Marchioness, MCA proposals not yet enacted?

bikedaft

bikedaft

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
3,912
Location
tayvallich
Visit site
as per

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49346082

saying (amongst other things) that historic passenger vessels on fresh water still do not have watertight bulkheads retrospectively fitted (generally).

could some of the inertia be due to roro's having none on the cargo deck either?

seems unfair to spotlight historic vessels, in sheltered waters, but not seagoing large passenger vessels in potentially rough seas?
 
Shortly before the time of the Marchioness sinking my wife and I were invited to a policeman's 60th birthday bash held on one of these Thames river boats (it may even have been the Marchioness).

She was an old boat and her once open upper deck had had a saloon built completely over it with just a small open area at bow and stern. The only means of exiting from the vessel was by small doors at the forward and aft ends of this saloon.

Practically everyone got uproariously drunk as the boat sailed aimlessly up and down a short stretch of the river and I remember commenting to my wife that situation was dangerous because in the event of a sinking, the chance of all these drunken people being safely evacuated was nil.

I am not, for one moment, suggesting that drink played any part in the heavy loss of life in the Marchioness. But even perfectly sober people would have had little chance of escaping her.
 
bikedaft said:
as per

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49346082

saying (amongst other things) that historic passenger vessels on fresh water still do not have watertight bulkheads retrospectively fitted (generally).

could some of the inertia be due to roro's having none on the cargo deck either?

seems unfair to spotlight historic vessels, in sheltered waters, but not seagoing large passenger vessels in potentially rough seas?
Click to expand...
Agreed, i understand that many empty box`s are carried on container ships, as its cheaper than paying shore side dock storage. So yes 40ft air bags
 
It's often hugely expensive sometimes impossible to satisfactorily modify a historic vessel and still retain its historicity. A fairly typical pen-pusher reaction to a one off tragedy.

Ro-Ro car ferries are required by law to compartmentalise the car decks following the Herald of Free Enterprise accident. They are inherently unseaworthy unless the watertight doors are shut against ingress of large amounts of water. It's exactly the same your dinghy becoming unstable if it gets too much water in. All that weight moving around just tips it up whether it's an 8ft dinghy or 500ft car ferry. Its called the Free surface effect
 
Poignard said:
Shortly before the time of the Marchioness sinking my wife and I were invited to a policeman's 60th birthday bash held on one of these Thames river boats (it may even have been the Marchioness).

She was an old boat and her once open upper deck had had a saloon built completely over it with just a small open area at bow and stern. The only means of exiting from the vessel was by small doors at the forward and aft ends of this saloon.

Practically everyone got uproariously drunk as the boat sailed aimlessly up and down a short stretch of the river and I remember commenting to my wife that situation was dangerous because in the event of a sinking, the chance of all these drunken people being safely evacuated was nil.

I am not, for one moment, suggesting that drink played any part in the heavy loss of life in the Marchioness. But even perfectly sober people would have had little chance of escaping her.
Click to expand...

I did attend a party on the Marchioness a couple of months before it went down and agree 100% with your comment.
 
The big difference between Herald and the Marchioness is that the Marchioness disaster was best avoided by not having a collision with a larger vessel. Herald, IIRC happened due to the then-common practice of leaving the dock with the bow doors open to clear the fumes from the car deck. No other vessel involved.
 
lw395 said:
The big difference between Herald and the Marchioness is that the Marchioness disaster was best avoided by not having a collision with a larger vessel. Herald, IIRC happened due to the then-common practice of leaving the dock with the bow doors open to clear the fumes from the car deck. No other vessel involved.
Click to expand...
Herald sank because the crewman responsible for closing the door s was asleep in his cabin. There was no way the bridge could check whether the doors were being closed, and they just assumed it was safe to accelerate once clear of the harbour, causing the bow wave to spill into the car deck. A few hundred tons of water aboard and sloshing around the car deck unhindered and that was that. Nowadays they have CCTV as well as voice Comms with car deck.
 
It’s very unusual for structural requirements to be applied retroactively to existing vessels.
In cases where it is required there is usually a 5 or 10 year implantation period after which the vessel must be either modified or replaced.
Without exemptions for historical vessels, there would be many interesting old historic vessels which you would no longer have the opportunity to sail on.
 
BUT inexperienced people just thinking of a floating nightclub should be made aware of such deficiencies before they go aboard and get served drinks, and the skippers & crew of such historic vessels should be top notch, the passengers paying premium rate for premium treatment on classic craft -

If not a classic craft, just old and being used to make money without premium treatment and crew there's a problem.

I'm speaking from experience -

In 1994 I worked on a hotel barge in France which always had elderly guests; despite operating on big fast flowing rivers and being seriously in the middle of nowhere we had no safety instructions or evacuation drills for the guests, no liferafts, no lifejackets, no VHF, no sat -phone, no flares, no First Aid.

I did arrange with the skipper ' if one of them goes over the side I'll throw the only lifering and jump in after ' but any precautions I mentioned after that were took to be moaning - BTW it was not a French run outfit, charged rather high ( :ambivalence: ) fees and making heaps of dosh.
 
oldharry said:
It's often hugely expensive sometimes impossible to satisfactorily modify a historic vessel and still retain its historicity. A fairly typical pen-pusher reaction to a one off tragedy.

Ro-Ro car ferries are required by law to compartmentalise the car decks following the Herald of Free Enterprise accident. They are inherently unseaworthy unless the watertight doors are shut against ingress of large amounts of water. It's exactly the same your dinghy becoming unstable if it gets too much water in. All that weight moving around just tips it up whether it's an 8ft dinghy or 500ft car ferry. Its called the Free surface effect
Click to expand...

I don't recall any sign of that the last time I travelled on a Brittany Ferries boat.

Incidentally, IIRC, the captain of the Herald of Free Enterprise was made scapegoat for the accident. The fact that he had asked for a warning light on the bridge to tell him the bow doors weren't closed properly and management had refused it didn't seem to be relevant.
 
Poignard said:
Shortly before the time of the Marchioness sinking my wife and I were invited to a policeman's 60th birthday bash held on one of these Thames river boats (it may even have been the Marchioness).

She was an old boat and her once open upper deck had had a saloon built completely over it with just a small open area at bow and stern. The only means of exiting from the vessel was by small doors at the forward and aft ends of this saloon.

Practically everyone got uproariously drunk as the boat sailed aimlessly up and down a short stretch of the river and I remember commenting to my wife that situation was dangerous because in the event of a sinking, the chance of all these drunken people being safely evacuated was nil.

I am not, for one moment, suggesting that drink played any part in the heavy loss of life in the Marchioness. But even perfectly sober people would have had little chance of escaping her.
Click to expand...


I think the same on a cross channel ferry.
There is no chance the dining rooms and saloons can be evacuated once the ship starts to list.. Even within the limits of stability one would find it very hard to climb a 30 degree deck towards a door on the upper side.
 
Tomahawk said:
I think the same on a cross channel ferry.
There is no chance the dining rooms and saloons can be evacuated once the ship starts to list.. Even within the limits of stability one would find it very hard to climb a 30 degree deck towards a door on the upper side.
Click to expand...
Or ANY Cruise ship for that matter
 
Was at SIBS last year when one of those things was next door. It was enormous towering over the entire show and town.
A few wears ago there was a collision between a container ship and a cruise ship off N Foreland. Ramsgate lifeboat rushed out and filled up with people. As the Cox said later.. "we have saved 20 passengers, now what do we do with the other 1990?"

Despite all the lifeboats, there will be a major catastrophe some time soon.
 
Tomahawk said:
I think the same on a cross channel ferry.
There is no chance the dining rooms and saloons can be evacuated once the ship starts to list.. Even within the limits of stability one would find it very hard to climb a 30 degree deck towards a door on the upper side.
Click to expand...

Survivor accounts from the HoFE described just that, and the disorientation of everything being on its side. One account spoke graphically of being in an area that was rapidly flooding, but being unable to climb up to the exit. Others spoke too of getting 'to the top' as it were, but being unable to get out of windows made to withstand the sea, and doors hanging on their hinges that were too heavy to open once the ship was on its side.

The enquiry found that very very few people would have survived had the ferry gone over in deep water, and not capsized on to a sandbank, a bit like Costa Concordia where loss of life would have been far greater had the ship carried on in to deep water after being holed.
 
Tomahawk said:
Was at SIBS last year when one of those things was next door. It was enormous towering over the entire show and town.
A few wears ago there was a collision between a container ship and a cruise ship off N Foreland. Ramsgate lifeboat rushed out and filled up with people. As the Cox said later.. "we have saved 20 passengers, now what do we do with the other 1990?"

Despite all the lifeboats, there will be a major catastrophe some time soon.
Click to expand...

Especially given the MCA's policy of downsizing UK SAR helicopters to the AW189, which can usefully carry about 10.

The accountant's view that the majority of incidents involve less that 3 casualties, is fine, until the job that involves 40.

The modern cruise industry frightens the life out of me, especially when you bear in mind that a capsize will wipe out 50% of the lifesaving apparatus, and the very high %age of elderly, inform or immobile passengers.
 
chanelyacht said:
The accountant's view that the majority of incidents involve less that 3 casualties, is fine, until the job that involves 40.
.
Click to expand...

On the bright side, it might be 40 accountants :)

More seriously, a tip I learned from helo survival training but applies equally to a capsizing ship; before the thing fills with water and the lights go out, grab a backrest etc with an arm outstretched towards the emergency exit as a guide.
 
I studied Nautical Science at University ( pre HoFE disaster) and we were set a assignment of calculating the stability of various types of vessel. No one in the class could produce a calculation for a roll on roll off ferry that met the minimum safety regulations because of the open decks and the results of free surface effect ( technical definition - water sloshing around ).

Our professor confirmed that our calculations were correct. A ro-ro Ferry was given an exemption from the regulations and a only few inches of water ingress would cause it to capsize. Shocking negligence by the regulatory bodies in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top