them the safest ships afloat.

 

I don't make comments on customer service issues, so I won't address the effect an itinerary change has on a vacation, or what should or should not be done in compensation.

 

Could they take a ship out of service whenever there is required maintenance or repairs to be made? Sure. How high do you want your cruise fares to go, because they are not going to just swallow the cost of docking, and loss of revenue, without making it up throughout the fleet.

 

And hating to get into the jimbo/thorncroft funfest, jimbo's point is that the "engines", which could mean either the azipods (made by ABB) or the diesels (made by MAN), are not made by either Carnival (sorry thorncroft) or Fincantieri (to dispel the "shady" construction comment).

 

As for the persistent "cutting maintenance" comments, this would require a wide conspiracy including not only Carnival, but also the classification societies, who stake their reputation and their financial bond on guaranteeing the sea-worthiness of the ships, but also the maritime safety agencies like the USCG that inspect maintenance records and programs as part of their PSC duties. Do some ships miss some scheduled maintenance, no doubt. Is is a company wide corporate strategy to save cost, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparks1093 Great Review Rare

sparks1093

Posted
Posted
I think that most marine industry safety specialists, including the USCG, and all of the classification societies that provide insurance underwriting for the ships, would disagree with your interpretation of "playing craps" with guest's safety. 90% of the time, itineraries are designed so the ship does not need full speed, both to save fuel costs and also to provide a cushion in case there is maintenance or a failure that could result in less than full power.

 

It might not even be a propulsion problem at all, but a generator capacity problem. Paradise has six diesel generators, and she needs all six of them to make full speed. There may be a failure of a component in one of the engines or generators that requires a couple of months lead time to deliver. As with my comment above about designing itineraries where full power is not required is the fact that these engines need overhaul at regular intervals. This is typically about every 2 years, so 3 engines would be scheduled for complete overhaul every year. This is a full tear down and part renewal, just as if you had a new engine put in your car every two years, and takes about 2-3 weeks to complete. So, in any given year, the ship is sailing around for 6-9 weeks of the year (11-17% of the time) with one engine out of service for an extended period of time, and no one is any wiser. I suppose you would recommend that the ship be taken out of service to do engine overhauls as well, since this affects the top speed of the ship?

 

I will again point out that 95% of the world's shipping goes out to sea every day with only one propulsion system (propeller) connected to one diesel engine, and given the industry's safety standards, this is considered to be completely sea-worthy, so the multiple redundancies of a modern cruise ship makes them the safest ships afloat.

 

I don't make comments on customer service issues, so I won't address the effect an itinerary change has on a vacation, or what should or should not be done in compensation.

 

Could they take a ship out of service whenever there is required maintenance or repairs to be made? Sure. How high do you want your cruise fares to go, because they are not going to just swallow the cost of docking, and loss of revenue, without making it up throughout the fleet.

 

And hating to get into the jimbo/thorncroft funfest, jimbo's point is that the "engines", which could mean either the azipods (made by ABB) or the diesels (made by MAN), are not made by either Carnival (sorry thorncroft) or Fincantieri (to dispel the "shady" construction comment).

 

As for the persistent "cutting maintenance" comments, this would require a wide conspiracy including not only Carnival, but also the classification societies, who stake their reputation and their financial bond on guaranteeing the sea-worthiness of the ships, but also the maritime safety agencies like the USCG that inspect maintenance records and programs as part of their PSC duties. Do some ships miss some scheduled maintenance, no doubt. Is is a company wide corporate strategy to save cost, I doubt it.

 

 

As always the voice of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LMaxwell Great Review Rare

LMaxwell

Posted
Posted

As for the persistent "cutting maintenance" comments, this would require a wide conspiracy including not only Carnival, but also the classification societies, who stake their reputation and their financial bond on guaranteeing the sea-worthiness of the ships, but also the maritime safety agencies like the USCG that inspect maintenance records and programs as part of their PSC duties. Do some ships miss some scheduled maintenance, no doubt. Is is a company wide corporate strategy to save cost, I doubt it.

 

 

For marine equipment at this level are there various maintenance schedules depending on use/load?

 

I'd imagine the engines are pretty much designer for low RPM continuous load application; is there a basic maintenance and / or secondary more than called for maintenance schedule?

 

I'm not one to say anything is "cutting maintenance", but perhaps there is a threshold Carnival holds maintenance to that is perfectly acceptable and accounts in for downtime. Have you worked with or for any companies that did "above and beyond" type maintenance and did the costs associated with that play out in increased or continued revenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micahs Grandad

Micahs Grandad

Posted
Posted
I think that most marine industry safety specialists, including the USCG, and all of the classification societies that provide insurance underwriting for the ships, would disagree with your interpretation of "playing craps" with guest's safety. 90% of the time, itineraries are designed so the ship does not need full speed, both to save fuel costs and also to provide a cushion in case there is maintenance or a failure that could result in less than full power.

 

It might not even be a propulsion problem at all, but a generator capacity problem. Paradise has six diesel generators, and she needs all six of them to make full speed. There may be a failure of a component in one of the engines or generators that requires a couple of months lead time to deliver. As with my comment above about designing itineraries where full power is not required is the fact that these engines need overhaul at regular intervals. This is typically about every 2 years, so 3 engines would be scheduled for complete overhaul every year. This is a full tear down and part renewal, just as if you had a new engine put in your car every two years, and takes about 2-3 weeks to complete. So, in any given year, the ship is sailing around for 6-9 weeks of the year (11-17% of the time) with one engine out of service for an extended period of time, and no one is any wiser. I suppose you would recommend that the ship be taken out of service to do engine overhauls as well, since this affects the top speed of the ship?

 

I will again point out that 95% of the world's shipping goes out to sea every day with only one propulsion system (propeller) connected to one diesel engine, and given the industry's safety standards, this is considered to be completely sea-worthy, so the multiple redundancies of a modern cruise ship makes them the safest ships afloat.

 

I don't make comments on customer service issues, so I won't address the effect an itinerary change has on a vacation, or what should or should not be done in compensation.

 

Could they take a ship out of service whenever there is required maintenance or repairs to be made? Sure. How high do you want your cruise fares to go, because they are not going to just swallow the cost of docking, and loss of revenue, without making it up throughout the fleet.

 

And hating to get into the jimbo/thorncroft funfest, jimbo's point is that the "engines", which could mean either the azipods (made by ABB) or the diesels (made by MAN), are not made by either Carnival (sorry thorncroft) or Fincantieri (to dispel the "shady" construction comment).

 

As for the persistent "cutting maintenance" comments, this would require a wide conspiracy including not only Carnival, but also the classification societies, who stake their reputation and their financial bond on guaranteeing the sea-worthiness of the ships, but also the maritime safety agencies like the USCG that inspect maintenance records and programs as part of their PSC duties. Do some ships miss some scheduled maintenance, no doubt. Is is a company wide corporate strategy to save cost, I doubt it.

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to us all.

 

It would appear to me that the average age of Carnival ships is getting up there and as a result more things go wrong now and in the future.

 

I do believe that in the past ships the age of the Fantasy class would have been retired from the Carnival fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimbo5544 "Live from...." Rare

jimbo5544

Posted
Posted
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to us all.

 

It would appear to me that the average age of Carnival ships is getting up there and as a result more things go wrong now and in the future.

 

I do believe that in the past ships the age of the Fantasy class would have been retired from the Carnival fleet.

 

 

....and you attribute that to what?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...