Author Topic: Hull Patches - what was each one from?  (Read 353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8486
  • Total likes: 4504
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« on: Nov 13, 2017, 08:21 PM »
This month's photo competition topic got me looking through my photos.

I saw this photo (attached) which clearly shows a large patch across 2 portholes of cabins on 5-deck. Can we link this patch to a QE2 Story that we've featured here?

« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2017, 10:14 PM by Rob Lightbody »


Passionate about QE2 for 35 years.

Offline Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
  • Total likes: 1012
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #1 on: Nov 13, 2017, 09:41 PM »
The patch itself seems to be dented; is this a part of the hull that is particularly vulnerable to being struck by debris in the water, I wonder?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #2 on: Nov 13, 2017, 10:28 PM »
The patch itself seems to be dented; is this a part of the hull that is particularly vulnerable to being struck by debris in the water, I wonder?

I have pictures with scratches and dents in the same sort of places. The crew put them down to the Moran tugs in New York, which have a tough job to do, pushing QE2 out of a fast flowing river.

Offline Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
  • Total likes: 1012
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #3 on: Nov 13, 2017, 10:30 PM »
Interesting... that suggests Rob's patch might have been to simply repair accumulated bumps and dents over time?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Oceanic

  • Mauretania Diner (Late Sitting)
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Total likes: 169
  • -Long time QE2 fan and follower.
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #4 on: Nov 13, 2017, 10:37 PM »
Tugs seem the most likely culprit with the way the damage is concentrated on a particular area.
"Some Profound Text Goes Here"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8486
  • Total likes: 4504
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #5 on: Nov 13, 2017, 10:40 PM »
It's not dents. It's a large rectangular patch.
Passionate about QE2 for 35 years.

Offline Lachlan

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #6 on: Nov 13, 2017, 11:32 PM »
I think the patch has a dent in it, too. Would Five Deck would be about prow height above the waterline for a tug?

I'd never noticed that the port holes have rivets around their periphery. Presumably there's a reinforcing ring on the inside to strengthen the aperture in the plating.

Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #7 on: Nov 14, 2017, 01:05 AM »
I'd never noticed that the port holes have rivets around their periphery. Presumably there's a reinforcing ring on the inside to strengthen the aperture in the plating.

It's only the lower ones. These are also the decks where deadlights get closed if there is a threat of a storm.

Offline Thomas Hypher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #8 on: Nov 14, 2017, 01:36 AM »
It's only the lower ones. These are also the decks where deadlights get closed if there is a threat of a storm.

On Six Deck, the deadlights were permanently shut if I remember correctly for the storm reason but also general safety (they were underwater a lot of the time).
« Last Edit: Nov 14, 2017, 01:39 AM by Thomas Hypher »
First travelled on QE2 in August 2003 aged 6 years old. Last stepped foot and travelled on QE2 in July 2008.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #9 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:04 AM »
Pier Collision - 1974

While in Cherbourg on 27 October 1974 bad weather delayed QE2’s scheduled departure time of 1800 hours. At 2200 hours there was a lull in the weather and it was agreed between the French pilot and Captain Hehir to take her out. It was when she leaving Cherbourg she was caught by a violent 70-mph gust of wind which ultimately drove the ship against the Normandie Quay.

Before that, one cable snapped, injuring two dockers, and then two lines became tangled in the propellers. The ship drifted helplessly for 50 yards broadside on before crashing into the jetty.

During the incident a gash was made in the ship’s side, portside aft in the area of the crew cabins. The gash measured 30-foot long by 2 inches deep and was approximately 15-feet above water level on Five Deck.

Two French dockers were injured and one had to have a leg amputated – only a desperate struggle by QE2’s Captain to hold the ship against the gale saved the men from being crushed to death.

12 Tourist Class and ten crew cabins and 12 were in the affected area and were damaged either by the indent or the cut in the fire sprinkler line which flooded them.

QE2 returned back to port for an examination of the damage by marine surveyors.

Cunard:

“Towards midnight the wind had abated and the ship sailed. As she was leaving port a gust estimated at between 40- and 60-mph hit the liner and she struck the pier. The hole in the ship’s side is about 15 feet above the waterline just below Number Five Deck”.

Repairs were undertaken by the French navy at a cost of £5,000.

There were 1,630 passengers on board and a number chose to abandon their trip and fly to New York instead. QE2’s subsequent departure from Cherbourg to New York was delayed 48 hours and the ship sailed on 30 October. The financial consequences of the delay would have an impact of £120,000. Cunard had originally blueprinted to lose £189,000 on the 27 October Atlantic crossing and the Paresky cruises (the period 27 October to 17 November) – when the £120,000 due to the delay was included then QE2 lost £309,000 in this period.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #10 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:05 AM »
Collision with Coral Reef - 1975

On 31 December 1975 QE2 was manoeuvring in the ‘swinging’ ground at Nassau prior to sailing. The seas were choppy and the wind was rough. As her bow turned, her underwater bulbous bow collided with a coral reef and was holed. Passengers reported a ‘jolt’ but there was no panic.

Damage was reported to be a six-foot fracture of the bow, with a jagged hole 18 inches to 20 inches in diameter, and plating was heavily indented.

On 2 January a temporary five-foot concrete patch was fitted by a diver when QE2 arrived as per her schedule at Port Everglades to land passengers prior to continuing her voyage to New York. QE2 remained in Port Everglades for 24 hours.

However, on the voyage to New York the temporary repairs started to leak and QE2 began to take on water again. Her speed was reduced to 15½ knots and Cunard had her diverted to Newport News in Norfolk, Virginia, for further inspection and repairs.

The 1,181 passengers were disembarked here and 500 were repatriated to New York on specially-chartered train (at a cost of £1,250) – a journey which was also beset with mechanical problems and delays.

QE2 was put into dry-dock for 48 hours where an eight-foot steel plate was welded into place.

QE2 eventually arrived in New York on 8 January and sailed that day on a revised nine-day (instead of 14) Caribbean cruise.

Captain Hehir was held responsible but on 28 January, the liner’s next call at the port, Staff captain Peter Jackson along with First Officers Sturge and Warwick and members of the ship’s sub-aqua diving club took a boat and set off to investigate the reef. To the exoneration of their Captain they found, by use of sextant readings and landmarks, that the reef had been incorrectly charted: instead of running practically straight it had two 50-foot headlands and on one of these, which projected from the charted line, was evidence of QE2’s collision. A marker buoy was also found to be incorrectly moored (being 130 feet away from its recorded position) and the two errors combined confounded the ship’s navigators’ assumption that the safe water that they had reason to expect was not there.

Permanent repairs were made to the bulbous bow in January 1977 at Bayonne (New Jersey) during a special repairs period.


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #11 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:05 AM »
Bow Anchor Loss - 1976

On 28 November 1976 QE2, en route from Cherbourg for New York, ran into a really foul night of Atlantic weather. At 0120 hours the 12.5-ton bow anchor came adrift and ripped a hole in the bulbous bow on its way into the sea. Constant pumping evicted the incoming Atlantic water.

QE2 was diverted to Boston, where she arrived on 2 December, for repairs which involved fitting metal patches inside and out. The ship had to be tilted slightly by ballasting to enable workmen to repair the gash.

Work was completed in time to allow QE2 to sail on her Caribbean cruise on schedule (3 December) with the cruise passengers being brought to Boston from New York by plane and train.


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #12 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:06 AM »
Aground - 1981

On 6 January 1981, during QE2’s New Years Cruise, she went aground for about an hour at the entrance to San Juan while entering the port. Strong winds outside the harbour had pushed the ship, which was carrying about 1,600 passengers, out of the Channel. Tugs refloated the ship and QE2 returned to port where divers established there had been no damage or holing but a buoy was wrapped around her rudder.

QE2 continued her voyage.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #13 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:06 AM »
Collision with Breakwater - 1984


During the last leg of her 1984 World Cruise QE2 arrived in Piraeus for an overnight stay on 31 March. At 0044 hours on 1 April QE2 was blown onto the south breakwater head and suffered a large dent in the area of the mechanics accommodation.

Repairs were made when the ship called in Lisbon overnight (5 and 6 April).

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #14 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:07 AM »
Collision with Quay - 1987

On 3 December 1987, when entering Tenerife, high winds pushed QE2 onto the quay wall which buckled one of her hull plates to a depth of nine inches. The ship was delayed in the port for 24 hours while a temporary replacement plate was patched over the damaged area before the ship continued with her cruise. The call at the Cape Verde Islands was cancelled.

Permanent repairs were made to the damaged hull plate during her visit to the Lloyd Werft Shipyard in July 1988 (23 – 31) when her propellers were replaced.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #15 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:10 AM »
Grounding - 1992

Having spent the day of 7 August off the north east tip of the island of Martha’s Vineyard QE2 weighed anchor just after 2030 hours and headed south-west. On the Bridge were Captain Robin Woodall, the Staff Captain, the First Officer, two deck ratings and an experienced US pilot, Captain John F Hadley. It had been assumed by the Pilot that he would follow the same route to exit the Sound as he had used when he took the ship in earlier that day - but he changed his mind.

There was much small boat traffic around QE2 and ferries were frequently travelling between Oak Bluffs, Vineyard Haven and Woods Hole. Later the density of the traffic had reduced so at 2120 hours the speed was gradually increased to approximately 25 knots from 17 knots.

After making a projected plot from the course required the Second Officer realised that the ship would be sailing over the Sow and Pigs Reef that extended out from Cuttyhunk Island. The Captain was advised of this and he discussed the situation with the Pilot. The Pilot agreed and QE2 was turned to the southwest.

At 2158 hours QE2 had reached a point approximately 3.5 miles SSW of Cuttyhunk Island and was about to pass over the southern tip of the shoaling seabed as she prepared to skirt the main areas of the reefs when she experienced two periods of heavy vibration in quick succession.

The engines began to slow and QE2 began to lose speed. Captain Woodall contacted the Staff Chief Engineer in the Engine Control Room who reported that the propeller shafts were still turning at 144 rpm and that he was instructing his staff to check for possible damage. Thus mechanical breakdown was quickly ruled out and the First Officer confirmed that QE2 had not been involved in a collision with another vessel.

Captain Woodall:

“My first thought was that this was a catastrophic machinery failure; an engine broken loose or a propeller had come off!”

The Second Officer reported to the Captain that QE2 was in an area where the chart indicated a sounding of six and a half fathoms (39 feet). Other personnel, including the Chief Officer and the Senior First Officer arrived on the Bridge. The Pilot checked the charted position of the vessel with his own observation of the after radar display.

The Pilot and Captain soon concurred that QE2 had probably passed through an area where the water was not as deep as the charts indicated.

The Chief Officer was instructed to undertake internal soundings in order to determine the extent of the damage. Hold spaces, dry tanks and void spaces and the tanks were all checked, and it was soon ascertained that there was water in what should have been empty ballast and oil overflow tanks.

The Captain made a general announcement throughout the ship to the effect that QE2 had appeared to have struck an underwater object but that she was quite safe and the matter was being investigated. AT 2236 hours the Pilot reported the incident to the United States Coast Guard at Point Judith.

Further damage assessments concluded that the No 15 Freshwater Double-Bottom Tank, which had previously been slack, was now full and pressurised; a cofferdam located between NO 13, 14 and 15 Freshwater Double-Bottom Tanks and No 8, 9 and 10 Fuel Oil Double-Bottom Tanks, were also found to be full and some buckling was found in the tank top of no 3 Hold.

A possible sighting of oil in the water around the liner was reported to the Captain and, at 2252 hours, the Pilot informed the USCG of this. AT 2255 hours, the vessel was instructed to anchor and wait for the arrival of the USCG boarding party.

There was no panic among the passengers and the evening entertainment continued as scheduled with many passengers taking advantage of free drinks now being offered in the bars.

At 2232 hours QE2 was anchored in a position with Buzzards Lighthouse and shortly afterwards Lifeboat 11 was lowered to the water to search for signs of oil pollution. The Chief Officer reported a light sheen on the water surface in the area below the port bridge wing and he also reported the draughts of the vessel which were noted to equate to those calculated by the Stability Officer; no visible damage was reported.

At 2400 hours ballast pumping operations from No1 Saltwater Double-Bottom Ballast Tank were terminated. At the same time No 14 Freshwater Double-Bottom Tank was found to be pressurised and the contents of No 14 and No 15 Freshwater Double-Bottom Tanks were sampled and found to contain saltwater.

At 0215 hours Coast Guard vessel Bittersweet arrived on site and Coastguards boarded QE2.

The Forward Engine Room Void Space was found to be taking in water.

QE2 was carrying 923,454 gallons of oil fuel, of which there was a danger of about 40,000 gallons leaking, so the Coastguards ordered an oil containment boom to be placed from amidships on one side of the QE2, around her stern to amidships on the other side and this was in place by 0650 hours.

In accordance with regulations a nurse boarded QE2 in order to perform drug and alcohol tests on the Captain, First Officer and Pilot. These tests would later report that only low levels of caffeine had been found.

From 0700 to 0725 hours floodwater from the Forward Engine Room Void Space was pumped directly overboard under USCG observation followed by water being pumped overboard from NO 12 Saltwater Double-Bottom Tank.

In order to assess the extent of hull damage divers were sent down.

It had been decided that the passengers would have to be disembarked. At 1405 hours the passenger launch Schamonchi arrived alongside. Initially 555 passengers were taken ashore at 1500 hours.

At 1730 hours permission was granted for QE2 to proceed towards Newport where she anchored at 2006 hours. This would make disembarking the remainder of the passengers easier and that operation was commenced again at 2040 hours using the ship’s own lifeboats and two shore tenders, Viking Queen and Spirit of Newport. The disembarkation of all passengers was complete by 0220 hours on 9 August.

Passengers were then taken by train and bus to their intended destination, New York.

In the event only 30 gallons of fuel leaked from QE2 so the oil protection boom was removed.

QE2 then proceeded, accompanied by a Coast Guard cutter and two tugs, to Boston at around eight knots. She arrived there after a nine and a half hour journey to be dry docked for survey and, as they turned out to be, temporary repairs. QE2 was drydocked at the General Ship Corporation and the previously surveyed damage to her hull was confirmed once the dock was pumped dry.

It was only after QE2 had been placed in the dry dock that the true extent of the damage to the underwater hull became known. In all the damage covered a width of 80 feet over the keel and either side of it and extended over a length of 400 feet aft from the bulbous bow. The keel was covered in indents – some up to 240 feet in length and 14 inches deep – gouges and fractures, some of the latter being from 10 to 70 feet long and a 32 foot length and plates were buckled in place. In total 20 double-bottom tanks had sustained damaged to some extent and the port bilge keel had been severely damaged.

It soon became clear that full repairs would not be able to be carried out in Boston as the yard did not have the staff, the resources or the correct grade of steel to complete the job. After initial repairs QE2 would have to proceed elsewhere for final repairs. The Hamburg shipyard of Blohm & Voss was successful in their bid and QE2 left Boston on 1 September and headed for Germany. On arrival in Hamburg the liner was lifted in a floating dock and full repairs were undertaken.

Investigations into the cause of the grounding were undertaken by both the National Transportation Safety Board (USA) and the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). The actual grounding site on Sow and Pig Reef was located and surveyed. Both investigations came to similar conclusions. There could be no doubt that the cause of the grounding was that the charts for the area were wrong and there was significantly less water than charted. In fact it was discovered that the area was last surveyed on 1939 by dropping a line at regular intervals; this method, of course, can miss significant peaks! It was noted that prior to the grounding QE2 had passed over an area with a 40-foot sounding without mishap or any indication of shallow water effect. QE2 grounded twice in quick succession; at the time of the initial grounding the depth of water was 35.0 feet while the depth of water at the second grounding was 34.2 feet. It assumed that the stationary forward and after draughts of the vessel were 32.3 feet and 31.3 feet respectively. On the assumption that no change in draught was caused by the effect of the prevailing weather conditions, it was apparent that the effect of ‘squat’ on the vessel caused the bow to sink by at least 2.7 feet. ‘Squat’ is a phenomenon where ships travelling at speed in shallow water settle lower in the water than they would normally – but the degree to which they do so is not easy to calculate. The extent of the damage suggested that, on grounding, the vessel was trimmed by the head. The Master had expected squat of one 1 to 1½ feet, with change of trim by the stern. It was clear that Captain Woodall had underestimated the magnitude of ‘squat’ effect upon his vessel in the prevailing circumstances – a factor magnified with the increase of speed to 25 knots.

And what of the rocks? Divers found signs of contact with traces of QE2’s red anti-fouling paint and shavings of steel were found on several rocks which had either been moved boldly horizontally, compressed into the seafloor or partially pulled out of the seabed by almost a foot. It was generally agreed that if a lesser vessel had sustained the damage QE2 had then it would probably have been lost.

In all nine Atlantic crossings and two cruises were cancelled while QE2 was undergoing repairs. There was intense speculation in the press that the repairs, lost revenue and compensation payments would cost Cunard up to £50 million but the company never revealed the actual cost. QE2’s return to Southampton on 3 October was a jubilant occasion with three fireboats escorting her up the Solent and the vessel returned to service the next day.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #16 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:10 AM »
Collision with Ferry - 1994

QE2 arrived at Circular Quay in Sydney at 1700 hours on 6 February 1994 and engines were finished at 1718 hours with all tugs departing at 1733. At approximately 1745 hours the Sydney ferry Narrabeen made contact with the port side of QE2 while attempting to manoeuvre out from the ferry wharf at Circular Quay. No one on QE2 was aware of the incident and the ferry did not report it. At 1825 hours Sydney Police advised QE2.

QE2 had been damaged in frame no. minus 7 in the vicinity of crew cabin 55. The cabin was empty at the time. An indentation was sustained to QE2’s hull breaking the porthole in cabin 551, and bending the internal framework in the way of the porthole.

Temporary repairs were made with full repairs being completed in the December refit.

The bow of the Narrabeen was damaged.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #17 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:11 AM »
Collision with Tug - 1996

The hull in the hospital area was repaired after suffering damage by tug contact in Trondheim on 22 July 1996.

The hull in the hospital area was repaired during QE2’s 1996 refit in Southampton.


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #18 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:11 AM »
Quay Contact - 1996

While QE2 was being pulled out of harbour in Copenhagen on 5 August 1996, strong winds pushed the ship on to the quay when the two tugs were unable to hold her. The lines from the tugs snapped damaging the steering flat. A 50-metre scrape was another result of the damage.

The steering flat was repaired during QE2’s 1996 refit in Southampton.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #19 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:12 AM »
Collision with Whale - 1996

On 15 September 1996 QE2 hit a 60-foot whale which then became lodged on the bulbous bow as the ship entered Lisbon. As the whale was pinned by the tide the rescue workers had to wait for the direction of the current to change before they could tow it away. A crane was then used to remove the whale from the water by which time it was dead.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #20 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:12 AM »
Tug Contact - 2000

While manoeuvring within the entrance to Fremantle Harbour at 0650 hours on 21 February 2000 the tug Burra, which was in attendance forward, made heavy contact with her stern on QE2’s starboard side in the Six Deck area. QE2 sustained damage to three frames (249 / 250 and 251) and an indentation to the hull of approximately 75 mm over the area between frames 248 to 252.


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #21 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:13 AM »
Japanese Warship - 2000


On 4 July 2000, while docking in New York, one of the tugs assisting QE2 temporarily lost control in a strong ebb tide which resulted in QE2 drifting and making contact with the Japanese warship Koshima which was berthed alongside.

It was an extremely busy time in New York with warships from all over the world taking part in a naval display. Captain Paul Wright had earlier met with the Docking Master of the New York Port Authority and pilots about the docking on 4 July and was assured that the four warships would be docked well back from the corner of the downsteam pier, giving him the corner to rest on if needed when berthing QE2. Captain Wright would not try the berthing otherwise.

Captain Wright delayed his arrival on 4 July by about 30 minutes in order to wait for less current and then began to manoeuvre with tugs in place as instructed. When he started into the entry into Pier 92, it was clear that the warships were much farther out than he had been promised, in fact they were very near the end of the pier. There were two warships rafted abreast on the opposite pier with bows outward making a narrow entry into the slip. However, Captain Wright had no choice but to continue the manoeuvre as to attempt to stop and reverse would have been very dangerous. The aircraft carrier USS Kennedy, with 14 or 15 tugs on her, was behind QE2 waiting to dock after her.

All was going well with QE2 until one of the tugs at the stern got caught in the current and had to pull away to reposition. At that point, the remaining tug could not hold QE2 against the current and her stern swung into the bow of Koshima. The tug had been on the opposite side of the ship from the Captain and Pilot who were on the portside wing.

Koshima was pushed forward into a British warship, Manchester.

Captain Wright and his officers visited the Captains of the warships to apologise but as damage was limited to scratches, lost paintwork and severed lines holding the Koshima the naval officers were not concerned. The US Coast Guard considered the whole incident to be very minor.

An Admiral on Koshima stated:

      “…it was an honour to be kissed by a Queen!”

QE2 delayed her departure slightly to 2030 hours in order to wait for slack water – with the warships still rafted up two abreast, this was seen as a prudent measure.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #22 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:14 AM »
Tug Contact - 2004

While docking in Tenerife on 17 November 2004 the forward tug started to act erratically and made a sudden turn towards the bow of QE2 resulting in the mast structure coming into contact with the flare of QE2’s bow. The resultant contact caused the tugs mast to bend a few degrees from the vertical and scratched a small section of QE2’s paintwork.

The tug advised QE2 that the starboard engine had failed at a critical time causing the tug to strike QE2’s bow.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #23 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:14 AM »
Whale - 2005

On 17 April 2005 while en route to Madeira from Southampton QE2 came into contact with the body of a decomposing whale. The ship’s speed was reduced and the body fell away.

Captain Nick Bates reported:

   “…while approximately 40miles off the NW coast of Spain we came into contact with the decomposing body of a dead whale. The ships speed was reduced to 6 knots and the carcass fell off the bow. I would estimate the whale to be in the region of 60 feet long, quite a reasonable size. No damage was sustained to the ship and as far as I am aware the incident did not come to the notice of any passengers. We will give the bow a good examination in Funchal just to confirm there is no damage”.


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #24 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:15 AM »
Pontoon - 2005

On departure from Geiranger on 15 July 2005 QE2’s wash disturbed and dislodged a small pontoon moored on the shore line. No one was hurt but the pontoon gangway became dislodged and carnage was required to replace the facility to its operational standard.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #25 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:15 AM »
Tug Contact - 2005

On 21 August 2005 during arrival manoeuvres in Bergen the aft tug (Belos) landed heavily on the port quarter of QE2 causing indentation of the hull plating at frames 19 and 20. The QE2 protested and a ‘condition of class’ was imposed.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #26 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:16 AM »
Whale - September 2005

On 15 September while crossing the Atlantic an unidentified object was seen floating nearby to QE2’s course. The ship was slowed as she made a round turn to investigate. The floating object was identified as a dead whale.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #27 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:16 AM »
Scraping the Bottom - 2005

When leaving Cagliari (Sardinia) on Friday 30 September 2005 QE2 touched the bottom close to the breakwater.

Later inspections, as part of her underwater hull survey, discovered extensive scoring to her bottom hull plating on the starboard side; the deepest to 4 mm from frame 132 to 212, between the starboard bilge keel and to within 2.5 mm approx. of the centreline between frames 215 and 130 (approximately). Some bottom plating was also indented approximately 25 to 30 mm Bilge Keel starboard plating set in underside and plate buckled topside.

David Christie (Princess Cruises’ Vice President Marine) advised me in Rio de Janeiro on 27 January 2006 that QE2’s double bottom had been damaged in Cagliari and he expressed relief it hadn’t been one of the Princess ships as if one of them had endured what QE2 had, they would have been “sliced open”.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #28 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:16 AM »
Whale - 2005


While on passage between Lisbon and Barcelona on 20 December 2005 at approximately 2315 hours in the traffic lanes off St Vincent at sea speeds of 26.5 knots QE2 struck a whale.

It was a stormy night with moderate rain and the animal was not seen from the Bridge. The first indication officers had of the incident was a reduction in speed and an increase in the load on the engines. The Third Officer was sent forward and initially could not see anything due to the wind and spray. The ship was slowed to 14 knots; the Third Officer then reported seeing a whale impaled on the stem. Speed was reduced further to four knots at which point the apparently dead whale slid clear of the bow and sunk.

Headway was regained at 2355 hours and QE2 resumed passage at 2400 hours.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #29 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:17 AM »
Tug Contact - 2006


While departing Curacao on Saturday 14 January 2006 the tug ‘Jaro II’, while pushing on the starboard shoulder hit and damaged QE2’s hull in way of frame 230. QE2’s departure was delayed while an examination too place. Cabin 5025 was damaged which necessitated re-building.

Lloyd’s visited the ship on 23 January for further inspections but very little action was recommended.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #30 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:19 AM »
And all of the above on top of the damage caused by numerous storms over the years including the rogue wave in 1995!

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #31 on: Nov 14, 2017, 07:42 AM »
Aluminium Structure Cracks discovered during Re-Engining

As the re-engining work progressed through November 1986 several cracks were discovered in the aluminium superstructure which threatened to cause a major delay in the completion of the hotel side of the conversion. Many unforeseen items often arise during conversions of any sort but cracks in the structure were unforeseen.

During the 17 years the ship had already been in service, the superstructure was beginning to show signs of fatigue from alternate function as a load- and stress-bearing element, counterpart of the hull. The aluminium alloy had weakened and cracked in the extension joint (major cracks) as well as cracking due to deficient workmanship (secondary repair) and cracks associated with heavy weather damage - particularly around window areas from the corners of the forward and aft large Quarter and Upper Deck windows, where bending and twisting strains of the ship’s movement had the greatest effect. While, to some degree, these stresses were anticipated in the spacing of large opening fore and aft of the web frames and in their shape with widely rounded corners and bowed edges top and bottom, sustained seasonal transatlantic service had apparently taken a greater toll than perhaps anticipated. In fact QE2 had experienced several major storms in 1984 and 1985 with heavy weather damage and fractures in the structure being the norm.

In all the cracks resulted in major aluminium repairs having to take place throughout the ship which impacted the hotel outfitting.

The shipyard undertook to produce a quotation for the repair work while two architects began work on detailed drawings all having to be approved by Lloyds. It was Cunard’s intention to return QE2 back to at least as strong as when the ship was built but that would be dependent on the results of the analysis undertaken.

Lloyd Werft agreed to undertake the repairs in January 1987 in a separate Contract to that of the re-engining one that had been signed on 24 October 1984.

This work would form part of Addendum 2 to Conversion Contract and the terms included:

•   Despite being committed to redelivering QE2 on 25 April 1987 as per the Contract, Lloyd Werft would receive £2.5 million (DM 6.75 million) and be provided with four days grace for the completion of minor works and final cleaning for a specified list of hotel work that was directly affected by crack repair.

•   Should the hotel work which was the subject of Addendum 2 not be completed by 29 April 1987, then liquidated damages would commence.

•   Since the shipyard had been held to maintaining the 25 April 1987 deadline to redeliver the vessel for the completion of all other contract work (not Addendum 2 work), then late delivery in these areas would result in commencement of the liquidated damages as per the original contract.

•   Any liquidated damages, drawn down on the first letter of credit, would not take place earlier than five days after redelivery.

The full extent of the crack repairs were agreed by Cunard and Lloyd Werft by 23 January 1987. In all the repairs would cost £4.4 million – a sum that included the shipyard effort alone and not the costs of surveyors’ fees, additional services required by the shipyard nor the vast sums that would have been required if the ship had to have been taken out of service specifically for crack repair work. In fact it was estimated that if the ship had to have been withdrawn from service for repair than a three to four month period would have been required for those repairs which would have resulted in total repair costs plus loss of revenue in multiples of the £4.4 million – plus damage to reputation.

A large part of the crack damage was deemed to have occurred during three separate heavy weather incidents which had already been the subject of claims with respect to hull and machinery as well as passage money insurance. These claims totalled £3.8 million (hull and machinery) and £2.5 million (passage money) and had been made in December 1984, September 1985 and October 1986.

Cracks were mainly found:

•   Extensive cracks were discovered in the Tables of the World Restaurant on the Upper Deck floor and in the expansion joint section stretching through Upper and Boat Decks. In addition, all the windows had to be replaced.

•   Queens Grill Lounge and, to a lesser extent, the Queens Grill.

•   Queens Grill Kitchen – work in the kitchen was severely impacted by the need to repair cracks.

•   The Double Down area - but these cracks appeared to be older cracks and repairs began in early January 1987.

•   Major cracks were discovered on Boat Deck.

•   Window fractures throughout Upper and Quarter Decks.

•   Window fractures in the existing Penthouse windows were discovered in late December which required nine doors and 10 windows being repaired. (In total there were 14 fractures covered by 10 inserts – some inserts covering two fractures. Three window frames were cracked and had to be replaced while six window frames were leaking and had to be retightened by the ship’s carpenters. Luckily the fractures in the door frames were minor). These cracks were thought to be the result of heavy weather damage.

•   Club Lido.

•   Boat Deck area near Shopping Promenade extension.

A proposal to retrofit expansion joints in the superstructure shell was ruled out, with the damaged plating being reinforced and new windows fitted, adding about 60 tons of alloy.

The outfitting work in areas affected by cracks would be completed during the sea trials in April.

Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #32 on: Nov 14, 2017, 08:02 AM »
What a fantastic list, Michael! Thank you for this compilation, which shows your extraordinary knowledge of the ship and how much QE2 underwent during the course of her life as well as her strength. The patches each tell a story...

I relish this quote :

David Christie (Princess Cruises’ Vice President Marine) advised me in Rio de Janeiro on 27 January 2006 that QE2’s double bottom had been damaged in Cagliari and he expressed relief it hadn’t been one of the Princess ships as if one of them had endured what QE2 had, they would have been “sliced open”.

Offline Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
  • Total likes: 1012
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #33 on: Nov 14, 2017, 08:16 AM »
A fascinating catalogue, Michael.

Do we know which of these various incidents resulted in the patch in Rob's picture, and which caused the subsequent dent visible on that patch?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Thomas Hypher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #34 on: Nov 14, 2017, 08:39 AM »
Scraping the Bottom - 2005

When leaving Cagliari (Sardinia) on Friday 30 September 2005 QE2 touched the bottom close to the breakwater.

Later inspections, as part of her underwater hull survey, discovered extensive scoring to her bottom hull plating on the starboard side; the deepest to 4 mm from frame 132 to 212, between the starboard bilge keel and to within 2.5 mm approx. of the centreline between frames 215 and 130 (approximately). Some bottom plating was also indented approximately 25 to 30 mm Bilge Keel starboard plating set in underside and plate buckled topside.

David Christie (Princess Cruises’ Vice President Marine) advised me in Rio de Janeiro on 27 January 2006 that QE2’s double bottom had been damaged in Cagliari and he expressed relief it hadn’t been one of the Princess ships as if one of them had endured what QE2 had, they would have been “sliced open”.

Michael was part of the underwater work undertaken in her last Cunard drydocking in Bremerhaven in early 2006 related to this? Excellent records as always  :)
First travelled on QE2 in August 2003 aged 6 years old. Last stepped foot and travelled on QE2 in July 2008.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8486
  • Total likes: 4504
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #35 on: Nov 14, 2017, 08:43 AM »
In haste... Moderators, please Can we please keep separate the discussion of the aluminium superstructure and it's repairs, from the steel hull and it's repairs.

Michael your information is incredible!!  I thought you might have something, but that's quite something!

Awesome information ... I just love the idea of trying to connect photos of repairs to historic events. You could label them in all Dubai for interest!
« Last Edit: Nov 14, 2017, 08:52 AM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2 for 35 years.

Offline Thomas Hypher

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #36 on: Nov 14, 2017, 08:43 AM »
Collision with Whale - 1996

On 15 September 1996 QE2 hit a 60-foot whale which then became lodged on the bulbous bow as the ship entered Lisbon. As the whale was pinned by the tide the rescue workers had to wait for the direction of the current to change before they could tow it away. A crane was then used to remove the whale from the water by which time it was dead.

A week before I was born...Turns out QE2 was a day out of arrival to New York on Sunday 22nd September 1996.
First travelled on QE2 in August 2003 aged 6 years old. Last stepped foot and travelled on QE2 in July 2008.

Offline Pete Hamill

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #37 on: Nov 14, 2017, 12:39 PM »
2005 wasn't a good year for whales!!!

Offline Andy Holloway

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #38 on: Nov 14, 2017, 05:11 PM »
Brilliant work Michael.

While not being a 'denting' does you list go as far as the incident in Lisbon when the crane holed one of the [Stbd?] lifeboats, while it was still in its davits! ? I can't remember the exact year but think it might have been 2002/03!

Offline Twynkle

Re: Hull Patches - what was each one from?
« Reply #39 on: Nov 14, 2017, 06:30 PM »
Oh Michael - This is simply The Best (of the worst)
it makes for extra-special reading...
Thank You so much.

Just as a matter of interest - were there reports of any tricky happenings whilst QE2 was sailing into Montevideo?
Long, narrow as well as very shallow channel etc?  Was the Mersey ever a problem?
Thinking about the ship herself,  timings, tides, wind and sea conditions etc for the pilots, tug masters
as well as the Captain / navigators, engineers etc. so much depends on how things are,
and on reading your posts, it seems even more of a responsibility than most people will ever be aware of...

Pontoon - 2005

On departure from Geiranger on 15 July 2005 QE2’s wash disturbed and dislodged a small pontoon moored on the shore line. No one was hurt but the pontoon gangway became dislodged and carnage was required to replace the facility to its operational standard.

We were on board - loving every minute, July - August 2005 and 2008.
In Geiranger, wasn't she at anchor,  it must have been a mighty swoosh!
The top and bottom images are of Geiranger

Flaam - whilst getting ready to sail, she broke a line - on the port-side causing quite a degree of consternation...
Beforehand we'd been watching a football game, locals v crew!
This was on the patch of grass you can see where she was parked.

« Last Edit: Nov 14, 2017, 06:54 PM by Twynkle »
QE2 has been waiting alongside in Dubai for very nearly  whole years... she seriously needs to be earning her keep....

 

QE2 in white / grey / pebble grey hull colours 1983-1984

Started by DavinaBoard The 1980s

Replies: 79
Views: 29422
Last post Aug 03, 2017, 06:10 PM
by Trevor Casey
Rumours that QE2's Hull may be sold for military use

Started by RodBoard Discussions about QE2 after Cunard

Replies: 12
Views: 2131
Last post Dec 23, 2012, 10:10 AM
by Chris Frame
Hull contour plans - QM2

Started by Dr. Edmund CarusBoard RMS Queen Mary 2

Replies: 3
Views: 1576
Last post Apr 20, 2009, 09:47 PM
by Dr. Edmund Carus
Caesarian operations on QE2's hull

Started by Isabelle ProndzynskiBoard Service Life (1969 - 2008)

Replies: 12
Views: 3263
Last post Sep 19, 2011, 11:25 PM
by Rod
Can QE2 's hull be classed as an icebreaker?

Started by Cruise_PrincessBoard Miscellaneous QE2

Replies: 15
Views: 3431
Last post Apr 20, 2010, 12:32 AM
by Magic Pipe