I don't recall reading anywhere that NCL denied that there were abestos aboard the SS Norway.
Or that NCL has ever denied that partially removing the abestos from the SS Norway would cost more than the ship was worth (EUR 17 million vs selling for $20 million).
As for devaluing the SS Norway, the new report "quotes" NCL's Annual Report. How much more public can NCL get?

So, where's the lies?

The lies are in your link. First, it's dated June 30th, and from within the report it states, "The SS Norway, the third "largest" cruise ship in the world after the Queen Elizabeth II and the ill-fated Titanic........"

The SS Norway in 2003 or even 2006 is not the third largest cruise ship. The SS Norway is rated at 76,049 tons. The following cruise ships are larger:
Norwegian Spirit 76,800 tons
Norwegian Sun 78,000 tons
Norwegian Star 92,000 tons
Norwegian Dawn 92,000 tons
Norwegian Jewel 92,000 tons
Pride of Hawaii 92,000 tons
Pride of Aloha 77,000 tons
Pride of America 81,000 tons
Adventure of the Seas 138,000 tons
Brilliance of the Seas 90,090 tons
Enchantment of the Seas 80,700 tons
Explorer of the Seas 138,000 tons
Freedom of the Seas 158,000 tons
Jewel of the Seas 90,090 tons
Mariner of the Seas 138,000 tons
Navigator of the Seas 138,000 tons
Radiance of the Seas 90,090 tons
Rhapsody of the Seas 78,500 tons
Serenade of the Seas 90,090 tons
Vision of the Seas 78,500 tons
Voyager of the Seas 138,000 tons
Carnival Conquest 110,000 tons
Carnival Destiny 101,500 tons
Carnival Glory 110,000 tons
Carnival Legend 88,500 tons
Carnival Liberty 110,000 tons
Carnival Miracle 88,500 tons
Carnival Pride 88,500 tons
Carnival Spirit 88,500 tons
Carnival Triumph 101,500 tons
Carnival Valor 110,000 tons
Carnival Victory 101,500 tons
Caribbean Princess 116,000 tons
Coral Princess 88,000 tons
Crown Princess 116,000 tons
Dawn Princess 77,000 tons
Diamond Princess 113,000 tons
Golden Princess 109,000 tons
Grand Princess 109,000 tons
Island Princess 88,000 tons
Sapphire Princess 113,000 tons
Sea Princess 77,000 tons
Star Princess 109,000 tons
Sun Princess 77,000 tons
Constellation 91,000 tons
Galaxy 77,700 tons
Infinity 91,000 tons
Mercury 77,700 tons
Millennium 91,000 tons
Summit 91,000 tons
Queen Mary 2 150,000 tons
Noordam 81,700 tons
Oosterdam 85,000 tons
Westerdam 82,000 tons
Zuiderdam 85,000 tons
MSC Musica 89,600 tons
Disney Magic 83,000 tons
Disney Wonder 83,000 tons

The SS Norway is still one of the longest cruise ships at 1035 feet. The following ships are longer:
Queen Mary 2 1132 feet long
Freedom of the Seas 1112 feet long

So, it is the third longest ship today, but RCCI is building longer ships, two more Freedom of the Seas class ships and at least one Genesis class ship.

By the way, the Titantic was only 883 feet long and was just 46,300 tons. Almost all the ships over 88,000 tons on this list are longer, all are larger . The only reason these guys even mention the Titantic is for scare factor and name awareness. Even the SS United States at 53,300 tons and 990 feet is longer and larger than the SS Titantic, but it apparently doesn't have the same name awareness.

Ron, with all due respect, I think a lot of people are puzzled as to why you are putting up this vigorous defense of NCL/Star. Obviously, they are no longer in any way friends of the ship in question. It leads people to wonder why a business deserves such resolute loyalty (unless there is something in it for you).

I don't mean to be rude, but am honestly puzzled.

Ditto Heron Bay's sentiments. But let's face it:

Massive reply/retorts that are completely "over the top" and nitty-gritty, hyper-detailed lists that take up copious amounts of space on a busy chat board speak volumes by their very nature.

I think it is really sad that anyone would defend the way NCL/Star has treated the SSNorway/SSFrance. Obviously this Ron Clark is connected with the companyh in some way whatever his or her real name may be. The France is actually the last remaining Ocean Liner. She is not a glorified bardge that will tip like the recent princess cruise accident. Please keep the preasure up to preserve the Norway/France even is just laid up till a positive use can be found.

Lets see, according to Page 33 of NCL's 2005 Annual report to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission(form 20-F)$19.7 mil was received from the insurance syndicate to cover the boiler explosion. Please see http://www.ban.org/Library/Star_Cruises_Deception_Report_Final.pdf
Next if we look at http://www.ssmaritime.com/NCL1.pdf we will see that NCL was quoted (under alternative 1)approximately $17.5 mil for full replacement of "boilers". Yes I agree this was in 1997, and yes I agree that due to inflation these repairs would cost more now. But the insurance company was only responsible to pay for what was needed, not what was wanted. By this I mean that the insurers were not responsible to re-engine the ship. Had the other boilers been damaged, they would have been covered under the claim as well. I am sure that most people that have been in an automobile accident, lets say driving a Cadilac, did not expect the insurance to replace it with a Rolls Royce.
Using these numbers, I'm sure that it is quite obvious that NCL never realy had any intension of keeping the Norway in service even though they had received suficient funds to repair her in a way that she would be good to go for the next 40 years. Towing her around the globe WAS mearly a way to try and keep her out of sight/out of mind.

Our boy, Ron wants to know where the LIES are? I can't speak for the 1997, 2001, or 2004 lies because I was not following the saga that closely back then. But HERE'S a freakin' WHOPPER:

"We're towing her to MALAYSIA for R-E-P-A-I-R-S"

Are you @%&!ing KIDDING ME? Where in Malaysia was Star/NCL going to get Norway repaired?!?! That rates right up there with "the check's in the mail" and "I won't ...." well, you know what I mean.

THAT, Ron, is what we here in the South call a BIG-@$$ LIE.

In respect to the 19.7 million NCL received from the insurance company, did they have to pay out the families of those that were lost as a result of the boiler explosion? or was that sum of money purely for the repair?

Please note: this post is basically about engineering 101 and I'm sure will not interest alot of readers. Sorry. Remarc

Now Ron,

In a past post you claim to work at a large US power plant. This I will not agree with or dispute. I too am an engineer at a power plant. You claim that the boilers on Norway were defective or with a design flaw. I have never heard of a boiler with major design flaw lasting 40 years. Around the area of Windsor Ontario there are quite a few large power plants. I know for fact that the boilers in Ford Motor Company Windsor, Ford Motor Company Detroit, H.J. Heinz Leamington and Hiram Walkers Windsor all have high pressure water tube boilers that are well over 40 years of age, are kept up, and probably will last another 40 years.

As you well know, a water tube boiler is simply a steam drum, mud drum(s) and piping to join the two together. They are made up of heavy gauge steel. As you had posted, there is no problem capping tubes in a boiler that are leaking. This however does become a problem when too many tubes are capped. According to the laws of thermodynamics, there would then not be enough water space in the existing tubes to remove the heat from the furnace gasses. This would then cause the furnace temperature to rise to a point that the higher temperature could cause metal fatigue, added stress and finaly failure. There is also no problem replacing tubes on a boiler as the ship is in operation. If you have to cool the boiler to cap a tube, you could also replace it if any were on board. If not, the said tube could be replaced while the ship is in port. Yes a complete re-tubing would take more time but could easily be done in one to two weeks.

You had also posted that they would have to cut a large hole in her side to complete a boiler replacement. Yes I agree with you, but, this practice is not a big deal and is commonly done for most ships needing to be re-engined. I have seen this done and know someone that has been involved in these repairs.

Although I have not personally seen the damage to the boilers, do not know how many tubes were capped, and have not had the opportunity to view the boiler log books, I would have to assume that the boilers on the Norway were not maintained or operated in a safe or proper fashion. My opinion is that the operators or owners were negligent and should thank their lucky stars that only one boiler blew and only a few employees and not passengers were killed. This could also have been alot worse had Norway been out at sea.

Thank You and again sorry for the long drawn engineering lesson.

Hi Mercedes,

According to the first link (deception report) it says that the Norway, and $19.7 mil was transfered to Star in exchange for a $46.5 mil promissory note. I don't know what any of the families got if anything.

Last post for tonight I promise.

Ron,

Really now...."Scare Factor"?

Scare factor would be telling me that if I sail on the Norway she's gonna sink and those nasty little Great Whites are gonna come nibbling on me. That's scare factor.

I think the only reason Titanic is mentioned is because anything we hear about Titanic is that she "was" the largest ship afloat. The author of the article probably did not wish to research too deeply into the history of the Titanic and probable assumed she was still up there in size. Most stories of Titanic don't say she was the largest ship "in her time".

I have heard other claims that are not acurate but are made because the Titanic is so very famous and is pretty well known to all. There is somewhat of a romance in the story of the Titanic even though all she knew how to do was to sink.

A good example of this is the loss of life. Everyone knows that the Titanic was the worst maritime disaster of all times. Or was it? In the spring of 1914 Canadian Pacific's Empress of Ireland was struck and sank in the St. Lawrence River in a mere 14 minutes with a loss of 1012 lives. Thats 8 more than Titanic yet we are still told that Titanic was worse.

I suggest you quit picking out little non-relevent issues and remember...size doesn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Remarc:
Please note: this post is basically about engineering 101 and I'm sure will not interest a lot of readers. Sorry. Remarc

Now Ron,
As you well know, a water tube boiler is simply a steam drum, mud drum(s) and piping to join the two together. They are made up of heavy gauge steel. As you had posted, there is no problem capping tubes in a boiler that are leaking. This however does become a problem when too many tubes are capped. According to the laws of thermodynamics, there would then not be enough water space in the existing tubes to remove the heat from the furnace gasses. This would then cause the furnace temperature to rise to a point that the higher temperature could cause metal fatigue, added stress and finally failure. There is also no problem replacing tubes on a boiler as the ship is in operation. If you have to cool the boiler to cap a tube, you could also replace it if any were on board. If not, the said tube could be replaced while the ship is in port. Yes a complete re-tubing would take more time but could easily be done in one to two weeks.

You had also posted that they would have to cut a large hole in her side to complete a boiler replacement. Yes I agree with you, but, this practice is not a big deal and is commonly done for most ships needing to be re-engined. I have seen this done and know someone that has been involved in these repairs.

Yes, as I wrote before, tubes can be capped quickly, individual tubes can be replaced if the proper sized tube is on hand. The boiler in question needs to be shutdown and cooled down to do this work.
And I agree it does take much longer to replace all the tubes. For a period of weeks, or several cruises, that boiler is shutdown, and therefore the ship must travel at a reduced speed, with the resulting late or missed ports in its itinerary.
And yes, one could replace the entire boiler if one cuts a hole into the side of the ship. Of course, a new boiler would have to be made first, which can take months to build and ship to the shipyard. At that point, when the hull is compromised, one couldn't sail the ship at all. That's why that type of work requires a drydock.

NCL, according to the 1998 memos posted earlier, was planning on retubing two of the four boilers anyways, and the purpose of the memos were to suggest retubing the other two boilers (last option) during the same drydock period. I don't know if that happen or not. But the cost was just an additional $8 million to do so.

If NCL did retube all the boilers, then the number of plugged tubes to the point of causing the boiler explosion were failing at a high rate, in just 4 years. If not, do we know if the boiler that exploded was retubbed or not? Without knowing that answer, and if the boiler that exploded was retubbed in 1999, could one call that negligence on NCL's part? There are many other possibilities that could have caused the boiler explosion, from stuck safety relief valves, improper ventilation before lighting the gun, improper water level control, improper timing for igniting the igniters, or just a failed pressure boundary inside the boiler. Again, the cause of the explosion was never publicized, or never determined. So we're all guessing and proposing potential causes.

Just like the trim incident aboard the Crown Princess this week, was the rudder failure caused by an improper design, or a failed mechanical, electrical, or electronic component. The ship, and it's rudders, are less than 2 months old. Or was it a human mistake on the bridge, or in the machinery rooms? We may never know. But I find it hard to believe that Princess was criminally negligence on preventive maintenance in a short two months.

The same holds true with the SS Norway, although we're talking about a much longer time in service. We don't know what maintenance NCL did on the boilers or not, nor when. What we do know from the memos is that NCL seriously considered replacing the boliers, replacing th eentire propulsion plant, or retubbing the boilers. I don't recall the memo suggesting doing nothing, which is one reason why I believe they retubbed all the boilers in 1999.
The Lloydwerft web site even mentions boiler work was performed on the SS Norway in 1999, although the shipyard's web site isn't specific with details.

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Clark:
I don't recall reading anywhere that NCL denied that there were abestos aboard the SS Norway.
Or that NCL has ever denied that partially removing the abestos from the SS Norway would cost more than the ship was worth (EUR 17 million vs selling for $20 million).
As for devaluing the SS Norway, the new report "quotes" NCL's Annual Report. How much more public can NCL get?

So, where's the lies?

Read and weep, "Ron":

Star/NCL violate international law by withholding information from German Authorities

quote:

Originally posted by Watson Island Norway Fan:
Our boy, Ron wants to know where the LIES are? I can't speak for the 1997, 2001, or 2004 lies because I was not following the saga that closely back then. But HERE'S a freakin' WHOPPER: "We're towing her to MALAYSIA for R-E-P-A-I-R-S"

Are you @%&!ing KIDDING ME? Where in Malaysia was Star/NCL going to get Norway repaired?!?! That rates right up there with "the check's in the mail" and "I won't ...." well, you know what I mean.

THAT, Ron, is what we here in the South call a BIG-@$$ LIE.

How about, for one, at the Malaysia Shipyard & Engineering shipyard called the Pasir Gudang yard, Johor.
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/aog/20050602.Malaysia.18170.asp
The main resources include 450,000dwt and 140,000dwt drydocks and a 50,000dwt ship lift system able to dock four ships on its land berths at any one time. That's dead weight tons, not registered tons.

Suggesting that Malaysia doesn't have the capabitity of repairing the SS Norway is the lie!

quote:

Originally posted by mikeythemars:
Read and weep, "Ron":
Star/NCL violate international law by withholding information from German Authorities

I've reread most of your link again.
First, Witholding information isn't a lie.
Second, I couldn't find anywhere in that link where NCL stated, "the SS Norway had zero abestos aboard."
Third, the SS Norway wasn't sold while in Germany, nor was any scrapper allowed to board her while in Germany. When "legally" does an EOL (End of Life) ship become a waste, and when is it considered up for disposal? The Basel laws don't take affect until the ship is up for disposal.
Your link references and presents several falsehoods. If what it says is true, Germany should take the ship back. Note: after all the uproar, Germany hasn't! Which means to me, they realise they don't have a leg to stand on legally.

I actually agree with Mr. Ron in his above statement on what could have gone wrong, we really don't know the cause of the explosion and I bet we will never get to know what REALLY happened in the boiler room that morning.

All we know at this point is that the ship had just arrived and that normal procedures were most likely followed when the big bang occured.

I was on board both the '93 and '96 drydock but have long ago lost all dry dock spec's from that time (computers were not that common yet). I never thought they would be of any interest for anything and they have therefore been lost. Sad knowing what answers they could have given.

I can't recall anything about retubing though. But that doesn't mean that it did not happen. I was a Safety Officer not an engineer.

Ron, please give up the defense of NCL and Star. The whole world knows what is going on, and there is nothing you can say now to change public opinion. My travel agent sent me an article today from Travel Agent Magazine outlining the whole grim story. So now the whole travel agent industry knows what is happening, and that could well be the final straw that breaks NCL/Star. If they thought they could scrap an icon of maritime history, and no one would care, then they must have been on some kind of drugs. When travel agents start turning away customers from booking with NCL, they might as well scuttle their whole fleet. For the record, my travel agent is one of the largest in the Detroit area, and books thousands of people on cruises every year. I didn't even request the article. It was sent for my interest and consideration in booking future cruises. Ain't that nice of her
On a side note, the article was published July 10, 2006. If I could scan and paste it here, I would. To quote the last paragraph though ;
"Whatever happens '(to the Norway)', agents and many of the five million-plus passangers who sailed on her over the years will always have their cherished memories. I still recall standing outside on Norway's top deck, and peering up at taller, more razzle-dazzle ships in port. However, I don't recall the names of those ships on that day, and perhaps that says it all".
I don't think there is a need for me to say anything more, that sums up what we all feel.

Remarc, we'll have to get together. Seems we live close-by. I'm in the phone book, Whitehead on Mulberry. Give me a call sometime.

Wow! That's a powerful piece of information!Travel agents shying cruisers away from NCL because of the Norway? That's great! The 'ol domino effect will be next. Oh Mr. Veitch? If you need a job next year you can come over and cut my lawn.

quote:

Originally posted by Capt Matt:
Wow! That's a powerful piece of information!Travel agents shying cruisers away from NCL because of the Norway? That's great! The 'ol domino effect will be next. Oh Mr. Veitch? If you need a job next year you can come over and cut my lawn.

Cut the grass !!!!! Hahahahaha

Or maybe Colin can get a job at Ron Clark Travel ???

Very interesting link, Watson!!