Thanks for sharing this video. It's good to be able to watch a turning maneuver in Puttgarden. With the double-ended ferries you can only wait for this in vain. Does anybody know why she can´t turn on sea (just like the old 17,70m generation back in the 1990s) and go astern with her bow rudder?
Thank you. I suspect that the bow rudder is probably no longer functional. But even if it still is, turning it in port would make more sense to avoid the long reverse trip. The reverse journeys of earlier train ferries originally resulted from their rather poor maneuvering characteristics (compared to later ships from around the mid-1960s/early 1970s, when controllable pitch propellers and bow propellers were used - at least on the Danish side - DSB). On the German side (DB), the fixed pitch propeller principle (diesel-electric propulsion) was retained, where, in contrast to the controllable pitch propeller, the propeller first had to “stop” to move backwards. This always cost a little more time, including when maneuvering. Incidentally, it was up to the respective captain to decide where to carry out the turning maneuver.
@@JustFerriesOfficial Thanks very much for your answer. Why should the long reverse trip be avoided? For the fuel consumption? Does it take more time? Or is the handling characteristic so much poorer when going astern with the bow rudder? Why did the the twin rudder, bow thruster vessels of the seventies (Deutschland, P. Henrik etc.) still undertake the long reverse trip (at least in the in the 1970s and 1980s) instead of turning in port. I have another question besides the "Frederik". Is the special bulbous bow - bow rudder combination on the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Skane as effective as a standard bow rudder? And why did these vessels stop going astern into port. Is it due to the extension of the Trelleborg harbour basin? I would highly appreciate your experts-answer.
You are welcome... I'll try to answer your questions. Long reverse trips mean increased vibrations and increased fuel consumption. The handling characteristics are somewhat worse, but with practice and routine, it works well. Why did ships like the “Deutschland” and “Prins Henrik” still undertake the long reverse voyage? Well, you have to differentiate. The “Deutschland” had fixed propellers and a diesel-electric drive. To maneuver in port, the propellers always had to stop first, then the polarity was reversed and then they started moving again. This took longer than with controllable pitch propeller ships, of which the “Prins Henrik” was one. The propellers always ran in the same direction and only the blades were adjusted; nothing had to be stopped first. So why did they make the long reverse journeys? The very mundane answer: because they always did it that way at the 'Statsbaner'. Routine. "Prins Henrik" could have easily turned around in the harbor - I did it myself with her sister “Dronning Margrethe II”. No problem. And some other captains also did it in the two ports on the Fehmarnbelt. “Kronprins Frederik” and her sisters were very easy to maneuver with a bow rudder. The unique thing about their bow rudders was that they could also be operated when sailing forward. The bow rudder on the “Mecklenburg-Vorpommern” is not combined with the bow bulb, but instead, there are two flaps on the side. On the “Skane” it is slightly different and combined with the bulbous bow. Yes, these bow rudders are effective, but only after they were massively enlarged on the “Mecklenburg”. Why do these ships no longer sail aft into the port of Trelleborg? Because there has been enough space in the harbors for several years. By the way, I also turned “Mecklenburg” in the harbor before the harbor was converted. It's always the captain's decision.
Ich verbinde viele Erinnerungen mit diesem Schiff😊 Wieder ein gelungenes Video👍🏻
Freut mich, danke! 😀
Wer nicht als Einheimischer der Insel
Rode on this ferry back in 1969 from Finland to Denmark. Was a different ferry at the time but the same ferry line.
1969 on this ferry from Finland to Denmark? Are you really sure?
@@JustFerriesOfficial oh so sorry. I meant to say 1996.
Thanks for sharing this video. It's good to be able to watch a turning maneuver in Puttgarden. With the double-ended ferries you can only wait for this in vain. Does anybody know why she can´t turn on sea (just like the old 17,70m generation back in the 1990s) and go astern with her bow rudder?
Thank you.
I suspect that the bow rudder is probably no longer functional. But even if it still is, turning it in port would make more sense to avoid the long reverse trip. The reverse journeys of earlier train ferries originally resulted from their rather poor maneuvering characteristics (compared to later ships from around the mid-1960s/early 1970s, when controllable pitch propellers and bow propellers were used - at least on the Danish side - DSB). On the German side (DB), the fixed pitch propeller principle (diesel-electric propulsion) was retained, where, in contrast to the controllable pitch propeller, the propeller first had to “stop” to move backwards. This always cost a little more time, including when maneuvering.
Incidentally, it was up to the respective captain to decide where to carry out the turning maneuver.
@@JustFerriesOfficial Thanks very much for your answer. Why should the long reverse trip be avoided? For the fuel consumption? Does it take more time? Or is the handling characteristic so much poorer when going astern with the bow rudder? Why did the the twin rudder, bow thruster vessels of the seventies (Deutschland, P. Henrik etc.) still undertake the long reverse trip (at least in the in the 1970s and 1980s) instead of turning in port. I have another question besides the "Frederik". Is the special bulbous bow - bow rudder combination on the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Skane as effective as a standard bow rudder? And why did these vessels stop going astern into port. Is it due to the extension of the Trelleborg harbour basin? I would highly appreciate your experts-answer.
You are welcome...
I'll try to answer your questions.
Long reverse trips mean increased vibrations and increased fuel consumption. The handling characteristics are somewhat worse, but with practice and routine, it works well.
Why did ships like the “Deutschland” and “Prins Henrik” still undertake the long reverse voyage? Well, you have to differentiate. The “Deutschland” had fixed propellers and a diesel-electric drive. To maneuver in port, the propellers always had to stop first, then the polarity was reversed and then they started moving again. This took longer than with controllable pitch propeller ships, of which the “Prins Henrik” was one. The propellers always ran in the same direction and only the blades were adjusted; nothing had to be stopped first.
So why did they make the long reverse journeys? The very mundane answer: because they always did it that way at the 'Statsbaner'. Routine. "Prins Henrik" could have easily turned around in the harbor - I did it myself with her sister “Dronning Margrethe II”. No problem. And some other captains also did it in the two ports on the Fehmarnbelt.
“Kronprins Frederik” and her sisters were very easy to maneuver with a bow rudder. The unique thing about their bow rudders was that they could also be operated when sailing forward.
The bow rudder on the “Mecklenburg-Vorpommern” is not combined with the bow bulb, but instead, there are two flaps on the side. On the “Skane” it is slightly different and combined with the bulbous bow. Yes, these bow rudders are effective, but only after they were massively enlarged on the “Mecklenburg”.
Why do these ships no longer sail aft into the port of Trelleborg? Because there has been enough space in the harbors for several years. By the way, I also turned “Mecklenburg” in the harbor before the harbor was converted. It's always the captain's decision.
@@JustFerriesOfficial Thank you very much for this detailed answer.
👍😁👍
go film
pretty nice-looking ferry but in very bad condition.
We try to keep her in good Condition but it hasnt been done from the danish Sailors since they knew they get the new Copenhagen