# Run aground cargo ship is listing (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

A cargo vessel carrying 643 cars runs aground off the Norfolk coast at Happisburgh Sands.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2008)

*The City of Sunderland*

MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY News Release 14 January 2008 06:51

In the early hours of Monday morning a large car carrier 'The City of Sunderland' weighing 9576 Gross Registered Tonnes and carrying 642 cars, ran aground at the south edge of Haisborough Sands, 8 miles off the coast between Cromer and Great Yarmouth Norfolk.

Yarmouth Coastguard received the call from the Isle of Man registered vessel at 2:18am stating they had run aground with 13 crew aboard, there were no sustained injuries. The vessel is apparently undamaged and they hope to re float the vessel on the next high tide, the next high water in the area is approximately 11:00 to 11:30am.

Glynn Young, Acting Watch Manager at Yarmouth Coastguard, says:

"Although the vessel is intact and there has been no apparent threat of pollution the vessel is currently listing 10 degrees to port, and the weather is south westerly force 6 - 7 gusting 8 - 9. The vessel is being buffeted by the wind and sea as it lies across the wind; we are therefore closely monitoring the situation as it develops.

Two tugs from Felixstowe will be on scene at 11:00am, which were organised by the vessels owners with the intention of re floating the vessel at midday. Air and lifeboat assistance is close by should the situation worsen.

The vessel was on passage from Zebrugge to Tees Port at the time of the incident."


----------



## Orbitaman (Oct 5, 2007)

Nice to see even the MCA getting the terminology correct:

"weighing 9576 Gross Registered Tonnes"

Gross tonnage is only a calculated theoretical volume, not a weight and in any case is measured in TONS, not tonnes.

A sad indictment of the maritime powers that be in the UK!


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

Isn't grt a thing from the past? I thought that since the introduction of international tonnage it was only referred to as gt.

Tony


----------



## Orbitaman (Oct 5, 2007)

Tony Breach said:


> Isn't grt a thing from the past? I thought that since the introduction of international tonnage it was only referred to as gt.
> 
> Tony


Tony,

You are correct. GRT was superceded by plain GT in 1994, so the MCA manages to score yet another spectacular own goal, making three howlers in the course of one sentence!


----------



## Bearsie (Nov 11, 2006)

Orbitaman said:


> Tony,
> 
> You are correct. GRT was superceded by plain GT in 1994, so the MCA manages to score yet another spectacular own goal, making three howlers in the course of one sentence!


That seems to be a more and more common problem world wide even in marine circles. It's down to were the NT becomes the payload....
and the TDW becomes the weight of the ship!
Perhaps its time to do away with some of this medieval stuff and give freighters only in tdw and maybe use cubic meters enclosed space for passenger vessels, or just plain total displacement?
GRT and GT have caused a lot of confusion and quite often strange ways to build ships since quite a few rules are based on it.
The insistence on these old measurements is similar to using "nautic" language on cruise liners when 99% of the folks on board the floating hotels are landlubbers, including a large part of the crew...(Smoke)


----------



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

*Stricken cargo ship is refloated (BBC News)*

A cargo vessel carrying 643 cars is refloated after running aground eight miles off the Norfolk coast.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Orbitaman (Oct 5, 2007)

As far as I can see it, the cruise industry loves GT because it involves such large numbers, even though it is really a meaningless figure. For example, marketing a cruise ship of 100,000 GT makes it sound much better than one of say 6,000 DWT, although they could both be the same ship!


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

BBC News 0600 GMT:



> The City of Sunderland was pulled free of the sandbank at Haisborough Sands, near Cromer, at about 2040 GMT.
> 
> The vessel had been en route to Tees Port from Zeebrugge when she ran aground in the early hours of Monday.
> 
> ...


----------



## non descript (Nov 18, 2005)

*GT and not GRT*



Orbitaman said:


> Tony,
> 
> You are correct. GRT was superceded by plain GT in 1994, so the MCA manages to score yet another spectacular own goal, making three howlers in the course of one sentence!


Well done - nicely put (Thumb)


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

Hi Orbitman - I have a question:

The CG said the ship was listing & I beleive that is impossible if the ship is aground. As far as I know a list can only be caused by mass distribution within the ship. Heel is a similar condition but is more commonly used in relation to external forces such as wind. Seems to me that she was just sitting on an inclined part of the sandbank. Is this another CG howler?

Tony


----------



## Orbitaman (Oct 5, 2007)

Tony Breach said:


> Hi Orbitman - I have a question:
> 
> The CG said the ship was listing & I beleive that is impossible if the ship is aground. As far as I know a list can only be caused by mass distribution within the ship. Heel is a similar condition but is more commonly used in relation to external forces such as wind. Seems to me that she was just sitting on an inclined part of the sandbank. Is this another CG howler?
> 
> Tony


A good question Tony. As you note, list is caused by the distribution of mass and heel is caused by external causes.

In this case, the vessel would appear to be heeled over by the inclination of the seabed acting on the vessel (an external force on the hull) rather than listing as stated.

However, there may be others out there on the site who know better and I for one would welcome any input before condeming the MCA to any further embarrasment!


----------

