Who Makes The Generator on the Dream/Triumph

Does anyone know who makes the generator on the Dream? You would think they would/should have something to add. Clearly Carnival does not make it.

My very same thoughts, is it the make or is it maintence needs to be inspected.

Wartsila?

they told me they only make the main ones - not the backup one that failed...

They were both built in the same shipyard in Italy

They were both built in the same shipyard in Italy

Generators are generally not built in shipyards in Italy. (Tho ships are)

The diesel generators that supply power to the ships are made by some one other then the yard building the ship. A builder, in this case Carnival can specify any diesel generator that they want.

Carnival has also used Kaverner Masa yards in Helsinki for several ships.

From the little I could find, the Wartsila is probably the mains and back ups. The difference being the number of cylinders. Typically the mains are 16 cylinders and the back ups are 10 or 12 depending on the size of the ship.

Going back to the next part of the question, I dont think that anything could be done differently in regards to the engines/generators themselves.

In 2 cases, fire was the main culprit taking out the electrical distribution system. In that case, it doesnt matter how big or how many back ups you have if you cant get the power from them, into the ship.

In the case of the Dream, there was an issue that was found with the back up,during a regularly scheduled inspection. It wasnt a surprise that the mains died, and the back up didnt start. There was never a main power issue other then maybe the back up throwing the main breakers because it was doing something its not supposed to do. (which explains the intermittent power issue reports)From what I am gathering, there is at least 1 if not more then 1 entity that is saying without a working back up, you can not leave port. Whether its St Maarten, IMO, CCL, the insurance underwriter or any other major players I dont know.

My DH and I was wondering if in all the cuts CCL has allegedly been making to their employment staff and services if maintenance personnel has been cut as well. Just a thought.

In all honesty, I dont think so. I think that Carnival is just having a run of extremely bad luck. Im not cheerleading for CCL, just a observation.

If it was coming out that all of the issues were related, ie that say oil was not being changed as often as it should or that inspections were being pencil whipped, it would be a different story. But they have 3 seemingly unrelated issues,(bad fire control procedures AND the wrong fire control book on 1, a broken return fuel line on a second,both of which took out the electrical system and a inspection that found a fault) that have come in a relatively short period of time.

You are right - three different issues. I love CCL and it hurts me to see them dealing with this. I can't wait to see how all of this shakes out in the insurance industry. But also not sure that since the ships are registered in different countries, is there some type of maritime law that they have to adhere to? Do we know what caused the fire? Also, most large companies have back up procedures when something this unfortunate occurs. I agree that there just isn't another 3000 passenger ship on stand-by to pick up passengers when a ship goes down, but there must be something in this day & age that could have rescued the people from these

crippled ships.

My guess is RCCL. :p

In all honesty, I dont think so. I think that Carnival is just having a run of extremely bad luck. Im not cheerleading for CCL, just a observation.

 

If it was coming out that all of the issues were related, ie that say oil was not being changed as often as it should or that inspections were being pencil whipped, it would be a different story. But they have 3 seemingly unrelated issues,(bad fire control procedures AND the wrong fire control book on 1, a broken return fuel line on a second,both of which took out the electrical system and a inspection that found a fault) that have come in a relatively short period of time.

It is refreshing to read a sensible post. Thanks Truck1 !!

Hindenburg motor supply?

The diesel generators that supply power to the ships are made by some one other then the yard building the ship. A builder, in this case Carnival can specify any diesel generator that they want.

 

Carnival has also used Kaverner Masa yards in Helsinki for several ships.

 

From the little I could find, the Wartsila is probably the mains and back ups. The difference being the number of cylinders. Typically the mains are 16 cylinders and the back ups are 10 or 12 depending on the size of the ship.

 

Going back to the next part of the question, I dont think that anything could be done differently in regards to the engines/generators themselves.

In 2 cases, fire was the main culprit taking out the electrical distribution system. In that case, it doesnt matter how big or how many back ups you have if you cant get the power from them, into the ship.

 

In the case of the Dream, there was an issue that was found with the back up,during a regularly scheduled inspection. It wasnt a surprise that the mains died, and the back up didnt start. There was never a main power issue other then maybe the back up throwing the main breakers because it was doing something its not supposed to do. (which explains the intermittent power issue reports)From what I am gathering, there is at least 1 if not more then 1 entity that is saying without a working back up, you can not leave port. Whether its St Maarten, IMO, CCL, the insurance underwriter or any other major players I dont know.

Actually, the manufacturer of the main generator and the emergency generator are frequently different. This is due to the fact that the main generators are what is called "medium speed" engines, and the emergencies are more commonly "high speed" engines. Many engine manufacturers specialize in one type. I have seen MAN main engines on ships with Caterpillar emergency engines.

From my reading of the reports, it sounds like the fault was found when the crew was performing a required monthly test of placing the emergency generator on-line (actually powering the emergency bus) for a two hour period. This is normally done midday, when pax count onboard is minimal, as there is a short period when only the emergency circuits are lost during transfer. If there was a mechanical problem with the generator or engine, there would not have been intermittent power interruptions during the night. This was most likely caused by the crew testing the circuits that control the "bus tie" circuit breakers that connect the main power bus with the emergency bus. I believe this is where the fault lies, but again, even with an emergency generator engine that runs, but cannot be connected to the power bus, that is an inop emergency generator, and is a "no sail item".

And you are entirely correct that there is no correlation between the Splendor, Triumph, Dream, and now the Legend with a pod problem, from a manufacturer's or builders perspective. If as you say, the maintenance is not being accomplished, while records are showing it as being completed, that is an entirely different thing.

Some have questioned why Carnival continues to use the same design for many ships, just adding decks of cabins to the same basic hull design they have used for years. These designs met the design requirements of all regulatory agencies AT THE TIME they were built. Now regulations have changed, and all new ships must meet more stringent regulations. Carnival is not alone in this practice.

Does anyone know who makes the generator on the Dream? You would think they would/should have something to add. Clearly Carnival does not make it.

KIA? By giant hip-hop hamsters? :eek:

You are right - three different issues. I love CCL and it hurts me to see them dealing with this. I can't wait to see how all of this shakes out in the insurance industry. But also not sure that since the ships are registered in different countries, is there some type of maritime law that they have to adhere to? Do we know what caused the fire? Also, most large companies have back up procedures when something this unfortunate occurs. I agree that there just isn't another 3000 passenger ship on stand-by to pick up passengers when a ship goes down, but there must be something in this day & age that could have rescued the people from these

crippled ships.

Which fire?

Splendor was a main that failed catastrophically spray hot lube oil over the engine room Triumph was a broken fuel return line that sprayed diesel on the hot block and area around it and Dream didn't have a fire.

Actually, the manufacturer of the main generator and the emergency generator are frequently different. This is due to the fact that the main generators are what is called "medium speed" engines, and the emergencies are more commonly "high speed" engines. Many engine manufacturers specialize in one type. I have seen MAN main engines on ships with Caterpillar emergency engines.

 

From my reading of the reports, it sounds like the fault was found when the crew was performing a required monthly test of placing the emergency generator on-line (actually powering the emergency bus) for a two hour period. This is normally done midday, when pax count onboard is minimal, as there is a short period when only the emergency circuits are lost during transfer. If there was a mechanical problem with the generator or engine, there would not have been intermittent power interruptions during the night. This was most likely caused by the crew testing the circuits that control the "bus tie" circuit breakers that connect the main power bus with the emergency bus. I believe this is where the fault lies, but again, even with an emergency generator engine that runs, but cannot be connected to the power bus, that is an inop emergency generator, and is a "no sail item".

 

And you are entirely correct that there is no correlation between the Splendor, Triumph, Dream, and now the Legend with a pod problem, from a manufacturer's or builders perspective. If as you say, the maintenance is not being accomplished, while records are showing it as being completed, that is an entirely different thing.

 

Some have questioned why Carnival continues to use the same design for many ships, just adding decks of cabins to the same basic hull design they have used for years. These designs met the design requirements of all regulatory agencies AT THE TIME they were built. Now regulations have changed, and all new ships must meet more stringent regulations. Carnival is not alone in this practice.

I have to say that I am so happy to see sane answers to some if these questions. I am so tired of all the "amping up" of what is wrong and people speculating that maintenance has not been done, etc. When, in actuality, all these issues are not related at all and have nothing to do with regular maintenance being kept up.

Thanks to both you and Truck1 for being reasonable and helpful with carefully thought out responses to all of this!!

Does anyone know who makes the generator on the Dream? You would think they would/should have something to add. Clearly Carnival does not make it.

Walmart?

I have to say that I am so happy to see sane answers to some if these questions. I am so tired of all the "amping up" of what is wrong and people speculating that maintenance has not been done, etc. When, in actuality, all these issues are not related at all and have nothing to do with regular maintenance being kept up.

 

Thanks to both you and Truck1 for being reasonable and helpful with carefully thought out responses to all of this!!

How do you know these incidents had nothing to do with maintenance? Did you read inspection reports? Did you talk to class society surveyors? Coast Guard? Port State?

These ships are "rode hard and put away wet" so to speak. Ask yourself why Carnival seems to have a higher rate of casualties than the other lines, even lines owned by Carnival Corporation (like Cunard).

Who made the EDG is less important than how well it was maintained. Very possible it was a switchgear, breaker or voltage regulator issue and the diesel wouldn't auto-start or hold a load.

How do you know these incidents had nothing to do with maintenance? Did you read inspection reports? Did you talk to class society surveyors? Coast Guard? Port State?

 

These ships are "rode hard and put away wet" so to speak. Ask yourself why Carnival seems to have a higher rate of casualties than the other lines, even lines owned by Carnival Corporation (like Cunard).

 

Who made the EDG is less important than how well it was maintained. Very possible it was a switchgear, breaker or voltage regulator issue and the diesel wouldn't auto-start or hold a load.

Well said, intelligent post.

I think many here are just "whistling through the graveyard."

How do you know these incidents had nothing to do with maintenance? Did you read inspection reports? Did you talk to class society surveyors? Coast Guard? Port State?

 

These ships are "rode hard and put away wet" so to speak. Ask yourself why Carnival seems to have a higher rate of casualties than the other lines, even lines owned by Carnival Corporation (like Cunard).

 

Who made the EDG is less important than how well it was maintained. Very possible it was a switchgear, breaker or voltage regulator issue and the diesel wouldn't auto-start or hold a load.

Ummm because the report that came out from the inspection of the Triumph (from an independent inspector) said it was a fuel leak that started the fire and had nothing to do with maintenance. Also with the Dream, they were doing routine maintenance and found the back-up generator was not working. Everything else was working fine.

How do you know these incidents had nothing to do with maintenance? Did you read inspection reports? Did you talk to class society surveyors? Coast Guard? Port State?

 

These ships are "rode hard and put away wet" so to speak. Ask yourself why Carnival seems to have a higher rate of casualties than the other lines, even lines owned by Carnival Corporation (like Cunard).

 

Who made the EDG is less important than how well it was maintained. Very possible it was a switchgear, breaker or voltage regulator issue and the diesel wouldn't auto-start or hold a load.

Carnival has more ships and carries more passengers, logic would lead one to conclude that they would have a higher rate of casualties than the other cruise lines.

Actually, the manufacturer of the main generator and the emergency generator are frequently different. This is due to the fact that the main generators are what is called "medium speed" engines, and the emergencies are more commonly "high speed" engines. Many engine manufacturers specialize in one type. I have seen MAN main engines on ships with Caterpillar emergency engines.

 

From my reading of the reports, it sounds like the fault was found when the crew was performing a required monthly test of placing the emergency generator on-line (actually powering the emergency bus) for a two hour period. This is normally done midday, when pax count onboard is minimal, as there is a short period when only the emergency circuits are lost during transfer. If there was a mechanical problem with the generator or engine, there would not have been intermittent power interruptions during the night. This was most likely caused by the crew testing the circuits that control the "bus tie" circuit breakers that connect the main power bus with the emergency bus. I believe this is where the fault lies, but again, even with an emergency generator engine that runs, but cannot be connected to the power bus, that is an inop emergency generator, and is a "no sail item".

 

And you are entirely correct that there is no correlation between the Splendor, Triumph, Dream, and now the Legend with a pod problem, from a manufacturer's or builders perspective. If as you say, the maintenance is not being accomplished, while records are showing it as being completed, that is an entirely different thing.

 

Some have questioned why Carnival continues to use the same design for many ships, just adding decks of cabins to the same basic hull design they have used for years. These designs met the design requirements of all regulatory agencies AT THE TIME they were built. Now regulations have changed, and all new ships must meet more stringent regulations. Carnival is not alone in this practice.

"Actually, the manufacturer of the main generator and the emergency generator are frequently different. This is due to the fact that the main generators are what is called "medium speed" engines, and the emergencies are more commonly "high speed" engines. Many engine manufacturers specialize in one type. I have seen MAN main engines on ships with Caterpillar emergency engines."

True. I was thinking along the lines of the Carnival Dream which is all Wartsillas. I know DCL has 3 different engines in there Dream Class. 2 different Mans, (3 -12 cylinders and 2 14 cylinders)and 2 converteams. In the end, its up to what ever the line wants as power that matches the ships needs correct?

"Actually, the manufacturer of the main generator and the emergency generator are frequently different. This is due to the fact that the main generators are what is called "medium speed" engines, and the emergencies are more commonly "high speed" engines. Many engine manufacturers specialize in one type. I have seen MAN main engines on ships with Caterpillar emergency engines."

 

True. I was thinking along the lines of the Carnival Dream which is all Wartsillas. I know DCL has 3 different engines in there Dream Class. 2 different Mans, (3 -12 cylinders and 2 14 cylinders)and 2 converteams. In the end, its up to what ever the line wants as power that matches the ships needs correct?

Plus of course the dirty word (cost), availability and the size of the space they hope to stick it into.

when the splendor replaced it had to go to drydock and they cut a hole in side to replace

They now say they will be a port canaveral midweek, replace the emertgency genset and sail on Saturday

How big is the genset and how can they replace at a dock ?:confused: