Viking Jupiter electrical problems?

[Peregrina651]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Just found my issue with your method

 

LOL. Can't tell you how many times I have done the reflexive right click until I remember that is is the wrong move.

 

BTW, thanks to you and the other marine professionals who take the time to post here. I am learning a lot from you.

[PedroPedro]

Well expressed, Captain Morgan! Thanks. Pedro 

[Peregrina651]

3 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 2016 - propulsion issue departing Barcelona; ship returned to port and Xmas cruise cancelled

 

I was on that cruise. The propulsion issue was more of an electrical issue, the same electrical issue that had effected the Star. A transformer in the electric system that powered the propulsion system blew. It ended up being published as a propulsion problem and even in some places as a propeller problem (which it specifically was not; there was no damage to the propeller) but it was at its heart an electrical problem.

 

Viking was cautious and returned us to Barcelona to do the repair. We were all invited to remain on the ship for the duration of the cruise while they made the repair or they would help us make arrangements to return home. Most people opted to stay on board.

 

[johneb2]

On 7/3/2019 at 4:05 PM, PedroPedro said:

Well, what you say is perfectly correct, Chinese ship and Chinese crew, however when flying United, AA, etc often the aircraft complete with crew is leased from a third party. If something goes poorly you still hold UAL and/or American  responsible. Many Olive Gardens are owned and operated by independent company and if you get a poor meal, we all hold Darden’s feet to the fire. When we booked Viking in China we expected Viking to assure the quality of the subcontractor they employed. They did not.

 

Back to the Viking Jupiter: a friend aboard just commented: 

“Got a letter that says all has been fixed, inspected, and cleared to go, but they are not leaving now.  Why not?  They are waiting until early morning.  Why?  Then going all day to Edinburgh.  They are then skipping the only 2 stops that I was taking the trip for, Orkney and Shetland Islands where I am very interested in the stone age archeology.  Total disaster.  They said they will be refunding the money paid for excursions, but must buy stuff on board.  Outrageous.  I spent a lot of money on excursions in Orkney and Shetland and don't want to have to burn up that money in the Spa or whatever.  This is a total fiasco.  Many persons I've spoken to say they would prefer to skip Edinburgh since most of us has seen it, as have I.  This is the 2nd Viking incident that V has refused to make me whole, much less do what airlines and others do, give a voucher for a future free flight.  Sadly this is not what I wanted, expected, and it is eating up my vacation time.  V has no clue on what the impact of their questionable mechanical failures have done to me, likely many others.”

 

If others have “facts” other than these, please share to assure a fair shake for Torsten Hagen and his Viking Ocean. If this account is accurate, it sure tarnishes VO’s reputation for responsive customer service, keeping in mind the delay problem is caused by a faulty VO power plant, not an act of God, like a storm or civil commotion, which are outside of VO’s responsibility. 

P

While I am not on the Jupiter, my wife and I were on the Viking Sky Northern lights cruise with the unfortunate incident.  I will say that Viking was extremely fair to us in light of what happened.  We received a refund for ALL expenses for that cruise (including excursions and on board purchases), a voucher for a future cruise, as well an all expense paid invite for the maiden voyage of their new ship the Venus in 2021.  We also received several post communications from Mr. Hagen, along with a bouquet of flowers.  During our actual experience, we were looked after from start to finish both physically, financially, and "needs-wise", as well as constantly being updated on the situation.  While I know some will debate on whether or not that situation could be prevented, we can tell you first hand that the way Viking, the crew, the first responders (helicopter & ground services), and the people of Molde & Norway handled that situation was first rate & fantastic.  We have full confidence in Viking, and will continue to sail with them.  We have sailed 6 river cruises, 2 ocean cruises, and have 2 more river cruises booked with them.  We are in no way affiliated with them, and receive nothing for this post.  Simply, my wife and I love travelling.  We realize that there are times things can happen, and what we feel is the mark of a good company is how they handle those unfortunate situations, and look to prevent future repeat situations of them.  In our viewpoint Viking has done extremely well in that aspect.   You wanted to hear another viewpoint "J", so I though it would be appropriate to respond.   Johneb2

[Captain_Morgan]

3 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

I was on that cruise. The propulsion issue was more of an electrical issue, the same electrical issue that had effected the Star. A transformer in the electric system that powered the propulsion system blew. It ended up being published as a propulsion problem and even in some places as a propeller problem (which it specifically was not; there was no damage to the propeller) but it was at its heart an electrical problem.

 

Viking was cautious and returned us to Barcelona to do the repair. We were all invited to remain on the ship for the duration of the cruise while they made the repair or they would help us make arrangements to return home. Most people opted to stay on board.

 

 

We were on the cruise as well, and clearly remember sitting in the World Cafe shortly after departing Barcelona with the city lights in the distance when we felt a 'lurch' and saw the lights flicker followed by the announcement over the speakers which sent a few crew scurrying.

Not to split hairs, but by definition if a propulsion system is driven by an electric motor and said electrics have a failure does that not equate to a propulsion issue?  Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but the ship was literally limping along due to not being under full power as a result of the issue...

We too stayed onboard as it made no sense to queue up at guest services and try to arrange flights back home, over Xmas/New Years when we had full use of a hotel in close proximity to the city, all meals were covered, we could come and go as we pleased, AND we got fully reimbursed.

 

All of that being said, it still doesn't take away from the fact that 66% of the ships in service have suffered some form of mechanical issue inside the first year of being launched which has had an adverse effect on the itineraries...

[CCWineLover]

29 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

We were on the cruise as well, and clearly remember sitting in the World Cafe shortly after departing Barcelona with the city lights in the distance when we felt a 'lurch' and saw the lights flicker followed by the announcement over the speakers which sent a few crew scurrying.

Not to split hairs, but by definition if a propulsion system is driven by an electric motor and said electrics have a failure does that not equate to a propulsion issue?  Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but the ship was literally limping along due to not being under full power as a result of the issue...

We too stayed onboard as it made no sense to queue up at guest services and try to arrange flights back home, over Xmas/New Years when we had full use of a hotel in close proximity to the city, all meals were covered, we could come and go as we pleased, AND we got fully reimbursed.

 

All of that being said, it still doesn't take away from the fact that 66% of the ships in service have suffered some form of mechanical issue inside the first year of being launched which has had an adverse effect on the itineraries...

 

Hmmmm......

Interesting - 2/3 of the ships have had this issue....  Didn't fully understand that.

 

So, does this "risk" now make you decide to not ever take a Viking Ocean Cruise again?  If so, what other ships are you looking at?    Does anyone know what the "risk" record is for other comparative cruise lines?  i.e.  what is the probability of an Oceania, Azamara, Celebrity cruise ship of having a debilitating issue?   I have no idea if this is truly a Viking only issue or is it prevalent in the industry.

 

Perhaps taking risk is something we travelers need to accept and go with the flow - much like taking airline flights.

[Peregrina651]

2 minutes ago, CCWineLover said:

Perhaps taking risk is something we travelers need to accept and go with the flow - much like taking airline flights.

 

Have not changed my mind about traveling with Viking, although I do wish the engineers would finally figure out what the problem is and get it fixed.

 

Stealing from a fellow member (whose name I can't remember but still wholly give credit to): Travel with hopes, not expectations.

 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, CCWineLover said:

 

Hmmmm......

Interesting - 2/3 of the ships have had this issue....  Didn't fully understand that.

 

So, does this "risk" now make you decide to not ever take a Viking Ocean Cruise again?  If so, what other ships are you looking at?    Does anyone know what the "risk" record is for other comparative cruise lines?  i.e.  what is the probability of an Oceania, Azamara, Celebrity cruise ship of having a debilitating issue?   I have no idea if this is truly a Viking only issue or is it prevalent in the industry.

 

Perhaps taking risk is something we travelers need to accept and go with the flow - much like taking airline flights.

May I suggest that we need to consider that the equipment that is failing is shipyard installed and Fincantieri, who built all Viking ships, also builds most of the world's cruise ships. Cruise ship power generation/propulsion systems are highly specialised and only a few manufacturers supply this type of equipment. Many cruise ships have similar systems to the Viking ships.

 

Therefore, many other ships will have similar equipment to Viking, so other companies are most likely having similar issues. However, while it unfortunately caused a schedule disruption that has negatively impacted the passengers, it was actually a rather minor incident. Being a minor incident, I note that it did not receive any mention in any of the marine journals that I follow. 

 

So with increasingly more technologically advanced ships, I consider the occasional malfunction just a risk of continuing to cruise, which is no different than other modes of transportation. We see no reason to change from Viking to another cruise line, basically because all of them experience issues. 

 

When it comes to incidents, we are more interested in how the crew responds and then the cruise line's response post incident. Based on the Sky and the Jupiter, Viking seems to have excellent responses. 

 

 

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

  Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but the ship was literally limping along due to not being under full power as a result of the issue...

 

Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but "limping along"?  Even with only one propeller, and half the power (only the one motor on the one propeller), a ship can reach at least 2/3 of its full speed.  Power to speed relationship is exponential.

[CCWineLover]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

May I suggest that we need to consider that the equipment that is failing is shipyard installed and Fincantieri, who built all Viking ships, also builds most of the world's cruise ships. Cruise ship power generation/propulsion systems are highly specialised and only a few manufacturers supply this type of equipment. Many cruise ships have similar systems to the Viking ships.

 

Therefore, many other ships will have similar equipment to Viking, so other companies are most likely having similar issues. However, while it unfortunately caused a schedule disruption that has negatively impacted the passengers, it was actually a rather minor incident. Being a minor incident, I note that it did not receive any mention in any of the marine journals that I follow. 

 

So with increasingly more technologically advanced ships, I consider the occasional malfunction just a risk of continuing to cruise, which is no different than other modes of transportation. We see no reason to change from Viking to another cruise line, basically because all of them experience issues. 

 

When it comes to incidents, we are more interested in how the crew responds and then the cruise line's response post incident. Based on the Sky and the Jupiter, Viking seems to have excellent responses. 

 

 

Thank you Heidi13, for the very well written and informative comments.  You have always been so helpful and put a good perspective on traveling 😉

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but "limping along"?  Even with only one propeller, and half the power (only the one motor on the one propeller), a ship can reach at least 2/3 of its full speed.  Power to speed relationship is exponential.

So very true. To confirm the Chief's comment, here is some data from some of my previous ships

• 2 engines (50% power) - about 16 kts
• 3 engines (75% power) - about 18.5 kts
• 4 engines (100% power) - almost 20 kts

If Jupiter was going slower than 15 - 16 kts, it wasn't because the ship couldn't make the speed, but because the set speed is what the Master, in consultation with the pilot, determined as a safe speed, based on the conditions and proximity of navigational hazards.

 

The ship also had escort tug(s), which was most likely mandated by London Port Authority. When tugs are present, speeds must be reduced, as harbour tugs provide minimal assistance at cruising speed.

[PedroPedro]

I, too, applaud Heidi’s evening tone.

 

As a matter of fact, though, most ocean cruise ships by far use an entirely different propulsion system. Viking Ocean was the first cruise line  to use the Rolls-Royce Promas propulsion system, a truly revolutionary technology change that promises to save fuel. 

 

While it’s impossible from here to know whether this cutting edge technology is contributing to Viking Ocean’s repeated engine failures, that cannot be ruled out. 

 

The engines driving the Promas shafts are electric motors and electric problems translate to engine failures.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, PedroPedro said:

I, too, applaud Heidi’s evening tone.

 

As a matter of fact, though, most ocean cruise ships by far use an entirely different propulsion system. Viking Ocean was the first cruise line  to use the Rolls-Royce Promas propulsion system, a truly revolutionary technology change that promises to save fuel. 

 

While it’s impossible from here to know whether this cutting edge technology is contributing to Viking Ocean’s repeated engine failures, that cannot be ruled out. 

 

The engines driving the Promas shafts are electric motors and electric problems translate to engine failures.

No, Andy's ships were diesel electric, just like all cruise ships, including the Viking Jupiter.  As with all cruise ships, they will have multiple diesel generators to allow for tailoring the electrical generation capacity to the electrical demand, saving fuel.  The faster the ship goes, the more generators needed to meet the electrical demand of the electrical propulsion motors.  The only difference between the Viking Jupitere and the Norwegian Sky (built in 1999) is the Promas system, which has absolutely nothing to do with the electric propulsion motors, or the power control system that drives those propulsion motors.  The Promas system uses a rudder with a bulb on the front, and a "hub cap" or extension on the propeller cap, that smooths the flow of water from the propeller past the rudder.

 

A fine semantic point, but crucial to marine engineering is that a "motor" runs on electricity, while an "engine" runs on combustion.  So, there are no "engines" driving the Jupiter's shafts, only motors.  And electrical problems with those motors or their control circuits does not translate to "engine" problems, though a problem with an "engine" (and its associated generator) can result in an electrical problem, if there is not enough generating capacity to meet the speed needed.

[chengkp75]

Oh, and a little more research on Promas.  While Viking is the first cruise line to use the Promas system from newbuild, with the "twisted" rudder to improve efficiency, the "Promas Lite", which is the same system but for retrofitting on existing ships, without changing the rudder, has been around for years, and the Carnival Glory, for one, was converted back in 2012.  So, I wouldn't worry about the Promas system being either "cutting edge" or causing the electrical problems on the Viking ships.

 

And, a side note, that even if Andy's ship had been diesel direct coupled engines, the theory is still the same, horsepower is horsepower whether it is supplied by an engine or a motor.  The deciding factor between power and speed is not the prime mover, but the propeller.

[Captain_Morgan]

18 hours ago, CCWineLover said:

 

Hmmmm......

Interesting - 2/3 of the ships have had this issue....  Didn't fully understand that.

 

So, does this "risk" now make you decide to not ever take a Viking Ocean Cruise again?  If so, what other ships are you looking at?    Does anyone know what the "risk" record is for other comparative cruise lines?  i.e.  what is the probability of an Oceania, Azamara, Celebrity cruise ship of having a debilitating issue?   I have no idea if this is truly a Viking only issue or is it prevalent in the industry.

 

Perhaps taking risk is something we travelers need to accept and go with the flow - much like taking airline flights.

 

If you read my post correctly you'd see i clearly stated 2/3 of the ships have had a mechanical issue, not the same issue on every one.

That said, these issues are less about my risk aversion and more about a trend which should be concerning given the relative newness of the ships in question.  Furthermore, the fact that the ships are built in the same yard as those from Princess, HAL, Carnival, etc and none of them seem to have the same frequency of issues should also raise questions.

[Hanoj]

38 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

If you read my post correctly you'd see i clearly stated 2/3 of the ships have had a mechanical issue, not the same issue on every one.

That said, these issues are less about my risk aversion and more about a trend which should be concerning given the relative newness of the ships in question.  Furthermore, the fact that the ships are built in the same yard as those from Princess, HAL, Carnival, etc and none of them seem to have the same frequency of issues should also raise questions.

 

Regent’s Explorer (2016) and Splendor (2020) also same shipbuilder. 

 

I assume all ships are built to minimum standards. Are some built to higher standards?

[lextrvlr]

Other ships in other lines, built by Fincantieri, are having propulsion/electrical problems, most recently Carnival Vista. ???

[Jim Avery]

11 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

 

Regent’s Explorer (2016) and Splendor (2020) also same shipbuilder. 

 

I assume all ships are built to minimum standards. Are some built to higher standards?

Yes there are minimum standards and many ships exceed one or more standards by choice or need.  An example is Cunard's QM2 built to handle all weather North Atlantic crossings.  Cunard's Queen Victoria/Queen Elizabeth are built by Fincantieri. (Aka: Tincantieri in the trades) QV and QE are not anywhere as sea kindly as QM2.  Fincantieri is consistently the low bidder, hence the number of contracts.  I am not particularly a fan as I have seen the thinner steel used on various ships and the resulting pounding/shaking that this enhances.  Stay in calm seas and their ships are fine.  😳

[PedroPedro]

Hi ChengKP,

Suggest spending more time boning up on diesel electric ship propulsion systems. 

Most cruise ships use Azipods which are electric motors in pods suspended below, not inside, the hull. 

The new Promas system has the electric motor inside the hull driving the screw through a traditional shaft. Radically different. Including electric supply systems.

These are entirely different diesel electric ship propulsion systems. 

Respectfully, Peter 

 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, Jim Avery said:

Yes there are minimum standards and many ships exceed one or more standards by choice or need.  An example is Cunard's QM2 built to handle all weather North Atlantic crossings.  Cunard's Queen Victoria/Queen Elizabeth are built by Fincantieri. (Aka: Tincantieri in the trades) QV and QE are not anywhere as sea kindly as QM2.  Fincantieri is consistently the low bidder, hence the number of contracts.  I am not particularly a fan as I have seen the thinner steel used on various ships and the resulting pounding/shaking that this enhances.  Stay in calm seas and their ships are fine.  😳

So true Jim. The classic example of Tincantieri & quality builders is the Princess Grand Class. Most of them were Italian built, but Diamond & Sapphire were built in Japan (MHI). The welding & fit/finish on Diamond/Sapphire was vastly superior. 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, PedroPedro said:

Hi ChengKP,

Suggest spending more time boning up on diesel electric ship propulsion systems. 

Most cruise ships use Azipods which are electric motors in pods suspended below, not inside, the hull. 

The new Promas system has the electric motor inside the hull driving the screw through a traditional shaft. Radically different. Including electric supply systems.

These are entirely different diesel electric ship propulsion systems. 

Respectfully, Peter 

 

What do you think cruise ships did before azipods in 1998?  They had electric propulsion motors, inside the hull (imagine that), driving shafted propellers.  Please link me to an article that supports your statement that the electrical supply system is any different than the Norwegian Sky, built in 1999, that has two electric motors driving two shafted propellers, or any number of Carnival, Princess, Costa, NCL, or other lines' ships built in that era, or even later.

 

One of the advantages of azipods is the clean hydrodynamic flow into the propeller, since the propeller is in front of the motor.  A drawback is the requirement for a raised section of stern to accommodate the pod hanging down, so that the pod is not below the keel.  This kind of makes it hard to retrofit azipods to older ships.

 

Promas' main advantage is that it can be used by older ships as a retrofit, or by a ship with a slow speed, direct coupled diesel engine, or any ship with a shafted propeller and rudder.  Here is a blurb from Kongsberg, the leading manufacturer of shipboard automation and propulsion control systems, which has acquired Rolls Royce marine and the Promas system.

 

https://www.kongsberg.com/maritime/products/propulsors-and-propulsion-systems/propulsion-and-manoeuvring-systems/promas-propulsion--manoeuvring-system/

 

Please show me where this says it is limited to electric propulsion motors, or that any type of prime mover for the propeller is specified or preferred.  It is a system to increase the hydrodynamic flow between the propeller and rudder, for shipowners who either don't want azipods, or their type of vessel doesn't allow azipods.  But there is nothing that says the Promas system has "special" motors, or "special" electrical supply.

 

Viking chose the Promas system because they didn't want the potential headaches of azipod failures, so they went with a conventional diesel electric system (some would say even a step back as they are fixed pitch propellers, and many shafted diesel electric systems use variable speed as well as variable pitch), and installed the Promas propeller, "hub cap", and twisted rudder with the bulb (the twist puts the leading edge of the propeller to one side of the propeller centerline above the propeller, and to the other side below the propeller, acknowledging that the propeller imparts a rotational flow, and a conventional rudder's leading edge interferes with that.

[Jim Avery]

And even before that, in 1986 QE2 had troublesome steam turbines (look up all the delays/problems) removed and 9 diesel engines installed along with the (then) most powerful electric drive motors on any ship.  She went on for another 20 or so years.  Now a hotel in Dubai.  RIP...

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

And even before that, in 1986 QE2 had troublesome steam turbines (look up all the delays/problems) removed and 9 diesel engines installed along with the (then) most powerful electric drive motors on any ship.  She went on for another 20 or so years.  Now a hotel in Dubai.  RIP...

And "most cruise ships use azipods"?  There are currently 314 ocean cruise ships in the market, and ABB has just recently (last March) received their 100th cruise ship order, so less than 1/3 of cruise ships use azipods.  The first ship powered by a diesel generator supplying an electric motor (in the hull) which drove a shafted propeller was in 1920, nearly a century ago.  Diesel electric propulsion is nothing new, and certainly not revolutionary since the advent of power rectifiers that allowed for speed control, which was back in the 70's.