What to do with STS Leeuwin - Part 2: A Replacement Vessel

WHY DOES THE LEEUWIN NEED TO BE REPAIRED?

Major reason is financial. The Leeuwin’s masts and rigging are an insurance write-off and it is yet to be determined how much of the original rigging can be salvaged. One of the constraints on re-using equipment, for even minor items like shackles and small steel brackets, is undertaking non-destructive testing (NDT) to confirm strength integrity.

For what we have at the moment, the monetary value of the Leeuwin as an operational sailing vessel, is almost non-existent.

STS Leeuwin after suffering collision. Credit Jean Hudson

Since the insurance will cover the restoration of the masts and rigging, it would be absurd to take any course of action, other than restore Leeuwin back to a pre-collision condition; albeit with new materials.

However, the other and equally important reason to repair the Leeuwin’s rigging, is what the Leeuwin means to WA. To the people who have sailed onboard, the lives of young adults changed for the better and primarily for the thousands of volunteers and countless hours of work and devotion that make an inanimate object like the Leeuwin, seem like a cosy old friend – filled with some of the best memories of one’s life.

For me, the mast and rigging restoration and repair is a given, on every level.

WHY DOES WA NEED A REPLACEMENT SHIP? WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A REPLACEMENT SHIP?

Why don’t we just repair the Leeuwin and carry on?

In my earlier article, it was mentioned the Leeuwin has survived the last 20 years, and especially through COVID has remained financially viable; an incredible achievement by the CEO’s, staff, crew and volunteers. However ‘survival’ probably describes the situation well, as it has not been all financial fair winds and calm seas – far from it. More like being hit by a line squall, followed by a cold front, ebbing into a Force 8 storm (Beaufort) and throw in the occasional Category 4 tropical revolving storm (TRS) – aka a cyclone.

So if the rig is repaired and we just continue on – what will change? I think the answer is – not much.

As ships age, the number on inspections and surveys increase almost exponentially. The first big 5 yearly survey, which typically involves dry-docking, is somewhat routine. Although some major machinery items are taken apart and inspected, it pales into insignificance compared with the 10 year survey, and the big one – the 20 year survey. There are many shipping companies who would rather sell their ships than undergo a 20 year survey. There are not too many items that do not have to be pulled apart, inspected and rebuilt.

A classic example of the increased maintenance costs with the Leeuwin, was during a major refit in 2009 where the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure received $3.5 million dollars from the Lotteries Commission of WA. The refit was nicknamed the ‘half-life’ refit. For the first time, the ballast in the bottom of the hull (situated underneath the water tanks) needed to be removed and inspected. However when the ballast was reinstated, the water tanks were modified to enable the ballast to be removed ore easily next time. It was a given that the ballast would need to be inspected far more regularly, hence the modification.

These major refits have a host of other issues –
• only being able to stay financially afloat via large government and Lotteries grants
• fewer and fewer volunteer crew can be utilized in more technically challenging maintenance. For example, a young ex-trainee still in high school who has being tireless on board in helping with sail handling, cleaning below decks, scrubbing topsides and generally being a star while the ship has been at sea, is unlikely to have the skills and knowledge to change out main engine mountings.
• the maintenance jobs become bigger and bigger, until eventually you have to start exchanging hull plating, anchors, plumbing, bulkheads, tanks and other big ticket items; and don’t get me started on marine electronics which seem to have to be changed out regularly, because the software upgrades are no longer available.

Probably the biggest reason not to persevere with the Leeuwin in WA is the advancement in marine based technologies, especially since 1986. This technological advancement has not been quite as fast as the computer/IT/digital world, however it has been as equally as staggering from a marine perspective.

No ship I have sailed on since 2001 has had propellers or shafts. All of them have electric thrusters – that is, a thruster is a propeller powered by an electric motor and housed inside a little pod. The pod (thruster) can rotate 360° and therefore does not rely on water moving across the rudder for steerage.

Being electric opens the door for a myriad of technologies to generate electricity. From vertical wind turbines disguised in the mast, to photo-voltaic material imbedded in the sails, spinning underwater turbines and a backup bio-diesel generator – the combinations are fantastic.

These thrusters come in all different shapes and sizes and most have variable pitch, which enables the thruster to provide either forward or astern propulsion. It is possible to fix the pitch astern and when as the vessel is under sail, the thruster then rotates backwards thus providing regenerative power back to recharge batteries; similar to current EV’s as they are braking.

With forward thrusters on legs which fold up inside the hull, the vessel is able to maintain position without needing to swing on an anchor. As well as using very little electrical power in this mode and produce no emissions, it also enables the ship to enter environmentally sensitive areas (marine national parks and World Heritage areas) which may have restrictions on diesel emissions and anchoring vessels.

This dynamically positioned facility also provides major advantages when launching rescue boats, embarking and disembarking crew at sea and being able to manoeuvre the vessel more accurately, particularly in emergency situations. It also enables the vessel to emit no fumes when tied up in out-ports with no shore power. This is becoming a big issue for commercial shipping worldwide.

When it comes to new marine technologies the list of possibilities is huge. More importantly is how we can translate these new technologies into operational outcomes; it is a complete game changer.

WHAT IS THE FATE OF THE LEEUWIN IF IT WERE TO BE SOLD?

Essentially, retirement.

An example of an organisation which may be interested in purchasing the Leeuwin (particularly with a new rig) would be Outward Bound Singapore. This organisation has been involved with the Leeuwin for a number of years. Sailing in somewhat gentle environmental conditions and with a less hectic sailing program, would be an ideal retirement for our beloved Leeuwin.

DO WE NEED A REPLACEMENT SHIP OR CAN WE SIMPLY UNDERTAKE A BROADER CHARTER?

Being able to change or re-write the Leeuwin’s charter, would be essential if LOA – the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure – were to operate a new vessel and be financially sustainable.

Having a more expansive charter that would enable a broader cross section of Western Australians to experience life at sea under sail, whilst primarily focusing on personal development for the youth of Western Australia, would be highly desirable.

STS Leeuwin, Fremantle. File photo. Credit Jean Hudson

In my earlier article I raised the possibility of the dividing the ship’s annual schedule into quarters: with the slightly larger quarter of 95 days being for a youth sailing training program, toing that these days refer to actual days at sea; a further 90 days for universities, the Education Department and high schools; and a further 90 days for day sails, functions alongside, maintenance periods, transit days, lay days, etcetera. None of these operations are too far outside the original Leeuwin charter.

It is the final 90 days of ‘chartering’ the vessel which is subject to interpretation.

There are really 3 distinct forms of charter voyages. Firstly there is the traditional cruise liner where the destination is inconsequential and the attraction is to be pampered in luxury on board, whilst eating, drinking and being entertained.

The second is a sub-category of the first, called ‘Expedition Cruising’. On an Expedition Cruises, the vessel provides the means to explore a remote destination or explore the area from the ocean, for example, Antarctica or Easter Island. The main emphasis is to undertake a tactile experience by going ashore, exploring and become more educated about unique environments and landscapes. These cruises also offer many marine interactions like diving, snorkelling, paddling, etcetera. However the operation of the vessel is all undertaken by professional crew and the expeditioners are essentially passengers, who are able to go ashore.

Thirdly – Eco Voyages. The crew on these voyages sail the vessel, clean the ship, assist with meals, help with maintenance when required, partake in program activities, form part of the ship’s crew and then go ashore to explore and experience special places and environments; without the Eco Voyage crew, the ship goes nowhere.

Like Expedition Cruising, the destination is all important and fortunately WA has plenty of remote marine destinations such as the Recherche Archipelago, the Abrolhos Islands, Ningaloo Reef, the Montebello’s and the Kimberly. Other adventurous destinations include Heard Island, Macquarie Island and Big Ben – all in the Southern Ocean.

Eco Voyages are nothing new for Leeuwin and, in the early days, the Kimberley voyages were booked out.

In the last 10 years, bookings for Eco Voyages have struggled and I have it on good authority, the primary cause was substandard accommodation and lack of up-market amenities onboard. With the introduction of other smaller private companies undertaking Expedition Cruising, the lure of square rig sailing has been forsaken for a comfortable mattress and ensuite. This is an issue which could be addressed with a replacement vessel.

Much of the answer to the above question lies in the answer to the next question.

WILL A REPLACEMENT SHIP BE MORE FINANCIALLY VIABLE? WILL A REPLACEMENT SHIP BE SELF-FUNDING?

To be financially sustainable – each of these 4 sections addressed in answering the last big question need to operate differently from the current modes of operation.

To obtain 90 days of bookings with educational institutions requires some major changes, which are not possible with Leeuwin. First and most importantly will be the use of the main saloon as a lecturing space. Audio visual equipment, a small workshop / laboratory and appropriate refrigeration facilities would all be essential additions to voyages, based on marine science education.

Finally, the 90 days for ‘everything else’. Currently when major maintenance events are required, the vessel is often out of operation for months at a time. The more maintenance periods can be reduced, the more time is available for day sails (which are the most cost effective means of advertising for other voyages), functions, events alongside, maritime training sessions, etcetera. Most of this is not possible with a current Leeuwin, nor a modified Leeuwin.

So, what has to change to make the vessel financially independent ?

Following on from what I have just outlined, with regard to the four different booking categories, having a confirmed 90 days with universities, Department of Education and high schools lays a solid financial keel from which to build.

The crucial element of this proposed schedule are the Eco Voyages. This provides the real financial stability for the organization, to enable the youth sail training program to operate. Past experience tells us that those who are least able to afford a voyage on Leeuwin, usually benefit the most. It is no surprise that sponsoring young people who have been dealt a tough hand from the outset and then go to sea on a square rigger, often experience the most life changing outcomes.

In an age where corporate sponsors, financial backers, commercial patrons, logos, advertising and large company financial support is often more forthcoming than philanthropic donations and volunteer contributions, a new charter would be essential.

Large long term sponsors would need to invest substantial amounts of dollars to build a replacement ship – absolutely no doubt. I still believe that operating the ship and staying in the financial black for the long haul, is more of a challenge than building a new vessel. If building a replacement vessel takes 2 – 3 years, this fades away very quickly compared to keeping the organisation relevant and afloat for the next 40 years. Future proofing will be crucial to ensure a replacement vessel that is designed to be relevant for the next 4 decades.

CAN A NEW SHIP BE BUILT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA BY WEST AUSTRALIANS FOR WEST AUSTRALIANS?

Building the Leeuwin had a great narrative. The stories, the synergies, the serendipity – it all melted into what became a magical result. It still had the cold fronts, the storms and the cyclones, however such traumas seem to wash away with a good ale and a bowl full of laughter.

Leeuwin has always been the premiere sail training vessel (and square rigger) in Australia; it has always set the bar.

A replacement for Leeuwin can certainly be built in Western Australia by West Australians for West Australians. For this there is no doubt. WA is the Australian epicenter for building square riggers for both historical museum ships like the Endeavour and the Duyfkin and for year round operational ships like Leeuwin.

All the expertise from the naval architecture and initial design to tensioning the rig and sailing off the anchor, its all here and its all home grown.

WHAT WOULD A REPLACEMENT SHIP LOOK LIKE?

The answer to this question is not unlike asking a thousand food critics to agree on one favourite food.

Designing a ship by committee is similar to herding cats – very difficult. To a certain extent that is why we enlist naval architects. The best committee is a committee of one – however, it is imperative you obtain the services of the right person. Fortunately Leeuwin enlisted Len Randall (absolute legend) and the rest is history.

As I keep stressing, we now have 40 years of sailing training experience in this State and dozens of people who have sailed on hundreds of vessels all over the globe. To draw on this experience, take all the great features of Leeuwin and combine that with a fairly clear criteria of what is required for future operations – we are a lot further ahead than when Leeuwin was first envisaged.

The following is very personal and I think if there is going to be any immediate reaction to this article it will be in this next section! Here are my personal thoughts on what a replacement ship could look like.

A barquentine (square sails on the foremast and the remainder are fore and aft sails – like a yacht) like Leeuwin has served us well and is well suited to the WA coast. However, I am now pretty convinced that a barque (or bark) rig – square sails on the fore mast and the main mast and the remainder fore and aft sails – may be a better option. However these remaining fore and aft sails – the headsails and the staysails – would need to be large and effective to ensure adequate speed sailing close to the wind, with the squares clewed up and furled.

There is a similar vessel in Australia which is 150 years old this year – the James Craig.

James Craig. Source Pinterest.fr

It is owned by the Sydney Heritage Fleet and has the most remarkable restoration story. Truly inspiring.

It spent many decades on the seabed off the coast of Tasmania, before being surfaced and rebuilt. It is 70 metres long and has a 9.5 metre beam. This provides an extra 15 metres of length. Note – this extra 15 metres is gained in the middle of the vessel, since the dimensions for the bow and the stern remain very similar.

That’s my 2 bobs worth and, as previously stated, combined with the features of the Leeuwin and the ideas and hacks from the dozens of square rig sailors in WA, it would certainly be a recipe for an amazing replacement; a sailing vessel like no other.

THE NAME FOR THE REPLACEMENT SHIP?

On the subject of getting in early with suggestions – the name for a the replacement vessel?

Leeuwin (or Leeuwin II as per her official name) was initially chosen since Denis and Tricia Horgan from Leeuwin Estate Wineries, were the major sponsors at the time of the America’s Cup. Without their sponsorship the vessel would have struggled to be built; thank you Denis and Tricia.

However, back in the eighties if you wanted to stay away from corporate sponsorship, I often overhead the story that the vessel’s name came from Cape Leeuwin, near Augusta.

My suggestion for a name for the new vessel would be “Leveque” (pronounced ‘le-veek’) which has the following similarities to Leeuwin –
• both names have a French origin
• both names are capes on the WA coast – Leveque at the most northern tip of the Dampier Archipelago, NNE of Broome in the Kimberley
• both capes have lighthouses.

The close sounding names and the above similarities, would ensure Leeuwin’s legacy lives on.

But back to the question – “What will a replacement ship look like?” – although not a lot of the propulsion and electrical systems will be visible – there is a very good chance a new vessel would be able to operate fossil fuel free. The combination of a rig based on a 150 year old vessel and essentially carbon neutral to operate – I find mind boggling.

WOULD A NEW SHIP REQUIRE VOLUNTEERS? WOULD THE LEEUWIN OCEAN ADVENTURE STILL RUN AS A CHARITY?

This is a definite yes. Absolutely.

Like Leeuwin, a replacement vessel could not survive without a large band of skilled and hardworking volunteers. Be it Eco Voyages, day sails, on-board functions, sail training, maintenance periods or port watch keeping – volunteer crew are essential.

FINALLY – THE MALCOLM HAY TEST

A good friend of mine, who has been involved with the Leeuwin and the Scouting movement for many years and also does a lot of pro bono sail-making work for Leeuwin, commented recently that a ship undertaking youth sail training needs to pass the ‘Malcolm Hay Test’.

The late Dr Malcolm Hay was the initial driving force behind starting Leeuwin and was very clear and extremely passionate about who was benefitting from the vessel. He would ask – does it benefit WA youth?

The test here remains for a new ship – ‘Would Malcolm approve?’

I think he would.

Roy Lewisson
Master Mariner

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* If you’d like to COMMENT on this or any of our stories, don’t hesitate to email our Editor.

** WHILE YOU’RE HERE –