# Ghost ship heads to Teesside



## Colin1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Another toxic reject that no-one else will take

BBC NEWS | England | Tees | New ghost ship heads to Teesside

Whoops, I think this should be in Sitrep


----------



## Crunch (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow, interesting. Thanks for posting!


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2009)

i can see the ships from my loft window on a clear day


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 8, 2009)

rochie said:


> ...on a clear day


How often do you get those in Smoggieland?


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2009)

depends which way the wind blows and how strong it is


----------



## Airframes (Feb 8, 2009)

And what angle you stand at! Nice info Karl, but, no disrespect to our neighbours across the Channel, I wonder why France can't do the job to their own kit, they have the same rules and restrictions.
At least you've got a handy reference if you want to do a carrier diorama mate!


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Airframes said:


> ...Nice info Karl...


Who's this Karl guy?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 8, 2009)

Airframes said:


> And what angle you stand at! Nice info Karl, but, no disrespect to our neighbours across the Channel, I wonder why France can't do the job to their own kit, they have the same rules and restrictions.




Most likely because stringent Union rules make it too cost prohibitive. Cheaper to tow it around the world searching for a buyer. At least some Brits will keep their jobs a little longer.

Personally, I always thought that France made a big mistake decommisioning two fine carriers in quick succesion, despite their age. France should have at least two, with at least one operable in the event the other is in drydock. With the CdG having been laid up in drydock for so long, they had no carriers, though the CdG is just now coming back into service after a long overhaul/maintenance period.


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2009)

if i get time i'll nip over and see how close i can get to take some pics later this week


----------



## Geedee (Feb 8, 2009)

That would make great artificial reef ?. Just a shame our waters are so murky !


----------



## Airframes (Feb 8, 2009)

Must admit, I didn't know she had been decommissioned, and was rather surprised.
Colin, 'Karl' is rochie!


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Airframes said:


> Colin, 'Karl' is rochie!


Oh, that smoggie lad, sorry!


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2009)

been a while since i was refered to as lad, i feel 25 years younger cheers colin


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Feb 9, 2009)

Dumb question? What can you recycle from a toxic ship? I mean, that can't be too healthy to anyone.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 9, 2009)

The only seriously toxic bits are likely to be asbestos lagging in the engine and boiler rooms. The rest of the vessel will have a reasonably attractive price as a source of scrap metal and recyclable plastic. It's been a while now since I was in the scrap trade (and I wasn't in it for long), but a ship that size would be worth a fair bit once she was properly cut up and the remnants sorted.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Feb 10, 2009)

Ah, thanks BT. Dang, that's gonna be a lotta scrap metal when there done, though.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 11, 2009)

Apart from the steel in the hull, which is probably of a pretty high quality, you will have non-ferrous materials such as aluminium, brass an copper throughout the ship, and they will most likely be worth more than the steel, weight-for-weight. I would imagine plastics etc will also be reclaimable and sell at a reasonable price. This is why navies have sold ships for scrap ever since they started building ironclads. 

Prior to this, wooden ships were often broken down in such a fashion as to be rebuilt in a new shape. The Royal Navy was very fond of this methods to build 'new' ships when times were hard (most of the time in the 17th and 18th centuries). Old ships would go into dockyards to be broken up, but the keel and some basic structure would reappear with a new vessel built around them, carrying a new name. Both the RN and the French also constructed razees, which were obsolete two-decker ships-of-the-line with their upper gundecks cut off ('razed') to create very large and fast frigates.

Of course, an iron or dteel ship is much harder to modify in this way (unless converting a BC or cruiser hull to an aircraft carrier, for example), so navies tend to simply sell the ships to scrappers, who pay a price based upon the materials used in the ships construction. It's much easier and cheaper than a navy having all the kit to turn an old ship into a new one.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Feb 11, 2009)

Thanks BT, jeez, didn't know how much material that they could get out of one aircraft carrier. Guess I'd better read up on it.


----------



## rochie (Feb 12, 2009)

a guy from Able plc, the company working on the ships said on the local news only about 2% of the ship will be wasted the rest recycled


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 12, 2009)

Has anyone stated the estimated value of the recyled material as opposed to the cost of operations? It'll be interesting to know how much profit is in store for the firm once everything is done and paid for, especially with the price of steel inching it's way up.


----------

