Derbyshire - Page 34 - Ships Nostalgia
05:24

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Derbyshire

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #826  
Old 27th January 2009, 20:00
jmcg's Avatar
jmcg jmcg is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1966 - 1983
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,856
The comment outlined in red at post#845 re retro repairs. Retro repairs only.

J.
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 27th January 2009, 20:15
Bill Davies Bill Davies is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 181
Ongoing repairs were necessary on these ships and I am still around to talk about them. I would suggest that the comment outlined in read is itself fanciful. Anyone of any experience in this type of ship will know what was needed. There are many members here will know exactly what I mean.
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 27th January 2009, 21:49
bulkcarrier's Avatar
bulkcarrier bulkcarrier is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 131
Believe it or not..I had never heard of the "Derbyshire" until I joined this forum..I find this all very interesting.. It is like the "Edmund Fitzgerald of England".. Is there any books, DVD's or photos of the incident?

Thanks,

Galen
__________________
"Sarnia Traffic..the Benjamin F. Fairless..up at 1 & 2..4 and 1/2 hours to Harbor Beach.."
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 27th January 2009, 22:00
K urgess K urgess is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 83
If your read through the posts, Galen, you should find links to some of the inquiry and simulation results.
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 28th January 2009, 07:43
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,573
Although I agree with jmcg, I personally would not have called them "fanciful" I would have called them scurrilous allegation's of a Crew not here to defend themselves and until there is positive proof of the allegation's then they (the Crew) have the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.
In all of the picture's of Vessel's in the photographic section of this Site I cannot find a picture of this type of access hatch on a Bulk or O.B.O. (of which there are many) with the dog's tied up with a bit of heaving line or a lashing or some sort of alleged safety device . Fortunatly for most self respecting Crew's their idea of good seamanship/maintenance is of a far higher standard than other's.
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 28th January 2009, 07:52
Bill Davies Bill Davies is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 181
As usual, your response is pure theatre and playing to the gallery.
Your posts some time back re discharging Botlek sums up your knowledge of Bulk Carriers and JC is still awaiting a lucid response on that account.
Have respect for the crew by addressing the issues we are discussing and hopefully this type if incident will not happen again.

Bill Davies
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 28th January 2009, 13:53
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
"There is, however,an abundance of tragic history and compulsive evidence of retro repairs to the type and class.BW"

I can't see how this statement can be classed as fanciful. Unfortunately, I'm one of Bill's invisible 7 (or 8) so he won't be able to see my response.
I saw the repairs and inspected the area that they were supposed to reinforce on a regular basis. How can they be described as fanciful? By which I assume he means exagerrated, or made up?
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 28th January 2009, 18:25
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,933
Chouan ; I have asked many moons ago from Chadburn to tell us what he
means by his statement , but it seems worse than waiting for the 2nd. coming
of Christ. Until he does , then I also must class them as fanciful until he feels
fit to describe to us these retro repairs.

What do you mean - one of Bill's invisibles ?.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 28th January 2009, 20:54
randcmackenzie randcmackenzie is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 1,382
Post 847:
'Sir Alexander Glen, then called "Helm" '....

Sir Alexander Glen was never called Helm. Helm was previously named Cast Heron and before that Nordic Chieftain.

Similar hulls but very different internally to the Swan Hunter ships.

She continued to trade oil and bulk until she left Denholm management, though as Bill says, it took ongoing repairs to keep her that way.
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 28th January 2009, 21:31
jmcg's Avatar
jmcg jmcg is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1966 - 1983
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,856
Can anyone venture to comment on why "As Built" drawings were never lodged /receipted at Lloyds and "were not available" at Swan Hunters for consideration at the Inquiry(s) . Always understood that Drawings and Plans had to lodged before Classification certification was approved and or issued. Correct me if I'm wrong - in a dignified way please.

Have noted more than a few pops at Engineering and other department subscribers on this thread simply because they hold and offer a different perspective. Totally unnecessary.

J
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 28th January 2009, 22:38
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by randcmackenzie View Post
Post 847:
'Sir Alexander Glen, then called "Helm" '....

Sir Alexander Glen was never called Helm. Helm was previously named Cast Heron and before that Nordic Chieftain.

Similar hulls but very different internally to the Swan Hunter ships.

She continued to trade oil and bulk until she left Denholm management, though as Bill says, it took ongoing repairs to keep her that way.
Sorry, my mistake, I'd always thought, clearly erroneously, that the 'Glen and the 'Hunter became the Kona and the Helm.

"What do you mean - one of Bill's invisibles ?."

I am one of 7 or 8 members who have disagreed with Bill, and consequently put on an "ignore" facility, open to all members, which means that he can't see my posts. As far as the repairs are concerned, I've described them, so how are they fanciful?

Last edited by Chouan; 28th January 2009 at 22:40..
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 28th January 2009, 22:44
Macphail's Avatar
Macphail Macphail is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1960 - 2002
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 724
This thread should close, what one must remember that seafarers life's where lost and respect must prevail. The thread has degenerated into petty bickering.
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 28th January 2009, 23:09
John Callon John Callon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 376
Derbyshire

I agree with the post by macphail that it is time this thread should be closed. It seems to me that the whole episode has degenerated into an argument between experts (?) on ship construction as to who is right and who is wrong, with no thought or compassion being given to those poor souls who lost their lives on this vessel. Having sailed with Bibbys for a good number of years, I personally knew six of the crew members including the Captain having sailed with them on various ships within the Bibby Line fleet, who perished on that fateful voyage. It would be appreciated if some dignity and rememberance could be observed regarding this disaster, instead of all the petty bickering.
Many thanks,
John Callon.
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 28th January 2009, 23:38
R904444 R904444 is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - 1989
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
My location
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chouan View Post
When I was on her she was called the "Kona"; she was managed and manned by Denholms, along with the Sir Alexander Glen, then called "Helm", which was in equally poor condition, I was told by those who sailed on her. I, fortunately, was never called upon to do so.
I joined the the Cast Kittiwake in Rotterdam on 21/07/82 as 4/E and at this time she had just had major repairs done in the frame 65 area, I was shown one of the frames that had been removed which was very badly cracked. I don't know if the repairs were to builder's specs but on that trip we carried iron ore from Brazil to Japan and then oil from the Gulf to Augusta, Sicily via the Suez canal. There were no major structural problems during this trip.

I was also on the Cast Heron (Ex Nordic Chieftan) when it changed its name to 'Helm' in End June early July 1983 when Cast allegedly went bust (rumour on board at the time), maybe John Cassels can shine some light on this. She was at built in Sunderland to a different design to the Kittiwake. We carried one oil cargo on that trip.

Her Sister was the Nordic Crusader which could probably start a new thread wth the Loch Striven lay up and problems she had in the engine room - crankshaft moved on main shrinks after Main Engine cylinder(s) filled with water!

Andy McArthur
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 29th January 2009, 08:12
Bill Davies Bill Davies is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Callon View Post
I agree with the post by macphail that it is time this thread should be closed. It seems to me that the whole episode has degenerated into an argument between experts (?) on ship construction as to who is right and who is wrong, with no thought or compassion being given to those poor souls who lost their lives on this vessel. Having sailed with Bibbys for a good number of years, I personally knew six of the crew members including the Captain having sailed with them on various ships within the Bibby Line fleet, who perished on that fateful voyage. It would be appreciated if some dignity and rememberance could be observed regarding this disaster, instead of all the petty bickering.
Many thanks,
John Callon.
John,
I do not think the thread should be closed down and conversely would say that by doing so would show disrespect to those who lost their lives in this tragedy. Every so often, the request you make is made for the same reason but I believe it is nothing more than people playing the 'emotional card'.
I have commanded many of this type of vessel, some slightly larger and a few slightly smaller than 'Derbyshire' but nonetheless have many years cumulative sea time in this class alone to bring to the table. I have a genuine interest in the operation of these vessels and I believe the Final Enquiry bought a 'sort of' peace to the incident without addressing the real issues. Why? Because the FI was also confronted with 'no go ' areas similar to what you are suggesting here.

Bickering? I leave that for those who have 'heard about it' or 'read about it'

Brgds

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #841  
Old 29th January 2009, 08:50
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chouan View Post
Sorry, my mistake, I'd always thought, clearly erroneously, that the 'Glen and the 'Hunter became the Kona and the Helm.

"What do you mean - one of Bill's invisibles ?."

I am one of 7 or 8 members who have disagreed with Bill, and consequently put on an "ignore" facility, open to all members, which means that he can't see my posts. As far as the repairs are concerned, I've described them, so how are they fanciful?

If you are referring to your post # 52 , then you havn't described anything.

Anyway , for the benefit of yourself and jmcg regarding his assertion that
the Cast Kittiwake needed extensive work to restore her to class in 1982 ;

Found my old files and spend yesterday afternoon strolling down OBO
memory lane. Did not find much of importance regarding the Kittiwake but
found quite a few horror stories about the other Cast OBOs which I had
long forgotten. Heating coils frozen in the stowage position under the
hatch lids and could not be freed to lower to TT and laycan only days away
( can't remember how we got out of that one); Oil ingress into void spaces
cofferdams, pipe tunnels ; deck scrubbers that couldn't get O2 content
down , couldn't keep positive IG pressure after deck seal and a host of
other normal little OBO nightmares . I can see tears of nostalgia from
Bill and Roddy !!.
Regards the Kittiwake , only found the following ;

24 June 1982 ; telex from me to Master ( via Rotterdam agents ) telling him
I wanted hold #9 discharged and emptied first ( probably for outstanding
repair work).
21 July 1982 ; telex from me to Cast head office in Fribourg reporting that
items #16 and 19 cleared from defect list.
20 Sept 1982 ; telex from me to head office saying I had recieved heavy
weather and log abstracts voyage Sepetiba - Singapore from Master.

That's all I found , just routine stuff and nothing about class dramas.
As I said before , she was trading in oil in the Summer of 1981 and I was
on board ( as owners rep ) at the time of frame #65 as indicated by
R 904444. Think it about time you told us EXACTLY where your info
comes from.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 29th January 2009, 08:57
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by R904444 View Post
I joined the the Cast Kittiwake in Rotterdam on 21/07/82 as 4/E and at this time she had just had major repairs done in the frame 65 area, I was shown one of the frames that had been removed which was very badly cracked. I don't know if the repairs were to builder's specs but on that trip we carried iron ore from Brazil to Japan and then oil from the Gulf to Augusta, Sicily via the Suez canal. There were no major structural problems during this trip.

I was also on the Cast Heron (Ex Nordic Chieftan) when it changed its name to 'Helm' in End June early July 1983 when Cast allegedly went bust (rumour on board at the time), maybe John Cassels can shine some light on this. She was at built in Sunderland to a different design to the Kittiwake. We carried one oil cargo on that trip.

Her Sister was the Nordic Crusader which could probably start a new thread wth the Loch Striven lay up and problems she had in the engine room - crankshaft moved on main shrinks after Main Engine cylinder(s) filled with water!

Andy McArthur
Morning Andy,

Cast didn't go exactly bust but had the rug pulled away from underneath by
A Canadian consortium who had been funding the two new building OBOs.
Most of the existing OBO fleet had then to be sold off.

Ah , the Nordic Chieftain and Crusader , sailed on both of them ............
and the nightmares return .
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 29th January 2009, 10:56
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
"If you are referring to your post # 52 , then you haven't described anything."

I'm sorry, I thought I did. I'll refresh your memory.

“"Sir John Hunter:
1974, later renamed Cast Kittiwake, then Kona. Needed deck cracks repaired."
Whilst not criticising the above, the repair work on the above vessel was far more extensive.
Certainly by 1986-7 when I sailed on her she also had extensive doubling plates, extra repair work, extensive large brackets etc etc in pump room along bulkhead. Much, MUCH, more than deck cracks repaired. The repairs, especially the cracks, were inspected every three days, according to the ship's standing orders, in case of the cracks re-appearing, or new ones making an appearance.”

Now, I may only have been a lowly Second Mate on her, and may not have had extensive experience of the operational and management side of OBOs, but, to me, that is a description.
It is a description based on what I saw, on a ship that I sailed on. Not what I heard, not what I read about, not what I was told, but what I saw. I didn't measure the size of the brackets, I didn't see the paperwork; when one is doing cargo watches on sixes and preparing the charts and courses for the next voyage one has other concerns. However, they were big brackets, I would guess, from memory, about 15' by 8' and 11/2" thick, and were clearly retro fitted. They were substantially buckled. The doubling plates along the deck were also substantial, there were substantial patches inside the pump room as well as on the bulkhead the other side of the bulkhead from the pumproom.
To me, this is merely elaborating on my earlier description. Because I don't have notes, drawings and technical information to draw from does not make my description "fanciful", nor does it make it invalid. It certainly doesn't mean that I haven't described anything. Perhaps I haven't described anything in a way that you wish it to be described. Perhaps you can tell me, or the membership, how you would like me to describe what I saw if the above is insufficient?

As far as seaworthyness is concerned, I have already indicated that some of her bulkheads weren't sound. Her deck was paper thin in places and "bounced" as one walked across it.
We loaded oil at Sullom Voe and were only passed as "safe"(!) because of our flag; there was no inspection! Again, I haven't been told any of this, I was on watch with the Mate when the "safety inspection" took place. It helped in that the inspector was ex-Denholms and was sympathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 29th January 2009, 14:20
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,573
John.c I suggest you read your 827 CAREFULLY again you will see that it is in two parts the first part IS MINE which begin's "There is No Evidence etc" the second part was added by jmcg regarding retro repairs, although it is in the same font, You will have a long time waiting for me to come on Watch especially when It's not my turn.

Bill Davies. you are the very chap who introduced the theory on this Forum that the Crew left this hatch open/unsecured WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, not myself, I and other's find this distasteful which is why you blocked them out, unfortunatly you appeared to have based this theory on your own experience which speaks volume's for your style of seamanship, Both jmcg, myself and other's have sailed and experienced Furness built O.B.O's. Tell me which one did you serve on?
As far as your comment about the Botlek, that's what the O.B.O's I served on were built for, the contract was to supply Krupp's (the Botlek being the offloading Port) and we sailed under their houseflag. Once the Contract finished the ships were sold off. Not rocket science is it.
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 29th January 2009, 15:58
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,933
Chadburn , you are indeed correct.

Chouan , I'm not going to get into a dispute with you as this thread is not
the appropriate place but you quote several statements "abundance of tragic
history ............"; ëxtensive doubling plates, extra repair work ,extensive large brackets etc etc ......"

But this is not the point , you may well be correct but can hardly be called
a desciption ( you do a little better in the middle part of yr #866 ).

The point is , these are repairs you saw in 1986-1987 my whereas sticking
point is jmcg's annoying inference that 4-5 years earlier under Cast
ownership in 1982 she was nearly out of class.
This I would like clarified from his side.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 29th January 2009, 19:37
Steve Woodward Steve Woodward is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
My location
Posts: 1
Gentlemen,
The Derbyshire and the loss of all 44 people on board is a tragedy that few of us will forget, but the interests and memory of those lost is not best served by petty personal bickering.
Remember relatives of those who were lost may read this forum, so please treat this thread with the respect it deserves
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 29th January 2009, 19:48
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Davies View Post
Incorrect like most of your over emotional posts. I have always believed that the initiating event for the ingress was through the access hatch. That is far from saying the crew left the hatch open. I do not have the facility to edit/block posts. My seamanship in question from a RN/MN Chief Engineer ....please!

Try constructive responses rather than playing to the gallery. As for rocket science I do not believe you could comprehend it or seamanship for that matter.
Members do, however have the ability to block posts for themselves, ie. so that they can't see posts from members whose posts they don't wish to see. Posts #97 and #109 in this thread both refer to Bill’s “ignore” list, which he here seems to know nothing about, in post #110 he agrees to an inclusion to that list.

John, you've made some good points in some good posts in this thread, but your tone is increasingly patronising, I'm afraid.

"But this is not the point , you may well be correct but can hardly be called a desciption ( you do a little better in the middle part of yr #866 )."

D- could do better, take a hundred lines: I must pay more attention to detail, especially when engaged in conversations with my elders and betters.

Clearly this thread is now reserved for senior people only, people with only 2 stripes who merely sailed on the ships are obviously commenting under suffrance. It would be funny if the background wasn't so tragic.
I'll get my coat.
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 30th January 2009, 08:41
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Woodward View Post
Gentlemen,
The Derbyshire and the loss of all 44 people on board is a tragedy that few of us will forget, but the interests and memory of those lost is not best served by petty personal bickering.
Remember relatives of those who were lost may read this forum, so please treat this thread with the respect it deserves
Steve , you are indeed correct. The main subject started to slip away
early on and it shouldn't have.

We should actually start another thread - (S)crappy obos - for example.
If I do , I may refer to various posts on the Derbyshire thread but not to
the ship herself. Would that be acceptable ?.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 30th January 2009, 18:15
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,573
jcmg, in answer to your query regarding drawings for the Derbyshire. The only drawing's showing her ""as built" will have been aboard her, there is a reason for this, let me know if you want to know the reason why this is, it is not unusual.
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel

Last edited by chadburn; 30th January 2009 at 18:17..
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 30th January 2009, 20:12
Steve Woodward Steve Woodward is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
My location
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
Steve , you are indeed correct. The main subject started to slip away
early on and it shouldn't have.

We should actually start another thread - (S)crappy obos - for example.
If I do , I may refer to various posts on the Derbyshire thread but not to
the ship herself. Would that be acceptable ?.
I see no problem with that
Steve
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Derbyshire trotterdotpom Wrecks 4 27th August 2013 01:44
Huntfield Pat McCardle Tankers 8 24th September 2005 12:41



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.