Savannah, Nuclear Powered Steamship

Shipbuilder
23rd July 2008, 10:32
SAVANNAH Nuclear steamship
I am prompted to start this thread after reading “Steam Will Return,” containing various references to nuclear power in merchant ships & the SAVANNAH in particular. At the outset, I will state that I am a former radio officer & NOT a marine engineer. With this in mind, everything I write here is taken from the specifications of the ship & scrutiny of her plans. I have never had any particular interest in the SAVANNAH & regard my records on the vessel as a small, but interesting point in the development of marine propulsion systems.

Length Overall: 595 ft 6 in
Breadth: 78 feet
Draught: 29 ft 6 in
Deadweight capacity: 10,000 tons
Displacement: 21,800 tons
Number of crew: 110
Number of passengers: 60
Service power: 20,000 s.h.p.
Service speed 21 knots

Forward of the bridge, there were four cargo holds, no different in size from any other similar sized merchant vessel of the time. At the after end of the accommodation, there was a trunked cargo hold, followed by two more standard size holds.

The reactor space was aft of number four hold. It did not extend the full with of the ship. The laundry & clean linen rooms were to port, whilst the butchers shop, chill room and passenger baggage were to starboard. The height of the reactor unit was from the tank top to just below the promenade deck. The reactor was 70 ft long and 55 ft high.

Shaft speed: 107 rpm. Steam pressure at drum (dry saturated) 490 p.s.i.
Main condenser vacuum: 28.5 Hg.
Feed water temperature: 347F.
Steam consumption per hour main turbines 186,610 lb.
Steam consumption per hour for other uses 55,590 lb.
Total electrical load 2,200 kW.

The weight of the propulsion system was an estimated 1,265 short tons and the reactor was 665 short tons. With the containment vessel, the total weight was about 4,348 tons.

As I am not an engineer, it is no use asking me any technical questions about the SAVANNAH, but I do hold a profile plan, reactor system flow diagram, arrangement of the reactor system, cut away drawing of the pressurized water reactor, photographs of a full-scale mock-up of the power plant & containment vessel.

Bob

Bruce Carson
23rd July 2008, 13:11
Perhaps "nuclear fueled" rather than "nuclear powered" would be a more accurate description of the ship.

Bruce

Shipbuilder
23rd July 2008, 13:59
You are probably correct, but as I said, I am no engineer. I took the title "Nuclear-powered" direct from the official review in THE MOTOR SHIP, 1959 volume.
Bob

surfaceblow
23rd July 2008, 14:30
The Savannah was not very economical. "Savannah's cargo space was limited to 8,500 tons of freight in 652,000 cubic feet (18,000 m³). Many of her competitors could accommodate several times as much. Her streamlined hull made loading the forward holds laborious, which became a significant disadvantage as ports became more and more automated. Her crew was a third larger than comparable oil-fired ships and received special training after completing all training requirements for conventional maritime licenses. Her operating budget included the maintenance of a separate shore organization for negotiating her port visits and a personalized shipyard facility for completing any needed repairs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

mrcanoehead
24th July 2008, 05:21
For all concerned the Savannna was this spring at Norshipco( BAE), in Norfolk Va. usa For a complete blast off on the outside, spent time on the lift for inspection & was completely repainted outside, then lovingly towed to a terminal up in Baltimore, & parked next to the Hospital ship Comfort, Might I add the dock in this area of Fairfield Baltimore,( viewable from hwy 95), also in close proximity of CSX Coal Teminal & a Gypsum Dock for a local Manufacter. Yes Both White Ships, amazing, all that money & park them at these locations.

jimmys
24th July 2008, 08:47
I saw her in Manila a few times. I dont know whether she was working there or it was a layup. No one was allowed near her.

regards
jimmys

Keckers
24th July 2008, 09:36
Saw her in either Charleston or Savanah in the late 70's early 80's. White hull and superstructure - looked a bit like a fridge boat but smaller and not so sleek lines.

Jan Hendrik
24th July 2008, 10:32
A variety of threads already exist on this vessel.
Just use the search engine in both the forum and the gallery as :
ns savannah.
For any additional information it is suggested this is added to the already existing threads.
Jan

Some threads as follows:
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=1466&highlight=otto+hahn

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=14740&highlight=savannah

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 01:13
I just read in The Port of Baltimore magazine that SAVANNAH is now in Baltimore for "pre-decommisioning" which is expected to take 5 years and will include removing all nuclear components and "scrubbing" her down so she can someday be used as a museum. We'll wait to see if there's anything left of the USA after this Obama term. Whole damn country may be sold for scrap once that idiot gives everything away.

spongebob
28th December 2008, 02:18
Give the man a chance Burntisland, he has not started the job yet and surely can't be worse than the incumbent at running the USA, or the rest of the world.

Bob

surfaceblow
28th December 2008, 02:21
http://www.seafarers.org/log/2008/112008/savannah.xml

The Seafarers International Union paper had a article on the Savannah in Baltimore. The paper version of the article had more interior pictures.

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 02:52
Give the man a chance Burntisland, he has not started the job yet and surely can't be worse than the incumbent at running the USA, or the rest of the world.

Bob

Unfortunately we have NO CHOICE but give him a chance. I get the feeling that Europe has been sold a bunch of B/S about this clown and soon we're all going to see how weak and indecisive he is but let us all remind him when he starts to whine........HE ASKED FOR THIS JOB!
By the way.........If you're getting your news from CNN or BBC you won't get the whole story. He hasn't even taken office yet and already there's is scandal looming. He took a week to come up with a lie about his involvment with the whacko mayor of Chicago but OBAMA came up and declared he and his staff "Cleared". Just wait. You're going to see that this goofball is an empty suit. Putin and the Chinese will chew him up and spit him out like yesterdays tobacco!
Bob, I honestly think that in a couple of years.........the Bush terms are going to seem like "the good old days". I hope I'm wrong, but I think I'm not.
Regards,
Milt

spongebob
28th December 2008, 04:21
OK Milt, I hope your wrong, but down here we must base our views on the media information as presented. I don't get CNN or BBC but I do look at the internet editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post from time to time. Latest poll figures suggest over 70% satisfaction with the man but then polls are often made inaccurate by the poll voter opting for the perceived winner to suit his own ego.
Time will tell and it should not take to long to see which is wheat and which is chaff.

Bob

non descript
28th December 2008, 08:47
One of the very important facts about the Savannah is of course that she was the object of a Tongan Quiz (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=21718)

Not many ships can claim that accolade. (Jester)

Tony D
28th December 2008, 09:41
I saw her once in Norfolk Virginia I think it was,a neat well kept vessel she looked,what struck me years later when I read something about her was that she did a few hundred thousand sea miles powered by what amounted to a lump of metal that weighed only a couple of hundred lbs,it may not be a economical or sensible way to power a Merchant Vessel but we have to be insane to ignore a power source like that for our energy needs especially in these days of dwindling fossil fuel.

Philthechill
28th December 2008, 11:37
The BIG problem with anything that has the label "nuclear" attached to it is ignorance about the subject.

I don't make any claims about being an "expert" ( a much maligned term these days I'm afraid!!) on things nuclear but I do try to look at things pragmatically and, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the harnessing of nuclear reactions for electricity-generation or for propulsion purposes.

Unfortunately there have been nuclear accidents/incidents (invariably human-error caused) and the idiot scare-mongers leap onto these as the latest way of terrifying the general public who, unfortunately, rarely look into the why's and wherefore's of the great benefits which can be gained from the harnessing of nuclear energy. Which is rather strange, really, as they (the general public) unquestioningly embrace the use of nuclear energy when it's used in its medical context ( e.g. radiation treatment of cancer).

Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth, and all the other doom-and-gloomers, demonise nuclear-energy to the point of parnoia invariably using the, "think of our children, and their children and what an inheritance we are going to leave them if we build nuclear power-stations all over the place!", cudgel to persuade everyone that nuclear-energy is the tool of Satan!! They don't mention what an inheritance will be left if there aren't any power-staions when ALL the fossil-fuels are gone though-----do they? Oh, apart from whittering on about "sustainable power" and advocating covering the country with windmills which, unsurprisingly, don't work when there's no wind (the hint is in the name of them!!) so would need "unsustainable-powered" generators to back them up!!! Luckily (and quite surprisingly considering they were quite adamant about NOT building them), the current (Ha! No pun intended!!!) Labour Government has put forward a plan to build a whole raft of new nuclear power-stations. A bit too late, probably, but a step in the right direction.

So for my money I think it is high time we started building nuclear-powered cargo ships too, explaining to the general-public, first, that they aren't potential bombs, and the sooner the building starts, the better.

Savannah was, unfortunately, built forty years too soon! Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

NoMoss
28th December 2008, 11:47
One of the very important facts about the Savannah is of course that she was the object of a Tongan Quiz (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=21718)

Not many ships can claim that accolade. (Jester)

Another accodalde was that I made a Revell model of her once and very smart it looked too. At the same time I had one of the United States and they made a fine pair - must see if I still have a photo somewhere.

Burntisland
28th December 2008, 13:50
OK Milt, I hope your wrong, but down here we must base our views on the media information as presented. I don't get CNN or BBC but I do look at the internet editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post from time to time. Latest poll figures suggest over 70% satisfaction with the man but then polls are often made inaccurate by the poll voter opting for the perceived winner to suit his own ego.
Time will tell and it should not take to long to see which is wheat and which is chaff.

Bob

You are correct in your assessment of some American voters and poll participants. There is a certain ilk here who always wants to be on the winning side. The media in this country purposely manipulated this election and the celebrity worshippers, gays, illegal aliens, minorities and uneducated first time voters are now going to get the "change" they so desparately sought. With all the Clinton people Obama is appointing it appears there won't be much "change".
The New York Times is probably one of the most liberal rags printed in this nation. If you want lies and bias.........that's the one to read.
I appologize for tainting this forum with my opinion of this Obama fool but I suppose it's easy to see I'M PISSED OFF.........I AM however very glad to see that no one on here has yet called me a racist.........Color has nothing to do with my opinion of how he'll perform as President. In this country, if you question anything he says.........the pathetic left jumps in and calls you racist and bigoted.........That's when I start frothing at the mouth.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! I need to shut up now.

frogger
19th March 2009, 03:15
Seems Obama has done okay afterall!

Jeff Taylor
20th March 2009, 20:48
Compared to what?

Blackal
23rd March 2009, 05:24
The BIG problem with anything that has the label "nuclear" attached to it is ignorance about the subject.

I don't make any claims about being an "expert" ( a much maligned term these days I'm afraid!!) on things nuclear but I do try to look at things pragmatically and, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the harnessing of nuclear reactions for electricity-generation or for propulsion purposes.

Unfortunately there have been nuclear accidents/incidents (invariably human-error caused) and the idiot scare-mongers leap onto these as the latest way of terrifying the general public who, unfortunately, rarely look into the why's and wherefore's of the great benefits which can be gained from the harnessing of nuclear energy. Which is rather strange, really, as they (the general public) unquestioningly embrace the use of nuclear energy when it's used in its medical context ( e.g. radiation treatment of cancer).

Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth, and all the other doom-and-gloomers, demonise nuclear-energy to the point of parnoia invariably using the, "think of our children, and their children and what an inheritance we are going to leave them if we build nuclear power-stations all over the place!", cudgel to persuade everyone that nuclear-energy is the tool of Satan!! They don't mention what an inheritance will be left if there aren't any power-staions when ALL the fossil-fuels are gone though-----do they? Oh, apart from whittering on about "sustainable power" and advocating covering the country with windmills which, unsurprisingly, don't work when there's no wind (the hint is in the name of them!!) so would need "unsustainable-powered" generators to back them up!!! Luckily (and quite surprisingly considering they were quite adamant about NOT building them), the current (Ha! No pun intended!!!) Labour Government has put forward a plan to build a whole raft of new nuclear power-stations. A bit too late, probably, but a step in the right direction.

So for my money I think it is high time we started building nuclear-powered cargo ships too, explaining to the general-public, first, that they aren't potential bombs, and the sooner the building starts, the better.

Savannah was, unfortunately, built forty years too soon! Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

I’m afraid that they are potential bombs…………….

I don’t claim to be an expert either, but have experience of both industries at a reasonably technical level.

Before a nuclear reactor is built on land in the UK – the plant must have a “safety case” which proves according to Probabilistic Risk Assessment – that the plant is/will be safe.
The design and location of the plant is chosen such that it is safe (according to the calculations of the PRA) in regard to design, materials, location, human operation, threat by aircraft collision, earthquake, fire etc.
I know from experience how much work is involved in justifying a reactor on land – it is immense.

Commercial ships are still colliding and sinking – so I think the Safety Case for a commercial nuclear ship would be a very difficult thing to achieve.
I also think underwriters would be a bit more jittery (a bit of an understatement) - if they had a nuclear core to deal with in addition to 300,000 tonnes of spilled oil.

Sea going nuclear plants tend to fall into the Boiling Water Reactor/Presurised Water Reactor designs (the PWR being the higher integrity, and has superseded the BWR ).

The advantage for ships, is that the power density of that (PWR) system is very high. A gas-cooled reactor would not have the same high density and would prove difficult to facilitate within the confines of a hull.

The big problem with the PWR (and BWR) is that things happen so fast, when things go wrong. In a Gas Cooled Reactor – the operators generally have a 20 minute “hands-off” rule – where they don’t touch anything for 20 minutes – while they gather data and pick the correct course of action. The nature of the plant allows them this “luxury”.
PWR operators undergo regular “drills” so that problems can be reacted to instantaneously – because the nature of the plant demands it.

I don’t feel that nuclear propulsion is right for commercial (as opposed to military) shipping ....................in the same way that I don’t feel that helicopters are right for private owner/operators – once away from an ultra-strict regime of maintenance/operation …………. Things start to go tragically wrong.

I'm all for nuclear power - just not in commercial ships.

Al (Thumb)

Klaatu83
31st March 2009, 19:20
The Savannah was a beautiful looking ship but I doubt if she would have been commercially competitive even if she'd had a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The engineering was revolutionary, but the rest of the ship was already approaching obsolescence. The container revolution took off during the 1960s, which meant that by 1970 the Savannah was already an antique.

One big problem was labor costs. All the engineers had to have nuclear engineering licenses, which meant that they got paid a lot more than regular marine engineers. Needless to say, the Masters, Mates, Radio Officers and Unlicensed Personnel all demanded proportionally higher wages as well.

billyboy
1st April 2009, 02:02
IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?

mikedavis
1st April 2009, 18:57
From a postcard I have from the early 60s of
N.S Savannah passing through the Panama Canal

Klaatu83
11th April 2009, 14:30
On the Mikedavis photo:

I notice that she has two tugs escorting her, and there isn't another ship in sight. I'll bet they cleared the entire canal when the Savannah went through, as a safety precaution. They used to do the same thing when they first began moving LNG tankers in and out of ports.

Blackal
11th April 2009, 15:41
IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?


I think you could garantee that.

You would also get significant resistance from local port authorities and communities. A lot of nuclear establishments are only tollerated by the local community because of the benefit to the community.

I can't see the people of Southampton or Tilbury seeing much of a benefit.

Al

tbates
12th June 2009, 03:44
Hi, i had the chance to tour her yesterday, i took many photos, if any one wants to visit her it would be open to the public on July 18-19, 2009, if any one want to see photos i could post them. Tom

Philthechill
12th June 2009, 22:19
I’m afraid that they are potential bombs…………….

I don’t claim to be an expert either, but have experience of both industries at a reasonably technical level.

Before a nuclear reactor is built on land in the UK – the plant must have a “safety case” which proves according to Probabilistic Risk Assessment – that the plant is/will be safe.
The design and location of the plant is chosen such that it is safe (according to the calculations of the PRA) in regard to design, materials, location, human operation, threat by aircraft collision, earthquake, fire etc.
I know from experience how much work is involved in justifying a reactor on land – it is immense.

Commercial ships are still colliding and sinking – so I think the Safety Case for a commercial nuclear ship would be a very difficult thing to achieve.
I also think underwriters would be a bit more jittery (a bit of an understatement) - if they had a nuclear core to deal with in addition to 300,000 tonnes of spilled oil.

Sea going nuclear plants tend to fall into the Boiling Water Reactor/Presurised Water Reactor designs (the PWR being the higher integrity, and has superseded the BWR ).

The advantage for ships, is that the power density of that (PWR) system is very high. A gas-cooled reactor would not have the same high density and would prove difficult to facilitate within the confines of a hull.

The big problem with the PWR (and BWR) is that things happen so fast, when things go wrong. In a Gas Cooled Reactor – the operators generally have a 20 minute “hands-off” rule – where they don’t touch anything for 20 minutes – while they gather data and pick the correct course of action. The nature of the plant allows them this “luxury”.
PWR operators undergo regular “drills” so that problems can be reacted to instantaneously – because the nature of the plant demands it.

I don’t feel that nuclear propulsion is right for commercial (as opposed to military) shipping ....................in the same way that I don’t feel that helicopters are right for private owner/operators – once away from an ultra-strict regime of maintenance/operation …………. Things start to go tragically wrong.

I'm all for nuclear power - just not in commercial ships.

Al (Thumb) Al! You're obviously very much up-to-speed on the nuclear front but I stick by my original statement of they're not potential bombs-------------not in the explosive sense anyway.

Getting the necessary criticallity to cause a nuclear weapon to detonate is quite difficult and the very nature of a nuclear reactor, (in a steam-raising plant such as there is in a power-station or a ship), would not lend itself to be able to achieve that stage of instant criticallity necessary.

There is no doubt a nuclear-plant could get into a very parlous state (witness the Windscale incident in 1957) but a nuclear explosion-------no.Salaams Phil(Hippy)

Klaatu83
13th June 2009, 14:10
"IF she were fully restored and put to work again. Would she not run into problems in many ports by Nuclear protesters?"

Apart from all other considerations, the Savannah was never a very efficient type of cargo ship to begin with. At the time she was built the days of conventional break-bulk freighters were already numbered. Even if she were conventionally powered she wouldn't make money for her owners in her present configuration. It would cost way too much to convert her into a modern container ship, and the result would be too small to be competitive in today's container ship market.

steamer659
13th June 2009, 21:31
A very unique ship indeed- to my knowledge there were only a handful of nuclear /steam powered merchant vessels- the German "Otto Hahn" was the other, and I believe a couple of old russkies. A VERY close collegue and lont time friend was the Superintendent on some of the work or rather "decomissioning" work which recently took place in Norfolk- he was also one the first proposed crew when the battle between States Marine and American Export Lines and the unions ocurred in the 60's....As stated above, a VERY inefficient cargo liner- however- this was the baby steps in a much larger plan which later fizzled....

Philthechill
14th June 2009, 16:32
It's all well-and-good saying that nuclear-fuelled cargo-ships would be too dangerous to have them trolling round the Seven Seas (and I DON'T mean Cod-liver oil!!!) but when one considers the numbers of a/c carriers and submarines, with nuclear-fuelled power-plants, it makes THAT particular argument a non-starter. After all as these vessels are involved in aggression, of one kind or another, they are far more likely to be involved in a nuclear accident when another nation decides to bomb, or otherwise decimate, their enemies ships than a merchant-ship being in a collision!

Personally I think nuclear-fuelled power-plants would be ideal for oil-tankers and container-ships as they would have the space necessary for a reactor and all its containment. Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

Klaatu83
15th June 2009, 14:17
The biggest problem with developing nuclear-powered merchant shipping is not with the technology but with the personnel. All the Engineers have to be Licensed Nuclear Engineers, and those guys cost a lot more money to hire than Conventional Marine Engineers. In addition, of course, the Licensed Deck Officers and Unlicensed Crew-members invariably demand pay parity with the Engineers. The result is that operating costs go way up, and away goes the operational savings over a conventional power plant. That was basically what happened with the Savannah, and I guarantee that the result wouldn't be any different in Britain, Japan, Germany, Australia or any other developed country.

Naytikos
16th June 2009, 07:21
I believe Ravi Tikoo had a proposal for a nuclear-powered VLCC in the late 70's. The vice-president of the company I then worked for took a year's leave to go and participate in the project. He came back minus a finger he had lost to a pump on the Globtik Venus. No, No-one else could ever get the connection with nuclear power either!

Blackal
17th June 2009, 21:58
Al! You're obviously very much up-to-speed on the nuclear front but I stick by my original statement of they're not potential bombs-------------not in the explosive sense anyway.

Getting the necessary criticallity to cause a nuclear weapon to detonate is quite difficult and the very nature of a nuclear reactor, (in a steam-raising plant such as there is in a power-station or a ship), would not lend itself to be able to achieve that stage of instant criticallity necessary.

There is no doubt a nuclear-plant could get into a very parlous state (witness the Windscale incident in 1957) but a nuclear explosion-------no.Salaams Phil(Hippy)

Don't read "bomb" too literally....... (well - in the sense that it "goes bang")

The problem with BWR/PWR design is that, once criticality is achieved (not "source-critical") then the reactivity in the core is self-modulating according to the power take-off at the turbines. This is a fascinating process to watch, but if you have a steam rupture in the secondary circuit of the PWR - it simulates full-throttle power off-take (and the rest (EEK) ).

The modulation of neutrons in the core increases dramatically - and the reactivity increases at the same rate - this can cause rupture of fuel plate cladding and release of fission products into the primary circuit, over-pressure and ultimately - the redistribution of fissile material in an area not controlled by the control-rods.

In the most severe case - there can be a release of radioactive gasses and particulate into the atmosphere - in essence, what is regarded as the result of a terrorist "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosion - distributing lethal radioactive material).

So, no - you will not produce an atomic or nuclear explosion, but that is of little comfort other than to save your ears from damage........... (Thumb)

Al :)

Satanic Mechanic
17th June 2009, 23:47
Just as wee aside to a more innocent time. Can anyone remember the Thunderbirds episode where Old Mother Tracey cooked (to much head shaking) the christmas/ thanksgiving turkey in a conventional oven because she

"just can't get the hang of those new nuclear ovens" (EEK)

I won't let my mum near a stereo for Gods sake !!!!!!!!

Billieboy
18th June 2009, 09:18
I seems to me that some posters have forgotten the series of automatic safety systems included, by international law, for the operation and containment, of any nuclear system. It runs through a series of extra cooling, quenching and scramming operations, in case of emergency. The trigger for the safety system initiation is usually when the reaction reaches 20% of critical, in other words a long, long, way, from the possibility of a nuclear explosion!

Of course, the human error factor, (or, as some say, the Criminal mal-operation of Chernobyl), is very difficult to avoid, unless controllers and systems are not correctly alarmed and backed up, in such a way that incorrect, or illegal, human intervention is made impossible.(Thumb)

John.H.Clark
20th July 2009, 08:48
saw her in Charleston 1993 ( my first US trip ) but visited a carrier instead. I have a vague recollection of seeing her many years earlier in Southampton. Can anybody confirm
John

jim garnett
31st October 2009, 02:10
On the Mikedavis photo:

I notice that she has two tugs escorting her, and there isn't another ship in sight. I'll bet they cleared the entire canal when the Savannah went through, as a safety precaution. They used to do the same thing when they first began moving LNG tankers in and out of ports.

I remember that all movements on the Hudson stopped when either of the two Queens were entering or leaving.back in the 1950,s.
Jim Garnett

J Boyde
31st October 2009, 07:07
Do we not have two issues at the present time. One, we do need some seem of energy to drive the growing demand for shipping around the world, and second, what sort of energy be we need to move all these empty boxes aroumd the world.
Jim B

needadditionalinformation
4th September 2010, 22:14
You can take a tour of the inside of the Savannah by following the link at the end of this message. There is also interesting written information about the present status of the Ship and her power plant. I would suggest selecting "HD Flash" or "HD Quicktime" from the "Start the tour with" pull down menu. You can then left click on the photo, and then hold down the "left click" button on your mouse, moving the mouse right, left, and up & down, seeing all around, as if you were there yourself. Most interior portions of the ship are represented. These appear to be very recent photos, and she's held up well, since she went out of service 39 years ago! Also, you can zoom in by holding in the shift key and zoom out by holding the Ctrl (Control) key. Most of the pictures start a bit zoomed in to begin with.

The link:
http://www.hnsa.org/savannah/

needadditionalinformation
4th September 2010, 22:51
Attached is a PDF of (period?) technical info on hull & outfit; also there's another great one on the power plant, lots of details, but evidently too big to attach, so there's a link:
https://voa.marad.dot.gov/programs/ns_savannah/docs/Part%20II-B%20Propulsion%20Plant.pdf