Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Container Ship Stuck In The Suez Canal OT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by 754 View Post
    Its truly amazing how many experts we have on here on piloting a 200, 000 ton vessel..!
    I used to chair a committee that oversaw the operation of a 13 ton ferry boat doing a 2 mile mainland-to-island run. Does that count?

    (Truth in advertising - I told our captain-in-chief “you speak boat, I speak committee, so what you say
    goes”:-)

    Comment


    • #47
      The main reason refuelling at sea is so hazardous, as mentioned in a previous post, is because the water between the two ships is moving faster than the water on the other side of each ship.

      Bernoulli's Law tells us that a fluid (liquid or gas) moving over a surface exerts less pressure on that surface than when it is not moving, and the faster it moves the lower the pressure it exerts.

      Therefore when two ships are moving parallel and close to each other, each ship has a pressure differential tending to push it towards the other. The faster they move, the greater the side-force and the more likelihood of a collision.

      This is irrelevant to the present whoopsie in the Suez Canal.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by elf View Post
        All they have to do is dam the canal on both sides of the ship, then pump enough water in to float it 😀
        Yea, They should be able to up some portable dam walls and pump enough water in to raise the ship in a couple days !
        Oh, then they would have to take it down too so traffic could resume.

        JL...............

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mike Burch View Post
          The main reason refuelling at sea is so hazardous, as mentioned in a previous post, is because the water between the two ships is moving faster than the water on the other side of each ship.

          Bernoulli's Law tells us that a fluid (liquid or gas) moving over a surface exerts less pressure on that surface than when it is not moving, and the faster it moves the lower the pressure it exerts.

          Therefore when two ships are moving parallel and close to each other, each ship has a pressure differential tending to push it towards the other. The faster they move, the greater the side-force and the more likelihood of a collision.

          This is irrelevant to the present whoopsie in the Suez Canal.
          Incredible ---- so if there's less pressure there's also less buoyancy --- and if there's less buoyancy on one side it means the ships could tip over (kinda fixated on them tipping over at the moment so hope someone does not try to spoil that for me)

          Comment


          • #50
            It will be interesting to find out if this was indeed an accident or something more malicious.

            Comment


            • #51
              I had an opportunity once to "pilot" a "supertanker" via a simulator, a full-scale professional outfit, not a PC-based toy. The ship had to enter a harbor through a fairly narrow opening, with a cross current. The lady overseeing the operation pointed out that I had bow thrusters available, but they were useless at anything above a very slow speed. She said, "if you're going to scrape the side, you can operate the thrusters, but it won't help. Fortunately, I managed to get the tanker into the harbor without incident.

              Dunno if this container ship is the same or not.

              Someone mentioned the possibility of a container ship capsizing: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...ndais%20inside.
              This happened a couple of years ago, and they're just now getting it cleaned up. I only read about this a couple of days ago.

              Comment


              • #52
                That whole canal thing seems weird. Boats that steer with a rudder , the stern swings wide and forward motion puts the bow on a different course.
                With the canal so narrow, it would be difficult, or, impossible, to swing the stern wide enough to change course much at all, maybe none if the wind was blowing against you.

                Comment


                • #53
                  There has been some consideration to a railway alternative to the Suez canal. Maybe this incident might jump start the project.

                  https://www.d2dlogistics.net/israel-...ve-suez-canal/

                  https://www.railfreight.com/railfrei...l/?gdpr=accept

                  And also for the Panama Canal

                  https://www.railfreight.com/railfrei...l/?gdpr=accept

                  There were also proposals to build a multi-track railway to carry ships over land without using canal technology.

                  http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/pcsa1.Html

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	pcsa1fc.jpg
Views:	343
Size:	119.9 KB
ID:	1936093

                  http://pauleschoen.com/pix/PM08_P76_P54.png
                  Paul , P S Technology, Inc. and MrTibbs
                  USA Maryland 21030

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
                    What if people start hoarding toilet paper again? might have to drag up that old posts about the guy wiping his butt with a mop ------------- ?
                    You can easily buy an ice water bidet at your local BigBox store for slim money. The heated ones are somewhat more expensive.................
                    If you think you understand what is going on, you haven't been paying attention.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by dalee100 View Post

                      You can easily buy an ice water bidet at your local BigBox store for slim money. The heated ones are somewhat more expensive.................
                      problem solved - that'll keep you from going to the bathroom...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
                        Any towboat pilots here? Merchant marine folks? It could be helpful to hear from them.
                        -Closest I came was a marine draft surveyor for a few years. Only went out on a ship- that is, when it was actually underway- a bare few times. What I can tell you is that they steer like a warthog that's been speared through the lungs. If you need to turn left, you start turning about 20 minutes before the ship needs to be over to the left.

                        I hear the high cross-winds were an issue, and I strongly suspect that by the time the captain and pilot started to suspect there was a problem, it was too late. Those things have the reaction time of a pitch drop experiment and the maneuverability of a shopping mall- and the Canal is narrow and shallow for a ship that big. The margin of error was near nil.

                        Doc.

                        Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by PStechPaul View Post
                          There were also proposals to build a multi-track railway to carry ships over land without using canal technology.
                          -While the rail crossing idea has merit (with the drawback of adding a nontrivial amount of time and cost to shipments) there's no possible way you could rail-car an entire ship across land.

                          The EverStuck is what, a quarter of a billion tons?!? I'm not sure it's even possible to lay any kind of an underlayment, and enough rails to keep whatever cart would be massive enough to carry that ship, from sinking into bedrock. For that matter, how much would the cart weigh? Another hundred-thousand tons?

                          And how would you unload it? Back the thing down a lunch ramp like a bass boat at the lake? How often would the 200,000 wheels on that cart need to be serviced if they're immersed in salt water twice per trip?

                          Fun idea, but absolutely not workable.

                          Doc.
                          Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            There was a movie about hauling a (320 ton) steamship over a steep hill in the Amazon with mostly human labor using ropes and pulleys. So this is just a million times that...

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzcarraldo

                            And the "how it was made" movie:

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Dreams
                            http://pauleschoen.com/pix/PM08_P76_P54.png
                            Paul , P S Technology, Inc. and MrTibbs
                            USA Maryland 21030

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              My complete lack of seamanship skills allows me to make this suggestion- if the wind was strong enough from one side, the whole ship should have ended up laying against the bank if it could not maintain a steady heading down the center of the channel. Instead, the bow ended up hooked against the bank- and somehow the stern ended up going into the wind to wedge against the other bank. However this happened, it seems the stern should be the first point to get pulled back into the canal. Trying to dig out the front seems like a make-work project for unemployed machine operators rather than an effort to free the ship.

                              But back to the path the ship was taking- if the wind was indeed taking it to the north bank, then why would the stern move into the wind? It appears that it was steered that way- but of course all of us would-be mariners would have brought the stern to the north so the bow could possibly steer a bit into the wind, and thus maintain itself in the center of the channel. If the wind was at fault, the ship should be laying against the north shore- not wedged sideways. But suppose the sandstorm knocked out the supposedly modern navigation system, and the pilot or captain didn't know where they were and thought they had drifted south- and therefore tried to steer the ship to the north. That certainly would have brought the stern to the south and wedged it there. That doesn't make sense either- how would your ship drift into the wind? Many questions, no answers. I'd like to see the GPS record-

                              I don't know which way the current was flowing, but perhaps the ship did drift northward and the bow caught on the bank- then the current overcame the force of the wind and brought the stern to the south bank and wedged it there. The only thing I can think of for trying to move the bow first is to hopefully allow the current to wash the bow free- knowing that you don't have enough force available to pull the stern back into the channel. Again, just questions- no answers.
                              I seldom do anything within the scope of logical reason and calculated cost/benefit, etc- I'm following my passion-

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by darryl View Post
                                My complete lack of seamanship skills allows me to make this suggestion- if the wind was strong enough from one side, the whole ship should have ended up laying against the bank if it could not maintain a steady heading down the center of the channel. Instead, the bow ended up hooked against the bank- and somehow the stern ended up going into the wind to wedge against the other bank. However this happened, it seems the stern should be the first point to get pulled back into the canal. Trying to dig out the front seems like a make-work project for unemployed machine operators rather than an effort to free the ship.

                                But back to the path the ship was taking- if the wind was indeed taking it to the north bank, then why would the stern move into the wind? It appears that it was steered that way- but of course all of us would-be mariners would have brought the stern to the north so the bow could possibly steer a bit into the wind, and thus maintain itself in the center of the channel. If the wind was at fault, the ship should be laying against the north shore- not wedged sideways. But suppose the sandstorm knocked out the supposedly modern navigation system, and the pilot or captain didn't know where they were and thought they had drifted south- and therefore tried to steer the ship to the north. That certainly would have brought the stern to the south and wedged it there. That doesn't make sense either- how would your ship drift into the wind? Many questions, no answers. I'd like to see the GPS record-

                                I don't know which way the current was flowing, but perhaps the ship did drift northward and the bow caught on the bank- then the current overcame the force of the wind and brought the stern to the south bank and wedged it there. The only thing I can think of for trying to move the bow first is to hopefully allow the current to wash the bow free- knowing that you don't have enough force available to pull the stern back into the channel. Again, just questions- no answers.
                                The ship was traveling at +12knots. When the bow was stopped by the bank, the stern kept going. Similar to driving on ice when the rear wheels overtake the front.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X