# Unidentified damaged tanker



## footman

Can anyone please identify the heavily damaged tanker shown with a Rotterdam Dry Dock Company tug and also the name of the other ship involved as well as the date and location of the collision?
The image can be found by Googling "dockyard9" and clicking on "historie". Unfortunately, the name of the tanker is not given, as the site concentrates on the Dockyard tug, and no name of a photographer is given. The tanker appears to be under tow into the floating dock in Rotterdam. 
My guess is the collision occurred in the mid to late 1960s, but a search through the WSS publication Marine News from 1955 until about 1972 indicates that, although some collisions involving tankers of this era are mentioned, there is not one that would match exactly.
I apologise for not attaching a thumbnail, but with my lack of knowledge of all things technological, I have been unable to do so. Please Google "dockyard9" or "dockyardIX". 
footman


----------



## Billieboy

Dockyard IX is a RDM (Rotterdam Drydock Maatschappij), steam tug. There were lots of dammaged tankers taken into RDM in the sixties, one of which was the Hamilton a tanker managed by Evan Thomas and Radcliffe of Cardiff the funnel had a powder blue fleur-de-lys on a buff ground. I couldn't find the photo you refer to. Try copying the URL and pasting it in another post.

Good luck, Bill.


----------



## footman

Thank you, Bill, for your reply to my query and for trying to find the photo of the tanker. Hamilton came here to Brisbane quite a bit, so I knew she wasn't the one in the photo. It looks a bit like a couple of the tankers owned by Compania Espanola de Petroleos Soc. Anon. (CEPSA), but doesn't quite match.
I did what you suggest first and posted the image in Maritime Casualties. However Admin deleted my post with the explanation that they could not be sure of the provenance of the photo and suggested I place it in Forums, which as you know I have done. I have followed the instructions, but I cannot get the image from My Pictures to Forums, even though it does not exceed the allowable dimensions. Thanks again for your effort on my behalf.
Regards,
Warwick


----------



## non descript

Is this the one? - If it is, we can put it in your thread?


----------



## Billieboy

Looks like it Mark, I'm afraid I can't put a name to it but it's obvious that the tanker had a bad bump when fully loaded, probably with a lighter vessel as the damage seem to stop at the waterline. I'd put the tanker at about 20k DWT, could be Greek, Not a BP or Shell vessel, not Esso either as I can't remember an Esso Casualty in that area at that time. From the background I'd put it at '62-3, the tug appears to be hard working which would put it between 58 and 70. Lloyd's casualty list could fix it.


----------



## footman

Hi Mark,
Yes, that is the one, and I would appreciae it very much if you could put it in my thread, please, as that will save interested members the trouble of Googling. And thanks again for your earlier assistance. 
Kind regards,
Warwick


----------



## non descript

footman said:


> Hi Mark,
> Yes, that is the one, and I would appreciae it very much if you could put it in my thread, please, as that will save interested members the trouble of Googling. And thanks again for your earlier assistance.
> Kind regards,
> Warwick


Your word is my command. (Thumb)


----------



## boyd guard

I was the lecky on the HAMILTON that went aground on the Hook in 1966.
Boyd guard.


----------



## Billieboy

Saw the photo when I was on the Llangorse. Later on, was discussing the grounding with some Rotterdam pilots, it seems that the grounding caused the harbour master to close the port if there was more than force seven from the Northern quadrant. 

Welcome aboard Boyd, have a good trip.


----------



## djw1

My guess is that it is an Onassis ship.
Onassis was one of the very few tanker owners
to paint his topsides white.
Nothing matches in the CTX database.
Another SN thread talks about a collision
between the Olympic Honour and Olympic Thunder,
but this picture matches neither.

KTF


----------



## Ron Stringer

djw1 said:


> My guess is that it is an Onassis ship.
> Onassis was one of the very few tanker owners
> to paint his topsides white.


Think you may be somewhat over-positive there. During the 1960s a lot of tankers had white superstructure (decks were a different matter) including those of the two companies that I sailed with - Shell and Regent/Texaco.


----------



## footman

Thanks, KTF, for your suggestion; it could well be an Onassis tanker. The Straits Times report of the collision off Suez between Olympic Thunder and Olympic Honour in January 1955 says the Thunder "exploded in flames". Somehow she survived that, because I have a newspaper photo of her burning amidships after a collision with the Greek tanker Kissavos in the North Sea on 26 April 1962. In the same paper the photo of Kissavos, with bow damage, shows she is not my "mystery" tanker.
Warwick


----------



## djw1

footman,

Olympic Honour survived the 1955 collision,
ended up exploding in 1966 while under repair in marseilles,
killing 7 and injuring 31. Photos show she is not yr tanker.
Yr tanker is a much smaller ship.

I think the photo may be as early as late 40's/early 50's.
I dont think the ship is more than 20,000 dwt, probably less.
If somebody has an Onassis fleet list covering this period,
we could probably confirm or deny my guess.

Jack


----------



## Billieboy

djw1, on the right of the picture the Wilton Feyanoord portal crane can be seen over #3 drydock in Schiedam, this dock was built in 1956 so the photo must be post 1956.


----------



## non descript

*A fresh image of her*

Footman has asked that a fresh thumbnail be added, sadly the format of the picture makes it too large to upload easily, so for ease of use *this is the link to it*... hopefully this will lead to someone knowing its idendity.
(Thumb) 
Mark


----------



## djw1

Billieboy,

I stand corrected. The new photo shows a VLCC
in a neighboring berth, so we are definitely into the 60's.
This really bugs me.
The CTX should have it.

Jack


----------



## Billieboy

Jack, the new photo shows the tanker coming into one of the RDM floating docks the smallest of these could take a 18-20k dwt ship, the gangway is coming on board and it appears that the tanker is just off the blocks, so the tonnage should be adjusted down, to about 12-18000dwt. There seems to be quite a bit of work needed, this type of casualty was standard for RDM between '60 and '75, after that the ships got too big to come up the river, if they did get up to RDM then the docks were too small. 

#3 dock at Wiltons, with the portal crane, is where QE 2 was dry docked, I was on the dock inspection, there was about two meters free at each end of the dock.


----------



## Superlecky

She looks as if she might be one of the British built Norwegian tankers from the mid 1950's. It's difficult to see the funnel colours of the VLCC in the background, if it is one of the Dutch built one's from the 1970's it might help in the identification.


----------



## djw1

Almost certain she is the Katelysia, IMO 5183481
a 18,170 dwt Dutch flag Shell tanker built at RDM in 1954.
She was in a collision near Vaxholm with a tanker called the Otello
1970-03-20. Turns out the CTX CDB does have this casualty,
which some databases claim resulted in a 60,000 to 100,000 ton spill.
We believe but are not sure that the Otello was a 4000 dwt
Swedish coastal tanker. If so, the Otello must have been in ballast
and the Katelysia loaded
to create the damage shown.

Pictures of the katelysia show her with black topsides,
but if I'm right, Ron is right. Shell must have used white topsides
for this ship in 1970. The Katelysia was broken up in 1977.

Jack


----------



## Cisco

djw1 said:


> Almost certain she is the Katelysia, IMO 5183481
> a 18,170 dwt Dutch flag Shell tanker
> 
> Jack


Sorry but I must beg to differ.... photo of Katelysia here..http://www34.brinkster.com/lduive16/scheepje/k/katelys1.htm
major differences I can see include.. mainmast on unidentified ship on monkey island..not aft.. also has the christmas tree on the mainmast.
Windows on the officers' deck on the midship house where Katelysia has ports.
Support for bridgewing doesn't match..
I think Shell had grey on some newbuilds ( N' class?) but never went to white on old ships.
Also foremast not as tall on unidentified...ends at spreader lights
Radar scanner is raytheon type as favoured by skandihooligans, Kateylesia scanner is Decca/Marconi UK style .. half cheese? 
The damage doesn't look 'fresh' so could have happened anywhere..
Cheers
Cisco


----------



## footman

Thank you, Jack and Cisco, for your posts. I agree with Cisco that she is not a Shell K-class vessel. We had quite a few down here in Brisbane, and I excluded them from my speculation at the start. The damage does look "old", as it has had time to rust. What intrugues me, though, is that the damage is not exactly the same in the two photos. If you are able to lighten the image in the first post, as I have done on my computer, you will see there are bits and pieces all over the collision site, whereas in the second (coloured) photo, there seems to be plating over the site. Which tends to make me think the coloured photo came first. This is a puzzle in more ways than one.
Thanks again to both of you - and all other users for their suggestions.
Cheers,
Warwick


----------



## Billieboy

Dutch Shell "K"class, were the equivalent of the UK "H" class, there were lots of them all steamers. The unidentified tanker is NOT the Katelysia. although it could be an H or another K boat, there were others of this class under Danish, Norwegian and German flag. At least we are getting closer, I'm tending towards a German or Norwegian Shell tanker. as for the 70-100K tons of oil spill, this is just ridiculous, as a spill of that size would have been the same as the Torrey Canyon which hit the headlines all over the world. It was probably a spill of 70 -100,000 *Litres* of fuel oil from the forward bunker tank. Further, Shell was getting rid of the H class from about 1959 onwards, as they were replaced by the "V" class 35K dwt vessels.


----------



## Cisco

Maybe this pic should be posted in the 'unidentified' section in the gallery, it will be sorted double quick there.
One thing I am sure of is that she is not Shell of any persuasion, K, H or otherwise


----------



## Santos

Could she be a Stolt tanker ?

Chris


----------



## non descript

Cisco said:


> Maybe this pic should be posted in the 'unidentified' section in the gallery, it will be sorted double quick there.


Please read # 3


----------



## Billieboy

Santos said:


> Could she be a Stolt tanker ?
> 
> Chris


With you on the colour Chris, but I think that it was before Stolt has started to get into second gear, also, Stolt had lots of small parcels even on the first tankers they chartered, they also led the product market, I can't remember a Stolt black oil tanker.


----------



## djw1

Yes. she's not the Katelysia. saw the differances after I stupidly
dashed off my post. Of course, the 70,000 to 100,000 ton spill
is ridiculous. The Swedish Coast Guard said 200 to 300 tons.
But it still shows up in most lists of the world's biggest tanker spills,
usually under the name Othello.

Jack


----------



## Superlecky

I have been looking at the VLCC in the background and I am almost sure that she is Lemos' Tactic or one of her sisters built by Kawasaki around 1974. This would make the incident sometime in the middle of the 1970's. Hope this helps with dating.


----------



## boyd guard

Torrey Canyon, photo that I took while passing on the Hamilton as she was bombed matches the photo in the book about her.


----------



## footman

Thank you for the suggestion, but she certainly isn't the Torrey Canyon.


----------



## Dickyboy

Hi!
I don't have any Idea whose tanker this is, but I'm pretty sure that The two pictures are of the same ship, taken from slightly different angles.
The damage that protrudes above the shoulder of the forecastle looks the same, as does the damage just above the cu****er.
I saved both pictures to my Picture gallery, then compared the two side by side.
What about the, what appears to me to be a very badly painted broad white band that runs the length of the hull? Is that my imagination? Is it part of the company/owners paint scheme, or has it been painted on to aid the salvage or towing tugs? It shows up better on the B&W photo.
Could the VLCC in the colour photo be a Chevron tanker? That was my first thought, on seeing what there is of the funnel.
I think the radar is the same, just a different angle.
I dry docked in an RDM floating drydock on a 22,000 tonner in the late 60s early 70s. One of the BP ''Titty" boats as I recall. Flamin' cold, but what a run ashore!


----------



## zelo1954

Superlecky said:


> She looks as if she might be one of the British built Norwegian tankers from the mid 1950's. It's difficult to see the funnel colours of the VLCC in the background, if it is one of the Dutch built one's from the 1970's it might help in the identification.


My feelings on the damaged vessel were the same as yours - looks like a British-build for Norway in the mid-50s. Alas, if the incident happened in the 70s she's unlikely to be with her original owners. Could be anything.

I must say though I can't see a background VLCC in the picture at all.
Added later: Ah - Tonga's colour photo - I see now.


----------



## zelo1954

Have a look at the photo of Ithaca Trader which appeared on here quite recently: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/search.php?searchid=467808

It's probably not her but it's pretty darned close. Builder = Deutsche Werft, Finkenwarder. Here's the Miramar entry:

IDNO	:	5110458
YEAR	:	1953
NAME	:	Evje
FLAG	:	NOR
TONS= 12906
DWT= 18200
LENGTH_BP:	164.6
BUILDER	:	Deutsche Werft
YARD	:	Finkenwarder
YARD_NO	:	650
OWNER	:	E.B.Aaby
FATE	:	BU Santander 27.6.75
HISTORY	:	67 ITHACA TRADER - 74 CORONA ANTARES


----------



## Billieboy

Ithaca Trader (ex-Evje), seems to be a 99% bet zelo, tonnage and age match reasonably well, '67-'74 for the casualty time line is good, I would go closer to '67 for the drydocking. This could also have been the change of ownership.


----------



## zelo1954

Seems there was some sort of coming together between Evje and Dona Evgenia - but this was in 1960 and is probably not pertinent to this photo.


----------



## zelo1954

zelo1954 said:


> Seems there was some sort of coming together between Evje and Dona Evgenia - but this was in 1960 and is probably not pertinent to this photo.


I've just compared Ithaca Trader with the colour photo of the damaged tanker entering drydock. They are not the same vessel - too many bridge window differences.


----------



## Billieboy

That means that Evje was built as a "H/K" class with a diesel instead of a turbine then. I missed the windows, was looking at the general shape of the midships block. I also noticed that there are no stays on the foremast, but the photo is poor on this point.


----------



## footman

According to a website showing photos of ships repaired or renovated by the Rotterdam Drydock Company, the tanker is the Mariam, built in France as Pluviose in 1955, renamed Mariam in 1968; Prodomos in 1969; Marianna V in 1972. The photo, the same as the one posted, is beneath the heading 1969, but unfortunately no further details are given.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions as to the tanker's idendity.


----------



## footman

I've found her! The April 1969 issue of Nautical Magazine states that the 11,601-ton ship Houston on voyage from Grangemouth to New York was in collision in fog with the Greek vessel Mariam in lat. 51 15 N, long. 1 54 E. Both vessels were locked together at bows. Anchor cables of Mariam cut clear by the tug Scaldis. Both ships arrived at Rotterdam.
Thanks again to everyone for their suggestions during this long, but rewarding, search.


----------



## Billieboy

Well done footman; for your tenacity. Now we can let it gather dust in the Archives, after it's put in the Gallery with the correct name and date.


----------

