RSSC Navigator Refurbishment 2016

I'm just several weeks off the RSSC Navigator (Alaska). My wife and I went with zero expectations - being an old ship etc. - and were VERY pleasantly surprised. This may be our favorite ship. As an aside to the post topic and to understand our perspective we usually enjoy the likes of Oceania and other lines that offer a more intimate feel with less "hoopla". In fact, for means of comparison the Oceania Riviera is one of our favorite ships. We also have cruises on most major lines including Royal Caribbean, Holland America, Celebrity, Regent (previously on Mariner), Seabourn, Royal (when it was around), NCL, Premier, Chandris, Princess etc. We find Celebrity to be the best mass market experience, but again have really started enjoying ships with smaller passenger capacity and higher attention to detail and service. Regent and Oceania knock the ball out of the park (as the expression goes) every time!

So...we heard that there are 2 weeks in April that the RSSC Navigator will be completely gutted. Some high ranking crew members not only confirmed this, but also dispelled any myths that the Navigator will be transferred or sold. Apparently, this will be the most expensive refurbishment of any RSSC ship just in time to cruise Europe in Summer 2016 with the new Explorer.

I'm really curious if anyone knows what exactly will be done during this "extensive" refurbishment. I will share what I was told. All the cabins and public areas will be completely redone and some type of "padding" or "cushioning" in the engine room will be installed to reduce the vibration at the after of the ship especially, that so many passengers complain about. The hull of the Navigator was originally a Russian Icebreaker and I was told when RSSC acquired the hull everything was made new from Deck 3 up. So the twin screws that drive the propellers are below deck three and are quite long like on ships of days gone by (not just the 16 years gone by - age of Navigator) and as a result the smooth ride that many of us are used to with Azipods is not enjoyed on Navigator. Sure, there was vibration mostly in the aft, but for heaven sake we were on a ship! I expect some noise and vibration. When we were on the outside passage with large swells I was amazed at how well Navigator cut through the seas like a knife through melting butter.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any updates regarding the refurbishment. I usually don't take such interest in a dry dock, but LOVE this ship and likely will sail on her Summer 2016 after the dry dock so very curious. I guess this makes me a cruise fanatic. ;):D

californiacruiseluvrs,

Thanks for the update. The Navigator is the ship chosen to do Regent's first World Cruise since 2011 so no transfer or sale is in the offing.

I don't remember when she was last in dry dock but an extensive one in interesting - I'm sure some bits and pieces will leak out over the next few months but your information is a good start!

Thanks . . . . Peggy

Amongst other things, a lot of work is supposed to be done in the areas of the library and computer room.

An interesting tidbit about the Navigator is that the hull was built in the 1950's. I wonder why Radisson purchased such an old hull and one that wasn't meant to be for a passenger ship. It must have been one heck of a sale.:)

This will be the third attempt that I am aware of to fix the vibration. My favorite attempt was the addition of the "duck tail".

We are on the Navigator on the cruise JUST before her dry-dock. Are we going to see the worst of her?

:D:D:D,

Scott

..............

An interesting tidbit about the Navigator is that the hull was built in the 1950's. I wonder why Radisson purchased such an old hull and one that wasn't meant to be for a passenger ship. It must have been one heck of a sale.:)......

I do not know where you got that the hull was built in the 50's?

How is your Russian?

Спущен на воду 23.08.1991 (Launched Hull August 23, 1991)

This is what it was supposed to end up looking like.

"She started life as AKADEMIK NIKOLAY PILYUGIN a warship for the Soviet Navy. She was laid down Admiralty Yards of St. Peterburg in 1988 as a warship with an ice strengthened hull and was to be fitted with powerful satellite antennai to monitor NATO Navy's. Before she was completed the Soviet Block collapsed and building was suspended. In 1997 she was sold and re-named BLUE SEAS, then she was towed to Mariotti's yard at Genoa Italy for conversion to a cruise ship"

"The Seven Sea Navigator packs in four main engines, two to port and two to starboard, each a Wärtsilä 8L38 (specs) designation, manufactured in Finland and developed 5,280bhp – in total, an output of 21,120bhp. Propulsion is by way of fixed-pitch propellers. Her service speed is registered as 17.5 knots "

If you look closely at the Russian shipyard photos of 1991 you can see the distinctive square a area around the anchors. One assumes that Radison bought it cheap. The upper decks were completed by the Russians but none of the spy equipment was ever installed. Mariotti yard cut off almost everything from the waterline- deck 3 and up.

This is supposed to be a pic from Russian mothball area in St petersburg c 1991+

This is the ship in Italy before reconversion. You can see the squared off back end at the water line that is/was supposed to be fixed.

J

I was told (onboard a Regent ship) that the hull was built in the 50's but sat unused until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90's. I called it a "tidbit" rather than a "fact" because it is second hand information. It would be interesting to know the real history of the hull. Maybe I need to learn Russian to figure it out.

Thanks for reply regarding history of Navigator. Very interesting bit of cruise ship history. I love that the Navigator (and all of Regent ships) are one of a kind without true "sister ships". Anyway, looking forward to hearing details regarding the Navigator refurbishment and whether as extensive as rumor has it. One crew member from the Purser's Desk told me they would be spending about $30 million. That's one heck of a refurbishment if that is truly the case.

I've said it before and I say it again - I really hope they move the spa downstairs somewhere and put an Observation Lounge back up front. There is a HUGE deck area forward of the spa... such a shame that there is no Observation Lounge on the Navigator.

That said - I doubt they will do it!

I was told (onboard a Regent ship) that the hull was built in the 50's but sat unused until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90's. I called it a "tidbit" rather than a "fact" because it is second hand information. It would be interesting to know the real history of the hull. Maybe I need to learn Russian to figure it out.

What do you mean it is second hand information? The official history of the hull is in the Russian text above. There are 4 or 5 more pages in Russian of the specs and build history if you want them. When does something become a fact to you and not a "tidbit"?

j

What do you mean it is second hand information? The official history of the hull is in the Russian text above. There are 4 or 5 more pages in Russian of the specs and build history if you want them. When does something become a fact to you and not a "tidbit"?

 

j

Well, although I cannot read Russian, the photo is suppose to be a photo of the ship in the "mothball" area in St. Petersburg (1991). Not sure what "She was laid down Admiralty Yards of St. Peterburg in 1988 as a warship......" means (i.e. what does the term "laid down" mean?) The ship looks rusty and old. I understand that hull was "launched" in 1991 but when was the hull built? Is that contained in the Russian portion that I cannot read?

The story I heard (which makes more sense when I see the condition of the hull in 1991) was that it was built and just sat there for many years (again, during the Soviet era).

Anyway, "tidbits" become facts when I find information that supports the "fact". What I heard was obviously not a fact but, if the Russian article states that the hull was built in 1988, I would certainly believe it.

All I know about the ship, factually, is that there have been problems upon problems caused by building a passenger ship on this particular hull. We sailed the Navigator when it had the power issues and was listing in the water and had brown water (the brown water occurred again fairly recently). Anyone that has sailed Regent for a while knows about the addition of the "duck tail" to stabilize the ship. We also know that La Veranda was cut almost in half to accommodate P-7 (leaving La Veranda too small to accommodate the number of passengers that the ship holds.)

I do appreciate you posting the article -- just wish I could read it.

TC2, Laid down means building the hull. I can't read Russian but it certainly appears from the numbers, which I can read, that this ship was built in 1991.

TC2, Laid down means building the hull. I can't read Russian but it certainly appears from the numbers, which I can read, that this ship was built in 1991.

Thanks! So, the hull was "laid down" in 1988 and the ship was built in 1991? Really wondering why it looks old and rusty in the 1991 photo.

$30 Million is indeed a decent refurbishment, but Oceania is going to spend $40 Million to refurbish the Ocean Princess when she becomes Oceania's 4th "R" ship, Sirena, in March and April, 2016. Also, Prestige spent $100 Million on Navigator between the purchase of Regent and the end of 2009 when her "ducktail" was added. However, I don't believe $30 Million would cover her being "gutted".

"Laid down" is when the keel is laid down. "Launched" is when it is "dried in" and able to float. The 3 years (or less, depending on the months) from 1988 to 1991 is a reasonable amount of time for the construction of a complete hull and outer superstructure, as pictured. The rusty appearance is no doubt due to not being fully painted; it doesn't take steel long to develop surface rust in a saltwater environment -- probably just weeks. It is not structural rust. In my opinion, everything the Russians did in those years looks old :rolleyes:.

The use of internal engines and long propeller shafts does not in itself cause vibration versus azipods; Oceania's ships all use propeller shafts. The fact that she used single pitch propellers might have contributed in the beginning, but I have to believe those would have been changed to adjustable pitch in the first attempts to eliminate the vibration, unless there is some underlying structural reason why they could not. There is always some discernible vibration from the use of propellers, whether on a shaft or on an azipod -- caused mostly by cavitation when abruptly slowing or accelerating. The primary advantage of azipods is they ease steering and docking in tight places because they can be rotated like an outboard motor, reducing the need for thrusters or tugboats. Both azipods and shafts can develop bearing problems which can cause vibration.

I've often wondered whether Navigator's vibration may be caused by the way the engines are mounted to the hull -- I've detected an annoying resonance, while sitting on La Veranda's outer terrace, while the ship was tied to a dock and not moving. One or more of the engines continue to run to provide electricity.

Also, Prestige spent $100 Million on Navigator between the purchase of Regent and the end of 2009 when her "ducktail" was added. However, I don't believe $30 Million would cover her being "gutted".

 

I remember the $100 Million spent on the Navigator but was hesitant to post because I would be asked for proof which I don't have (sometimes I "know" things but can't prove how I know them;) ). It would not surprise me if the tanks that hold the water (forget the name of these things) may need to be replaced (again) on the Navigator because of the brown water that was experienced last year. Can't they make them out of a rust-free material?

Agree that you cannot "gut" a ship for $30 Million. A lot of interior work was done 2 1/2 years ago (approximately) that will only require updating - no different than what is done on regularly scheduled dry docks. The only additional cost I can see for the passenger portion of the ship is the remodeling of some of the public areas.

I look forward to seeing photos of the Navigator after refurbishment. Unless it had an itinerary that I could not live without, it is doubtful that we will sail the Navigator again. -- the public areas and upper suites are too small. While they can do redesigns, unless they took some cabins out, there is only so much space (which, IMO, makes the Silversea Whisper so much nicer -- similar size but 50 less suites).

We are on the Navigator on the cruise JUST before her dry-dock. Are we going to see the worst of her?

 

:D:D:D,

Scott

Why take a chance! Why don't you join John and I (Snitch can't come...boo!) on the TA on the NEW Explorer in Nov, '16???!!!!! Could be great fun! we've got a terrific roll call going!

Think about it!!!

We are on the Navigator on the cruise JUST before her dry-dock. Are we going to see the worst of her?

 

:D:D:D,

Scott

I doubt it. We were on her just before her last drydock but one (2012) and she was in fine shape. And she's had another one since them (both soft refits, not true drydocks I believe.)

I've said it before and I say it again - I really hope they move the spa downstairs somewhere and put an Observation Lounge back up front. There is a HUGE deck area forward of the spa... such a shame that there is no Observation Lounge on the Navigator.

That would indeed be lovely, wouldn't it? I doubt it will happen. But I like Galileo's just fine. In fact I love Navigator. Too bad the R prices are so out of whack.

........

"Laid down" is when the keel is laid down. "Launched" is when it is "dried in" and able to float. The 3 years (or less, depending on the months) from 1988 to 1991 is a reasonable amount of time for the construction of a complete hull and outer superstructure, as pictured. The rusty appearance is no doubt due to not being fully painted; it doesn't take steel long to develop surface rust in a saltwater environment -- probably just weeks. It is not structural rust. In my opinion, everything the Russians did in those years looks old :rolleyes:.

 

The use of internal engines and long propeller shafts does not in itself cause vibration versus azipods; Oceania's ships all use propeller shafts. The fact that she used single pitch propellers might have contributed in the beginning, but I have to believe those would have been changed to adjustable pitch in the first attempts to eliminate the vibration, unless there is some underlying structural reason why they could not. There is always some discernible vibration from the use of propellers, whether on a shaft or on an azipod -- caused mostly by cavitation when abruptly slowing or accelerating. The primary advantage of azipods is they ease steering and docking in tight places because they can be rotated like an outboard motor, reducing the need for thrusters or tugboats. Both azipods and shafts can develop bearing problems which can cause vibration.

 

I've often wondered whether Navigator's vibration may be caused by the way the engines are mounted to the hull -- I've detected an annoying resonance, while sitting on La Veranda's outer terrace, while the ship was tied to a dock and not moving. One or more of the engines continue to run to provide electricity.

Don,

The "rusty" pic was from circa 1997 when the ship was towed to Italy for the rebuild. The hull had been painted white probably just before launching in '91. The Russian added the partial superstructure also in circa '91. It appears that the superstructure was never painted. I am looking for Marriotti shipyard pics showing the Navigator constructions.

AFAIK the there is no technical reason that the props couldn't be converted, but the would not be much benefit in terms of maneuverability or vibrations. The shafts/motor are diesel electric so they can be stopped and reversed fairly fast particularly at maneuvering speed. Beside converting it would cost a bundle.

Most of the vibrations that really shook the ship were partially fixed with the duck-tail addition. The original hull was flat in the back supposedly becasue of the "ice class" features, such as they were. This also allowed for far more cavitation to occur because of the water flow under the ship being influenced by the sea movement with the wake initializing closer to the props. But there is only is much that can be re-engineered before there is interference with the props and rudder systems.

As far as the vibrations from the engines mounting causing the vibrations, I think there is merit to that. The hull was built to a little bit higher "ice" standards and has a lot more scantling (ribs and beams) which makes the whole hull rigid and less able to dissipate vibrations.

For other who read this. "Ice" class hulls are not ice-beakers!! There are several classes if "Ice" hulls. The NAV is probably one of the lightest (1C or 2 my, Russian is poor!). These are for ship and ferries that operate in the Baltic and Great lakes, generally not for working in the Arctic regions. The hull is made to withstand light sea or river ice only.

j

Don,

 

The "rusty" pic was from circa 1997 when the ship was towed to Italy for the rebuild. The hull had been painted white probably just before launching in '91. The Russian added the partial superstructure also in circa '91. It appears that the superstructure was never painted. I am looking for Marriotti shipyard pics showing the Navigator constructions.

 

AFAIK the there is no technical reason that the props couldn't be converted, but the would not be much benefit in terms of maneuverability or vibrations. The shafts/motor are diesel electric so they can be stopped and reversed fairly fast particularly at maneuvering speed. Beside converting it would cost a bundle.

 

Most of the vibrations that really shook the ship were partially fixed with the duck-tail addition. The original hull was flat in the back supposedly becasue of the "ice class" features, such as they were. This also allowed for far more cavitation to occur because of the water flow under the ship being influenced by the sea movement with the wake initializing closer to the props. But there is only is much that can be re-engineered before there is interference with the props and rudder systems.

 

As far as the vibrations from the engines mounting causing the vibrations, I think there is merit to that. The hull was built to a little bit higher "ice" standards and has a lot more scantling (ribs and beams) which makes the whole hull rigid and less able to dissipate vibrations.

 

For other who read this. "Ice" class hulls are not ice-beakers!! There are several classes if "Ice" hulls. The NAV is probably one of the lightest (1C or 2 my, Russian is poor!). These are for ship and ferries that operate in the Baltic and Great lakes, generally not for working in the Arctic regions. The hull is made to withstand light sea or river ice only.

 

j

J, we're on the same page, except that I believe that Nav did not have diesel electric when re-launched as a cruise ship. One anecdotal narrative I read (I doubt I could find it now) discussed it's short life as "Blue Sea" as a V ship, and it's subsequent delivery to Radisson. It stated that the Russian propulsion system was replaced by the Wartsila diesels, but not the more modern diesel electric system.

You seem to know a lot more about it than me; I'm really interested in what you might have to say about that -- I'm willing and open to correction!

Why take a chance! Why don't you join John and I (Snitch can't come...boo!) on the TA on the NEW Explorer in Nov, '16???!!!!! Could be great fun! we've got a terrific roll call going!

Think about it!!!

Great idea (sorry that Snitch can't come). Actually, I am concerned that this really fun couple are going on the Navigator after sailing multiple times on Crystal. Even I would prefer not going on a ship prior to or after a refurbishment. Too many posts have made mention of the crew being focused on the refurbishment rather than customers before the refurbishment. After the ship is refurbished, there have been reports of things not completed. IMO, the Explorer (or any other ship) is a much better option.

Just giving my 100% honest opinion.

Not to dispute that there might have been some changes after 2012, because I don't know ... but there was a planned dry dock in May 2014, before the Alaska cruising season. It was canceled, and there was at least one additional Alaskan cruise added for that season.

 

That happened before the merger (acquisition, or whatever is the right term), and some could have seen it as a sign that a deal was in the works.

Yes, you're right, I'd forgotten that.

J, we're on the same page, except that I believe that Nav did not have diesel electric when re-launched as a cruise ship. One anecdotal narrative I read (I doubt I could find it now) discussed it's short life as "Blue Sea" as a V ship, and it's subsequent delivery to Radisson. It stated that the Russian propulsion system was replaced by the Wartsila diesels, but not the more modern diesel electric system.

 

You seem to know a lot more about it than me; I'm really interested in what you might have to say about that -- I'm willing and open to correction!

Don,

Below is the shipyard design schematic. It is hard to tell, but I think the design is diesel/electric. By the late 80's most ships were built this way, it cost more to produce gear boxes. Particularly, if you consider the ship original purpose, the ship would need to produce lot of juice and not so much for propulsion. The Wärtsilä 38 engines are all generator motors and not shafts, so unless the originals were cut out and 4 new ones put it, this is probably the way it was built.

Also, in the below you can see the original stern configuration.

j

J, I found the original article I read, dated Sept 26, 2000, buy Arturo Paniagua Mazorra (link).

In it, among other things, he describes the Blue Sea project:

In the summer of 1997, V Ships bought a second nearly finished vessel, on this occasion from a yard in St. Petersburg and then towed to Genoa. The goal was to create a five star cruise ship from the hull of an oceanographic unit. The so called Blue Sea project was more ambitious than any other conversion work carried out by T.Mariotti.

 

First, the yard demolished the four existing decks above the main deck, and cleared all that was inside the hull. This operation was difficult, and took more time than originally planned: all the propulsion equipment installed, some insulations, the sonar equipment, etc. were broken up. Later, the ice breaker hull was rebuilt: the stern was largely modified to become a twin-skeg one, capable of accommodating two larger propellers, and the bow profile was reshaped.

 

The two bow thrusters were retained, as well as the steering gear. A lot of research work was done on the propeller blades to reduce propeller inducted vibration and noise levels. The ship was fitted with new propulsion engines, generators, shafts and propellers. The contractual speed was 21 knots, and required more propulsion power than any other T. Mariotti conversions.

 

Seven new decks were additionally built, giving the new ship a total of 12 decks. This caused some concern regarding visibility, and to overcome any problems, the three taller decks were made of high tensile steel.

 

The fact that Radisson was involved in the project meant a gradual changes in the construction and so the ship was delivered two weeks later to her owner. But the T. Mariotti conversion was an outstanding achievement, and the owner saved six to seven months respect to a pure newbuilding vessel.

Further in the article, he went on to describe technical details:

The Seven Seas Navigator has a Wartsila mechanical propulsion plant unlike other modern cruise ships which use instead diesel electric propulsion system like the small Radisson operated Paul Gauguin. Four 8L38 main engines, with a total output of 21,120 kW, give a trial speed of about 22 Kt., over a knot faster than the owner's requirements. There are three auxiliary engines, also Wartsila made, of 2,120 Kw each. The two bow thruster have a total output of 1,000 kW.

I added the emphasis.

Now, I have no idea who Mazorra is, but he apparently wrote a book about cruise ships ("Construcción de buques de crucero en España"), and seems knowledgeable. The question is, was his information accurate, or second hand?

How fascinating. I do enjoy reading about a ship I am due to sail on. We will have the pleasure of sailing on Navigator next April. So am I right in thinking she will be all bright and shiny and new looking? :) :)

J, we're on the same page, except that I believe that Nav did not have diesel electric when re-launched as a cruise ship. One anecdotal narrative I read (I doubt I could find it now) discussed it's short life as "Blue Sea" as a V ship, and it's subsequent delivery to Radisson. It stated that the Russian propulsion system was replaced by the Wartsila diesels, but not the more modern diesel electric system.

 

You seem to know a lot more about it than me; I'm really interested in what you might have to say about that -- I'm willing and open to correction!

J Mariner & Hondorner--Thanks for the research and reviews. That all pretty much jibes with my understanding of the S.S. Navigator. I realize that the Navigator's "ice hull" isn't intended for much ice penetration except for scientific expedition type stuff in champagne ice like conditions, not for bergy bits, growlers or brash ice or other varieties of lesser bergs. On our first cruise we were up home here and I did note that the captain seemed to get a lot more into the ice at Hubbard and Tracy Arm than other ships were.

We have spent a little less than seven sailing weeks on her. The first after the "ducktail" conversion though. I honestly don't share the concern over vibrations on that vessel, they are not all that noticeable to me. I have been on larger cruise ships which were worse. But then, I have been on other boats in Alaska which really resonate when under way, to the point little waves are in your coffee cup, so maybe for me the vibrations have to be pretty severe.

Mention was made that the S.S. Voyager vibrations were similar to the Navigators and much less than the Mariners. I can't agree with that one either, been on the Mariner for over 9 sailing weeks and I would guess it has more vibration than the Voyager does, but to say for certain is like splitting hairs. After all, one of the big advantages of pod propulsion is less vibration, and they both have dual Rolls Royce Marine pod installations.

Hmm. I thought Mariner had no vibration at all, and that the Voyager's vibration was the result of an accident during its maiden voyage. I can't attest to Mariner, I haven't been on her, but both Voyager and Navigator vibrate at certain times, in certain parts of the ship.