Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3F7cUFv and use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: ● 7 Days Premium Account ● 250k credits ● Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) ● 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6) Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming Portal.
You do know that world of tanks, world of warships, and world of war planes are all created by a Belarusian company. Belarusia is under heavy sanctions right now, I'm not sure how the creators of world of tanks is paying for this....
@@montecorbit8280 wargaming has spun their belarussian and russian assets off, effectively exiting those countries and no longer being associated with anything that happens there
Underwater bridge. You'll say that makes no sense but it's a trade-off where you sacrifize some visibility for the chance to occasionally see a pretty cool fish.
Another benefit with an underwater bridge is all the savings, no doors obviously, and no window wipers, and with the opportunity to see an occasional fish the sailors will accept a lower salary
An additional factor with cruise ships is light pollution. Passengers want to have a midnight buffet and dance party, and having that in front of an aft bridge would make safe navigation and watch keeping impossible regardless of height or other factors. The fore bridge is very well protected from these visual distractions.
Whew, I had to read this twice to notice the subtle difference in the word light between its common meaning like slight, little or minor, and what was meant here, the pollution of emitted light from light sources like light bulbs, flood light or fairy lights. Good point.
@Beach Bum it is quite a big issue. Commonly on cruise ships that have cabins directly above and below the navigation bridge, they all come with a requirement to use blackout curtains during a specified time during the night. That way there is no chance of light bleeding into the bridge itself. A good example is the panoramic cabins on a ship such as Freedom of the Seas. Another is the solarium on the Oasis class ships. Its positioned directly above the bridge and runs with minimal red lighting at night to avoid that problem.
one person mentioned red light - it is used because dim red light does not cause eyes to adjust so quickly to bright light (and "switch off" the night mode where more sensitive rods are active (greyscale). Cones (which provide colour vision) are less sensitive.
@@peter2346 exactly! Thats also why cruise ship navigation bridges are as close to the front as possible, so the passenger areas can be fully lit at all hours. Thats also why if you observe a military or industrial ship, at night they are near totally dark besides several beacon lights, or minimal lighting in specific places.
Exactly, I have the same comment. My old dad was a merchant marine Captain. When I was a kid we went to sea with him. At night the bridge is unlit (maybe some dim red light areas) as the bridge officers / crew have to maintain observation, no lights can be in front of the bridge. On a passenger ship that means being a the front. In fact I'd say that is the main reason the bridge is located there, it wouldn't be possible to have haapy passengers if they all had a blackout! I was surprised the video didn't mention this.
@@m1co294 They didn't need an entire funnel stack for that. It was just for show, however one of the cooks onboard had to be grateful for it. He drank a bunch of brandy as the ship was going down, figuring he was dead. He ended up getting saved because the force of the air being pushed out of the ship by the water coming in shot him out of that funnel to the surface. Apparently the brandy he had drank kept him from freezing to death in the water and he managed to get out into either one of the boats or some wreckage.
Up until the 1970’s, ships on the north american great lakes had both aft and forward deck houses. It was a traditional design that was advantageous for it’s heightened visability among other things. The aft deckhouse would house the galley and the engine room workers while the forward housed would house the deck crew, officers, and captain. In the 1970’s advances in radar technology and the demand for more cargo capacity caused everything to be moved aft like on ocean ships. Interestingly due to the longevity of freshwater ships quite a few of the older forward bridge design boats are still in active service.
Yes, I live aboard my vessel an have worked on many different vessels as cook.. an this channel is brilliant... When my family worries about me I send links to your channel.. so they can learn. As well as several other channels.. I feel it's easier their questions an worry.... The more you kno.. right! ✌🏼💗😊❣️
It's not only about seeing the sails, but also trimming the sails, which can only be done aft of the mast. Also, the bow of a sail boat is very fine and is always pitching, so it would be all but impossible to helm from the bow on a sub 60 foot yacht that isn't automated.
I have absolutely no connection to ships or boats (except for the occasional ferry once in a decade or so) and I still love your content. You make this topic very engaging and extremely informative. Thank you and keep on keeping on :) edit: spelling
Same here, bro! And I remember the first video I watched on this channel was about the name of the bridge and where it comes from. Ever since them from a recommended to recommended I have watched all of the channel videos despite I am not interested in boats, ships cruises and anything sea related whatsoever. Amazing channel.
Same. If you like these videos, Chief Makoi has some great videos on life at sea. He's the chief engineer on a bulk cargo ship. His insights on seafaring are a great companion to Casual Navigation's technical videos. ruclips.net/user/ChiefMAKOi
@@majortom4543 He probably means he's not studying to become a ship captain. I'm in college, in computer science, yet here I am because I am also interested by ships
I binge watched all the Pirates of The Caribbean movies 3x each a few weeks ago, and I've never seen the Ocean. . . .I know how you feel. I'm obsessed with the idea of being a Sailor for a few years and seeing the Sea. There's some really good RUclips videos about people vlogging their lives living on a boat or a sailboat or a houseboat. It's a really amazing way to live and very possible to do. Even some people who just stick to shores and inland rivers in America or Europe etc on small DIY houseboats. Also the band Alestorm and Assassin's Creed Black Flag have really good Pirate Music :) ⚔️☠️🚣♂️
I spent 30 years as an officer on merchant ships and have worked on many types of ships. American container ships used to place the engines at the stern but the bridge all the way up at the bow. Not only did one have to keep a close eye on what was happening behind while maneuvering and taking turns, but the bridge was very uncomfortable in rough weather. Waves frequently would break over the bridge in heavy weather, and sometimes the bridge windows actually would become stove in. We actually carried pre-out wooden pieces on the bridge to cover the broken window panes. I often thought that the only reason that the ships were designed that way was so that the crew would provide a breakwater to protect the cargo, which the shipowners regarded as a higher priority than the safety or comfort of the crew. LASH ships also had the bridge at the bow, but that was for a different reason. LASH ships loaded and discharged their cargo in barges over their sterns, and required a clear run all the way from the bow to the stern for their massive gantry crane. Over the years the container ships began to carry more and more containers by stacking them higher and higher above the deck. That seriously obstructed visibility from the bridge on those container ships with their bridge installed aft. As a result, it was not uncommon for many of the older container ships to have their bridges cut off and then re-installed on a newly-installed platform so that it was a couple of decks higher. I sailed on several container ships where that had been done.
I want to add: According to IMO (International Maritime Organisation) ANY ship must be constructed so the commanding crew has free visibility in less than 500m in front of it's bow. As an explanation to the nice drawings.
I sailed a number of ships with the accommodation in the fwd and I always hated it: noise. On the dredger I woke up from the dredge pipe being lifted and lowered. On the cargo and heavy lift ships the pitching of the ship kept me from sleeping, especially when the waves actually lifted the anchors in their shafts. Another disadvantage is the the greater movement of the ship when pitching: one will become seasick easier in the fwd than in the aft. I was quite immune for seasickness, but after a few days without proper sleep, almost everything becomes nasty...
Don't, under any conditions, accept service aboard a WWII American Destroyer. Having a forward berth is an 'E' ticket ride even in relative smooth seas.
The classic cargo vessel of the early 20th century had the bridge in the middle - the so-called "3 island ship" with a forecastle, deckhouse amidships, and sterncastle. This later got moved aft both as a more efficient use of space, and to make the propeller shaft shorter (which solved some maintenance and vibration problems).
I do wonder regarding Great Lakers. They seem to use either a forward brige like the Arthur M. Anderson, or aft bridge like the James R. Barker. They're bulk carriers, but with the brige at a different end of the ship
The classic laker lines was first designed in the 1860s when the R.J hackett was built. The first ones were converted passenger steamers who couldn’t turn a profit (think converted freighters for aircraft) and it was easier to produce for those times. They decided to stick with it because it improves visibility and hearing. It stopped in 1974 with the Algosoo
I wonder too if it was changed over time as loading/unloading changed. Many modern ones are self-unloaders so that may have different space requirements?
I think it mainly comes down to technologies like radar rendering the visibility afforded by the forward pilothouse unnecessary. It's safer and more efficient to have all the crew spaces close together. Lake freighters with the classic layout haven't been built since the 1970s.
A lot of them are different because fresh water ships have longer lifespans than saltwater ones. You’re probably seeing many older designs that haven’t been phased out as there is no need to.
@@cryamistellimek9184 You may be right. A quick search shows the Arthur M. Anderson was built in 1952 (now 70 years old) and James R. Barker in 1976 (so only 46 years old). Both though are a bit 'past their prime' but this happens with 'Lakers'.
It's funny to hear you say: "shiphandling is easier from the stern" - my extensive fwd bridge experience tells me I'm always turning too wide whenever I end up on an aft bridge! I suppose it always comes down to what you're used to!
I guess it is like aiming a gun when you are looking from the back, the long distance to the front is like looking at the front sight of a rifle, while this may be less obvious if you're at the front with no "sights" to look down to. I say this as somebody with zero naval experience so may be completely wrong in my assumption.
Being a former Navy sailor on aircraft carriers, I can say nothing beats a hurricane bow! As for ALL new ships... IMHO, they should ALL be required to have video systems - both for daylight & night vision to assist in navigation, collision avoidance, security (i.e. pirates), man-over board situations, etc. I mean come on, this is the 21st century and camera systems are cheap; especially compared to lawsuit payouts, repairs, etc. As for the cargo & other ships with fantail (I mean stern) bridges... those cameras could be mounted on tall poles on the bow to increase forward visibility by miles; down to right in front of the ship by dozens rather than hundreds of feet.
Even though I live about 1200 miles from the nearest ocean, I am still fascinated by ships: from sail rigged to modern propulsion types. Thanks for your time and help!
I wonder why then that the typical WW2 tanker had her engines at the stern, but the bridge midships? Visibility wouldn't be an issue even then. Was this merely an evolving design or was it possibly linked to the density of the cargo or centre of mass and the limitations of the structural engineering of the day? I just can't work this one out. Does anyone have any ideas? All the best everyone.
The three island ship is typical for cargo ships before the container revolution. Thees had a forecastle, a bridge deck (with funnel and engines) and a poop deck. For oil tankers the engine and funnel moved back into the poop deck, with the bridge remaining amidships. Why that was the predominant bridge position before the aft bridge, I don't know. I have found some indication that it evolved on large cargo sailing ships, where visibility from the aft end would have been poor.
There's another reason why the bridge is set in the back for sailing ships- the captain and helmsperson have an easier ability to see directly what the sails and masts are doing.
Fascinating. This actually made me think of how sci fi ships are designed. Specifically Imperial Class Star Destroyers. Bridge sits above the engines at the back of the ship with the main hangar opening from the bottom amidships. Now of course Star Wars is a not very realistic space opera but it's interesting how the designers kept that same design philosophy even though Star Destroyers are warships not cargo vessels and actual warships have the bridge at the front or middle of the ship (thinking in terms of like battleships, cruisers or destroyers).
As an inexperienced and ignorant boat builder, I suggest the bridge to be integrated flush with the bow of the ship. Make it the emergency module too so when it’s time to abandon ship, the bow of the ship will detach and sail off safely.
I imagine another reason bridges at the front could become more common in the future is with increasing navigation technology taking away that aft advantage. Cars can give you what looks like top down view for parking, something similar must be possible on ships.
This had me thinking about why Lakers have their bridge at the bow like The Edmund Fitzgerald? I would absolutely love a video discussing anything about the ships of The Great Lakes.
You missed the bridge crews ability to monitor nearly the entire length of the ship for issues such as fire, cargo slippage etc. Even if a fire isn't visible the smell would be more likely to drift to the bridge, alerting any crew who have a window open or are outside.
@@tsm688 my experience is that the bridge usually has a wall with no windows behind the forward facing windshield. Usually because there are more rooms behind the wall. The design could be changed to have windows on both sides, but usually the direction of view is forward.
I don't live near the coast, but out of the EU inland ships (freighters and tankers) here on the river, 99.9% have their bridge and accomodation compartments at the stern as well. The only exception that I know of are three "Ecotankers" which have it at the bow. The reason: They're powered by gas turbines, the typical floor plan didn't work well with that. Fuel tanks needing more space etc. You can always tell these ships apart from the others, they almost look like something out of No Man's Sky.
Most inland ships follow the same designs as ocean going ships. Cargo, the bridge is at the rear. Passenger, the bridge is at the front. For smaller private vessels, helm at the rear is very common, same as many smaller private ocean going vessels. Very small craft as well as some traditional larger craft (pretty much anything with sails, but also some motor boats) still use a rear tiller. Forward steering positions tend to be used when it's desired to keep height to a minimum (for example low bridges) which would restrict visibility from an enclosed aft steering position, but an enclosed or partially enclosed steering position is desired for comfort. Where headroom is particularly restricted, they also have a safety advantage. Like with large ocean going cargo ships, central steering positions are also often used on larger vessels as a compromise (usually on boats designed to sleep fairly large numbers of people, since providing all the accommodation forward of the steering position would restrict forward visibility too much). For inland waterways, passenger designs can be a compromise too. As with cruise ships there is a desire to maximise visibility for passenger accommodation, but due to height and width restrictions this can clash with navigation visibility (the simple solution of "stick the bridge where it needs to be and stick passenger accommodation above it" doesn't usually work, and bridge wings are rarely an option). Often the top passenger accommodation and the steering position will be on the same level. Where heights are particularly limited, boats will be entirely on one level. One simple solution is the use of wing mirrors to allow a view aft, and more modern or updated vessels can also have cameras. Private boats designs for both inland and ocean use will often have twin steering positions, one open at the rear for tight manoeuvring and one enclosed towards the front for on the open sea.
You forgot North American great lakers with the bridge in the front take the CSL laker Frontenac, Algoma's John D Leitch. the ships that you described are ocean going. During the first and second world wars the ships that saved GB were mostly lakers from Canada and the USA. You cannot forget those class of ships even if they are a dying breed. I personally love the house up front and galley and engine room back aft.
Large passenger ships and the like also often include some form of auxiliary steering at the stern. Especially if they are stern-loading ferries and the like that have to back into docking area. Just wanted to mention that. Love the videos.
On the Estonia, the bridge was on the font of the ship and yet they didn't see that the entire front articulating shield had been torn clean off and water was being taken in. lol.
Having begun my career at sea in 1961, at a time when most cargo ships, even bulk carriers, had the officers', crew accommodations and messrooms midship as well as the engine room, which of course left a large shaft tunnel protruding into the aft cargo spaces.
The first oil tankers I sailed on had the bridge and officers’ quarters amidships, the all aft configuration came later. In a heavy storm we had to time our run to the engine room between waves to not get soaked or worse.
Well now you're going to have to explain those Alaskan crab boats like on Deadliest Catch. After all, most of them put the house at the rear, but you do have the Northwestern with the house at the front. (Though there are very good reasons to have the house at the stern simply because you can easily view both the desk crew and the path ahead. The Northwestern has to use CCTV cameras to be able to view what's happening on deck). On the other hand, the crew of the Northwestern are shielded from the worst of the weather, which is terrible when you go crab fishing (winter on the Bering Sea).
This is a big bone of contention within science fiction circles: where to put the bridge on starships. If you have enough feeds and screens you could put the bridge in the middle of the ship, below decks. Starships don't have people going outside to perform duties all day long like wet vessels though and there is a big gap between theory and practice. Ships soon may be routinely deploying drones for an aerial view of manoeuvres or become drones themselves in which case the "bridge" could be on land thousands of miles away. That said, I am sure crews do a lot more than just "drive the boat".
Most modern warships are already commanded from an operations room deep in the bowels of the ship, since tactics are dictated by radar and other sensors, not by what you can actually see. You only need a bridge for docking or replenishment from tankers etc.
Being from the Great Lakes region, where freighter bridges tend toward the bow, I had wondered why most other freighters put them toward the back. I guess the big question then, is why great lakes freighters tend toward the bow? Granted the lakes are probably calmer in general (until they aren't).
Actually the Great Lakes can suffer far worse waves than many parts of the open ocean. Wave energy runs from the surface right down to the bottom, which concentrates as waves move into shallower water. You see this as waves enter a surf zone. Waves in bad weather are worse over continental shelves and in shallow areas such as the Barents Sea… and the Great Lakes. The mitigating factor is that tropical cyclones are extremely rare on the lakes. If the weather was as bad on the lakes, the conditions would be horrifying.
I've found that most cargo ships have the bridge amidship with cargo areas front and back. It is mainly ore and oil tankers that have their bridges at the stern. Passenger ships have their bridge at the front because there is really nowhere else to put it and it has the bonus of filtering out all of the bright deck lights. Only the Great Lakes ore carriers break from the norm, with superstructure at the rear as is usual but the bridge is plonked right on the bow.
On the Great Lakes, you will see ships with their bridge on the bow. They are becoming less common as they are generally older vessels and some are going to the breakers yard, but they are still pretty common on the Great Lakes
The location of the bridge depends on the type of ship and what it is build for. stability and making it easier to navigate for different reasons, Container ships have their bridge in the center. Ofshore vessels Tug boast heavy lift ships their bridge as far forward as posible . Different bridges for different needs.
The bridge in future ships will be below the waterline because it allows for easy cooling of the AI computer core which is running the ship, and not obsolete meat processors.
@Casual Navigation, having bridge forward and engines aft is a safety feature. The largest correlation between accidents offshore is tied to lack of REM sleep. Despite technology meant to dampen vibration, the engines below crew quarters inhibit restful sleep. Placing the crew quarters forward away from the engines result in reduced accidents.
Something I'll admit that I'm surprised by is the fact that you didn't mention the bow mounted bridges of the Great Lakes steamers, which I imagine was done for safety concerns due to boiler explosions. As for where it'll be, I imagine bow bridges may become more common if nuclear power becomes more common, primarily for safety against radiation. They may also offer more protection for the ship in event of a rogue wave but that never helped a number of ships.
I always assumed it was because Lakers deal with rivers and locks, that especially in the past were very busy with boat traffic, so a forward bridge gave needed visibility. But radar and better control has made this less an issue in modern designs.
Nuclear propulsion for civilian ships is completely dead. They need a large security detail while in harbor, hosting nations have to give permission to dock and insurance is high. Also a lot of safety features of modern nuclear reactors, like a core catcher or Filtered Containment Venting Systems are incompatible with the space limitations on a ship.
@@kilianortmann9979 With the rare exception of nuclear icebreakers. And, given how vulnerable an ecosystem the Northern Sea Route is, maybe the future will see long trains of unpowered barges, driven by distributed nuclear-powered tugs, with an icebreaker at the head end. That would require huge political changes in Russia, though.
One additional advantage of having a superstructure at the back is increased directional stability. It has a similar effect to the arrow on the weather vane.
The question of future designs moving the bridge forward and the impacts on visibility - I could see all this evolving rapidly with modern technology making visibility less relevant, as crews could have whatever view they want using cameras and monitors. Potentially could get by without having windows at all - I've heard of this proposed for airplanes. Sort of like how all new cars have backup cameras and rear visibility on most new cars is terrible compared with older vehicles. Distance from the engines would also become a lesser concern as engines become more automated and more reliable, wouldn't need to have crews in the engine room as much. Of course both of these suggest the next step beyond this would be to not have crews at all, ships be autonomous and/or remotely controlled - autonomous for the open-ocean portions of their journey, remotely controlled by a local pilot familiar with the harbor or port for the harbor.
Canal boats (narrow boats ) are controlled from the stern . This makes sense as you stand , with your tiller on a deck above the engine. The down side is that you alternately bake freeze or are wet. I recently saw one that had a forward steering arrangement. There was also a spacious open deck area above the accommodation and it carried a small car on the back. The owner said it took some getting used to but gave much better forward view but relied on his crew (wife) to signal (shout) if the rear was about to hit anything. Overall it did look like a good idea.
I think visibility will become less of a factor with cameras creeping up everywhere. We already have them at the back of the car. We only have back-view mirrors out of tradition. It would be much more efficient to have cameras and monitors instead. This will happen to ships, too. Because putting a few cameras at a place and running a fiber glass cable through the whole ship will cost like 1k, which will be dwarfed by every change that allows the ship to load just one additional container.
My only experience is on cruise ships but I did get to tour the bridge on one. The visibility was quite remarkable for such a large vessel. The overhangs allow you to see all but the very backside, which of course is covered by cameras. What impressed me the most however was the Captain and Crew. I don't know what I was expecting but it sure wasn't military like appearance and precision. They were absolute professionals and instilled great confidence. The Captain was very accommodating but at the same time I got the sense he was not a man to be trifled with. It didn't help that he was a perfect replication of Liam Neeson. The Bridge was dark and quiet with minimalistic controls. A peaceful place that seemed far away from the hustle and bustle of the rest of the ship. I now sleep better on cruises knowing the type of people that are in control.
prediction for the future: no bridge superstructure, use of LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR (mainly for use in ports probably) and cameras with AI assistance. bridge will be contained within the main structure wherever there is space or even managed from onshore through the use of a combination of satelite communication and higher levels of automation. honestly wouldn't be surprised if ships had no crew whatsoever in 10 to 20 years.
Another reason for having the bridge forward on ships with exceptionally large cargo is that you can have the cargo hanging over the stern. You can't have cargo hanging over the forecastle.
There are some points missing that I would like to mention. My company mostly builds new ships with accommodation forward and this is for reasons not stated in the video. Ship's are Gas Tankers. Accommodation forward provides better weight distribution of a Light Ship which allows to make significantly smaller ballast tanks forward (Forepeak etc.). Also the space above forward manoeuvring stations is used for crews accommodation which leave more space for cargo behind. In aft position accommodation there is no point of putting it more to aft as we are limited by the engine anyways. That is not a thing in fwd accommodations. They are move as far as practical possible. Another benefit is that this better weight distribution and less ballasts required contributes to significantly smaller drafts in comparison with vessels of similar class with accommodation aft. This means vessel can visit bigger variety of ports. Unfortunately crew convinience matters are not really taken into consideration but it is understandable if company wants to be competitive in the market. Negative sides are: Lifeboats are located on the aft and in case of emergency crew have to pass almost 300 meters to reach it. Because of smaller drafts vessel is rolling heavier. Each anchoring means a wake up for all crew as the sound is extremely loud. Example of the vessel: MT GASCHEM ORCA
But why swing them into the cargo. Many relevant bridges allow enough height to either keep them up or make other arrangements for particularly low bridges.
These Offshore operations vessel have very good visibility all around the bridge and they have controls also on the rear of the bridge, so they can operate easily on either direction.
I would expect nowadays or in the near future, ships will have/do have GPS, cameras, Radar, Sonar all around. So the captain might work from home (his or her cabin) using large monitors and a joystick. Ships probably also have autopilot keeping the ship on course, avoiding obstacles like other ships. It’s park sensors will probably allow automatic parking in ports, what might be much faster and saver than a human ever could be. Long sentence short, those ships could become drones operating mostly autonomously with a control operator monitoring the ship from thousands of miles away.
I love how a big chunk of your comment section is: "I don't really have anything to do with ships at all. But now I'm binging every video of yours." I am one of them
My dad was a captain for United States Steel, and I grew up spending a lot of time on ore boats on the Great Lakes. The boats I grew up on all had the pilot houses on the forward end, and it was that way until USS built the 1000 footers, the Edgar Spear and Edwin Gott. While I see advantages of having everything at the stern, to me it would be like driving your car from the back seat, not being able to clearly see the front of your car. I would see that as a disadvantage especially when locking through the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, something normally done twice per trip, once upbound and once downbound. I do admit, I really miss the appearance of a forward pilot house and accommodations.
I have a quick question. How do the cargo containers stay on the ship? Do they tie down each individual crate or something? If one falls off do more follow like a domino affect?
Long time viewer first time commenter. I really appreciate the high quality animations, consistent upload schedule, and vast information you provide. I haven't even seen the ocean with my own eyes but I do love to learn about the many engineering problems of the world. Thank you.
Titanic also had a small bridge at the stern. If you've seen images of the Titanic's bridge you will see 5 telegraphs. From Left to Right 1: Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph 2: Port and starboard docking order and starboard steering order 3: Backup Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph 4: Port and starboard advisory Engine Order Telegraph 5: Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph Telegraphs 2 and 4 connected to this stern bridge and were used to communicate orders from the main bridge.
Why did older ships like the white star ships have large overhead cables between the masts over the funnels. Was this purely for strength or was it’s main purpose to provide lighting protection?
Newer ships are build in blocks (ala Lego). The Bridge, Crew Accomodation, Engine, and so on of a freighter are usually build in a single block. The interiors were already furnished before they assembled the blocks.
I always thought the people on Sig Hansen’s ship were crazy. Every other crab boat has an aft bridge. You would probably be dead if you fell overboard anyway but with a bridge at the bow the captain would never see you go over.
Realistically if you go overboad in anything but slick calm on a sunny day in warm water you arent likely to be found. So going overboard off Alaska at night in seas 12 to 14 feet and 38 degree water the boat may as well keep on going. Maybe if you have a personal EPIRB you may have a chance...maybe..
On some ships, the Bridge is put somewhere around the middle, generally in between turreted 16 inch guns. Admittedly, battleships aren't used that much anymore, but they do still put out a presence, even if a ship that's a quarter it's cost can easily sink it.
Civilian stuff tends toward the stern (except for passenger ships), but what fascinates me is naval vessels having their bridges all over the place. Some forward, some more toward the stern, some almost center mounted, with aircraft carriers offset to the left or right on top of everything else... And so on.
So, aircraft carriers (the offset to the side ones) are there because they're pulling double-duty. The actual bridge, and the flight control tower. That's also why they're so tall above the superstructure. Flight radar and communication systems need the height for signal and visibility.
When I was a young lad I worked on commercial fishing boats. Wheel house at the front guaranteed being bounced around and puking for days on end unless the trawl nets were out. Wheel house at the back was immensely more comfortable. There was no comparison.
An ex Second Officer here. It's all simply because of the ship's stability and structural integrity calculations. Nothing less, nothing more. People often forgot that the ocean itself gives HUGE pressure on the ship's hull (Third Newton Law), so to minimize the pressure, the ship must distribute all of it as evenly as possible. That's the first important point. The second one is that the design must allow the ship to be as "even keel" as possible in any voyage condition, laden or ballast. Here's how those two work; let's say you want to carry bulk cargo, put the bridge at the aft. Bulk cargo is stored inside the hull, so you'd get a clear view on what's ahead of you. But why not putting it at the fore, you might ask. Because the superstructure is damn heavy, almost as heavy as the engine compartment. If you put two heavy objects on a polar opposite of a stick, it will be bent. It's called hogging and extreme hogging would cause a ship to break in two, taking many lives onboard. Way too many cases happened (and sadly are still happening) because of this. So that's why you put the engine compartment AND the superstructure of any bulk cargo (liquid, gas, or solid) carriers at the aft.
On a sailing boat, you constantly need to monitor the sails, so you don't want to turn your back on them. On a larger sailing vessel, the skipper doesn't control all the sails themself, but need to monitor the crew. On big ships, any maneuver requires carefully coordinated work by dozens of sailors performing specific tasks, perfectly timed. The commander of the ship need to work from a location from wich they can have this essential overview.
Failing to properly account for the pivot point is what sank the Costa Concordia. Models showed that if they had accounted for that, the ship would have missed the rocks. So it can go wrong there.
One additional consideration is the vertical movement of the stern vs the bow while underway. In heavy seas, the bow experiences larger vertical movements than the stern. Crew stationed at the bow would experience more fatigue. Admittedly this is more of a concern for smaller vessels. Very large (and heavily cargoed) vessels would have really large rotational inertia, so the bow upthrust would not be as extreme. But the fact remains that the center of gravity (and hence the moment) of all boats is aft.
The bridge on cargo ships are placed at the back to also prevent blind spots when spotting pirates as you have a 180° view of the entire deck no need to run around and find them. Also detection of problems in cargo(especially dangerous cargo) is easy to detect this way as you're always looking forward and not having other people to do it for you
I have also wondered about that, but others comments have solved the prob. Something I have questioned is why, on passenger ships, don't the designers blow the exhaust gases out the stern under water, one it would help propulsion, and more important as any cruisers will tell you, it would prevent passengers getting plastered with diesel exhaust particles.!
Kudos for the three smoking funnels and one fake. Now about sailing yachts - cockpit at the rear, but blooming massive sails blocking forward vision and quite a bit of the side vision too to lee - the fast ferries in The Solent run by Red Funnel are notorious and have the dented hulls to prove it!
Another important point to note is, what cargo the ship is carrying! For example, if it is transporting hazardous gases that can be life treating the bridge would be at the front of the ship. If a tank was to get a leak the gases would blow away instead of directly into the bridge (if it was located aft) when the ship is underway.
Oh really? Because to me it seems that all the gas tankers have the bridge in stern. And that problem could be overcome by 1) keeping the damn windows closed 2) air vents located so that those hazardous gases wouldn't get it.
I would put the bridge underwater. That way you can see dangerous rocks, submarines and such like and thus avoid collisions. Also if the propeller falls off you'd realise straight away why the ship has stopped moving despite being under full power. It's an absolutely genius idea, I'm amazed no one has thought of it before.
I notice that in the early days of iron and steel ships, up until the end of WWII, the bridge and engines are in the center. How did that affect sailing, navigation, safety, etc.? Also when and who did the change? Oh, and to answer your question on where I'd put the bridge, I'll take a queue from the freight railroads of the US, of which I'm more familiar. I'd place it in an office in a smaller, nautical oriented city, like Newport VA (or Bristol UK).
For me the best position is on the stern. Makes manoeuvering so much more convinient. But I must add: according to a lot of my friends working on pax-vessels you eventually get used to it. I'd like to try some of the more modern designs, but I suppose to do so you should rather become a pilot 😅 Great vid, please continue your great work 👍
Traditional warships have the bridge as part of a massive midship structure. The new stealth ships have the bridge forward. Most navy service boats have the bridge forward. I’ve never seen a military vessel with the bridge aft. Except for: military cargo ships, merchant marine, and hospital ships (which are converted freighters).
Combination of needing height already for the fire control system, so why not put the conning tower there as well, and the desire to make it so that a single salvo of shells aimed at the bridge can't normally take out the bridge and something like the engineering spaces
The British Nelson-class Battleships had the superstructure and bridge aft, with the main armament all in front of the bridge. They were derisively called "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" due to resembling oil tankers, but their compact layout meant they could pack some serious firepower and armor into 35 thousand tons.
@@gargravarr2 Their all forward armament and aft superstructure helps them get to that 35k tons, along with some creative use of "boiler water" to work around the Washington Treaty (IMO if they would have left out the conning tower, as the KGVs, refit QEs, and Vanguard all did, and put that weight to the turrets, they would have been less trouble early in their careers). However they were no jokes, Rodney did punch straight through Bismarck's Bruno turret and conning tower, as well as possibly land the only battleship vs. battleship torpedo hit in battle, after overclocking the worn out engines to get there, and dodging Bismarck's return salvos.
Most of the large cargo ships on the Great Lakes traditionally have the bridge forward , and have had that since the steam engine arrived. And then there are all the cargo and tanker ships that were called “two midship” boats ( two separate superstructures with one or two small hatches between them ) When the very large steel sailing ships came along, like the 4 and 5 masted barques and full rigged ships, we quite often see a navigation bridge being erected about midships. And they looked like a real bridge too.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3F7cUFv and use the code TANKMANIA to get for free:
● 7 Days Premium Account
● 250k credits
● Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5)
● 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M
(Tier 6)
Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video.
The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming
Portal.
World of Warships should've sponsored this video instead
@@oceangrunge7139 yeah lol, or Legends
Maybe because there was no mention of warships, and ships that carry tanks are similar to car carriers?
You do know that world of tanks, world of warships, and world of war planes are all created by a Belarusian company. Belarusia is under heavy sanctions right now, I'm not sure how the creators of world of tanks is paying for this....
@@montecorbit8280 yeah Wargaming, they made an announcement not long ago that they were moving their HQ out of there
@@montecorbit8280 wargaming has spun their belarussian and russian assets off, effectively exiting those countries and no longer being associated with anything that happens there
Underwater bridge. You'll say that makes no sense but it's a trade-off where you sacrifize some visibility for the chance to occasionally see a pretty cool fish.
You don't get good fish in harbours or out in the oceans :(
Thanks for the chuckles.☺👍
I needed it today.
Yeah, works perfect on submarines
Another benefit with an underwater bridge is all the savings, no doors obviously, and no window wipers, and with the opportunity to see an occasional fish the sailors will accept a lower salary
The downside is the limited visibility distance, the inability to see objects on or above the surface, and the potential for flooding.
An additional factor with cruise ships is light pollution. Passengers want to have a midnight buffet and dance party, and having that in front of an aft bridge would make safe navigation and watch keeping impossible regardless of height or other factors. The fore bridge is very well protected from these visual distractions.
Whew, I had to read this twice to notice the subtle difference in the word light between its common meaning like slight, little or minor, and what was meant here, the pollution of emitted light from light sources like light bulbs, flood light or fairy lights.
Good point.
@Beach Bum it is quite a big issue. Commonly on cruise ships that have cabins directly above and below the navigation bridge, they all come with a requirement to use blackout curtains during a specified time during the night. That way there is no chance of light bleeding into the bridge itself.
A good example is the panoramic cabins on a ship such as Freedom of the Seas. Another is the solarium on the Oasis class ships. Its positioned directly above the bridge and runs with minimal red lighting at night to avoid that problem.
one person mentioned red light - it is used because dim red light does not cause eyes to adjust so quickly to bright light (and "switch off" the night mode where more sensitive rods are active (greyscale). Cones (which provide colour vision) are less sensitive.
@@peter2346 exactly! Thats also why cruise ship navigation bridges are as close to the front as possible, so the passenger areas can be fully lit at all hours.
Thats also why if you observe a military or industrial ship, at night they are near totally dark besides several beacon lights, or minimal lighting in specific places.
Exactly, I have the same comment. My old dad was a merchant marine Captain. When I was a kid we went to sea with him. At night the bridge is unlit (maybe some dim red light areas) as the bridge officers / crew have to maintain observation, no lights can be in front of the bridge. On a passenger ship that means being a the front. In fact I'd say that is the main reason the bridge is located there, it wouldn't be possible to have haapy passengers if they all had a blackout! I was surprised the video didn't mention this.
I love the detail of the "Titanic" only making smoke from the 3 real chimneys.
Yeah, that was a cool detail. Noticed it too.
@@rasmuslundback8347 The main reason for extra chimney was for show. The public associated more chimneys with more speed.
Funnels not chimneys
@@Ozymandias1 the 4th funnel actually had a purpose and it was for miscellaneous smoke ventilation from something like kitchens
@@m1co294 They didn't need an entire funnel stack for that. It was just for show, however one of the cooks onboard had to be grateful for it. He drank a bunch of brandy as the ship was going down, figuring he was dead. He ended up getting saved because the force of the air being pushed out of the ship by the water coming in shot him out of that funnel to the surface. Apparently the brandy he had drank kept him from freezing to death in the water and he managed to get out into either one of the boats or some wreckage.
Up until the 1970’s, ships on the north american great lakes had both aft and forward deck houses. It was a traditional design that was advantageous for it’s heightened visability among other things. The aft deckhouse would house the galley and the engine room workers while the forward housed would house the deck crew, officers, and captain.
In the 1970’s advances in radar technology and the demand for more cargo capacity caused everything to be moved aft like on ocean ships. Interestingly due to the longevity of freshwater ships quite a few of the older forward bridge design boats are still in active service.
EF - RIP
This is true, and they still have a decent amount to forward pilot house boats
These days you see a weird mix of the two!
The SS Arthur M Anderson was launched in '52, and still hauling cargo on the Lakes.
I never realized that I always wondered about this. Thanks for sharing.
Another reason for sailing vessels is that the helmsman needs to see what the sails are doing which is easier from the stern.
True. Plus observing the Crew. The Captain at the Back is to monitor the ship.
Coincidental advantage. The only core reason for doing it it because that's where the tiller is.
Yes, I live aboard my vessel an have worked on many different vessels as cook.. an this channel is brilliant... When my family worries about me I send links to your channel.. so they can learn. As well as several other channels.. I feel it's easier their questions an worry....
The more you kno.. right! ✌🏼💗😊❣️
It's not only about seeing the sails, but also trimming the sails, which can only be done aft of the mast. Also, the bow of a sail boat is very fine and is always pitching, so it would be all but impossible to helm from the bow on a sub 60 foot yacht that isn't automated.
I have absolutely no connection to ships or boats (except for the occasional ferry once in a decade or so) and I still love your content. You make this topic very engaging and extremely informative. Thank you and keep on keeping on :)
edit: spelling
Same here, bro!
And I remember the first video I watched on this channel was about the name of the bridge and where it comes from. Ever since them from a recommended to recommended I have watched all of the channel videos despite I am not interested in boats, ships cruises and anything sea related whatsoever.
Amazing channel.
Same
Same. If you like these videos, Chief Makoi has some great videos on life at sea. He's the chief engineer on a bulk cargo ship. His insights on seafaring are a great companion to Casual Navigation's technical videos.
ruclips.net/user/ChiefMAKOi
@@stanimir5F Nice, I started only a few videos after you "Why are ships so slow?" and have been watching this channel eversince :)
That's ferry nice of you.
A lesson that I will not use in my college. But, I will probably be amazed by ships and navigation because of what I learn from this channel!
All your professors decide to hold the final exam on an island and you have to pilot a ship to get there. :)
If you wont use it in college, then you are in the wrong college, and you are wasting your time. Ships and trains are the backbone.
Given the market saturation you may probably end up not using the college at all, and working on a totally different trade.
@@majortom4543 He probably means he's not studying to become a ship captain. I'm in college, in computer science, yet here I am because I am also interested by ships
This is way more useful than what you will learn in gender studies.
Growing up landlocked makes ships fantasy-like wonders. I love learning about these things
You should learn about trains then, They are also amazing and move the cargo of the ships through land.
I feel the same way living in Colorado about 700 miles (1100 km) from the nearest ocean. I love reading about ships and how they work.
I binge watched all the Pirates of The Caribbean movies 3x each a few weeks ago, and I've never seen the Ocean. . . .I know how you feel. I'm obsessed with the idea of being a Sailor for a few years and seeing the Sea.
There's some really good RUclips videos about people vlogging their lives living on a boat or a sailboat or a houseboat. It's a really amazing way to live and very possible to do. Even some people who just stick to shores and inland rivers in America or Europe etc on small DIY houseboats.
Also the band Alestorm and Assassin's Creed Black Flag have really good Pirate Music :) ⚔️☠️🚣♂️
I spent 30 years as an officer on merchant ships and have worked on many types of ships. American container ships used to place the engines at the stern but the bridge all the way up at the bow. Not only did one have to keep a close eye on what was happening behind while maneuvering and taking turns, but the bridge was very uncomfortable in rough weather. Waves frequently would break over the bridge in heavy weather, and sometimes the bridge windows actually would become stove in. We actually carried pre-out wooden pieces on the bridge to cover the broken window panes. I often thought that the only reason that the ships were designed that way was so that the crew would provide a breakwater to protect the cargo, which the shipowners regarded as a higher priority than the safety or comfort of the crew. LASH ships also had the bridge at the bow, but that was for a different reason. LASH ships loaded and discharged their cargo in barges over their sterns, and required a clear run all the way from the bow to the stern for their massive gantry crane. Over the years the container ships began to carry more and more containers by stacking them higher and higher above the deck. That seriously obstructed visibility from the bridge on those container ships with their bridge installed aft. As a result, it was not uncommon for many of the older container ships to have their bridges cut off and then re-installed on a newly-installed platform so that it was a couple of decks higher. I sailed on several container ships where that had been done.
This sounds terrifying. Glad you made it.
I want to add: According to IMO (International Maritime Organisation) ANY ship must be constructed so the commanding crew has free visibility in less than 500m in front of it's bow. As an explanation to the nice drawings.
NO LESS u mean?.🤭
@@kentershackle1329 Sounds stupid but - yes
@@kentershackle1329 No, "less than" is correct. You want to be able to see what's happening right in front of the ship, i.e. _less_ than 500m away.
I sailed a number of ships with the accommodation in the fwd and I always hated it: noise. On the dredger I woke up from the dredge pipe being lifted and lowered. On the cargo and heavy lift ships the pitching of the ship kept me from sleeping, especially when the waves actually lifted the anchors in their shafts.
Another disadvantage is the the greater movement of the ship when pitching: one will become seasick easier in the fwd than in the aft. I was quite immune for seasickness, but after a few days without proper sleep, almost everything becomes nasty...
Don't, under any conditions, accept service aboard a WWII American Destroyer. Having a forward berth is an 'E' ticket ride even in relative smooth seas.
The classic cargo vessel of the early 20th century had the bridge in the middle - the so-called "3 island ship" with a forecastle, deckhouse amidships, and sterncastle. This later got moved aft both as a more efficient use of space, and to make the propeller shaft shorter (which solved some maintenance and vibration problems).
I do wonder regarding Great Lakers. They seem to use either a forward brige like the Arthur M. Anderson, or aft bridge like the James R. Barker. They're bulk carriers, but with the brige at a different end of the ship
The classic laker lines was first designed in the 1860s when the R.J hackett was built. The first ones were converted passenger steamers who couldn’t turn a profit (think converted freighters for aircraft) and it was easier to produce for those times. They decided to stick with it because it improves visibility and hearing. It stopped in 1974 with the Algosoo
I wonder too if it was changed over time as loading/unloading changed. Many modern ones are self-unloaders so that may have different space requirements?
I think it mainly comes down to technologies like radar rendering the visibility afforded by the forward pilothouse unnecessary. It's safer and more efficient to have all the crew spaces close together. Lake freighters with the classic layout haven't been built since the 1970s.
A lot of them are different because fresh water ships have longer lifespans than saltwater ones. You’re probably seeing many older designs that haven’t been phased out as there is no need to.
@@cryamistellimek9184 You may be right. A quick search shows the Arthur M. Anderson was built in 1952 (now 70 years old) and James R. Barker in 1976 (so only 46 years old). Both though are a bit 'past their prime' but this happens with 'Lakers'.
Thanks!
It's funny to hear you say: "shiphandling is easier from the stern" - my extensive fwd bridge experience tells me I'm always turning too wide whenever I end up on an aft bridge!
I suppose it always comes down to what you're used to!
I guess it is like aiming a gun when you are looking from the back, the long distance to the front is like looking at the front sight of a rifle, while this may be less obvious if you're at the front with no "sights" to look down to. I say this as somebody with zero naval experience so may be completely wrong in my assumption.
Being a former Navy sailor on aircraft carriers, I can say nothing beats a hurricane bow!
As for ALL new ships... IMHO, they should ALL be required to have video systems - both for daylight & night vision to assist in navigation, collision avoidance, security (i.e. pirates), man-over board situations, etc.
I mean come on, this is the 21st century and camera systems are cheap; especially compared to lawsuit payouts, repairs, etc.
As for the cargo & other ships with fantail (I mean stern) bridges... those cameras could be mounted on tall poles on the bow to increase forward visibility by miles; down to right in front of the ship by dozens rather than hundreds of feet.
Even though I live about 1200 miles from the nearest ocean, I am still fascinated by ships: from sail rigged to modern propulsion types. Thanks for your time and help!
I wonder why then that the typical WW2 tanker had her engines at the stern, but the bridge midships? Visibility wouldn't be an issue even then. Was this merely an evolving design or was it possibly linked to the density of the cargo or centre of mass and the limitations of the structural engineering of the day? I just can't work this one out. Does anyone have any ideas?
All the best everyone.
My only guess would be that you would want as much of a 360 degree field of view as possible to look out for enemy submarines.
The three island ship is typical for cargo ships before the container revolution.
Thees had a forecastle, a bridge deck (with funnel and engines) and a poop deck.
For oil tankers the engine and funnel moved back into the poop deck, with the bridge remaining amidships.
Why that was the predominant bridge position before the aft bridge, I don't know.
I have found some indication that it evolved on large cargo sailing ships, where visibility from the aft end would have been poor.
@@kilianortmann9979 IIRC, the engine was midships too, with a long shaft to the rear.
@@thejackman687 No, this was not a wartime development. Thanks.
@@JoaoLuisAngelo No, the engine was aft as can be seen by the position of the funnel. Thanks.
I realized that bridges were in the back but never thought of it a lot. Thanks to you now I know this. Great vid!
There's another reason why the bridge is set in the back for sailing ships- the captain and helmsperson have an easier ability to see directly what the sails and masts are doing.
Out of curiousity, what's your take on the cargo ships on the Great Lakes frequently placing the bridge forward? I've always found it odd.
Fascinating. This actually made me think of how sci fi ships are designed. Specifically Imperial Class Star Destroyers. Bridge sits above the engines at the back of the ship with the main hangar opening from the bottom amidships. Now of course Star Wars is a not very realistic space opera but it's interesting how the designers kept that same design philosophy even though Star Destroyers are warships not cargo vessels and actual warships have the bridge at the front or middle of the ship (thinking in terms of like battleships, cruisers or destroyers).
As an inexperienced and ignorant boat builder, I suggest the bridge to be integrated flush with the bow of the ship. Make it the emergency module too so when it’s time to abandon ship, the bow of the ship will detach and sail off safely.
Sounds like the exact opposite of what they expect withbthe titanic, they expected the stern to float and look how that turned out
The bow is the part that is the most often damaged by crashing into underwater rocks, whales, flotting objects, ports and other boats.
Detachable bow, Disco Volante style.
Rose at the bow: "Jack we're flying".
I imagine another reason bridges at the front could become more common in the future is with increasing navigation technology taking away that aft advantage. Cars can give you what looks like top down view for parking, something similar must be possible on ships.
This futuristic ship at the end will be called the "Puke-o-tron 3000" LMAO
This had me thinking about why Lakers have their bridge at the bow like The Edmund Fitzgerald? I would absolutely love a video discussing anything about the ships of The Great Lakes.
Visibility.
Most ships with bridges near the bow have side thrusters so steering is available at both ends.
Wind powered ships!? What a step forward! Revolutionary even!
You missed the bridge crews ability to monitor nearly the entire length of the ship for issues such as fire, cargo slippage etc. Even if a fire isn't visible the smell would be more likely to drift to the bridge, alerting any crew who have a window open or are outside.
You can do that whether the bridge is fore or aft, no? Just look back.
@@tsm688 my experience is that the bridge usually has a wall with no windows behind the forward facing windshield. Usually because there are more rooms behind the wall.
The design could be changed to have windows on both sides, but usually the direction of view is forward.
I don't live near the coast, but out of the EU inland ships (freighters and tankers) here on the river, 99.9% have their bridge and accomodation compartments at the stern as well. The only exception that I know of are three "Ecotankers" which have it at the bow. The reason: They're powered by gas turbines, the typical floor plan didn't work well with that. Fuel tanks needing more space etc. You can always tell these ships apart from the others, they almost look like something out of No Man's Sky.
Most inland ships follow the same designs as ocean going ships. Cargo, the bridge is at the rear. Passenger, the bridge is at the front. For smaller private vessels, helm at the rear is very common, same as many smaller private ocean going vessels. Very small craft as well as some traditional larger craft (pretty much anything with sails, but also some motor boats) still use a rear tiller. Forward steering positions tend to be used when it's desired to keep height to a minimum (for example low bridges) which would restrict visibility from an enclosed aft steering position, but an enclosed or partially enclosed steering position is desired for comfort. Where headroom is particularly restricted, they also have a safety advantage. Like with large ocean going cargo ships, central steering positions are also often used on larger vessels as a compromise (usually on boats designed to sleep fairly large numbers of people, since providing all the accommodation forward of the steering position would restrict forward visibility too much).
For inland waterways, passenger designs can be a compromise too. As with cruise ships there is a desire to maximise visibility for passenger accommodation, but due to height and width restrictions this can clash with navigation visibility (the simple solution of "stick the bridge where it needs to be and stick passenger accommodation above it" doesn't usually work, and bridge wings are rarely an option). Often the top passenger accommodation and the steering position will be on the same level. Where heights are particularly limited, boats will be entirely on one level. One simple solution is the use of wing mirrors to allow a view aft, and more modern or updated vessels can also have cameras.
Private boats designs for both inland and ocean use will often have twin steering positions, one open at the rear for tight manoeuvring and one enclosed towards the front for on the open sea.
You forgot North American great lakers with the bridge in the front take the CSL laker Frontenac, Algoma's John D Leitch. the ships that you described are ocean going. During the first and second world wars the ships that saved GB were mostly lakers from Canada and the USA. You cannot forget those class of ships even if they are a dying breed. I personally love the house up front and galley and engine room back aft.
That futuristic vessel at the end of the video is basically a seafaring version of a container truck.
Large passenger ships and the like also often include some form of auxiliary steering at the stern. Especially if they are stern-loading ferries and the like that have to back into docking area. Just wanted to mention that. Love the videos.
On the Estonia, the bridge was on the font of the ship and yet they didn't see that the entire front articulating shield had been torn clean off and water was being taken in. lol.
Having begun my career at sea in 1961, at a time when most cargo ships, even bulk carriers, had the officers', crew accommodations and messrooms midship as well as the engine room, which of course left a large shaft tunnel protruding into the aft cargo spaces.
The first oil tankers I sailed on had the bridge and officers’ quarters amidships, the all aft configuration came later. In a heavy storm we had to time our run to the engine room between waves to not get soaked or worse.
Glen Net, great times running from one bus shelter to the next one!!
Well now you're going to have to explain those Alaskan crab boats like on Deadliest Catch. After all, most of them put the house at the rear, but you do have the Northwestern with the house at the front. (Though there are very good reasons to have the house at the stern simply because you can easily view both the desk crew and the path ahead. The Northwestern has to use CCTV cameras to be able to view what's happening on deck). On the other hand, the crew of the Northwestern are shielded from the worst of the weather, which is terrible when you go crab fishing (winter on the Bering Sea).
I am saddened by the lack of mention of the Great Lakes Bulk Carriers and their, unique, shape.
This is a big bone of contention within science fiction circles: where to put the bridge on starships. If you have enough feeds and screens you could put the bridge in the middle of the ship, below decks. Starships don't have people going outside to perform duties all day long like wet vessels though and there is a big gap between theory and practice. Ships soon may be routinely deploying drones for an aerial view of manoeuvres or become drones themselves in which case the "bridge" could be on land thousands of miles away. That said, I am sure crews do a lot more than just "drive the boat".
Most modern warships are already commanded from an operations room deep in the bowels of the ship, since tactics are dictated by radar and other sensors, not by what you can actually see. You only need a bridge for docking or replenishment from tankers etc.
Being from the Great Lakes region, where freighter bridges tend toward the bow, I had wondered why most other freighters put them toward the back. I guess the big question then, is why great lakes freighters tend toward the bow? Granted the lakes are probably calmer in general (until they aren't).
They’re all calm until Lake Superior has a moment and eats a freighter with all hands.
Actually the Great Lakes can suffer far worse waves than many parts of the open ocean. Wave energy runs from the surface right down to the bottom, which concentrates as waves move into shallower water. You see this as waves enter a surf zone. Waves in bad weather are worse over continental shelves and in shallow areas such as the Barents Sea… and the Great Lakes.
The mitigating factor is that tropical cyclones are extremely rare on the lakes. If the weather was as bad on the lakes, the conditions would be horrifying.
I've found that most cargo ships have the bridge amidship with cargo areas front and back.
It is mainly ore and oil tankers that have their bridges at the stern.
Passenger ships have their bridge at the front because there is really nowhere else to put it and it has the bonus of filtering out all of the bright deck lights.
Only the Great Lakes ore carriers break from the norm, with superstructure at the rear as is usual but the bridge is plonked right on the bow.
ofc id put the bridge below water level
On the Great Lakes, you will see ships with their bridge on the bow. They are becoming less common as they are generally older vessels and some are going to the breakers yard, but they are still pretty common on the Great Lakes
The location of the bridge depends on the type of ship and what it is build for. stability and making it easier to navigate for different reasons,
Container ships have their bridge in the center. Ofshore vessels Tug boast heavy lift ships their bridge as far forward as posible . Different bridges for different needs.
The bridge in future ships will be below the waterline because it allows for easy cooling of the AI computer core which is running the ship, and not obsolete meat processors.
I'd like to point out that this video only applies to civilian ships. Warships almost always have their bridge located somewhere amidships.
That seems to make sense due to the much more distributed crew and varying and often multiple purposes a naval vessel serves.
6:00 well either that or you have a small secondary bridge at the stern for port duty and the like
I would place the bridge at the back, up high on the superstructure, and in such conspicuous a place that any A-Wing could hit it.
EYYYYYYY I GET IT
@Casual Navigation, having bridge forward and engines aft is a safety feature. The largest correlation between accidents offshore is tied to lack of REM sleep. Despite technology meant to dampen vibration, the engines below crew quarters inhibit restful sleep. Placing the crew quarters forward away from the engines result in reduced accidents.
Something I'll admit that I'm surprised by is the fact that you didn't mention the bow mounted bridges of the Great Lakes steamers, which I imagine was done for safety concerns due to boiler explosions. As for where it'll be, I imagine bow bridges may become more common if nuclear power becomes more common, primarily for safety against radiation. They may also offer more protection for the ship in event of a rogue wave but that never helped a number of ships.
I always assumed it was because Lakers deal with rivers and locks, that especially in the past were very busy with boat traffic, so a forward bridge gave needed visibility. But radar and better control has made this less an issue in modern designs.
Nuclear propulsion for civilian ships is completely dead.
They need a large security detail while in harbor, hosting nations have to give permission to dock and insurance is high.
Also a lot of safety features of modern nuclear reactors, like a core catcher or Filtered Containment Venting Systems are incompatible with the space limitations on a ship.
@@kilianortmann9979 With the rare exception of nuclear icebreakers. And, given how vulnerable an ecosystem the Northern Sea Route is, maybe the future will see long trains of unpowered barges, driven by distributed nuclear-powered tugs, with an icebreaker at the head end. That would require huge political changes in Russia, though.
No one cares about Lakes or Lakers. That’s rust belt and gone from history. Focus on ocean maritime travel - 99.5% of all ships on it.
Safe for who? SOMEONE still has to poke at the engines...
One additional advantage of having a superstructure at the back is increased directional stability. It has a similar effect to the arrow on the weather vane.
The question of future designs moving the bridge forward and the impacts on visibility - I could see all this evolving rapidly with modern technology making visibility less relevant, as crews could have whatever view they want using cameras and monitors. Potentially could get by without having windows at all - I've heard of this proposed for airplanes. Sort of like how all new cars have backup cameras and rear visibility on most new cars is terrible compared with older vehicles. Distance from the engines would also become a lesser concern as engines become more automated and more reliable, wouldn't need to have crews in the engine room as much. Of course both of these suggest the next step beyond this would be to not have crews at all, ships be autonomous and/or remotely controlled - autonomous for the open-ocean portions of their journey, remotely controlled by a local pilot familiar with the harbor or port for the harbor.
In case of an Emergency, like in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
Canal boats (narrow boats ) are controlled from the stern . This makes sense as you stand , with your tiller on a deck above the engine. The down side is that you alternately bake freeze or are wet. I recently saw one that had a forward steering arrangement. There was also a spacious open deck area above the accommodation and it carried a small car on the back. The owner said it took some getting used to but gave much better forward view but relied on his crew (wife) to signal (shout) if the rear was about to hit anything. Overall it did look like a good idea.
Bro 😂 I didn't expect you to get sponsored by world of tanks because this is A ship channel...XD
world of warships would have been better and given they're produced by the same company am surprised it wasnt
@@FoxDren that was my thought.. world of warships is crazy fun too.. rushing an aircraft carrier as a destroyer with torpedoes 👌
"Landship"
@@toveychurchill6468 Oh yeah
Still better than Raid: Shadow Legends!
2:42 "authentic models and vehicle characteristics"
tank: _casually yeets itself off a dune dodging a shell_
I think visibility will become less of a factor with cameras creeping up everywhere. We already have them at the back of the car. We only have back-view mirrors out of tradition. It would be much more efficient to have cameras and monitors instead. This will happen to ships, too. Because putting a few cameras at a place and running a fiber glass cable through the whole ship will cost like 1k, which will be dwarfed by every change that allows the ship to load just one additional container.
My only experience is on cruise ships but I did get to tour the bridge on one. The visibility was quite remarkable for such a large vessel. The overhangs allow you to see all but the very backside, which of course is covered by cameras. What impressed me the most however was the Captain and Crew. I don't know what I was expecting but it sure wasn't military like appearance and precision. They were absolute professionals and instilled great confidence. The Captain was very accommodating but at the same time I got the sense he was not a man to be trifled with. It didn't help that he was a perfect replication of Liam Neeson. The Bridge was dark and quiet with minimalistic controls. A peaceful place that seemed far away from the hustle and bustle of the rest of the ship. I now sleep better on cruises knowing the type of people that are in control.
prediction for the future: no bridge superstructure, use of LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR (mainly for use in ports probably) and cameras with AI assistance. bridge will be contained within the main structure wherever there is space or even managed from onshore through the use of a combination of satelite communication and higher levels of automation. honestly wouldn't be surprised if ships had no crew whatsoever in 10 to 20 years.
@@YBehri It's not so much a prediction, but something ship designers are already working on (unfortunately).
I doubt that we will ever have crew-less ships.
There's just way to much maintenance and repair done while the ship is traveling.
Another reason for having the bridge forward on ships with exceptionally large cargo is that you can have the cargo hanging over the stern. You can't have cargo hanging over the forecastle.
There are some points missing that I would like to mention. My company mostly builds new ships with accommodation forward and this is for reasons not stated in the video. Ship's are Gas Tankers. Accommodation forward provides better weight distribution of a Light Ship which allows to make significantly smaller ballast tanks forward (Forepeak etc.). Also the space above forward manoeuvring stations is used for crews accommodation which leave more space for cargo behind. In aft position accommodation there is no point of putting it more to aft as we are limited by the engine anyways. That is not a thing in fwd accommodations. They are move as far as practical possible. Another benefit is that this better weight distribution and less ballasts required contributes to significantly smaller drafts in comparison with vessels of similar class with accommodation aft. This means vessel can visit bigger variety of ports. Unfortunately crew convinience matters are not really taken into consideration but it is understandable if company wants to be competitive in the market. Negative sides are: Lifeboats are located on the aft and in case of emergency crew have to pass almost 300 meters to reach it. Because of smaller drafts vessel is rolling heavier. Each anchoring means a wake up for all crew as the sound is extremely loud. Example of the vessel: MT GASCHEM ORCA
Love the fact you added rotary sails for the magnus effect. This is in use already :)
But why swing them into the cargo. Many relevant bridges allow enough height to either keep them up or make other arrangements for particularly low bridges.
These Offshore operations vessel have very good visibility all around the bridge and they have controls also on the rear of the bridge, so they can operate easily on either direction.
I would expect nowadays or in the near future, ships will have/do have GPS, cameras, Radar, Sonar all around. So the captain might work from home (his or her cabin) using large monitors and a joystick. Ships probably also have autopilot keeping the ship on course, avoiding obstacles like other ships. It’s park sensors will probably allow automatic parking in ports, what might be much faster and saver than a human ever could be. Long sentence short, those ships could become drones operating mostly autonomously with a control operator monitoring the ship from thousands of miles away.
Love the engine depicted as a backwards carbureted V8 😄
I love how a big chunk of your comment section is: "I don't really have anything to do with ships at all. But now I'm binging every video of yours."
I am one of them
Another reason for cruise ships: The bow area is one of the least desirable areas for passengers. Might as well put the crew there.
I like how this was so accurate, that the titanic in the animation has only 3 working exhausts
That pretty blue "Shipping Line" container ship looks a lot like the Emma Maersk to me :) Great vid btw, as always.
My dad was a captain for United States Steel, and I grew up spending a lot of time on ore boats on the Great Lakes. The boats I grew up on all had the pilot houses on the forward end, and it was that way until USS built the 1000 footers, the Edgar Spear and Edwin Gott. While I see advantages of having everything at the stern, to me it would be like driving your car from the back seat, not being able to clearly see the front of your car. I would see that as a disadvantage especially when locking through the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, something normally done twice per trip, once upbound and once downbound. I do admit, I really miss the appearance of a forward pilot house and accommodations.
I have a quick question. How do the cargo containers stay on the ship? Do they tie down each individual crate or something? If one falls off do more follow like a domino affect?
Yes, they 'clip on' the container they stand on with a twist lock in each corner.
@@Sephyricon so how do they lock? Does someone have to do it manually for all 4 corners?
@@HIFLY01 All shall be revealed! ruclips.net/video/Fo4wlejOdps/видео.html
@@Sephyricon thank you. Im not super into ships but I enjoy these short videos
Long time viewer first time commenter. I really appreciate the high quality animations, consistent upload schedule, and vast information you provide. I haven't even seen the ocean with my own eyes but I do love to learn about the many engineering problems of the world. Thank you.
Titanic also had a small bridge at the stern.
If you've seen images of the Titanic's bridge you will see 5 telegraphs.
From Left to Right
1: Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph
2: Port and starboard docking order and starboard steering order
3: Backup Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph
4: Port and starboard advisory Engine Order Telegraph
5: Port and Starboard Engine Order Telegraph
Telegraphs 2 and 4 connected to this stern bridge and were used to communicate orders from the main bridge.
No room kept for Jack and Rose in modern cruise ships😊 ie, at the bow area.
Why did older ships like the white star ships have large overhead cables between the masts over the funnels. Was this purely for strength or was it’s main purpose to provide lighting protection?
I always thought that was for the radio. If you don’t have good amplification, you need a long aerial.
A full wavelength HF antenna only needs 10-20 meters 30-60 feet.
Newer ships are build in blocks (ala Lego). The Bridge, Crew Accomodation, Engine, and so on of a freighter are usually build in a single block.
The interiors were already furnished before they assembled the blocks.
I always thought the people on Sig Hansen’s ship were crazy. Every other crab boat has an aft bridge. You would probably be dead if you fell overboard anyway but with a bridge at the bow the captain would never see you go over.
Realistically if you go overboad in anything but slick calm on a sunny day in warm water you arent likely to be found. So going overboard off Alaska at night in seas 12 to 14 feet and 38 degree water the boat may as well keep on going. Maybe if you have a personal EPIRB you may have a chance...maybe..
"new power sources, such as wind power"
the 1700s would like to know your location.
1. Tradition. Historical., rudder proximity. 0.37
2. Convenience. 0:49 Side note: Engine in larger is usually placed quite far towards the midships.
3. Safety. 1:03
4. Maneuvering. 1:22
5. Maximizing cargo capacity. 1:56
6. Mysteriously disapeeared.
When placing the bridge above the engine, you get closer to the center of mass, thereby minimising movement of the floor on the bridge.
On some ships, the Bridge is put somewhere around the middle, generally in between turreted 16 inch guns.
Admittedly, battleships aren't used that much anymore, but they do still put out a presence, even if a ship that's a quarter it's cost can easily sink it.
Civilian stuff tends toward the stern (except for passenger ships), but what fascinates me is naval vessels having their bridges all over the place. Some forward, some more toward the stern, some almost center mounted, with aircraft carriers offset to the left or right on top of everything else... And so on.
So, aircraft carriers (the offset to the side ones) are there because they're pulling double-duty. The actual bridge, and the flight control tower. That's also why they're so tall above the superstructure. Flight radar and communication systems need the height for signal and visibility.
@@NikkiTheOtter well, yeah. It's more the port vs starboard thing.
When I was a young lad I worked on commercial fishing boats. Wheel house at the front guaranteed being bounced around and puking for days on end unless the trawl nets were out. Wheel house at the back was immensely more comfortable. There was no comparison.
An ex Second Officer here. It's all simply because of the ship's stability and structural integrity calculations. Nothing less, nothing more. People often forgot that the ocean itself gives HUGE pressure on the ship's hull (Third Newton Law), so to minimize the pressure, the ship must distribute all of it as evenly as possible. That's the first important point. The second one is that the design must allow the ship to be as "even keel" as possible in any voyage condition, laden or ballast. Here's how those two work; let's say you want to carry bulk cargo, put the bridge at the aft. Bulk cargo is stored inside the hull, so you'd get a clear view on what's ahead of you. But why not putting it at the fore, you might ask. Because the superstructure is damn heavy, almost as heavy as the engine compartment. If you put two heavy objects on a polar opposite of a stick, it will be bent. It's called hogging and extreme hogging would cause a ship to break in two, taking many lives onboard. Way too many cases happened (and sadly are still happening) because of this. So that's why you put the engine compartment AND the superstructure of any bulk cargo (liquid, gas, or solid) carriers at the aft.
On a sailing boat, you constantly need to monitor the sails, so you don't want to turn your back on them. On a larger sailing vessel, the skipper doesn't control all the sails themself, but need to monitor the crew. On big ships, any maneuver requires carefully coordinated work by dozens of sailors performing specific tasks, perfectly timed.
The commander of the ship need to work from a location from wich they can have this essential overview.
Failing to properly account for the pivot point is what sank the Costa Concordia. Models showed that if they had accounted for that, the ship would have missed the rocks. So it can go wrong there.
One additional consideration is the vertical movement of the stern vs the bow while underway. In heavy seas, the bow experiences larger vertical movements than the stern. Crew stationed at the bow would experience more fatigue. Admittedly this is more of a concern for smaller vessels. Very large (and heavily cargoed) vessels would have really large rotational inertia, so the bow upthrust would not be as extreme. But the fact remains that the center of gravity (and hence the moment) of all boats is aft.
The bridge on cargo ships are placed at the back to also prevent blind spots when spotting pirates as you have a 180° view of the entire deck no need to run around and find them. Also detection of problems in cargo(especially dangerous cargo) is easy to detect this way as you're always looking forward and not having other people to do it for you
I have also wondered about that, but others comments have solved the prob. Something I have questioned is why, on passenger ships, don't the designers blow the exhaust gases out the stern under water, one it would help propulsion, and more important as any cruisers will tell you, it would prevent passengers getting plastered with diesel exhaust particles.!
Kudos for the three smoking funnels and one fake. Now about sailing yachts - cockpit at the rear, but blooming massive sails blocking forward vision and quite a bit of the side vision too to lee - the fast ferries in The Solent run by Red Funnel are notorious and have the dented hulls to prove it!
Another important point to note is, what cargo the ship is carrying! For example, if it is transporting hazardous gases that can be life treating the bridge would be at the front of the ship. If a tank was to get a leak the gases would blow away instead of directly into the bridge (if it was located aft) when the ship is underway.
Oh really? Because to me it seems that all the gas tankers have the bridge in stern. And that problem could be overcome by 1) keeping the damn windows closed 2) air vents located so that those hazardous gases wouldn't get it.
I would put the bridge underwater. That way you can see dangerous rocks, submarines and such like and thus avoid collisions. Also if the propeller falls off you'd realise straight away why the ship has stopped moving despite being under full power.
It's an absolutely genius idea, I'm amazed no one has thought of it before.
I notice that in the early days of iron and steel ships, up until the end of WWII, the bridge and engines are in the center. How did that affect sailing, navigation, safety, etc.? Also when and who did the change?
Oh, and to answer your question on where I'd put the bridge, I'll take a queue from the freight railroads of the US, of which I'm more familiar. I'd place it in an office in a smaller, nautical oriented city, like Newport VA (or Bristol UK).
For me the best position is on the stern. Makes manoeuvering so much more convinient.
But I must add: according to a lot of my friends working on pax-vessels you eventually get used to it.
I'd like to try some of the more modern designs, but I suppose to do so you should rather become a pilot 😅
Great vid, please continue your great work 👍
Traditional warships have the bridge as part of a massive midship structure. The new stealth ships have the bridge forward. Most navy service boats have the bridge forward. I’ve never seen a military vessel with the bridge aft. Except for: military cargo ships, merchant marine, and hospital ships (which are converted freighters).
Combination of needing height already for the fire control system, so why not put the conning tower there as well, and the desire to make it so that a single salvo of shells aimed at the bridge can't normally take out the bridge and something like the engineering spaces
The British Nelson-class Battleships had the superstructure and bridge aft, with the main armament all in front of the bridge. They were derisively called "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" due to resembling oil tankers, but their compact layout meant they could pack some serious firepower and armor into 35 thousand tons.
@@gargravarr2 Their all forward armament and aft superstructure helps them get to that 35k tons, along with some creative use of "boiler water" to work around the Washington Treaty (IMO if they would have left out the conning tower, as the KGVs, refit QEs, and Vanguard all did, and put that weight to the turrets, they would have been less trouble early in their careers). However they were no jokes, Rodney did punch straight through Bismarck's Bruno turret and conning tower, as well as possibly land the only battleship vs. battleship torpedo hit in battle, after overclocking the worn out engines to get there, and dodging Bismarck's return salvos.
I honestly didn’t think about proximity to safety stuff and proximity to the engines. I assumed it was just for docking visibility and capacity.
It’s great to see good information about shipping business being produced for the general public on YT.
Most of the large cargo ships on the Great Lakes traditionally have the bridge forward , and have had that since the steam engine arrived. And then there are all the cargo and tanker ships that were called “two midship” boats ( two separate superstructures with one or two small hatches between them )
When the very large steel sailing ships came along, like the 4 and 5 masted barques and full rigged ships, we quite often see a navigation bridge being erected about midships. And they looked like a real bridge too.
you consistently amaze in answering questions Casual Viewing never thinks to ask