Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

VicS said:
I dont know what link and picture you are referring to but I do remember a picture that showed a chain.

From what I remember it was not the main anchor chain. That was pointed out at the time.

It seemed to come from deck level and IMHO was a lot lighter that the main anchor chain would be.
Click to expand...

Thought it was concluded that that was a ladder.
 
VicS said:
I dont know what link and picture you are referring to but I do remember a picture that showed a chain.

From what I remember it was not the main anchor chain. That was pointed out at the time.

It seemed to come from deck level and IMHO was a lot lighter that the main anchor chain would be.
Click to expand...
I think he is referring to link in post 725. Looks like it could be starboard chain.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to this; nb in the background

Costa_Concordia_29_maxsize_735_490.jpg
 
Seajet, the photo you refer to shows the cable leaving the hawse vertically. If the vessel had been moving it could still look like this since she was drawing about 10 metres and is now lying on her side in 30 metres so there would be slack.

If the photo shown by Rosemarie is of the actual anchor on the starboard side then it clearly shows the anchor was only let go after the vessel had stopped moving otherwise it would not be looped all over the flukes and shank.

On this basis the starboard anchor was not used.

A view of both ends of the port anchor and cable would prove interesting.
 
Looks like someone obeyed the classic advice "not to go aground with an anchor in the pipe"!

Looking at it now I think:

1. She was a dead ship due to flooding of the engine room spaces immediately after the impact.

2. The emergency generator(s) started correctly.

3. She heeled to port initally then rolled to starboard and assumed a loll to starboard, perhaps due to free surface in the engine spaces.

4. She just drifted ashore, grounding on her starboard bilge.

5. The anchor(s) were dropped at this point.

6. After she took the ground, she continued to downflood, and after a while she lurched violently to starboard as the cg shift took effect

7. The lurch to starboard put the deck edge under and from then on she would downflood faster.

8. The infra-red video from the chopper shows her much higher in the water than she is now.
 
Last edited:
I think the engines are electric and in the pods. A common configuration is to have 4 pods or so. Two of which are fixed, and two which can be rotated through 360 degrees. I don't think a bow thruster would be fitted to a ship like this as there should be enough manouvrability with the 4 pods.

E.g. port out ahead, starboard outer astern to turn the bow to starboard and then the two other pods at 90 degrees to push the stern to starboard as well for docking to starboard.

There is usually a certain flexibility to switch some generating capacity between propulsion and hotel.
 
michaelchapman said:
I think the engines are electric and in the pods. A common configuration is to have 4 pods or so. Two of which are fixed, and two which can be rotated through 360 degrees. I don't think a bow thruster would be fitted to a ship like this as there should be enough manouvrability with the 4 pods.

E.g. port out ahead, starboard outer astern to turn the bow to starboard and then the two other pods at 90 degrees to push the stern to starboard as well for docking to starboard.

There is usually a certain flexibility to switch some generating capacity between propulsion and hotel.
Click to expand...

Not sure about these pods, but some that I've used, don't like being run in astern & usual method of using 'astern' is to rotate 180 & run 'ahead'.
 
Since the upper part of the cable seems to stretch towards the light at the background of the photograph it would appear to be the port cable and again it suggests that the anchor was not dropped until the vessel was stationary.
 
An apt Churchillian quote...I don't know if it's in the thread, too many to read.

'There are 3 things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship. First, their cuisine is unsurpassed. Second, their service is superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first.'
 
Whilst the true cause of this disaster will come out worth speculating on comment by Captain that rocks were not shown on chart.
On my paper charts of the north west coast of Scotland inshore areas that have not been resurveyed for 50 years;100 years;150 years are marked up in bottom right hand corner.
However as I recall this info. does not appear on the Admiralty/RYA chart plotter charts.
On one GPS plotting system a detail chart of Arisaig bay appears despite the fact that the Admiralty has not published on for 100 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

MontyMariner
Battery failure
2
Replies
20
Views
813
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top