B[quote=“Tupsis, post:19, topic:51015”]
Thus, I’d call it “electrical problems” instead of “engine problems”, although it’s totally understandable that mainstream media does not distinguish between the two at this stage - saying the ship’s “engine” failed is enough for a layman who may compare it to being stranded on the side of the road in this car.
[/quote]
If the issue was an electrical fault and protective devices cleared the fault as designed and further if the plant had the redudncacy you describe this would probably not be the result. Two shafts, two main motors, four DG sets. Unless the fault took out part(s) of the common distribution system one might assume enough plant flexibility to keep one shaft on line. Or recover very quickly, like before helicopters get involved.
Because some of the stories mention “three of four engines have been restarted” I would tend to think this may have been about the DG sets themselves, as you say fuel and fuel systems being the common link. Some DG set trips don’t even shut down the engine, merely open the breaker. Some DG shutdowns (overspend, oil pressure, crankcase overpressure) would shut down the engine but not all on line at same time is likely and requiring “re-starting”.
Fuel quality, someone testing the FO quick closing valves for PM, or an E-stop, a catatrophic failure of a pipe or pump supplying (or return from) the engines. Stranger things have happened. Unless they had some actual marine engineers involved in the layout of the fuel system my experience is this gets little attention for redundancy. Although I am not familiar with these safe return to port regs I would like to see what they are with regard to FO systems. Do you know if the burn MGO or HFO?
Fuel problems are not always the quickest to recover from either.
But as you say more information will come, filtered through the general media and upper management who may not know the difference between a fault and a fur ball.
Our current MAN 32/44CR engine represents the newest technologies in the area of medium speed operated industrial sized diesel engines
Just saw this:
The airlift of passengers, many of them elderly, from the Viking Cruises ship by helicopter was halted on Sunday morning as two tugboats started steering the vessel toward the nearest port.
If the ship is being towed that would indicate the crew is not able to correct the problem which seems unusual. Must be some serious damage maybe?
The emission control zone starts from 62N and SOUTHWARD. They were still at 63N when developing problems, but MAY have been doing an early changeover in preparation for entering the zone.
The polar code does not apply to the Norwegian coast as it is ice free year around, even at the northernmost part and towards the Russian border.
She is now in sheltered water and under tow to Molde.
She is just about to berth now. Here is direct transmission from NRK2: https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/cruiseskipet-viking-sky-1.14487440
I would venture to say the powers that be thought there was a clear danger and were hedging their bets. If the news were somewhat accurate where the ship was minutes away from going on the rocks before power was restored; getting the passengers off sooner rather than later might be a good idea.
That the ship was brought safety into port is a relief to all. Trying to launch lifeboats and performing helo evacuations while on the rocks is a much risker operation.
The ship lost power on Saturday and came perilously close to drifting onto the rocky shore in seas described as 8 meters (26 feet) high and winds of 38 knots. Norwegian Coast Guard officer Emil Heggelund told newspaper VG that the ship was 100 meters (328 feet) from striking an under the water reef and 900 meters (2,953 feet) from shore when was able to anchor in Hustadvika Bay. For context, as the ship is 228 m (748 ft), it was less than a half a ship-length off the rocks before it was able to anchor.
The way I see it the movement of the vessel stirred up something whether bacterium or sediment that clogged the filters resulting in the complete loss of power apart from a very limited supply off an emergency generator. It is just a theory at the moment and I stand to be corrected in time.
With the vessel in imminent danger of going ashore in those conditions it would have been irresponsible to delay evacuation because it is doubtful that the ship would have remained intact for long.
I am of the impression that the video is from AFTER they lost power, thus propulsion, headway and stabilisers. While steaming as normal the vessel was reasonably stable and he pax eating their lunch, watching movies, resting in their cabins, or whatever else they do on an afternoon at sea.
Note that the route map in the BBC report is not correct. The Viking Sky was sailing the protected inshore route and had two pilots on board for that reason.
Hustadvika is one of the few stretches along the route that is unprotected. (The other being Vestfjorden and Folla, with the worst being Stad to the south of there)
It is well known for freak seas caused by relatively shallow and uneven seabed and strong currents at times.
Small vessels avoid crossing these stretches in really bad weather, but for a ship the size and type of Viking Sky this should not be a problem as long as they maintain power. The pilots advised the Master accordingly.
Bioslimes crossed my mind too especially the being stirred up by rolling but… on a ship this size? Production of the slimes requires water in the tanks and time (and higher temps help too). But this would be in the storage tanks and require near negligence to allow to develop. Making it from there to settling tank, then through purifiers then into day tanks seems a bit unlikely.
Fuel compatibility issues could have come up if they were blending onboard or changing over or just loaded the wrong thing on top of older fuel. Unstable fuels can easily clog filters if they break esp this biodiesel crap.
But still nothing conclusive as to fuel vs any other generating plant issue.
Viking Cruises are a very popular river cruise company just recently getting into the cruise ship business.
2 incidents in a short space of time where one wonders WTF the ship was doing there at this time of year. Aren’t just a coincidence.
Loosing 4 prime movers takes a special kind of screw up.
How ?
Running on how many prime movers.? Seperate diesel generator for house load?
Heavy weather having all the “load” on prime movers might not be a cunning plan. The “load” will fluctuate greatly as the ship is affected by heavy seas.
Dead ship drifting to lee shore in storm. May Day? Evacuation?yes but how?
Which brings up the question again why was the ship there in those conditions in the first place?
The anchor held just in time. The authority’s decided to continue with the evacuation. The situation may have been stable but could have changed at any moment.
Continue the evacuation after getting back under way? Depends on the confidence the authority’s have in it continues to make way. If not confident, the risk of it again being blown to a lees shore requires the evacuation continue.
Heck of a prospect trying to get 1300 people of a cruise ship in those conditions.
if this is the track of the VIKING SKY, I see no peril. What I see is a ship headed into a port, then stopping at X and drifting out to sea then along the coast well offshore. WTF is this 100m from grounding?
