A decade ago the largest cruise ship was the 101,000 grt
- Carnival Destiny which can carry a maximum of 3400 passengers. Today the largest cruise liner, as distinct from cruise ship, in service is Cunard’s Queen Mary II. Her grt is 150,000 and she can carry 2620 passengers. As a pure cruise ship she has been overtaken by Royal
Caribbean Cruise lines Freedom of the Seas which entered service in 2006. At 160,000 tons grt, she can carry 3634 passengers. However, she has been eclipsed by the delivery of an even
bigger sister Oasis of the Seas at 222,000 tons capable of carrying over 5400 guests. Interestingly over 20 years ago, at H&W we developed a
conceptual design based on the ideas of the US Shipowner Ravi Tikkoo for a 3150 passenger vessel of 160,000 grt. All passengers were located in outside cabins and all had private balconies above the main desk. This was achieved by a zigzag type superstructure. Many cruise operators then held the view that such a concept and size of cruise ship would never be in demand! However, the 20-year interval has demonstrated that this unique design concept represented a correct interpretation of where the cruise market was heading. One of my greatest industrial regrets was that despite all
our market research in the mid-1980’s at H&W, pointing to this new and significant growth market for cruise ships, I could not persuade the UK Government to support entry to what we can now look back on as a 20-year bonanza. It gives me no satisfaction to have predicted then that these new ships would be built in Italy, France and Germany. Modern cruise ship designs have created vessels that are
‘destinations in themselves’ with innovations such as private balconies and atriums, a variety of restaurants; lounges and theatres etc. These developments demonstrate how new markets can be created by sensing out opportunities, pursuing innovation and skilfully managing the high investment risks – given that a 3000 passenger ship will cost about US$800 million.
LNG Carriers
The transportation of liquefied natural gases (LNG) by sea is of itself a fascinating story of technical evolution in which the UK has played a leading part. As a young naval architect, I worked on the design of the Methane Progress being built at Harland and Wolff as the World’s first commercial LNG vessel. In parallel with some early experimental shipments in the
USA, British Gas negotiated a long-term contract to ship Algerian LNG to Canvey Island. Based on this contract, the design for two new 26,450 m(3) LNG vessels was developed with Vickers, Harland and Wolff and US design consultants J J Henry. These first two major commercial LNG carriers were
jointly constructed by Vickers Shipbuilding in Barrow (Methane Princess) and Harland and Wolff, (Methane
Methane Progress
Progress). Methane Progress was delivered first in May 1964 and I sailed with her on my first of many sea trials. What a thrill it is to take a ship on sea trials in which you have had a hand in its design or construction. Since these first two commercial LNG tankers there has
been an exponential rise in the capacity of the worlds LNG fleet. By 2010 more than 360 LNG tankers will be in service. The maximum size of vessel now under construction is a 265,000m3 Progress.
– almost 10 times the capacity size of Methane Offshore Energy
The 30-year development from fixed platforms on the shallow North Sea continental shelf at under 200m to floating production technology in hostile waters West of Shetland at about 400-500m deep is a fascinating story. My first encounter was as a young naval architect when
H&W took the order from BP for the first semi-submersible rig to be built in Europe for the North Sea and delivered in 1966. The triangular shaped rig was constructed straddling
three slipways, before the era of the building dock and well before computer aided structural design programmes were available. As a member of small technical team assembled to figure out in detail how it was to be safely launched, I experienced one of the most challenging technical roles that I could ever have wished for. To avoid the rig ‘tipping’ during launch, which would
have been a catastrophe, a temporary barge was built in the middle slipway to provide greater buoyancy and uplift as the rig entered the water. The calculated loads on the barge were enormous and we estimated that we had little margin, particularly if the tide was not as high as predicted on launch day, which would have reduced the buoyancy uplift on the rig structure. The tide on the day was indeed somewhat lower than predicted, due to wind direction, but the courageous decision was made to ‘let her go in’, despite the inevitable risks. As the rig launched on a reduced and falling tide, loads on the barge were significantly higher than predicted and the temporary barge started to visibly
59
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92