boiler dimension question

[MattJ]

The time I was on them companies were cutting costs and using all 21 nozzles never happened when I was on these vessels. The more nozzles used your fuel consumption skyrockets. We ran on 7 to 9 nozzles making approx. 13 mph. I would have loved to see all nozzles in use. I heard a speed of 17-18 could be achieved

[Alex]

This is off topic for just a moment, hey Matt when you were on the Scully and others like that with the high horsepower, what were some of your top speeds when you "stretched their legs"? They simply looked like fast boats.

[William Lafferty]

Did Cliff's Ishpeming and LaSalle have the same type of conversion?

In general. The La Salle (at Toledo) and Ishpeming (at Lorain) were repowered in the spring of 1951 with a 3300-shp De Laval steam turbine and two oil-fired Combustion Engineering water tube boilers each.

[MattJ]

My math is bad would be 2 firemen X3 shifts + 1 trimmer/shift= 9 men in boiler room total.

[Guest II]

Did Cliff's Ishpeming and LaSalle have the same type of conversion?

[MattJ]

Benefits going from Scotch Marine Boilers (fire tube) to Water tube Boilers
Steam can be raised rapidly from cold(3-4 hrs) vs the scotch marine boiler 24 hrs
High efficiency (greater than 85%) hence reduced fuel consumption
Considering a scotch boiler and water tube boiler with similar evaporative rates the water tube boiler would be compact and relatively light by comparison and its water content would be about 7 tonnes vs scotch boilers 30 tonnes.
The changeover from coal fired to oil fired was a huge fuel savings. The weight of fuel burned varies as its calorific value, coal fired boiler could burn 93 tons per day vs oils 65 tons per day. The number of firemen to handle the coal with natural draught might be 1 fireman for each boiler per watch of 4 hrs. Say 2 boilers be 8 firemen and say 1 trimmer could trim for 2 firemen so total of 12 extra bodies. When I was on the Lac Ste Anne as a fireman she had been converted to oil with three scotch boilers and two burners each boiler 1 fireman operated all 6 burners by yourself. Boiler room was still separated from the engine room. As automation came into being boiler rooms were eliminated so boilers were then in the engine room space with burner fronts facing the engineer. When I was an engineer on VW Scully, Montrealais, Quebecois engine room staff was a engineer and a oiler per shift.

[Alex]

Thanks for all the answers Gents. I certainly get the concept of new higher pressure boilers with new higher power engines, simply from the standpoint of reliability it seemed risky to install just one boiler when during the same time frame (the mid '50s) other repowerings, like the Blocks of Inland Steel and the Coulby of Interlake, received two boilers. Obviously a decision that Cliffs stood by as confirmed by Les and Matt.

[William Lafferty]

William, when Cleveland-Cliffs repowered the Frontenac, William G. Mather and Pontiac, each boat was fitted with one large boiler. Do you happen to know why Cliffs did that?

All three were repowered with De Laval cross compound geared steam turbines, 5500-shp, or well over twice their original horsepower, although it is a bit misleading to compare the indicated hp of a reciprocating engine with the shaft hp of a turbine. Anyway, the original three Scotch boilers of each of the trio (the Mather had water tube Scotch boilers) would have been, I imagine, insufficient to generate enough steam at the pressure required to supply a turbine of that size, especially of the De Laval design. All three conversions used super-heated steam: The boilers of the Frontenac, for example, operated at 180 psi, very typical for boiler installations of that type back in the day; with the new boiler, the super heated safety valve cutoff was set at 483 psi. The original boilers of the Mather had a working pressure of 250 psi. The boilers of the Frontenac and Pontiac gained around 40% in heating surface area with the conversion; the Mather's gain, with its water tube boilers, was negligible. Two other factors would have been that the original boilers were coal-fired, so replace rather than convert to oil makes sense under the circumstances, and I'm pretty sure De Laval and Babcock & Wilcox marketed these products together as a proven unit. The use of a single boiler for a turbine was a little unusual it seems. I think all the later Canadian steam turbine lakers had two, many built by B & W, as well as the Ryerson, Armco, etc. This may have been since these were repowerings and not specifically-designed installations for newbuilds, but I don't know.

[Les Weston]

Hi, Alex

The story we were given in Docent training is that Cliffs knew they would eventually automate the boiler and it was less expensive to automate one.


I also seem to remember being told that when I served as a wiper on the Frontenac when she made her maiden voyage with the new engine.

[MattJ]

Less expensive, Less cross connections, Less maintenance, Less manpower needed

[MattJ]

Take up less space. 1 large boiler will take up less area than two middle size boilers.

[Alex]

William, when Cleveland-Cliffs repowered the Frontenac, William G. Mather and Pontiac, each boat was fitted with one large boiler. Do you happen to know why Cliffs did that?

[Alex]

I second Mr. Lafferty's answer

[MattJ]

Believe first number is diameter and second number refers to depth(front to back).

[William Lafferty]

About everything I've encountered has given the diameter first, length second, when specified.

[Guest]

In researching some propulsion arrangements in a 1950 Ship Masters Association directory I have a question about the boiler dimensions listed in the section concerning Boilers and Engines of Lake Vessels.

For example it shows the Fayette Brown having 2 Scotch boilers measuring 14' 6" x 11' 6" so my question is this measure length x height or height by length. I would assume it is length by height but was wondering if anyone had any insight into this question.