Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drydocking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No. Blocks are placed before the ship floats into the dock.

    I doubt there is a navy in the world that uses its own crews to do routine refit work. Plenty of skilled civvys better equipped and available for the job.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • Actually, drydocks are old news, and time and space intensive. Shiplifts are the current method of choice. In and up, then roll her to one side in case you need the lift for another ship
      Given the space available to the dock in the basin , this would be a very attractive option.If the area was to be developed may I suggest an accomadation block adjacent to facility, living in a ship under refit is a pain in the arse.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
        Given the space available to the dock in the basin , this would be a very attractive option.If the area was to be developed may I suggest an accomadation block adjacent to facility, living in a ship under refit is a pain in the arse.
        Especially if work is to be done on accommodation I'd say

        Comment


        • Especially if work is to be done on accommodation I'd say
          try living on a ship without water
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • Or Heat.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • We were talking about drydocking on the EPV thread.

              Scheduled NS drydocks:
              2009 - 3 - Ciara, Roisin, Emer
              2010 - 5 - Aoife, Orla, Niamh, Aisling, Eithne
              2011 - 2 - Ciara, Roisin
              2012 - 2 - Emer, Orla
              2013 - 4 - Eithne, Ciara, Niamh, Aisling

              So every 2-3 years for max 2-3 weeks at a time.

              So if the Haulbowline drydock was recommissioned, assuming 52 working weeks - 23% utilisation for NS scheduled drydock

              Also important to remember that if your drydock isn't local (say Cork Dockyard closed and you had to go to the UK) your going to increase costs:
              - fuel for the vessel
              - additional allowances paid to staff due to longer voyage
              - travel & subsistence for non-vessel NS personnel who have to travel over (during drydocking other works are often do too)

              Comment


              • Relevant to this thread from > Navy & Naval Reserve > EPV for naval service

                Discussing the Damen Crossover 139 Logistic as a possible MRV for the NS over on the EPV thread.

                The subject of a future requirement for a larger drydocking facility has arisen. Elements originally intended for that thread, but better suited to this one, follow...


                The Necessity, or otherwise, of a Floating Dock

                The manufacturer's published breadth for the Crossover Logistic is 19.6 metres. She will fit, albeit tenderly, into the Verolme drydock.


                Basin Expansion

                As the number, and size, of vessels increase Haulbowline basin is becoming increasingly cramped. Mooring space, and perhaps even more critically maneuvering space, is likely to become an appreciable problem.

                A basin expansion, to the presumed cast-line of the former Irish Steel plant, would appear to be a desirable development. Site contamination can be presumed to be substantially lower than that experienced to the east of the basin but would require investigation before any development can be seriously considered.





                The arrangement shown here should comfortably accommodate a nine ship Navy, including two 139 metre MRVs.

                Unless there is a pressing need for a larger drydock there is no arguable reason to disturb Dock #1. Given that it is a stepped structure it is the least suitable area of the basin for the mooring of current or anticipated ocean going vessels.

                If a larger drydock is ever needed it could be expected that, given the reported quality of original and secondary construction, Dock #1 should be in remarkably good condition. Any deficiencies are more than likely to be adequately dealt with by the application of 3-4 inches of shotcrete. I would envision the workers from Verolme crossing the harbour to do any routine vessel maintenance, just using the Navy's dry-dock, on the rare occasions that such a large facility would be needed.
                Click image for larger version

Name:	HM Dockyard Haulbowline, 1909.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	180.4 KB
ID:	698070

                The dimensions of the dock are, as constructed, vast. It could, for a hypothetical instance, accommodate this...





                Or even... (different scales)





                Although this behemoth could enter the basin, with almost 2 metres of draft to spare at low tide, the lateral clearance would be less than 0.75 m on either side. The basin mouth could, conceivably, be widened from its current 28.65 m to 45 m in the very unlikely event of such a large vessel ever being acquired by the Naval Service.

                Subject to the potential site contamination issues affecting any basin expansion programme Dock #2 should be vertically walled, rather than a stepped structure, to maximise its utility as quay space for berthing and replenishment. It should be built to the same depth as the rest of the basin (7.62m LWOST, 11.48m HWOST, assuming the basin hasn’t dropped or silted irretrievably since construction.)
                New Docks at Queenstown, The Irish Builder, 1 Oct 1869.pdf

                A caisson slot identical to that for Dock #1 should be included at the mouth of Dock #2, along with the necessary conduits, to facilitate more straightforward future conversion to a drydock. A machinery space should be reserved, suitable for the pumping of both Docks #1 & #2 and a possible future Dock #3 immediately to the west.

                Ultimately the home of a 12 to 15 ship navy might look like this.





                From a medium term cost-benefit and engineering perspective it may make most sense to widen the main basin by 90 metres and build the suggested Dock #2 and Dock #3 caisson gates into the new southern quay wall. The additional two docks could then be excavated later as the need for additional space arises. This would gain the maximum medium, and long, term benefit for the minimum overall cost and disruption.

                Haulbowline naval base is a unique, and strategic, national resource. The island it sits on is finite and its facilities irreproducible at anything other than ruinous expense. Full consideration of these facts should be taken with regard to any and all future development plans for the island.
                Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 20 April 2016, 18:09. Reason: Link to 2003 Naval Wishlist (Realistic)

                Comment


                • Drydock development haulbowline

                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  We were talking about drydocking on the EPV thread.

                  Scheduled NS drydocks:
                  2009 - 3 - Ciara, Roisin, Emer
                  2010 - 5 - Aoife, Orla, Niamh, Aisling, Eithne
                  2011 - 2 - Ciara, Roisin
                  2012 - 2 - Emer, Orla
                  2013 - 4 - Eithne, Ciara, Niamh, Aisling

                  So every 2-3 years for max 2-3 weeks at a time.

                  So if the Haulbowline drydock was recommissioned, assuming 52 working weeks - 23% utilisation for NS scheduled drydock

                  Also important to remember that if your drydock isn't local (say Cork Dockyard closed and you had to go to the UK) your going to increase costs:
                  - fuel for the vessel
                  - additional allowances paid to staff due to longer voyage
                  - travel & subsistence for non-vessel NS personnel who have to travel over (during drydocking other works are often do too)
                  Taking this message and Usual Suspects illustrated message on Naval Basin facilities into account. Away Drydocks are only relevant to maintenance work to keep a vessel to an acceptable good to go standard. If the vessel is down mechanically then it is a tow job unless your yard is local.
                  Vessels approaching 135metres in length would need bow and stern thrusters to turn in our basin to avoid heavy engine use and possibility of damaging the floor of the basin.

                  The basin is not ever clean, with build up of much silt. At low water springs you are squelching at 5metre draft. The basin is largely tiled so the current dredging contract for Haulbowline will be removing as much silt as possible 26,000 Tonnes without striking the bottom of the basin. Draft of any new ship will have to take into account Basin limitations.

                  The old drydock will have to have the two docking dolphins, installed by Irish Steel. removed from West side of the dock. Likewise the yachting /boating facility in the entrance.
                  Widening the Basin, outside the drydock, by up to 60metres, would be beneficial, and would supply another cross berth at the entrance and of course increase maneuvering room.

                  Comment


                  • Drydock no more

                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    We were talking about drydocking on the EPV thread.

                    Scheduled NS drydocks:
                    2009 - 3 - Ciara, Roisin, Emer
                    2010 - 5 - Aoife, Orla, Niamh, Aisling, Eithne
                    2011 - 2 - Ciara, Roisin
                    2012 - 2 - Emer, Orla
                    2013 - 4 - Eithne, Ciara, Niamh, Aisling

                    So every 2-3 years for max 2-3 weeks at a time.

                    So if the Haulbowline drydock was recommissioned, assuming 52 working weeks - 23% utilisation for NS scheduled drydock

                    Also important to remember that if your drydock isn't local (say Cork Dockyard closed and you had to go to the UK) your going to increase costs:
                    - fuel for the vessel
                    - additional allowances paid to staff due to longer voyage
                    - travel & subsistence for non-vessel NS personnel who have to travel over (during drydocking other works are often do too)
                    As of 26th April 2016 The Dublin Drydock ( Ireland's Newest Drydock) is no longer available. It is being absorbed into the land area, near Alexandra Basin, to create a Cruise Liner Terminal and turning basin. It amounts to the Dublin Port Company destroying 50%of the State's drydocks without those in charge of National infrastructure being being aware of it's loss. Marine Spatial Awareness needs to be redefined to include adding to our Marine capabilities and not decreasing them for short term gain.

                    Comment


                    • All very interesting, I do mean that, but could we wander a tiny bit back on track? For instance; is there a case for repairing the dock, beside the former Irish steel site?
                      "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                      Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                      Illegitimi non carborundum

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Turkey View Post
                        All very interesting, I do mean that, but could we wander a tiny bit back on track? For instance; is there a case for repairing the dock, beside the former Irish steel site?
                        Whats the measurements for that dock? To me I suppose it comes down to costs and what numbers are we talking about, I mean if it's a one off hull that's an issue is it worth the cost, compared to say 3 or more having a "size" issue?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          Whats the measurements for that dock? To me I suppose it comes down to costs and what numbers are we talking about, I mean if it's a one off hull that's an issue is it worth the cost, compared to say 3 or more having a "size" issue?
                          To me it comes down to utilisation and staffing

                          Comment


                          • Drydock in Haulbowline, to get operational would cost in the region of €5-15m. All you have to do then is get all the heavy engineering machinery and the skilled operators to use them to make it useful. Covering the whole thing would help too, but that would be a bit of an eyesore and not popular locally, not to mention the dangerous wind conditions a building of this size would require.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              Drydock in Haulbowline, to get operational would cost in the region of €5-15m. All you have to do then is get all the heavy engineering machinery and the skilled operators to use them to make it useful. Covering the whole thing would help too, but that would be a bit of an eyesore and not popular locally, not to mention the dangerous wind conditions a building of this size would require.
                              Ok so I guess the question is would there be long term savings in reinstating it and putting together the workforce etc compared to the current situation of using the Cobh dock. As to covering it assuming you just mean the drydock and not the basin, why would it create a huge issue? It would likely still be lower than the Steel buildings that were there. As for dangerous wind conditions, do the covered yards in the UK (thinking in particular the huge sub yard) create such issues? I mean how tall would you be talking about 4-5 stories?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                                Ok so I guess the question is would there be long term savings in reinstating it and putting together the workforce etc compared to the current situation of using the Cobh dock. As to covering it assuming you just mean the drydock and not the basin, why would it create a huge issue? It would likely still be lower than the Steel buildings that were there. As for dangerous wind conditions, do the covered yards in the UK (thinking in particular the huge sub yard) create such issues? I mean how tall would you be talking about 4-5 stories?
                                Cover the drydock to allow work to take place in all weathers on the exterior. It would need to be as tall as to fit a ship and her mast, with room for a gantry crane inside too.

                                I would suggest the wind problem would be unique to the particular circumstances in Haulbowline. The back of the dock looks straight out to the harbour mouth. Most other covered docks would run in line with, and would be sheltered by terrain. No such luxury in Haulbowline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X