We get lots of car transport ships on the East coast in to the Tyne, Tees and Humber.
Each one has thousands of new cars or is loading up with thousands for export.
they aren't tied down, it would take too long to do it and far too long to unload them.
Same with a ferry, they want to load and unload as quickly as possible.
If you were a passenger with your car you wouldn't want the sailing or disembarkation delayed by hours while they secured then released every vehicle.
It happens, If there was a storm big enough to move cars and trucks I think the sailing would be cancelled anyway.
They would drag them off with a tow truck and you would claim on your insurance.
Not quite the same thing but an example of what can happen to cars when a transporter or ferry rolls too far.
Stop trying to introduce subtle changes of meaning. The official report into the accident confirms that the Swedish government had used the M/S Estonian ship to move Russian military equipment two weeks before. The Swedish government also confirmed it as per the article on Swedish Radio (their equivalent of the BBC and not given to fanciful theories). But oh no, Captain Swoop from his keyboard knows better.
Is that so? Your evidence for this particular ship is what, exactly? Note that the sinking rates of other ships is irrelevant to this particular sinking. Note further that uneducated speculation is also not evidence. Now please proceed.
Bearing in mind that this particular vessel, built to the same or similar specifications to numerous other luxury cruise ro-ros over several decades and actually deemed 'one of the most reliable ships in a storm when it traversed Umeå - Vaasa in the name of Wasa King.
It clearly has proven itself as fit for purpose, unlike the third world rust bucket accidents Captain_Swoop keeps citing as examples of why ships sink.
Note that the second car deck is over two metres above the waterline.
The weather as of the time of the accident:
According to the final disaster report, the weather was rough, with a wind of 15 to 20 metres per second (29 to 39 kn; 34 to 45 mph), force 7–8 on the Beaufort scale and a significant wave height of 4 to 6 metres (13 to 20 ft)[JAIC 3] compared with the highest measured significant wave height in the Baltic Sea of 7.7 metres (25.3 ft).[10] Esa Mäkelä, the captain of Silja Europa who was appointed on-scene commander for the subsequent rescue effort, described the weather as "normally bad", or like a typical autumn storm in the Baltic Sea. According to modelled satellite data, gusts were in the excess of between 85 kilometres per hour (53 mph) to 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph) at 1 am that night over the Baltic Sea, although the ship had not yet reached the areas with the heaviest gusts before its sinking.
So the waves were about nine feet than the floor of car deck no. 2. The car decks are sealed off from the 14-cabin hull, which includes the engine room, which is fitted with bilge pumps to keep out water. The hull had about 12,000 tons of buoyancy force and 6,000 tons of reserve buoyancy (=18,000 tons). The hull was designed to be watertight. Thus, if the capacity of the car deck is just 2,000 cubic metres, then when the bow visor fell off - the top of the hull was watertight no 2. car deck - the water should have filled the car deck in less than two minutes, then the ship should have immediately keeled at >40° angle and capsized within minutes, by 1.15am after the bow visor fell off (the time found by the JAIC) and floated upside down. However, it did not. Nor did it float on its side, as did the Herald of Free Enterprise or the rusty Lestari Maju, cited by Captain_Swoop, which both capsized in shallow waters shortly before leaving port. The Estonia left port circa 7:00pm and was sunk to the bottom of the sea by 1:36, within twelve minutes of the second captain making a May Day call, some six hours into its journey.
So we have waves entering at four to six metres high over the top of the sealed car ramp, with four locks - which may have been sealed with ropes rather than locked - via the one metre gap, a distortion caused by the bow visor falling off together with its three different locking systems. Each lock on the ramp should bear a weight of 25 tons. Two of the crew (Linde and Sillaste, who are trained to notice these things) saw it from a life raft said in a witness statement the car ramp was up. However, for some reason it then came fully open - as found recently by the new investigators - which means...all the water trapped on the car deck should now have washed away, especially as the ship was now steered away from the oncoming waves.
It is all very well saying, the bow visor fell off, end of case. It doesn't explain how it sank so fast. Crew member Treu said that he and a chum were knee deep in water. As they worked in the engine room, one wonders whether they were referring to the engine room and not the car deck. If so, it shows water came in via the hull.
Question: how did the water get in the sealed hull? This is a possibility that hasn't been examined.
Stop citing rusty scrapheap vessels that were being used for purposes other than they were designed for (e.g., the 31-year-old Lestari Maju, a cargo ship, now being used as a RoRo and the cars not even 'tied down' [of course it sank!]).
The Titanic took four hours to sink, and that hit an iceberg and had an engine room on fire. These luxury RoRo cruise ships are made in their hundreds every year by reputable shipbuilders, such as Werrft, who designed and built the Estonia (which was only fourteen years old). They are made to withstand flooding on the deck and in any case would take hours to cause a problem if not days, by which time it would have been spotted.
You are correct, many ships sink suddenly, with hardly a chance to put out a May Day. These are the ships that had been torpedoed, as happened a lot in WWII. The Estonia sank as fast as one of those ships. We are agreed on that, at least.
The point being made is that listing of itself is not a reason to panic. Skeptic Ginger said that she couldn't understand how someone carried on brushing their teeth when the Estonia listed. Now normally in these older ships you just knew you'd be flung from side to side as the ship rebalanced. In the Estonia, the listing became so extreme, people suffered broken bones and survivors describe people crushed by heavy objects such as a cupboard leaving them looking as though they were dead.
What 'rusty scrap heap vessel' are you talking about?
I gave you the example of MV Derbyshire, a ship far bigger and newer than this little ferry. It sank in less than ten minutes, all the crew were lost.
Two ships a week sink, they are not 'rusty scrap heap vessels. If we take away groundings and collision, 32 ships sank last year by flooding and hull breach.
Some sank so quickly they never even had chance to get off a mayday and relied on the emergency beacons attached to life rafts and SOLAS buoys that activate automatically when immersed in water.
Vehicles on ferries are not 'tied down' where are you getting that from?
What has the Titanic got to do with anything?
Why should a ferry with a flooded car deck and the bows missing take a hours or days to sink?
What does WW2 have to do with it? Are you implying that it was torpedoed? That would have been noticed.
MV Derbyshire was an ore-bulk-oil combination carrier built in 1976 by Swan Hunter, as the last in the series of the Bridge-class sextet. She was registered at Liverpool and owned by Bibby Line.[2]
The Derbyshire was lost on 9 September 1980 during Typhoon Orchid, south of Japan.
I would say a typhoon/hurricane was a natural event, wouldn't you?
The sinking of the Lestari Maju was explained by the crew as their 'forgetting to tie down the cars' - your example, not mine. At least check out your own examples before citing them.
The Titanic, over a hundred years ago, with holes in the hull, hitting an iceberg, weak materials and with a fire in the engine room still took two hours and forty minutes to sink.
The Estonia was designed no differently than the hundreds of other ferries operating all over Europe. Water on a car deck is not a cause for sinking 'within minutes'.
You do know that these ferry operators in the Baltic do not go out in a storm if the weather warning is severe. They do listen to the weather forecast for shipping. Both the Silja Europa and the Viking Mariella were also traversing in the area that night, weather no problem.
SG- Sometimes ferries do not sail due to weather conditions. I have no doubt you have noticed this. The people who run the ferries actually do have a good concept of the capabilities of their ships. Very rarely a ferry might sail into unforeseen bad weather and some damage does occur. Even more rarely something akin to the topic of this thread is the result.
Bearing in mind that this particular vessel, built to the same or similar specifications to numerous other luxury cruise ro-ros over several decades and actually deemed 'one of the most reliable ships in a storm when it traversed Umeå - Vaasa in the name of Wasa King.
It clearly has proven itself as fit for purpose, unlike the third world rust bucket accidents Captain_Swoop keeps citing as examples of why ships sink.
Note that the second car deck is over two metres above the waterline.
So the waves were about nine feet than the floor of car deck no. 2. The car decks are sealed off from the 14-cabin hull, which includes the engine room, which is fitted with bilge pumps to keep out water. The hull had about 12,000 tons of buoyancy force and 6,000 tons of reserve buoyancy (=18,000 tons). The hull was designed to be watertight. Thus, if the capacity of the car deck is just 2,000 cubic metres, then when the bow visor fell off - the top of the hull was watertight no 2. car deck - the water should have filled the car deck in less than two minutes, then the ship should have immediately keeled at >40° angle and capsized within minutes, by 1.15am after the bow visor fell off (the time found by the JAIC) and floated upside down. However, it did not. Nor did it float on its side, as did the Herald of Free Enterprise or the rusty Lestari Maju, cited by Captain_Swoop, which both capsized in shallow waters shortly before leaving port. The Estonia left port circa 7:00pm and was sunk to the bottom of the sea by 1:36, within twelve minutes of the second captain making a May Day call, some six hours into its journey.
So we have waves entering at four to six metres high over the top of the sealed car ramp, with four locks - which may have been sealed with ropes rather than locked - via the one metre gap, a distortion caused by the bow visor falling off together with its three different locking systems. Each lock on the ramp should bear a weight of 25 tons. Two of the crew (Linde and Sillaste, who are trained to notice these things) saw it from a life raft said in a witness statement the car ramp was up. However, for some reason it then came fully open - as found recently by the new investigators - which means...all the water trapped on the car deck should now have washed away, especially as the ship was now steered away from the oncoming waves.
It is all very well saying, the bow visor fell off, end of case. It doesn't explain how it sank so fast. Crew member Treu said that he and a chum were knee deep in water. As they worked in the engine room, one wonders whether they were referring to the engine room and not the car deck. If so, it shows water came in via the hull.
Question: how did the water get in the sealed hull? This is a possibility that hasn't been examined.
Lots of words, some unfounded speculation/guessing in spite of my request, and no actual evidence. You really do not understand naval architecture. No such thing as a sealed hull
You do know that these ferry operators in the Baltic do not go out in a storm if the weather warning is severe. They do listen to the weather forecast for shipping. Both the Silja Europa and the Viking Mariella were also traversing in the area that night, weather no problem.
"Esa Mäkelä, the captain of Silja Europa who was appointed on-scene commander for the subsequent rescue effort, described the weather as "normally bad", or like a typical autumn storm in the Baltic Sea. " [ibid]
"Esa Mäkelä, the captain of Silja Europa who was appointed on-scene commander for the subsequent rescue effort, described the weather as "normally bad", or like a typical autumn storm in the Baltic Sea. " [ibid]
I would say a typhoon/hurricane was a natural event, wouldn't you?
The sinking of the Lestari Maju was explained by the crew as their 'forgetting to tie down the cars' - your example, not mine. At least check out your own examples before citing them.
The Titanic, over a hundred years ago, with holes in the hull, hitting an iceberg, weak materials and with a fire in the engine room still took two hours and forty minutes to sink.
The Estonia was designed no differently than the hundreds of other ferries operating all over Europe. Water on a car deck is not a cause for sinking 'within minutes'.
What does Titanic have to do with anything? it was not a storm, it was a much bigger ship than the ferry.
It never had a fire in an 'engine room' There was a smouldering fire in a coal bunker, not an uncommon event on coal fired ships.
Titanic had twenty-four double-ended boilers and five single-ended boilers. that used 850 tons of coal per day.
You might as well say it had 53 fires in the 'engine rooms'.
As for no others sinking within minutes Herald of Free Enterprise would disagree.
Also how many others lost their bows in a storm?
You seem to think Estonia was some kind of super ship when evidence shows it's bow fell off and it sank just like any other ship taking on thousands of tons of water in a storm.
To get round this you are implying it was sunk by some kind of foul play involving the Russian military and MI6.
You do know that these ferry operators in the Baltic do not go out in a storm if the weather warning is severe. They do listen to the weather forecast for shipping. Both the Silja Europa and the Viking Mariella were also traversing in the area that night, weather no problem.
Vixen seems noticeably unwilling (or perhaps incapable) of providing a coherent alternate narrative. JAQing, misdirection, and poking around the edges of the known circumstances seems to be the limit of the contributions
Vixen seems noticeably unwilling (or perhaps incapable) of providing a coherent alternate narrative. JAQing, misdirection, and poking around the edges of the known circumstances seems to be the limit of the contributions
We get lots of car transport ships on the East coast in to the Tyne, Tees and Humber.
Each one has thousands of new cars or is loading up with thousands for export.
they aren't tied down, it would take too long to do it and far too long to unload them.
Same with a ferry, they want to load and unload as quickly as possible.
If you were a passenger with your car you wouldn't want the sailing or disembarkation delayed by hours while they secured then released every vehicle.
It happens, If there was a storm big enough to move cars and trucks I think the sailing would be cancelled anyway.
They would drag them off with a tow truck and you would claim on your insurance.
Not quite the same thing but an example of what can happen to cars when a transporter or ferry rolls too far.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
