Northern Comrade

Wim,

The debate continues! She shares the same hull (with some modifications to props and rudders for increased traction )as all the UT 704's. This one you know about as she is similar to Star Offshore's 'Star Polaris'.

The 'Northern Comrade' (Ex Balder, Ex Viking, ex Dalia Shipping) was the most powerful of the design built at 11000BHP and, together with the 'Star Polaris', was definitely the MK3 variant.

I know you and I have this debate going but I believe she is the penultimate in the UT 704 series, as she was the most powerful of them all - but shared the accomodation modifications and underwater hull changes that made her forerunner - the 'Star Polaris' - definitely the Mk3! I believe that the Smit Lloyd '90' class were the Mk 2's due to their increased engine / bollard pull improvements.

Look at the following web photo to see the resemblance:

http://homepages.which.net/~derek.wood/cvpic13.htm - Star Polaris

You will have seen this shot before - or maybe not. The profile is definitely the same, with the 'Star Polaris' the fore runner of the two vessels that, because of their success, then spawned the UT 734 series.

Jonty

Hi John,

Been busy lately so a late response.

I started wondering where I got the idea that SCHELDE was the only MK2 and it took me a while to find that the only reference I know is OPL. There database states SCHELDE as an MK2, STAR POLARIS as a normal MK1 and the two other STAR vessels as UT734.

But if in your opinion the POLARIS is an MK3, what would SCHELDE be while she was build 2 years later?

However, I had a look at my files and lifted the STAR POLARIS photo's I received from Ulstein long ago and the accompanying card mentioned in my little boyish handwriting UT704 mark III so I'm gonna try to find the Ulstein letter which came along with the photo's to see if that gives any clues ...

John, I beginning to think you're right

Cheers,

Wim

Wim,

I work this on the following principle:

UT 704's - like the 'Dee Shore' (for example) are original, with no modifications etc. They are thus the MK1's. When Smit ordered the SL90 class, these were uprated to 9000BHP and had many modifications, so they were a new variant, so they are MK2's.

Now it gets a bit harder! Star Offshore ordered the 'Star Polaris' but had built in modifications over and above the basic UT 704 design, so it is natural that they are the next in series, hence MK3's. The 'Schelde' was basically the same dimensions as the 'Star Polaris' and, in fact, was a sister ship - so she is also a MK3 apart from the fact that she had more powerful engines. They have the same dimensions and are identical, apart from engine power and some difference in bridge layout.

The UT 734's that followed - including those of Star Offshore - were based on the MK3 - but had many newer innovations - more powerful, better bulk carrying capacity below decks, and far more advanced nozzles and screws, with a finer underwater hull shape. This was, in fact, an advance on the MK3 and was designated UT 734. Ulstein may have re-designated the type looking for more sales and, in terms of time span, knew the UT 704 was (by then) a 'dated' design.

Wim, I could be wrong on this as I am following shipyard procedure really, especially in type production.

This has vexed many of us who have an affection for this class of vessel and whilst I have published my own findings on it, I am not too arrogant to admit if I am wrong!

Regards,

Jonty

Hi John,

It all sounds pretty logical to me so I'll get along with you on this explanation so finally our debate has ended

In the meanwhile I haven't had any comments from Rolls-Royce on this mather.

Cheers,

Wim

Wim,

Ah, am I surprised? Rolls Royce would probably ignore the letter whilst Ulstein would definitely have responded!

No problems, and - as always - good to hear from you on the matter!

Cheers too.

Jonty

Got a mail last year from Rolls Royce about a piccie (http://www.maritimephoto.com/collection/vessel/8157/photo/0) requesting to sent the best quality as possible for use in a brochure and ofcourse I had to do it for free

Told them they propably had a nice Public Relations budget so paying a normal fee would be appreciated. Never heard of them

Cheers,

Wim

Wim,

Ah that old trap! You retain copyrighht even if they publish it as they have not bought it from you. You could always ask them again, saying this is your work and work means money? Or ask whether they want to keep the photo and so buy the copyright?

When I write something for a magazine, I ask for payment - or they don't get it! It could be months before I do get paid, but I always do! If I needed any photos (for example) from you, then I would pay you the image part of the commission when I eventually did get paid. It might not be much - say 10 Euros - but at least it would mean I could always ask you to supply another photo again!

Imagine Rolls Royce not paying!

Jonty

For none commercial purposes I never make any problems on sharing images etc but for books, newspapers etc I find it quite normal to be paid and the amount being related to just one-time usage (like in a newspaper) or buy the all-time usage.

It's imho all quite normal in the publishing world but a company can always try to get it for free

Cheers,

Wim

Wim,

Ah, maybe we differ on that one!

If I worked for it, then they should pay! I wrote the piece on the images-of-ships as a favour to Mervyn but the article on the 704's for the magazineis a different matter! Same as the images I put on here - they are to share.

Rolls Royce could afford to pay you, Wim! Your shots are high quality and cost you to process and buy film. Therefore, they should have paid!

But you're right - if they can get something for free, they will! :-(

John