Sandy
Well-known member
Why it was not used for target practice at the end of WWII is beyond me.
SS Richard Montgomery
- Thread starter FWB
- Start date
Blueboatman
Well-known member
I think ROV technology has come so far that removal options may be better than ever. Be interesting to see how they prooose to remove the mast stumps though . Saw em through with an ROV whilst taking the weight with a handy helicopter ?
The Coffer Dam/Big Bang fix would be more effective. Free fish for all too!
What would a Dutch salvage co do ??
The Coffer Dam/Big Bang fix would be more effective. Free fish for all too!
What would a Dutch salvage co do ??
Black Sheep
Well-known member
Good question. As I recall, they put this task (removing the masts) out to tender a year or so ago. I'm sure that Dutch salvage companies would have been eligible to bid for the work if they wanted to.
The fact that the Royal Navy are doing it suggests to me that they weren't happy with any of the tenders received (if any).
Elessar
Well-known member
I agree it sounds fun.
But when they did a “controlled” explosion in Exeter I think Michael Cane would have had something to say about doors. Maybe they mixed up grammes and ounces.
Stork_III
Well-known member
Contract for Mast removal and seabed survey appears to have been awarded to Briggs Marine Contractors, Burntisland Scotland. RN not carrying out the works.
SS Richard Montgomery Mast Removal Management Plan [Award]
SS Richard Montgomery Mast Removal Management Plan [Award]
Concerto
Well-known member
Interesting link.
The description is:
Vessel-salvaging services. Marine construction works. Repair, maintenance and associated services related to marine and other equipment. Marine services. The Salvage and Marine Operations (SALMO) Team, part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), have a requirement to survey and conduct mast cutting activity and associated services/works on the SS Richard Montgomery. The SS Richard Montgomery is a protected wreck in the Medway channel in UK waters.
I wonder what the associated services/works will be. The contract price of £4,607,776 does seem there must be plenty of other work besides removing the masts. From memory they were originally expecting it was going to cost about £2,000,000.
Black Sheep
Well-known member
Thanks for that! a bit of genuine information at last!
So... apart from the fact that they're not removing Montgomery, just the masts; and the fact that it's not the RN doing it but Briggs; how accurate is the Telegraph article?
Daydream believer
Well-known member
£2M increasing to £4.6m proves it is being project managed by no other than the ministry of defence
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Yes! great idea. Nice long length of steel sheet piling. Give it 2 jolly good whacks & wait for the vibration to dislodge the first piece of cordite & you will not need any more piling done . Might need a new piling rig though.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Most insurance policies of all types exclude war activities from their policies & as this is a WW2 wreck it only wants some clever lawyer to couple the 2 , saying any damage is the result of wartime activities, so not covered.
Stork_III
Well-known member
Apart from those fact, fairly accurate then??? Nice graphic though. Sunken warship in River Thames with explosives on board could cause ‘mass damage and loss of life’
Last edited:
Leighb
Well-known member
Stating that it is a “Warship” is an obvious error, so how much credence to the rest of the “facts”?Apart from those fact, fairly accurate then??? Nice graphic though. Sunken warship in River Thames with explosives on board could cause ‘mass damage and loss of life’
Biggles Wader
Well-known member
Just put a few sandbags around it and blow it up. Do it on November 5th and no one would notice.
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
When livin g in that area many moons ago , I recall reading that in the immediate post war clear ups , a contract for the removal and making safe of the Montgomery was awarded , to an American Company i recall ; I recall that they did the job ok and the clearance was signed off as done .
Believe that in the circumstances the Job /Task was understood to have been completed OK
Believe that in the circumstances the Job /Task was understood to have been completed OK
Blueboatman
Well-known member
Go on with you !
You’d be watching too if they had a go wouldn’t you ( from the Essex shore ?)
Sea-Fever
Active member
This subject pops up from time to time doesn’t it. I’m not sure what the end game is. Why spend over £4m cutting the masts off if the contents of the hold continue to destabilise thus requiring a more permanent solution….or will it eventually be deemed safe?
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Indeed the mast provide risk mitigation at many states of the tide by making it obvious where a big ship cannot go.
If the collapse of a mast through corrosion could set of an explosion even though its fall is cushioned by water then something will jolt it to a big bang one day anyway.
PeterWright
Well-known member
The Telegraph's sloppy reporting is lamentable but, sadly, fairly typical of today's newspapers, - they just can't afford enough journalisfs to verify what they have picked up from some dodgy website.
I'm no explosives expert but I understand that risk assessment by thise who are has shown thaf the risk peaked in the late 1980's since when the explosives will have decayed further becoming both less sensitive and less powerful so less likely to go bang and causing less damage when they do. This was used to justify leaving it there until it becomes insensitive enough to permit recovery at low risk. At the time (1980's) it was believed that the blast if it was detonated was likely to shatter all the glass along Southend seafront so I would not choose to watch the big TV event from there.
This contract suggests that the explosives are still believed to be sensitive enough to be detonated by a falling mast, that leaves me wondering how long before MoD can be confident that it is safe to recover the explosives.
It may sound counterintuitive, but recognised good practice for disposing of a large quantity of HE is to burn it - the controlled explosion approach is preferred for single rounds (bomb, mine, shell, torpedo) of munitions found remote from any recognised burning ground (yes, they exist, and are licensed for just that purpose) as it avoids the transportation risk. Don't know how they would go about dealing with Monty's payload when they finally get round to it and I suspect I won't be around by that time.
Peter.
I'm no explosives expert but I understand that risk assessment by thise who are has shown thaf the risk peaked in the late 1980's since when the explosives will have decayed further becoming both less sensitive and less powerful so less likely to go bang and causing less damage when they do. This was used to justify leaving it there until it becomes insensitive enough to permit recovery at low risk. At the time (1980's) it was believed that the blast if it was detonated was likely to shatter all the glass along Southend seafront so I would not choose to watch the big TV event from there.
This contract suggests that the explosives are still believed to be sensitive enough to be detonated by a falling mast, that leaves me wondering how long before MoD can be confident that it is safe to recover the explosives.
It may sound counterintuitive, but recognised good practice for disposing of a large quantity of HE is to burn it - the controlled explosion approach is preferred for single rounds (bomb, mine, shell, torpedo) of munitions found remote from any recognised burning ground (yes, they exist, and are licensed for just that purpose) as it avoids the transportation risk. Don't know how they would go about dealing with Monty's payload when they finally get round to it and I suspect I won't be around by that time.
Peter.
newtothis
Well-known member
Nor a media expert either, by the sound of it. The Telegraph is one of the better funded out there, and its reporters among the best paid.
The article was written by the Telegraph's defence editor, not some pimply youth. If you need to check his specialist chops, just click on the by-line link: Dominic served for 23 years in the British Army with operational deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland.
I suspect he is an explosive's expert.
He hasn't just 'picked something up from a dodgy website', but based the story on "An MoD document seen by The Telegraph...", then backed that up by interviewing
Then consider who he is writing for. Not a selection of maritime pub bores, but a general readership that doesn't give a fig about MoD subcontracting processes, nor whether a Liberty ship loaded with ammunition during the war was really a warship or not.
But, sure, go ahead, admit you don't know what you're talking about and slag off at other people who do.
jamie N
Well-known member
An ROV would be a disaster anywhere near it! Pretty much nil vis, high currents and enormous snag profile for the umbilical, with so many variables each and every dive.
I did a UXB job once on a mine that was laying up against a major oil pipeline in the Northern Sector of the North Sea.
The brains of the bomb outfit, the guy who understood UXB stuff, did chat quite wistfully about the Montgomery.
IIRC he reckoned that the only way to get the stuff out of the vessel is to construct a coffer dam around it, and remove the UXB as they drained it. Gazillions of dosh, and years of breath holding, otherwise Sheerness will be remarkably improved.
I did a UXB job once on a mine that was laying up against a major oil pipeline in the Northern Sector of the North Sea.
The brains of the bomb outfit, the guy who understood UXB stuff, did chat quite wistfully about the Montgomery.
IIRC he reckoned that the only way to get the stuff out of the vessel is to construct a coffer dam around it, and remove the UXB as they drained it. Gazillions of dosh, and years of breath holding, otherwise Sheerness will be remarkably improved.