jamie N
Well-Known Member
Never mentioned it at all.
New evidence prompts renewed speculation about cause of 1994 Baltic ferry disaster
- Thread starter LittleSister
- Start date
TernVI
Well-Known Member
Or understanding what happened, in order that it doesn't happen again?
I read that the ferry took an hour to sink?
That does not seem consistent with a 'free surface effect' Roll-On, Roll-Over type of scenario?
Equally, a hole in the bow could have resulted from it hitting the sea floor nose first.
25 years on, maybe corrosion has weakened the structure and stresses are now tearing holes in the plates?
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Let’s be clear that this was a disaster on the scale of the “Titanic”. These ferries are an everyday part of life in the Baltic. Everyone uses them, if only to go on a booze cruise to Mariehamn. Now and again one scrapes a rock or runs aground, but people don’t die. Except that suddenly 853 people did.
The “Estonia” did not have clamshell doors like the “Herald of Free Enterprise” did. She had an outer door which pivoted on two hinges at the upper corners and lifted like a helmet visor. Inside this the ramp itself formed an inner door.
The visor was found separated from the rest of the ship, and was recovered. The hinges were broken as was the locking mechanism. The ramp was not able to act as an inner door on its own, not least because the failure of the visor dragged it open, and that failed too.
In a roro ferry the car deck is the weather deck. The water cannot run off easily because of the ship’s sides, so extra large scuppers are provided but they can still be overwhelmed. A four by three hole would not overwhelm the scuppers; a failure of the doors will.
The “Estonia” did not have clamshell doors like the “Herald of Free Enterprise” did. She had an outer door which pivoted on two hinges at the upper corners and lifted like a helmet visor. Inside this the ramp itself formed an inner door.
The visor was found separated from the rest of the ship, and was recovered. The hinges were broken as was the locking mechanism. The ramp was not able to act as an inner door on its own, not least because the failure of the visor dragged it open, and that failed too.
In a roro ferry the car deck is the weather deck. The water cannot run off easily because of the ship’s sides, so extra large scuppers are provided but they can still be overwhelmed. A four by three hole would not overwhelm the scuppers; a failure of the doors will.
Last edited:
cherod
N/A
I would think if it was flooding from inside then the ramp / door would have had to have. been damaged / breached before the main “ visor “ door to be burst allowing it to be torn off by the storm / waves ,,, 4 X 3 , mtr or ft ?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Or to find out what happened and stop it happening again?
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Almost everyone thinks we know what happened, designs and operating procedures have been changed (the Estonia had no VDR, no automatic EPIRB, and no cctv screen showing the inside of the doors visible from the inside of the wheelhouse, and that door design was stopped) and (touch wood) it hasn’t happened again. The film maker’s theory seems to be that the Estonia hit a submarine
TernVI
Well-Known Member
I'm not clear how a ship like this with overwhelmed scuppers takes an hour to sink?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
The similar but smaller scale sinking of the Princess Victoria (133 lives lost) in 1953 is still an open wound in both Stranraer and Larne, even though it's a very long time ago. Every time people from both ends see ferries leave or arrice, they remember.
anoccasionalyachtsman
Well-Known Member
Downflooding through ventilators took its time. Final report https://lounaeestlane.ee/wp-content...udy_on_the_Sinking_Sequence_of_MV_Estonia.pdf
kaj
Active Member
Unless someone missed it, there's an 'animation about the damage of the visor and the ramp of MV ESTONIA'. The formats might be old but the content is, as I understand it, still valid.
The animation is part of the Final report, published (in English) by the Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
New information is showing up, maybe even facts. New evidence not yet.
The animation is part of the Final report, published (in English) by the Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
New information is showing up, maybe even facts. New evidence not yet.
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
The modelling done as part of the investigation linked at #29 and 30 is fascinating and presents a sound explanation for the sinking and timeframes. Interestingly it does call for further dives/ROV work to re-examine the hull, although I suspect more from desire for completing the work at hand than because of any failings in methodology.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Bajansailor drew to my attention the cases in which, when a long ship sinks in water with a depth less than her length, the longitudinal girder can be overstressed to the point of failure simply because one end of the ship strikes the sea bed whilst the other end is still afloat. This has been a finding with the wrecks of Great Lakes ships and it certainly may have happened here, in which case there is another explanation for the observed hull damage.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
We need accurate pictures of the rest of the hull to determine in the hole is impact damage from hitting the seabed after is sank. I would expect to see collateral creasing and deformation all the way up both sides of the ship. Think in terms of bending a cardboard bicsuit box. There would also be evidence of the ship no longer being straight.
The fact Sweden has ordered further investigations is telling.
The fact Sweden has ordered further investigations is telling.
mobeydick
Well-Known Member
It looks like there should be a clear pattern of damage if the events in the video happened. Whether the damage led them to the conclusion, or whether the further dives where needed to check the damage is unclear to me.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
This was a well run ship which was maintained in good condition and which sank due to a design defect in the bow visor and ramp. The pattern of failure is set out clearly in the links to posts 29 and 30 above.
She was, at the time of her loss, one of the largest ships to be fitted with the bow visor and ramp arrangement. She was built by a well regarded German shipyard, Meyer Werft, which is known for specialising in passenger ferries. The calculations of the wave impact loads on the bow visor seriously under stated the impact loads in a rough sea. There was in fact almost no margin of safety.
The bow visor, which had fallen off before the capsize, was recovered and examined. The hinges and locks had failed. The design was such that if the bow visor detached from the ship it would drag open the vehicle ramp.
If you get a large volume of water on the un-divided car deck of a roll on roll off ship you are going to get a lot of free surface and she is going to capsize.
The summary of the very good report is here:
MV ESTONIA - final report FINDINGS
She was, at the time of her loss, one of the largest ships to be fitted with the bow visor and ramp arrangement. She was built by a well regarded German shipyard, Meyer Werft, which is known for specialising in passenger ferries. The calculations of the wave impact loads on the bow visor seriously under stated the impact loads in a rough sea. There was in fact almost no margin of safety.
The bow visor, which had fallen off before the capsize, was recovered and examined. The hinges and locks had failed. The design was such that if the bow visor detached from the ship it would drag open the vehicle ramp.
If you get a large volume of water on the un-divided car deck of a roll on roll off ship you are going to get a lot of free surface and she is going to capsize.
The summary of the very good report is here:
MV ESTONIA - final report FINDINGS
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-Known Member
In about the same way that the Costa Concordia did. She capsizes and then downfloods.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Take an average plastic basin put an inch of water in the bottom and carry it with you while you go for a walk.
you will expierience on a small scale the “free Surface effect”
instead of a basin a wide open car deck. It only takes a few inches of water.
1 cubic meter of water = 1 t.
100 sq m of water 1 cm deep = 1 t
doesn’t take a lot.
TernVI
Well-Known Member
I've capsized enoug dinghies to be familiar with the effect of free water aboard.
I'm not that surprised it capsized, it is that it took an hour I found surprising.
Basically the watertight space below the car deck was not actually watertight?
Maybe due to a hole in the bow.......?
Maybe it went bow-down a bit and that ripped the doors off?
Quandary
Well-Known Member
I was growing up in N.I. but a long way from Larne, at home that day with my Dad, the weather was horrible, he had the radio on all day as the search went on for her, it seemed to be forever before she was found and the experience still moves me even though we did not know anyone aboard.
kaj
Active Member
Estonian, Finnish and Swedish agencies:
"Safety investigation authorities will conduct preliminary assessment regarding new information on M/S Estonia"
"Safety investigation authorities will conduct preliminary assessment regarding new information on M/S Estonia"