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

[Loonbeam]

Ok that makes sense on both points. I was thinking a screen directly over the intake, but I can see where that would be an issue.

 

I could have sworn there was a midship thruster when we left the dock but that could have been a wake from the bow off the structure and the back one would have been the pods themselves.

 

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.

[suffield12]

Funnily enough these inherent reliability issues with pods (ABB or rolls Royce) have meant various European companies operating specialist offshore vessels have started to revert back to twin prop/Becker rudder approach as the fuel savings were not saving money spent on more specialist maintenance during normal yard stays and increased breakdowns. Out of interest the Epic is a conventional twin prop with rudders and stern tunnel thrusters

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

Funnily enough these inherent reliability issues with pods (ABB or rolls Royce) have meant various European companies operating specialist offshore vessels have started to revert back to twin prop/Becker rudder approach as the fuel savings were not saving money spent on more specialist maintenance during normal yard stays and increased breakdowns. Out of interest the Epic is a conventional twin prop with rudders and stern tunnel thrusters

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Thanks, didn't know the OSV's were reverting. Their power ratings are much less than the mega-cruise ships, so I wouldn't have thought there would have been as many bearing issues.

 

Epic was in planning at the time the older Azipod V model was having so much trouble, and before the Azipod X (with the thrust bearing renewable from inside) came on line. The Star has the older V model, and NCL has had their share (as have the other lines) of problems with the V model.

[12sailaway]

The Star was in emergency dry dock last April in the Bahamas because of a pod problem. They cancelled a portion of a TA originating LA sailed crew only to the Bahamas, had the problem repaired and then returned to service for the remainder of the TA, Miami to Copenhagen.

 

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[karoo]

The Star was in emergency dry dock last April in the Bahamas because of a pod problem. They cancelled a portion of a TA originating LA sailed crew only to the Bahamas, had the problem repaired and then returned to service for the remainder of the TA, Miami to Copenhagen.

 

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

 

 

That was a seal problem believed to be damaged in the scheduled dry dock, two cruises prior.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[sanger727]

Completely understand the OP's frustration. We choose cruises based on itinerary and while I agree, if you have a cannot miss port, a cruise is the most unreliable way to hit that port. But the appeal of cruising the ability to hit multiple countries and stops in one trip from the comfort of your hotel room, as opposed to constantly repacking and traveling.

 

So, of course you aren't going to intentionally book a cruise that goes someone where you don't want to go, in case it gets re-routed; you choose a cruise that goes somewhere you want to go. Our next itinerary goes to some ports we are really looking forward to: Key West, Tortola, and San Juan, and some ports we don't especially care about: St Martin and Antigua. If we end up going to Belize, Roatan, and Cozumel, we would be disappointed but make the best of it.

 

However, for us this is a route we will re-sail someday, so no big deal. I'm in the process of planning a once in a lifetime Cruise to Hawaii and once in a lifetime cruise to Asia. We want to start in Singapore, port in Thailand, and end in Hong Kong. If we end up missing Thailand, we will be very disappointed; we understand it's a remote possibility (cruise I'm looking at has 3 Thailand ports).

[Son of a son of a ...]

Completely understand the OP's frustration. We choose cruises based on itinerary and while I agree, if you have a cannot miss port, a cruise is the most unreliable way to hit that port. But the appeal of cruising the ability to hit multiple countries and stops in one trip from the comfort of your hotel room, as opposed to constantly repacking and traveling.

 

So, of course you aren't going to intentionally book a cruise that goes someone where you don't want to go, in case it gets re-routed; you choose a cruise that goes somewhere you want to go. Our next itinerary goes to some ports we are really looking forward to: Key West, Tortola, and San Juan, and some ports we don't especially care about: St Martin and Antigua. If we end up going to Belize, Roatan, and Cozumel, we would be disappointed but make the best of it.

 

However, for us this is a route we will re-sail someday, so no big deal. I'm in the process of planning a once in a lifetime Cruise to Hawaii and once in a lifetime cruise to Asia. We want to start in Singapore, port in Thailand, and end in Hong Kong. If we end up missing Thailand, we will be very disappointed; we understand it's a remote possibility (cruise I'm looking at has 3 Thailand ports).

 

It's Christmas so peace to all, etc. But, what is your point? Again ... peace

[sanger727]

It's Christmas so peace to all, etc. But, what is your point? Again ... peace

 

Op started this thread 3 days ago to complain about the itinerary changes and was met with the response "well, if you care about where you cruise, don't take a cruise", which is the stupidest attitude I've ever heard. Adding my 2 cents. Last time I checked this was a public forum where people discussed cruising.

[rscales2]

I am going even though I'm disappointed looking forward to saying hello to all the Beautiful Woman. I be the Ugly Black Guy who is going to have a great time meeting nice people.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Son of a son of a ...]

Op started this thread 3 days ago to complain about the itinerary changes and was met with the response "well, if you care about where you cruise, don't take a cruise", which is the stupidest attitude I've ever heard. Adding my 2 cents. Last time I checked this was a public forum where people discussed cruising.

 

Sanger - Thank you! I wasn't trying to be snarky. D

[Abr155]

Must still be broken...booked on the star for the April 2017 Adriatic from Venice. Received an email with a new itinerary dropping two ports and adding 3 that are much closer together!

[casofilia]

Are you sure that this is due to the azipod problem? The Star has 3 months cruising in the South Pacific and a reposition to Venice before you are likely to be boarding.

[Abr155]

Are you sure that this is due to the azipod problem? The Star has 3 months cruising in the South Pacific and a reposition to Venice before you are likely to be boarding.

 

True, I can't say for certain the reasoning. Email we received was pretty vague. And the iteneeary changed for all bookings from April to October for this particular sailing, so perhaps they just re-planned for other reasons.

 

Can't complain...sad to lose Santorini, but excited for Kotor, Olympia, and Split! Not updated on the website as of yet!

[chengkp75]

True, I can't say for certain the reasoning. Email we received was pretty vague. And the iteneeary changed for all bookings from April to October for this particular sailing, so perhaps they just re-planned for other reasons.

 

Can't complain...sad to lose Santorini, but excited for Kotor, Olympia, and Split! Not updated on the website as of yet!

 

It was reported from the Star that the azipod was repaired during the overnight in Singapore, and was tested successfully.

 

Another thread on the changes to the Star's itinerary in the Med mentions that on at least one day when she was scheduled in Santorini, that there were three other ships scheduled there as well. I suspect port crowding caused the changes.

[havenfan]

It was reported from the Star that the azipod was repaired during the overnight in Singapore, and was tested successfully.

 

I thought the Star wasn't due in Singapore on this cruise for another couple of days. Do you mean the previous stop in Singapore or the stop they just had in Nha Trang?

[chengkp75]

I thought the Star wasn't due in Singapore on this cruise for another couple of days. Do you mean the previous stop in Singapore or the stop they just had in Nha Trang?

 

Sorry, I haven't followed the itinerary that closely, last I thought she was in Singapore over the 15/16th. Either way, the posters onboard have stated that they are seeing two wakes now.

[CruiseTillYouBruise]

Sanger777, we were just on the Star and had a change that deleted Bangkok in favor of an additional port in Vietnam. Booked based on the planned overnight in Thailand and wound up with three Vietnamese ports. Not exactly comparable, especially when docked in an industrial area with additional-cost shuttles to a highway strip of motorbike parts places and one eatery.

 

The advice to book knowing that there's a potential for change is good. My additional thoughts are to book with a cruise line that has excellent customer service ratings so that you can count on good communications and forewarning of changes. NCL fails in this regard. We only knew of the changes to our itinerary from Google, not from a message from NCL, and our experience is shared by many onboard. Their staff in Miami is well-versed in repeating the mantra that "your contract states that we can make changes at any time". Sounded like they wanted to add "so there!" but were restrained.

 

Book what makes sense for your vacation and be prepared for some serendipity. Just don't count on NCL to be forthcoming or sympathetic after they have your money.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[datolim]

About 7 years ago I read about this new azipod propulsion and happened to talk to the staff captain of the Superstar Virgo. I told him how impressed I was with this latest technology and told him this would make the old propeller obsolete. He surprised me by saying the azipod is not the future of ship propulsion and Every ship fitted with azipod has encountered problems.

 

It surprises me that after all these years the azipod problems is still very much alive.

My question is with all these ongoing problems after all these years why has the problems still not been resolved and why are the cruise liners still building ships with this azipod.

[deliver42]

I believe it's strictly for mobility. They can turn the ships on a dime, which allows them into smaller ports where there is a turn around. Just my opinion.

[NH Cruisers]

Actually It's And industry wide problem!!

 

NCL is only the Azipod customer.

 

THINK ( Takata Air Bag's )

 

 

Maybe use should find a cruise line with no pods.

 

 

.

 

The Princess Grand Class ships are driven with the traditional prop system. Those ships have a very annoying cavitation that only ceases when the ship is still. I wish they had azipods.

[chengkp75]

About 7 years ago I read about this new azipod propulsion and happened to talk to the staff captain of the Superstar Virgo. I told him how impressed I was with this latest technology and told him this would make the old propeller obsolete. He surprised me by saying the azipod is not the future of ship propulsion and Every ship fitted with azipod has encountered problems.

 

It surprises me that after all these years the azipod problems is still very much alive.

My question is with all these ongoing problems after all these years why has the problems still not been resolved and why are the cruise liners still building ships with this azipod.

 

I believe it's strictly for mobility. They can turn the ships on a dime, which allows them into smaller ports where there is a turn around. Just my opinion.

 

The "ability to turn on a dime" is a lot of the hype of azipods, but this is not really accurate. A well trained shiphandler can use bow and stern thrusters, twin propellers and "trim tab" or "Becker" rudders to turn a ship virtually the same as a ship equipped with azipods. It only requires more experience and more thought when doing it. I've had Captains call the engine room and request that we don't start the stern thrusters, for instance, to train on using only the propellers and rudders to turn and dock the ship in a given port, having practiced it on the onboard simulator ahead of time.

 

The azipod propulsion system does provide a 3-5% increase in propeller efficiency because the propeller is ahead of the motor, giving a smooth inflow of water to the propeller, but the main reason azipods are so common on cruise ships is cost. The capital cost for two azipods is less than the cost for two shafted propellers (motors, drive systems, pitch control systems, shaft bearings and seals), two rudders and 4 steering units, and three stern thrusters.

 

The major problem with azipods has been the scaling up of the power of the units before years of experience had been gained on component failure rates. This was most obvious with the propeller shaft thrust bearings (this bearing takes all the thrust force of the propeller and transmits it to the hull to push the ship through the water), which failed repeatedly, and prematurely, in the early units. This, and the fact that the space available in the pods is limited, meant that these thrust bearings could not be replaced without drydocking the ship, unlike the thrust bearings on shafted propellers. This has been addressed with newer generation azipods, but in my opinion, the metallurgy and physics of the bearing design still has some time to go before there is consistent longevity of service.

 

Many of the "propulsion" problems that ships with azipods are experiencing are not really related to the azipod itself. Some are with the electric drive system, which is a variable frequency drive that takes a 60 Hz power input, converts it to DC, then back to AC at varying frequencies to change the speed of the azipod motor. Problems with these drives are experienced even on ships that have conventional propellers, since they use the same types of frequency drives.

 

Another type of problem that azipods face is that you are combining steering and propulsion in one unit. Typically, a twin screw ship will have two redundant steering systems on each of the two rudders (the two rudders themselves being redundant systems, since a ship can steer very well with one). If one of the 4 steering systems fails, there is generally no problem with the ship sailing, but if both units on one rudder failed, in a US port, the USCG would require a tug boat escort for the ship the whole way in/out of port in case the other rudder failed. If, however, the propulsion motor failed on an azipod, even though the azimuthing (or steering) portion was working, on a ship with two azipods, you have lost your steering redundancy with only one failure (as opposed to the two failures you need with two rudders), and the USCG now requires tug escorts until the problem is repaired.

 

Azipods will probably never replace conventional propeller systems on the vast majority of the world's shipping. Most ships use a direct coupled slow speed diesel engine to turn their propellers, and rely on tugs to dock, so the "advantages" of azipods are not realized. Azipods are very effective for icebreakers, and for ships like cruise ships that spread their engineering spaces along the length of the ship, but keep them very low (one or two decks), as opposed to the slow speed engines on cargo ships that are 4 decks high just for the engine.

[BirdTravels]

No one can ruin your vacation other than you. How you react to a change is 100% on you and no one else.

 

 

 

Dude. You are flaming someone's post from last year. Need to look before you flame.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[datolim]

Thanks to chengkp75 for the reply. You explain it very well and you have excellent knowledge.

[PlayTheAces]

Thanks to chengkp75 for the reply. You explain it very well and you have excellent knowledge.

 

Agreed. chengkp75's post was one of the most informative I've ever read here. I really appreciate that he took the time to write it.

[datolim]

Just to side track a bit RCCL Allure of the seas is presently experiencing this same Azipod problems.