# Cruise Ship Fire



## Binnacle

Carnival Splendor -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11720891


----------



## JoK

These ships are the most advanced in fire control and safety. Yet, if the unthinkable happens, what country has the resources to rescue up to 5000 people?
Not everyone has an aircraft carrier. If this had happened in Canada, a 47' lifeboat isn't going to do much.


----------



## fred henderson

The latest update on this incident is available on: -

http://www.carnival.com/cms/faq/default.aspx?faq=sp11072010

The Carnival Splendor problem again illustrates that the latest passenger vessels survive major fires that would have resulted in the loss of a classic liner. More details of two recent fires are given on: -

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Passenger_Ship_Disasters_-_Part_8

As a result of both the Ecstacy and Star Princess fires, cruise ship designs and operational methods have been modified. If the Carnival Splendor fire investigation reveals any need for change the recommendations will be immediately applied by the largest cruise companies. Sadly the smaller companies, operating older , smaller vessels often delay regulation updates by several years


----------



## wigger

From what I can tell, the carrier Ronald Reagan (she is based in San Diego anyway) just happened to be in the area and some stores we lifted across, no other intervention.


----------



## shamrock

*Carnival Splendor fire & a question of equipment redundancy*

Something doesn't quite add up with the Carnival Splendor fire that I would like some opinions/knowledge of please.

When ships are built, there is always a degree of redundancy in their mechanical & electrical systems incase of breakdown or..as in Splendor...a fire disabling part of any major equipment on board.

Splendor has six engines....I would doubt that all would be in used 24/7, which means there would be some redundancy - or engine(s) as back up should things go wrong.

If the fire was electrical, again I would imagine that there would be redundancy built in...doubling or tripling of systems incase one breaks down or whatever.

Which makes me think that the fire was more significant than an average engine room fire....none of the six engines can be restarted, they have had multiple failures of major systems on board such as aircon, hot/cold food prep & storage....

This cannot be a small fire to have knocked everything out in such a substantial way, can it? 

I have asked this over on the sister site The Cruising Forum. Anyone not aware of the serious fire in the engine room aboard the 2008 launched ship Carnival Splendor this week can find all the information here...

http://www.thecruisingforum.com/showthread.php?t=12693


----------



## Billieboy

Could be a switchgear/cable fire as well as a fire disabling the whole engine control system, which will take a week to jury rig, before the diesel generators/alternators can be started. Emergency Fire pumps driven by separate diesels are situated in several other places on the ship. There are also Emergency generators available but if there was a major Electric problem then these could be affected too.

This is rough supposition only shamrock, but it should give you a few ideas.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

shamrock said:


> Something doesn't quite add up with the Carnival Splendor fire that I would like some opinions/knowledge of please.
> 
> When ships are built, there is always a degree of redundancy in their mechanical & electrical systems incase of breakdown or..as in Splendor...a fire disabling part of any major equipment on board.
> 
> Splendor has six engines....I would doubt that all would be in used 24/7, which means there would be some redundancy - or engine(s) as back up should things go wrong.
> 
> If the fire was electrical, again I would imagine that there would be redundancy built in...doubling or tripling of systems incase one breaks down or whatever.
> 
> Which makes me think that the fire was more significant than an average engine room fire....none of the six engines can be restarted, they have had multiple failures of major systems on board such as aircon, hot/cold food prep & storage....
> 
> This cannot be a small fire to have knocked everything out in such a substantial way, can it?
> 
> I have asked this over on the sister site The Cruising Forum. Anyone not aware of the serious fire in the engine room aboard the 2008 launched ship Carnival Splendor this week can find all the information here...
> 
> http://www.thecruisingforum.com/showthread.php?t=12693


The ship has diesel electric propulsion, so as such has multiple sets of generators. As stated, it would have to be a substantial fire to damage them all. However, as I experienced some years ago, if the cabling is burned, or the main switchboard is damaged it will effectively knock-out all propulsion and services. The emergency generator (s) supplies the emergency switchboard giving power for essential services but would not allow for a resumption of all services. As far as back up systems go, there are many, based on redundancy. But when it comes to propulsion motors, alternative cable runs and switchboards, it doesn't happen.

It is interesting that they have managed to get the toilet system working!! However, in this age of vacuum toilets, the old system of “bucket and chuck it” wouldn’t work, and the discomfort and embarrassment of having piles of poo in every toilet would upset 3000+ already upset passengers even more!! As far as cooking and aircon, these are not considered to be essential for the safety of the ship. Without refrigeration, all the food in the store rooms will have be condemned..... even if it is only a week's food for 5000 people, that is an awful lot! If only they had the facilities to cook, they would be eating like kings now!!

In any of these situations, it is not possible to judge without having all of the facts to hand. Unless tackled immediately, it takes some time ro organise a full scale firefighting response. Having just completed another fire fighting course last week, I am told that even in the navy they allow for a reaction time of 8 minutes to arrive on scene ready to fight the fire, from the alarm being sounded. On a large cruise ship it is probably longer, and then it takes time to organise the attack and cooling. However, as part of the initial response they have to have Hi-Fog fitted in the machinery spaces. If the fire is serious, there is always the smothering system/ However after deciding to use it, all the fire parties and ER personnel have to be withdrawn from the affected space and accounted for before the release.


----------



## JoK

With such a highly automatated vessel, damage in a critical area of the control system could shut the plant down. Engines may run, but cannot be put on the board for instance.


----------



## Pompeyfan

CAPTAIN JEREMY said:


> The ship has diesel electric propulsion, so as such has multiple sets of generators. As stated, it would have to be a substantial fire to damage them all. However, as I experienced some years ago, if the cabling is burned, or the main switchboard is damaged it will effectively knock-out all propulsion and services. The emergency generator (s) supplies the emergency switchboard giving power for essential services but would not allow for a resumption of all services. As far as back up systems go, there are many, based on redundancy. But when it comes to propulsion motors, alternative cable runs and switchboards, it doesn't happen.
> 
> It is interesting that they have managed to get the toilet system working!! However, in this age of vacuum toilets, the old system of “bucket and chuck it” wouldn’t work, and the discomfort and embarrassment of having piles of poo in every toilet would upset 3000+ already upset passengers even more!! As far as cooking and aircon, these are not considered to be essential for the safety of the ship. Without refrigeration, all the food in the store rooms will have be condemned..... even if it is only a week's food for 5000 people, that is an awful lot! If only they had the facilities to cook, they would be eating like kings now!!
> 
> In any of these situations, it is not possible to judge without having all of the facts to hand. Unless tackled immediately, it takes some time ro organise a full scale firefighting response. Having just completed another fire fighting course last week, I am told that even in the navy they allow for a reaction time of 8 minutes to arrive on scene ready to fight the fire, from the alarm being sounded. On a large cruise ship it is probably longer, and then it takes time to organise the attack and cooling. However, as part of the initial response they have to have Hi-Fog fitted in the machinery spaces. If the fire is serious, there is always the smothering system/ However after deciding to use it, all the fire parties and ER personnel have to be withdrawn from the affected space and accounted for before the release.


Thanks for your comments Captain Jeremy.

As Shamrock states, we are discussing this on SN sister site The Cruising Forum, and comments from experts like yourself is most helpful. 

Such incidents are of course a major concern to cruising passengers. 

David


----------



## Jeff Taylor

FWIW, at normal cruising speed and with a hotel load it's my understanding they DO have to use the six diesels.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

Jeff Taylor said:


> FWIW, at normal cruising speed and with a hotel load it's my understanding they DO have to use the six diesels.


At full speed and full hotel load there will be all the generators on line. However, nowadays it is unusual for a cruise ship to be scheduled to run at maximum speed all the time. Between maintaining an acceptable schedule between ports (no one likes to arrive at 03:00) and in the interests of fuel economy the speeds are generally lower. When running at higher speeds, one generator will make a smaller difference in speed.


----------



## kewl dude

Pictures taken from the air today on tonight's San Diego tv news. 

Two small Mexican tugs one actually towing and way out on the starboard side quite away off starboard from the towed vessels center line. Reported that the other tug has had mechanical problems of it's own and shown on tv just following along astern of the towed cruise ship.

Seems with no power all the frozen/refrigerated food went south so the US Navy came to the rescue with a choice of bread, Spam sandwiches or room temperature french fries and bottled water. 

The vessel is now within range of some passengers cell phones and they are burning up the airwaves complaining about their lot. Seems the passengers been sleeping outside the past two days since their cabins were too hot to sleep. 

Also "apparently" contrary to a news release of a few days ago the toilets were not fixed and the reported stench all over the ship is now very high.

Folks will be sleeping indoors tonight as they near San Diego where it is now 57 F here 40 miles north of San Diego as I write this at 2100 local.

The cruise ship is expected in San Diego harbor sometime tomorrow, Thursday afternoon. Carnival is reported as reserving every available San Diego hotel room and outbound airline flights.

The cruise ship next voyage has already been canceled.

Pictures found on line today attached.

Greg Hayden


----------



## JoK

I was a little surprised when I heard that the sewage system was running. That would mean they had managed to power up the vacuum system and domestics, off of the auxiliary board. 
I haven't been following this at all, have they said where the fire originated other then the general engine room?


Just found this:



> Carnival president and CEO Gerry Cahill said the "very surprising" fire began in No. 5 of the ship's six generators. He said a "crankcase split, and that's what caused the fire.


Non-marine speak for a crankcase explosion, which makes me wonder why the oil mist detector never picked it up.

Story USAToday


I wonder if the passengers truly understand how lucky they are.


----------



## JoK

> Such incidents are of course a major concern to cruising passengers.


Such an understatement. Only ignorance of the logistics of getting over 6000 people off of a ship in trouble and rescued would make a person comfortable on one of those ships. 
I had decided long ago that my paranoia level was much too high to be comfortable on one of these ships.


----------



## Billieboy

JoK, could it be the old matchstick, "adjustment"?


----------



## shamrock

Unconfirmed report in alot of media have quoted the CEO of Carnival as blaming the fire on a split crankcase on a generator.

It is confirmed, however, the worst accident to a Carnival ship in the 35 years that the firm have been in business.

The systems still down are refrigeration & cooking/prep of food, airconditioning, most lighting apart from emergency lighting, elevators, and other ancilliary equipment such as phones, internet.

There will be 4 more tugs out to meet the ship approximately 8 miles out from San Diego today.

They have managed to get cold water & toilets working and they are running free bar service.

We have the San Diego port webcam onsite over at TCF, so will be keeping an eye out for her arrival later today.


----------



## wigger

Each to their own really...In an emergency some people will always panic and cause problems, it doesnt matter if its on a very large cruise ship, or a little pleasure boat going around the harbour, something in between, trains, office blocks whatever, its all the same, basically you can never be 100% comfortable around idiots, but you cant let what they 'might' do get in the way of new experiences.

Its a little bit of a generalisation to lump all passengers into the 'ignorant of safety category' though. I know several people, all with a career in safety and such matters who regularly cruise on ships of this size, and much smaller. They have always actively looked into the saftey procedures and design when they first board ship, because its the sensible thing to do, couple that with the drills that take place onboard anyway...they have been more than happy to sit back and enjoy the cruise. In an emergency, they know exactly what they would need to do, and where they would need to be, and how to get there, taking into account the possible confusion that would occur. Obviously not everybody takes such in interest, but they cannot be alone.

Having said that....it does seem from their experience at least, that the US companies do seem to lag behind some of the european couterparts in the thoroughness of the information given to passengers regarding safety, and its the smaller, older, cruise ships that seem to have potentially more dangerous layouts.


----------



## Dickyboy

I see that the reports state that the CEO (I think) that all protocols were used, and the fire was put out in around three hours. In the statement it says that this shows how good the fire prevention and fire fighting systems are on such a modern ship. That sounds like a good PR statement, but if the ship is dead in the water, with NO power, what happens if there is another serious fire, say in the accomodation? How do they fight that if it gets beyond a First Aid fire situation? By NO power I assume they mean there is no power for fire fighting either. Not a good situation for any ship to be in that's for sure.


----------



## shamrock

She is just entering San Diego port...almost home from her adventure. We are following her progress over on the thread on The Cruising Forum. Once she is berthed, the hard part will start...getting everyone off and sorting out what happened & getting her repaired. Carnival have flown over engineers from Fincantieri Monfalcone where she she was built to assist in the investigation & repair process.


----------



## Jeff Taylor

Sources are now reporting that the origin of the fire was the crankshaft "splitting" on one of the six dg sets. No word yet on what the fire actually damaged, but unless they want to run on 5 diesels this could be a long repair. Reps from Fincantieri are being flown in. Ah the lawsuits!


----------



## JoK

Long repair indeed.
I am not sure of the voltage of the main generators and I am too lazy to look it up. I will tell you though, that the cabling is special order, long lead time and no splicing repairs allowed.
So a 3 hour fire, suppression system engaged, possible water in armored cable sheathing. possible heat damage....every piece is going to have to be tested. These are not easy runs to repair.
Add to that damage to the engine itself, it will have to be disassembled to removed the baseplate...and on and on.

Hope their as-fitted drawings are complete.


----------



## JoK

Billieboy said:


> JoK, could it be the old matchstick, "adjustment"?


nah Billyboy, the cotter pin fell out!


----------



## surfaceblow

Having had to work on the aftermath of an engine room fire the wires in the overhead wire raceways were a melted mess. Two big terminal junction boxes were installed on each side of the generator room. Each wire had to be identified, labeled,cut and installed on the terminal strip and a new wire installed between each terminal box with new metal labels. We were lucky since only the 440 and 120 volt circuits were damaged. The repair work required a better part of a month with the crew onboard the vessel. 

Joe


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

Dickyboy said:


> I see that the reports state that the CEO (I think) that all protocols were used, and the fire was put out in around three hours. In the statement it says that this shows how good the fire prevention and fire fighting systems are on such a modern ship. That sounds like a good PR statement, but if the ship is dead in the water, with NO power, what happens if there is another serious fire, say in the accomodation? How do they fight that if it gets beyond a First Aid fire situation? By NO power I assume they mean there is no power for fire fighting either. Not a good situation for any ship to be in that's for sure.


The fire detection, emergency and safety systems are all run off the Emergency Switchboard. This can be powered from the emergency generator(s) which are apparently now in service. For obvious reasons they are situated ourside the machinery spaces. If the fire was in the machinery spaces, it is probable that the emergency power was the only source of power while they fought the original fire. The fuel to the machinery spaces would be cut off in the event of any fire there, thus rendering the generaters inoperative.


----------



## JoK

One of our ships had a fire caused by welding sparks on a hydraulic hose. The ac***ulator released it's pressure, the pump came on, the effect was like a blowtorch. This was on the deck below the control room and all of the wiring was burnt out for both the electrical supply and alarm and control systems. It was months getting it sorted out.

I wonder if they were able to put the tie main in and run some basic services... all speculation though.


----------



## Billieboy

I'd say that the USCG has already told them NOT to do anything in the main power room until they've investigated it in San Diego. With KVolt power cables burned through and then cooled with water, there'll be kilometers of cable to renew. The damaged diesel will have to be removed and a new one fitted, in the whole repair bill this item will be insignificant. I'd say that there should be lots of work for any qualified electrician in San Diego, good opportunity for some of the USN people who live around the base.


----------



## shamrock

Splendor's cruise director, John Heald, has now updated his blog from the ship, he dscribes the moment when the fire broke out and what followed...

http://johnhealdsblog.com/2010/11/12/smoke-on-the-water-part-1/

All crew have been taken off the ship and put up in hotels paid for by Carnival, they have had their full wages plus the amount they would normally have received in tips had the cruise completed as planned.

There is a joint investigation headed by Panama (Splendor is flagged there), the NTSB, the USCG, Carnival & Fincantieri.

The latest press release from Carnival reads...



> CARNIVAL SPLENDOR UPDATE
> 
> Miami - November 12, 2010 – 11.30am
> 
> The Carnival Splendor is currently docked in San Diego and a team is on board working to more fully assess damage to the vessel.
> 
> We recognize that many of our guests scheduled to sail on the Carnival Splendor are anxious to hear about the status of their upcoming sailing. At this time, the November 14 voyage has been cancelled. Those guests are receiving a full refund of their cruise fare and air transportation costs along with a 25 percent discount on a future cruise. Our technical teams are working round the clock to assess the damage and necessary repairs. We expect to have additional information early next week and will inform all guests accordingly.
> 
> Please continue to check back here for updates.
> 
> A NOTE FROM GERRY CAHILL, PRESIDENT & CEO:
> "On November 11, the Carnival Splendor reached San Diego and all guests and crew were returned safely. We are extremely grateful and appreciative to them for their patience and positive spirit throughout the course of events. We would also like to extend our utmost gratitude to the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the Port of San Diego and those within the San Diego community, as well as the tug boat operators, bus drivers, hoteliers, our travel agent partners and many, many others who have aided and supported us throughout the past several days. Thank you to all."


Personally, I don't think Carnival could have done anything more than they have already done. The fire was something that no-one could have possible foreseen. By all accounts reading John Heald's blog, it was a very frightening time for everyone with thick smoke entering several parts of the ship.

As much as there will be the inevitable moaning and probably lawsuits from disgruntled passengers, the crew aboard Splendor did a remarkable job in what must have been almost impossible conditions. I know they are trained to handle things like this, but even so, when it happens it has to be frightening for everyone involved.


----------



## John Rogers

There should be some lessons learned from this incedent,lke a back-up for cooking on deck such as a propane grill. All in all I think they did a great job.

John


----------



## Billieboy

John Rogers said:


> There should be some lessons learned from this incedent,lke a back-up for cooking on deck such as a propane grill. All in all I think they did a great job.
> 
> John


That will be a tough one John, USCG doesn't like propane, especially with talking cargo! I think the yard will have to re-plan, so that if this ever happens again, at least two generators will still be operational, with water and sewage systems promoted to emergency standard. Sounds a bit unusual, but I bet this will be in the final report.


----------



## shamrock

All Carnival Splendor cruises are now cancelled til 16/01/2011

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...il-january-16-2011-for-repairs-108423419.html

I guess the damage is extensive...more extensive that first thought.


----------



## JoK

Well that would be obvious, there is human excrement everywhere, they've popped the CO2 and wiring has been crisped.
That puppy will have to be decontaminated, miles of wiring pulled and an engine to rebuid,


----------



## Ian J. Huckin

Non-marine speak for a crankcase explosion said:


> From my experience Oil Mist Detectors only tell you WHEN you have had an explosion!!!


----------



## kewl dude

Announced on local TV today that Carnival Splendor will be towed to the Tenth Avenue Terminal Thursday 11-18-10

http://www.portofsandiego.org/maritime/tenth-avenue-terminal.html

Her Cruise Terminal berth is needed since two cruise ships are due Saturday 11-20.

Carnival announced that the Splendor next cruise will leave Long Beach CA January 16, 2011.

Nothing about fire damage except that Panama is leading the investigation with the USCG and NTSB "assisting".

Greg Hayden


----------



## kewl dude

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2010/101111.html

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
November 11, 2010

UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION INTO CARNIVAL SPLENDOR CRUISE SHIP ENGINE ROOM FIRE

The investigation of the fire that occurred in an engine room of the Carnival Splendor on November 8 is being investigated by Panama, the country under which the vessel was flagged.

Since the majority of passengers aboard the Carnival Splendor were citizens of the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard requested to join the investigation, and Panama consented.

The Coast Guard requested that the National Transportation Safety Board provide them with technical assistance. The NTSB and Coast Guard frequently work together on marine accident investigations, and the NTSB responded by providing two experts to assist the Coast Guard in their involvement in Panama's investigation.

All information on the progress of the investigation will be released by the Panama Maritime Authority.

###

NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
[email protected]
(202) 314-6100


http://www.segumar.com/
Panama Maritime Authority

Greg Hayden


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

Billieboy said:


> That will be a tough one John, USCG doesn't like propane, especially with talking cargo! I think the yard will have to re-plan, so that if this ever happens again, at least two generators will still be operational, with water and sewage systems promoted to emergency standard. Sounds a bit unusual, but I bet this will be in the final report.


With reference to cruise ships having the capability to provide essential services after a major incident, it is already in hand :-

http://www.cruisecommunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4328&catid=910&Itemid=69


----------



## Billieboy

Thanks Capt. Jeremy, I wasn't aware of this, "Safe return to port", rule as I've been out of touch for some time.

Seems a bit unusual that a two year old ship does not,(or cannot), comply but as the say, safety is an ongoing operation. I expect that individual switch boards and the ability to cross couple switchboards will be the next, expensive requirement and Chief Engineer's headache.


----------



## kewl dude

Wednesday evening TV report said some people asked why the Carnival Splendor is not going to one of the couple of San Diego shipyards. Seems that the Splendor's air draft at low water is fifteen feet higher than the 200 feet clearance of the Coronado bridge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_–_Coronado_Bridge

And all of those shipyards are located south of the bridge. When built the bridge is this height to allow all US Navy vessels to pass under.

Also as speculated on this thread they announced that a call has been put out for 250 experienced marine electricians and 50 experienced marine diesel mechanics. TV showed two long lines of mostly men formed up to apply for positions. TV interviewed an electrician that said wiring between the engine room and the bridge engine controls all needed to be replaced along with "miles" of engine room cabling.

Greg Hayden


----------



## Ron Stringer

Whatever became of Pyrotenax?


----------



## Billieboy

Ron Stringer said:


> Whatever became of Pyrotenax?


It's still around but very expensive for 6.6Kv cables.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Ian J. Huckin said:


> Non-marine speak for a crankcase explosion said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience Oil Mist Detectors only tell you WHEN you have had an explosion!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have saved my bacon (ayrshire middle - smoked) on a couple of occasions - but they have also told me about the explosion shortly after the event as well - which was nice but rather unneccessary.
> 
> In this particular case I would describe it as a success in fire containment
> Everything is of course at least doubled up but the problem with fires of course is cables are put in runs and separating cable runs completely is extremely difficult. So you end up with fired up bundles of cables and it takes a fair bit of effort to and scary tactics to find out what is not shorted or earthed. Throw in the added bonus of MV up to 11kV and you are very scary territory. The big point is though that ultimately the fire was contained and the vessel integrity was intact.
> 
> Repair wise - not as difficult as you might imagine any good yard will have an engine stripped down and removed in about a week - cabling can be a bit more fun though.
Click to expand...


----------



## fred henderson

Carnival Corporation & plc estimates that the total financial impact from voyage disruptions and related repair costs to Carnival Splendor, will result in an approximate $0.07 reduction in the company's 2010 fourth quarter earnings per share. The impact of voyage disruptions in the first quarter of 2011 is not expected to be material to the company's 2011 earnings. The company had expected earnings for the fourth quarter 2010 to be in the range of $0.32 to $0.36 per share, compared to $0.24 per share in 2009. A reduction of $0.07 translates to approximately $55 million. The company now expects to earn about $1.9 billion in 2010.


----------



## JoK

Billieboy said:


> Thanks Capt. Jeremy, I wasn't aware of this, "Safe return to port", rule as I've been out of touch for some time.
> 
> Seems a bit unusual that a two year old ship does not,(or cannot), comply but as the say, safety is an ongoing operation. I expect that individual switch boards and the ability to cross couple switchboards will be the next, expensive requirement and Chief Engineer's headache.


I'm sure she is built to Class minimum standards.
It was floated on another board that the reverse power relay didn't trip the breaker on the damaged engine allowing the 5 other generators to motorize it. Just the thought brings out the pucker factor.


----------



## Billieboy

Reverse power trip not working? something very wrong on the switchbpard. Doesn't this sound like, "Canberra", on her maiden voyage?


----------



## JoK

All speculation Billyboy.


----------



## forthbridge

Billieboy said:


> Reverse power trip not working? something very wrong on the switchbpard. Doesn't this sound like, "Canberra", on her maiden voyage?


How often is electrical protection tested on a normal ship during planned maintenance?


----------



## surfaceblow

forthbridge said:


> How often is electrical protection tested on a normal ship during planned maintenance?


On US ships the reverse power trip is tested yearly during the COI. On ships that I have sailed on the test of the reverse power trip is tested when the generator is taken off line manually. 

Some automatic power management programs that automatically remove generators on-line when the load no longer requires them utilize the reverse power trip to take the generator off line. The system also lets you decide to keep the generators on-line no matter what the load is like during maneuvering. The computer would also shut down the engine after a suitable idle period. 

Joe


----------



## Barryng

JoK said:


> It was floated on another board that the reverse power relay didn't trip the breaker on the damaged engine allowing the 5 other generators to motorize it.


Only if the forward and aft plant were crosstied could a fault on a single diesel generator adversely affect all five of the other machines. If the two plants were not crosstied, then there should have been no affect at all on the three machines in the forward plant.

Whenever a design calls for two independent systems (trains, divisions, etc.), each capable of performing functions to protect some vital need, it is never appropriate to tie the systems together, either mechanically or electrically. This is to prevent a fault on one train from adversely effecting the other train; true independence (including physical separation) must always be maintained. This does not mean tie breakers, crosstie valves, etc. are not built into the design, but these ties are only intended to be used to facilitate major maintenance activities when the overall plant is shut down (in port, dry dock, maintenance outages, etc.). 

This design approach is used, for example, in commercial nuclear power and other facilities where certain specific functions must always be available. Although my experience is predominantly in the nuclear power industry, I can tell you as fact that it would be a serious criminal offense in a nuclear plant to intentionally operate with both trains or divisions tied together, in any way. For the same reason I cannot understand why the requirement does equally apply to a marine plant on which 5000 souls rely for their safety and well being.

In other words, it is my firm opinion, it is incompetent, if not criminal, for a commercial vessel open to the paying public, to operate at sea, with both the forward and aft plants electrically and/or mechanically tied together. From the Costa Victoria brochure, readily available on the internet, I cannot see a single reason why the vessel needs the two plants crosstied in any way.

If the two plants were indeed operating independently, all fire safety systems were operable, all ventilation isolation dampers were in service and operable, all required fire barriers were operable and properly configured between fire zones, etc, I cannot begin to see how this event occurred. Maybe this alludes to the reason Carnival is being so quiet about what really happened even though there is so much interest in the event. Did the ship sail with some of these vital systems out of service? Where the two plants tied together and if so where they tied together out of ignorance/incompetence or a need to work around out of service equipment? There seems to be an incredibly large amount of good lessons learned experience from this event that is not now being used to assure the well being of one hell of a lot of innocent blissfully unaware paying passengers at sea right now.


----------



## kewl dude

Announced on San Diego TV news tonight that the Splendor will not return to service until February 20, 2011. Said that the vessel will be going to a San Francisco shipyard for further repairs and dry docking but did not mention whether it would be towed or under her own power.

Greg Hayden


----------



## JoK

That is not a surprise, engine must have to come out through the hull


----------



## kewl dude

I read in today, Sunday January 16, 2011 North County Times paper edition

http://tinyurl.com/47w8l9f

That Carnival Splendor will proceed under her own power Wednesday January 19 to San Francisco accompanied by two tugs.

Carnival along with NCL and HAL announced last week that by April 2012 they will abandon San Diego and Los Angeles cruise ports -- the ships mainly cruise round trips to Mexico -- due to the Mexican violence, and drug cartels taking over Mexican port services.

Greg Hayden


----------



## kewl dude

Friday January 21, 2011 @ 1300 local

Carnival has been steadily pushing back the Splendor departure time since Wednesday morning. For example today, Friday, they were supposed to sail at 8 AM, then it was noon but as yet no action, still tied up. We are told on TV that she will be accompanied by four tugs while in the San Diego harbor and that two tugs will accompany her during an expected two day voyage to San Francisco for dry docking.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/01/infamously-futile-cruise-ship-coming-port

http://pier70sf.org/

http://www.examiner.com/airlines-ai...-blasts-carnival-splendor-for-fire-negligence

http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Ships/Carnival-Splendor-9333163.html

Greg Hayden


----------



## kewl dude

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7914396

Carnival Splendor dry-docks in SF for repairs

“During the 4-6 weeks in San Francisco Bay, the Splendor will be getting a new diesel generator and two alternators.” More ...


http://tinyurl.com/oldsaltblog

“The Pier 70 dry dock in San Francisco was expanded three years ago and is now the only dry dock on the West Coast capable of repairing a ship the size of the Splendor.”

Greg Hayden


----------



## Billieboy

One Generator and two alternators? 

Certainly sounds like a reverse trip problem, then!


----------



## kewl dude

http://www.flickr.com/photos/agrinberg/5386098767/

Photograph of Carnival Splendor in Drydock at BAE Shipyards, San Francisco

Greg Hayden


----------



## kewl dude

2300 local news Feb 16, 2011 announced that Carnival Splendor was en-route from San Francisco to Long Beach, California, to resume cruises.

Greg Hayden


----------



## vibit

[=P] As mi old man use to say,, if u can't mend it with ur hammer, there must be an electical problem,,,,(Ouch)(Ouch)


----------



## kewl dude

Early evening San Diego CBS news station Channel 8 were among other Media welcomed to a Media event today Saturday February 19, 2001 aboard Carnival Splendor in Long Beach. 

In a welcoming talk a Carnival spokesman said they had a special lunch for the Media, Spam sandwiches. 

He said they had replaced 110 MILES, not feet, MILES of electric cabling, and added insulation to protect the wiring from fire. He said they had installed one new diesel generator and two alternators, revamped their fire suppression systems giving better coverage, simplified the fire suppression operating system, and are assured that now those crew who need to know how to operate it, do.

Tomorrow February 20 the Carnival Splendor welcomes its first guests, for a round trip Mexico Riviera Cruise, in three months.

Greg Hayden


----------



## JoK

JoK said:


> These ships are the most advanced in fire control and safety.


In light of the Class warnings after this fire, was I ever naive when I posted this!!
110 miles, no surprise there. every piece of wire in the area of the fire would have to be replaced end to end. no junctions allowed.


----------



## kewl dude

February 19, 2011 2300 News CBS Channel 8 San Diego showed more of the Carnival spokesman's speech. He said that the diesel engine weighs over 218,000 pounds and was air lifted from Europe and that in San Diego and San Francisco repairs were made 24 hours daily seven days a week. He also said that the CAUSE of the original fire is still under investigation.

They showed video of some snazzy public areas but nothing down in the basement.

Greg Hayden


----------



## Billieboy

Must have been a hell of a payout from the underwriters, not a CTL but it would probably be 25-30% of a CTL exclusive off hire of course, which would have been considerable.


----------



## kewl dude

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4380

LOTS of info here including below:

Quote

Cahill estimated the total cost to the company to be $65 million, including the repairs, the deductible on the line's insurance, the lost revenue from canceled cruises and free or discounted cruises offered to passengers, and the costs to transport and house passengers when Splendor first returned to San Diego. He said that the line had displaced 47,000 cruise travelers with the cancellations and the line and its travel agent partners are working as hard as possible to re-accommodate everyone.

Unquote

Greg Hayden


----------

