The 2010 dilemma stems from an ammendment to the 1974 SOLAS Convention ratified in 1992 which mandates that "all" passengerships be in compliance with new structural fire protection regulations by October 1, 2010. As you might imagine, the greatest effect of this is on pre 1980 ships and as far as has been announced to date, in order for any pre 1980 passengership to maintain SOLAS certification, all materials used in it (bulkheads, furniture, carpeting, wiring, piping, insulation, etc...) will have to be removed and replaced with materials which are in compliance with the new rules for non combustibility. The only combustible veneers which can be used (I believe) are those no more than 2.5mm thick and in no space can have a combustible mass over a certain low limit (which I do not have immediately available).

The sum total of these rules is that a great many fine and otherwise safe passenger ships are on borrowed time sailing on voyages requiring SOLAS certification unless some mechanism is put into effect that allows these ships to continue in service. What specifically can or should be done is open to debate but we are talking about still quite a few ships here and more importantly, they are all the ships with individuality and character as opposed to all the floating boxes of which there are already too many.

It is these changes are what is stopping the REMBRANDT from going back to cruising, but the big question I have is what about the high profile pre 1980 ships like NORWAY & QEII... What will happen to them in 2010? And if they get breaks, then why not the rest?

I hope this helps...

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by marlowe:
....what about the high profile pre 1980 ships like NORWAY & QEII... What will happen to them in 2010?

---

I dont see it as an issue. I think both ships are in the final years of their lives, irrespective of SOLAS 2010.

I can certainly see the QE2 retiring by 2006, when her two replacements are well established. I cant imagine the Norway continuing to compete with the mega-newbuilds for too much longer, either.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

I dont see it as an issue. I think both ships are in the final years of their lives, irrespective of SOLAS 2010.

I can certainly see the QE2 retiring by 2006, when her two replacements are well established. I cant imagine the Norway continuing to compete with the mega-newbuilds for too much longer, either.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

Ouch Malcolm!!
Though I fear you are correct.
I remember when I was aboard the NORWAY, one of the problems discussed in a lecture about the ship's future was that the new SOLAS rules would require all of the stairwells to be accessible to/from each deck... a real problem for our beloved former FRANCE.

Are their some ships that would be suitable for conversion to be in compliance with the 2010 regulations. I believe some of the Airtours ships would, if not they will be out of business unless they find new ships!

And just think, are their really enough ships out their to replace all the 40plus ships that actually don't comply?? Even the former Royal Viking Ships are pre 1980!!

Their are more pre 1980 ships than post 1980 ships for sure!!

Are their some ships that would be suitable for conversion to be in compliance with the 2010 regulations. I believe some of the Airtours ships would, if not they will be out of business unless they find new ships!

And just think, are their really enough ships out their to replace all the 40plus ships that actually don't comply?? Even the former Royal Viking Ships are pre 1980!!

Their are more pre 1980 ships than post 1980 ships for sure!!

This at least gives one a small ray of hope that all the old classics will not be lost, but they definitely will be an ever smaller niche of the total cruise industry.

Regarding ROC, as long as they keep their ships in Greece it will not be a problem or Greece and Turkey can make their own deal about those ships. Knowing the Greeks, I expect them to continue sailing after 2010.

[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: marlowe ]

Its a long story which i'll explain when I have time but basically the Love Boats and the Oceanic are viable past 2010: the Norway and QE2 are'nt.

I heard that NCL is exploring the possibilities of working on her so she will be able to sail post-2010 SOLAS...

I realize that my description is not technical in nature, but my understanding that in the April 1992 ammendments to the SOLAS '74 Convention requires all SOLAS passenger ships built before 25.05.80 to be upgraded to comply with Chapter II-2 of SOLAS '74 as ammended.

Within all those ammendments to SOLAS '74 is the imposition of mandated Fire Test Procedure compliance certification for all the materials used in constructing the vessel. The FTP went into effect for new passenger vessels on 01.7.98 and were mandated in the ammendments of December '96. Just as sprinklers were required on retrofitted onto older vessels. FTP compliance becomes mandatory for older passenger vessels on 01.10.10.

The only thing which may make this a bit fuzzy is that the 1992 ammendments (which derived from the SCANDINAVIAN STAR fire) were intended to bring all existing SOLAS '60 vessels up to the '74 standard, but came out before the FTP requirments were even proposed. Additionally, the regulation does not mention that post 1980 vessels built before the FTP code have to be retrofitted like those pre 1980. I do not believe the new regulations were intended to put good ships out of business, but despite this I have heard or read nothing which allows the FTP certification requirments to be waived for SOLAS '60 vessels.

Is there any other insight into this question?

[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vikingcrown:
So what will happen to QE2? Will she become a floating museum beside to Queen Mary?

---

You know what a pesimist I am! I think the QE2s fate will be the same as 99.9 per cent of all ships!

As far as the signatory nations are concerned who enforce the SOLAS regs either through flag state inspection or port state control, it would be nice to think that the inspectors who traditionally came from within the industry would have a fond spot in their hearts for the true classics and allow them a bit of breathing room, but here in Amurka we have the mighty USCG with it's 22 year old Lt.jg. marine inspectors who have never sailed on a commercial ship and who know only what the book teaches them. Consequently if it doesn't pass the "book" test, it just doesn't pass...period!

The age of pragmatic common sense in ship safety inspection has gone the way of flare, rake, sheer, camber and sweeping lines.

[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gpcruisedude:
Does the Rembrandt have sprinklers installed on her or The former Edinburgh Castle(BRB) currently both idle in Freeport?

---

Check out the photos of the Diamond Princess fire in the MHI shipyard in Japan!!

Here is a vessel which is obviously the state-of-the-art in SOLAS awareness, which was to be complioant as soon as it went into service.

But....lets leave the subject of the fire-doors not closed by a dockyard crew aside. Whatever was in that ship, and it was not just the equipment of the fitting-out folks, it burned violently and propagated throughout a very large portion of the ship.

And this will meet SOLAS 2010?

Something, there was not fireproof, regardless of strictures of veneers, decorations and so on. and on the high seas it would have been catastrophic!

This did not even reach the inspections by the USCG which marlowe so flippantly dismisses. We have seen what happens when industries are "self policing" or self-regulating. Better the "22-yr old inspectors" who are tasked with enforcing the rules do the inspecting than the 52 year old corporate chieftans, in the employ of the line, who are only interested in saving a buck.

The only sensible thing, and what is required, is for all workers to evacuate immediately. The shipyard only has a very small permanent fire dept and relies on the local Dept as do all industries. ALL firemen are reluctant, quite naturally, to enter a burning ship - anywhere in the world - so it's mainly a case of sitting back and pouring water on it
until the ship turns over or the fire is out.

Probably one of the main reasons for the rapid spread of the fire and the smoke was the plastic coverings on almost everything. All the panelling and fittings etc in all the cabins, hallways, everything is covered or packed in it to protect it.
That stuff would have gone whoosh.

I've been on vessels in a Japanese yard at that state and seen it.

I've said all this to try and show the difference between the fire on the Diamond and what would happen on the same ship when in operation where it would be contained and dealt with by a trained crew with proper equipment.

I think you have misinterpreted my statements earlier. I do not believe new ships to be vastly safer than older ships and the case of the DIAMOND PRINCESS illustrates than "any" ship can be unsafe regardless of when it was built or what safety features it has.

My statement regarding the 22y/o USCG ship safety inspectors was in reference to their inability to see that an older ship can be safe and that a new ship can be unsafe. Rather than be pragmatic, they only look to see that a vessel meets a certain set of regulations and if it doesn't, then the ship is manifestly "unsafe".

It is the quality of a ship's contruction, maintenance, crew and operation that determines how safe a ship is in the end because no matter now many safety features are built into a ship, at least 85% of accidents can be directly traced to a human failure at some point.

First, it is important to note that there is no such thing as SOLAS 2010. SOLAS 1974 will continue to be the newest SOLAS convention for the forseeable future. Unfortunately even normally informed travel media does not seem to actually be able to figure out these regulations any better than anyone else, so they have essentially coined the term SOLAS 2010, and thus it has become very widespread. It's sort of like the "phantom SOLAS". The only way there will be a SOLAS 2010 is if the IMO calls a new convention in 2010, which I doubt will happen as the existing one is far-fetched enough!

The problem dates back to SOLAS 1960, when, as mentioned above, most ships complied with the then-new regulations (came into effect in 1965) by either Method I or Method II:

Method I - The ships were built of incombustible materials and not fitted with sprinkler systems.

Method II - The ships were allowed to use combustible materials in construction but had to have sprinklers.

There was also a Method III, which was a combination of the above that was devised by the French at the time, and was used mostly either in French-flag or French-built ships. Areas built with combustible materials had sprinklers, those built with incombustible materials did not.

In SOLAS 1974, which took effect in 1980, this was all replaced and the whole business about "methods" went away. Essentially Method I was adopted as the only choice in building ships. Apparently the conventional wisdom at the time was that incombustible materials were the way to go. Many ships of the 1980s - for instance HAL's "N" twins or the RCCL SOVEREIGN-class, were all built of incombustible materials, without sprinklers, in essentially the same manner as the old Method I ships.

After the SCANDINAVIAN STAR disaster (she was, by the way, that odd Method III), it was decided, due to massive public outrage, that a new standard had to be set. Thus, the fire safety code of SOLAS 1974 was re-written, and a schedule was introduced whereby all ships built to SOLAS 1960 or earlier would have to comply with these regulations.

There are lots of changes, the first ones which came into effect mainly in 1997, and which were supposed to doom a lot of the older vessels at the time. They didn't, and all of the older ships that have been in service since, that is, REMBRANDT, NORWAY, etc., were able to be easily refitted to those standards, most of which involved sealing off atriums and staircases, etc. Over the next few years, up through 2010, various new regulations will come in, including the requirement about staircases, and in 2005, requirement for all ships - even those built with incombustible materials - to have sprinklers.

The real problem is the last amendment to take effect, which will happen 1 October 2010. That is the date when all ships will have to be free of combustible materials in construction.

So it would appear as though, from the combustibility standpoint, Method I ships - like the afforementioned OCEANIC, Love Boats, etc. - would be "just fine" for the new SOLAS fire regulations (whereas QE2, NORWAY, etc. would not be). After all, if Method I ships are made of incombustible materials, what's the problem?

It all comes down to the "Fire Test Procedure" that marlowe mentions above. Even ships built to Method I, and previously considered to be built of incombustible materials, will have to go comply with this FTP, which means that a sample of each and every material in that ship will have to be tested to make sure that it is incombustible. This took effect for newly-built ships in 1998 - perfectly reasonable.

Obviously that testing is a mammoth task which means that in 2010 ships built before 1980 will essentially be banned, at least from places where Port State Controls enforce the "book" regulations (that is, most places other than "third-world" countries). It is really not feasible to follow this FTP for any existing ship, and worse, ships which are not formerly Method I would obviously fail the FTP and so require their interiors to be completely rebuilt, this time to the very same regulations as a brand new ship.

Where the double standard comes in is that ships built between 1980 and 1998 are not being required to go comply with FTP. Instead, it is taken for granted that they are not a problem. This is exactly the kind of "grandfathering" that the champions of the new SOLAS fire regulations were supposedly getting rid of.

Thus, the effect is that either new ships or old ships are being held to the new standard, with an 18-year gap in the middle that everyone seems to have forgotten about.

The new regulations are probably not going to do much to improve safety (considering the very large number ships built between 1980 and 1998 are being excepted) while at the same time is going to cause a lot of generally safe ships to be taken out of service, causing a lot of lost money, etc., not to mention all the angst it is causing ocean liner enthusiasts - but then, we have the same legal clout as dust mites .

So not only is this particular provision of the new SOLAS fire restrictions going to force many ships out of service - even ships built, say, in the 1970s, which are quite numerous and mostly not at the end of their lifespans, especially if we're talking the late 1970s, and not only is it going to make the ocean liner an illegal breed (considering that the last traditional liner, CARONIA/VISTAFJORD, was built 7 years before SOLAS 1974 took effect and one year before the convention was even convened), but it is a case of sheer hypocrisy!

Or at least that is what it would appear to be from the trickle of information that is available to the "general public". It is important to remember that most of this is based off of speculation. If anyone here who actually knows what they're talking about , sees this and there are errors in it, please do correct them as I would certainly appreciate it!

I have a feeling that if there is anyone reasonable out there with power in this field, if someone actually bothered to make a scene about it, the FTP business could be dropped or amended somehow to make it at least somewhat realistic. At this point it is basically a blanket condemnation of ships over a certain age - not a really old one either - which is patently unfair seeing as there is a big, 18-year "hole" in the middle of it!

Don't worry about the FTP, its a red herring, someone's got their wires crossed.