Grand old ship...new life?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's why this ship won't be refurbished.


The cruise ship market has changed, now they float around and are vacations in themselves, speed is irrelevant.


Heck I have pass a number off shore idling at 5 knots trying to time their arrival in port with the sunrise. What good does a quarter million shaft HP do at 5 knots? Nothing it just burns fuel.

Wouldn't you think that the Propulsion plant wouldn't be changed. Seems obvious that It would and the ship's top[ speed would be knots.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I eat lunch across from this ship now and again. Pretty, too bad it's peeling. I think the QEII only cost around $1.2B new, as comparison for a high end cruise ship.

It's a neat concept, and I'd consider a cross-ocean trip. The problem is that it IS 10 days at sea. But outfit it so you can stay connected, have fun, and enjoy nice amenities, and the "upscale retiree" market may make it work.

One would think that the cost efficacy of the concept has been thought through. Sea keeping may be an issue and that hull may be rather thin.



Are you referring to the trans Atlantic crossing? If so, I think you're a bit off on your time.

From the article, it said "three days, 10 hours, 42 minutes"


You're absolutely correct. Mixed up the numbers with a failed cut and paste. Lol. Still 3.5 days when a jet across is how many hours?

I wonder if it would be good for ship-only trip from Boston or NYC to your the Caribbean.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's why this ship won't be refurbished.


The cruise ship market has changed, now they float around and are vacations in themselves, speed is irrelevant.


Heck I have pass a number off shore idling at 5 knots trying to time their arrival in port with the sunrise. What good does a quarter million shaft HP do at 5 knots? Nothing it just burns fuel.

Wouldn't you think that the Propulsion plant wouldn't be changed. Seems obvious that It would and the ship's top[ speed would be knots.


+1. Each shaft is probably fed by multiple turbines via a reduction gear. Run trail shaft or just one boiler/turbine/diesel refit per shaft, and top speed would be lower with lower SFC as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ok, it was quick for the 50s, thst was what, 20kt? Today theyre doing 30knots or more.


Totally the opposite!!! Today's cruise ships (with the exception of the Queen Mary II) are butt-slow, *maybe* able to break 25 knots with a tailwind and light load. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Norwegian lines removed half of the boilers and turbines from 'SS France' when they converted her to 'SS Norway' for caribbean cruising, and she was still faster than more modern purpose-built cruise ships. Cruise ships are floating hotels, not built to get anywhere fast, they're supposed to bob around burning as little fuel as possible while the passengers spend money. The old ships were built to *get* across the Atlantic on time and faster than the competition (the faster ships earned higher fares).

The SS United states was the fastest ever, the last winner of the 'Blue Riband' for fastest trans-Atlantic crossing with an average speed of 35.6 knots eastbound and 34.5 knots westbound. The top speed was close to 40 kts, and there was controversy as to whether or not she was *ever* opened all the way up. Her powerplant is virtually identical to what's installed in 'Iowa' class battleships. Just short of a quarter million shaft horsepower, and its just a computed number because... how you gonna dyno THAT??

'Queen Mary' was the previous record holder. 'Queen Elizabeth' could have probably beaten 'Mary,' but never attempted the Riband because WWII pretty much interrupted her glory years (both 'Mary,' 'Elizabeth' and many others were used as troop transports and hospital ships in wartime).
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

+1. Each shaft is probably fed by multiple turbines via a reduction gear. Run trail shaft or just one boiler/turbine/diesel refit per shaft, and top speed would be lower with lower SFC as well.


Each shaft has a turbine trio, just like all American and most Brit steamships of that era including all our WWII aircraft carriers and the Iowa-class battlewagons. High pressure turbine, its exhaust feeds the Intermediate pressure turbine, which in turn feeds the LP turbine. All 3 are geared to a single bull gear that drives the shaft. Each shaft is independent of the other 3 shafts, but the 3 turbines geared to each shaft run as a unit.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
A cruise is the easiest way in which to escape the cold dark northern winter.
The scenery changes and you get to decide where you might like to fly to spend a week or weekend at some future date.
It's also relaxing to sit on the balcony in the morning while having a light breakfast and watch the sea go by while spotting for flying fish, which are pretty abundant.



THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't want to go on our first cruise because I felt it would be "confining". Our first cruise was to Alaska. For those of you who knock cruising-good luck seeing Glaciers break off big chunks of ice (called calving) in Glacier bay any other way. Really remarkable-sounds like 1,000s of gunshots going off.

You can eat as little or as much as you want. You can exercise, attend computer classes, attend cooking classes, go to the library, (not on all ships), go to the pool,socialize, etc. Frankly, I liked our first cruise so much my wife had an easy time asking me if I wanted to take an Eastern Caribbean cruise. In my experience, those who knock it haven't tried it-or can't afford it-which is too bad. It comes out to about $100.00/day per person. If you stayed at a hotel and bought three meals a day-you would be close to spending this much. Your Alcohol would be extra.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

+1. Each shaft is probably fed by multiple turbines via a reduction gear. Run trail shaft or just one boiler/turbine/diesel refit per shaft, and top speed would be lower with lower SFC as well.


Each shaft has a turbine trio, just like all American and most Brit steamships of that era including all our WWII aircraft carriers and the Iowa-class battlewagons. High pressure turbine, its exhaust feeds the Intermediate pressure turbine, which in turn feeds the LP turbine. All 3 are geared to a single bull gear that drives the shaft. Each shaft is independent of the other 3 shafts, but the 3 turbines geared to each shaft run as a unit.


Most carriers, but not all: the Lexington-class carriers were powered by turboelectric drive...as was, surprisingly, the Langley.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Her powerplant is virtually identical to what's installed in 'Iowa' class battleships.



600psi B&W boilers? That's some pretty serious motivation!
 
I think she ran 1200 PSI boilers like the "Forrestal" class carriers. The next generation in steam turbine power plants.

I bought, and read, a book about her many years ago...that point was made in a couple of places. Latest generation aircraft carrier engine technology. Spared no expense in the power plant. State of the art when she was built.

That's why she was so fast, those magnificent engines...
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


Most carriers, but not all: the Lexington-class carriers were powered by turboelectric drive...as was, surprisingly, the Langley.


Lexington (CV-2, not CV-16 which replaced it after it was lost at the Coral Sea) and Saratoga (CV-3) were both built on hulls that were intended to be heavy cruisers, ordered and designed before 1920,shortly after WWI. All the rest (beginning with Yorktown, Hornet, Wasp,and Enterprise, after which there was a pretty significant modernization to become the Essex class) were built from the keel up as carriers. The Lex and Sara were actually a lot bigger and heavier than the Yorktown and Essex carriers and it is interesting that they were turbo-electric back when their original hulls were designed. I think there was a generation of battleship in there that was T/E also, but I forget. My battleship trivia isn't nearly as good as my carrier trivia...
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Her powerplant is virtually identical to what's installed in 'Iowa' class battleships.



600psi B&W boilers? That's some pretty serious motivation!



IIRC they were 1000 PSI B&W boilers, de-rated to something like 900 PSI. Indeed it was one heck of a powerplant, and there was a lot of hoopla about keeping the particulars of her powerplant secret for a while, and its hard to say if it was really for military reasons or Gibbs just being secretive about what made his 'baby' so bloody fast.

A great reference on ocean liners (current through the late 80s, including the problems QEII had with her original steam plant and her conversion to diesel-electric) is 'Power of the Great Liners,' if you can still get a copy.

Even though the steam plants get most of the pages, I found the early diesel liners really interesting. The first major one, 'Gripsholm,' remained in service from the 1920s through the 1960s with her original Burmeister&Wain direct-drive engines, even though it had compressed-air "blast" fuel injection instead of high pressure injection. Those were the ancestors of the huge Sulzer direct-drive engines in use today.
 
Thank you 440Magnum for that clarification. I read the book a decade or two ago...after buying it at some maritime museum...and while the details of the power plant escape me, I know she shared the boilers and turbines with Forrestal class carrier...

Cheers,
 
The biggest prooblem they had in building ships during the WWII era was cutting the main (bull)Gear. They just did not have enough gear cutting machines and it was not really solved til late in the way.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
The biggest prooblem they had in building ships during the WWII era was cutting the main (bull)Gear. They just did not have enough gear cutting machines and it was not really solved til late in the way.


And of course each bull gear is HUGE. I've toured the engine room of Lexington (CV-16, in Corpus Christi) and there's a ladder that leads up one side of the bull gear case, has a platform over the top of the gear, and a ladder down the other side. The gear itself is probably 2+ feet wide and maybe 3-4 feet in diameter, and there are actually two gears siamesed together with their helical teeth cut in opposite directions so that there's no net thrust on the pinion gears (which are also paired helical gears). The pinion gears on each turbine are the same width as the bull gear, but obviously smaller diameter with the HP turbine being the smallest of all. Its hard to tell from the size of the case, but "big" is appropriate, and the later Forrestal class gears are even bigger.

This isn't my photo (mine were made on film when I went thru years ago), but this is the reduction gear case on one of Lex's 4 shafts. The walkway I mentioned is to the right (the wrapped railing is one side of the walkway) Stern is toward the left, the lower walkway to the left crosses over the prop shaft where it exits the gear case. The 3 turbines are out of frame to the right and the engine room control stand is around the corner of a bulkhead even further forward in the ship. Note the access ports and the oil temp gauges distributed around the gearcase:

0d6d299d5fff43fc42f4bd48ce1e00e1.jpg


Here's a schematic of the Essex-class turbine set. If you can imagine the photo above being taken from the opposite side as the schematic, with the camera roughly where the last "r" in "First Reduction Gear" label is located.

EssexClassH-L-Cset_zpsa29e8ab0.jpg
 
44 magnum, that is known as a "Herringbone" gear set...note that the teeth in these applications are very fine, to maximise the number of teeth that are in contact at any time.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
44 magnum, that is known as a "Herringbone" gear set...note that the teeth in these applications are very fine, to maximise the number of teeth that are in contact at any time.


thumbsup2.gif


I guess "fine" is relative to the diameter, the teeth are still fairly decent sized compared to anything you'd find in a car.

The other thing I find really cool about steam ship plants is that the thrust bearing has its own compartment astern of the bull gear, with its own oil pumps and cooling systems. Think about how many thousands of TONS of forward force there is on each shaft when its working, and the bearing built to absorb all that and couple the propulsion force to the hull is huge and generates a lot of heat.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Just found it on Amazon...

And ordered it.

cheers!


Link???
 
Originally Posted By: Al
The biggest prooblem they had in building ships during the WWII era was cutting the main (bull)Gear. They just did not have enough gear cutting machines and it was not really solved til late in the way.


That is one reason that the fifty(!) Casablanca-class escort carriers used "jug-jumper" reciprocating steam engines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top