# Suez Canal + Colombo Express + Maersk Tanjong =



## duquesa

Headache for somebody!!


http://gcaptain.com/containerships-...er&utm_campaign=Feed:+Gcaptain+(gCaptain.com)


----------



## willincity

Two container ships, the German-flagged MV Colombo Express and the Singaporean-flagged MV Maersk Tanjong, collided near the northern mouth of the Suez Canal on September 29 after one of the vessels experienced technical problems.
No reported casualties.

Raw footage here:-
http://video.heraldsun.com.au/v/243800/Two-Container-Ships-Collide-in-Suez-Canal


----------



## duquesa

*Suez canal +*

I posted this news a couple of hours ago but obviously in the wrong place. Apologies.


----------



## ben27

good day willincity.sm.today.04:36;re:suez canal+colombo express+tanjong.thank you for posting this news.your post shows the vessels up close.was there much damage.anybody hurt.regards ben27


----------



## Dickyboy

*Fender Bender in Suez Canal*

Fender Bender in Suez Canal.
A link to the recent prang in The Suez Canal........

Fender Bender in Suez Canal 

http://www.vesselfinder.com/news/2377-Colombo-Express-collides-with--Maersk-Tanjong-in-Port-Said

Whose at fault? Is it Obvious?


----------



## rickles23

Hi,

Who was the overtaking vessel?

Regards


----------



## Dickyboy

Looks like the Maersk boat to me..

http://www.vesselfinder.com/news/2377-Colombo-Express-collides-with--Maersk-Tanjong-in-Port-Said


----------



## Ian Brown

Just how did either of the pilots or Masters think that overtaking in the Canal at that point was a good idea?
That idea which presumably came from the pilots should have been firmly resisted by the Masters.
Now I'm sure they wish they had.


----------



## lakercapt

Overtaking in a narrow channel is a very difficult manoeuvre and extremely dangerous. (and stupid!!!)
The inter action between the ships and the bank effect make it nearly impossible to control the ships.
Even if it is possible the overtaking ship could drag the other vessel along and cause another hazard.
Remember trying to do it in the ships handling course in Grenoble France.
Did it on the lakes and the only way it worked was another boat sailed between the two of us breaking the suction. Only did it once as it was bum puckering


----------



## rickles23

Hi,

Looks like its a Maritime version of road rage.

Surely ships in a narrow channel sail line astern?

Regards


----------



## kewl dude

Attached:

ALEXANDER LESLIE.jpg (39.8 KB) 
GeorgeMHumphrey.jpg (137.1 KB) 
Typewriter.jpg (120.8 KB)

http://greatlakes.bgsu.edu/vessel/view/002680

Quote

Suffered minor damage in collision with Canadian steamer ALEXANDER LESLIE in Lake St. Clair, on June 11, 1965.

Unquote

I was 12-4 Oiler on George M Humphrey. Usually on Lake St Clair we ran full throttle - 12 nozzles. But the 12-4 mate telephoned the ER for full lake speed - 24 nozzles. I was just beginning my 0100 temperature round when the 1 A/E, who was standing by the starboard engine room gangway, motioned me over to his position, where I witnessed this collision. When our ships came together we shipped quite a bit of water through said starboard gangway. The 1 A/E and I had stepped well back before the water poured in.

We inspected starboard ballast tanks and our starboard side fuel oil tank. I cannot recall any problems other than perhaps some scraped paint.

On the attached George M Humphrey picture take a look all the way at the stern, you can see something sticking out from the hull. That is a 4 ft x 8 ft piece of 3/4 inch plywood "wind catcher". That is where I was standing. 

12-4 watch engineer 2 A/E Jim McKillip recommended when I get off watch I write a statement of what I saw while it was still fresh in my mind. Since the Humphrey vibrated so badly it was very difficult to write anything clearly when resting on a desk, so the previous year I bought this Smith-Corona portable typewriter, which I used to write my one page statement with two carbons. (Yes, I still have this typewriter its not worth anything except possibly as scrap metal.)

In Cleveland I was summoned to our Captains office where I was interviewed by a USCG officer, our Captain and a company attorney. It was the attorney who suggested where I wrote the ships met at a "sharp" angle I should change to "shallow" angle, which the other two agreed. Which I did by hand on my original and both copies initialing this change. 

Through the magic of the internet I found:

http://www.greatlakesvesselhistory.com/histories-by-name/h/humphrey-george-m-2/

1954 George M. Humphrey 2 1986

Steel Great Lakes bulk freighter

Built at Lorain OH by American Ship Building Co., Hull 871
Built in dry dock (too large for existing building berths); floated June 19, 1954

710’ LOA, 690’ LBP, 75’ beam, 37’6” depth 1 deck, arch cargo hold construction, hatches @ 24’, oil-fired boilers, steam turbine engine, 8500 SHP

Enrolled at
690.4 x 75.9 x 32.9, 14034 GT, 10528 NT US 268564 to:
National Steel Corporation, Cleveland OH, M. A. Hanna Co., Mgr. (home port Wilmington DE)

Entered service Oct 1954

Laid up Dec 31, 1983 at Ecorse MI and did not operate again

Sold for scrap 1986 to Taiwanese shipbreakers. Fitted out and cleared Ecorse Aug 13 for Quebec QC with a crew of retired Hanna employees (retired Vice President Howard Andrews was one of the deckhands), whereupon the crew took the train to Windsor ON and returned to Ecorse to pick up str. Paul H. Carnahan. Cleared Lauzon QC with Carnahan Sept 2, 1986 towed by Dutch tug Smit-Lloyd 109. Tow arrived Kaohsiung Taiwan Dec 10, 1986.

IMO 5128895


Four Alexander Leslie pictures:

http://pics.boatnerd.com/v/bnmain/album482/album1536/album1862/


http://www.greatlakesvesselhistory.com/histories-by-name/h/hutchinson-j-t/

1901 J. T. Hutchinson 1969

Steel Great Lakes bulk freighter

Built at Cleveland OH by American Ship Building Co., Hull 405
Launched Feb 9, 1901

366’ LOA, 346’ LBP, 48’ beam, 28’ depth 1 deck, hold beams, hatches @ 24’, coal-fired boilers, triple expansion engine, 1300 IHP

Enrolled at Cleveland OH March 27, 1901 (#65)
346.0 x 48.0 x 28.0, 3734 GT, 2780 NT US 77457 to:
American Ship Building Co., Cleveland OH (home port to Cleveland OH)

Reenrolled at Cleveland OH April 19, 1901 (# to:
Pioneer Steamship Co., Cleveland OH, Hutchinson & Co., Mgr. (home port to Fairport OH)

Entered service 1901

Cargo hold rebuilt 1914 to arch construction and 12’ center hatch covers
Remeasured to 3690 GT, 2274 NT

Cargo hold rebuilt 1920 with side tanks at Cleveland OH by American Ship Building Co.
Remeasured to 24.0 depth and 3300 GT, 2015 NT

Sold March 17, 1923 to Forest City Steamship Co., Cleveland OH and renamed H. A. Rock

Sold Aug 27, 1927 to Lake Erie Coal Co., Walkerville ON and renamed Alexander Leslie (home port to Windsor ON)
Enrolled Canadian at 353.6 x 48.2 x 23.7, 3509 GT, 2000 NT Can 154692

Sold 1964 to Norlake Steamships Ltd., Toronto ON

Sold for scrap 1969 to Steel Factors Ltd.. Carried final cargo of salt to Trois Rivieres QC Dec 1969 and laid up at Quebec QC. Resold to Spanish shipbreakers. Cleared Quebec May 31, 1971 with str. Stonefax towed by Polish tug Jantar. Tow arrived Santander Spain June 19, 1971.

IMO 5010098


Greg Hayden


----------



## RHP

One of the vessels is claiming 'technical difficulties'.


----------



## tiachapman

it sure loooks like it


----------



## Jim Harris

That was scary to watch.

Regards,

Jim.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega

lakercapt said:


> Overtaking in a narrow channel is a very difficult manoeuvre and extremely dangerous. (and stupid!!!)
> The inter action between the ships and the bank effect make it nearly impossible to control the ships.
> Even if it is possible the overtaking ship could drag the other vessel along and cause another hazard. ....
> 
> Fully agree with your analysis. watching the video today 1st, The Guardian
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vessels-manage-collide-middle-Suez-Canal.html
> Minute 1:00, approaching bow(B) to astern of (A).
> Minute 01:42, commencement of turning poop deck(B) into the bank
> I can see poop deck (B) very close to the bank side.
> Minute 01:53, clear swing (B) poop deck into the bank and because the pivot point quite fwd(B), bow(B) into (A).
> Minute 01:57, we can see very very close to the bank side the container (B).
> I did Suez Canal course at Suez Ismailia Centre, Warsash and MSR Rotterdam. Always the same, it is amazing how fast this effect occurs.
> The attachment D is probably the most clear one.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega

I do not know why these two angels appears above. It was not my intention.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega

I realize that the " two angels " mean " A "


----------



## callpor

*Suez Canal+Columbo Express+Maersk Tanjung*



lakercapt said:


> Overtaking in a narrow channel is a very difficult manoeuvre and extremely dangerous. (and stupid!!!)
> The inter action between the ships and the bank effect make it nearly impossible to control the ships.
> Even if it is possible the overtaking ship could drag the other vessel along and cause another hazard.
> Remember trying to do it in the ships handling course in Grenoble France.
> Did it on the lakes and the only way it worked was another boat sailed between the two of us breaking the suction. Only did it once as it was bum puckering


Without throwing any blame, I feel sorry for the crews of both vessels as clearly the canal scheduling resulted in the two vessels to be so close that the effects of interaction in a narrow channel had an uncontrollable impact. Like you, learnt that in the manned model training at Port Revel, Grenoble many many years ago and practised many times in the MSC. Notwithstanding my own opinion, will await the result of any investigation report with interest.


----------



## China hand

I wonder if the time slot in the disport a week ahead had anything to do with the idea to overtake just then? After all, the Mighty Planner must not be Frustrated Lest There Be COSTS involved.
Sorry, thats just cynical old me.(Smoke)


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega

*I don´think so*



China hand said:


> I wonder if the time slot in the disport a week ahead had anything to do with the idea to overtake just then? After all, the Mighty Planner must not be Frustrated Lest There Be COSTS involved.
> Sorry, thats just cynical old me.(Smoke)


It happen around 04:30 in the morning. Both vessels southbound and the schedule is to anchor at Bitter Lakes around 08:00 in the morning and wait to finish the north bound convoy traffic. 
This southbound convoy is resuming underway about 12:00/13:00, depends on the northbound traffic and leaving Suez Canal around 17:30 hours. They could change the number in the convoy for both vessels while at anchor, whis always happen to some vessels. 
Thefore I do not see any reason for overtake because they can reschedule at Bitter Lake while at anchor the number of both vessel in the final stage from Bitter Lake to South leaving point.


----------



## duquesa

*Suez canal +*



China hand said:


> I wonder if the time slot in the disport a week ahead had anything to do with the idea to overtake just then? After all, the Mighty Planner must not be Frustrated Lest There Be COSTS involved.
> Sorry, thats just cynical old me.(Smoke)


I might have been equally cynical but in this case no. I have just spoken to the planner and he simply said :- " No Dad, not in this case" (Thumb)


----------



## callpor

I'll be transiting Suez again in a few days time and will enquire of the Pilots if the Canal Authority is running this incident on the Ismaylia simulator as part of their enquiry into the cause. I still reckon that it will be poor scheduling, high speeds and interaction that is to blame. The effects of interaction within a canal are magnified by orders of magnitude due to the shallow waters and bank effects. If you had the opportunity to practice these sort of manoeuvres on a manned model training course, as I was fortunate to do at Port Revel, you would understand my comments. You cannot steer yourself out of these situations in the Suez Canal and if you cannot get the speed off very quickly the result is inevitable. 
Lets wait and see what the final incident report says


----------



## duquesa

We seem to have two threads running on this incident.


----------



## Wallace Slough

I agree with lakercapt and callpor. I was fortunate enough to attend the manned model course at Port Revel on four occasions, and we would practice overtaking in narrow channels to illustrate how difficult and dangerous the maneuver is. While meeting in a narrow channel is relatively easy, overtaking is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. The Board of Pilot Commissioners in San Francisco has a policy for all commissioned pilots to attend manned model training on a five year frequency. The training at Port Revel is outstanding, and while expensive, is cost effective if it can prevent one accident. Actual experience in the bay has proven that the training has been utilized on occasions to prevent accidents. While simulator training is valuable, manned model training is superior in my opinion.


----------



## lakercapt

While in Port Revel on course we stayed at hotel where the evening meal was outstanding. Think I put on a few pounds.
There were a few people there that alas had not a clue what was going on !!!!
The lunch which was brought to the centre was a gigantic meal and even with a two hour break (the French were very civilized in that sense) you always felt like a little afternoon snooze.
I found it a very worth while course and learned a few ship handling tips there.


----------



## callpor

*Suez Canal + Colombo Express + Maersk Tanjong*



lakercapt said:


> While in Port Revel on course we stayed at hotel where the evening meal was outstanding. Think I put on a few pounds.
> There were a few people there that alas had not a clue what was going on !!!!
> The lunch which was brought to the centre was a gigantic meal and even with a two hour break (the French were very civilized in that sense) you always felt like a little afternoon snooze.
> I found it a very worth while course and learned a few ship handling tips there.


Of all the training courses that I did throughout my career, the manned model one at Port Revel was by far the best and most beneficial. The time scale of 5 x meant that just 4 hours a day of training on the lake was equivalent to 20 hours work. At the end of the week I think our whole course were exhausted but had learned so much about the science of ship-handling; more than in the previous 11 years of seagoing service?


----------

