Author Topic: Mooring Without Tugs  (Read 6731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bob C.

Mooring Without Tugs
« on: Aug 12, 2011, 09:24 PM »
QE2 is a big ship and needs tug assistance when mooring and getting underway.  However, I know of at least one occasion where she moored all by herself in the summer of 1979 due to a tug strike in New York.  Were there other occasions?  And what sort of preparations or precautions were needed with her underpowered bow thrusters and center mounted rudder?


Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #1 on: Aug 12, 2011, 09:54 PM »
The first ocassion was January 1970. Commodore Warwick was obliged to turn QE2 into a battering ram as he forced his way into New York's ice bound harbour. Then, having beaten the freeze up, he had to dock QE2 without the aid of tugs, which were not icebound but stike-bound. Gently, without any fuss, Warwick manooeuvred her into the berth - and came across ice 15 cm (6 in) thick off Pier 92. Warwick put QE2 astern four times before charging at the ice, and finally broke through. He said later "I never thought I would use a £30 million ship as an ice-breaker".

Offline riskygizmo

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #2 on: Aug 12, 2011, 10:11 PM »
I'm sure I was on that '79 crossing. If I remember correctly we came in late night/early morning and she was got alongside pretty much
at first light. I don't think it was a deliberate ploy to avoid witnesses if they "kissed the pier head". Everyone on board would have known about it if they had anyway. It was probably more to do with the huge belt of fog over the Grand Banks slowing us down a tad. It may even have been done at that time to avoid other traffic in the channel.

Anyhow, whatever the reason, and however they did it, it was done with no drama that I saw. Those on the Bridge and those in the Engineroom may have very different memories of it though. :-\

I must admit it was one of the most frustrating times of my young life. We were tied up in New York, capital city of the World,star of a thousand films, but it was silly o'clock in the morning. We weren' t going ashore for hours yet.
Full Away on Passage.

Offline Rod

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #3 on: Aug 13, 2011, 12:58 AM »
i was on board for at least three times.due to strikes. Basically it depended on the skill of the Captain, and his knowlege of the ships handling in that particular area...If the tide was running....fugget it.. Commadore Warwick was superb as was Commadore Ridley.  Thats from an Engineer!

Offline Twynkle

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #4 on: Feb 13, 2012, 03:19 PM »
Ahoy to The Engineers - and Deckies, if you are around!
When QE2 was docking without tugs -
what, if any, difference did this make with regards to the engine room activities?
For example - apart from the webcam with a forward view, were there others that might have been useful?
And was the ECR linked up with the mooring deck by radio etc?
Might this have delayed bunkering etc?

Then, whoever was on the Mooring deck - did it seem it very different there too?
(Hanging over the side, overheard good banter between Chief Officer and Tugmaster once -
it was a wonderful and unexpected experience.  I'd have paid extra for that!)
Hope this Q doesn't sound any more naive than t'others of mine!!
Thank you!
Rosie

Offline Jeff Taylor

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #5 on: Feb 13, 2012, 04:01 PM »
Taking nothing from either Ron Warwick or Doug Ridley, but both the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth had to dock in NY multiple times with no tug assistance and not even QE2's feeble bow thrusters.  They key was timing the approach to absolute dead tide when there was no current for a brief time, and using the end of the pier as a fulcrum to swing in.  Not for the faint of heart obviously.

Offline Rod

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #6 on: Feb 13, 2012, 11:42 PM »
Rosie, as far as the Engingine room went we just acted as normal. We tended to put more experienced personnel on the throttles as we would be told what was going on. But basically we just obeyed telegraphs.
Telegraph commands were a bit more frequent, but everybody just did their job.

Offline Rod

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #7 on: Feb 13, 2012, 11:47 PM »
Jeff, with the "old" Queens, dont forget that they both had 4 propellor shafts. That make a lot of difference.

Also I just found out that  QE1 was until recently the largest shipwreck.
Replaced by ....................Costa Concordia!

Offline Jeff Taylor

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #8 on: Feb 13, 2012, 11:51 PM »
Good point on the four shafts, Rod, although I read about Geoffrey Marr's description on QE and he didn't mention it.  As far as QE being the largest shipwreck, it's not hard when you take the then world's largest liner and start fires stem to stern!  Kind of a shame.

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #9 on: Nov 25, 2019, 06:55 AM »
I have just checked the definition of the verb "to moor", and it seems to me that this also applies to stopping a ship in place with the help of an anchor. This of course would have been done without tugs in many places. I particularly remember Bar Harbor, where we sailed away after some problems with the anchor which had got entangled, but without the assistance of tugs.

Offline Twynkle

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #10 on: Nov 26, 2019, 03:02 PM »
Isn't a mooring (as noun!) the place where a ship or boat can come to rest - either at an anchorage or anywhere that is otherwise secured in inshore waters, or in a harbour and either above or below the tide-line...?

Offline Mike Mason (Mick)

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #11 on: Mar 27, 2023, 01:27 AM »
QE2 berthed herself early mid 70's due to Tug strike the bow thrusters churned the hudson up that much all kinds of things came to the surface including a corpse, which was highly visible to those there to meet and greet. Trivia the Grill Room kitchen section (original kitchen) would feed the harbour police whilst in port its claimed at that time in excess of 700 bodies were pulled out of the Hudson yearly.

Online Lynda Bradford

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #12 on: Mar 27, 2023, 09:54 AM »
QE2 berthed herself early mid 70's due to Tug strike the bow thrusters churned the hudson up that much all kinds of things came to the surface including a corpse, which was highly visible to those there to meet and greet. Trivia the Grill Room kitchen section (original kitchen) would feed the harbour police whilst in port its claimed at that time in excess of 700 bodies were pulled out of the Hudson yearly.

I can imagine the corpse being uncovered caused concern and a lot of police involvement, but with you saying that 700 bodies were pulled out of the Hudson per year, it probably was just part of the job.  But sad just the same that so many people's lives came to an end in the Hudson.  Did the police say how many they thought involved criminal activity?
I was proud to be involved with planning QE2's 50 year conference in September 2017 in Clydebank

Offline Mike Mason (Mick)

Re: Mooring Without Tugs
« Reply #13 on: Nov 06, 2023, 10:57 PM »
Hi Lynda, haven't been on the site for a while so never saw your question. No I don't recall the number related to criminal activity, I remember being in awe of the Police launch crew all big guys. At the time I was of a quite disposition it's not something I asked, I would add they were fed like kings nothing was to much. Regardless of their size and authority they were all nice guys, and wholeheartedly welcomed onboard and in the kitchen were they would eat in the Chefs mess.