Barnacles on the Eclipse

[lovecruzin]

There are many guests unhappy by the loss of a day In Hilo, personally we loved the extra sea day.

Also theories that X didn’t want to spend the $ on fuel to get us here faster or that there is engine trouble 🙄

An amazing cruise so far and as always the crew are amazing. There have been a few hiccups but being the first cruise back that is understandable.

Edited April 30, 2022 by lovecruzin
.

[TravelTech]

The ship was just remodeled and repainted.  Is it possible they claimed barnacles just to be able to have an excuse to reduce speed to save fuel?

[lovecruzin]

Ship was not remodeled but yes possible. 

[TravelTech]

1 minute ago, lovecruzin said:

Ship was not remodeled but yes possible. 

Is this not it being refurbished?

Celebrity Eclipse Completes Shipyard Refurbishment [PHOTOS] (cruiseradio.net)

[TravelTech]

Just now, TravelTech said:

Is this not it being refurbished?

Celebrity Eclipse Completes Shipyard Refurbishment [PHOTOS] (cruiseradio.net)

I see, No interior work.  But it is the exterior affecting this issue.

[chengkp75]

26 minutes ago, TravelTech said:

The ship was just remodeled and repainted.  Is it possible they claimed barnacles just to be able to have an excuse to reduce speed to save fuel?

And, then the ship sat for a year after that drydocking.  Modern marine anti-fouling paint relies on the ship moving through the water to "ablate" or wear off the anti-fouling paint where the toxin has been depleted.  So, if the ship is moving, fresh toxin is present in the outer paint film to keep marine growth from surviving.  If the ship is sitting, there is no ablation, so once the outer layer of paint has used up its toxin, marine growth will start to adhere, since there is no toxin to prevent it.  This ablation of the paint is not a whole coat of paint, it is a "mil" (1/1000") at a time.

 

The higher fuel consumption at higher speed would be balanced by the shorter time to get to Hawaii, and the additional day on hotel load only.  I would predict the "fuel savings" would be a wash.  If anyone onboard can  look up at the stacks and try to see, from various angles, how many are showing exhaust, this will show how many engines they are running, and they only run enough engines to keep them loaded right up (best fuel efficiency), but if they have more than 2 exhausts, they are pushing hard to maintain the slow speed they are making (marine growth means higher power to make the same speed).

[JRG]

It is starting to look like Celebrity dropped the ball here and the maintenance department maybe didn't sound the alarm or lacked resources to prevent the barnacles from forming and becoming a speed impediment to the sailing.

 

i disagree with the answer that merely speeding up the engine would suffice to overcome the resistance put forth by the barnaces and Celebrity should have been able to predict this and prevent the joykill.

 

It is unfortunate because we sailed on the Eclipse from LA to Santiago just before the pandemic and she is a beautiful ship.  At that moment time the unrest in the world was in Santiago, Equador and Hong Kong but as we sailed into Santiago there was the feeling that Celebrity wasn't letting us know what was going on in Santiago as we approached.   Excursions were cancelled at the last minute and it was just a bit odd.    

 

Its a good time to also point out that her crew performed admirably during the ill-fated trip from Buenos Aires back to LA while the pandemic was spreading and the efforts put forth to make sure that Passengers medications were supplied is one of the true hero stories that should be remembered about this beautiful ship and its crew.

 

So we can cut them (Celebrity) some slack for the barnacles and then everything should be fine,  but still they should have let the passengers know in advance.

Edited May 3, 2022 by JRG

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, JRG said:

lacked resources to prevent the barnacles from forming and becoming a speed impediment to the sailing.

Just what resources would you have suggested to prevent the barnacles from forming?  Really curious.

Edited May 3, 2022 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, JRG said:

i disagree with the answer that merely speeding up the engine would suffice to overcome the resistance put forth by the barnaces

Not sure if you are referring to my answer, but I never said it would overcome the barnacles, just that it could, depending on the amount of fouling.  And, you don't "speed up the engine", you generate more power to make the propeller turn the same speed.  Guess you've never owned a boat in the ocean.

[nw gardener]

Reading the current Eclipse roll calls,  the May 4 is also losing a port day due to barnacles for the return trip to Vancouver.  Some complaints about stateroom issues/maintenance, supply issues (food and drink), but staff is trying hard and everyone is happy to be cruising of course.  Will be interesting to see how long the barnacle issue drags on ( sorry for the pun, couldn't  help myself 😊), or if it impacts the first cruise to AK. It does seem  like the Eclipse was not quite ready for her restart and hopefully the issues get fixed quickly. Looking forward to my cruise on her in June! Anyone on the Eclipse now or near future,  keep us updated and thank you in advance.

[ROYALBOY]

Does the barnacle problem resolve itself with sailing of the ship? We are scheduled Hawaii to Vancouver May of 2023.

 

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, ROYALBOY said:

Does the barnacle problem resolve itself with sailing of the ship? We are scheduled Hawaii to Vancouver May of 2023.

 

Sea grass on the upper portions of the hull will tend to slough off while underway.  Barnacles and mollusks will improve to some degree, but the dead shells tend to stick around.  In a year's time, they are not going to want to be paying the additional fuel to drag the barnacles around, so they will find someplace (Mexico likely) where they can get divers to brush cart the hull, which will take care of a lot of it, but will also degrade the anti-fouling paint, meaning the problem could resurface before the next scheduled drydock.  She will be due for an underwater survey in lieu of drydocking in late '23 or early '24, and it will need to be cleaned before that in order to get a proper survey.

[waldreps]

Well, it's continuing into the Alaska season.  Someone posted this.  I'm going on her on July 3rd.  I'm hoping it's fixed by then.  What are the chances of that happening?

[phoenix_dream]

I saw on a FB page the information about the above Alaska cruise. In my opinion this is a huge change to their itinerary and the offer of $100 OBC in no way adjusts for that.  I realize on any cruise we understand that itineraries can change, but this is way beyond that.  People are flying from overseas or from far distances in the US) for once in a lifetime trips to Alaska and many of the ports have been extremely compromised.  If I were them I would be very, very unhappy.

 

Besides better compensation for them, which I assume they will fight for, Celebrity owes us as future passengers (and I am one in July!) an explanation as to when/if this will be fixed.  My cruise was a lift and shift (twice) and if that remains the schedule I will be requesting cancellation.  I don't want to have to wait until a week or two before sailing to find out if we also will be affected.  It's also very disconcerting that Celebrity apparently (basing on posting above) told people Alaska cruises would NOT be affected.   I am hopeful this was just an honest mistake and positive thinking, but at the end of the day it was wrong.

 

Any further updates for those of us on upcoming cruises will be greatly appreciated!

[canderson]

14 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

I saw on a FB page the information about the above Alaska cruise. In my opinion this is a huge change to their itinerary and the offer of $100 OBC in no way adjusts for that.

True enough.  I can see where certain of the longer and potentially more interesting shorex would be impossible given the new time constraints.

[bebe08]

Wow, if it were me I would prefer skipping a port instead of shortening the times at all ports...some of the port times are so short its a joke.  The compensation they are offering falls far short IMO.  We are on the Eclipse in June...haven't yet been notified of any changes.  A few of the excursions we have booked are full days so would not be possible with such short port times.  This would be our first trip to Alaska and first cruise since Covid so sure hope we aren't setting up for a disappointing cruise. 

[Ipeeinthepools]

On 5/3/2022 at 2:23 PM, chengkp75 said:

Sea grass on the upper portions of the hull will tend to slough off while underway.  Barnacles and mollusks will improve to some degree, but the dead shells tend to stick around.  In a year's time, they are not going to want to be paying the additional fuel to drag the barnacles around, so they will find someplace (Mexico likely) where they can get divers to brush cart the hull, which will take care of a lot of it, but will also degrade the anti-fouling paint, meaning the problem could resurface before the next scheduled drydock.  She will be due for an underwater survey in lieu of drydocking in late '23 or early '24, and it will need to be cleaned before that in order to get a proper survey.

 

We have a B2B2B scheduled on the Eclipse for Jan/Feb 23 in New Zealand/ Pacific Islands/ Australia and I'm starting to get concerned about the speed on the Eclipse.   I would probably cancel this trip if there were going to be significant itinerary changes.  It doesn't look like the Eclipse is scheduled to go anywhere near Mexico before she heads to Australia / New Zealand.   If I understand you correctly, this speed issue will likely continue to be an issue until the next dry dock.  It sounds like any hull cleaning would be temporary.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Ipeeinthepools

[chengkp75]

Okay, did a bit of research, and was pleasantly surprised at especially California's response to in water hull cleaning.  Lots of new technology out there, mostly with brush carts that collect all the water used and material removed from the ship, and filter/treat it before returning to the sea.  San Francisco allows cleaning in the port if "best practices" are used (collection systems), LA/LB does not, but it is allowed by state law outside the port, at offshore anchorages.  Even Hawaii allows cleaning with collection systems.  These are expensive operations, but still cheaper than the fuel required to move the drag.  It would not surprise me to see divers at several ports along the next itineraries completing cleaning of portions of the hull in each port.  There are several commercial hull cleaning services in California and Hawaii, not sure about Alaska, but the equipment is portable, and most of the requirements are based on the EPA's Vessel General Permit system for marine discharges, so if the ship and the contractor are both permitted (they have to be), then there shouldn't be any problem getting it done.

 

While underwater cleaning does not completely solve the problem of fouling, as long as the ship keeps moving, the re-growth is very slow, and typically falls into the "doesn't slow the ship down, but yikes we're burning fuel" range, when they might arrange for another sweep of the hull to remove lighter fouling.  Again, due to fuel costs (fouling could add about $200k per week), I don't foresee them letting this go over a year, but it will take time to mobilize this and to get it done.

[Jim_Iain]

 

These are the little critters growing on the hull that are causing the problems.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Jim_Iain said:

 

These are the little critters growing on the hull that are causing the problems.

It may be, or it may be "grass".  I note that the letter from Celebrity says "that you may know as barnacle growth".  Having sat for a year, there will be some barnacles, for sure, but there will be a significant growth of seaweed, which can be almost as harmful to ship speed as the barnacles.  Hard to say, unless you're the diver looking at it, or there's significant grass along the waterline.

[Ipeeinthepools]

59 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Okay, did a bit of research, and was pleasantly surprised at especially California's response to in water hull cleaning.  Lots of new technology out there, mostly with brush carts that collect all the water used and material removed from the ship, and filter/treat it before returning to the sea.  San Francisco allows cleaning in the port if "best practices" are used (collection systems), LA/LB does not, but it is allowed by state law outside the port, at offshore anchorages.  Even Hawaii allows cleaning with collection systems.  These are expensive operations, but still cheaper than the fuel required to move the drag.  It would not surprise me to see divers at several ports along the next itineraries completing cleaning of portions of the hull in each port.  There are several commercial hull cleaning services in California and Hawaii, not sure about Alaska, but the equipment is portable, and most of the requirements are based on the EPA's Vessel General Permit system for marine discharges, so if the ship and the contractor are both permitted (they have to be), then there shouldn't be any problem getting it done.

 

While underwater cleaning does not completely solve the problem of fouling, as long as the ship keeps moving, the re-growth is very slow, and typically falls into the "doesn't slow the ship down, but yikes we're burning fuel" range, when they might arrange for another sweep of the hull to remove lighter fouling.  Again, due to fuel costs (fouling could add about $200k per week), I don't foresee them letting this go over a year, but it will take time to mobilize this and to get it done.

 

Thanks for the quick response, I'll sit tight for now.  Mybe some of our eagle-eyed CC members can spot these hull cleaning operations over the next several weeks.

[Peteymil]

1 hour ago, Ipeeinthepools said:

 

Thanks for the quick response, I'll sit tight for now.  Mybe some of our eagle-eyed CC members can spot these hull cleaning operations over the next several weeks.

I think they would need to cancel a cruise to do this. On our May 15 cruise there is only one port that they are in for more than three hours so it would make the cleaning process very difficult.

[Homosassa]

On 4/26/2022 at 12:33 PM, mahdnc said:

 

I actually studied this fluid dynamics problem when I was at Caltech!  Very useful  to get a job.  Not so much to get a girl.

Depends on the girl....

 

A guy that is intelligent and can discuss something besides sports and booze is a rare find  in college.

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Peteymil said:

I think they would need to cancel a cruise to do this. On our May 15 cruise there is only one port that they are in for more than three hours so it would make the cleaning process very difficult.

With 6-8 hours available at turn-around in Vancouver, they could do this in 3-4 weeks at most.  From quick searching, it doesn't appear that Canada has regulations regarding underwater hull cleaning yet, they are working with voluntary controls at this time.

[phoenix_dream]

3 hours ago, Jim_Iain said:

 

These are the little critters growing on the hull that are causing the problems.

Oh Gosh, could you please delete these photos.  Those of us with Trypophobia are freaking out over them.  I'm serious.  It's all I can do to write this post.