Derbyshire - Page 2 - Ships Nostalgia
16:37

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
  #26  
Old 30th December 2006, 16:12
steviej's Avatar
steviej steviej is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1969 - 1981
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 851
Correct.

Water entered the hatch in the severe storm after the hatch was forced off by the sea. I sailed on the Furness Bridge in 1974. The sea forced the hatch open and filled the foscle in a bad storm. Obviously this was a fault on all six of the ships built to this design. The Kowloon Bridge was the other sister ship to sink off Southern Ireland. The ships were a real nightmare. Cracks in the pumproom and rocker springs were always falling off.
steviej
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEEJ View Post
The latest version of the loss was down to a defective
design of the focsle hatch.Apparently it was customary to secure the hatch with extra lashings as it was known to spring open in any weather. Unfortunately the lost crew were not aware of this defect and this started a chain reaction of events once water started entering the focsle.The discontinuation of the longitudinals was considered not a cause of the loss I believe. I think all the sister ships cracked here and one was lost through it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 1st January 2007, 15:47
michael higgins michael higgins is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
quietman:: i to was on tyne bridge before the derbyshire disaster she was an absolute rust bucket,it was back in 1976 and she was only about 4 year old.do you know if theres any pics of her any where
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 6th February 2007, 21:13
DICK SLOAN's Avatar
DICK SLOAN DICK SLOAN is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 5,249
I remember it really well too, i was on the P&O Strathdoon SD14 and we were near her' the weather was terrible and the worse thing is you cant do nothing...it was a sad loss.

Last edited by DICK SLOAN; 6th February 2007 at 21:15..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11th February 2007, 09:42
Dick S Dick S is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1966 - 1986
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
My location
Posts: 234
I sailed on the Eden Bridge, built in Japan to same plan I remember seeing a picture of Eden Bridge broke in halfe alongside a quay somewhere in South America when the loading arm would not shut down. (new name by then)
Dick
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11th February 2007, 23:06
Orcadian Orcadian is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Port Authorities
Department: Deck
Active: 1973 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 207
she was alongside in Septiba in Brazil. I sailed on her as a cadet in about 1975
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 17th February 2007, 13:42
steviej's Avatar
steviej steviej is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1969 - 1981
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 851
Derbyshire. youtube

Someone has put the assesors computor simulator on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhaP...elated&search=
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 17th February 2007, 15:44
JoK JoK is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,057
I seen this when I was on a Lloyds hull course. If I hadn't seen the taping of the Gold Bond Conveyor going into a wave and never coming out the other side, I would never have believe a ship could sink in the time that simulation ran.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 18th February 2007, 09:35
David Byrne David Byrne is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Derbyshire Hatch Covers

I gave evidence at the Re-opened Formal Enquiry into the loss of the DERBYSHIRE, in particular as to the likely cause(s) of her loss.

After the initial enquiry which to most observers was inadequate, the families campaigned long and hard to get it re-opened. They were/are remarkable people.

After a great deal of a careful analysis of miles of underwate video evidence and a long hearing, the enquiry found as follows:

1. It was not a structural failure of the main hull - the relevant section was found on the seabed and very closely studied with various underwater videos. It had nor suffered from the kind of cacking that had been much talked about.

2. It most definitely was not the focsle hatch that failed or was left open. This was agin proven in the Enquiry. (Although the old-fashioned design was criticised).

3. The primary cause of failure was the inadequate strength of the No1 and No2 cargo hatch covers to withstand the loads coming from very large amounts of water on deck in typhoon conditions. No 1 collapsed and No 2 followed suit very soon after. I found and analysed every piece of the nine sets of hatch covers and No 1 was clearly punched in whereas all of the others imploded as she sank. The existing international law (Safety of Life at Sea) is inadequate as far as foward end hatch covers are concerned, and has been since at least 1966.

4. Damage to the foocsle vents could have led to water ingress to the forward spaces, making hatch cover collapse even more likely, by pulling the forward draft down (a bit).

Once the No 1 hatch failed the ship would have sunk by the bow in about 2 minutes in about 4000m of water. The time was about midnight.

As a result, hatch covers have been made stronger by Classification Societies (even though the International Law is still inadequate); focsles are preferred to no focsles; fore deck hatches are given special attention; forward vents are now stronger.

The Enquiry found that the crew and the owners had no fault. All involved had huge sympathy for the crew and their families (who were actually heros). The end result, after over 20 years waiting, was a big improvement to ship safety - not much of a monument to those on the DERBYSHIRE, but justice in the end.

David Byrne
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 18th February 2007, 13:12
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
David,

Thank you for a particularly erudite comment on this sad case and it is more than useful to have a worthwile and accurate assessment of the real facts. Well done Sir.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 20th February 2007, 08:56
pentlandpirate's Avatar
pentlandpirate pentlandpirate is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 163
I was on "Sevonia Team", 103,000 dwt OBO carrying iron ore from Peru to Korea in 1978 when we went into the heavy weather surrounding a typhoon off Japan at that time. The circumstances were probably just like those experienced by the "Derbyshire" just two years later. I was only a 19 year old first trip deck cadet, and even on such a large ship, it took alot to scare me. But lying in my bunk at night, in the dark, feeling the ship crashing into the waves I was pretty scared. Even 29 years later I remember thinking, here we go again, as every minute or so we would hit a big one. Even 700 feet or so aft of the bows you could feel the shock through the hull, the flexing of the steel, and the pitching downwards. Time and again I thought as we tilted down, is this the one, the one where the bow caves in, and we just slip down and down into the fathomless depths of the Pacific Ocean. https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/galler...00/ppuser/8383

With the iron ore sitting deep in the ship forming a great pendulum, dense piles of weight sitting centrally in each hold, you knew the ship was pretty stressed. None of us know exactly what happened to the Derbyshire, but I will not be alone on this website in knowing what it was like to go close to the point of disaster, that fine line between life and death.

In some ways that was all part of the thrill of going to sea as a boy, and returning a man, having seen the world.

Last edited by pentlandpirate; 20th February 2007 at 12:47..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11th March 2007, 21:51
texasrv texasrv is offline  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2
I think the latest enquiry decided that the fo'castle had flooded due to an insecure manhatch, this put the ship down by the head and then the no1 hatch collapsed under heavy seas, then the ship was quickly swamped and wnet straignt under. I remember that some of the 'deductions' might have been flawed though. They found the manhatch on the sea floor and because the dogs were no bent decided they must not have been tightened?! also they found the no1 hatch cover folded like a piece of paper and decided it must have neen folded on the surface by waves. But if the hatch lid came loose as the vessel sank (very deep) couldn't the cover have folded ont he way down. I may be wrong but i don't think they found evidence of the ship cracking on the surface.
Unlike the MSC Napoli at the momemnt!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 17th March 2007, 11:10
Hague Hague is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 487
Derbyshire

Nobody seems to be addressing alternate holds loading and its implications.
Brgds
Hague
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 2nd April 2007, 03:53
tim frary tim frary is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
i saild on the sir john hunter 14 10 74 she was sister ship to sir alexander glen we had a crack appear on deck on route from brazil to japan and had a repair crew with us all the way back to cape town and that was only her second trip . all the best tim
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 4th April 2007, 22:02
Hague Hague is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 487
Tim,
I am afraid your story is common place on Iron Ore Carriers. The alternate hold loading (promoted by many ports to reduce shifting) exasperated an already poor position. Having sailed as Ch.Off and Master of these vessels (Cape Size and larger) in the 70s I became paranoid about 'crack developmment' and undertook a discreet daily inspection in order not to alarm the crew. Walking nonchalantly around the decks 'eyeing' all the corners of the hatches iwo main deck (invariably 9).
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10th April 2007, 19:51
Janner100's Avatar
Janner100 Janner100 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
My location
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlandpirate View Post
.....Time and again I thought as we tilted down, is this the one, the one where the bow caves in, and we just slip down and down into the fathomless depths of the Pacific Ocean. https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/galler...00/ppuser/8383

With the iron ore sitting deep in the ship forming a great pendulum, dense piles of weight sitting centrally in each hold, you knew the ship was pretty stressed. None of us know exactly what happened to the Derbyshire, but I will not be alone on this website in knowing what it was like to go close to the point of disaster, that fine line between life and death.

In some ways that was all part of the thrill of going to sea as a boy, and returning a man, having seen the world.
Amen to that thought
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 19th April 2007, 21:31
Hague Hague is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byrne View Post
I gave evidence at the Re-opened Formal Enquiry into the loss of the DERBYSHIRE, in particular as to the likely cause(s) of her loss.

After the initial enquiry which to most observers was inadequate, the families campaigned long and hard to get it re-opened. They were/are remarkable people.

After a great deal of a careful analysis of miles of underwate video evidence and a long hearing, the enquiry found as follows:

1. It was not a structural failure of the main hull - the relevant section was found on the seabed and very closely studied with various underwater videos. It had nor suffered from the kind of cacking that had been much talked about.

2. It most definitely was not the focsle hatch that failed or was left open. This was agin proven in the Enquiry. (Although the old-fashioned design was criticised).

3. The primary cause of failure was the inadequate strength of the No1 and No2 cargo hatch covers to withstand the loads coming from very large amounts of water on deck in typhoon conditions. No 1 collapsed and No 2 followed suit very soon after. I found and analysed every piece of the nine sets of hatch covers and No 1 was clearly punched in whereas all of the others imploded as she sank. The existing international law (Safety of Life at Sea) is inadequate as far as foward end hatch covers are concerned, and has been since at least 1966.

4. Damage to the foocsle vents could have led to water ingress to the forward spaces, making hatch cover collapse even more likely, by pulling the forward draft down (a bit).

Once the No 1 hatch failed the ship would have sunk by the bow in about 2 minutes in about 4000m of water. The time was about midnight.

As a result, hatch covers have been made stronger by Classification Societies (even though the International Law is still inadequate); focsles are preferred to no focsles; fore deck hatches are given special attention; forward vents are now stronger.

The Enquiry found that the crew and the owners had no fault. All involved had huge sympathy for the crew and their families (who were actually heros). The end result, after over 20 years waiting, was a big improvement to ship safety - not much of a monument to those on the DERBYSHIRE, but justice in the end.

David Byrne
Always get a little uneasy when inquiries state 'It most definitely was not' as in 2 above.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 8th May 2007, 12:18
Ventry Ventry is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 152
Foc'sle Hatch Dogging

Have issues with Dave Byrnes post.

3. The primary cause: Thought that would have been the 'root cause' which caused the vessel to Change her Trim! Not a consequence!

2. It most definitely was not ...leaves me a little uneasy also


Maybe I too should get an EDUCATION!!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 14th May 2007, 13:58
pete turner's Avatar
pete turner pete turner is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
liverpool bridge-regards
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 20th May 2007, 14:01
rossaspden rossaspden is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5
Tynebridge

I served on the Tynebridge ( Derbyshire sister ship ) I beleive she was later renamed Kowloon Bridge after we had a long lay up period in Greece. The ship was plagued with problems and a nightmare to work on.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 25th June 2007, 13:48
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
I was 2/0 on the Kona/Sir John Hunter in the late 80's, she was also a heap of s...e. The Pumproom was dangerous to work, the main cargo valve hydraulic pumps in the duct keel weren't strong enough to control the valves when under pressure and had to be helped with a big stilson, the pumproom bulkhead was doubled with repair patchhes and still had to be inspected in heavy weather in case the cracks got worse.
When I joined the Old Man greeted me with "Some of the valves don't pass, and some of the bulkheads are sound".
Wonderful! Whilst I was away the Kowloon Bridge broke up. My wife got even more worried when she realiosed that the Kona was a sistership!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28th June 2007, 17:52
M29's Avatar
M29 M29 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1966 - 1977
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
My location
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej View Post
Water entered the hatch in the severe storm after the hatch was forced off by the sea. I sailed on the Furness Bridge in 1974. The sea forced the hatch open and filled the foscle in a bad storm. Obviously this was a fault on all six of the ships built to this design. The Kowloon Bridge was the other sister ship to sink off Southern Ireland. The ships were a real nightmare. Cracks in the pumproom and rocker springs were always falling off.
steviej
Steviej, can you name all six sisters for me? I was on English Bridge, brand new in 1973, was she a true sister to Derbyshire?
I assume English Bridge also changed her name later
Best Wishes
Alan
__________________
BEST BENT WIRE
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 4th July 2007, 14:46
John Graham John Graham is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byrne View Post
I gave evidence at the Re-opened Formal Enquiry into the loss of the DERBYSHIRE, in particular as to the likely cause(s) of her loss.

After the initial enquiry which to most observers was inadequate, the families campaigned long and hard to get it re-opened. They were/are remarkable people.

After a great deal of a careful analysis of miles of underwate video evidence and a long hearing, the enquiry found as follows:

1. It was not a structural failure of the main hull - the relevant section was found on the seabed and very closely studied with various underwater videos. It had nor suffered from the kind of cacking that had been much talked about.

2. It most definitely was not the focsle hatch that failed or was left open. This was agin proven in the Enquiry. (Although the old-fashioned design was criticised).

3. The primary cause of failure was the inadequate strength of the No1 and No2 cargo hatch covers to withstand the loads coming from very large amounts of water on deck in typhoon conditions. No 1 collapsed and No 2 followed suit very soon after. I found and analysed every piece of the nine sets of hatch covers and No 1 was clearly punched in whereas all of the others imploded as she sank. The existing international law (Safety of Life at Sea) is inadequate as far as foward end hatch covers are concerned, and has been since at least 1966.

4. Damage to the foocsle vents could have led to water ingress to the forward spaces, making hatch cover collapse even more likely, by pulling the forward draft down (a bit).

Once the No 1 hatch failed the ship would have sunk by the bow in about 2 minutes in about 4000m of water. The time was about midnight.

As a result, hatch covers have been made stronger by Classification Societies (even though the International Law is still inadequate); focsles are preferred to no focsles; fore deck hatches are given special attention; forward vents are now stronger.

The Enquiry found that the crew and the owners had no fault. All involved had huge sympathy for the crew and their families (who were actually heros). The end result, after over 20 years waiting, was a big improvement to ship safety - not much of a monument to those on the DERBYSHIRE, but justice in the end.

David Byrne
I sailed on the Sir Alexander Glen and so can appreciate this subject is one that raises emotions. I was at Southampton Tech College at the time of the Derbyshire sinking and remember the reaction of some of the Bibby cadets who knew some of those that were lost. It was about a year later when I sailed on the Sir Alexander Glen. Like Broadbandylegs, I too sailed from Canada to Japan. Quite possibly the same trip. She was, as somebody else mentioned, hard work.
Some years ago I saw a program on the TV about the Derbyshire. A Danish professor had conducted experiments on a large wave tank. If I remember the numbers correctly, he stated that the hatch covers were designed to cope with about 1.5m head of water on them. His experiments suggested that in certain conditions it was quite possible that the head of water on the hatch covers could have been as much as 5m. This could tie in with what you have said above. One other theory that might fit in with this is one I heard being expressed by a naval architecture. He was of the belief that in order to save money on construction, many ships built in the 70's and 80's didn't have raised bows, and this was a possible cause of the huge losses that occured in shipping at that time. A result of the bow going under the waves in heavy seas.

Whatever happened, it was a tragic loss for all concerned, and one can only hope that lessons were learned all round with regard to ships construction.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 4th July 2007, 15:29
Chouan Chouan is offline  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,579
My brother knew a bloke who was a welder at Haverton Hill at the time. There was considerable industrial unrest at the time and he told my brother that, unless they were closely supervised, they welded by stuffing the area to be joined with welding rods, then welding a skin over the top so that it looked like a sound weld. As they were paid piece work, in effect, it meant that they got more work 'done' in a given time. Obviously welds were inspected, but, how realistic is it to expect that every inch of a weld is tested.
It doesn't argue against the cause of the sinking, but it does speak volumes for the quality of the build.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 5th July 2007, 20:47
LEEJ's Avatar
LEEJ LEEJ is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
My location
Posts: 566
I heard the same story years ago regarding the replacement Atlantic Conveyor.Hope those welders have a nice life.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 8th August 2007, 22:01
760J9's Avatar
760J9 760J9 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 170
Dave Ramwell and Tim Madge wrote a very detailed book on the loss of the Derbyshire and accounts of her sisters. included are a lot of diagrams and several photos including the wreck of Kowloon Bridge that was sold to a scrap merchant for 1. The book is "A Ship Too Far, the mystery of the Derbyshire" published by Hodder & Stoughton.
ISBN 0-340-56997-2
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.