Ships Nostalgia banner

Steam versus the Rest

35K views 153 replies 66 participants last post by  taffe65 
#1 ·
I only sailed on 11 ships and they were all steam ships. None of them experienced any breakdowns while I was on them.

I'm aware that steam became uneconomical but my question is, were steam ships more reliable?

Perhaps one of you engineers could answer this for me please.
 
#33 ·
The problem with motor men was they took leads off the bearings and had to ask steam engineers why did they do this. A big hammer is not an engineer skill and feel is more important. O for the whisper of steam.

GWB
 
#34 ·
If steam ships had any real un-reliability factor it was mostly due to boiler problems rather than the TX engine or turbine. Boiler feed water water quality
was the key to a good trip. I am reminded of HMNZS "Royalist" and her break down in the Pacific in the 60's ? due to boiler contamination and her ignominious tow home
 
#36 ·
Sailed on some pretty poor steam ships over the years, BP,s Eyties spring to mind.
The 50's I thought were great, possibly as they were still in reasonable condition when I was on them.
Mitsubishi steam ships, magic!!!
On the whole I would say my preference was steamships, but whatever, I don't want some ex sailor telling me he does not know the difference between an engineer and a plumber.
twogrumpy
 
#38 ·
As a steam man am perhaps prejudiced but passed on grease driven ships.. Experiences with breakdowns were:
Recip. on Maihar (I):
Slack nut on top of Edwards air pump conn rod; slack nut on LP cyl. piston junk ring (at about 6ft dia. there were a lot of bolts on cyl. cover to take off!) All happened just after taking her from long spell at Stephens at Glasgow.
Slack bottom end bolt on IP bottom end and spacer came out and shattered when it hit the endge of the bedplate, in Indian Ocean during monsoon.
Manipur turbine:
Never ending problems with leaking economiser tubes on the FW D type boilers
which resulted in lost feed water.
LP cylinder cover cracked, yes cracked!
This was when anchored off Southend on way home, the crack started at the square inspection opening in the top half cover, first we noticed was when the vacuum went. Repaired by Thistlebond, a fibreglass car repair type kit. CH eng. Johnny McCallum said if it hold full vacuum then we will go, luckily held until we docked at Tilbury. As I left then not sure what perm. repair was effected.
 
#39 ·
Bit of a slight diversion, but Graf Spee (german WW2 "pocket battleship") had diesel engines(MAN i belive), but her bunkers were full of the same fuel oil used in current steam ships, she had to use a steam treament plant to make the oil useable in her diesels! She was supposed to be able to do 28kts (more like 24 according to some reports) at full speed.
 
#40 ·
Steam v diesel

It was also recorded that one of the reasons influencing Langsdorff to give up the ghost was that the multiple diesels aboard could not guarantee the long journey back to Germany.
In the end all different ships different strokes, some diesels ran for ever, some steam also, other diesels and steam always broke down.
Having always been in steam my contention was that with a recip. job it was the engine could cause problems, the opposite with turbine ships with watertube boilers.
 
#42 ·
From what i can gather the Graf spee's diesels ran well, but the treatment plant used to convert the bunker oil to diesel was damaged by shell fire from exeter and could not be repaired, she had about 16 hours worth of useable fuel left when she docked in montevideo!
 
#43 ·
Steam is Gentlemans engineering?? perhaps in a quaint way.
Modern Diesels especially Sulzer RTA and the like are very reliable and extremely efficient. it can be hard work in port pulling units and liners but this is more due to fast turnarounds of 12 hours and less which mean some very fast and skilled Engineers are required especially as we now may operate with only three officers and two crew down the pit.
It is my belief that Engineering is purely about progress and in the marine world that means efficient and cost effective power generation.
Steam turbines only have one moving part so as long as your oil is good and you don't over speed it should be fine, but then sails don't have any moving parts and are probably more reliable.
Steam queens (lol) may be gentlemen but clipping across the Indian Ocean at 30 knots with 6-7000 boxes and one almighty pounding heart pouring out close to 100,000 horses worth of power--thats real mens engineering!
 
#44 ·
Yes Cryan there is something about the slow steady beat of a well engineered Sulzer or equal. Steam turbines though remain the ultimate pieces of propulsion machinery with its minimal moving parts and reliability but it has a weak link, ie the boiler. How many times over the years has the source of power let the ship down. Water treatment or lack of it was usually the big bogey as it was with many land based boilers but get this right and a steam ship is poetry in motion.
Economics? well that's another story
 
#51 ·
And just to add that extra super duper bit of super duperness to the boiler - make it gas fired - absolutely delightful. Actually I 'm quite aroused by the thought of it(Thumb)
 
#47 · (Edited)
the treatment plant used to convert the bunker oil to diesel
I think it was Bunker C we used on British Monarch in her B&W four stroke.
The treatment consisted of running it through the De Laval centrifugal purifiers to remove solid contaminants and water. It was fed to the injector pumps at a fairly high temperature - about 100C IIRC.

Also worked on Pametrada and De Laval steam turbine mains. The De Laval installation with Bethlehem Steel LP vaps and only a couple of valves for manoeuvering to full away was easy peasy (Thumb)
 
#48 ·
I think I have said before, but the best running ships I was ever on by a country mile were steam ships , also the worst ships I was ever on were steam ships
 
#49 ·
turbines48

Several motor ships built in the 70s did not have any steam systems at all. All pre-heating, fuel heating, accom. heating etc was carried out by a special oil called Thermal Fluid (BP Transcal 68?)

This fluid was heated in a somehat conventional looking package boiler but the Thermal Fluid was pumped around all the systems pressurized by TF Circulating p/ps. Waste heat from the main engine exhaust was captured in a waste heat exchanger in the stack....this was the potential problem area.

I belive there was at least one incident (on a ferry) where a tube failed and pressurized TF was pumped directly into the exhaust trunking....yikes!

I sailed three ships with it and it was excellent. Especially after sailing LB Doxfords with Scotch boilers and all steam auxilliaries, even steering gear!, Valve maintenance on TF was practicaly non-existant. Pump overhaul was routine and not excessive. And the package boilers were very reliable (roof fired)

Makes for the perfect motor ship.

In conclusion...motor ships: work hard, play hard and I believe working under pressure gave you the opportunity to appreciate and respect the rest of the lads providing they kept up. Bonding and all that.....(Thumb)
 
#52 ·
I sailed on a lot of steam ships for the simple reason that the U.S. kept them long after the rest of the world switched over to diesels. We were still building them until around 1980, and a lot of the old World War II vintage steamships were still operating well into the mid 1980s. Farrell Lines' container ship S.S. Argonaut, which was built in 1978, was retired in 2006. I believe that Horizon Lines may still be operating a few 1960s and 1970s vintage steam-turbine container ships to this day.

Diesels have advantages in initial cost, size, fuel consumption and manning. Most modern marine diesels have unmanned engine rooms, which means that there are no engine room watch-standers, and the engines are monitored at night from the bridge. However, that doesn't mean that the engineers are idle. It simply means that they spend each and every day performing maintenance, and there's a lot of maintenance.

All the steamships I've sailed on required 24-hour watch-standers, even those that were "automated". However, they were infinitely more reliable than diesels. One five-year-old diesel ship I sailed suffered more engine casualties in four months than ALL the steamships I've sailed on COMBINED. I've often heard it said on those old team turbine ships that the hull would wear out before the engines did.

Steam turbines are much smoother-running than diesels. They can also be reversed at any time, which diesels can not. On Farrel Lines' three diesel-engined "E-Ships" container vessels (Endurance, Endeavor and Enterprise), you could not start the engines astern if the ships were making headway of more than about four knots. If you tried then the engines simply wouldn't start. That sort of thing can be embarrassing when maneuvering into port.
 
#53 ·
Water treatment or lack of it was usually the big bogey
As 4th I had the water treatment contract.
I was young and keen and made copious notes and corrosion drawings which, many years later, S1 used for a paper as part of his materials degree at Imperial. Lecturer must have wondered WTF lad in 1992 was interested in water tube boilers :confused:
must have thought he fancied power stations.
 
#55 ·
In defence of the motor ship, I sailed on the same 3 ships as ian Huckin with MAN main eng and thermal fluid for all heating needs. The thermal fluid made for a much 'cooler' engineroom without all that humidity created by leaking steam. In the 5 years i was on those ships we had just one stoppage due to a cam profile breaking up. I also sailed on a small ship on the australian coast fitted with a 3 cyl doxford. in the 6 months that engine never had a stoppage.
The reason for the reliability, good design and well built and owners who spent money keeping them reliable. In contrast i sailed on other ships with parsimonius owners who may have had well built ships but failed to look after them.
I also did a little steam time but those ships had 4 legged open crankcase recip engines so could not be compared to turbines.
 
#56 ·
Those automated diesel plants are more efficient than the old steam plants when they work properly, but cost a fortune in both time and money when they don't. One diesel ship I was on was immobilized in Charleston, South Carolina when a computer chip burned out on the Norcontrol engine control system. We had to wait three days not only for the part to be flown in all the way from Norway, but for a special technician to install it as well.
 
#57 ·
Yes, but no one here has even mentioned one thing about the Foster-Wheeler ESRD Reheat Cycle on Steam Ships- The SunShip Ro-Ro's and Trinidad Tankers- They were VERY efficient, 1440 psig at the Steam Drum- Flue Gas Reheating, I sailed on the SS Bayamon as a Relief 3 A/E many years ago- Had a feed pump atatched via mgnetic coupling on one side of the main reduction gear and a generator on the other....I prefer steam at least 2 to 1 over firecracker plants...But, lower fuel consumption- ease of fully automating, being able to easily train crew.....But today., look at the Flex engines- and the controls......But I still prefer steam!
 
Top