WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH FOR OLD SHIPS?
Quote from Dick Clague on 4 June 2019, 16:16On 1st June the Daily Telegraph reported that Transport secretary Chris Grayling is under mounting pressure to scrap proposed safety rules threatening the historic ‘little ships’ which rescued thousands of British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk.
https://tinyurl.com/Dunkirkships
Although the article concentrated on the headline grabbing “Dunkirk Little Ships” and those still in passenger service on the Thames – the underlying issue of tightening regulations potentially affects most historic vessels in UK coastal waters, rivers and lakes which require a Passenger Certificate and have benefited from “grandfather rights” which are now under review.
It is difficult to know where to draw the line - clearly old ships cannot go on for ever but you cannot sensibly draw up absolute rules based on (say) age or the waters in which they operate (class or fresh/salt). The recent incidents on the Rhine / Danube / off the Norwegian coast and in Venice all involved pretty new vessels. Although both the Danube and Norwegian incidents involved particularly modern vessels from Viking Cruises, the common factor was actually bad weather which hampered rescue efforts.
The regulatory trend seems now to be heading towards self-sustainability in the event of an accident - whatever the size of vessel. That at least recognizes the difficulty in mounting an effective evacuation of large numbers of passengers in all sorts of locations and circumstances. Having a good MES and/or plenty of liferafts helps in the sense of buying time, but in most circumstances isn't the way of getting substantial numbers of passengers ashore.
I love old ships and long to see them in service as long as possible and I've enjoyed sailing on ones over 100 years old - on the Danube, the Swiss Lakes and the Weaver Navigation. Most have had substantial rebuilds/restoration, without which they would no longer be with us.
LNRS members will know of my lengthy association with MV Balmoral, now in need of substantial and costly upgrading to meet current regulations. I'm not best pleased about that but I still want to travel safely – and I don't want any less for those who sail on old ships. Safety is something legislation can encourage but never guarantee. I guess many of us have travelled on vessels which were both old and just about legal that we'd never want to step foot on again. I guess my bottom line is if you cannot do it properly/safely then you shouldn't be doing it at all - and that doesn't just apply to old ships.
How do other Members see this?
On 1st June the Daily Telegraph reported that Transport secretary Chris Grayling is under mounting pressure to scrap proposed safety rules threatening the historic ‘little ships’ which rescued thousands of British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk.
https://tinyurl.com/Dunkirkships
Although the article concentrated on the headline grabbing “Dunkirk Little Ships” and those still in passenger service on the Thames – the underlying issue of tightening regulations potentially affects most historic vessels in UK coastal waters, rivers and lakes which require a Passenger Certificate and have benefited from “grandfather rights” which are now under review.
It is difficult to know where to draw the line - clearly old ships cannot go on for ever but you cannot sensibly draw up absolute rules based on (say) age or the waters in which they operate (class or fresh/salt). The recent incidents on the Rhine / Danube / off the Norwegian coast and in Venice all involved pretty new vessels. Although both the Danube and Norwegian incidents involved particularly modern vessels from Viking Cruises, the common factor was actually bad weather which hampered rescue efforts.
The regulatory trend seems now to be heading towards self-sustainability in the event of an accident - whatever the size of vessel. That at least recognizes the difficulty in mounting an effective evacuation of large numbers of passengers in all sorts of locations and circumstances. Having a good MES and/or plenty of liferafts helps in the sense of buying time, but in most circumstances isn't the way of getting substantial numbers of passengers ashore.
I love old ships and long to see them in service as long as possible and I've enjoyed sailing on ones over 100 years old - on the Danube, the Swiss Lakes and the Weaver Navigation. Most have had substantial rebuilds/restoration, without which they would no longer be with us.
LNRS members will know of my lengthy association with MV Balmoral, now in need of substantial and costly upgrading to meet current regulations. I'm not best pleased about that but I still want to travel safely – and I don't want any less for those who sail on old ships. Safety is something legislation can encourage but never guarantee. I guess many of us have travelled on vessels which were both old and just about legal that we'd never want to step foot on again. I guess my bottom line is if you cannot do it properly/safely then you shouldn't be doing it at all - and that doesn't just apply to old ships.
How do other Members see this?
Quote from Deleted user on 5 June 2019, 21:25I think you have answered your own question in your last paragraph.
The replica HMS Bounty was 50 years old when it was lost (with loss of life) in 2012. The USCG cited lack of proper ship maintenance, the crew's experience and the captain's decision to sail from Connecticut to Florida with Hurricane Sandy imminent as contributory causes.
The Marques lost in 1984 with 19 lives was 67 years old. The last owner had repeatedly avoided a routine safety check of the ship that had been requested by British authorities; as the outcome of such a check remains unknown, it is unclear if the ship's stability was problematic and, if so, if the check would have detected it.
Maintaining ships is expensive, maintaining old ships more so but it has to be done. When historical vessels are no longer fit for sea, sometimes they are preserved as museum ships but the expense does not stop. Different rules and regulations are applied by local authorities if the owners wish to open to the public.
Loss of historical authenticity is regretted but surely being able to enjoy some of the vessel is better than none of the vessel.
I think you have answered your own question in your last paragraph.
The replica HMS Bounty was 50 years old when it was lost (with loss of life) in 2012. The USCG cited lack of proper ship maintenance, the crew's experience and the captain's decision to sail from Connecticut to Florida with Hurricane Sandy imminent as contributory causes.
The Marques lost in 1984 with 19 lives was 67 years old. The last owner had repeatedly avoided a routine safety check of the ship that had been requested by British authorities; as the outcome of such a check remains unknown, it is unclear if the ship's stability was problematic and, if so, if the check would have detected it.
Maintaining ships is expensive, maintaining old ships more so but it has to be done. When historical vessels are no longer fit for sea, sometimes they are preserved as museum ships but the expense does not stop. Different rules and regulations are applied by local authorities if the owners wish to open to the public.
Loss of historical authenticity is regretted but surely being able to enjoy some of the vessel is better than none of the vessel.
