It would appear none of you took part in my quiz in the quiz forum of this site, entitled "A ship with a problem"?
I am copying and pasting one of my replies to one chap who condemned them outright (OBO'S) saying "A POX ON THEM", after I had mentioned a favourite OBO of mine:-
My reply was as follows:-
Copy and Paste.
************************************************** *****
The basic OBO concept was quite good, but the trouble appeared to have been, they were never given the opportunity to evolve, to develope, to improve, as I personally believe they deserved.
The first generation were shocking, but the second generation, was very much improved, but a headache nevertheless.
However, considering a batch of 6 x 2nd Generation sister ships built over a period of 12 months ( approx), the difference / improvement between No. 1 and No. 6 was enormous.
They were sister ships, but with very small changes, came very big improvements - in fact.
All things are relative, one to another, so (my term) " favourite ", should not suprise you.
Sadly, even favourites begin to grow old, as indeed we do, age does weary them, and it is clear the years do condemn.
Is it therefore, a pox on us too, simpy because we grow old ?
No, I feel sure that was not (what you) meant at all.
Had the OBO evolved for a few more generations - then they should have become quite acceptable.
They would never have been "easy" ships though, as more work and thought, was required, compared with some other types of vessel.
I concluded the best way to neglect and abuse an OBO, was to use her as a tanker, for several voyages, and then change to Bulk. ( and vice versa of course.) They would suffer immensely from that, to the point that they may not recover.
On the other hand, alternate wet to dry every voyage, and they would not present so many problems. (ie use them in the way they were designed for.)
They required much in the way of routine maintenance, which translates to additional Manpower, - and they never really got that either.
Hauling sea water ballast from Europe to the Persian Gulf - never made much economic sense to me - but many ships did it, and I suppose, there are many that still do, despite the horrific fuel costs of today - let alone tomorrow.
End of Copy and Paste.
I believe to this day that with modern construction and further developement of the Team Ship OBO's design -- then they could become very usefull vessels indeed, perhaps even essential - looking ahead.
Twin hatches ie 1 hold Port/1 hold Stbd with a centre line Fore and Aft subdivision, and a double skin hull, would be the start of an OBO - "fit for heaven" in my view."
They should not be condemned outright as they have appeared to have been, but rather they should be further developed and allowed to evolve.
BUT there is no place on an OBO for a lazy bast*rd, nor any so called professors, nor the likes. Good workers are required, which includes the Master and Chief Engineer - they have to pull their weight also, and so often in the past, they have not.
Emoluments to officers and crew - well they are three ships in one, so wages should be at least double that of dry bulker only, or tanker only, sea staff.
They are hard working ships and always will be - but why spend vast sums of money carting sea water ballast for half a vessels life.
It doesn't make sense to me. Even less so looking forward.
They can be made to be good ships - but it will take excellent ships staff to operate them - Far above average - for sure.
Not rocket scientists - just sound rational, reasonable, ordinary guys - endowed with above average common sense, and of course willing and enthusiastic - which attribute will necessitate real recognition of an employers duty of care toward them.
Abuse and neglect them, and your OBO will soon fall apart, as indeed it should do, under such cir***stances.
Edit: To be classified by DNV only - I reckon.