PS Waverley - Season 2020 is go!!

[June Ingram]

Awful thing to happen. I hope no one was seriously injured. Waverley's bow looks badly crunched.

[Rob Lightbody]

Quite worried about her future just now.

Look forward to Gavin's comments on whether she can return to service - I'm sure she can be repaired etc., but certification might be a problem now that MAIB is involved.  They'll want proof this won't happen again, for example.

I'm no expert, but they've made it look like she's extremely difficult to handle, and will have on average one incident every year. 

People need re-educated to appreciate that they're getting on board a very old and difficult ship.  They need to take great care on board.  She's totally unsuitable for a "booze cruise" which is what many/most of Glasgow thinks she's for.

[tramscape]

Whilst the handling of Waverley in general is different to vessels with variable pitch propellors and thrusters which allow such things as sideways movement, it does require skills which the master in charge definitely had

The issue appears to be why the ship did not stop as intended. There are a number of actions/responses both human and mechanical in that process and it is important not to speculate as to which of these might have led to the incident (and it might be none of these)

The new ferry terminal at Brodick seems to have had its fair share of criticism  but the fact is that if you overshoot the appointed stopping point, you run into a concrete construction. This would not be the case with most other traditional steamer piers where a degree of overshooting is not uncommon and often inevitable in difficult conditions. It is also possibly a good thing to allow manoevering into the appointed section of the pier

I would say it would be wrong to say that Waverley is any less suitable than any (or at least most) other ships for most passenger activities. Whether booze cruises are a good thing or not is a different discussion ! 

[Bruce Nicholls]

Given that she has been extensively in various areas anyway, would the addition of bow thrusters say be totally wrong. Would it help some of the slow speed manoeuvring  problems and possibly persuade the authorities to look more kindly on her future licencing?

[Rob Lightbody]

That's interesting about the design of the pier and overshooting, thank you.  Yes I think when on board I've seen them sort of deliberately over shoot (often throwing lines in the process) then pull her back?

I remember at the Dunoon incident, when I was on board, they said the old wooden pier was far preferable to the new concrete one.

I do think it'll be wise regardless to tell people to sit down/hold on when docking.. 

[Rob Lightbody]

Interesting article here.

What now for Waverley ?

[tramscape]

yes, nice article Rob and I saw your comment on FB

Whatever the recommendations there will be surely be some implications for the business model

The amount of injuries and hospitalisations make this much more of a worry to Waverley than say the Rothesay incident


Cheers
Gordon

[tramscape]

Further to the above, bow thrusters would not have been any use in this instance I understand

They may be of use in other situations but you never know if the MAIB make recommendations about it

[Clydebuilt1971]

Further to the above, bow thrusters would not have been any use in this instance I understand

They may be of use in other situations but you never know if the MAIB make recommendations about it

Firstly as a long term supporter and one time volunteer on the ship I am gutted that this has happened.
I wish the injured pax a speedy recovery as the human element is the priority of course!

The CRSC report is a good balanced account from someone who was on board at the time rather than some of the quite frankly ridiculous comments coming from the "admirals of the armchair fleet" who always take great pleasure in getting "stuck in" when something like this happens. I co-moderate on a couple of maritime related FB groups so you can imagine we were all very busy on Thursday and Friday!!

Thrusters would have been no use in this case as they have little or no effect on ahead or astern movement - they are mostly used for maneuvering at slow speeds or in the some cases holding position.

During the Heritage Refit the retrofit of a bow thruster was looked at - a PSPS member fitted one to his scale replica radio controlled model of Waverley and it was proven that it would be of little or no use versus the modification required to the hull of the ship. Waverley has a very fine entry - if you look at ships with thrusters their hull form around them is quite bulky (mostly due to space these units take up) sp I think the thruster would have been so small due to the space it would have been pointless.

As the CRSC report suggests (and I stress that word suggests) she came in at an appropriate speed for the conditions but didn't go astern when commanded last Thursday but the MAIB will leave no stone unturned.

The following is from my head as I mulled over what had happened - it is not official and merely an opinion - please take it no other way than that:-

There apparently was a release of steam into the lower engine room during the event which suggests the main engine cylinder safeties lifted.
This can happen if the HP cylinder ends up in a position (top or bottom dead centre) where the pressure on the other cylinders on the engine will equal that of the HP and cause a "stall" which is usually corrected by a quick blast of impulse steam into one of the other cylinders. (Impulse steam is HP steam usually admitted into the HP cylinder which by way of levers on the control platform can be admitted to the MP or LP cylinders to "jag" the engine from the stall position)
If the pressure is allowed to rise to much without any release then the cylinder safeties will lift and relieve the pressure by venting to atmosphere. All this happening MAY have made it too late to get her astern in time to avoid a collision.

The reversing engine failing could be another reason - this small steam engine raises or lowers the valve gear eccentrics which swap the direction at which the steam is admitted into the cylinders thereby making the engine rotate the wheels ahead or astern.
To go astern from any ahead movement you must first let the engine slow to almost a stop before then activating the redirection lever - the engine will go from ahead to astern without this procedure but it places great strain on the wheels and shafts so is only done in an emergency -  the valve gear changes position and then live steam is admitted via the throttle lever therefore the astern command is given quite far in advance of where the ship needs to stop.
If this little engine fails or jams (very unusual occurrence) then the engine may not change direction. If that was the case on Thursday the main engine would not be able to provide any astern movement to bring her to a stop.

As for the bow damage - as I recall the area at the bow that was damaged is a void space (I think its the chain locker for the anchor) after which there is a bulkhead (located roughly where the railings are between the passenger and mooring areas are at the bow) so there is potential for her to hit something quite hard and still retain her hull integrity even if damaged some or part of the way up to that bulkhead.

This doesn't negate the need to fully inspect the hull of course!!

I re-iterate that the above is all speculation out of my head from experience of watching the engineers control the engine over the years and also from people I have spoken to who know her inside out.

Please don't repeat or quote any of this outwith the forum - the resultant MAIB report will have the fact and the MCA will use this report and its recommendations moving forward.

Gav

[Bruce Nicholls]

Point taken on bow thrusters. It would appear the new pier designs are not friendly to a vessel that needs to approach at steering speed, with no prop wash over the rudder this will be higher than usual today.

[Clydebuilt1971]

Point taken on bow thrusters. It would appear the new pier designs are not friendly to a vessel that needs to approach at steering speed, with no prop wash over the rudder this will be higher than usual today.

Hi Bruce - below 5 knots Waverley has little or no steerage which is why she approaches at speeds a little higher than you might think appropriate!

Her rudder is quite small although it has been enlarged over the years but there is a limit to the force that the rudder stock can withstand. Also small flat plates have been attached to the top and bottom of the rudder which help to minimise the "spill" of water over the edges and make the face of the rudder more effective.

ps Maid of the Loch has a counterbalanced rudder which is more effective - not sure why Wavereley wasnt built with this originally but I guess there will be a reason!

Gav

[tramscape]

Thanks for the above Gavin

It does seem that the eastern berth at the new Rothesay facility was designed specially to accommodate Waverley .... the link span for the car ferry is on the western side, so the risk would have been assessed

The failure of a steam engine to reverse as described by Gavin is one of those risk factors which presumably had been taken into account. The fact that the dice might have fallen wrongly despite very low odds is still an issue when you get the critics who are all too happy to shoot at Waverley at every opportunity. The comments on Gavin's forum are very modest and measured by and large, those in specific Waverley and paddle steamer forums have the odd troll, but it is outside of specialist forums that you see the most disgusting of comments. With injuries, air ambulances  and hospitalisations, no wonder the sceptical public, when they scent blood, go for the jugular. Waverley has been an easy target for 47 years for the knockers

Anyway, not until the MAIB report comes out will we know what the cause of the failure to stop was

Although accidents of all sorts have dogged Clyde steamers over the years, things are different nowadays

It prompted me to try and look back to see if there had been many accidents at Craigendoran, which until 1972 wwas the base for Waverley, her fleetmates and the NBR/LNER fleet HQ for a century. In principle, it was no different to Brodick is now as it was approached in the same manner.  Accidents here don't get a mention in any of my books as far as I can see

There are some places around Europe where paddle steamers call without the opportunity of (much) overrun and there does not seem to have been a problem.

This one was probably a chance in a million ..... but the potential repercussions could be quite considerable, especially since it is only three years on from the Rothesay incident which caused similar damage 

[Clydebuilt1971]

Just noticed this post from Glasgow based Malin Group offering assistance to Waverley in the form of damage assessment via scanning etc and from the way it reads some materials to assist with damage repair.

Big respect to Malin Group.

=68.ARAsF60-_fAy8eFZHkAraW4K-9uBPAlqcDGkTwAoTEsFDu9Zaed0Kb5UjXBbnGZnH-D6GaKnCs1JkJkdBe7VS6X07gNzXwaGaMMW4ZTTxXO0Nfpi8zQ0EPsyIJ8bjfQHnTmf0maOG48VqaKoyuNLb7YwWvEgHXEGqlV94QuFfdaD25AWwK0bADUcbrHxr8V5KpLkCmu2k9JBf7zm70-r63XDqlZSM7fjYMZ6C0XOc_tCAnipdmaIn6V9O-qppO-0aP454Rg0G4vj1YAocKR-tnIvDvXxCLM3Lr0-bsbM4S8hHCeCu2naT2olqUA8OrraqnPif38wH0B82QYgtVWLbw]Malin Group - ps Waverley]Malin Group - ps Waverley[/url]

Gav

[Clydebuilt1971]

Hi Folks,

A brief update on Waverley.

She sailed up river this morning from Brodick under her own power at good speed and after disembarking someone from the MCA (I am told) she continued up river to Glasgow with Clyde Marine's tug Battler providing escort (I assume this is in case of difficulty necessitating a tow) which proved to be a nice "jolly" for the tug crew as she was pushing Battler speed wise all the way up the river!!

She is now on her usual berth at Glasgow Science Centre. Repairs will be made during her usual annual dry docking prior to next season.

From an article I read I think she required some sealing of the bow area in the immediate vicinity of the damage however a full inspection will be carried out in due course.
Clyde based Malin Group have offered their scanning services FOC which can establish the extent and allow a repair specification to be compiled which will allow the cost of the works to be established.

The MAIB report will follow at some point but there is usually a time lag between investigation and publishing. It is important to bear in mind that the MAIB report output is always recommendations - it will be for the MCA and Waverley Steam Navigation Company to come to an agreement on what is to be done prior to issue of her passenger certificate next year.

It wasnt the end anyone wanted to what was a triumphant comeback but taking the positives - she returned home under her own power with no assistance, Malin have offered assistance on what would be an expensive part of the process and most importantly it has been reported that all but one of the pax who were admitted to hospital were discharged the next day with the last one following shortly after.

So rest easy this winter old girl. Your life is never simple!!!



Gav

[cunardqueen]

  So rest easy this winter old girl. Your life is never simple!!!

It does however like QE2, keep her in the news, and as Nigel Broakes from Traf House once quoted "It always costs a million"