$528M Antarctic icebreaker too big to fit under Tasman bridge to refuel
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Some random recent examples were:
1. A billion-dollar purchase of train rolling stock that couldn't fit into the tunnels they were supposed to go through, and were too big for the stations it needed to stop at.
2. Another train line where the track curvature was too high, the tunnels were too small, and gradient was too steep for the existing rolling stock to handle. I know nothing about rail engineering except what I learned from playing Railroad Tycoon, but because of that "experience" even I know that those are the three of the four most critical parameters of a rail line! I'm shocked they didn't screw up the gauge and overhead line voltage.
3. Speaking of voltage, the upcoming Sydney South-West Metro is incompatible with the North-West Metro, for like... no reason.
4. The two new Tram lines are also incompatible with each other, despite intersecting and having a very viable use-case for interoperability.
5. The new ferries purchased for the Parramatta river can't safely fit under one of the bridges going over the river.
The lack of planning and foresight is just staggering.
> The AAD has previously said Nuyina “fits within the physical limitations set out by TasPorts for transiting under the Tasman Bridge”.
If the ship fits the limitations set by the Port Authority and is denied anyway, then that is not excellent reason, it's bureaucratic overreach. The fact that people died in the past ignores that there are several new safety precautions in place since then.
The question is if it can ever become complete, or if it's simply a no-go.
> TasPorts had previously indicated Nuyina may be able to pass under the bridge, but only after successful completing of training courses and simulation exercises at the Australian Maritime College.
> The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) has confirmed that approval has not been granted and the ship must instead travel to Burnie this summer, on the island state’s north-west coast, to receive fuel. This must occur before every voyage to Antarctica.
It had conditional approval to transit the bridge last year but then ended up being sent to Singapore for maintenance work before they had finished. They were performing more trials earlier this year but apparently still haven't completed everything and are needed in Antarctica so are shifting their plans.
I've never heard of the pilots around Port Newark needing ship-specific training, even for giants like tankers or container ships. Maybe this is somehow different in Australia?
I think this article tries to make it sound like a huge deal, but no one really cares in reality.
My understanding is that Pilots never steer the vessel itself, rather they act as navigational experts that can be consulted in real time by the staff on the bridge.
E.g. If something goes wrong on a windy day and they need a tug - how many tugs of what size will be needed to control it prevent damage to the harbor?
The vast majority of ships of this size are in very well understood classes, so the one-off nature of this one necessitates some special testing and consideration.
https://tasports.com.au/news/rsv-nuyina-to-commence-harbour-...
They need folk who are intimately familiar with the local water- and weather conditions - aka pilots. On top of that, they need folk who can precision-steer the vessel. This is hard due to tides, current, wind, waves. Moreover, the vessel is too big to stop or turn on a dime. Hence the need for training.
Just that permission was not granted, with no reason given in the article.
Fuel consumption of ships is relatively modest compared to the load carried.
Those other factors like time schedules would weigh heavier. But from between the lines, it reads like they'll work things out with some more training & paperwork.
Docking at a certain place simply to bunker just doesn't happen on larger vessels where utilization factor is everything.
https://www.marineinsight.com/guidelines/bunkering-is-danger...
Of course, you just pull up along side, toss a long hose over (ok, fly the rope with a drone, pull over the hose), pump. Keep the ships far enough apart to prevent accidents. Easy!
In fact, this is the hard part. Generally, the tanker ship and the ship being refueled are different sizes. They have different handling characteristics, keeping them at the same speed at the same heading is not a trivial task. If there's, say, 1 knot of speed differential, after a minute, now they're 100ft further (or closer) away. Furthermore, ships create wakes which means the handling in the real immediate vicinity of a ship is incredibly different from more or less open ocean. Drift too close, and now the water is literally trying to get the two ships to ram each other, with all the disastrous results that implies.
“Ensuring our team of highly qualified and experienced marine pilots are familiar with this bespoke vessel and the way it manoeuvres is pivotal to providing final clearance for the RSV Nuyina to undertake its first transit,”
Plus there’s the whole piracy angle. A boat in the middle of nowhere, with no serious backup, would be a target for terrorists to acquire nuclear material.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civi...
It probably would have been substantially more expensive for Australia to build and operate one, since nobody there has ever done it before. There's also supply chain risk - most nuclear reactor fuel comes from Russia at the moment, and none of it comes from Australia. There is uranium in Australia, but it would take a long time for them to start producing fuel themselves or develop a robust supply chain with a trusted trade partner.