Technical issues on Caribbean Princess

[Videopark]

I'm no expert on "propulsion problems" but if you compare the original and revised itineraries the obvious intent by Princess is saving fuel. Now I trust that Princess (or any other cruise line) would immediately take out of service a ship with engine room issues that could even remotely compromise safety or integrity. So my guess in this case is that the only effect the current ongoing problem has is on fuel economy. Which is why Rotterdam was scratched because of the redundant out-and-back on the North Sea from Southampton. (And this call would have always been at risk if there was even the slightest delay leaving Southampton and/or a forecast of poor weather on the approach).

 

For the rest of the cruise I personally would exchange Vigo and the Azores straight up for Zebrugge and Bermuda anytime; the $100 OBC is a nice bonus. Though I concede those who had already made arrangements onshore for the rescheduled port days will feel otherwise.

 

By Ben Lyons, Cruise Critic contributor

Diesel ElectricEven though many ships are still built with conventional diesel plans, almost all new cruise ships (such as Celebrity's Solstice Class or Carnival's original Destiny Class) feature some form of "diesel electric" propulsion. On these ships, the main engines aren't connected to the propeller shafts; instead, the main engines are directly connected to large generators with one job: producing electricity. The electricity they produce is sent to electric motors, which then power and turn the propellers.

 

The primary advantage of diesel electric systems is efficiency; they allow the main engines to operate near their most efficient speed regardless of whether the ship is moving at 5 knots or 20 knots.

 

Getting the Terminology Straight

Admittedly, the technical vocabulary can be a bit confusing. For the purpose of this article, "main engines" refer to those engines that produce the vast power to move the ship. On conventional, or direct drive, diesel vessels, these engines are connected to the propeller shaft; on diesel electric ships, the main engines are connected to the main generators.

 

Furthermore, "engine" and "motor" are not interchangeable. Engines rely on fuel and ignition and can help generate electricity. Motors rely on electricity to make something move. Propulsion motors, therefore, take the electricity produced by the engines and use it to make the propellers turn.

It's all About the PowerAs we've seen in recent cruise-ship troubles, losing electrical power can be devastating. The main engines and even the generators themselves require electricity to keep going. Electrically driven pumps take in cold seawater from the ocean to help cool the engines; electrical pumps take fuel from the fuel tanks and supply it to the engine. Electrical power is critical to many operating functions, and without it, the ship comes to a halt.

 

Of course, the production of electricity is vital to all aspects of a ship's operation. Large equipment (such as the bow thrusters, or, in the case of diesel electric ships, the actual propulsion motor) requires high-voltage electricity. For smaller machinery, such as lights in your cabin or the equipment in the galley, the electricity goes through a transformer and is stepped down into a more useable, lower voltage -- such as 110V.

 

To distribute the electrical power, large cables snake through the ship. Hundreds of miles of cables carry power from the generators to switchboards and eventually through passageways, cabins and public rooms.

 

Cabling can be a weak point in a ship's distribution system. Even ships with two engine rooms can suffer power failure if the electrical cables are not truly redundant. For instance, if two main engines in different engine rooms produce power that goes into a single cable that brings power to the propulsion motors, a problem to that electrical cable would cut off all propulsion power. Consider it like a highway: If an accident closes the road, traffic (i.e. electricity) won't move anywhere unless there is a detour or a second route that can provide another way around the accident.

Portside PowerWhen ships are docked and not moving, main engines and generators produce far more power than needed. In port, they are turned off, and smaller generators are used to supply the "hotel" load (i.e. lights, air-conditioning, the galleys, etc.). Actually, moving the ship through the water takes up the vast majority of a ship's need for power -- somewhere in the vicinity of 85 percent of the power a diesel electric plant produces goes to the propeller. The rest goes toward keeping the lights on and the passengers and crew comfortable.

 

This helps explain why hotel functions can sometimes be restored even if the ship's propulsion is not working -- separate generators provide power that does not go toward moving the ship. (However, if a fire knocks out the wiring that supplies the electricity, having a separate generator won't make any difference.)

Emergency GeneratorsSo what happens when things go wrong and the ship is dead in the water? All ships have an emergency generator to maintain vital electrical power.

 

These backup generators are always located higher up and outside the engine room spaces to insulate them from fire or damage to the engine room. Big ships require so much power that they might have two or more emergency generators. Even so, they will not have anywhere near the capacity of the main engines and generators. They don't produce enough electricity to move the ship, and they can't even supply all the limited power needed in port, mostly because of space constraints.

 

Thus, the emergency generator is instead used only for very essential navigation systems -- crucial bridge and communication equipment, a few critical pumps in the engine room (such as the pumps that supply fuel to the engines) and emergency lighting. (Cruise ship emergency lighting is generally pretty good. You can recognize which lights are operational on the emergency switchboard because there will be a little red dot next to the light. On your next cruise, take a look as you walk down the passageways and look for the red dots -- you might be surprised how many lights are powered in an emergency.)

 

Should the emergency generator also fail, ships are required to have -- and we're not making this up -- a battery backup. Battery rooms provide at least 24 hours of power to an even smaller list of emergency equipment. However, the essential systems they supply are so limited, they cannot power many hotel services and are certainly not enough to move the ship.

New Regulations and ImprovementsSo, what is being done to ensure incidents like the Carnival Triumph stranding don't happen again? Plenty, actually.

 

Until now, emergency power supplies have never been powerful enough to cover "non-essential" items, like air-conditioning, which is one of the biggest power draws of the hotel load. (That isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future. It may be uncomfortable to be hot and sticky on a ship, but it isn't unsafe.)

 

Nor have the vacuum pumps needed for the toilets been considered "emergency equipment" until this point. However, recent regulations entitled "Safe Return to Port" by the International Maritime Organization have come into effect for almost all passenger ships built after 2010. Recognizing that increasing passenger capacity makes it harder to evacuate large ships, these regulations are designed to ensure that in the case of a fire or other incident, there are enough redundancies so that passengers can stay safe longer -- and have basic services.

 

The newest ships that have launched (such as Royal Princess and Norwegian Breakaway) now feature full redundancies -- including two engine rooms and the doubling up of cables and electrical systems that snake throughout ships. This means that even if a fire destroys one main engine room and the generators that supply the power to move the ship, a separate engine room with enough power to propel the ship would still be operational. Although the ship would not be able to travel at normal speed, it would be able to navigate without the assistance of tugboats. Even more groundbreaking are the designations for providing basic services -- including specifications for one workable toilet for every 50 people.

[chengkp75]

I won't quote the whole thing, but what the PP posted from Mr. Lyons is a pretty accurate picture of a cruise ship power plant, though the last statement about one working toilet for every 50 pax is a little misleading.

 

As stated, there are two engine rooms with generators, powering two switchboards that distribute the power throughout the ship, for a ship that meets the Safe Return to Port requirements (which some significantly older ships do as well). Normally, the two switchboards are connected together so they can share power between engine rooms. But, if one engine room and switchboard is damaged, one switchboard feeds every single hotel function on the ship, from toilets to smoothie machines. Each switchboard has a feeder to the distribution panels for the hotel load. What is limited is that with only half the engine/generators available, you can only send half the power to the propulsion.

 

As to why they can "predict" this problem months in advance, the answer is simple. The problem exists today, but the current itineraries do not require full speed, but the TA will. Ships frequently operate under reduced power without the passengers knowing anything about it. The diesel engines are completely torn down and overhauled (about a 3-4 week process) every 12,000 running hours (about every 2 years under normal operating parameters), so during this overhaul, the ship is operating without sufficient generators to provide full speed to the propulsion, yet no one ever knows, as the itineraries are set to accommodate the overhaul.

 

A diesel generator out of service waiting on a long lead time item for the generator could be the answer why it is mentioned as a "technical" issue and not a "propulsion" issue.

[BrianI]

We were on Caribbean Princess four weeks ago and there was no apparent problem.

Brian

[-Lew-]

To say that the propulsion issue has not been corrected in nine years is ludicrous. Many here on CC tend to lump a lot of things together into the blanket "propulsion issue", when these are complex machinery systems that have many components, any one of which can fail (and not the same one) and still be called a "propulsion failure". If your car has the "check engine" light come on several times over a period of nine years, do you feel that the problem has not been fixed?

Not ludicrous at all...perhaps a different point of view. You, as an engineer, think of all the different reasons the propulsion could fail. As a cruise consumer, I see it as a change of itinerary, missing planned ports of call, and disappointment.

 

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years. The CB has been plagued with recurring propulsion issues for a long time whatever the cause. I know of no other ship in the Princess fleet that has experienced close to the number of propulsion related events as the CB.

 

[speter0425]

Just received the email in question. Although changes can always be unnerving, I am not too concerned in this case. As someone else said trading Rotterdam for Bruges is a pretty good trade-off and a stop in Bermuda before Fort Lauderdale is good as well. For me, the sea days are what this cruise is all about so they could add even more and I would be happy. All in all, still looking forward to this return from Europe. Beats flying every time. Besides, crossing the Atlantic in the fall is kind of problematic anyway. I don't think one would make a booking to sail in this area during hurricane season and not accept the possibility of encountering a hurricane.

[chengkp75]

Not ludicrous at all...perhaps a different point of view. You, as an engineer, think of all the different reasons the propulsion could fail. As a cruise consumer, I see it as a change of itinerary, missing planned ports of call, and disappointment.

 

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years. The CB has been plagued with recurring propulsion issues for a long time whatever the cause. I know of no other ship in the Princess fleet that has experienced close to the number of propulsion related events as the CB.

 

 

Well, to me, a far more telling indication would be the number of threads about the Caribbean Princess and propulsion, not the number of posts. I don't know how to search for that, and don't really have the inclination. I did, however, to a search as you did, for "Caribbean Princess and propulsion", and on page two there were posts referring to Island, Grand, and Coral Princess propulsion issues as well as Norwegian Star and Carnival Vista, at that point, I stopped checking the search results. I did this because of the well noted unreliability of CC's search function.

[RDC1]

Sorry to hear about the issues and the pending changes to your itinerary. We did the CB's Iceland/Norway T/A (Westbound) last September and sat bobbing around the anchor near Lerwick while they worked on some engine issues. I know it is extremely frustrating loosing out on some ports that you were looking forward to visiting. If I were sailing on this itinerary though, I would be disappointed but glad they didn't cancel the whole cruise.....:):):)

 

Fair Winds and a Following Sea

 

Bob

 

Was on the same cruise. The weather did not allow tender landings at Leerwick on that day, So the ship had the time to stop without impacting schedule. From what I recall the Captain announced that the problem developed the night before during rough weather and that they were fully able to fix it before we left that day. As such the rest of the cruise was not affected.

[Woobstr112G]

Was on the same cruise. The weather did not allow tender landings at Leerwick on that day, So the ship had the time to stop without impacting schedule. From what I recall the Captain announced that the problem developed the night before during rough weather and that they were fully able to fix it before we left that day. As such the rest of the cruise was not affected.

 

The rest of the cruise was not affected, but we were traveling at higher speeds to make it to ports stops in Iceland and Boston on time. The bad weather during the sea day before Akureyri delayed our arrival. We also had an unscheduled overnight stay in Reykjavik due to the weather. So while the engine problems did not cancel the rest of our cruise, the schedule was in fact somewhat impacted by the weather.

Bob

[mrs and mrs]

Not confusing the issue, but the Muster Drill on that ship would be a Musta attend ;p;p

[RDC1]

The rest of the cruise was not affected, but we were traveling at higher speeds to make it to ports stops in Iceland and Boston on time. The bad weather during the sea day before Akureyri delayed our arrival. We also had an unscheduled overnight stay in Reykjavik due to the weather. So while the engine problems did not cancel the rest of our cruise, the schedule was in fact somewhat impacted by the weather.

Bob

But as I said not by the repairs they had to make near Leerwick.

[Grego]

Perhaps the distances required for the remaining summer itineraries do not require the same propulsion needed to cross the Atlantic. Princess essentially added two sea days to the itinerary, which makes me think the ship will be going a bit slower than originally planned.

 

You are right on the money with this. See my post that I did for the Roll Call pertaining to this voyage pasted below here:

 

Sorry to hear all the quick negative reactions to the itinerary changes. As reported, the problem is technical not power related. The effect is not being able to achieve full speed and the itinerary changes result in obtaining two more full days under way to arrive in Port Everglades at it's scheduled time.

 

We are also disappointed in not being able to visit Rotterdam, Vigo and the Azores. They were partly the reason we booked that voyage and it obviously matched up with our already booked Caribbean Tour voyage on the CB to make a BTB.

 

My feeling upon reading the announcement was that there was no way Princess would compromise the safety of its passengers by putting them on a ship that wasn't seaworthy. I wanted to make sure there was a plan to fix the issue knowing that there wasn't any indication that the ship was going into a repair dock since the next voyage hadn't been altered.

My wife and I are fortunate to have a close contact at the upper level of Princess. I took the opportunity to send an email early yesterday and received a phone call back almost immediately letting us know a response from Princess regarding the situation is being readied and should be out next week.

 

The bottom line is that we are staying the course and will review the response when it appears. I would agree that just offering the $100 OBC and no apparent reduction in PF&T seeing we are losing about two port days is not a great deal - more like no deal. However, with doing 31 voyages with Princess we are in the "loyal" group and as a stockholder along with being a stakeholder, I'll give them the benefit of a response that makes sense before we "jump ship".

[Woobstr112G]

But as I said not by the repairs they had to make near Leerwick.

 

I would have to disagree, The time we sat anchored off of Lerwick necessitated our increased speed......

 

Bob

Edited June 10, 2017 by Woobstr112G

[Roberto256]

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years.

 

That sounds serious, until you realize it's a tiny fraction of the number of posts about butter.

[pictureframe]

I think it is insulting to ask passengers to sail on a ship across the Atlantic in Hurricane season, that is not functioning properly. The itinerary has been changed and is not one I would have chosen in the first place. I have cancelled. However, I lost a 400.00 fee on American Airlines and 75.00 on Jet Blue. 950.00 for 2 people. I have not received any customer service to help alleviate this burden. They have not been very understanding. Much like they really don't care.

Have been a good customer for many years. Not any longer.

[Woobstr112G]

That sounds serious, until you realize it's a tiny fraction of the number of posts about butter.

 

Or the proper dress code in the MDR.....:D:D:D

 

Bob

[RDC1]

I would have to disagree, The time we sat anchored off of Lerwick necessitated our increased speed......

 

Bob

Huh, considering that we made three stops in Iceland before we had to increase speed between Iceland and Boston doubt it had an impact there. We had a night of rough weather after leaving Iceland that slowed us down a little between Iceland and Boston that required increased speed for part of that run.

 

As I stated earlier once the Captain announced the repairs were completed there were no other delays due to propulsion problems.

[casofilia]

It will be interesting to follow this as we are boarding for a "Round Britain" in 7 days.

[Videopark]

It will be interesting to follow this as we are boarding for a "Round Britain" in 7 days.

 

Yes, please keep us informed. Thanks.

[Woobstr112G]

Huh, considering that we made three stops in Iceland before we had to increase speed between Iceland and Boston doubt it had an impact there. We had a night of rough weather after leaving Iceland that slowed us down a little between Iceland and Boston that required increased speed for part of that run.

 

As I stated earlier once the Captain announced the repairs were completed there were no other delays due to propulsion problems.

 

Ok, you win......

Bob

[waiting2retire]

Clearly speed, rather than safety, is the issue. I am on the July 24 CB sailing and received the following itinerary change from Princess on April 21:

 

Please be advised that due to operational reasons, Caribbean Princess will now depart Cork (Cobh) at 4:30 PM on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 rather than 6:00 PM, and will arrive in Edinburgh (South Queensferry) at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, August 2 rather than 7:00 AM as previously scheduled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In both cases, it appears more time is required to get to the next port. Didn't understand the need for the changes at the time, but now makes sense.

[jondfk]

Maybe I'm a glass half full sort of guy, or perhaps just a fool, but I'm booked on the TA. Have received the e-mail and my only reaction was "bet I'll get an upsell offer pretty soon".

 

We're the sort to cruise for the ship, not for the ports, so the changes don't especially distress us. I'm quite certain that Princess wouldn't send the ship off with the slightest doubt of her safety. Never been to Bermuda and quite looking forward too it.

 

As said, perhaps I'm just eternally optimistic, but I'm looking forward to September 22nd as much or more than I was before receipt of the mail. Now, if a few more complaints result in a bit more generous cabin credit, all the better.

[philliesgirl48]

I am on the same cruise on the Caribbean Princess leaving Southampton 9/22. I have not received any emails from Princess about any changes.

[FritzG]

Clearly speed, rather than safety, is the issue. I am on the July 24 CB sailing and received the following itinerary change from Princess on April 21:

 

In both cases, it appears more time is required to get to the next port. Didn't understand the need for the changes at the time, but now makes sense.

 

That's troubling. Is this due to the same problem that those of us on the Sept. 22 TA are facing?

[maz48]

It will be interesting to follow this as we are boarding for a "Round Britain" in 7 days.

 

I don't think this 'technical' issue will affect your kind of cruise as you shouldn't need to go at higher speed. I think that is why no other cruises till the TA are have heard anything.

 

Edited to say just seen the post about another cruise that has had itinerary changes which may or may not be due to the problem. Maybe depends on distances the ship had to cover between ports.

[GonzoWCS]

Very nicely put Chengkp75

 

quote=chengkp75;53266381]I'll just answer a few of the questions posed here.

 

One, as for a problem that can't be fixed prior to September, this could be a problem requiring drydocking, and either dock space is not available or the line feels it isn't financially prudent to take the vessel out of service at this time (don't flame me, that is just what the line may be thinking). Or it could be that a part is required that is not available and needs to be manufactured. Not every part of these systems is "stocked on the shelf" and many are only produced when an entire unit is ordered, as they are not expected to fail.

 

To say that the propulsion issue has not been corrected in nine years is ludicrous. Many here on CC tend to lump a lot of things together into the blanket "propulsion issue", when these are complex machinery systems that have many components, any one of which can fail (and not the same one) and still be called a "propulsion failure". If your car has the "check engine" light come on several times over a period of nine years, do you feel that the problem has not been fixed?

 

How do you know the problem didn't come about after the drydock? There is no guarantee that everything will work for the next 5 years after a drydock.

 

Yes, it is unfortunate when this happens, but the airlines have to take equipment out of service unexpectedly all the time, the car rental companies have breakdowns (as does your own car, likely), so why are cruise lines held up as villians and conspirators when their source of income breaks down? The problem is that the unit cost of a cruise ship is vast compared to even the largest airliner, so there are no "spares" left around to jump in and fill the void.