**
Agreed. They only have one main distrution center and that is in the engine room. The auxilary generators feed the main buss. And they have those because they shut down the main engines when in port. There should have been some way of isolating the hotel load, pulling it off the main buss and feeding it differently. Either through switching or with wrenches.
Yes, I understand what’s involved and yes it would be an expensive proposition to make something that could be used in a rare mass transfer. My point was that nobody would build such a system because of the cost and lack of need.
What would more sense would be an upgrade in the systems currently used to launch rescue boats off of a ship. If, as mentioned above, it’s a deadly venture to even practice their use then that would be a good thing to throw some engineering dollars into.
I came here kinda thinking the same thing. Okay, you can’t easily transfer 4k people off a cruise ship in the GoM. It ain’t Antarctica though. I don’t get why they didn’t have backups of backups and how hard would it be to get generators to the ship, fresh water, port-o-potties, etc. I’m sure FEMA could have helped them out at great cost. Were they too cheap?
Cruise ship = floating apartment building complex
I would think, and this is based on nothing by my imagination, that a ship of that size would have 2 independent engines/propellers plus a 3rd diesel-electric set up for limp mode. I’d expect the entire electrical system to be set up in a staggered bus system so power is independently spread out through the ship allowing for a variety of mechanical or electro-mechanical crossovers in the event of a catastrophic event. and just like any major institution there would be multiple backup generators located away from each other so as not to be easily compromised as a group.
This is not a warship. A lot of them have two engines. They also have two motors. Limp mode with a third main engine would cost money and room. There are emergency generators in different locations connected to emergency circuits. But the emergency distribution is only to life safety. +
Also remember these are foreign flag vesssels.
Are they all diesel electrics now or is the propeller shaft connected to the engines? If they’re diesel electrics with remote generators then I would expect an almost foolproof level of redundancy. It should be interesting to learn what happened exactly.
Not all foreign-flagged ships are death traps. Anyway, does it really matter? Don’t foreign vessels operating in US waters have to meet US safety standards?
Not fully inspected. But inorder to leave port with US citizens as passengers they myst pass a mimumum inspection. Not the same safety that a US flag ship does. Basically they have to meet international standards. And have a low probabily of sinking or poluting US waters.
And you are right there are other nations that have strict regulations. But the “run away flags” do not. After I had passed my US Thirds I was told that I could qualify for a Greek Chief’s.
They are not all Diesel, some are Gas Turbine with waste heat steam. The motors are Azsopod (sp) motors. The motors are hung under the ship and can turm 360 degrees, the ships also do not have rudders. And I agree everything should not run directly off the main buss. I would really know what happen also.
I’d heard about vectored thrust. First time I heard they had motors under the ship. It must have been a whopping electrical melt down to shut lose all power.
Does not take a whopping fire to take down an electrical distribution system. just enough fire to melt some parts creating a short.
So, where does the Bahamas rate as far as ship safety requirements?
well it’s got to be big enough you can’t fix it. It’s not like they sailed without a repair crew.
I assume that if the ship had no power, no stabilizers and a list, that if this had happened during bad weather that this could have turned into a tragedy…
Obviously; that’s what happened. But why put 4,000 lives at risk with that kind of design?
well one would think. It’s not hard to set up one’s home electrical system so you have critical stuff on a switchable buss that can be used with a generator. It’s the same mindset applied to a city of 4000 people. You’d have to have redundant panels interconnected with each other.
Because the risk is very miniscule. If you’re on the design team, you might note that the chances of it happening are small, the chances of it actually causing an actual death toll are even smaller, and even if something does happen, while the company may suffer for it, you personally would not, both because of the way being part of a “team” tends to deflect any specific blame, and also because by the time something happens, years have probably passed and you’re not in that position or possibly even in that company anymore.
On the other hand, if you do design in more redundancy, you raise the cost and explicitly drop the profitability (since you’ll probably have to take out some staterooms to fit in the redundant systems), and that will be seen immediately and may reflect in your bonus, or next performance review or whatever.
And lest that sound too cynical, I should point out that cost vs risk takes place in almost everything. Your car would be safer with full roll cages, it would save lives, but they would cost more both up front and to operate, so it doesn’t happen.
And really, given that there had apparently been problems going on during previous cruises,a lack of redundant systems may not be the real place to focus. I don’t care how redundant my systems are if people are half-assing the maintenance work.
A fire in a engine room that involves an electrical buss can cause a short between the phase bars. The damage can easily be enough the the repair is replace the buss bars or even the whole distrobution panel. That is not a simple job. Or a job the ship has the parts to complete. And it would take a few days.
If the ship had a few hundred feet of 4-0 or 2-0 wire a lash up could be done to route around the main panel.
Agreeded