How Did They Widen A Ship? - Ships Nostalgia
03:12

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

How Did They Widen A Ship?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 16th February 2012, 17:41
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
How Did They Widen A Ship?

I am currently researching the bulk carrier Drepanon, built in 1945 as the T2 tanker Grant's Pass.

Miramar states she was lengthened & widened in 1959. I can understand how to lengthen a ship, but you could hardly cut a ship down the centre line and drag the two halves apart (Or could they?)

Grant's Pass dimensions: 504 feet 68.2 feet 39.2 feet
Drepanon dimensions: 571 feet 75.0 feet 32.0 feet

The latter figures were taken from Lloyds Registers!
How did they add 6.8 feet to the beam?

I visited the ship as Drepanon in 1964 and don't recall any odd looking bulges along the hull!

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16th February 2012, 18:44
Duncan112's Avatar
Duncan112 Duncan112 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1981 - 2003
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
My location
Posts: 2,209
Quite a few of the T2s were lengthened by cutting the ship forward of the ER bulkhead and joining a new forebody section on. Is it possible that the new forebody as well as being longer had a larger maximum beam whilst retaining the entrance and exit form of the original?
__________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16th February 2012, 18:56
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
I really don't know! From what I remember of the ship, she just looked like a T2 that had been converted into a bulk carrier. The 'midship island was still there and appeared as a standard T2.

Cutting a ship in half, dragging the two halves apart and inserting a new piece seems quite straightforward, but I can't think that increasing the beam by almost 7 feet was a simple matter - but they obviouly did it!

Initially, I thought that Miramar may have made a mistake, but Lloyds Registers confirm it!

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16th February 2012, 19:09
Duncan112's Avatar
Duncan112 Duncan112 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1981 - 2003
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
My location
Posts: 2,209
Just chased round Google (must be bored here) and found this..

http://www.aukevisser.nl/t2tanker/id582.htm

Suggests she was modified by Harima Zosen
__________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16th February 2012, 19:26
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Definitely the same ship. Maybe they lifted the midship accommodation off temporarily, put the new bit in and then replaced the accommodation. However they did it, they made a good job because there was no obvious bulge along the hull at the ends that I remember.

One thing stands out about the Drepanon though - the engine room was immaculate! I am an ex R/O, but even to my eyes, it was impressive - not a spot of oil or grime anywhere. All brilliantly lit and the 3rd engineer was wearing very clean blue jeans and blue shirt rather than overalls. The spares they carried also seemed well beyond what was compulsory - really impressed.

Bob

PS. The grub was apparently awful though - the reason for my visit was that the R/O (British) had requested a box of kippers (he had been there about 2 years and had developed a craving for them). Our chief steward was glad to oblige!
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16th February 2012, 19:27
uisdean mor uisdean mor is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 190
Maybe this -[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponson"]
Would maybe full length and used as fuel or ballast tanks when she was a bulker.

A lot of steel for not much gain but again depends where she was trading - up a river somewhere then sponsons decrease draft so might have been a specific trade requirement on tidal river when fully loaded.
Just guessing.
Rgds
Uisdean
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16th February 2012, 19:36
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
I can't remember where they were trading generally, but we met up with them in Port Etienne (Nouadhibou) West Africa. We were both loading iron ore. There was plenty of water there - our draught was 30 feet! But of course they could have gone anywhere after that!
Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17th February 2012, 02:39
kewl dude's Avatar
kewl dude kewl dude is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Engineering
Active: 1960 - 1976
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 831
Attached pictures of two T2's converted to bulk carriers that I sailed.

First two are the SS Columbia jumbo-ized to a 25,000 ton bulk carrier with the addition of a new construction mid body, owned by Oriental Exporters later Ogden Marine circa 1968-69.

Second two are maiden voyage pictures of the Leon Falk Jr ex Cities Service T2 Winter Hill also converted to a 25,000 ton bulk carrier with a new construction mid-body owned by National Steel Corporation operated by Hanna Mining Company on the Great Lakes circa 1961.

Greg Hayden
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Columbia-1.jpg (53.2 KB, 76 views)
File Type: jpg Columbia-2.jpg (59.1 KB, 75 views)
File Type: jpg MaidenVoyage1.jpg (107.4 KB, 78 views)
File Type: jpg MaidenVoyage2.jpg (77.0 KB, 58 views)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17th February 2012, 06:47
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
Hi Greg,
Thanks for pictures. I was wondering more about how they made them wider. I suppose the added centre section must have tapered at the ends so that it merged into the bow & stern sections without any noticeable bulges.
Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17th February 2012, 14:23
R58484956's Avatar
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1952 - 1965
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,754
Bob try it on one of your models and then wonder how the ship builders would have done it. !!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17th February 2012, 14:56
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
It would look like the Michelin Man, wouldn't it?

However they did it, I can't really see the point. If I was a shipowner and wanted my old T2 to carry more cargo, I would just lengthen it a bit more - surely cheaper than widening it?

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17th February 2012, 15:25
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 2005
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by uisdean mor View Post
Maybe this -[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponson"]
Would maybe full length and used as fuel or ballast tanks when she was a bulker.

A lot of steel for not much gain but again depends where she was trading - up a river somewhere then sponsons decrease draft so might have been a specific trade requirement on tidal river when fully loaded.
Just guessing.
Rgds
Uisdean
I agree Uisdean ' huge amount of work for very little gain . Sponsons makes sence to reduce draft . I dont dispute vessels have been widened but looking at these photographs it does not seem to be the case .
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17th February 2012, 15:39
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 2005
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipbuilder View Post
I am currently researching the bulk carrier Drepanon, built in 1945 as the T2 tanker Grant's Pass.

Miramar states she was lengthened & widened in 1959. I can understand how to lengthen a ship, but you could hardly cut a ship down the centre line and drag the two halves apart (Or could they?)

Grant's Pass dimensions: 504 feet 68.2 feet 39.2 feet
Drepanon dimensions: 571 feet 75.0 feet 32.0 feet

The latter figures were taken from Lloyds Registers!
How did they add 6.8 feet to the beam?

I visited the ship as Drepanon in 1964 and don't recall any odd looking bulges along the hull!

Bob

Bob may I suggest that the figures an error ; look at the moulded depth reduced from 39.2 to 32.0 as well as the increase in beam .
Dont know how to cut off 7.2 feet off the bottom for the length of the vessel ( especially in the engine room )
Also if you multiply L X B X D you will get the same block volume ; makes no sence to me .

Cheers Derek
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17th February 2012, 16:40
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
The third dimesion in the Drepanon Lloyds Register was the Draught. In the Grant's Pass Lloyds, it was the depth!

I feel sure I would have noticed if anything was added to the sides, because the ship was about four feet off the quay because of the fenders. There was no gangway, but a pilot ladder hanging down the side and made fast on the quay. It was very nerve wracking going across the sloping part of the ladder before going up the verical side in relative safety. In fact when the 2nd mate was halfway across, the ladder turned over leaving him hanging underneath it, but he managed to get up without falling off. If there had been a sponson attached to the side, I am sure we would have noticed it in view of the fact that we all looked down as well as up before going up the ladder.

I just wondered about the "widening" statement, as I had never heard of that sort of thing before.

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17th February 2012, 17:11
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 2005
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 6,738
Got me a bit baffled too. I have lengthened a number of trawlers ; cut into two pieces ; separate and install a section with parallel body . That was tricky enough as our cut was through the fish hold and shaft tunnel . Additional section of shafting and realign the main engine .
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 19th February 2012, 17:03
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
I have just been writing up the converted T2 cargo ship MERRIMAC. Launched as the T2 tanker PHANTOM HILL in 1945, she had an original length of 504 feet and a beam of 68 feet 2 inches. After the conversion in 1963, she had a length of 620 feet and a beam of 75 feet 3 inches! These figures from Lloyds registers, so it looks like widening them was not a one-off!

Interesting propulsion: a 7,240 shp steam turbine driving a 4,320 kW generator providing 2,300 Volts ac for the propulsion motor! Speed 14.5 knots.

I knew about diesel electric, but hadn't heard about turbine electric! Maybe that I just had not looked hard enough - was steam/electric common? It seems a number of T2s were built that way.

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 19th February 2012, 17:32
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
Just discovered that the MERRIMAC (Ex PHANTOM HILL) is not the one I took the photograph of! My MERRIMAC was a later one, completed in 1944 as JAMES ISLAND and named MERRIMAC in 1965! Got lengthened, but not widened. Propulsion same as MERRIMAC ex PHANTOM HILL! I couldn't get the dates to tally as I knew I took the photograph in the early 70s and PHANTOM HILL was no longer MERRIMAC by then!
Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 19th February 2012, 17:45
Aberdonian Aberdonian is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1954 - 1967
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 624
TES Helcion

[QUOTE=Shipbuilder; #16
I knew about diesel electric, but hadn't heard about turbine electric! Maybe that I just had not looked hard enough - was steam/electric common? It seems a number of T2s were built that way.

I sailed as third mate in the Shell tanker TES Helcion in 1959. Built by Swan Hunter in 1954 she was fitted with a turbo electric propulsion system.

Aberdonian
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 19th February 2012, 17:53
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,090
They did have a number of double reduction G/box failure's (single-reduction less so) with the normal steam turbine set up prior to WW2 mainly with the second-reduction pinions that caused "distress" among the Shipowner's, this along with the problem's of keeping to a reasonable size of main gearwheel encouraged shipowner's to go along the Turbo-Electric option. The U.S. Naval Collier "Jupiter" (1913) was the probably the first successful vessel so fitted. The American's were keen on Turbo- Electric's, less so with British Shipowner's.
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 19th February 2012, 18:34
Basil's Avatar
Basil Basil is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1964
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,223
Turbo electric

SS Princess Marguerite II which used to operate Seattle - Victoria, Vancouver Island and the Elders & Fyffes S-Class vessels were turbo-electric.
In the 1960s the S-Class ships had a bit of a name for being an engineering nightmare. Don't know about the Princess Marguerite II. Just passengered on her in the late eighties for a day out in Victoria, where stands one of the few statues of Queen Victoria as a young lady. Big plus, I guess, as a short trip vessel you could have things fixed alongside

SS Princess Marguerite II leaving Victoria Harbor, ca. 1975
Courtesy B.C. Steamship Co.


SS Sinaloa in SN
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 19th February 2012, 19:10
Shipbuilder Shipbuilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,826
Thanks for replies - I continue to learn! I suppose tankers & passenger ships were the last ones to utilise steam propulsion. Having recently looked at photographs of these huge propulsion motors, I wonder how many amps they took at full ahead?

I must look up the costs of diesel fuel and the costs of fuel oil for steam turbines, I have all the info in my own technical library, but am only just looking into the pros & cons of various methods.

I remember in the early 60s, the mate of the SAGAMORE painted the foredeck with diesel oil, saying it was far cheaper than paint! Looked good, but was awfully sticky for a while!

Bob
__________________

Miniature Merchant Ships
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 19th February 2012, 19:42
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,598
Back in the early 1970s Denholm operated two tankers that had been jumboised from 30,000 to 60,000 dwt.... the BANGKOK and SIAM.

A new wider foreship was fitted onto an older stern. I've got on photo in Denholm News that shows the BANGKOK. The ship's side runs aft then suddenly angles in and joins up with a much smaller stern.... a difference in beam of what looks to be about 20 feet.

Stephen
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 19th February 2012, 19:47
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipbuilder View Post

I remember in the early 60s, the mate of the SAGAMORE painted the foredeck with diesel oil, saying it was far cheaper than paint! Looked good, but was awfully sticky for a while!

Bob

It works though! Another favourite use... if you have a heavily rusted deck is to mop the whole area with diesel. Let it soak over several days then go at it with big hammers. the rust just lifts off in big sheets. Of course not a good idea to follow this with high vaalue chlorinated rubber or epoxy paint systems!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 19th February 2012, 20:04
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 2005
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Card View Post
Back in the early 1970s Denholm operated two tankers that had been jumboised from 30,000 to 60,000 dwt.... the BANGKOK and SIAM.

A new wider foreship was fitted onto an older stern. I've got on photo in Denholm News that shows the BANGKOK. The ship's side runs aft then suddenly angles in and joins up with a much smaller stern.... a difference in beam of what looks to be about 20 feet.

Stephen
I have seen that done John ; a complete new hull onto an exsisting Engine room . What seems to being put forward here were convertions that would have had a new section to increase the lenght and some widening of the remainder of the hull to fair into the new section which was of 7 feet more in beam than the original vessel .
I can see how it could be done but would imagine that it would not be cost effective .
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 19th February 2012, 20:16
Cisco's Avatar
Cisco Cisco is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1963 - 2006
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 4,721
Bob, all but a very small number of T2s were turbo-electric. I read once that this was chosen for them as the US didn't have sufficient gear cutting capacity for all the ships they were building in WW2 so naval ships , victorys, etc got the standard steam turbine kit. One company that liked turbo-electric was Union Steamship Coy of NZ. They used it on a number of their express passo boats.
They made handy power staions... T2's being used in Norway about 1960ish to supplement hydro power due to a drought and a few were also used in Vietnam during the war. At least one of the USS coy ships was also used in that matter after retirement.
I was on a Diesel Electric drill ship once, Glomar Grand Isle. When drilling the electricity went to the drill floor, when shifting ship someone threw a big switch somewhere and off we went. The 'telegraphs' were Baldwin locomotive controllers.......
__________________
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was "slave ship" used to describe a barge/ship being towed? JMB Ship Research 1 30th June 2010 10:57
Scapa Flow ship to ship transfers rushie News and Views from the Shipping World 0 9th February 2007 08:33
Anti whaling ship labelled a pirate ship rushie News and Views from the Shipping World 7 11th January 2007 09:54



Search the net with ask.com
Support SN
Ask.com and get


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.