What's up with all the azipod issues on Norwegian and canceling ports

[chengkp75]

A replacement part has to be manufactured and this is what's taking time, in addition when the part is ready it can only be replaced when the ship is secured in port - hence the overnights. The area of the engine/pod they need to work in is extremely small and tight, I'm not 100% sure about this but it's my understanding that this could add a little to the total time. Now that the problem has been identified they don't think the issue will be as ongoing as was initially thought.

 

 

Thanks for this, it gives me a few more clues about the failure. What you are describing is a failure of a part that is part of the electric motor, down in the pod. The pod can be accessed internally for maintenance and repairs (though some older pods cannot have bearings renewed from the inside). While the ship is at sea, in order to reduce the drag of the inoperable propeller, it is allowed to "freewheel" as I've mentioned before. While this propeller is freewheeling, the motor and shaft are turning as well. Due to the need to streamline the pod as much as possible, there is little room designed between the walls of the pod and the electric motor and shaft. Because of this, access to the pod is only allowed in port, for the safety of the maintenance crew, when the shaft would not be turning.

 

Also, to your point about the rarity of the failure, people also have to realize that, as you say, there are only about 300 pods in service worldwide, so it is not like a car, truck, bus, train or airplane, where there are thousands or millions of units out there, so statistically it becomes prudent to have spares of every part available all the time. If the manufacturer, or the cruise line, ordered and purchased spare parts that cost tens of thousands of dollars, with a statistical probability of needing it below 1%, and then stored that part in a warehouse, they are losing the interest they could have earned on those tens of thousands of dollars, over the last twenty years.

[susan0000]

This is the issue with people who do not cruise often. They do not understand that the ports do not matter, as long as you get on and off the ship the cruise line has met its obligations. You should never book a cruise based on proposed ports of call. The only ports that you should plan on actually visiting are the embarkation and debarkation ports, all others are always a roll of the dice.

 

 

If you are referring to my post I do cruise often. I have done 14 cruises with NCL over the past 10 years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[zqvol]

If you are referring to my post I do cruise often. I have done 14 cruises with NCL over the past 10 years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I don't believe that I quoted you, so clearly I was not referring to your post.

[rscales2]

I understand they can change port but a lot of people bought the cruise on it itenaries

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[stickey_mouse]

Actually Celebrity uses azipods. Never late for a port or missed one.

 

Let's not make up facts. Our Silhouette cruise had just one working azipod, which ultimately led to a canceled cruise for emergency dry dock in January 2015. And that's just the one I know about because of firsthand knowledge.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 21, 2016 by stickey_mouse

[ECCruise]

I realize that you are disappointed, but you should NEVER book a cruise based on ports. The cruise line is under no obligation to take you to any specific port, and does not have to offer any compensation for missing a port.

 

If the ports are what matter to you when you cruise should be booking land baed vacations to those areas.

 

 

That's nuts.

 

Ports are the only reason why we cruise. Just being on a ship has zero attraction to us, whether it was our 5th cruise or our 60th cruise. We cruise to experience the world, and have done so on all 7 continents, thanks to cruising.

 

And yes, over our nearly 70 cruises we have had a number of ports cancelled for various reasons (mechanical, weather and other) but that did not stop us from having 10 more booked right now--all to see various ports either for the first time or the 10th time.

 

So yes, for someone who booked a cruise to see a particular part of the world, it would be a real letdown. And telling they basically that they made a mistake does absolutely nothing.

 

Would be bored to tears if I sailed just to be "on a cruise."

[bostonfred]

I would certainly share and understand the OP's disappointment, but I agree with this post. If your main goal was to visit Thailand, then fly to Thailand for a vacation. If your main goal was to cruise, then cruise.

 

So you don't choose a cruise based on itinerary ??:)

[AdGuyMG]

So you don't choose a cruise based on itinerary ??:)

 

For me, no. Not entirely.

 

Last month we went on the Harmony of the Seas to St Maarten (4X in times in the last 10 years) St Thomas (6X in times in the last 12 years ) and Nassau (Lost track of how many times in the last 30 years)

Chose this one for the ship. We had a great time. Saw some new shows

 

In 2012 /2013 we went on the Getaway both Eastern Caribbean and Western Caribbean and repeated most every port from previous cruises.

Chose this for the ship. The Getaway did not disappoint.

 

Cruised to Alaska 12 years ago on HAL and and considering another Alaska for this summer or next (Princess or NCL Jewel) but expect pretty much the same from Juneau, Ketchikan, Skagway, Victoria and whatever glacier we go to.

Choosing it for the ship.

Edited December 21, 2016 by AdGuyMG

[FreestyleNovice]

For sure! Jorge in the azipod department reads these boards all the time!

 

Ah Jorge!

 

[sleeperzo6]

Yes, now I can see why NCL is having such a tough time repairing the azipods. Those are tight working conditions!

[chengkp75]

Here's where Jorge does work:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdutchbyassociation.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F23%2Finside-an-azipod-on-nieuw-amsterdam%2F&psig=AFQjCNH0hQGFsvoP4AieJGEl6ITuqXdHnQ&ust=1482451516354547

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planetsea.com%2Fps_azipod.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.cruisecritic.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D1953005&docid=OY3-9tn0C1oU1M&tbnid=C2jj4iVrKXPlkM%3A&vet=1&w=975&h=378&bih=946&biw=1920&q=inside%20an%20azipod&ved=0ahUKEwjZt6CxwIbRAhUL5oMKHeiHAqoQMwhKKB4wHg&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

In the ABB drawings, note the size of the human figure compared to the open area of the pod. The short inclined ladder to the right of the figure climbing down into the pod is the ladder visible in the Nieuw Amsterdam photos. Rotund engineers need not apply.

[casofilia]

As always, I won't touch the customer service aspect of any question. But your characterization of the Star's azipod failure as "recurring" is just not correct. Recurring from when? Each of the previous failures of the Star's pods has been due to a different cause. Saying these are "recurring" is like saying that over the years your car has needed brakes, shock absorbers, and an oil pan gasket, and that these are a "recurring" problem with this make of car. Or "recurring" over the present series of cruises? That's not "recurring", its a problem that cannot be fixed at this time, but will be addressed as soon as possible. Now, the escape, I've not heard any indication of what the failure might be there, so difficult to say it is a "similar" or "recurring" problem.

 

Unfortunately, with the advent of azipods, you have failures of relatively new (for the maritime industry) technology, and the inherent learning curve of engineering design. Many, many other ships equipped with azipods with almost every other cruise line have had azipod failures, and changed itineraries based on these failures, some lasting more than a year (a Carnival ship in Alaska) until resolution.

 

What is NCL supposed to "take action on"?

 

Right on.

[bobg529]

No azipods on the Staten Island Ferry, but the spa stinks. [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[pugdad1]

Let's not make up facts. Our Silhouette cruise had just one working azipod, which ultimately led to a canceled cruise for emergency dry dock in January 2015. And that's just the one I know about because of firsthand knowledge.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Right, and if you believe that I have some ocean front property in Iowa I will sell you.

 

Obviously I was referring to personal experience.

Edited December 22, 2016 by pugdad1

[geezer466]

Here's where Jorge does work:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdutchbyassociation.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F23%2Finside-an-azipod-on-nieuw-amsterdam%2F&psig=AFQjCNH0hQGFsvoP4AieJGEl6ITuqXdHnQ&ust=1482451516354547

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planetsea.com%2Fps_azipod.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.cruisecritic.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D1953005&docid=OY3-9tn0C1oU1M&tbnid=C2jj4iVrKXPlkM%3A&vet=1&w=975&h=378&bih=946&biw=1920&q=inside%20an%20azipod&ved=0ahUKEwjZt6CxwIbRAhUL5oMKHeiHAqoQMwhKKB4wHg&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

In the ABB drawings, note the size of the human figure compared to the open area of the pod. The short inclined ladder to the right of the figure climbing down into the pod is the ladder visible in the Nieuw Amsterdam photos. Rotund engineers need not apply.

 

Thanks for your contributions, your technical expertise assists us mere mortals in understanding the issues.

[TheDougOut]

Actually Celebrity uses azipods. Never late for a port or missed one.

 

Let's not make up facts.

 

Obviously I was referring to personal experience.

 

The RMS Titanic... a perfect safety record!

 

(referring to my personal experience :))

[chengkp75]

Actually Celebrity uses azipods. Never late for a port or missed one.

 

The RMS Titanic... a perfect safety record!

 

(referring to my personal experience :))

 

Yeah, he uses one data point to infer that Celebrity is somehow "better". :rolleyes:

[UPNYGuy]

Holland America Line, Carnival, Cunard, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, and Norwegian have all had issues with podded propulsion, so this is nothing new. Pods are a different animal than shaft drives, and much more complex.

[BirdTravels]

Actually Celebrity uses azipods. Never late for a port or missed one.

 

Obviously I was referring to personal experience.

 

So,,,, since the four Celebrity cruises you have been on didn't have any mechanical problems, you declare the cruise line defect free????

 

Not sure what personal experience you are talking about,,,, when in fact, the Celebrity ship you were most recently on had to cancel a voyage last year (not too long before you were on her) to pull her out of the water to fix her starboard azipod???? Because she was missing ports due to azipod problems.

 

Talk about flat out wrong information.

[Loonbeam]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the use of azipod systems (which have many pluses not the least of which is being far more energy efficient) in addition to the increasing size and weight of ships are beginning to show problems across the industry. Scanning the boards, it looks like almost every line has at least one ship with some level of propulsion issue (not necessarily significant enough to miss a port, granted).

 

These ships are designed years in advance, so its hopeful that the yards are taking note of this and incorporating changes into design plans where applicable to minimize future disruptions, but right now most improvement fixes will be drydock level, so its going to be a patch as needed situation for a while, which means cruises WILL be affected, and expectations should be set accordingly.

[cpufrost]

Actually, Celebrity does not use "azipods". "Azipod" is a trademarked name for ABB's "podded marine propulsion system". Celebrity uses Rolls-Royce Mermaid pods on their ships, and have had so many failures that they filed a $300 million suit with Rolls-Royce. As recently as 2013, the quickest search I could do, shows that the Millenium had 3 consecutive cruises affected (port cancellations) due to propulsion issues, and one complete cruise cancelled. Cunard's QM2 also filed a $24 million suit against Mermaid.

 

The ABB azipod system used by nearly all NCL ships are so much more robust than the R-R Mermaid units, that ABB has about 70%+ of the market share.

 

About time someone mentions this!

 

I have to get some Kleenex to clean the glass window on our Xerox machine which was smudged by someone that was careless with Scotch tape. And while I'm at it, I've misplaced my Q-tips! :D

[chengkp75]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the use of azipod systems (which have many pluses not the least of which is being far more energy efficient) in addition to the increasing size and weight of ships are beginning to show problems across the industry. Scanning the boards, it looks like almost every line has at least one ship with some level of propulsion issue (not necessarily significant enough to miss a port, granted).

 

These ships are designed years in advance, so its hopeful that the yards are taking note of this and incorporating changes into design plans where applicable to minimize future disruptions, but right now most improvement fixes will be drydock level, so its going to be a patch as needed situation for a while, which means cruises WILL be affected, and expectations should be set accordingly.

 

I will dispute with you about pods being "far more energy efficient". Yes, they are more efficient because the propeller is in front of the pod, but not a great advance. What sets pods apart is the reduced capital cost. Instead of propulsion motors, shafting, propellers, rudders, steering gear, and stern thrusters, you only buy the two or three pods. Podded propulsion is limited to cruise ships and some special purpose vessels, like ice breakers.

 

But, you are correct that the increased size of ships, requiring more power from the pods, is what is causing the problems. They essentially are trying to miniaturize the propulsion train of a shafted propeller system. This miniaturization creates mechanical and metallurgical problems that designers have not seen before, so you end up with failures.

 

Another problem with pods is that one of the most common problems a ship's propeller sees is ingestion of fishing line, which can damage the oil seal between the bearings and the water, causing pollution. Lots of this is found in harbors where the water is shallow, and thrusters are used at higher powers here than the propellers, so they tend to suck this stuff up. With a pod, the pod is the thruster and the propeller, so a seal problem caused when pushing the ship sideways in port (like a thruster) transfers to the propulsion mode, and you lose both.

[Loonbeam]

It was explained to me that because of the more compact system, pods take less energy to operate than direct drive systems because of less power loss at transfer points, lower weight, etc, combined with the more efficient electrical power generation in that there is less wasted energy (depending on load and design, propulsion and ships systems can be run off the same generation unit(s) - of course there are also electric shafted propulsion units which accomplish the same gains). The numbers they showed me were significant, about a 20 percent savings in net fuel consumption but I have to be honest and say I never verified them.

 

Your point about fishing line etc occured to me earlier, I assume that screens across the pods would reduce water flow too much to be practical? (A question to ask on a BTS tour I suppose)

 

One thing I noticed on two newer ships (Royal Princess and Escape) is that based on the water as we left dock they seem to have traditional side thrusters again (there were at least three points of side thrust on the Escape).

 

 

I will dispute with you about pods being "far more energy efficient". Yes, they are more efficient because the propeller is in front of the pod, but not a great advance. What sets pods apart is the reduced capital cost. Instead of propulsion motors, shafting, propellers, rudders, steering gear, and stern thrusters, you only buy the two or three pods. Podded propulsion is limited to cruise ships and some special purpose vessels, like ice breakers.

 

But, you are correct that the increased size of ships, requiring more power from the pods, is what is causing the problems. They essentially are trying to miniaturize the propulsion train of a shafted propeller system. This miniaturization creates mechanical and metallurgical problems that designers have not seen before, so you end up with failures.

 

Another problem with pods is that one of the most common problems a ship's propeller sees is ingestion of fishing line, which can damage the oil seal between the bearings and the water, causing pollution. Lots of this is found in harbors where the water is shallow, and thrusters are used at higher powers here than the propellers, so they tend to suck this stuff up. With a pod, the pod is the thruster and the propeller, so a seal problem caused when pushing the ship sideways in port (like a thruster) transfers to the propulsion mode, and you lose both.

[chengkp75]

It was explained to me that because of the more compact system, pods take less energy to operate than direct drive systems because of less power loss at transfer points, lower weight, etc, combined with the more efficient electrical power generation in that there is less wasted energy (depending on load and design, propulsion and ships systems can be run off the same generation unit(s) - of course there are also electric shafted propulsion units which accomplish the same gains). The numbers they showed me were significant, about a 20 percent savings in net fuel consumption but I have to be honest and say I never verified them.

 

Your point about fishing line etc occured to me earlier, I assume that screens across the pods would reduce water flow too much to be practical? (A question to ask on a BTS tour I suppose)

 

One thing I noticed on two newer ships (Royal Princess and Escape) is that based on the water as we left dock they seem to have traditional side thrusters again (there were at least three points of side thrust on the Escape).

 

Yes, there hasn't been a cruise ship built with direct drive engines in about 20 years, they are all diesel electric, even the shafted propeller ones. I've heard 6-10% increase in efficiency, but its a moot point, pods are here to stay.

 

Since the pods are free rotating you would have to place them in a "duct" that also rotated in order to have a "screen" like the thrusters. This duct would be weight, and would also affect the hydrodynamics of the propeller, giving you more static thrust and less dynamic energy. Ducted propulsion units are higher in "push" than in speed, as many tugs use this system.

 

Are you speaking of thrusters at the bow or the stern? All podded ships still use bow thrusters, since using only stern thrust would pivot the ship instead of moving it sideways. But the Escape does not have stern thrusters, it has three bow thrusters. Putting a 1-2Mw tunnel thruster at the stern when you already have two 20Mw pods defeats the whole purpose of pods.

[OzCanuck]

Yes, there hasn't been a cruise ship built with direct drive engines in about 20 years, they are all diesel electric, even the shafted propeller ones. I've heard 6-10% increase in efficiency, but its a moot point, pods are here to stay.

 

Since the pods are free rotating you would have to place them in a "duct" that also rotated in order to have a "screen" like the thrusters. This duct would be weight, and would also affect the hydrodynamics of the propeller, giving you more static thrust and less dynamic energy. Ducted propulsion units are higher in "push" than in speed, as many tugs use this system.

 

Are you speaking of thrusters at the bow or the stern? All podded ships still use bow thrusters, since using only stern thrust would pivot the ship instead of moving it sideways. But the Escape does not have stern thrusters, it has three bow thrusters. Putting a 1-2Mw tunnel thruster at the stern when you already have two 20Mw pods defeats the whole purpose of pods.

 

Back to work, Jorge!!