[ian keyl]

Can any of the engineers or also those on deck in Ben Line know which vessels were fitted with Flume tanks.
I sailed on the Valla ,Wyvis,Ledi and Dearg and I know the Valla had one and Donald Cowie used to try and get it to work with the Ch/engr George MacDonald but it was a failure , I cant remember the Wyvis having one ,I thought they had stopped putting them in as they were not a success on the earlier class of vessels, any thoughts please.

 

[gypcoll]

As someone who came ashore in 1964, i had never heard of flume tanks, however i have done some searching on the intertnet, and by all accounts are a failure. What is fitted on box boats these days to prevent them rolling with the high amount of boxes. Interesting subject,

 

[Derek Roger]

Brocklebanks Maihar and Mahsud had flume tanks which when filled to the correct levels they worked fine ( there was as I recollect some formula and chart to be referred too and somthing to do with the GM )
They do not stop the rolling totally but alter the period of the roll which makes for a more comfortable trip .

 

[Wallace Slough]

I only sailed on one ship that had flume tanks, and that was the passenger ship President Wilson. They were quite effective, but she didn't carry a lot of cargo and the GM was fairly static. The ship had a strange feel to a seaman not used to flume tanks. She'd start to roll and the liquid in the flume tank would be on the opposite side of the roll and dampen it. It was a strange feeling but quite effective in reducing the magnitude of the roll. I would think it would be difficult to use on a freighter due to the constant change in GM.
I understand that the new pilot boats in San Francisco also have flume tanks and I believe they've worked out well. Again, minimal change in GM.

 

[Joe Freeman]

Hi Ian I remember the Flume tank on Benvalla and I would think that the Benloyal, Bengloe and Benarmin would have similar flume tanks as they were the same class of ship. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the tank was filled to a required level depending on the displacement during each voyage. And did the Valla have extra wide bilge keels as well.
Joe.

 

[ian keyl]

Hi there Joe,
Yes the Valla had one and I assume the other three had it also, I know the Gloe always leaned to port and the loyal also crabed. I am not sure of the Armin ,Yes the Valla had a deep bilge keel about two foot or more and we had 550 tons of permanent ballast (railway lines) in after end lower hold No2 and about 400 tons in aft end No 6 either side of the shaft tunnel.
there was some rule for the flume tank it was draft GM and state of sea as to how much water you put in also how often you were rolling . the flume tank ran the full width in after end of No 4 hatch it was about ( ft high and about 6 feet from E/R bulkhead .
I never remember one on the Wyvis because on the Valla there was a plaque on the bulkhead in the chartroom next to the Kidde Smoke detector.

 

[Joe Freeman]

I am quite glad to know that my memory is not failing me. I understood also that there were baffles or wiers placed strategically across the inside of the flume tank to create a systematic barrier to control and restrict the flow and prevent the water from sloshing violently from one side of the tank to the other. I seem to remember that the tank was opened once for inspection during a drydock in Hamburg or maybe it was Hong Kong.
Joe.

 

[ian keyl]

Morning Joe,
I was talking to Fraser or George Walker as many of us knew him he was mate on the Valla from very early days with Capt Seaton Murray.
Fraser said that the flume tank was in No 4 after end but was put out of commission early days when the torpedo style baffle inside came loose and was sloshing too and fro and was in danger of going through the ships side. the designer of the flume tank was on board on the maiden voyage and Fraser thinks he was Canadian . It was effective in slowing down the roll but never eliminated it and if homeward bound in Indian Ocean with following sea and swell the Valla just increased her roll due to the finess of her hull on 48 feet of sheer straight plating.
The Flume tank was also a danger if she did not work and in heavy seas with water stuck in the tank on one side could increase possibility of her rolling over.

 

[Waighty]

I don't know whether it was Flume or not but when I was on 'Salmaster' of the RMAS a forced air and water anti-roll system was fitted. On sea trials we left Aberdeen in a Force 9 and after a while with the ship rolling heavily I asked when the stablising system was going to be tested, to which I got the reply "it's been on for the last half hour". After acceptance we never used the system again! Given that North Sea swells cand be short and steep, maybe the system couldn't cope with the fast rolling. I suppose it might have worked better in a long low open-ocean swell.

 

[Duncan112]

OCL's Baby Bays had the flume tank system, seemingly it was unsuccessful and the tanks were void spaces, inspected annually. IIRC there were two variables to take into account when deciding how full to have them, GM and draft. I suspect one prolem was the high fuel consumption which would cause both to change on an hourly basis.

 

[Supergoods]

The flume tanks on the Baby Bays were active in 1972 when I left for other pastures. Talking to one of the naval architects involved it seems that the design deckload was 2high and 10 wide which was only half of the 3high forward and 4high aft with 12 wide as operated when I left.
Ian

 

[george e mitchell]

Stood by the building of four 8000 hp oil field supply vessels being built by DRYPOOL
SHIPYARD in Hull.for use in the North Sea The year was 1971 These ships were each fitted with flume tanks, after it was found the first vessel was excessively active so to speak.

I WAS CHIEF ENG ON ALL FOUR SHIPS OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.

After a very short time none of the skippers would use the tanks especially in the north sea in winter. or anywhere near a rig, loading or unloading. in
increment weather conditions. which in winter was normal

one of the reasons for installation was to make the ship less active when
loading / discharging at the rig. but it could be said it was a failure.

Over the years I was there every new skipper had a go with it, but all came
to the same conclusion. get it emptied quick.


They had enough to contend with the sea sloshing up the cargo deck and cargos
of drill pipe and containers If the ship did start to list the tank would make it worse,

The tank was full width of the vessel, about 10 feet high 10 feet long situated
between the exhaust funnels on the same level as the bridge.Blocking some some of the view of the aft working deck

.