Reliability of Viking propulsion engines?

[Shoalwater]

In following the Viking Ocean boards for a few years, is it just me or does it seem like Viking has some type of design issue with their engines? It seems to me that several ships have fallen victim to poor performing engines causing missed port of calls, early termination of a voyage or the like.  Thus far these have been inconveniences with low hazard outcomes.  Now today I read that the Viking Sky lost engines during high winds close to the Norwegian coast.  Drifting towards the rocky shoreline 2km away the ship issued a Mayday and now authorities are in the process of evacuating passengers and crew by helicopter.  I pray that all can be safely removed, but this is a very serious event that I hope will cause Viking to do a deep dive into identifying and fixing the root cause(s) of the string of incidents. 

[Heidi13]

There are only a few medium speed engine manufacturers. Viking has engines from MAN, which are also installed on many other cruise ships and ferries. I have sailed on many ships fitted with similar MAN engines and found them very reliable.

 

Propulsion failures can result from a multitude of causes, so you would need to review the cause of each incident to determine if it was a common issue. With today's incident, the Master is required to complete a written ship casualty report, so in addition to any company investigation, the Norwegian authorities will also conduct an investigation.

[farmquilter]

I'm currently following this story, happening now:  https://www.thisisinsider.com/viking-sky-cruise-ship-evacuation-passenger-tweets-2019-3?utm_content=buffer1aee9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-insider-main&fbclid=IwAR2iA-CTU5dxggQuqUu7996MiR5s4t1y4jx65yT1DEBYnWgTbi3lL3Pkqks

Kinda puts me off sailing with Viking...at least makes me think really hard about an ocean cruise!!

[Shoalwater]

We board Viking  next Friday in San Juan for a repositioning to Barcelona. Looking forward to it.  No big deal, engineering history is filled with iterations until its right. Personally not put off one line or another because of mechanical issues, but never the less, it just seems like there's a common cause lurking somewhere in the Viking design just like on the Boeing 737 max's.  Looking for Viking to someday say "Eureka!".

[KyOh]

Shoalwater, we did that cruise two years ago and loved it!  I hope you meet as many wonderful people as we did onboard.  Also, we were on the Viking Sky that is now experiencing problems for the Northern Lights cruise from March 2-14.  Weather is unpredictable.  We had beautiful sunny weather and minimal waves.  I have the highest respect for the captain and I know that with the crew aboard that the passengers are in good hands.

[Heidi13]

19 hours ago, farmquilter said:

I'm currently following this story, happening now:  https://www.thisisinsider.com/viking-sky-cruise-ship-evacuation-passenger-tweets-2019-3?utm_content=buffer1aee9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-insider-main&fbclid=IwAR2iA-CTU5dxggQuqUu7996MiR5s4t1y4jx65yT1DEBYnWgTbi3lL3Pkqks

Kinda puts me off sailing with Viking...at least makes me think really hard about an ocean cruise!!

Welcome to cruise critic, just noted it was your first post. Please don't let the media reporting of the incident put you off ocean cruising. Suggest you need to consider this in the context of the entire industry, which has hundreds of daily sailings across the world.

 

The number of problems are fairly small, and the number of serious incidents are tiny compared to the total number of cruises. In addition, the ships have multiple levels of redundancy. For example - the media reports allege the Viking Sky lost all propulsion engines, which I believe also provide electrical power. However, the ship will have an emergency generator that provides power for all navigation equipment, safety systems, lighting, etc. A further level of redundancy is batteries, which provide emergency lighting and some safety systems.

 

Also consider the training received by the Bridge & Engineering crews, which yesterday saved the ship in horrible conditions. I also note the hotel service crew, which received praise from many of the passengers onboard. This is a testament to how well Viking train the crews.

[Cienfuegos]

Most organizations do well when the situation isn't challenging.  It seems the Viking Ocean team did wonderfully in a difficult environment. Even a few false steps could have resulted in a different outcome.

 

I've cruised with Viking, Celebrity, Norwegian, Princess and I'd go back on Viking in a minute. Not even a second thought.

[4 cruisers]

On 3/24/2019 at 9:07 AM, Heidi13 said:

Welcome to cruise critic, just noted it was your first post. Please don't let the media reporting of the incident put you off ocean cruising. Suggest you need to consider this in the context of the entire industry, which has hundreds of daily sailings across the world.

 

The number of problems are fairly small, and the number of serious incidents are tiny compared to the total number of cruises. In addition, the ships have multiple levels of redundancy. For example - the media reports allege the Viking Sky lost all propulsion engines, which I believe also provide electrical power. However, the ship will have an emergency generator that provides power for all navigation equipment, safety systems, lighting, etc. A further level of redundancy is batteries, which provide emergency lighting and some safety systems.

 

Also consider the training received by the Bridge & Engineering crews, which yesterday saved the ship in horrible conditions. I also note the hotel service crew, which received praise from many of the passengers onboard. This is a testament to how well Viking train the crews.

 

[4 cruisers]

I am a seasoned cruiser...I wanted to do a trans Atlantic but after this Viking failure, I would not go on one of their ships

[kennicott]

Pertinent excerpts from recent reporting----"Investigators board Viking Sky as questions are raised over engine failure,"

"Police and accident investigation teams confirm separate full investigations in the wake of a dramatic near miss off Norway’s west coast that saw hundreds of senior citizens airlifted from a cruiseship that lost power from all four engines,"

 

“The main goal for us is to find out what caused the ship to lose the engine power,” a spokesperson for the Norwegian Maritime Authority told Lloyd’s List."

"Viking Sky is equipped with MAN 32/44CR engines, a total of four four-stroke diesel engines: two each 5040 kW  units with nine cylinders, two other 6720 kW  units with twelve cylinders. These are housed in two separate engine rooms. The engines power two Rolls-Royce Promas propulsion and maneuvering systems. The Promas system incorporates the propeller and the rudder in a single unit to increase the hydrodynamic efficiency. A special hubcap is fitted to the propeller which streamlines the flow onto a bulb that is added to the rudder, effectively reducing flow separation immediately after the propeller. The propulsion unit includes six-bladed 4.5m-diameter fixed-pitch mono-block propellers. The result is an increase in propeller thrust as previously wasted energy is recovered from the flow. The addition of the bulb on the rudder also streamlines the flow aft of the rudder, further reducing drag. A twisted rudder provides further improvements in efficiency and maneuverability."

 

"In the search for the causes, it will also be about the question why the on-board redundancy systems did not fulfill their task as intended. The redundancy principle is well-known in aviation and states that all important systems must be duplicated in order to cope with any failure of a system.

 

What exactly happened on board the "Viking Sky", we only can speculate at now. The problem could be the high load under which the engines have to be driven in bad weather. If problems then occur in the cooling system, protection shutdowns could quickly threaten the ability of the vessel to maintain headway.

Cooling problems can be caused, for example, by the fact that the cooling water inlets are clogged -for instance by floating plants in the water. Or by the fact that large quantities of air are sucked in the wild lake instead of water. Then the cooling can fail - and the engines stop working.

 

However, the problems could also be based somewhere else - in the tanks. According to Norwegian media reports, the "Viking Sky" had 343 tons of heavy fuel oil and 465 tons of diesel on board. The contents of the not quite full fuel tanks could now have been churned up in the waves so that eventually either air or dirt landed in the fuel lines."

https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1126773/Investigators-board-Viking-Sky-as-questions-are-raised-over-engine-failure

[Host Jazzbeau]

Rather than go over all the speculation again in this thread, why not read the original thread on this event:

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2647818-viking-sky-position-adrift-off-norway-coast-and-evacuating-passengers-crew/

 

Beginning with post # 836, chengkp75 (our resident Chief Engineer) explains the rules and regulations and how they fit with the known facts about this event. 

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, 4 cruisers said:

I am a seasoned cruiser...I wanted to do a trans Atlantic but after this Viking failure, I would not go on one of their ships

HAL experienced a complete blackout the same day, so guess you can remove them as well as Viking.

 

BTW, I suggest every cruise line has experienced issues.

[chengkp75]

Yes, everyone tends to lump things into the generic "propulsion problem" bucket.  The previous issues that Viking ships had were with the electrical control systems for the propulsion motors, neither one of which, to my knowledge, were the same failure, and were more the fault of the equipment manufacturer than Viking, since they failed well within the warranty period.  I am not convinced that there was any failure at all in the current event, you can look at the thread Jazzbeau has linked for my theories on the causative factors for the incident.  

 

"According to reports", which are not named in the Lloyd's article linked, and whose credentials are not verifiable therefore, have posited two possible problems, loss of cooling and fuel contamination.  My question with these theories is, if this caused the engines to stop, how was it that, under the exact same weather conditions, they were able to restart the engines within 2-3 hours?  As stated, too early to speculate, but they go ahead and speculate anyway.

[kennicott]

Looks like the Norwegians have nailed it already---------

 

"It is very common for companies to run lube oil sumps at their lower levels for economic reasons. I'm betting that this is the case here. It is most probable that air was sucked into the lube oil pumps resulting in engines tripping.  Engines on ships are monitored by sophisticated computer systems. Should they lose lube oil pressure the computer shuts them down to avoid damage. But like any accident, there are multiple factors and I'm sure that there are in this instance, beyond the level in the lube oil sump tank(s)  .  (I am a Chief Engineer  Ken Potter)."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-ship/luxury-cruise-ship-lost-engines-on-sat-due-low-level-of-lubricating-oil-norway-idUSKCN1R81PW?fbclid=IwAR3gUTbCVXOEg7bFFcd4fBYn1k6iosTrN46C838wilTRn6nt5Ar55fo1Q0k

[chengkp75]

16 minutes ago, kennicott said:

Looks like the Norwegians have nailed it already---------

 

"It is very common for companies to run lube oil sumps at their lower levels for economic reasons. I'm betting that this is the case here. It is most probable that air was sucked into the lube oil pumps resulting in engines tripping.  Engines on ships are monitored by sophisticated computer systems. Should they lose lube oil pressure the computer shuts them down to avoid damage. But like any accident, there are multiple factors and I'm sure that there are in this instance, beyond the level in the lube oil sump tank(s)  .  (I am a Chief Engineer  Ken Potter)."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-ship/luxury-cruise-ship-lost-engines-on-sat-due-low-level-of-lubricating-oil-norway-idUSKCN1R81PW?fbclid=IwAR3gUTbCVXOEg7bFFcd4fBYn1k6iosTrN46C838wilTRn6nt5Ar55fo1Q0k

And the oil sump tanks are designed so that the engine is capable of running at a 25* list, with any oil level above the low level alarm point, yet in extreme rolling and pitching, you could get into a situation where even at an "acceptable" level the pump lost suction.  And the likelihood of this happening to all four engines at the same time (though it is not clear whether this happened to all engines, or whether one engine tripping caused a load shedding, and subsequent tripping of the other generators due to overload or overspeed at low load).  And there is no indication yet whether the level was consistently maintained at the lower level, or whether it was nearing the "routine topping up" of the sumps.

[kennicott]

This all reminds me of a terrible marine accident in 2015. Engine shutdown because of extreme list of the vessel and oil levels in sump. This hit very close to home. Not that it occurred in Alaska but the El Faro once served Alaska from Tacoma as the "Northern Lights", for decades.  The accident happened in the Bahamas. Matter of fact, the parent company of Tote Services Inc. also owns the air freight air carrier close friends and relatives work for up here, so this tragedy was a real downer and demoralizer for all concerned. If you want the hair to stand up on the back of your neck, read the NTSB report, particularly the tail end of the voice recorder transcript on the bridge:

 

"On Thursday, October 1, 2015, the SS El Faro, a 40-year-old cargo ship owned by TOTE Maritime Puerto Rico and operated by TOTE Services, Inc., was on a regular route from Jacksonville, Florida, to San Juan, Puerto Rico, when it foundered and sank in the Atlantic Ocean about 40 nautical miles northeast of Acklins and Crooked Island, Bahamas. The ship had sailed directly into the path of Hurricane Joaquin, carrying a crew of 33, including 5 Polish contract repair workers. All those aboard perished in the sinking. The VDR was pulled from 15,250 feet below the ocean surface in August 2016 during the third undersea mission and yielded more than 26 hours of parametric data and audio files. The NTSB’s accident investigation identified the following safety issues: captain’s actions, use of noncurrent weather information, late decision to muster the crew, ineffective bridge resource management, inadequate company oversight, company’s safety management system, flooding in cargo holds, loss of propulsion, downflooding through ventilation closures, need for damage control plan, and lack of appropriate survival craft. -----

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/mar1701.pdf

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, kennicott said:

This all reminds me of a terrible marine accident in 2015. Engine shutdown because of extreme list of the vessel and oil levels in sump. This hit very close to home. Not that it occurred in Alaska but the El Faro once served Alaska from Tacoma as the "Northern Lights", for decades.  The accident happened in the Bahamas. Matter of fact, the parent company of Tote Services Inc. also owns the air freight air carrier close friends and relatives work for up here, so this tragedy was a real downer and demoralizer for all concerned. If you want the hair to stand up on the back of your neck, read the NTSB report, particularly the tail end of the voice recorder transcript on the bridge:

 

"On Thursday, October 1, 2015, the SS El Faro, a 40-year-old cargo ship owned by TOTE Maritime Puerto Rico and operated by TOTE Services, Inc., was on a regular route from Jacksonville, Florida, to San Juan, Puerto Rico, when it foundered and sank in the Atlantic Ocean about 40 nautical miles northeast of Acklins and Crooked Island, Bahamas. The ship had sailed directly into the path of Hurricane Joaquin, carrying a crew of 33, including 5 Polish contract repair workers. All those aboard perished in the sinking. The VDR was pulled from 15,250 feet below the ocean surface in August 2016 during the third undersea mission and yielded more than 26 hours of parametric data and audio files. The NTSB’s accident investigation identified the following safety issues: captain’s actions, use of noncurrent weather information, late decision to muster the crew, ineffective bridge resource management, inadequate company oversight, company’s safety management system, flooding in cargo holds, loss of propulsion, downflooding through ventilation closures, need for damage control plan, and lack of appropriate survival craft. -----

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/mar1701.pdf

Yes, the El Faro (I knew some of the engineers onboard) was a similar failure, and it makes me wonder why the Norwegian Maritime Authority had not issued a safety directive regarding oil sump levels (as the USCG did in the wake of this incident), until just now when it happened on their shores.

[J0E1]

Regarding the Viking Sky; seems to me, so far no mention of the new direct from the Sea cooling system intake common to all Four engines has not yet been mentioned relative to the experienced Sea State.

The system is in use with present and future Viking vessels.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, J0E1 said:

Regarding the Viking Sky; seems to me, so far no mention of the new direct from the Sea cooling system intake common to all Four engines has not yet been mentioned relative to the experienced Sea State.

The system is in use with present and future Viking vessels.

Could you provide a link to what this system is?  I've never heard of it.  Regardless, every sea cooling water system I've ever seen has their intakes either on the bottom of the ship (low sea suction) or on the side within the double bottom (less than 2 meters above keel)(high sea suction).  Typically at sea, a ship operates on low sea suction, and switches to high suction only in port to keep from sucking up muck and debris.  So, unless the actual flat bottom of the ship was exposed to air, there would be no problem with the sea suction.

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, J0E1 said:

Regarding the Viking Sky; seems to me, so far no mention of the new direct from the Sea cooling system intake common to all Four engines has not yet been mentioned relative to the experienced Sea State.

The system is in use with present and future Viking vessels.

Main engine cooling direct from the sea. Surely they can't be using salt water directly from the sea chest and using it for jacket water cooling. Our ships all used a heat exchanger and then treated FW for engine cooling. 

 

Cheng - do they have ships with SW jacket cooling? 

 

Years ago we crossed the Indian Ocean on a banana boat rolling 45 degrees for about 3 days and never had issues with sea suction.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Main engine cooling direct from the sea. Surely they can't be using salt water directly from the sea chest and using it for jacket water cooling. Our ships all used a heat exchanger and then treated FW for engine cooling. 

 

Cheng - do they have ships with SW jacket cooling? 

 

Years ago we crossed the Indian Ocean on a banana boat rolling 45 degrees for about 3 days and never had issues with sea suction.

I haven't seen a motor ship built with a salt water jacket water cooling since 1975.  The cost of cupro-nickel piping and the problems of fouling are way more than the cost of a plate heat exchanger and another pump.

[kennicott]

 

I can't find anywhere where Viking came up with new tech salt water engine cooling systems. Perhaps this is what Joe1 is reffering to, screw shaft bearings, not engine cooling:

 

"Among the vessel’s innovative marine technologies are its energy-saving hybrid engines, top-deck solar panels, pollution-minimizing exhaust system. This ship also uses seawater as a lubricant for its propeller shaft bearings. This technology lowers the vessel’s maintenance costs and also the risk of pollution. Replacing the biodegradable oils, the water is being directly discharged into the ocean."

 

"The ships also implement some of maritime industry’s latest technologies, including energy-saving hybrid engines (diesel generators and gas turbines), optimized hulls and bulbous bows for max fuel efficiency. Ship design also features the common for Viking River Cruises longships solar panels (installed on the magradome pool cover) additionally minimizing vessel’s exhaust pollution."

 

https://www.cruisemapper.com/ships/Viking-Star-974

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, kennicott said:

 

I can't find anywhere where Viking came up with new tech salt water engine cooling systems. Perhaps this is what Joe1 is reffering to, screw shaft bearings, not engine cooling:

 

"Among the vessel’s innovative marine technologies are its energy-saving hybrid engines, top-deck solar panels, pollution-minimizing exhaust system. This ship also uses seawater as a lubricant for its propeller shaft bearings. This technology lowers the vessel’s maintenance costs and also the risk of pollution. Replacing the biodegradable oils, the water is being directly discharged into the ocean."

 

"The ships also implement some of maritime industry’s latest technologies, including energy-saving hybrid engines (diesel generators and gas turbines), optimized hulls and bulbous bows for max fuel efficiency. Ship design also features the common for Viking River Cruises longships solar panels (installed on the magradome pool cover) additionally minimizing vessel’s exhaust pollution."

 

https://www.cruisemapper.com/ships/Viking-Star-974

I do remember hearing that Viking was going back to water lubricated stern tube bearings.  That is really old school technology, almost non-existent since the '70's.  While I agree that it may reduce the chances for pollution, there are now "environmentally friendly" lubricants that are acceptable for use in stern tube applications, and are considered less polluting than previous oils.  Also, the maintenance cost of oil lubricated bearings is almost nil, the bearings can last the life of the ship, and the oil gets renewed every 10 years or so, and the seals every other drydock.  Water lubricated bearings are made from rubber (oil lubricated bearings are bearing metal), and are renewed typically every drydock, or every other drydock, so not sure this represents a cost savings.

[Heidi13]

18 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I haven't seen a motor ship built with a salt water jacket water cooling since 1975.  The cost of cupro-nickel piping and the problems of fouling are way more than the cost of a plate heat exchanger and another pump.

Thanks Chief - I've never seen it and going back to my shipyard days just can't imagine the additional cleaning of liners & block.

[AL3XCruise]

17 hours ago, kennicott said:

including energy-saving hybrid engines (diesel generators and gas turbines

 

I have never heard of a gas turbine described as energy saving.  Emissions reducing, sure, but in what sense is it more efficient than a diesel?  Unless they mean some kind of turbine to recover energy from the exhaust?