Ship Simulator

English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: ravi on July 27, 2007, 14:28:58

Title: Cruiseliner question
Post by: ravi on July 27, 2007, 14:28:58
Hi Everyone
                 I love cruiseliners.I have seen some pictures of Bridge from Cruise ship Freedom of the seas and Queen Mary 2.They both have joysticks.I am aware most  ships use joysticks for  docking at low speeds.
       
Are joysticks used at  high seas for steering the  ship at  normal cruising speeds ?.Or they use the wheel

This question has been in my mind for a long time .I will be very happy if you could share your knowledge with me

             Kind regards
             Ravi
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: jggriffith on July 27, 2007, 19:18:08
The captain on the Queen Mary 2 told me that the joystick is normally used all the time, so of course this is at all speeds.  He said the wheel is rarely used, but I don't know why they change from the joystick to the wheel only some times and when they decide to do this.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on July 30, 2007, 00:13:11
The R/V Melville, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has VSPs fore and aft. No wheel.
She has crossed the oceans on joystick alone.
She's not a cruiseliner, although often regarded as such by the scientific party. :)
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on July 30, 2007, 00:24:49
The R/V Melville, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has VSPs fore and aft. No wheel.
She has crossed the oceans on joystick alone.
She's not a cruiseliner, although often regarded as such by the scientific party. :)

Just found this website http://shipsked.ucsd.edu/ships/melville/index.html 1969 would surely make it one of the first ships to be fitted with this type of propulsion?

Or was it retro-fitted?
Stu
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: LucAtC on July 30, 2007, 01:18:43
Hello Stu,
Your link gives the history of the R/V Melville.
http://shipsked.ucsd.edu/ships/melville/section1.html
You were right, by mid-life (1992), the "cycloïdal" thrusters were replaced by 2 Z-drive Schottel Lips units as indeed a retrofit.
Regards,
Luc
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on July 30, 2007, 01:29:22
Luc you are a walking encyclopedia :)

Stu
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on July 30, 2007, 14:05:36
Hello Stu,
Your link gives the history of the R/V Melville.
http://shipsked.ucsd.edu/ships/melville/section1.html
You were right, by mid-life (1992), the "cycloïdal" thrusters were replaced by 2 Z-drive Schottel Lips units as indeed a retrofit.
Regards,
Luc

Luc:
I'm not surprised that the original VS units were eventualy replaced. On the Manila-Port Louis leg of her maiden voyage in 1970, she stripped the crown gear on the after unit just as we entered the Indian Ocean. We proceeded at 4 kt on the forward unit to a graving dock in Port Louis, Mauritius. A new gear was flown down.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Admiral-of-the-fleet on March 07, 2008, 01:10:59
From what i gather.... the two consoles in either wing of the bridge in the large ships are used at docking... know for the QM2 with its azipods a small rotating joystick is used with a small throttle for the fixed pods.  Obviously its 3 bow thrusters can be used to take the QM2 sidewards on to the dock and to spin it in its on length.  Quite impressive. Got some pics below of the bridge of the QM2.  Dunno wether i should be displayin these but hey!! 

Notice the two small what look like throtles on the center console (the first pic)  those are the individual pod controls which can be rotated 360 degrees as well as the throtles for the fixed pods.  Also theres the auto pilot and the small wheel (bit of a let down, was expecting a captain with a white beard and a huge wheel) and the vast array of consoles, charts and radars.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Admiral-of-the-fleet on March 07, 2008, 01:23:29
oh and to answer the above question.... Often the small joysticks are used for delicate manoveures (easier to control) like docking-the wheel often used for manouvers at sea.  Quite dissapointingly the Autopilot is controlling the QM2 the majority of the time and is often only changed to the wheel during rough seas or a manoveure at sea.  In fact the captain or commodore doesn't do to much as far as driving is concerned only docking and manouvering the beast in tricky conditions.  Still  quite a task for something of the size of the Queen Mary.  Its often lesser senior officer who will take the wheel at sea when its necissary.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 08, 2008, 09:06:32
The Titanic was a cruise liner, and she never even HAD a joystick!
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on March 08, 2008, 09:11:12
The Titanic was not a cruise liner.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on March 08, 2008, 09:14:35
Indeed, she was an Ocean Liner.

A cruise ship or cruise liner is a passenger ship used for pleasure voyages, where the voyage itself and not transportation, is the prime purpose of the trip.

An ocean liner is a passenger ship or passenger-cargo ship that transports people and often freight from one port to another along regular trans-oceanic routes according to a schedule. Transportation is the purpose of the trip.

 ;)

Regards,
Fred


Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 08, 2008, 09:16:52
...I didn't know there was a difference...

wasn't the Olympic sometimes used on cruise-like voyages, though?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on March 08, 2008, 09:23:33
Nope...

She made 4 or 5 voyages to New York, after which she had a little accident with the HMS Hawke.
Then she was turned into a troop transport ship during WWI and after that she made a few more voyages to NY after which she was decommissioned. Well, that's as far as I know..

you should know that... you're an ameteur expert on that class, aren't you?  ;D

Regards,
Fred

* Edit * Typo
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 08, 2008, 10:14:57
The Britannic (yard #433) would be awesome if she got that German-made pipe organ that was made for her...

too bad she never saw duty as a passenger ship...

But really, have you ever heard of an organ on a passenger liner?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on March 08, 2008, 11:34:24
I don't think you need to mention the yard number... if someone does not know her name and thus does not know what ship you are talking aobut, then the yard number isn't going to help anyway.  ;)

 ;D


Regards,
Fred
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 08, 2008, 13:21:21
I just find the number sequence of the 3 wierd:

400
401
433

Britannic breaks the pattern!
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on March 08, 2008, 17:19:09
I just find the number sequence of the 3 wierd:

400
401
433

Britannic breaks the pattern!

Lollypop…Gigantic…whatever:
Olympic and Titanic were assigned consecutive yard numbers because their keels were laid consecutively on Queens Yard slipways #2 and #3—the only two under the Arrol gantry.
The keel for the third Olympic class ship—which became HMHS Britannic—could not be laid until Olympic was launched.
In the meantime, H&W assigned yard numbers to other projects. These included the two White Star Lines tenders Nomadic & Traffic—needed for Cherbourg where Olympic and Titanic could not dock.
This obvious explanation would have occurred to anyone—even a non-expert—who was acquainted with the history of those ships.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on March 08, 2008, 17:36:02
But really, have you ever heard of an organ on a passenger liner?
I’ve seen one on a submarine. :)
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 08, 2008, 21:35:34
I know WHY they aren't consecutive, I just think it's kinda funny

I'd give people the first 2 yard numbers, and they'd always guess 402 was the 3rd, lol

I haven't come across a person yet  that's guessed the 3rd number correctly!
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on March 09, 2008, 03:21:59
I know WHY they aren't consecutive, I just think it's kinda funny

That's a weird statement, because.. when you know WHY it is, it's obvious and thus not funny anymore..  :P

Regards,
Fred
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: saltydog on March 09, 2008, 04:46:04
I’ve seen one on a submarine. :)
Do you mean this one, Marty..?   :D
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 09, 2008, 05:16:48
That's a weird statement, because.. when you know WHY it is, it's obvious and thus not funny anymore..  :P
I mean more funny as in odd than anything else, I guess
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on March 09, 2008, 05:39:03
Yeah I know.. but it still isn't odd, when you realise WHY the number is 433... ::)

It's pretty straight foreward.. they could not start on her unless one of the other two was finished at least.
And in the meanwhile, they kept on building other ships..  it's not like they only had those two projects going.. Sop when it was her turn, they were further along the line..

So it's not odd or funny, or weird or strange at all. I guess they could have "reserved" the number for her. But the number is of no significance anyway. Not for anything other then their own bookkeeping reasons.

No ship is referred to by it's yard number.. they have names for a reason. No one really cared what it would be, I bet.  ;D

Regards,
Fred
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on March 09, 2008, 06:14:04
Yeah, Dawg,
Great book, good movie.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on March 15, 2008, 07:07:53
Why isn't "Liverpool Titanic" written on Titanic's stern?

I can't figure out why they left that out in BOTH games...
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on March 15, 2008, 08:37:40
It really isn’t that important, since she never visited Liverpool, and probably never would have.
She was an American ship flying a British flag of convenience, so she needed a British port on her stern.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 03, 2008, 23:17:53
White Star Line may well have been owned by America at the time, but it was still a British ship, with British officers, British insurance and under British Board of Trade regulations.

In this day and age of computers, here in Grim Britain, (I assume most/all others are the same) there is only one port of registry- Cardiff (offices located there for political reasons). Any port name painted on a ship now (UK) such as Dover, London, Birmingham (  ;) ) is purely for historic/ image reasons.

In the past, boats and ships were all registered at their local port and carried the port registration and port name for identification. And seems WSL was based in liverpool, it seems a good place to register the ship.

Incidentally, why they used Southampton is a mystery to me. Liverpool is much less distance- was Cherbourg REALLY that important to them?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on April 04, 2008, 00:24:20
White Star Line may well have been owned by America at the time, but it was still a British ship, with British officers, British insurance and under British Board of Trade regulations.
...and sunk by the arrogance of a British master, with most of the passengers doomed by British Board of Trade regulations.
What is forgotten today is that there was a bitter Anglo-American dustup at the time over those points. It might have escalated into a “shootin’ war” were it not for the intercession of Kaiser Wilhelm.

Where have you been, Stu?
Regards,
Marty

Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 00:41:51
I think in fairness, most countries had outdated regulations regarding safety- not just Britain.

Or could the American owners not over countermanded the British based management and insisted on extra safety precautions? No, of course not... All were just concerned about profit- we British don't have a monopoly on screwing things up, remember (although we have perfected it in the past 11 years!)

I think, with respect, that to suggest it might have lead to war is a bit of an exaggeration. I think Mr Ismay and his arousal of suspicion by trying to avoid entering the US is the foundation of this issue- yes, yes, both Britain and US were vying to be the 'official' investigators (no doubt to supress the real dangers facing atlantic shipping)

Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 00:53:34
oh, and a ship IS reffered to by its yard number during construction!
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:04:22
oh, and a ship IS reffered to by its yard number during construction!

But ONLY construction...

Can't imagine this: "Good afternoon Spambot and gentlemen. Welcome aboard todays crossing from Portsmouth to Bilbao onboard yard build number  1290..."

I think the Samaritans must be getting a lot of calls about now- I can't be the only one losing my will to live right now...
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 01:24:03
if it bothers you that much, I'll delete it.

I was trying to say I'm not one, but seem to be getting there.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:27:33
Good for you. Keep it up. I'm all for people who at least try.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on April 04, 2008, 01:31:43
I think in fairness, most countries had outdated regulations regarding safety- not just Britain.

You are right, Stu, and it didn’t end there. Take, for instance, the operation of Liberty Ships until their hulls rusted through.
I’m sure J. P. Morgan was happy that he didn’t have to spring for more lifeboats.
The fact that she was American owned, and that American citizens died, was the grounds for Senator Smith’s investigation. It would be too much to expect that either it or the BOT inquiry would be free of national sentiments.

Both inquiries were taken to task by Joseph Conrad in a lengthy essay titled “Some Reflections on the Loss of the Titanic” in the English Review of May 1912. If you haven’t read it, I commend it to your attention.
G. B. Shaw also rang in with a shorter opinion dealing more with moral questions than with seamanship—though I doubt one can entirely separate the two. It’s in the Daily News of 14 May 1912.

Regards,
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 01:33:54
I'm not sure if V-step did enough research: all 4 funnels are equal heights on the Titanic rendering.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:43:59
I'm not sure if V-step did enough research: all 4 funnels are equal heights on the Titanic rendering.

i thought they were anyway- at least that's the way it appears in photos- maybe I'm wrong.... It actually CAN happen  :o
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:53:16

The Liberty ships were only ever intended as short term "****, we need some boats" and the fact that they actually survived for so long and on such intensive work is a credit to their BRITISH designs  :P oh, ok and good construction in the US... Didn't some of them actually break up whilst quite new, because of light weight welding? But yes, I can see the comparison with Titanic- economy over safety (in this case such action was essential and a calculated risk)

In reality US probably wanted to control it to stop GB saying 'the Americans owned it- it's their fault' and GB wanted control it to stop the US saying 'GB operated it... it's their fault'. I think we should compromise and blame the Isle of Wight for it.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 01:54:51
i thought they were anyway- at least that's the way it appears in photos- maybe I'm wrong.... It actually CAN happen  :o
as shown on the world's most accurate models of the ship, there IS a height difference:

In order of shortest to tallest, they are 1st, 2nd, 4th, 3rd
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:59:40
as shown on the world's most accurate models of the ship, there IS a height difference:

In order of shortest to tallest, they are 1st, 2nd, 4th, 3rd

Still not sure http://www.starway.org/Titanic/pictures/Titanic%20BW.gif

Anyway, is it such a big detail?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 02:01:20
The Liberty ships were only ever intended as short term "****, we need some boats" and the fact that they actually survived for so long and on such intensive work is a credit to their BRITISH designs  :P oh, ok and good construction in the US... Didn't some of them actually break up whilst quite new, because of light weight welding? But yes, I can see the comparison with Titanic- economy over safety (in this case such action was essential and a calculated risk)

In reality US probably wanted to control it to stop GB saying 'the Americans owned it- it's their fault' and GB wanted control it to stop the US saying 'GB operated it... it's their fault'. I think we should compromise and blame the Isle of Wight for it.
lol

actually, the only sub-standard part of the Titanic was its expansion joints:

The new sinking theory, made in 2006, suggests the ship broke at a mere 10 or 11 degree angle, far less than the previously suggested 30 degrees.

This new, shallow angle is what most ships face in normal storms, suggesting weak expansion joints.

Sure enough, comparing the wrecks shows that Britannic's expansion joints were stronger than Titanic's, suggesting White Star knew of this structural defficiency.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 02:04:16
Still not sure http://www.starway.org/Titanic/pictures/Titanic%20BW.gif

Anyway, is it such a big detail?
I can see it... It's slight, but I can see it...
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: mvsmith on April 04, 2008, 08:14:06
Titanic first opened up from top down assuming a ^ bend. As her mid section flooded, the crack closed again. This was indicated by the bent and compressed edges at the top of the crack.
Finally, the double bottom snapped apart at the crack, and two short sections of the double bottom separated and fell to the sea floor upside down.
Marty
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 05, 2008, 01:21:05
Titanic first opened up from top down assuming a ^ bend. As her mid section flooded, the crack closed again. This was indicated by the bent and compressed edges at the top of the crack.
Finally, the double bottom snapped apart at the crack, and two short sections of the double bottom separated and fell to the sea floor upside down.
Marty

Exactly! Before it failed, the double bottom hull was the onlything holding the 882 foot, 9 inch ship together!
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Admiral-of-the-fleet on April 07, 2008, 23:53:20
Wow!!!  Both very informed and knowlegable in a very, in my small mind complicated matter (sinking and structual integrity of the Titanic)!!!!    I'm impressed!!!!!
 ;)  :P

Rgds
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 08, 2008, 03:54:07
Wow!!!  Both very informed and knowlegable in a very, in my small mind complicated matter (sinking and structual integrity of the Titanic)!!!!    I'm impressed!!!!!
 ;)  :P

Rgds

Thanks. Some one at the Titanic Museum in Branson, Missouri said I should work there (true story! I went there just over spring break!) :P

Titanic needs her family. Let's get the RMS Olympic and HMHS Britannic in Ship Sim! or at least SOME other Edwardian ship! Lusitania, anyone?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 08, 2008, 21:28:02
actually, the only sub-standard part of the Titanic was its expansion joints:

And Leonardo dic(*)aprios acting.

*You don't know how close I was to inserting an R in there...
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 09, 2008, 03:21:27
And Leonardo dic(*)aprios acting.

*You don't know how close I was to inserting an R in there...
... and the fact that that movie screws up the disater to no end....

Want to hear my list of greivences?
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on April 13, 2008, 16:58:36
... and the fact that that movie screws up the disater to no end....

Want to hear my list of greivences?

Any criticisms of that film are totally welcome by me. I think between us we could probably overload Vsteps forum server with negative comments about that dull, absurd film.
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on April 13, 2008, 23:38:01
Any criticisms of that film are totally welcome by me. I think between us we could probably overload Vsteps forum server with negative comments about that dull, absurd film.
LET'S DO IT! ;D
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Stuart2007 on May 08, 2008, 23:22:02
Sorry- I didn't see your reply.

OK...
1)dreadful acting
2)dicraprios screaching, whining and general american (sorry) loundness
3)the rose/cal/jack story line is totally boring. its a disaster film. disasters and romance shouldnt meet
4)when they are underwater in the ship... not once did anyone shout "f**k its cold"
5)The icebergs... one sodding lump of ice... no small pieces like in the earlier titanic film that looked like they were going through ice filled water
6)Murdoch is shown as being a madman who panicked and killed someone where he is really credited with being a hero who died saving many passengers
7)still dreadful acting
8)passengers weren't allowed down on the forecastle- certainly unlikely to go climbing the railings
9)Celine dion singing
10)possible inaccuracies in the way they show it breaking up
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: Mad_Fred on May 09, 2008, 00:43:48
And don't forget; loads more dreadful acting!

 ;D



Fred
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: RMS Gigantic on May 09, 2008, 12:32:58
Sorry- I didn't see your reply.

OK...
1)dreadful acting
2)dicraprios screaching, whining and general american (sorry) loundness
3)the rose/cal/jack story line is totally boring. its a disaster film. disasters and romance shouldnt meet
4)when they are underwater in the ship... not once did anyone shout "f**k its cold"
5)The icebergs... one sodding lump of ice... no small pieces like in the earlier titanic film that looked like they were going through ice filled water
6)Murdoch is shown as being a madman who panicked and killed someone where he is really credited with being a hero who died saving many passengers
7)still dreadful acting
8)passengers weren't allowed down on the forecastle- certainly unlikely to go climbing the railings
9)Celine dion singing
10)possible inaccuracies in the way they show it breaking up
Too add....

It wasn't the ENTIRE forecastle, just the stuff beyond the breakwaters

It's not like no one would see them there: It was directly in front of the wheelhouse AND the crows nest!

Passengers weren't allowed below decks

White Star MADE SURE they weren't down there!

The only J. Dawson on the ship was distributing coal between bulkheads (the worst job on the ship!)

The theory of the break up in the movie was disproved in 2006

That doesn't look like Thomas Andrews to me....

NO ONE WAS SHOT! GUNS WERE ONLY SHOT UP IN THE AIR TO KEEP ORDER! AND NO ONE SHOT THEMSELVES!

Rose was going to jump off the the stern, which is a third class area, after running through the second class prominades... wouldn't someone have stopped her by then?

Taking and breaking wreck artifacts is prohibited

Wouldn't a safe like that disintagrate if it was being taken up from 12,460 feet of water?

And...

Dreadful acting ;D
Title: Re: Cruiseliner question
Post by: JHB on May 09, 2008, 12:44:51
Quote
Hi Everyone
                 I love cruiseliners.I have seen some pictures of Bridge from Cruise ship Freedom of the seas and Queen Mary 2.They both have joysticks.I am aware most  ships use joysticks for  docking at low speeds.
       
Are joysticks used at  high seas for steering the  ship at  normal cruising speeds ?.Or they use the wheel

This question has been in my mind for a long time .I will be very happy if you could share your knowledge with me

             Kind regards
             Ravi

It still amaze me how off-topic some threads on this forums ends :P