There is nothing, looking at this picture, that suggests that this ship looks tired in any shape or form to me !
As a superintendent who is responsible for keeping ships in service and earning for their owners, I just don't understand some of the comments made on this forum. Some of you are in a world that is far removed from the practical maritime world that I work in.
As a superintendent who is responsible for keeping ships in service and earning for their owners, I just don't understand some of the comments made on this forum. Some of you are in a world that is far removed from the practical maritime world that I work in.
Joined
·
3,981 Posts
Joined
·
8,684 Posts
Fort Victoria in this picture does not look ' tired' to me, just a ship that has been at sea working as designed, as Pumps says above. She does not look particularly 'rough' over the wall and her boot topping is just what you would expect when a vessel is deballasted and in light ship condition - so I disagree with Jim in this respect. How can you keep the boot topping and a/f beneath that in top condition when a vessel is at sea for extended periods and it is submerged ! ?
In my world the ships I deal with also work hard and at sea in hostile weather conditions for long periods of time, but they are kept in a good condition - the owners have good maintenance budgets, but there is more to than that. There are periods of time when you cannot derust and paint and it has to wait until a maintenance period or a port call when there is sufficient time to deal with it.
Sorry that I have a different opinion to some on here but I just don't see anything in this picture other than a damn good ship that has been doing the job that she should be doing and is a credit to her crews. Tired - never.
In my world the ships I deal with also work hard and at sea in hostile weather conditions for long periods of time, but they are kept in a good condition - the owners have good maintenance budgets, but there is more to than that. There are periods of time when you cannot derust and paint and it has to wait until a maintenance period or a port call when there is sufficient time to deal with it.
Sorry that I have a different opinion to some on here but I just don't see anything in this picture other than a damn good ship that has been doing the job that she should be doing and is a credit to her crews. Tired - never.
Joined
·
42 Posts
Well Superintendant, are you saying that there is no place in the 'practical maritime world' that you work in for Ships that are kept looking as if they are well maintained? In my humble 34 year career refitting and repairing Ships, there is certainly some value in the phrase: "If it looks like a Dog, smells like a Dog, and barks like a Dog. Then there is a strong possibility that a Dog it will be". Pass me the needle gun and a fresh pot of paint
.
Nige
.Nige
With no wish to get drawn on what is obviously a contentious subject, and as a current, full-time superintendent responsible for ship upkeep (and in the passenger trades where aesthetic appearance is important, not least to our passengers), one of the problems we face these days is that a great many ports worldwide no longer allow overside painting in their jurisdiction. I note Fort Victoria's rust stains below the starboard anchor for instance : I get letters from passengers complaining about ours : however in our trade, where much of the time in service between turnaround ports is spent at anchor (sometimes 2 or 3 anchorages a day), the condition of the anchor, anchor pocket and adjacent hull can often show signs of use. I always write back politely to explain our difficulties in some areas of the world in maintaining absolute standards when it is difficult to obtain permission from harbour authorities to paint.
Report