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.
 
#58 ·
Diesel/Steam?

Part of my time, (apprenticeship), was spent on triple up and downers and horizontal dual expansion engines in Cardiff docks, I've also turned LP piston and junk rings rings, six foot diameter, do it wrong and they come out square! The boilers, twin steam and water drums, were coal fired, (lumps not PF), with weight loaded safety valves, the boilers dated to 1890! still at full load in 1958.

My first trip to sea as a j/e was on a four cyl Doxford with steam auxiliaries, the beast broke down after 21 hours full away, and rarely got a 24 hour run after that! It was 8 months 12 days and 17 hours of purgatory!

Thereafter I sailed on steam turbines, much safer more comfortable and cleaner, even though some vessels required 17 hour days, it was much better than removing scraping and refitting ALL bearings on a Doxford, dead ship, at sea off Nicaragua! Steam is always best in my view.

As a Cockburns valve Engineer, I worked on most of the big liners and lots of the big(then) BP and Shell tankers as well as lots of FoC steam tankers that had once been owned by the big names in earlier times, even then the steam gear was in good(mostly) order and generally trouble free. Who's heard a Full Bore safety valve, going off like a Bofors? Not much of a problem, if one has all the bits to fix it! Had to sail a tanker from Bremerhaven to Rotterdam once because the chief didn't trust the safeties, 36 hours in Rotterdam and all was fixed, chief as happy as Larry!

Steam is the best, just like Watt, (not who), said!
 
#59 ·
Steam Drum Safety Valves, Especially the non-pilot types which didn't open the superheater safety first, when actuated before the superheater safety usually went off with a loud "report".

This would normally be considered a highly unusual occurence as the Superheater Safety is set at a much lower pressure (pressure drop across superheater plus 10-15 psig) sometimes as much as 75-100 psig lower....

But then again- it may have been the Superheater Saftey- the old timers could tell a whole lot about the noise a safety valve made before it popped- simmering, (weak spring, nozzle ring obstructed) chattering (blowdown ring set too shallow) or banging loudly....
 
#61 ·
Oz, the boilers are life's blood to any form of steam engine and all this talk about safety valves prompts me to re tell this story;

I am sure that some of my hearing damage comes from this one practice of floating safety valves on naval ships as an apprentice and also over my many years with Babcock.
In the eighties we were commissioning a new gas fired boiler fitted with a new design Hopkinson double spring, high lift Safety valves that did not work to plan and after a day of setting, floating re setting and re floating while “living” on the boiler tops to hear the sizzle, and watch the lift I drove home 100 kilometers from the boiler site in complete silence. It was eerie, like living in a vacuum, no road or engine noise, no radio, just total silence. Recovery to near normal took almost 12 hours.
Yes we were wearing hard hats and ear muffs but the constant bang of 40000 lbs of steam per hour venting at 250 pounds /sq in to atmosphere will penetrate any thing when you are standing along side the vent pipe

Bob
 
#62 ·
I was standing next to a Full Bore when it lifted - wasn't wearing earmuffs - actually painfull
 
#65 ·
The difference between a "Steam Engineer" and a " Motor Engineer"??????
The Steam Engineer sees a pool of oil on the plates, he walks around it!
The Motor Engineer sees a pool of oil on the plates he walks through it!!!!!!!!!!!
Ha, only kidding. Been both sides, Steam -Stoker in RN, and Junior in Merch.
Motor, Junior in Merch. Steam is an obviously more uncomfortable working enviroment. As in past replies from various guys on here, the temperatures were always 100 degrees F+. From my experiences, when a steam ship was running smoothly, there was very little to do except manage the different parrameters and take logs -Loads of Logs especially with Joe Shell. However if you had a "steamer " which was unreliable, then "field days" were the norm! Motor ships were ( to me) much more enjoyable, much more running maintenance was required and ( to me) it was far more interesting...
Ive worked both sides, Engine room /boiler room rating as well as Engine Room /boiler room engineer. I wisened up though, and went Pump man /Deck engineer. Free from all that noise and heat, own boss ( Chief eng. was my boss at sea, and CHOFF was my boss in port.) Best job Ive ever had. Interesting, Responsible and welll paid! As Pumpman, nobody on the vessel ( crew side) earned more than myself . Ah the good old days!!!
 
#68 ·
Trying to think of any problems experienced on steam ships relating to main machinery.
SS Maihar (1) In two trips, Triple Expansion 4 Scotch boilers
One spacer between top and bott. halves of HP bott. end bearing came out and hit the side of the bedplate when revolving. Nine hour stoppage in monsoon in Indian Ocean outward bound as the spare was too long to fit between the bott. end webs!
Has to saw about one inch off each end, of approx. 5 x 3 ins section solid cast iron.(To ensure half round cut out for bott. end bolt was central)
(2) Junk ring bolts slacked off on LP piston, Shore side fault as we had just left Glasgow after rebuild.
That all folks.
SS Manipur in 3 trips Double Reduction HP and LP turbines, 2 Foster Wheeler D type boilers
(1) Tooth broke off main gearwheel coming out of lock in Newport SW. Big wheel and mating red. gears sent to Rowans who machined a 6 ins strip out of each.
(2) Never ending problem with water leaks on Foster Wheeler D type economiser tubes.
(3) Crack appeared in LP turbine cover just at corner of a big square bolted plate inspection opening. This when about to heave up anchor off Southend inbound.
 
#69 ·
Big Bangs

As a decky it seems to me that ships are much like cars. After they are say ten years old if they have not been well maintained they become very expensive.

Was on a crude carrier belonging to a major oil co. Have noticed these companies spend money on telling the public how good they are, this one had not been well maintained it seemed to me.

Went in the engine room for an inspection it was very dirty with oil in the bilges and lots of leaks, and loose gear in the steering flat. Spoke to the Chief Engineer about this he said" It's a hot engine room and I tell the boys to stay in the control room."

Started the cargo discharge slowly it was ship to ship. A little later after asking for an increase in the pumping rate there was a loud bang and the pumps stopped. A certified welder was helicoptered out and after a total 24 hour stop he left and we resumed pumping, not for long though about an hour later another loud bang and a repeat performance.

The air conditioning had not been working since the ship's arrival, July in the US Gulf and the deck machinery was so corroded that brake band broke when tightened by a skinny Filipino.

This was diesel ship that had been converted from steam. The Engineers and Mates were British. I felt sorry for them.
 
#70 ·
Ooooooh did it have a name that sounded a little like British Racehorse!!!
 
#71 ·
Or Mobil's Hawk perhaps - steamer re-engined with Pielsticks but kept the 60 Bar boilers for the cargo system.

Discharging in Singapore, four cargo pumps and two ballast pumps going full chat when one of the maindeck cargo lines splits near the manifold. Look at the pretty black palm tree....................................

No choice but to hit the emergency stop in the CCR. Now that was something you don't get to experience every trip!! Boilers tried very hard to show their displeasure by ripping themselves free - it was very hard to concentrate on all the funny noises coming from the boiler flat when answering the phone and listening to irate engineers enquiring as to my parentage.

Really lads, did you honestly think we'd do that just for the fun of it?? (might have thought about it though (Jester) )

Oh and a question for Supers - which part of the lobotomy process causes you to believe a 20 year old single hulled VLCC which is 5 years past its sell-by date can still discharge a cargo as if it was fresh out the yard? Perhaps the QA dept got to you and you believed all the pieces of paper would stop the ship from wearing out??

It's ok though, I'm better now. The Glenlivet helps, no really it does. Oh is it time for my lie down in the nice padded room. I like the red smarties the best......................................
 
#72 ·
Dear me, You must have had a very poor breed of super indeed to have expected a single hull job or a VLCC to pump according to spec. Double hulls were introduced only to improve cargo handling capacity - wot evri skoolboi kno. (Actually, I suppose they were, but in one cir***stance only!).

Were there supers after QA departments were introduced?
 
#73 ·
I was on only three steamers RFA Regent, CS Ariel and CS Iris The latter two were sisters and had two triple expansion steam engines and two scotch boilers.

I was astonished at how quiet they were, no vibration either.
Occasionally my berth was in the engineers, alleyway and even down there it was dead quiet and smooth apart from the occasional whoop from LP feed pump (?)
 
#77 ·
Hi Varley, Pleased to meet you!

Not to my knowledge, probably because all the ships I was on frequently had their tanks topped up either in harbour or at sea from an RFA. In fact I would say the majority of the time we 'RAS' ed to keep those involved on their toes! Hence the need for the DB Killick who ensured tanks were kept evenly on line to the boilers. Contamination from sea water was constantly checked. When he dipped a fuel tank he would put a paste in the recess in the weight before lowering the tape down the tube into the tank. If the paste changed colour from blue to red it indicated the presence of sea water. This was done more to check that we had'nt sprung a leak in the tank. I am pretty certain that if it did change colour that tank would be isolated until we returned to harbour for checking. Think about it, if sea water was under the oil fuel and it was thought to be all, oil once that water reached the boiler the fire would go out! That would have been too risky.

It was important to have, at all times full tanks in case we had to go shooting off somewhere in a hurry. Unlike the MN, during the 'cold war' era we were always on alert, practicing prevention and survival from nuclear fall out and exercising with ships of NATO navies and submarines, kept us busy!

Whilst I was on Diamond' then the newest with all the latest gadgets we were in the forefront. I am amazed at the progress over the past 40 years to what we have now. Makes me feel Neanderthal !!

Happy days.
 
#79 ·
I have been on some stick ships build in the 50's were the Deep Tanks were dual purpose Fuel and Ballast. On a occasion once the fuel was stripped out of the tank the deck department would refill the tanks with sea water for ballast.

It was normal practice to heat the tanks in advance of transferring the oil to the settling tanks. Each Watch would step on the settling tanks drains to remove the water that settled out. There were also high and low suctions on the settling tanks to make sure that the water did not reach the burners.

Since the Chief Engineer did not want to get water into the fuel lines the Deck Department filled the tanks viva the Fire Hose into the sounding tube. I was on one ship where this practice over pressurized the tank.

The Deck Department requested 70 psi on the Fire Main on the previous watch and at the end of the 4 - 8 watch with the 8 - 12 watch at the operating platform we felt and heard the tank failed. The only thing that prevented the tank from completely failing was the tank moved the catwalk in the shaft alley against the fuel manifold.

The next morning on the 4 to 8 watch I opened the manhole cover and found that the tank still had the blank in the vent from the shipyard testing of the tank.

At Breakfast I was ordered to the Captain's Office while in the office I was ordered to sign a statement that the tank rupture was my fault. I told the assembled group that I would not sign the statement and that since I was the Third on watch with the Second Assistant Engineer I was not the one who was responsible for the watch. Also the Deck Department request for the Fire Main to be pressurized at 70 psi was logged at the time it was requested there was no indication given for the use of the sea water. Then I informed the assembled group that I was not onboard the ship during the shipyard period when the tanks were test nor was I involved in the inspections to ensure that all of the tanks were ready for use.

The next day I was told by the Chief Engineer that I could be logged for not signing the statement. So I told the Chief that was alright I'm allowed to write a statement in my remarks section in the official log book. I never heard any thing about the tank failure again.

Joe
 
#82 ·
With Warship's powered by the lighter G.T's keeping the "balance" is even more important, fortunatly the RFA are not far away although I understand that along with the dual powerplant's (more economic unless they go everywhere at full trot) the new Destroyer's and future Carrier's have an increased fuel capacity to increase their range without causing problem's and having to call on the RFA as often as it now does with the present vessel's
 
#83 ·
Very true, though of course G.T's run on fuel more akin to paraffin and are certainly far more economical than the old steam plant, and with all that spare space available fuel capacity must be enormous.

I have long forgotten our range on 'Diamond' but we did once steam at high speed, 30 knots from Gibraltar to Chatham non stop. I wish I could remember the exact time taken (approx. 48hrs) but I do remember we were very low when we got there.

Someone mentioned steam heaters in the O F tanks, that is true, only used in very cold conditions, though normally the fuel passed firstly through the OF heaters in the boiler room before the O F pumps. Very cold F O moves very slowly.

I'm still intrigued by the 'floating suction' mentioned, what happens in rough weather or high speed turns, can't imagine losing suction at such vital times!

Who knows?!
 
#84 ·
As far as I understand it the suction entered the top of the tank after which it was a flexible hose with a floating suction mouth arrangement at the end floating on or near the surface .

Dont have a clue as to the veracity of the story - never seen it - was told about it once and thats about it!
 
#87 ·
Check the drains twice a watch for water. Boiler oil doesn't need to be purified.

I was on a vessel with a line of test cocks up the side of the bunker tanks in case off heavier than water bunkers
 
#91 ·
The difference between purifying removing both dirt and water is the ring dam. There are different size ring dams for each specific gravity of oil. A purifier requires a water seal to prevent the oil from escaping from it. A clarifier uses a solid ring dam that does not allow the water to separate the dirt is pushed away from the center discharge port. A clarifier does not use a water seal. You can use the same equipment if you can change the ring dams. Newer machines have the capability of just dialing the specific gravity instead of changing the size of the ring dam.

At times the oil report will require both clarifing and purifying so you set up one separtor to discharge into the next machine.

Joe
 
#89 ·
A purifier and a clarifier can be the same piece of equipment. A purifier can only be used for heavy oils up to about 0.99 specific gravity, as it has a water seal within the rotating bowl, so if the processed liquid s.g approaches that of water, this system cannot work. Purifiers are used for solids separation and water removal.
To process the really heavy oils, your separator must be converted to a clarifier. This is done by removing the gravity or dam ring, and then no water seal can be used. A clarifier can successfully remove solids, and small quantities of water.
I hope this is reasonably clear.
 
#92 ·
#93 · (Edited)
ALCAPS are basically set up as Clarifyers but carry out both functions courtesy of a capacitance probe in the oil outlet that detects water content. They can then carry out various combinations of draining and sludging to get rid of water or sludge. Can be a bit of a bugger to set up but pretty good once going.

Edit: I cant see them on the Alfa Web site - I wonder if they have stopped making them

Edit Edit: Ignore that - they are now called S types - grrrrrrr

Edit Edit Edit:I should just have read Duncans link right the first time
 
#95 ·
I had an early introduction to Alpha-Laval separators with the little hand cranked unit used to separate the house cow's milk into cream and skim.
It was a muscle building exercise hand cranking the bowl rotation up to minimum speed which was when the bell stopped ringing!
I certainly remember the big Alpha units aboard Rangitane and the constant attention needed with the ship burning boiler oil.
All Union Co ships I sailed on burnt 'Marine diesel', a relatively clean brew, so purifying was straight forward while the lube oil purifier kept the oil the colour of honey.

Bob
 
Top