Jump to content
Andy

HONFLEUR - Arriving June 2019

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, cvabishop said:

Impressive photo. Is that gaffer tape holding the bow doors shut?

It’s part of the new logo 😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to work out some timings for honfluers construction from now till first crossing and it seems like and bf agree with me that deck plans will come out as soon as the superstructure is on the honfluer so we will see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2018 at 19:27, David Williams said:

Originally, and still on the Honfleur site, they talked about June.

image.png.c6745c0e8c455016acaf168444f31e82.png

Looks as though BF have taken note of your observation... ;)

image.png.a8ce33c3f8d47d6cf09cd85d9a30d10b.png

With the launch date now rapidly approaching (14th December) more information surrounding the Honfleur will be released by BF over the coming weeks. We just need to be patient (easier said than done!). But with a new ship being launched just before Christmas a little excitement is to be expected - and I'm pleased to say that BFE will be there to help cover the event! :D 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2018 at 23:38, jonno said:

I'm fairly confident.

FSG together with BF are supervising the Polish subcontract work far more closely than the WBY build, lessons have been learnt and improvements will continue. Worth remembering that FSG aren't an experienced passenger ferry builder, this is a new market for them, it's been a steep learning curve. 

Yes they'll possibly suffer financial penalties for late delivery but I.F new what they were getting into and overall are paying a bargain price. They're not too disheartened as even considering all the problems I.F haven't pulled out of their 2nd build from the yard which is next on the blocks and will dwarf Ulysses.

FSG have subcontracted project management to Kongsberg, as they did with W.B.

There are two more ro-ro's to come before the second Irish Ferries new build btw.  Yard numbers 780/781 which are to be completed before the end of 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2018 at 16:39, Andy said:

Looks as though BF have taken note of your observation... ;)

image.png.a8ce33c3f8d47d6cf09cd85d9a30d10b.png

With the launch date now rapidly approaching (14th December) more information surrounding the Honfleur will be released by BF over the coming weeks. We just need to be patient (easier said than done!). But with a new ship being launched just before Christmas a little excitement is to be expected - and I'm pleased to say that BFE will be there to help cover the event! :D 

I can think of another company who allowed an additional month safety margin for their FSG new build.  Lets hope we don't see a repeat (W.B. Y was originally to be delivered in May with the first bookings taken for July!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/11/2018 at 00:25, jonno said:

This was written to do with bow integrity 15 years ago by a close friend of over 25 years who is a Naval Architect in Scandinavia and works for a particularly well known company.

The full document is available online for anyone to read at any time.

Visor systems consist of one door, “the visor”, which is hinged to the hull by two hinges, positioned on the weather deck. The visor opens upwards in a rotating track around these hinges. Since the hinges are normally positioned aft of the visor, the sea forces are directed in the opening direction of the visor and the locking devices can therefore be subjected to heavy loads. Visors have not been installed on new civil ferries, at least not in Europe [1], since MV Estonia lost her visor and sank. Although many ferries still have visors, they have not been designed for a long time and are therefore not part in this analysis.

 

Obviously nobody told Knud E Hansen or P&O this - European Causeway, Stena Nordica, and European Ambassador all have bow visors and where built specifically for Northern European service from 2000 onwards, sometime after the Estonia disaster.  Highlander would have entered service around the time of that quote?  I can't think of any other more recent examples though - could they have been the last major European ferries with visors?  Had the Herald of Free Enterprise been equipped with a visor rather than a clamshell arrangement however, she probably wouldn't have sailed with her bow doors open (or at least the lack of any indication couldn't have been used as an excuse) as it would have been very obvious to anyone looking out any bow window that the door was open!!!  My understanding is that most visors are only "weather proof" anyway, with the door behind forming the proper watertight seal.  In the case of the Estonia my understanding is that the particular arrangement she had in the bow meant that when the visor got ripped off it took out the ramp which formed the watertight seal with it!   Faults with visors can also work the other way mind, with Stena Felicity springing to mind as an example of a vessel were they couldn't get the visor lifted as it had locked solid in place on one particular occasion!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tarbyonline said:

Obviously nobody told Knud E Hansen or P&O this - European Causeway, Stena Nordica, and European Ambassador all have bow visors and where built specifically for Northern European service from 2000 onwards, sometime after the Estonia disaster.  Highlander would have entered service around the time of that quote?  I can't think of any other more recent examples though - could they have been the last major European ferries with visors?  

Berlin and Copenhagen have been delivered with visors in the past couple of years - it's a niche solution nowadays but not a forbidden one as such.

image.png.29312e546739073b2a9189ee3516e7cf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tarbyonline said:

Obviously nobody told Knud E Hansen or P&O this - European Causeway, Stena Nordica, and European Ambassador all have bow visors and where built specifically for Northern European service from 2000 onwards, sometime after the Estonia disaster.  Highlander would have entered service around the time of that quote?  I can't think of any other more recent examples though - could they have been the last major European ferries with visors?  Had the Herald of Free Enterprise been equipped with a visor rather than a clamshell arrangement however, she probably wouldn't have sailed with her bow doors open (or at least the lack of any indication couldn't have been used as an excuse) as it would have been very obvious to anyone looking out any bow window that the door was open!!!  My understanding is that most visors are only "weather proof" anyway, with the door behind forming the proper watertight seal.  In the case of the Estonia my understanding is that the particular arrangement she had in the bow meant that when the visor got ripped off it took out the ramp which formed the watertight seal with it!   Faults with visors can also work the other way mind, with Stena Felicity springing to mind as an example of a vessel were they couldn't get the visor lifted as it had locked solid in place on one particular occasion!  

He's worked for Knud E Hansen since late 2004. Causeway, Nordica and Ambassador were built in Asia and Spain as no Baltic yard would build a visor in or around 1998/99 same goes for Highlander back in 2001. Yes I think they were the last overall with the last Baltic built cruise ferries to have one being the Olau Peter Pans.

I think hhv makes a valuable point when he describes visors as a niche solution rather than an industry standard. Off the top of my head, along with both Scandlines ships there has been two others for CalMac, Finnlaggan (2011) and Loch Seaforth built by FSG in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tarbyonline said:

Obviously nobody told Knud E Hansen or P&O this - European Causeway, Stena Nordica, and European Ambassador all have bow visors and where built specifically for Northern European service from 2000 onwards, sometime after the Estonia disaster.  Highlander would have entered service around the time of that quote?  I can't think of any other more recent examples though - could they have been the last major European ferries with visors?  Had the Herald of Free Enterprise been equipped with a visor rather than a clamshell arrangement however, she probably wouldn't have sailed with her bow doors open (or at least the lack of any indication couldn't have been used as an excuse) as it would have been very obvious to anyone looking out any bow window that the door was open!!!  My understanding is that most visors are only "weather proof" anyway, with the door behind forming the proper watertight seal.  In the case of the Estonia my understanding is that the particular arrangement she had in the bow meant that when the visor got ripped off it took out the ramp which formed the watertight seal with it!   Faults with visors can also work the other way mind, with Stena Felicity springing to mind as an example of a vessel were they couldn't get the visor lifted as it had locked solid in place on one particular occasion!  

Stena Felicity had hinged doors, not a bow visor.

I always wondered why the TT Line twins (now with DFDS, once Val de Loire) had hinged doors whilst the slightly younger Olau twins (now with GNV, once Prides of Portsmouth and Le Havre) has visors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Baltic yards are forbidden from building ships with visors then I’m sure that will have been a local political edict to reinforce the “credibility” of their story.  I’m sure that no yards actually think professionally that visors are unsafe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pride Of Bilbao seemed to manage alright on the bay of Biscay with a bow visor, I don't recall anyone questioning her safety during her time on that route. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gareth said:

If the Baltic yards are forbidden from building ships with visors then I’m sure that will have been a local political edict to reinforce the “credibility” of their story.  I’m sure that no yards actually think professionally that visors are unsafe.

No yard is forbidden, at the time it was quietly felt to be a prudent move in order to raise public confidence as Estline added to the public fear factor by having  Vironia's bow welded shut, she suffered severe bow damage when under the name Diana II and would have suffered the same fate as Estonia if she'd been in the same 4m waves as her bow visor and door were interconnected too. Estline also publicly talked about other operators who'd had suffered similar failures. This may have been a ploy to deflect from their lack of SOLAS compliance but nevertheless the lid was off. Understandably Scandinavian media was in a frenzy post September 1994 and there were so called whistleblowing safety accounts published almost daily. 

Public consensus in Scandinavia at the time was that visors were unsafe especially as many designers and shipowners had previously said that the loss of a bow visor was impossible but it later transpired that many "near misses" had been known about. 

We're talking about the pre internet and non global news coverage days when it was far easier to shove a document in a filing cabinet and be forgotten about. Now everyone demands information on everything and minutiae is scrutinised.

Mariella nearly lost hers not long after she was launched back in '85 which resulted in a swift return to Turku for a redesign and strengthening-she was the worlds largest cruise ferry at the time. Olympia received the same attention and was strengthened further by P&O prior to her Bilbao years... she used to arrive at and leave from the berth with her visor up due to it's size which scared the crap out of a few passengers, the captain always made an announcement. Again public perception, over five years had passed but the Herald was still in the thoughts of many people, thoughts which were compounded by Estonia-the final report of which wasn't published until 2008.

SOLAS regs have changed significantly twice since then and are more rigorously enforced. Steel quality, welding and build techniques have moved on too not to mention that most ferry operators now want twin loading built in for immediate use or future proofing which means bow visors are incompatible. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jonno, interesting.  I agree twin-loading has changed the game.

Interesting that visors are not prohibited by solas.....that ought to tell people something! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gareth said:

Thanks Jonno, interesting.  I agree twin-loading has changed the game.

Interesting that visors are not prohibited by solas.....that ought to tell people something! 😉

Twin loading can still use visors - Fantasia/Fiesta Seafrance Renoir and Manet, and more recently European Causeway are all double deck loading.

As already stated, its generally the bow ramp/inner bow door that forms the watertight seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Ferry Man said:

Twin loading can still use visors - Fantasia/Fiesta Seafrance Renoir and Manet, and more recently European Causeway are all double deck loading.

As already stated, its generally the bow ramp/inner bow door that forms the watertight seal

Indeed - a bulkead that closes inwards, and which any water pushing against it will push further closed....but probably not the discussion for this thread.

(Remind me....how did a thread about Honfleur get onto bow visors?!)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I once read that Cote d'Azur or Champs Elysees operated Dover - Calais for several days without a bow visor attached after a collision.

Never seen any pictures of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Cote d’Azur.  She collided head-on with Chantilly in the Calais approach channel in 1982.

Not great quality, but here is a picture of CDA operating without her visor.

Also found a couple of pictures showing the mess that the collision made of Chantilly.  Given that Chantilly was, by then, 17 years old and that her slightly older fleetmate Compieigne had just been sold for scrap.....it's amazing that they went to the expense of repairing Chantilly from this!

 

cache_1703530.jpg

slide_37 (2).jpg

L+étrave+du+«+Chantilly+»+après+sa+collision+avec+le+«+Côte+d+Azur+» (2).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Ferry Man said:

Twin loading can still use visors - Fantasia/Fiesta Seafrance Renoir and Manet, and more recently European Causeway are all double deck loading.

As already stated, its generally the bow ramp/inner bow door that forms the watertight seal 

Yes, if the visor swings up high enough (and is in itself large enough) it doesn't impede twin level freight loading - again this is something the Copenhagen and Berlin offer. The Stena Challenger's always struck me as huge both in size and in the height it had to swing through to give clearance.

A bit o/t I suppose (sorry Gareth) but any excuse for a POB picture :)

image.png.b89043cd71704f33ce85c371d4731514.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got some old photos somewhere at my parents house of the old Color Viking (later Jupiter) docked in Bergen with bow visor up, these would be from 1997. Another ship which certainly took a pounding on her route, in the Winter anyway, for over a decade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gareth said:

Also found a couple of pictures showing the mess that the collision made of Chantilly.  Given that Chantilly was, by then, 17 years old and that her slightly older fleetmate Compieigne had just been sold for scrap.....it's amazing that they went to the expense of repairing Chantilly from this! 

To be fair they needed the Chantilly for a few more years so didn't have much choice.

And the Compiegne survived for another three decades so there was some life in the old girl yet.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for scrap then - I stand corrected, thanks.

And Chantilly went on to serve Sealink (SNCF) for another 5 years.

But, yes, main point it, it is perfectly possible for a ferry to sail safely without her bow visor.  The visor is not the watertight bulkhead.  She won’t look great, and won’t be great at deflecting the waves.  But she will still be watertight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gareth said:

Not for scrap then - I stand corrected, thanks. 

And Chantilly went on to serve Sealink (SNCF) for another 5 years. 

But, yes, main point it, it is perfectly possible for a ferry to sail safely without her bow visor.  The visor is not the watertight bulkhead.  She won’t look great, and won’t be great at deflecting the waves.  But she will still be watertight. 

The Chantilly linked to her namesake town by having a charming but slightly underwhelming display case full of local lace products.

Do we have any idea yet what links they'll make to town of Honfleur in the decor on the new ship?

(Are we back on track yet?)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×