jamie N
Well-Known Member
As a Pompey supporter, I entirely agree!
Why is the ship on Bramble bank?
- Thread starter Ocean Adventures
- Start date
As a Pompey supporter, I entirely agree!
aquaplane
Well-Known Member
Felixtowe or Tilbury?
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Someone from the Brambles Cricket Club called for the heavy roller?
prv
Well-Known Member
Definitely doesn't need it - we've been pretty much awash for the last couple of years
I remember going there ten years ago and having a substantial area of dry sand to run about on.
Pete
Giblets
Well-Known Member
Rumour has it that APL Vanda will have an escort tug when leaving later this evening together with two tugs standing by as she transits through QHM's area.
VicS
Well-Known Member
Estimated departure time 23:59
DJE
Well-Known Member
I think at the moment escort tugs are compulsury for laden tankers. Maybe this needs to be extended to any vessel too big to safely anchor in the Thorn Channel.
chrishscorp
Well-Known Member
+1 been very lucky both times, with no pollution
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
The story on the YBW website confirms that the grounding was intentional. This seems a high risk strategy as the ship could have broken up or polluted the waters. Why didn't they just drop their anchor it seem far less risky than to beach a ship with all the inherent risks.
Giblets
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's not possible to drop the anchor of a large ship without power which was lacking at the time of the incident.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Well I would have though that unlikely. I would expect the anchor to have an independent system, it would be a major safety concern if a ship does not have a way of deploying an anchor in an emergency.
{151760}
...
Perhaps there wasn't time. I don't suppose anchoring something that big is trivial. Also it would have completely blocked the Thorn Channel. With it on the bank, some vessels, at least, could pass by.
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
It's unlikely a grounded ship will break up in the Solent and anchoring is not just a matter of hitting a button on a large ship, I'd be surprised if they had time or space especially since they still had a lot of forward momentum.
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
In my days at sea we always had an anchor ready to let go in emergency when entering confined waters and a crew member on the bow to do it.
If necessary it could be dropped without electrics, using gravity and a drum brake. Has all that gone now?
If necessary it could be dropped without electrics, using gravity and a drum brake. Has all that gone now?
Giblets
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I believe they grounded at a speed in the region of 7 knots so can't imagine an anchor would have a lot of effect on a 150,000 ton ship not to mention the possible damage caused.
prv
Well-Known Member
Obviously I'm not familiar with the gear on large car transporters, but I tend to agree. I'd expect there to be a local manual release for the windlass brake, and furthermore I'd expect them to have had a crew standing by to use it. Certainly on Stavros, whenever approaching harbour in confined waters, we would have the bosun or 2nd officer on the focsle with the chain guillotine and stopper off and the anchor walked out 6", just in case it was needed. I could be wrong, but I understood that to be normal merchant marine practice.
Still, even if they had the anchor ready to go, that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Zooming past the Brambles less than a ship's length away, dropping an anchor (which side was ready to go?) that probably wouldn't have held immediately and then swung the ship around could well have been judged an additional complication for little benefit.
EDIT: Delayed before posting, everyone else has already said much the same
Pete
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Well not knowing the full facts makes it difficult to make a call on this. However I assume that she had some steerage because she steered onto the bank. I would also assume that she had some control of her engines. I don't now how long it takes for a ship like that to stop but not as long as most people here think, they do stop quite happily when they berth at the top of Sountampton water and they are going at a fair lick when they pass the Itchen.
Yes nchoring may have blocked the Thorn Channel (might not though) but rather that than an environmental dissaster.
Yes nchoring may have blocked the Thorn Channel (might not though) but rather that than an environmental dissaster.
prv
Well-Known Member
My point is that it probably wasn't a straight choice of one or the other.
Look at the size of a ship's anchor in relation to the size of the ship - and they're not even a particularly effective pattern. Ships anchored at St Helens routinely drag when it's windy, if they don't notice themselves you can hear VTS calling them up to warn them, they motor forward a bit and re-anchor again and everybody seems to treat it as fairly routine. So dropping an anchor while steaming at 7 knots may well have done very little except possibly hinder subsequent manoeuvring.
Then, if it did manage to set, what happens? Probably the ship swings round to face it. They most likely only have one anchor ready to go; if it happened to be the port one and they dropped it while passing south of the Brambles, it seems like there's every chance they'd swing the stern round onto the bank and smash up the rudder and prop. Now they're grounded and damaged.
At the end of the day I tend to think that a Southampton Pilot and the ship's master were rather better-placed to make the decision than anybody here.
Pete
Giblets
Well-Known Member
From her AIS plot it would appear that she didn't/couldn't recover from the northerly turn off Egypt Point.
DJE
Well-Known Member
The ship is about 360m long and the Thorn Channel is about 360m wide at Bourne Gap buoy. So no room to swing to an anchor.
