RORO Cargo Ships And Vehicle Carriers That Were Converted Into ROPAXes In The Philippines

RORO (Roll-on, Roll-off) Cargo Ships differ from ROPAXes (RORO-Passenger Ships) in that the former are mainly for carrying rolling cargo (vehicles mainly but could also be heavy equipment) with their drivers and crew and as such their passenger capacity and amenities like a restaurant or cafeteria are small. They are mainly designed to ferry vehicles across the sea with the least loading and unloading time. Their sizes vary depending on the distance and the traffic volume. Generally, they have higher sides.

In the Philippines, they are represented currently by the Super Shuttle RORO 7, Super Shuttle RORO 8, Super Shuttle RORO 9, Super Shuttle RORO 10, Super Shuttle RORO 11 and the Super Shuttle RORO 12 of the Asian Marine Transport Corporation (AMTC). They are also represented by the Dapitan Bay 1, Panglao Bay 1 and Batangas Bay 1 of Carlos A. Gothong Lines Inc. (CAGLI). But this selection is the relatively large ones by RORO Cargo Ship standard. There were smaller versions of it in the past.

Vehicle Carriers are similar to RORO Cargo Ships but instead of acting like commuters they deliver vehicles from the factories to a destination and so they will come back without load unlike the RORO Cargo Ships.  Vehicle Carriers could be smaller or bigger than RORO Cargo Ships but lately they began growing bigger to be more efficient in bringing new cars from the likes of Japan to the United States. Those delivering cars within Japan only were considerably smaller.

In the Philippines, there were several RORO Cargo Ships and Vehicle Carriers that were converted into ROPAXes or what is commonly called as ROROs here and most became RORO Liners of the major liner companies. Per ton, a RORO Cargo Ship or a Vehicle Carrier is cheaper than a ROPAX as it doesn’t have that much equipment and amenities for passengers. Besides, for the same size, they could have smaller engine/engines and so the speed is a bit less.

In refitting, it is possible that in a RORO Cargo Ship or a Vehicle Carrier that metal has to chopped off. Meanwhile, locally, it is normal to add metal to a ROPAX from Japan to add decks for more passenger accommodation. Viewing areas were not considered in the building of RORO Cargo Ships and Vehicle Carriers and that could be one reason for chopping off metal.

I noticed that RORO Cargo or Vehicle Carrier conversion here goes by streaks by shipping lines that has a liking for them for the benefits they offer like a smaller capital cost for the same capacity and I agree with them it is a route worth taking. Maybe the first who took this route was the K&T Shipping Lines which was later known as the Maypalad Shipping Lines after their ferry Kalibo Star sank in Samar Sea in the late 1990s.

Samar Star

Many do not know that K&T Shipping was among the first in the acquisition of ROROs and maybe one reason for that is their ROROs do not look like the traditional ROROs of the other shipping lines. Their first RORO was the Samar Queen that was later renamed into Samar Star which actually became their last ship existing but not sailing. This ship was classified as a Ferry-RORO in Japan but she has the looks a cargo ship like a trio of sister ships K&T Shipping later acquired – the Leyte Star (a.k.a. Leyte Queen), the Cebu Star (a.k.a. Cebu Queen) and the Kalibo Star (a.k.a. Ocean Star). The difference is these four ships have rear-quarter ramps and a car deck and in order for them to carry passengers, K&T Shipping built a passenger deck atop the car deck. In Japan, the trio was classified as Vehicle Carriers.

Leyte Star

The Leyte Star by Edison Sy of PSSS.

The Samar Queen was smaller than the three sister ships at 56.6m x 9.0m x 5.6m and she arrived in 1980 which was just the dawn of RORO (more exactly ROPAX) shipping in the Philippines. Meanwhile, the Leyte Queen arrived in 1984 and the Cebu Queen arrived in 1986. Then the ill-fated Kalibo Star arrived in 1992. All of the three were former Toyo Maru ships in Japan but they have different owners. The external measurement of the Kalibo Star was 72.0m x 10.4m x 4.5m and the measurements of the other two sister ships hew closely to this.

The trio of sister ships were powered by a single 1,250-horsepower Hanshin engine which gave a design speed of 12.5 knots. The Samar Star has a single 1,300 Nippatsu-Fuji engine giving a speed of 13 knots. And this brings up one characteristic of small RORO Cargo ships and Vehicle Carriers. They are generally powered by a single engine only whereas ROPAXes of their size almost invariably have two engines and are faster.

Cebu Star

Cebu Star by Rex Nerves of PSSS.

These four K&T ships have one of the minimum conversions in this type of ships. At the start, the passengers just have to unroll cots and look for a place that they prefer.  Their main cargo here was not rolling cargo either. Nothing unusual in that as most Cebu overnight ferries carry loose and palletized cargo in the main. In loading and unloading, forklifts are used just like in the other Cebu overnight ferries.

Before I digress further, the first of this type of ships converted into ROPAX might be the Don Carlos of Sulpicio Lines Inc. which arrived in 1977 and was classified as a Vehicle Carrier in Japan. Actually, the Don Carlos could very well be our very first ROPAX that is not an LCT. This ship was formerly the Daiten Maru of the Masumoto Kisen KK in Japan. She also not carried rolling cargo except for some trucks and heavy equipment destined for the South (her route is to General Santos City) and on the return trip livestock was loaded. She suffered a piracy attack in 1978 and later she was just used as a cargo ship.

1978 0508 Hijacked Ship

Research by Gorio Belen in the National Library.

The Don Carlos measured 71.6m x 10.9m x 4.9m which is almost the same of the measurements of the K&T Shipping sistership trio. However, this Sulpicio ferry looks like a regular ROPAX after refitting. She was equipped with a single Hanshin engine of 1,300 horsepower and her design speed was 12.5 knots and that speed was her one weakness as she was sailing a long route.

The second shipping company that had a liking for this type of ship to be converted as ROPAXes was the Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. (CAGLI). This happened when they were building up their fleet so that they can return to their Manila route after her break-up with Lorenzo Shipping Corporation. After the break-up Gothong Lines concentrated on the Visayas-Mindanao routes but they relied on small ROPAXes. For the Manila route, they needed bigger ships and acquiring this type I am discussing was their route.

Their first of this type converted to ROPAX might have been the Our Lady of Guadalupe which was Asaka Maru No.8 in Japan and was classified as a Ferry-RORO. But to me she has the built of a Vehicle Carrier which meant metal has to be taken off rather than added like what happens in the former ROPAXes of Japan brought here. One thing notable in the Our Lady of Guadalupe is the high sides with few viewing areas for passengers. The two traits are traits of Vehicle Carriers.

Our Lady of Guadalupe (2)

Our Lady of Guadalupe by Toshihiko Mikami of PSSS.

The Our Lady of Guadalupe measured 89.7m x 14.4m x 4.8m with a passenger capacity of 674 persons. She was powered by two Niigata engines with a total of 5,400 horsepower and her top sustained speed when new was 16 knots. She was fielded in the Manila route in 1986 before being downgraded by Gothong Lines to the Cebu-Surigao route in the early 1990s and she had the reputation of being unreliable and that helped the new Cokaliong Shipping Lines Inc. to survive in the route. Her unreliability was never resolved even when she was passed on to the Cebu Ferries Company after the “Great Merger” of 1996.

In 1990, Gothong Lines acquired a pair of sister ships classified as RORO Cargo ships in Japan. The two are the Shinsei Maru which became the Our Lady of Sacred Heart and the Shinka Maru which became first as the Sto. Nino de Cebu. The latter suffered a fire early on after fielding (how can a ship with such a magical name catch fire?) but she was repaired and she was renamed into the Our Lady of Medjugorje. The two are among the better conversions that I have seen and in the latter I love her verandas and she was among my favorite ships.

OUR LADY of SACRED HEART

Our Lady of Sacred Heart by Chief Ray Smith of PSSS.

The sister ships have already been lengthened in Japan and they measured an identical 123.0m x 18.0m x 12.3 meters and that size was average for many of the liners that came in 1990-92 although their passenger capacity did not reach 2,000 persons. The two were not built in the same shipyard. The Our Lady of Sacred Heart was built by Tsuneishi Shipbuilding in 1978 and the Our Lady of Medjugorje was built by the Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding in 1979. The first had a single 9,000 horsepower Mitsui engine while the latter had a single 8,000 horspower engine but both had a design speed of 17 knots which became 16.5 knots in the country. In the “Great Merger” they were transferred to WG&A and they continued to ply a route from Manila and sometimes pairing with each other as they have the same speed (sometimes with SuperFerry 3 too that also has the same speed with them).

Our Lady of Medjugorje (Aboitiz)

Our Lady of Medjugorje by Albritz Salih of PSSS.

A related company, the Cebu Ferries Corporation (CFC) acquired in 2009 and 2010 two ships, the Asakaze and Esan which became the Cebu Ferry 2 and Cebu Ferry 3. In Japan they were classified as Ferry-ROROs but they do not look like the type. They might have a small passenger capacity but both featured open car decks and so plenty of metal has to be added in them to become ROPAXes. I do not consider the two part of the type I am discussing.

When Carlos A. Gothong Lines Inc. divested from WG&A, their first acquisition in 2001 when the divestment was not yet complete was actually a RORO Cargo ship, the Koyo Maru of Keiyo Kisen which became the Butuan Bay 1 in their fleet. At 114.8m x 19.0m x 9.6m, she was not a small ship. What are striking about her was her height and the length of her ramp. The ship was built by Iwagi Zosen in 1989 and she is powered by a single Mitsubishi-MAN engine with 9,600 horsepower that gave her a speed of 17.5 knots.

Butuan Bay 1 in Iligan City

Butuan Bay 1 by Josel Nino Bado of PSSS.

However, her refitting was not first-class (two passenger decks were just added atop her decks) and so when she was sold to Trans-Asia Shipping Lines Inc. (TASLI) in 2010 after an engine room explosion, TASLI remodeled the ship comprehensibly and she became a looker as the Trans-Asia 5. However, when MARINA took exception to her conking out and wallowing in water (the disadvantage of a single-engine design), she was reverted into a cargo ship and parts of her superstructure were removed. Still, she is a good-looking ship.

Trans Asia 5

The old Trans-Asia 5 by Michael Roger Denne of  PSSS.

Trans-Asia 5

The new Trans-Asia 5 by Mike Baylon of PSSS.

Recently, another shipping company took as liking for this type to be converted into ROPAXes. This is the Asian Marine Transport Corporation (AMTC) which also operates many RORO Cargo ships for their cargo liner operations. Their conversions started their Super Shuttle RORO series but it stopped at three as it seems they found out they were not really good in passenger liner operations.

Their first ship converted was the small RORO Cargo ship Cebu Trader which became the Super Shuttle RORO 1. This ship was built in 1978 by Trosvik Verskted in Norway and has passed into many hands already which is normal in Europe especially for this type. She measured 97.2m x 16.6m x 6.4m and she was powered by two Hedemora engines with a low total of 2,600 horsepower but still her design speed was 14.5 knots (which is a little doubtful).

Super Shuttle Roro 1

Super Shuttle RORO 1 by Fr. Bar Fabella, SVD of PSSS.

AMTC acquired this ship in 2011 and she was tastefully and even moderniscally refitted in Ouano port for ASR in Mandaue, Cebu which showed none of her age. However, she did not serve long as in 2012 she caught fire in heavy downpour while taking shelter from a tropical storm in Looc Bay in Tablas Island, Romblon on a route from Batangas to Dumaguit via Odiongan. She was never repaired.

The next in the series actually came in 2010 and was a small Vehicle Carrier. This was the former Koyo Maru No. 23 in Japan which became the Super Shuttle RORO 2 for AMTC after conversion. The ship measures 90.0m x 14.2m x 11.6m and she is powered by a single Hanshin engine of 3,200 horsepower which gave her a top speed of 14.5 knots when was still new.

Super Shuttle Roro 2

Super Shuttle RORO 2 by Raymond Lapus of PSSS.

However, even with an equal design speed it was said she was faster than the Super Shuttle RORO 1 in the same route to Dumaguit port in Aklan. Well, this ship was built later in 1987 by Imamura Shipbuilding in Japan and that could be a difference. Super Shuttle RORO 2 still sails in the same route but sometimes she takes long breaks.

The last ship in the series is the biggest of the three at 128.8m x 19.9m x 6.6m which is already not small for a liner but she was not developed well and her Tourist section was not even finished. This ship was the Vehicle Carrier Atsuta Maru in Japan that was built by Kanda Shipbuilding and she was named as the Super Shuttle RORO 3 in AMTC. Her route is Batangas-Masbate-Mandaue-Cagayan de Oro and with unfavorable arrivals and departures she never became popular with the passengers especially when her departure times became hard to divine as the company gave priority to cargo. However, her cargo load is always good.

Super Shuttle Roro 3

Super Shuttle RORO 3 by Aris Refugio of PSSS.

Recently, she no longer takes in passengers. Before she was a cheap, direct ride to Batangas but the passengers have to bear hardships. I was lucky I was able to ride her when she was still taking passengers. There were times too when she became unreliable and can’t sail for extended periods of time. She has a single 8,000 horsepower Hitachi engine which powers her to 18 knots when still new. Her unreliability seems to stem from maintenance problems.

Roble Shipping Inc. also tried this type of conversion when they acquired the Vehicle Carrier Taelim Iris from South Korea in 2015. They did not immediately do work on the ship and when work commenced it was just done in their wharf in Pier 7 in Mandaue, Cebu. A lot of metal was added but after the work was finished a beautiful Oroquieta Stars emerged which became their pride. Originally meant for Misamis Occidental, she became a regular to Baybay, Leyte where she is a favorite.

Oroquieta Stars

Oroquieta Stars by James Gabriel Verallo of PSSS.

The Oroquieta Stars measures 77.4m x 12.0m x 8.1m and she is equipped with two Akasaka engines with a total of 4,900 horsepower. Her design speed is 16 knots and that is more than enough for a Leyte overnight ship. She was built by Sanyo Shipbuilding in Japan in 1994.

Another company which tried this conversion route was the Aleson Shipping Lines of Zamboanga. They acquired the Ariake Maru No.18 in 2016, a Vehicle Carrier in Japan built by Honda Shipbuilding. This ship has high sides and to have passenger viewing areas and access, metal has to sloughed off. In the Aleson fleet, this ship became known as the Antonia 1 and named after the matriarch of the company.

52315746_2330050103986854_4842633140147060736_n

Antonia 1 by Albritz Salih of PSSS.

The Antonia 1 measures 103.6m x 15.5m x 11.5m and she is powered a single Akasaka-Mitsubishi engine of 4,000 horsepower. Her design speed is 15 knots. Presently, the ship’s route is Zamboanga-Sandakan, our only international passenger ship route.

The last company which tried this route of conversion is the Trans-Asia Shipping Lines Inc. (TASLI). They acquired the Warrior Spirit in 2016 and even earlier than the Antonia 1. While the Antonia 1 sailed in 2017, the Warrior Spirit which was renamed into the third Trans-Asia still can’t sail as a host of ailments that defied easy solutions bugged her especially in the engine department.

39441733_1940977989258472_3367702600030879744_n

Trans-Asia by C/E John Nino Malinao Borgonia of PSSS

The ship was built by Nouvelle Havre in France in 1980. Trans-Asia, the third, measures 126.2m x 21.0m and her design speed is 19 knots. With high sides and being tall, this ship is the biggest-ever of Trans-Asia Shipping Lines. And I hope that finally they will be able to solve her problems.

I am not too sure if my list is complete. But I would want to see in the future what other ships of this type will be converted into ROPAX in our country again.

 

 

 

Do the Sinkings of the MS Herald of Free Enterprise and MS Estonia Have Any Bearing On Us?

The two named incidents are among the most famous in the maritime world when RORO or ROPAX accidents are mentioned and discussed. The two cases have been used in many times to highlight the weakness of ROROs compared to conventional freighters which feature watertight compartments which the ROROs are sorely lacking (watertight compartments prevent ingress of water in case of a hull breach). Moreover, the two incidents have been used as rationales for RORO design changes and reforms in safety policies.

From “The Express” of UK

The MS Herald of Free Enterprise was a 131.9-meter ferry built in 1980 then sailing from Belgium to England. She sailed on a night of March 6, 1987 but the deck crew forgot to close the bow door and this door was not visible from the bridge and there was no CCTV to check that. When the ship reached cruising speed the sea entered the deck in great quantity which produced what is called the “free surface effect” which in this particular case was sea water sloshing within the hull that destroyed her stability causing her to capsize. That happened just minutes after leaving the port of Zeebrugge.

The MS Estonia was a 157.0-meter ferry built in 1979 then sailing from Estonia to Sweden. She sailed one night on September 28, 1994 on stormy seas of winds of 55 to 75 kilometers per hour which was considered normal in the part of the Baltic Sea in that part of the year. The significant wave height of the sea was estimated to be from 13 to 20 feet. On that particular night the visor bow door of the failed and it dragged the bow ramp of the ship. The visor door was not visible from the bridge. Water then entered the ship in great quantity and flooded the vehicle deck of the RORO and the free surface effect caused her to capsize much like what happened to the MS Herald of Free Enterprise.

From “The Local” of Sweden

These two grievious sinkings upset the ROPAX world causing changes in RORO designs like the recommendation that instead of having a bow ramp it is better for the ROROs to just have front quarter ramps where the blow from the waves will not be in great force. There was also the suggestion that front ramp mechanisms be done away completely and it seems this might already been adopted at least in principle. One effect is the sealing of bow ramps on some ships that have this feature. And the visor bow door was almost completely gone in RORO designs because of the MS Estonia incident as the thinking that it was an unsafe design (the hinges bear the whole weight of the visor door which are heavy).

But do these twin sinkings have any bearing on us, the Philippines, where a lot of ROROs especially the small ones have active bow ramps? All our basic, short-distance ferry-ROROs just have one ramp and this is located at the bow of the ship. Even the next size of ferries to the basic, short-distance ferry-ROROs, those that are over 40 meters in length and have a passenger deck of more than one also commonly feature an active bow ramp (I am comparing this to ROROs that have bow and stern ramps but the bow ramp is not actively used or is permanently closed). And then all our LCTs and many of these are in passenger-cargo application also have just one ramp and the specific feature of LCTs is all of those just have one ramp and it is at the bow.

Superferry 18

The quarter-front ramp of the SuperFerry 18 (Photo by Jonathan Boonzaier)

But did any of our ferries with just one active ramp and at the bow at that ever sink like the MS Herald of Free Enterprise and the MS Estonia? The answer is a big NO. We had sinkings of our ROROs with active bow ramps but not in the same circumstances as the sinking of the MS Herald of Free Enterprise and the MS Estonia. 

The MS Herald of Free Enterprise sank because of crew negligence and/or mistake. How would you call a ship sailing with its bow ramp and door open? Anywhere else that is plain idiocy. But here it happens commonly (LOL!). A lot of our small ROROs do not really close their ramps fully when sailing when the weather is good so that the hot car deck will have more ventilation (o ha!). That is against MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority) rules of course but there are no MARINA people roaming the ports anyway. And if the bow ramps need to be completely closed that is easily checked and it is also very visible from the bridge as small RORO just have one car deck and so the bow ramp is almost line of sight with the bridge (actually if there is a problem it is that the bow ramp hampers the view of the navigation crew). Our ROROs also have a lot of crewmen and apprentices that failing to check the bow ramp is almost an impossibility and besides the Chief Mate will always be there (that high a position ha!) because he is in charge of the loading and unloading. So I say the MS Herald of Free Enterprise incident has no bearing here.

35023213483_c61b439cf0_z

The basic, short-distance ferry-RORO that only has a bow ramp

Our small ROROs also don’t have bow visor door like the MS Estonia. How can it be when their mechanisms are very simple? They don’t even have hydraulic three-piece ramps and winches are all that are needed to raise the ramps to close or lower it to open the ramps. So how can one thing fail when it isn’t there? Now, if there are cracks or rust-throughs in the ramp mechanism that will be visible to all including the passengers, the drivers of the cars, the truck crews, the arrastre people and the hangers-on in the port. And Coast Guard people check on the safety of the ship before departures and supposedly they are very good on that and so what is then the problem? If there is already weakening of the ramp mechanism that will easily show when a heavy truck is loaded or unloaded and all would notice that. After all we are very good in noticing things unlike the Europeans (we notice what one wears and what are the latest rumors in town).

And besides all our ships here don’t sail in gale-force seas like the MS Estonia. Here when there is what is called a tropical depression (which means winds of 45 kilometers per hour), trips are already suspended. Even if there is no storm but the wind is high and the seas are choppy the local weather agency PAGASA that does not follow international conventions will already issue a “gale warning” even if there is no gale. So how can an MS Estonia incident happen here? That is impossible already when Malacanang and MARINA got too strict in sailings in bad weather.

Morever, our small ROROs were mainly built by the Japanese and Japan-built ships were never involved in failures and sinkings like what happened to the MS Herald of Free Enterprise and the MS Estonia. We might have salty seas that produce rust but not the frigid waters and weather that accelerate the cracks in the metal like what befell the MS Estonia. Besides if there are ramp weakenings that is repaired early (who wants to earn the ire of vehicle owners when their rig can’t get out of the RORO and the RORO can’t sail and not earn revenues?). Our shipyards are experts in that type of repair/replacement (due to the high weights of some trucks and trailers the ramps normally buckle in loading and if it is already bent enough it is sent to the shipyard for ramp replacement).

Additionally, our local crew are really good and we are even known internationally for supplying hundreds of thousands of crew in international ships. There are small ROROs whose ramps fell our while in use but no sinkings ever happened because of that. But of course nobody would report such incidents to MARINA but I vow such things actually happened. Doesn’t that speak of the quality of our crews unlike the European crews (har har!). And our code of omerta?

11789058185_f64724dc08_z

An LCT (Photo by Aris Refugio)

If we had capsizings of our small ROROs with bow ramps it was not because of “free surface effect” but of unbalanced loading maybe like what happened to Baleno Nine in Verde Island Passage and the Lady of Mt. Carmel in the Burias Gap. But I thought the Philippine Ports Author (PPA) had already installed weighing stations at the entrance of the important ports and so what is the problem? Our cargo masters are also very good in estimating the weight of a truck by just looking at its wheels, if there is no weighbridge available.

If sea water entered the car deck of our small ROROs it seemed the point of entry was at the stern like what happened to the Emerald 1 which seemed to fail in a sea surge off Matuco Pt. in Batangas and the Ocean King II which seemed to be a victim of a rogue wave in Surigao Strait (both of these ships also sank in the dark like the MS Herald of Free Enterprise and MS Estonia; it seems the dark is additional danger as checking of things are more difficult). This is also what happened to British RORO Princess Victoria in 1953 when her crew can’t handle water from storm surge in the English Channel entering the car deck through the stern door and ramp. So, empirically, shouldn’t we be closing stern ramps and not the bow ramp? I mean let us be consistent and logical? We should not just copying some rules because some dumb European ships experienced failures. Let us proceed from evidence.

We also have a RORO, a half-RORO at that because she looks like a conventional cargo ship but she has a stern ramp and she had a passenger deck built atop what should be cargo deck. This was the Kalibo Star which sank in daytime on a rainy day with choppy seas in 1997. Water seeped into a hatch that the crew failed to close and “free surface effect” capsized the ship. So from evidence it seems what we really should we be closing are the stern ramps and not ROROs (well, even the capsized Princess of the Orient and Princess of the Stars were stern loading ROROs). I mean shouldn’t we proceeding from empirical evidence instead of being copycats? (Disclosure: I have a private database of over 300 Philippine ships that was lost since the end of the war which I have consulted.)

4562561467_9133caa6e0_z

The Samar Star, a ship similar to the lost Kalibo Star (Photo by JC Cabanillas)

Hindi tayo dapat uto-uto (we should not be like marionettes). If there is a marionette in our maritime world it might our MARINA, the maritime regulatory agency who is wont to sign all the protocols handed down by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) so as the claim “we” are “IMO-compliant” and brag as if that is an achievement. Why, we don’t even use IMO Numbers as MARINA insists on its own numbers that are not searchable anywhere else. And when former Senator Miriam asked that those protocols be submitted to the Senate for ratification the government of Noynoy flatly refused. Now it seems these signed protocols are being bandied about as if they are official, as if those have the force of law like what they do with the ISPS protocol. From what I know only our Congress can pass national laws and that was why the late Miriam was pointedly challenging MARINA then. These protocols we signed are not part of our laws, they do not have the effect of a law and if one searches there are no penal provisions attached unlike in a law.

Besides we should not be bandying some rare failures in a different land (or sea) as if they general application. In engineering, the lessons derived from a cause of failure is specific in use and is not generalized. If a bridge or a building collapsed it does not mean that all the bridges and buildings with similar designs have to be torn down or closed. If a plane of sweptback wing design crashes not all sweptback planes are banned. Is the maritime world not an engineering world too (it was not when hulls were still wooden and we have not graduated from that?). So the maritime world is not an empirical world but a world of knee jerk artists?

Rather than blindly following IMO protocols we should have our own empirical study of our ship losses so more concrete lessons can be gained.

But then I doubt if MARINA and the Philippine Coast Guard even have a complete database of our ship losses (it seems they can’t provide a list of more than 50 sinkings).

As they say, let us proceed from evidence. Let us not assume we are as dumb like some Europeans.

The Samar Star

In 2011, members of the Philippine Ship Spotters Society (PSSS) doing ship spotting by the Cansaga Bay bridge were excited because it seemed the lengthy drydock of Samar Star in Star Marine Shipyard by the that bay was already finished. She was already repainted and from afar it looked like the passenger accommodations were also spiffed up. The members of PSSS were all wishing that Maypalad Shipping Corporation can still get back to sailing. That shipping society is on the sentimental side like most Pinoys and it wishes that the ships they know will sail on forever, if that wer only possible. The members were sad that the Maypalad Shipping fleet including its cargo ships was just anchored and tied up in Mactan Channel since 2009. Samar Star was the only one not tied up there and it seems she was the last one sailing among the fleet. However, another ship of theirs, the Cabalian Star was already a long time “resident” of Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation in San Fernando, Cebu.

Samar Star together with a trio of true sister ships of Maypalad Shipping, the Leyte Star, Cebu Star and Kalibo Star is a unique kind of ferry. Her hull and superstructure very much looks like a cargo ship but she is equipped with a quarter RORO ramp in the port side and she has a car deck. Even in Japan her classification was not as a cargo ship but as a RORO Ferry. It looks like her role there is that of a vehicle carrier with a limited, basic passenger accommodation and used as a short-distance RORO ferry. In the Philippines, to increase her passenger capacity, a passenger deck was built over her car deck.

With the lines and superstructure of a cargo ship, the Samar Star is not by any means a looker. Some will even say she is downright ugly. Most people, after all don’t find the design and lines of small general cargo ships to be beautiful and Samar Star very much resembles that type. However, this ship has a story and a history.

Samar Star was first known as the Samar Queen when she arrived in the Philippines in 1980. As a RORO ship, she was one of the earliest in the country although at first glance she might not look like one. Even me when I first saw this kind of ship of Maypalad Shipping thought she was just a converted cargo ship until I saw her classification in Miramar Ship Index as RORO Ferry.

She was the first RORO ship of the K&T Shipping Lines, as Maypalad Shipping Corporation was known then. The ships of K&T Shipping were named “Queens” then and so she was Samar Queen. Later, they were named as “Stars” but not all as their ferry Guiuan remained the Guiuan. Their cargo ships also carried the “Stars” name. K&T Shipping Lines changed their name to Maypalad Shipping Corporation when the ferry Kalibo Star, their flagship, capsized and sank early one afternoon in the heavy swells of Samar Sea near Biliran island on August 15, 1997 with the loss of many lives.

In Japan, Samar Star was known as the Asaka Maru of the shipping line Saito Kaiun KK. This ship was built by Wakamatsu Shipbuilding in Kitakyushu, Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan in 1968 and she carried the IMO Number 6817089. She measured 56.6 meters in length over-all (LOA) with 9.1 meters in extreme breadth (this is akin to the measurements of an “FS” ship). The ship has an original gross register tonnage (GRT) of 482 and deadweight tonnage (DWT) of 203. The Asaka Maru was powered by a single 1,300-horsepower Nippatsu (Fuji) engine which propelled her to a top speed of 11 knots.

In the Philippines, aside from the passenger deck constructed above the car deck a portion of the car deck was also converted for passenger use and fitted with bunks like the passenger deck above. This is so because her primary function in the Philippines was as passenger carrier and carrying vehicles was just a sometime load. The rear or aft portion of the car deck was being used more as a cargo deck for loose cargo. The authorized maximum passenger load of the ship is 280 persons. Whereas in Japan her gross tonnage was 482 that went down to 233 when scantling and a passenger deck was added to her. The MARINA “magic meter” seemed to be at work on her.

K&T Shipping/Maypalad Shipping operated a diverse set of routes from Cebu like routes to Tacloban, Naval (Biliran), Sogod, Liloan, Cabalian (all in Southern Leyte) and even San Jose which was then in Surigao del Norte. They also operated a Guiuan (Eastern Samar)-Tacloban route. I have not confirmed if they operated a Samar or Aklan route before but the names of their ships indicated that. None of their routes seemed to be particularly successful for a long time.

One reason perhaps for this is the type and quality of the ships they were using. Equipped with freighter engines and freighter engine ratings they were not speedy even when new. And so they suffered from the faster competition especially in the longer overnight routes when their ships can’t arrive before breakfast. Aside from that their passenger accommodations are more on the spartan side and cannot compare with or compete with contemporaries. Sometimes, it is also a disadvantage if a ship has no airconditioned accommodations. And early on they were just furnished with foldable cots or tejeras in the local languages.

Later on their routes were unfortunately torpedoed by paradigm changes. With the improvement of the land transport system, slowly the routes to Samar and Tacloban wilted when passengers learned how to use the western Leyte ports and the cheap, unticketed rides offered by the buses from Manila (this practice is extra income or kita-kita by the driver-conductors of the buses and unofficially allowed by the bus companies). The Tacloban route lost heavily to Ormoc port as the ship plus bus/van combination of the latter was cheaper and faster and arrives before breakfast.

The Sogod, Liloan and Cabalian routes also began losing to the ship plus bus/van combination emanating from Hilongos and Bato ports which was cheaper, arrives sooner and was reliable as it is connected to the shipping companies serving those ports. Sogod and Liloan voyages arrive late but the Cabalian route will really test one’s stomach. Again, the lack of engine power and speed of the Maypalad Shipping ships jeopardized them as their ships cannot speed up to compensate for the longer distances of their routes. A ship capable of doing only 11 knots when new in Japan can only be expected to sail at 9 knots here max and on longer routes that simply is not enough.

San Jose in Dinagat island as a destination was a dead duck too as the ship going there would already arrive in the afternoon and that is challenging for the passengers both in patience and in their sustenance. The Cokaliong ship will easily beat them even though the passengers have to transfer in Surigao because at least they can partake of breakfast outside the port gates. Meanwhile, all the Guiuan-Tacloban ships simply lost when the new direct highway from Basey, Samar to Guiuan was finally built and the buses, vans and trucks began rolling.

By the time these challenges of paradigm changes happened it seemed Maypalad Shipping was already weakened financially and they can no longer refleet. They also can’t bring their ships to ports serviced by competition as they were simply outgunned. At this time their ships were already a decade older than competition’s reckoned from the time they arrived here in the Philippines. So, one by one Maypalad Shipping stopped sailing from their routes as they were losing. It seems the last route they were holding was the Cebu-Liloan route and Samar Star was the holder of that route (there they were using the Liloan municipal port). When Maypalad Shipping drydocked the Samar Star they did not field a replacement ship anymore.

After being tied up for five years in Star Marine Shipyard, the fresh coat of paint of Samar Star in 2011 is now peeling off and rust is already beginning to grow in her hull. The tarpaulin covering of the passenger deck is now cracked and the state of her bridge and engine machinery is now questionable at best. As an untended ship built in 1968 she must now be in an advanced graying state. Meanwhile, her fleet mates in Mactan Channel are now disappearing one by one through breaking.

I wish Samar Star will live on but that might just be a wish that cannot be fulfilled.