Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
villager70

ALLURE Going to yard May 20th

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, SherriZ366 said:

leaving the Diamond Lounge where it is"

Renaming to Pinnacle Lounge. 😇

Edited by Milwaukee Eight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allure is now crossing The Bay of Biscay en route to Cadiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigAl94 said:

Allure is now crossing The Bay of Biscay en route to Cadiz

I think the meet up with Jewel in Gibraltar is the only thing we can sorta count on for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 12:40 PM, Mapleleafforever said:

Lets hope they get the propulsion system fixed at the very least. 

 

They've already made a couple of attempts to fix the azipods on Allure.  There always seems to be a problem.  I'm not sure if it's been the same unit but Allure always seems to have an azipod problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Azipod needs priority work!

 

Look at other 'Amp Up' work this way....

 

Cruising has changed forever, it may never get back to carefree fun.

 

So, empty extra 'Amp Up' Allure cabins on deck 11,

or empty Allure Diamond lounge on deck 11....

what's the difference? 

 

Why spend the extra money now?

Edited by Rocket3D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

They've already made a couple of attempts to fix the azipods on Allure.  There always seems to be a problem.  I'm not sure if it's been the same unit but Allure always seems to have an azipod problem.

It's not that there is a "problem" per se with the azipods, it is that they tend to wear out sooner than anticipated.  At least RCI is trying to be pro-active about it, as they had the Oasis in dock in Freeport for azipod bearing renewal, just weeks before her scheduled statutory drydocking, because they felt that the bearings would not last until the docking.  I'm fairly sure Allure was scheduled for the same thing, right up until the drydock broke in half.  Azipods of the size installed on cruise ships are still relatively "new" technology for the marine industry, simply because there are so few of them out there, it takes much longer to develop a statistical database of component life cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rocket3D said:

Why spend the extra money now?

There may be weird incentives for RCI, like the Spanish gov't putting up some money to get the work done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Allure will be amped anytime soon. The dry dock is probably for mechanical issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 8:47 AM, Heymarco said:

Due to the current cash flow issue, I think Royal will do as little as possible, even if it means abandoning finished pieces already at the yard. Royal is in full survival mode at the moment.

Aren't we all?  Tired being home alone but beats the alternataives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It's not that there is a "problem" per se with the azipods, it is that they tend to wear out sooner than anticipated.  At least RCI is trying to be pro-active about it, as they had the Oasis in dock in Freeport for azipod bearing renewal, just weeks before her scheduled statutory drydocking, because they felt that the bearings would not last until the docking.  I'm fairly sure Allure was scheduled for the same thing, right up until the drydock broke in half.  Azipods of the size installed on cruise ships are still relatively "new" technology for the marine industry, simply because there are so few of them out there, it takes much longer to develop a statistical database of component life cycle.

 

You're correct, it's not likely Royals' fault that the azi-pods are prematurely failing.   My frustration is that the azi-pods are failing prematurely failing and impacting scheduled cruises.  It appears that there were some failures in the bearing design for the azi-pods.  I don't know if the bearings were undersized, if it's a seal problem,  if there are other clearance issues or if it's something else.  After a couple of failures, I would have hoped that there would be modifications to the azi-pods to address the issues.  It would be interesting to know if the azi-pod manufacturer has been reimbursing Royal for these premature failures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

You're correct, it's not likely Royals' fault that the azi-pods are prematurely failing.   My frustration is that the azi-pods are failing prematurely failing and impacting scheduled cruises.  It appears that there were some failures in the bearing design for the azi-pods.  I don't know if the bearings were undersized, if it's a seal problem,  if there are other clearance issues or if it's something else.  After a couple of failures, I would have hoped that there would be modifications to the azi-pods to address the issues.  It would be interesting to know if the azi-pod manufacturer has been reimbursing Royal for these premature failures.  

The bearings are not really "undersized", but that the design and metallurgy is not sufficient for the load it is designed to carry.  As I said, the statistics are still so sparse that they are still working on the best remedy.  A thrust bearing for an equivalent power shafted propeller would be much larger in diameter (hence lowering the surface loading of the bearing), because space is not a problem inside the hull.  The azipod bearing size is limited by the size of the pod housing.  After each bearing failure, the bearing and all data is forwarded to ABB for failure analysis, and bearing design/metallurgy upgrades are made and distributed to the customers.  Then, these new bearings need to develop their own life cycle database, which can take years, again.  No, the ABB failures are not reimbursed, unless they happen within the warranty period, generally a year, but the expected life span should be 5 years (every drydocking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The bearings are not really "undersized", but that the design and metallurgy is not sufficient for the load it is designed to carry.  As I said, the statistics are still so sparse that they are still working on the best remedy.  A thrust bearing for an equivalent power shafted propeller would be much larger in diameter (hence lowering the surface loading of the bearing), because space is not a problem inside the hull.  The azipod bearing size is limited by the size of the pod housing.  After each bearing failure, the bearing and all data is forwarded to ABB for failure analysis, and bearing design/metallurgy upgrades are made and distributed to the customers.  Then, these new bearings need to develop their own life cycle database, which can take years, again.  No, the ABB failures are not reimbursed, unless they happen within the warranty period, generally a year, but the expected life span should be 5 years (every drydocking).

 

I'll respectfully disagree with you on the conclusion that the bearing is undersized.  As a point of reference I worked for a major automotive manufacturer for about the last 25 years designing numerous new engines and transmissions and integrating those components into new vehicles.  These azi-pods demonstrate that space is always a constraint, it doesn't matter if it's a 1.6L engine or an azi-pod on an Oasis class ship.  If the design and metallurgy are not adequate for the load with the allowed space, then the bearing is undersized.  Perhaps the azi-pods should have been a foot larger in diameter or a foot longer to allow larger bearings for the design or material selection.  Of course there are trade-offs, larger azi-pods would have more drag and more weight.  Maybe they should have selected different materials.  Bearing design is a well understood area and should not have been a problem.  If they were un-sure they should have used larger safety factors for a more conservative design and requested a larger azi-pod housing.  In any case this seems to me to be a significant design error and I would hope it would have been rectified on later Oasis class ship designs and hopefully addressed when the azi-pods are rebuilt during service.

 

As far as reimbursement is concerned, I would have though that azi-pods would need to meet certain performance criteria and one parameter would be performance.  If the azi-pod need to be repaired every 3-4 years instead of 5 years then there is more time that the ship is out of service for the repair.   This represents significant lost revenue for the cruise line and may be more costly than the warranty repair of the azi-pod.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Matt on his blog they will not be doing the amplification at this time but just repairing the issues with the azipods? ( whatever they are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Host Jacquelyn said:

When will the ship be ready to sail? As of right now, the June 14th sailing has not been cancelled.

CDC order bans cruising until mid July. Even though it’s not US based, this will keep anything in June from sailing. Royal is just behind on cancellations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

CDC order bans cruising until mid July. Even though it’s not US based, this will keep anything in June from sailing. Royal is just behind on cancellations.

I agree that the sailings on Allure in June will likely be cancelled, but I thought the CDC order only affected US sailings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDC order only applies to ships sailing from or to the US. Presumably they want to bring it back sometime. And the problem in June is that the drydock may not be completed by then if they don't get in to the shipyard until the end of May. And Spain is still not allowing non-residents in. 

 

I don't think it looks very good for June. And we are still wondering about November ourselves. :classic_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

I'll respectfully disagree with you on the conclusion that the bearing is undersized.  As a point of reference I worked for a major automotive manufacturer for about the last 25 years designing numerous new engines and transmissions and integrating those components into new vehicles.  These azi-pods demonstrate that space is always a constraint, it doesn't matter if it's a 1.6L engine or an azi-pod on an Oasis class ship.  If the design and metallurgy are not adequate for the load with the allowed space, then the bearing is undersized.  Perhaps the azi-pods should have been a foot larger in diameter or a foot longer to allow larger bearings for the design or material selection.  Of course there are trade-offs, larger azi-pods would have more drag and more weight.  Maybe they should have selected different materials.  Bearing design is a well understood area and should not have been a problem.  If they were un-sure they should have used larger safety factors for a more conservative design and requested a larger azi-pod housing.  In any case this seems to me to be a significant design error and I would hope it would have been rectified on later Oasis class ship designs and hopefully addressed when the azi-pods are rebuilt during service.

 

As far as reimbursement is concerned, I would have though that azi-pods would need to meet certain performance criteria and one parameter would be performance.  If the azi-pod need to be repaired every 3-4 years instead of 5 years then there is more time that the ship is out of service for the repair.   This represents significant lost revenue for the cruise line and may be more costly than the warranty repair of the azi-pod.  

Deleted

Edited by Ourusualbeach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blueridgemama said:

According to Matt on his blog they will not be doing the amplification at this time but just repairing the issues with the azipods? ( whatever they are)

Hurrah!
The champagne bar survives and no horrid purple slide blocking the view from the lounge. And the lounge survives. This gets better and better! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, little britain said:

Hurrah!
The champagne bar survives and no horrid purple slide blocking the view from the lounge. And the lounge survives. This gets better and better! 

 

Works for me!!  Was always the reason I book on deck 11 for Oasis and Allure.  I am just around the corner from the DL, and could crawl in to get my early morning Latte from there.  😉 

 

Also not a fan of the ugly purple slides.  😞  Drove past Harmony sitting at the terminal yesterday in PC...those slides stick out like a sore thumb as you approach.  😜

Edited by island lady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

In any case this seems to me to be a significant design error and I would hope it would have been rectified on later Oasis class ship designs and hopefully addressed when the azi-pods are rebuilt during service.

My understanding is that the azipod design was improved on Harmony and Symphony. This paper discusses the subject generally. It's not clear when this was published but it appears to be after 2011 which would be after Oasis and Allure were built.

 

https://library.e.abb.com/public/51235341c521f4dcc1257a8a003c8cd1/ABB Generations_26 Improvements in Azipod design.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pratique said:

My understanding is that the azipod design was improved on Harmony and Symphony. This paper discusses the subject generally. It's not clear when this was published but it appears to be after 2011 which would be after Oasis and Allure were built.

 

https://library.e.abb.com/public/51235341c521f4dcc1257a8a003c8cd1/ABB Generations_26 Improvements in Azipod design.pdf

As that article shows, there is incremental upgrades based on in service data going on all the time.  The big difference in the XO azipod that the later Oasis class ships have is that the problematic thrust bearing can be changed from inside the pod, and does not require a drydocking to perform.  As the article ends with, 8 years ago there were 100 vessels with azipod propulsion, and adding in the cruise ships built since then, but taking out the smaller azipods used on ferries and ice breakers (lower horsepower rating, lower bearing load), you probably have at most about 150 large azipod units operating in the world today, so that is still a quite small statistical database. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

...you probably have at most about 150 large azipod units operating in the world today, so that is still a quite small statistical database. 

In 2018 ABB announced that they had orders for their 100th cruise ship. With at least two pods per ship the number in service might be a bit higher? Unless some have already been retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pratique said:

In 2018 ABB announced that they had orders for their 100th cruise ship. With at least two pods per ship the number in service might be a bit higher? Unless some have already been retired.

You're probably correct on the total number of units on cruise ships, but some are smaller units than the large 20Mw units on Oasis class.  They don't have the problems on the smaller units, as they do on the big boys.

Edited by chengkp75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You're probably correct on the total number of units on cruise ships, but some are smaller units than the large 20Mw units on Oasis class.  They don't have the problems on the smaller units, as they do on the big boys.

I suppose if that's the case then there will never be a large sample size for the large units. Every one they build will essentially be a prototype since they are constantly changing the designs and rarely build more than a handful to the same design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...