Manning of civilian (de-commissioned) Type 42 Destroyers

boulton
29th October 2007, 17:36
I would appreciate advice on the appropriate manning levels to take to sea, a de-commissioned, civilian, ex-Royal Navy, Type 42 Destroyer.

With the assistance of many over the last few months, I am at the stage of considering the running costs of civilian (de-commissioned)
ex-Royal Navy Type 42 Destroyers. A significant proportion of which costs must be the labour costs associated with manning the ship.

It is proposed to retain/re-install only the “cruise” Tyne engines (and four diesel generators). Also to be retained/re-installed, would be the Kelvin Hughes type 1006 navigation radar mounted on the foremast (with the dual antenna of the type AJK multi cannel UHF system - which was manufactured by Lucas Aerospace).

Superfluous and to be removed, are the “burst/sprint/full-power” Olympus engines, and all the weapon systems with their associated radar/masts/controls/displays/etc.

For this proposal, it is confirmed that only two of the remaining Batch 1 and four of the Batch 2 ships are being considered.

ddraigmor
29th October 2007, 18:50
Add volunteers to the crewing costs and you could pay their food bills - that would save you a huge whack of cash.

I also think you'd have a fair few volunteering for the chance to go to sea again......but for what purpose would a decom 42 go back to sea? As a 'living exhibit'?

Jonty

Coastie
29th October 2007, 19:46
And where would you be running her from?

boulton
29th October 2007, 21:06
Questions, questions - but no answers (yet) . . .

Jonty : " . . but for what purpose would a decom 42 go back to sea?"

Coastie: "And where would you be running her from?"


The “official” template, to which I am working, is SMALL SHIP CRUISING. To try and illustrate, have a quick look at,

http://cruisewest.com/cruisewest/experience/ships/soo.aspx

I have an idea of the PASSENGER (dictated by space) RATIO to the "domestic" CREW (required for waitering, cleaning, etc). However, I need some idea of the "proper sailor" crew numbers with which to man the ship (engine room, navigation, etc), and put to sea.

The hanger is the equivalent height of two decks, and extended rearwards, would provide the majority of the passenger en-suite cabins (with balconies).

Within the ships as they exist, with all the “offices” unused, Ops room available, and (it is hoped) most of the Royal Navy’s existing accommodation/mess deck space for a crew of 287, vacated - more passenger “public space” will be available.

It is appreciated that (even) the two remaining Tyne gas turbines are not ideal - but I am advised it would be impractical to re-engine with diesels.

Try to imagine her, all-over white, teak-lined decks . . . Mmmmm.


It is hoped that we will neither be an inconvenience to Jonty’s colleagues in the RNLI, nor need to call on the services of Coastie when he is at work with H.M. Coastguard.

ddraigmor
29th October 2007, 21:33
Andrew,

Wow - fitrting out a ship not 'designed for purpose' would be an awesome task! However, it's a plan - I don't know whether it would be a valid one or not!

It would suit a niche market however - no doubt the idea of going aboard a converted ex RN destroyer would appeal to many but given their seakeeping, would not the idea of inclement weather mean you'd have to focus a great deal on stability?

Best of luck!

Jonty

Peter4447
29th October 2007, 21:35
Andrew

Whilst I appreciate that you may have a clear idea of what you are hoping to achieve, you have made a public posting and it is, therefore, perfectly natural that other members of the site should express their interest in your project by asking questions as to the exact nature of what you are proposing which was not evident in your initial post.

I do feel that your response to the questions raised was rather harsh. There is a wealth of experience on this site that so often is freely given but I do not feel you will obtain that help and support by making totally unnecessary comments regarding either HM Coastguard or the RNLI.

Regards
Peter4447
Moderating Team

Santos
29th October 2007, 21:38
Hear, hear Peter, thank you. It was only fair for Jonty and Coastie to ask those questions and I agree the responce was harsh to say the least. The responce from both the Coastguard and the RNLI if the vessel was in trouble would be immediate.

The thought of a type 42 luxery cruiser quite fills me with horror, as Jonty quite rightly pointed out stability is a major factor. I could envisage perhaps the passengers suffering from severe mal de mer to say the least.

AH well such is life.

Chris

AlexBooth
29th October 2007, 22:23
Hey, Boulton..... wierd idea, converting a warship into a cruise ship - intriguing, looking after your own niche biz ?
I would initally expect your passengers will be of the adventurous type to be able to put up with her rolling etc. or are you considering putting in stabalizers ?
The next though that would cross my mind would be the classification, PandI etc etc.
As far a crewing is concerning, you'd need to
a) For Navigation, Engineering & Admin.
You'd need to detemine her sailing zones (Coastal/Deep sea etc etc. for classification and thus establish your minm crewing reqmts. and of course under which flag
b) For passenger attention & services
- Passenger capacity and types/ages of passengers
- Ancillary services/activities etc.

Anyway those would be my initial thoughts, when you've got one finalized on the drawing board I'd be interested to see how she'd come out - may have some interest in her in the Caribbean. At least there running between the islands and the Florida pan handle no much swell to worry about :-)
Cheers
(Pint) (Smoke)

Gavin Gait
29th October 2007, 22:33
I think that considering the T42's were designed and built as heavily compartmentalised warships , with narrow corridors and lower than normal bulkhead heights , fitted with diesel engines and gas turbines I think that the costs involved in "converting" one to an acceptable SOLAS compliant cruise ship would be prohibitive in the extreme.

These ships have been hard used and barely maintained for the last few years of their commissions , anything of any use that can be used to keep the present T42's in commission has been stripped out. Even if the MOD considered selling for refurbishment they would remove the propellers ( even now they would be considered as sensitive equipment so restricted ).

Having seen film of this class at sea in poor weather they are a bit lively , more movement than would be acceptable for your normal cruise ship passenger ( considering they are fitted with active stabalisers too ). Also you have to consider the market. Look at what is being built for the cruise market just now , floating towns with large open arcade areas , I just feel that you wouldn't attract enough custom to get backing from any financial institution.

I think as an idea it is pretty much out there but I feel that there would be no way that any T42 could ever be brought up to SOLAS requirements nor to the level of outfitting that the current cruise passengers are looking for.

Davie Tait

James_C
29th October 2007, 22:59
Might make a braw SN jolly boat though, eh Davie?
It'd be one ship that could actually overtake the SFPA boats. LOL

(Thumb)

boulton
29th October 2007, 23:31
These ships have been hard used and barely maintained for the last few years of their commissions , anything of any use that can be used to keep the present T42's in commission has been stripped out.

Also you have to consider the market. Look at what is being built for the cruise market just now , floating towns with large open arcade areas.

I feel that there would be no way that any T42 could ever be brought up to SOLAS requirements nor to the level of outfitting that the current cruise passengers are looking for.

Davie Tait

Thanks for your useful observations.

I have had quite a bit of contact with the disposal people. Their main concern is that I will not sail off in the direction of a beach in India, and run the ship(s) aground, to make a quick profit - with the unacceptable ecological costs that involves!

I know HMS Newcastle D87, has been "cannabalised", and has had a fire on board, since been decommissioned.

The other two remaining Batch 1 (moored with Newcastle) HMS Glasgow D88, and HMS Cardiff D108, have had ALL the gas turbines removed.

It is understood, that of the Batch 2 ships at sea, HMS Exeter D89 "is in appalling condition"; and, HMS Southampton - not much better. I'm hoping the Batch 2 sister-ships HMS Nottingham D91, and HMS Liverpool D92, do not deteriorate as much.

I have no intention of competing with the huge floating "shopping malls". If you look at the link included for "small ship cruising", you will get an idea of the ships that are providing a return for their operators.

http://cruisewest.com/cruisewest/exp...ships/soo.aspx

These small ships cater for a more diserning customer you know, who like ships and the sea!

Steve Woodward
29th October 2007, 23:38
Before you can think of crew you would need a minimum manning cert, this is a ship not a yacht and minimum crew would be specified by the registry issuing the manning cert

boulton
29th October 2007, 23:45
Before you can think of crew you would need a minimum manning cert, this is a ship not a yacht and minimum crew would be specified by the registry issuing the manning cert

Thank you Steve. Can you please point me in the right direction to find further information. (In the mean-time, I will also look at where the existing small cruise ships are flagged).

boulton
30th October 2007, 00:06
I would initally expect your passengers will be of the adventurous type to be able to put up with her rolling etc. or are you considering putting in stabalizers ?

As far a crewing is concerning, you'd need

a) For Navigation, Engineering & Admin.
You'd need to detemine her sailing zones (Coastal/Deep sea etc etc. for classification and thus establish your minm crewing reqmts. and of course under which flag

b) For passenger attention & services
- Passenger capacity and types/ages of passengers
- Ancillary services/activities etc.

Anyway those would be my initial thoughts, when you've got one finalized on the drawing board I'd be interested to see how she'd come out - may have some interest in her in the Caribbean. At least there running between the islands and the Florida pan handle no much swell to worry about :-)
Cheers
(Pint) (Smoke)

Alex, thank you for your observations.

The small ship cruise business does seem to centre on the (more sheltered) Mediterranean, Caribbean, and runs up the Norweigen coast - although there is some interest in the Australian coastline. Plenty of visits to historic sites, informed lectures, etc. They cater for small passenger number - 100 or less, who seem to be appreciative of "comfortable" soft furnishings, attentive dining-room staff, etc.

By avoiding the large oceans (other than for re-positioning), it is hoped the poor sea-keeping of the Type 42 Batch 1 and Batch 2, will not be an issue - other than for the SN volunteers involved in the re-positioning!!

(P.S. Were you involved with Ellerman's Wilson line in Hull, when a Mr McDonald was in charge?)

boulton
30th October 2007, 00:23
Andrew

Whilst I appreciate that you may have a clear idea of what you are hoping to achieve, you have made a public posting and it is, therefore, perfectly natural that other members of the site should express their interest in your project by asking questions as to the exact nature of what you are proposing which was not evident in your initial post.

I do feel that your response to the questions raised was rather harsh. There is a wealth of experience on this site that so often is freely given but I do not feel you will obtain that help and support by making totally unnecessary comments regarding either HM Coastguard or the RNLI.

Regards
Peter4447
Moderating Team


Peter, I am asking for help, advice and assistance, from the wealth of experience within SN. It would be ignorant and totally counter productive of me to post anything deliberatly intended to be offensive, or that could be construed as ungrateful.

From the endorsement by Santos (Chris Allman Senior Mem), to your comments above, it is obvious I must use more exclamation marks, and learn to use these "Smilie" thingies!!

Peter4447
30th October 2007, 00:43
Thank you Andrew for your response.

It is difficult at times to put over various points when there is no face to face contact and the little "smilie thingies" are very useful tools to use as they help to avoid any possible misunderstandings.

Kind regards
Peter (Thumb)
Moderating Team

fred henderson
30th October 2007, 00:52
Andrew

I am sure that you have the relevant background information, but some of the following may be of interest: -

You are correct in spotting that there is a great shortage of vessels like the Spirit of Oceanus. She was one of eight built in Italy 1990/1991 with a government subsidy to try and keep some of their small yards alive. The programme was a complete failure in that the owner could not make money from them and the shipyards went bust trying to build them. They remain in business because their capital cost is now very low and way below their replacement cost.

Spirit of Oceanus was bought from Star in 2000 for $16.5 million. I have no idea of the scrap price of a Type 42,

Spirit of Oceanus is a ship of 2,940 tons displacement; Length 88.3m oa, 74.85m bp; Beam 15.2m; Draft 3.7m; Twin MAN B&W Alpha Diesels giving a service speed of 15.5 kts. She has a bow thruster. As built she carried 100 passengers and 65 crew.

The Batch 3 Type 42s are 3,500 tons displacement (standard) 4,676 tons full load. They are 141.1m oa, 132.3 bp; Beam 14.9m; Draft 5.8m. Their cruising speed is 18 knots. They have accommodation for a crew of 301 but not at acceptable civilian crew standards. They were delivered 1982/85.

You need to work on the basis that the hull will be needed for machinery spaces, public rooms and crew accommodation. I suppose that the entire superstructure could be removed and accommodation added. This would of course rather reduce the RN Destroyer cachet. You will notice however that the beam of a Type 42 is less than that of Spirit of Oceanus, so the hull form will restrict the number of accommodation decks that could be added. The hulls of the Batch 3 ships were prone to cracking and strengthening girders have been added at main deck level. It will also be extremely difficult to rebuild a Type 42 to comply with the incoming international SOLAS regulations. It will be an interesting challenge for your naval architect to devise a redesign that will meet the new passenger regulations and be economically viable.

Best of luck

Fred(Thumb)

boulton
30th October 2007, 01:56
Andrew

I am sure that you have the relevant background information, but some of the following may be of interest: -

You are correct in spotting that there is a great shortage of vessels like the Spirit of Oceanus. She was one of eight built in Italy 1990/1991 with a government subsidy to try and keep some of their small yards alive. The programme was a complete failure in that the owner could not make money from them and the shipyards went bust trying to build them. They remain in business because their capital cost is now very low and way below their replacement cost.

Spirit of Oceanus was bought from Star in 2000 for $16.5 million. I have no idea of the scrap price of a Type 42.

The Batch 3 Type 42s are 3,500 tons displacement (standard) 4,676 tons full load. They are 141.1m oa, 132.3 bp; Beam 14.9m; Draft 5.8m. Their cruising speed is 18 knots. They have accommodation for a crew of 301 but not at acceptable civilian crew standards. They were delivered 1982/85.

You need to work on the basis that the hull will be needed for machinery spaces, public rooms and crew accommodation.
Best of luck

Fred(Thumb)


Fred, thank you for your fullsome response.

I can not remember why/when I became interested in the small "Renaissance" ships, that you (coincidentaly) mention. I think they were recently featured in "Ships Monthly", and I aquired a back-issue (Dated MAY 2004), which specifically featured the whole fleet - including the series of larger "R" ships. However, THEY are responsible for my interest in "small ship cruising"!!

The "easyJet" bloke Stelios Haji-Ioannou, has gone back to his (shipping) family roots, and is using one (ex-Renaissance ll), to start his "easyCruise" business. You pay extra for room service, meals, clean bedding, towels, etc. He doesn't understand why an all-over orange colour scheme, wasn't appraciated on (even) an economy cruise ship! (NOT what I have in mind!!). His father is using one of the sister ships (Renaissance lV), as the family yacht "Clelia ll".

Although Royal Corps of Transport (Volunteer), I have always maintained an interest in the Royal Navy/RFA. I particularly like the style/elegance of the early Type 42 - and, the beauty of the stretched, lengthened/strengthened, Batch 3 (A seperate thread on this subject got quite interesting).

I was therefore, quite disappointed when I learnt that HMS Birmingham D86 had gone for scrap (2001 ?), and that the rest were likely to follow.

It was the realisation that the two x Type 22 (Batch 2) Frigates that went to Romania (HMS London F95 and HMS Coventry F98), were obtained for only £100,000-00 each from the MoD, that started me off on this idea. (Now don't everyone rush to offer the MoD any more than that !).

I have no interest in the Type 42, Batch 3. It is suggested that it will be a long while yet before we have sufficient Type 45 in service to relieve the four Type 42, Batch 3, from duty. By then, it is hoped that the elegant old ladies, with their extensive capabilities, will find ready homes abroad - that have illuded their (slightly) younger, shorter, sisters.

Other/earlier threads, enabled me to obtain a copy of the very authorative book "Modern Combat Ships 3 - Type 42", by Leo Marriott; and, to obtains copies of the original construction drawings from the National Archive.

boulton
30th October 2007, 14:13
If you look at the link included for "small ship cruising", you will get an idea of the ships that are providing a return for their operators.

http://cruisewest.com/cruisewest/exp...ships/soo.aspx



For those showing an interest in this thread an even better link is,

http://www.noble-caledonia.co.uk/information/sea_vessels.asp

A "hard" copy of their "Small Ship Cruising 2008" brochure, makes an ideal addition to the bed-side table, and is easier to cope with than balancing a lap-top whilst recumbent in bed!!

Stevo
31st October 2007, 20:43
Just out of curiosity, what entertainment facilities will you have in mind for the ship? Who will provide that entertainment and what or who exactly is your market. What cabin types will be available what about the dining experience and who will run the hospitality aspect of this venture.

What of your on shore excursions/itinerary and how does this all fit in with a Type 42?

Sounds to me like you have the wrong ship in mind which would cost you more to maintain and convert then any profit you would hope to make.

R724465
31st October 2007, 21:57
I have recently returned from a trip on Spirit of Oceanus; Alaska-Aleutian Islands-Kamchatka-Kuril Islands-Japan. As the original posting was requesting information about manning costs I won't enter the debate about the feasibility of the project.

Spirit of Oceanus has a high crew/passenger ratio, the crew are mainly Filipino with a mixture of European/American/Other officers and others.
If you are thinking of competing against Cruise West then you had better come up with something good. The hotel side of the trip was 4*. Most of the other passengers were repeat customers, as will we be next year.

I wish you all the best with the project should you go ahead with it.

R724465

demodocus
31st October 2007, 23:20
I actually did this (hull conversion to mini-cruise) feasibility study in the mid 80's when I was GM of a shipping company. We started with a $5m. hull and engine cost.

What killed it ??

Conversion costs (Asia) were huge even allowing for pre-built Wartsila accommodation units, SOLAS requirements, etc etc. Take whatever price is quoted you and add at least 25%.

Manning costs weren't too bad with Euro officers and Philippino crew, but fuel was a disaster ... +/-10tpd diesel for 12 knots.

To amortise costs with a 10 year life needed a 85% occupancy at +/- $350 per day ... not feasible in the mid-80's.

With something like a destroyer you need to look very carefully at the hull, they're paper thin at the best of times, I suspect you'll have all hell getting something like this into/through survey.

I wish you every success.

boulton
1st November 2007, 01:19
Demodocus, thank you for that dose of realism - just what I've been hoping for, and with some tangible points to get my teeth into.

I have discussed with our (UK) MoD disposal people the suitability of starting this project with one of their ships. The point is taken about the thinness of the hulls. Even at launch (certainly after a few years service) the sides are "dimpled" against the framework, almost like a golf-ball.

I've ordered (but not yet received) detailed architectural (?) drawings, which should give some idea of the number of suites/passengers we can accommodate.

Another contributor, R724465 (thank you for the posting), has experienced the type of market I was/am thinking of exploiting. I have studied the Cruise West business, and in the UK the Noble operation.

http://www.noble-caledonia.co.uk/inf...ea_vessels.asp

Good food, and good company, seems to be "order of the day" with these small cruise operations - with informtive travel lecturers for the excursion at the next port of call. Now I have a direct line-of-communication with Stevo (again, thank you), I know where to find him when the time comes !!

A pleasant surprise for me, that you were able to find this thread, only a week into joining SN. Thank you again.

demodocus
1st November 2007, 04:22
My study was done using a second hand offshore supply vessel, they’re not as cheap as dead Andrews but there are lots of them and you can have a test drive.

These vessels have hulls like brasil nuts, it takes a lot to damage them.

If you cut her in two just for’d of the engines you can insert several metres of new hull at minimum cost to get that extra bit of capacity but watch your GM. It has a tendency to rise with as you increase the L:B ratio and start fiddling with the upper- works. Aluminium is good but expensive.

A lot of the beamier vessels (you’ll need a good beam to get the stability and room) have 4 x 2000 bhp engines. Running on two will give you roughly/approx./abt. 12 knots and 8tpd of diesel plus some engine redundancy capability in some of the more obscure spots of the globe.

Dump the bulk cement tanks, clean off the existing superstructure and replace completely.

Modify existing spaces to passive/active stab. tanks as budget permits.

Remember, on something this size you’re going to have to go for the upper end of the market. That means 1:1 pax/crew ratio, and a high capital cost of accommodation.

Modelling & Ops ... make your revenue in the same currency as your financing otherwise you'll have expensive hedging costs.

Run it profitably for a year and you've got every chance of switching into a leveraged lease.

captainchris
1st November 2007, 08:26
Look up www.shadowboats.com this shows what can be done with ex-supply boats, although they are only really suitable as shadow boats for large yachts to carry the toys and overspill of people. I suppose you could put more accomodation in but it probably won't be that profitable.
Regards,
Chris

fred henderson
1st November 2007, 18:21
It was the realisation that the two x Type 22 (Batch 2) Frigates that went to Romania (HMS London F95 and HMS Coventry F98), were obtained for only £100,000-00 each from the MoD, that started me off on this idea. (Now don't everyone rush to offer the MoD any more than that !).



I think that the reasons for the low basic price for the Romanian Type 22 Frigates included the desire to provide Romania with NATO compatible ships and that Romania would pay for the additional cost of bringing them back to operational condition using a UK dockyard. The total price several million.

Fred(Thumb)

Tomvart
17th November 2007, 20:25
Gents,

As a veteran type 42 man with over 8 years in the class, having several circumnavigations of the globe under my belt in these ships - in many Typhoons, Hurricanes and general foul weather - these ships are not horrendous sea keepers - True - in a seaway they are not the most stable of 'weapons platforms' - this is mainly a problem for the main armament - the Seadart system. Being fitted on the focsle abaft the 4.5" gun (It’s not altogether practical to launch a sensitive high explosive guided missile when you are taking it green over the bow!) or the launcher beams are encrusted in salt deposits - this is to do with the relatively short length of the batch 1 and 2 T42's, the batch 3's don't suffer from this problem being some 40 ft longer in the bow with a much wider beam - if you are serious about this venture, why not wait until a B3 comes available?

Personally, if it was a good sea keeping ability you were looking for - I would have purchased an old but trusty Leander class, the problem you would have then would be the replacement of the high maintenance Steam Turbines.

But back to the T42 project - the removal of so much weight below, or on the waterline, namely the Olly's (Olympus gas turbines) and all of the attending 'non essential' machinery (I assume that this would include stripping of the AMR's (Aux Machinery Rooms - Fwd and aft of both main engine rooms) including the Seadart magazine control and hydraulics systems, 4.5" mag, gunbay and hoist, SCR, Operations room and MCO (fair few hundred tons of machinery and electronics in those compartments), with the attending addition of much topweight with the planned passenger accommodation in the hangar and on the flightdeck - causes me much concern with regard to the stability of the ship. I suppose you could balance some of this by the removal of the 4.5” Turret, Seadart Launcher , 909’s Mainmast, 1022 aerial from the foremast and all of the upperdeck weapon and decoys systems.

Additionally you will need to look at the availability of spare parts in order to keep your ship serviceable, many of the suppliers for spares for this class must be close to or have stopped production – I remember Liverpool back in the 90’s had a high rate of failure on much of her equipment (mainly because of the large amount of operational time these ships were forced to complete).

Crew wise – I think you could get away with approx 42 experienced men excluding the catering staff - I have assumed that you would be cruising for a period of weeks as opposed to days in my estimates below.
I would suggest, 3 ONC qualified officers to act as OOW –, additional to the Old man, you may also need several OOW2 to assist on the bridge when in busy seaway (Manual chart work, radar collision avoidance etc) as there is minimal automation on the Bridge of this class, certainly nothing close to a merchantman’s high tech bridge suite.
Although no marine engineer, I would recommend the Steaming crew should consist of about 12 Stokers (3 or 4 to a watch to run and maintain your ‘In’ and ‘outside’ machinery), with 2 or 3 engineering officers (or ex CPO/PO) to oversee. The Bridge would also need a helmsman 24/7, so 3 QM’s would be required. You would also need a catering staff relevant to the volume of passengers, always bearing in mind that the Main galley is not well appointed either with little in the way of modern culinary equipment!
You would also need a large berthing crew, as there are no automated winches & hawsers like in a merchantman, springs, hawsers and bollards are used in a warship with several men on each when the ship sails or comes alongside, so assuming this you would need a Deck Officer (one of your senior OOW’s?), an assistant (senior 2OOW?), a Bosun and approx 12 Seamen, although you could use 2 of the off watch helmsmen for this task too.
2 heavy Electricians for switchboards & domestic electrics, 2 Electronics Engineers/Technicians for radio/radar & general electronics maintenance and finally 2 or 3 radio officers.

Also if you’re considering taking these ships east through the Suez, it’s an expensive evolution as they only have one fitted anchor (the second secured to the bridge screen) so they have to be attended by a tug for the passage (I think this is another excuse at Baksheesh generation by the Port of Suez authority in my humble opinion).

Although my time in 42’s was most enjoyable, they would not be my choice of Cruiser!

Regards,

Tom

Macca
18th November 2007, 00:06
Have you considered the type 12 HMS Plymouth? I'm not sure what her current status is or if she has a new owner. I know most would want to see her remain as a museum ship, however that prospect looks bleek!

No idea what state her hull's in but she does still reasemble a warship with all her original weapons fitted and radars still working. Would be far more apealing to me than a bland looking type 42!

Not sure the old steam plant is operational but a couple of comercial diesels should do the trick.

Chouan
21st November 2007, 12:39
"automated winches & hawsers like in a merchantman"

Excuse my seeming ignorance, but what are these? Or do you mean that matelots pulled the mooring ropes etc solely by hand?

K urgess
21st November 2007, 13:17
There's a picture in the gallery here (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=66072) showing the latest mooring gear on a tanker.
The ropes are on drums and tensioning etc is done automatically.

Orbitaman
21st November 2007, 13:31
Self tensioning winches have generally fallen out of use. This is due to the problem that while they maintain a tension on the mooring rope or wire, the winch cannot detect when a surge or some similar action causes the rope or wire to pay out. The winch will apply the same tension again but the ship will no longer be alongside. I will post a photo of this effect in the gallery ASAP.

James_C
21st November 2007, 13:42
They do have that problem, however they are better than normal winches which require constant attention.
We still use them in Foreland.

James_C
21st November 2007, 13:51
I would suggest, 3 ONC qualified officers to act as OOW –, additional to the Old man, you may also need several OOW2 to assist on the bridge when in busy seaway (Manual chart work, radar collision avoidance etc) as there is minimal automation on the Bridge of this class, certainly nothing close to a merchantman’s high tech bridge suite.
Although no marine engineer, I would recommend the Steaming crew should consist of about 12 Stokers (3 or 4 to a watch to run and maintain your ‘In’ and ‘outside’ machinery), with 2 or 3 engineering officers (or ex CPO/PO) to oversee. The Bridge would also need a helmsman 24/7, so 3 QM’s would be required. You would also need a catering staff relevant to the volume of passengers, always bearing in mind that the Main galley is not well appointed either with little in the way of modern culinary equipment!
You would also need a large berthing crew, as there are no automated winches & hawsers like in a merchantman, springs, hawsers and bollards are used in a warship with several men on each when the ship sails or comes alongside, so assuming this you would need a Deck Officer (one of your senior OOW’s?), an assistant (senior 2OOW?), a Bosun and approx 12 Seamen, although you could use 2 of the off watch helmsmen for this task too.
2 heavy Electricians for switchboards & domestic electrics, 2 Electronics Engineers/Technicians for radio/radar & general electronics maintenance and finally 2 or 3 radio officers
Tom

Tom, if she was to be a Merchant ship she wouldn't need half that many crew.
I reckon about 20 men would be enough, having been on vessels of similar size and with similar levels of automation.
Old Man + 3 OOW, C/E + 3 EOOW, 1 Electrician, Bosun + 5 Seamen and 3 Motormen.
Even though these ships have no mooring winches it should still not require more than 3 or 4 men at each end for mooring, also with Communications gear the way they are now there is no need for Radio Officers or their ilk, likewise 1 electrician will suffice, and even then he'll probably struggle for work.
The AB's would work a system with 3 of them on watches (1 man per watch, as is normal) with the other two on daywork. It shouldn't be too great a trauma to fit an autopilot to these ships.
When I say 20, I do have due regard for the age of these ships. There are a lot of merchant ships that are larger than a T42 run around with 12 men.

Orbitaman
21st November 2007, 14:16
They do have that problem, however they are better than normal winches which require constant attention.
We still use them in Foreland.

I might just point out that ISGOTT and SIRE don't advocate the use of these winches in automatic mode, quote:

"ISGOTT 23.4.2.2 Self-tensioning winches fitted with automatic rendering and hauling capability should not be used in the automatic mode while the vessel is moored. In automatic mode, such winches, by definitioin, will render under load and will allow the vessel to move out of position, with consequent risk to cargo arms or hoses."

"SIRE VIQ, 4th Edition 9.9 Are all powered mooring lines secured on brakes and are the winches out of gear?"

To be using them on tankers can be considered as going against the two main bibles in the industry.

However, I am aware that Cruise Ships, Ro-Ro ships and container Ships still use them.

James_C
21st November 2007, 14:22
I was referring to my own company where thankfully we don't have any tar barges.
I did the sensible thing and got out of tankers last year, now sailing on MoD RoRo/Containers.

Orbitaman
21st November 2007, 14:30
Tom, if she was to be a Merchant ship she wouldn't need half that many crew.
I reckon about 20 men would be enough, having been on vessels of similar size and with similar levels of automation.
Old Man + 3 OOW, C/E + 3 EOOW, 1 Electrician, Bosun + 5 Seamen and 3 Motormen.
Even though these ships have no mooring winches it should still not require more than 3 or 4 men at each end for mooring, also with Communications gear the way they are now there is no need for Radio Officers or their ilk, likewise 1 electrician will suffice, and even then he'll probably struggle for work.
The AB's would work a system with 3 of them on watches (1 man per watch, as is normal) with the other two on daywork. It shouldn't be too great a trauma to fit an autopilot to these ships.
When I say 20, I do have due regard for the age of these ships. There are a lot of merchant ships that are larger than a T42 run around with 12 men.

Fully agree with your suggested manning level. If Maersk can manage to run a 300,000 tonne VLCC with a complement of 14, then 20 is suitably generous!

markwarner
21st November 2007, 14:46
I assume that this would include stripping of the AMR's (Aux Machinery Rooms - Fwd and aft of both main engine rooms)

If you do that it will very warm and dark as that's where the generators and air con plants are.

However, the engineering manpower you suggest Tom is about right. The CPP system alone is hideously complicated for what it is.

There is very little remote contol (mainly monitoring only) of the machinery so watchkeeping is very man power intensive.

I served on four of these over the period 79 - 99 and agree with Tom, great warships, terrible choice for a cruise liner.

fred henderson
21st November 2007, 18:01
I think that the reasons for the low basic price for the Romanian Type 22 Frigates included the desire to provide Romania with NATO compatible ships and that Romania would pay for the additional cost of bringing them back to operational condition using a UK dockyard. The total price several million.

Fred(Thumb)

I have just seen a report that the total contract price to bring the two Romanian Type 22 Frigates back to operational condition and provide crew training was £112 million.

Fred(Thumb)

Tomvart
22nd November 2007, 00:17
Chaps,

I fully agree with your sentiments on current manpower levels - relating to Merchant ships, 15-30 can keep a large merchantman of 40-60k tons running quite happily today, however this is for a relatively modern ship specifically designed around a small crew.
42's were not designed with this in mind - As I said before, wires and hawsers are manhandled - not on a winch. There are no bow thrusters, Average messdecks house between 50 and 60 men, are overcrowded and very uncomfortable and cramped - bunks are 6'x2.5' (that is your only private space onboard), outside machinery is not remotely monitored although there are some camera's, there is no radar autotracking on the bridge, no integrated GPS and electronic charts, almost everything is done manually, so unless your willing to spend an absolute fortune in bringing these ships up to current standards by retrofitting all of the equipment which we now take for granted - we have a problem.
The numbers I quoted were based on safely taking a 42 to sea with her current fit below decks, on the upper deck and on the Bridge. Anything less than that would leave you in danger.

You are right - there are a lot of older and much bigger merchant ships with much smaller crews, but at the end of the day that is what they were designed for. 42's were designed for a crew of approx 300.

Regards,

Tom

James_C
22nd November 2007, 01:22
Chaps,
42's were not designed with this in mind - As I said before, wires and hawsers are manhandled - not on a winch. There are no bow thrusters, outside machinery is not remotely monitored although there are some camera's, there is no radar autotracking on the bridge, no integrated GPS and electronic charts, almost everything is done manually, so unless your willing to spend an absolute fortune in bringing these ships up to current standards by retrofitting all of the equipment which we now take for granted - we have a problem.
Tom

The original suggestion was for re-engining and that in itself would rule out the need for a cast of thousands down below. Even an old set of reconditioned medium speed diesels would only require a maximum of 3 engineers and a couple of motormen. MN engineers don't have specialisations as you have in the RN, they're expected to (and invariably do) know how everything works from Main engines to auxiliaries, desalination plants, the electrical system, air conditioning, fresh water system etc.
As regards mooring, I appreciate what you're saying, however you do have a set of capstans at each end for putting tension on your ropes, then they're stoppered off and ran round a set of bits - exactly as they do on a merchant ship. In which case you're still only going to need 3 men at each end, you might even get away with 2. I've been on a quite a few ships with no winches, just capstans and there was only ever 2 of us sorting out 5 ropes. Normally we just took one rope each, and did it all ourselves.
As regards bridge gear, again the proposal was for a T42 for use in a commercial environment, and to fit a proper Radar and GPS costs next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. We're talking loose change compared to the likes of say a full paint job.
I still maintain that if such a conversion was thought through then a crew of circa 20 would be more than adequate without requiring too much money to achieve it.
The big price tag will be in converting the innards for whatever commercial function is desired, specifically for passengers.

markwarner
22nd November 2007, 11:43
MN engineers don't have specialisations as you have in the RN, they're expected to (and invariably do) know how everything works from Main engines to auxiliaries, desalination plants, the electrical system, air conditioning, fresh water system etc.

Jim

I don't know where you get this idea from? Everyone has to know how to operate and maintain. The specialist mechanical or electrical trades were done away with years ago.

Tomvart
22nd November 2007, 13:04
[QUOTE=boulton;160079]A significant proportion of which costs must be the labour costs associated with manning the ship.

It is proposed to retain/re-install only the “cruise” Tyne engines (and four diesel generators). Also to be retained/re-installed, would be the Kelvin Hughes type 1006 navigation radar mounted on the foremast (with the dual antenna of the type AJK multi cannel UHF system - which was manufactured by Lucas Aerospace).
QUOTE]


I think the original spec called out that the original 'Cruise' engines (The two Tyne Gas Turbines) were to be used - I also assume that these still use the same complex gearbox and the same nasty CPP systems or are they to be replaced also?
Now I am no marine engineer, however I am sure there are some ex T42 Engineers on this website can give us a definitive yes or no as to what the actual minimum engineering staff requirements would be with the above non standard equipment in mind.
He also stated that they would use the original 1006 'I' band Nav radar - for those not acquainted with this dynosaur - Its older than god with no automation, You'll also be needing digital charts? Integrated GPS System - direct into some sort of INS/Chart-table that is fitted to most Merchantmen - that does not come cheap.

I may be being a little pedantic here but I think you will find that there are 'Proper' Radars on most warships - thankfully, Some of them with ranges of Hundreds of miles and others with mindblowing accuracy as opposed to the mediocre standard expected of a COTS Collision avoidance Radar

Trust me - these ships have little in the way of automation....apart from a requirement for lots of manpower.

As to the Deck crew requirements...I will bow to your experience with the Merchant service.

Orbitaman
22nd November 2007, 13:11
ECDIS or an electronic chart system isn't compulsory, but would be a 'nice to have'. A system integrated with GPS, AIS and a 'modern' ARPA radar will set you back something in the region of £40,000 inclusive of an approved world-wide folio of electronic charts. A GPS set and an AIS set will set you back a few £ hundred each. As to an ARPA radar that will be compulsory, I have no idea on cost.

markwarner
22nd November 2007, 13:44
Now I am no marine engineer, however I am sure there are some ex T42 Engineers on this website can give us a definitive yes or no as to what the actual minimum engineering staff requirements would be with the above non standard equipment in mind.

The engines are not the problem as they need little attention whilst running. The biggest watchkeeping load is all the aux equipment. We used to have a watch of 5 so even 1 in 3 watchkeeping needs 15 people.

Could reduce this if you replaced the evaporators with RO plants (you could then get rid of the auxiliary boliers). The water compensated fuel system is a high maint system but if you only used the Tynes you could get by on the non compenstated system. Of course if you used reversing diesal engines you could get rid of the CPP system and the gearboxes.

captkenn
22nd November 2007, 14:25
Look up www.shadowboats.com this shows what can be done with ex-supply boats, although they are only really suitable as shadow boats for large yachts to carry the toys and overspill of people. I suppose you could put more accomodation in but it probably won't be that profitable.Regards,Chris

A 'supply boat' can mean anything at all.
Some of the PSVs are massive. They are designed to carry huge deck cargos so adding extra accomodation on deck is absolutely feasible - and has been done. My last one had a displacement of over 4600 tons. Very powerful, beamy with the same 'state of the art' design of propulsion as the QM2 and with the removal of the Cement silos and conversion of the many tanks would make superb small cruise ships.

Orbitaman
23rd November 2007, 10:04
What can be done with a type 42 destroyer and any type of 'supply boat' are not really relevant. The construction of both is completely different, and it is unlikely that the type of passenger who may be tempted to travel by sea on an ex warship is more than unlikely to be interested in travelling on a converted supply boat.

captkenn
23rd November 2007, 19:20
What can be done with a type 42 destroyer and any type of 'supply boat' are not really relevant. The construction of both is completely different, and it is unlikely that the type of passenger who may be tempted to travel by sea on an ex warship is more than unlikely to be interested in travelling on a converted supply boat.

You may well be right -- though the originator of the thread, Boulton said: "The “official” template, to which I am working, is SMALL SHIP CRUISING."
Some supply boats became warships and vice versa. Many of the bigger and more suitable ones are now appearing on the 'change of use' market (no longer 'good enough' for the oil companies but with masses of life left in them) . 'demodocus' put forward some very good reasoning.

captkenn
24th November 2007, 00:17
Look up www.shadowboats.com this shows what can be done with ex-supply boats, although they are only really suitable as shadow boats for large yachts to carry the toys and overspill of people. I suppose you could put more accomodation in but it probably won't be that profitable.Regards,Chris
With due respect - are you sure you know what a 'supply boat' is?

captainchris
24th November 2007, 10:48
Hi Ken,
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my phraseology and not used the common term "supply boat" instead used any of the other abbreviations, PSV,OSV,AHTS or even ERRV.
Having worked some years ago with Sealion on their PSV's, and more recently with Vroon Offshore (Dutch side), PSV and ERRV's, which were also used in inter-field cargo transfers, we did and still do use the phrase "supply boat", as do the R/O's on the rig when informing us that one is due.
I was merely elaborating on comment #24 from Demodocus with regards to conversion possibilities.
Best regards,
Chris

boulton
21st December 2007, 15:12
Thank you for all the helpful contributions above.

Confirmation of the “lean manning” that can be achieved with modern equipped ships, is in the January 2008 issue of SHIPS MONTHLY. It seems the answer is “19”.

The article “Big ships. Small crews”, does mention that,

“Several years ago, as the administrative burden of ships’ masters saw them spending more time gazing into a computer screen than looking outside their bridge, there were rumours that radio officers were being recalled to help with the ever mounting paperwork”.

A chance for “Marconi Sahib“, to get his kit-bag out of the attic ?!

boulton
19th March 2008, 13:27
Recently received: . . . . . . . . NOTICE TO TENDERERS . . . . . . Date:13 March 2008

INVITATION TO TENDER NO 2008/01887 - SALE OF TYPE 42 DESTROYERS (EX-HMS CARDIFF, GLASGOW, NEWCASTLE)

1.The Secretary of State for Defence, invites inspection of the under mentioned vessels with the option of submitting a bid for their purchase. The vessels are to be sold by Competitive Tender, on an “as seen as lying” basis, as a package of three for recycling within the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and in full compliance with the principles of the Basel Convention and all other associated EU & UK legislation including Waste Shipments Regulation (Council Regulation 259/93). Alternatively, they may be purchased individually for re-use/refurbishment for non-warlike purposes, providing the Purchaser can satisfy the Authority that appropriate safeguards are in place governing final disposal.

jeffuk13
27th August 2008, 10:18
Hi have you a link for the inviation to tender
cheers
Jeff

Tony Breach
27th August 2008, 11:26
I have doubts that a classification society would allow puncturing of the shell plates for provision of ports due to the thin material & the framing pattern. Then you must forget about accommodating the crew below the main deck. The lack of stability of these ships would severely limit the amount of superstruture in which to house all hands. Consultation with a naval architect at this stage is essential.
Tony

markwarner
27th August 2008, 13:50
Most of the crew accomodation on these ships is below the main deck on 2 and 3 deck. There is very little further up but there are spaces that could be converted as they would no longer be needed for thier original purpose. Unless you were going to add additional superstructure, the stability shouldn't be a problem as they have a partially water compensated fuel system, it just needs careful management.

forthbridge
27th August 2008, 15:52
May be worthwhile looking at the MCA guidance on how to work out safe manning levels for merchant ships. go to www.mcga.gov.uk
click on working at sea, click on safe manning, click on MSN1767M

Jim Bullough
22nd October 2008, 19:09
I served on HMS Birmingham as a POMEM,I was in charge of the Diving/BA store.The last time i saw her was when she paid a visit to Mobile,Alabama in the 90's.

markwarner
24th October 2008, 08:43
She's long since done for razors blades.