Talk:Baltic Sea ferries

Routemap

I'm wondering: we have maps with (some of) the routes for our high speed rail in China article and similar ones. Would a routemap with maybe additional information like rough travel times and/or companies operating that line do any good? Or would it be a pain in the backside to keep up to date and not be of any real value to anybody at least not relative to the effort? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. A mapframe could perhaps also do, ferry routes show up in dynamic maps if I don't remember wrongly. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean they show up in dynamic maps? Automatically? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. They don't do any longer after a new layer was chosen as default last week. (If you're interested go to Rostock or some other place with ferry routes, open the dynamic map, go to the menu in the upper right corner and pick Mapnik). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just now opening the talk page to basically ask the same question: Can we draw a routemap or something? Of course this is a fool's errand if the routes aren't at least a bit steady... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope

As of now the article is chiefly about ferries in the northern Baltic, in particular between Finland and Sweden. Would be good to have more stuff about the southern Baltics too. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ferries going via Åland rather more common than other routes? For tax and duty free reasons? There are of course various routes to get German RVers faster to their favorite destinations in the Nordic countries (e.g. Rostock to Gedser, the line that will soon be replaced by a fixed link (Putgarden to some point in Denmark) and some of those ferries leaving from Travemünde Skandinavienkai) What would be a good place to research these? The websites of the ferry operators? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, from Finland to Sweden they do, I think Sweden-Estonia ferries also. Åland is like Heligoland, Canary Islands and some others for VAT purposes excluded from the EU (or how it was, WP knows), therefore taxfree sales are allowed on board as the ferries so to speak exit the EU and then re-enter.

I have been a quite a couple of times down to Central Europe by car (not so much in the last couple of years) so I can write at some basic stuff about those ferries, but probably not so many fine details as an average Dane, Scanian or north German. In a nutshell, they are more rudimentary than the cruise ferries up here which is understandable as their passengers are mostly there just for getting across rather than cruising. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Travemünde–Helsinki connection (Finnlines, if memory serves) is mostly for lorries, but some years ago they tried to get also families on board. I do not know if they succeeded, but if so, they are a good alternative for some to get to Finland (spending a day at sea instead of in a train or on the road in Sweden). This connection, like the Naantali–Norrtälje one, is very different from the floating shopping/entertainment behemoths primarily described by the article. There is adequate service (restaurant, bar, reading room, children's corner, sauna) but nothing spectacular, and no choice of venues. A good book or two recommended (when I did the trip to Germany, the fog was thick enough to prevent any views but of the nearest waves). --LPfi (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

merge with Cruising the Baltic Sea?

Shouldn't this page and Cruising the Baltic Sea merged into some single page? Looks like there's a lot of overlap between the two pages. --DenisYurkin (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There should not really be much overlap, as the experiences are very different. The cruise ferries on the northern Baltic Sea are indeed used for cruises (in addition to transport), but these last at most two nights and the ports of call are well-known to most cruise passengers. The Finnlines ferries and the like are not cruise ships at all, but roro-ships with some amenities. The ports of call overlap, and some activities offered may be similar, but even if they were described, a link would suffice. LPfi (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How to stick: details on individual connection ferry?

[moved from Talk:Cruising the Baltic Sea]

I am willing to share some practical details on ferry for an individual connection: Tallink between Tallinn and Stockholm. Can it be welcome here? Are there any examples where/how it is can be "stick to", maybe in some other cruise connection in the world? Definitely won't have enough energy for a standalone article (and I'm sure it won't become such for years). --DenisYurkin (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Tallink would belong in the Baltic Sea ferries article, this article is for the American-style "Emperor of the Seas" that sail in Europe in the summer, Caribbean in the winter and take no cars but five times more passengers than Baltic Sea ferries.

I think individual ships should not get their own articles. Also, Baltic Sea ferries are quite similar to each other, and what one will find one ship, one will usually find on any other ship (places to eat and drink, one or two shops which might or might not be tax free, cabins, sometimes sauna and swimming pool, sun deck, playing room for kids). Nevertheless, as you can see, the Baltic Sea ferries articles still needs much more content, so feel welcome to expand it. You can look at the other ferries articles for some guidelines, but these are also quite weak at the moment. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The big Tallink and Viking ferries are indeed similar to each other, as they are in competition for the same passengers, and are transferred from one route to another from time to time. If you write the description in a way that is equally valid for the Serenade from Stockholm to Helsinki or the Amorella from there to Turku, that would be very much welcome in Baltic Sea ferries. Detailing on what deck you find what restaurant is unnecessary, though. Of course some discussion on differences is OK, and things that might be confusing on an individual ferry (or boarding a specific line) might be, too. Some practicalities might fit better in the Get in sections of the port cities.

Then, in the Baltic Sea ferries article we have the ferries to Germany, and those are quite different beasts, and the true roro ferries e.g. between Kapellskär and Naantali. My experiences are limited, but I think we should do more to describe the different classes of ferries – which should be quite easy to do in that this article (while Ferries cover too many different types).

(This section should probably at some point be moved to Talk:Baltic Sea ferries.)

--LPfi (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done publishing the edits I was planning to; moved the discussion to Talk:Baltic Sea ferries. --DenisYurkin (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine. --LPfi (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a map?

Please?

The links aren't nearly exact enough...

25 years since the sinking of M/S Estonia

This morning 25 years ago, the biggest maritime disaster in post-war Europe happened in the Baltic Sea, when the passenger ship Estonia sank halfway between Tallinn and Stockholm. Out of almost 1000 passengers and crew, only 137 survived. Disturbing radio traffic from the last moments of the ship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8 :( --Ypsilon (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Safety of roro ships

I have heard from multiple sources that there are certain inherent design characteristics of roro ships that make them much more prone to capsizing and that such were issues in many of the greatest peacetime maritime disasters, including MS Estonia, Herald of Free Enterprise, Sewol, Le Joola and many others. Should this article discuss this issue in any greater detail? And should we perhaps give hints how to avoid roro ships if that's what our readers decide to do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope the problems were mostly solved after the Estonia disaster. The worst problems were the large open areas on the vehicle deck(s) and a bow visor with locks much weaker than the hull. Ordinary roro ships often have no bow visor, but are loaded from aft only. Seranade and Symphony have bow ports opening to the sides instead of a visor, which should be much safer, and an independent watertight port inside the visor is now required (the bow ramp of Estonia was tied to the visor and lost with it). The open areas were made smaller by building walls as dividers (quite weak, somebody said, but probably constructed to withstand the nominal loads of water).

Safety practices are another matter. It is hard to believe a disaster was needed to get rid of the weaknesses even in the safety conscious Nordic countries. The bow visor locks that broke had been repaired many times on other ferries, without ever been made substantially stronger – and the analysis of the disaster report showed they were bound to break sooner or later in harsh weather, there just were no safety margins. The mathematical models and computing power necessary to compute the loads were not available at the time of construction and nobody bothered to try to compute an upper bound – and the calculations were not checked or remade by the classification society when the route changed to the main basin of the Baltic. A report I read about the Three Mile Island accident also underlined that good security culture is what matters, no matter how strict the regulations are.

I suppose the stricter regulations introduced after the disaster would be enough to hinder a similar disaster happening here, but I would be very worried if travelling with a Baltic ropax ferry from the 1970s or 1980s in waters were they still may be used.

--LPfi (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

MV Sewol sank in South Korea after MS Estonia did. MV Le Joola sank in 2002. Granted, that was in Africa, but there seem to still be unresolved issues with roro ships, mostly that they are extremely likely to capsize when taking on even a bit of water or having the load shift... And a capsized ship is a lot harder to evacuate than one sinking "straight down"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the main point to be done is already in Ferries#Stay safe:

In some regions with low safety standards or lacking inspections you should, if possible, check the ferry and loading procedures before deciding to use it. Some – or all – ferries may be in bad repair, made for sheltered waters but used on more demanding routes, or simply overloaded. If you cannot avoid such a vessel, at least plan for a catastrophe.

Smaller (non-roro) ships are capsizing all the time because of simple overloading. I though that was the main issue when writing the quoted safety advice. Perhaps the advice should not be restricted to some countries.

Roro ships at least over here are required to tolerate half a metre of water rolling around on the vehicle deck. That sounds plenty, given it is above the waterline, but I don't know what is realistic. Did the mentioned ships have the improvements made? What happened to them?

--LPfi (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Sinking of MV Sewol. Illegal modifications, too heavy load (above the waterline, I suppose), too little ballast. It does not seem to be a plain roro issue, although badly secured loads may be more common on them. --LPfi (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

One issue is that roro ships more or less by necessity carry their load above the waterline, while "ordinary" freighters (bulk carriers) have less of their hull above the water, and thus the centre of gravity near or below the waterline. But this is an issue shared with many ordinary passenger ships (and container ships). --LPfi (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP article has a section on the inherent issues, including the w:Free surface effect Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It says little more than just that. The free surface issue should be handled by the 0.5 m requirement, unless more water enters in some fashion. I don't know whether that amount was decided through some real analysis or just as a number out of the sleeve. --LPfi (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with credit cards?

The article says "both Viking and Tallink have trouble accepting international credit cards". Is this based on a single incident? A rare-over-here card? I have a hard time believing that those big companies would have more trouble than businesses in general. –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Lorries or trucks?

@Hobbitschuster:

In general we use British English for European destinations, such as the Baltic Sea. "Lorries" was however changed to "trucks" because "'truck is a loanword in many non-English languages. 'Lorry' sounds like a mining term outside a small misty island way past its prime".

It is about roll-on roll-off freight, here mostly with own engine (not trailers loaded by stevedores). I have supposed "lorry" is the word to use. Can "truck" be used in British English in this sense? Is "lorry" not understood outside the UK (other than by those who have specifically studied British English)?

The loanword argument is moot, as e.g. in Swedish "truck" is a vehicle used in warehouses, not on public roads. The misty island argument is also moot, as else we should not use British English at all over here (except where the UK is concerned).

–LPfi (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)