Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

Cruise ship cancellations


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#16 Scorrie

Scorrie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1242 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:42 PM

Yup I have to admit you're right, Kavi. Some fine looking buildings there.



#17 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3275 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 09:49 PM

Terrible things cruise ships , huge carbon footprint to run them never mind the filthy dirty water they release into our seas !

They are huge polluters according to this article

 

https://www.theguard...llution-problem



#18 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9265 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 11:13 PM

"These ships burn as much fuel as whole towns"

WIth 9880 folk aboard, they ARE whole towns. Lerwick had approx 7500 residents in 2010. Of course they'll burn a comparable amount on heat, power, lighting etc.

The only thing a cruise ship can consume and create pollution from that is additional to what the people onboard consume and create every day anyway, is the fuel used to move the ship from point to point, minus the people onboard''s everyday footprint in terms of their driving, usage of public transport, share of transport footprint from bringing them the goods and services they use etc.

The insinuations from these articles is that everything consumed by and emitted by a cruise ship is additional over and above 'normal' footprint, that is bogus and fake, wherever these 9880 folk are, they have the same footprint simply by existsing, regardless whether it's on a ship, going to Butlins instead, or just chilling watching the telly and going for a drive.

Certainly by being on the cruise they raise their footprint a little as it's travelling greater distances, but suggesting the entire footprint of the ship is additional simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A massive part of it is simply a relocated existing footprint, as it's been removed from where these 9880 normally generate it, and gathered in to a motorised tin bath chugging around wherever.
  • whalsa, George., Suffererof1crankymofo and 1 other like this

#19 breeksy

breeksy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:03 AM

'Something I've observed even this year is passengers returning to their ship as early as 12.30am and whatever the reason it doesn't look good'

Yeah, at that time of night they could at least have the decency to wait till the pubs close ;)
  • BigMouth, BGDDisco and Suffererof1crankymofo like this

#20 Scorrie

Scorrie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1242 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:08 AM

The older 'dump it in the sea' liners are slowly being replaced by ships with state of the art sewage treatment plants that can deal with grey water and sewage, returning clean water back to the sea 24/7. Gash is no longer hoofed over the side either, so apart from the amount of fuel burnt there's not much to write home about IMO.

 

You'll always get those that take the pish, mind. There was a very famous case involving a Carnival cruise ship with an illegal dump valve built into the ship not that long ago.

 

Carbon footprints? Come on, we are ecstatic when the oil companies chuck money at Shetland businesses and use Shetlands facilities, sailing in and out in honking great vessels with a massive carbon footprint, yet we're going to get all queer about the carbon footprint of cruise ships? Really?

 

 

Terrible things cruise ships , huge carbon footprint to run them never mind the filthy dirty water they release into our seas !

They are huge polluters according to this article

 

https://www.theguard...llution-problem

 

 

I'd rephrase that, Mucklejoannie, to 'someone who lives near Southampton docks says they are huge polluters'.

 

Read the bold line at the top of the article........... ;)



#21 suuusssiiieee

suuusssiiieee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 09:35 AM

I still think my theory about the cancellations is a more plausable reason than the weather. Out of the 5 in the last month only Viking Star was a true weather cancellation as she got to the Bressy light before aborting.

After that we had Aegean Odyssey which cancelled (weather) when they clearly after missing Kirkwall on the way to Iceland dropped us for them on the way back, were talking product here, Orkney clearly is more disirable.

Columbus was next (weather) which was rubbish as she was at Foula at 10 the night before, no weather issues there. She went to Kirkwall because she could moor alongside, for
us lacking (facilities).

Ocean Majesty was next, diverted to Invergordon, reasons unkown, seemingly weather which is a strange one as she made good time up from Germany.

Costa Magica cancelled to due weather i guess because of having to tender they did'nt fancy it (again facilities).

The point in all of this is there are clearly 2 issues here, appeal of Shetland, and lack of a deep water berth for the larger ships around.

Promote Shetland have never been keen to embrace new ideas of how to show off Shetland's many assets, many ideas i know have been dismissed out of hand that could make the experience for cruise passengers that elect to stay in the town even better.

The LPA clearly see a need for a town centre berth, which hopefully will happen.

#22 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3275 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 10:00 PM

The older 'dump it in the sea' liners are slowly being replaced by ships with state of the art sewage treatment plants that can deal with grey water and sewage, returning clean water back to the sea 24/7. Gash is no longer hoofed over the side either, so apart from the amount of fuel burnt there's not much to write home about IMO.

 

You'll always get those that take the pish, mind. There was a very famous case involving a Carnival cruise ship with an illegal dump valve built into the ship not that long ago.

 

Carbon footprints? Come on, we are ecstatic when the oil companies chuck money at Shetland businesses and use Shetlands facilities, sailing in and out in honking great vessels with a massive carbon footprint, yet we're going to get all queer about the carbon footprint of cruise ships? Really?

 

 

Terrible things cruise ships , huge carbon footprint to run them never mind the filthy dirty water they release into our seas !

They are huge polluters according to this article

 

https://www.theguard...llution-problem

 

 

I'd rephrase that, Mucklejoannie, to 'someone who lives near Southampton docks says they are huge polluters'.

 

Read the bold line at the top of the article........... ;)

 

Southampton seems to have a particular problem as the liners use their own generators to power all the ships electrics rather than hook up to shore based power supplies.



#23 Scorrie

Scorrie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1242 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:27 PM

That does surprise me, I'd have thought it would be more cost effective to run shore power. But then again, I suppose the  power usage for summat like a cruise liner could be way above the available supply. Dunno.



#24 Scorrie

Scorrie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1242 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:45 PM

I've just looked up the 'Magellan' which is a new generation (2015) cruise liner at 220m that can carry 1200 passengers, so a reasonably large lump of metal.

 

She has three 3750kw generators  :shock:

 

For comparison, a type 42 RN destroyer with a crew of 300 needed 4x 1000kw Paxman gennies to supply all ships propulsion, auxiliary, weapon and backup systems - and beer fridges - and never had all 4 on load at the same time, normally two running and two on standby......

 

So maybe they don't have the shore power capability in Southampton :)



#25 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4488 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:58 PM

That does surprise me, I'd have thought it would be more cost effective to run shore power. But then again, I suppose the  power usage for summat like a cruise liner could be way above the available supply. Dunno.

 

Can't they just put a three pin plug into a socket at the marina?  They could run a four-gang on that.


  • Colin and Scorrie like this

#26 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2232 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:04 PM

 

That does surprise me, I'd have thought it would be more cost effective to run shore power. But then again, I suppose the  power usage for summat like a cruise liner could be way above the available supply. Dunno.

 

Can't they just put a three pin plug into a socket at the marina?  They could run a four-gang on that.

 

Health & Safety.   I don't think they would be allowed to use a "4 Gang"..  :ponders:


  • Scorrie likes this

#27 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3275 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 09:45 PM

The UK is one of the few places in the world that does not offer plug in electrics for cruise liners.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...pshire-39181972



#28 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9265 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:21 AM

Bring back banks of slaves on oars in the lower decks, that'll soon sort the carbon footprint issues, although there might be a slightl increase in organic pollution, even if they feed them only bread and water.


Edited by Ghostrider, 25 July 2017 - 12:21 AM.


#29 Da Burra Shop

Da Burra Shop

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:45 AM

"Columbus was next (weather) which was rubbish as she was at Foula at 10 the night before, no weather issues there. She went to Kirkwall because she could moor alongside, for
us lacking (facilities)."

 

I doot dey didna get alangside in Ham. :)



#30 Scorrie

Scorrie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1242 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 04:20 AM

.......

The LPA clearly see a need for a town centre berth, which hopefully will happen.

 

 

I'll certainly agree with you there, I heard the outgoing head of the LPA talking on SICB a couple of weeks back, a deepwater berth was something both he and the HM believe should be dealt with.

 

Going back to the amount of cancellations, let's see how many from this list have actually cancelled at the end of the season:

 

http://www.lerwick-h...uise-ships-2017