After reading Marc's and other LCTr's concern over the problem with the Mariner Pod, I sent the thread to Mr. Conroy, who took his valuable time to reply. Pls see below:
Thank you for the heads up on the feedback on the changes in schedule due to the pod problem.
Let me share with you what we are up against here and if I may I would love your suggestion as how to further clarify the issue.
Rest assured we would love to have the pod fixed during the next dry-dock; unfortunately it will not be possible.
 The Voyager and Mariner have very different technology in their pods and the problems they encountered were also quite different.
The Voyager pod defect was discovered by our crew before any real damage was done primarily because of the problems we encountered on the Mariner led us to do an inspection that was not suggested by the maker. Since the defect was repaired prior to failure no damage was done so it was a matter of making repairs versus replacing critical custom made components. Â
Unfortunately the Mariner had a hidden defect in the way the insulation for the motor was mounted in the pod which the manufacturer was aware of but failed to notify us or any of the other users of the system. Due to this defect a portion of the insulation on one of the pods separated from its mounting and fell in the windings damaging 1/2 of the electric motors mounted in the pod.
The insulation in both pods has been modified and the damaged pod was repaired and has been certified by the Bureau Veritas (the Safety Society for the Flag State) to operate but to insure a safety margin it will be run at only 50% of full power. With one pod operating at 50% output and the other pod running at full power the ship can make a maximum speed of 18 knots versus the 19.5 to 21 knots (depending on sea conditions) with both pods functioning fully.
We typically schedule the ships at 18.5 knots and have the extra power available to counter sea conditions or to further maximize the time in port. We are now scheduling at 17.5 knots with only about .5 knots margin so we were required to make the adjustments that we just released.
The guest in the note mentions the arrival change in Hong Kong. We could actually make the distance between Hong Kong and Shanghai even at the adjusted speed, unfortunately due to heavy traffic the port of Shanghai only allows arrival and departures to take place at slack tide period.
We have order a replacement electric motor for the damaged one but unfortunately it takes 9 months to build it and then another 4 months to install inside the pod housing.
To mitigate the impact of these repairs and not have the ship laid up for 3 to 7 months we have actually order a complete new pod which is currently under construction in France. This new pod will take 16 months to build and 10 days to install so to be safe and to insure we will not be forced to cancel additional cruises; we will change it either immediately after the 2008 Alaska season or in January 2009 prior to the Circle South America voyage.
Once to new pod is install we will ship the damaged pod back to the manufacturer and have it rebuilt and stored in a ready to install state. That way if we have any other problems with the system it will be a mater of days to make the repair rather then a matter of months.
In the meanwhile we have planned the 2008 schedule taking the adjusted speed into consideration so we can maximize the port visits. This speed is the same speed most other ships are scheduled at some when done in advance the adjustments will be fairly minor.
Again thank you for bringing this to my attention and sorry for the long response but there is no quick solution to this issue.
Kindest personal regards,
Mark Â
Mark S. Conroy │ President
