Question: How many steam turbine cruise ships, or passenger vessels of any stripe, are still in service?

Are they all vintage ships, or are any more being built?

There have been many postings about the superior fuel economy of motorships, but diesel motorships have been around since WWI, in one form or another, and only appear to have been displacing steam in the last few decades.

What has finally tipped the scale....fuel prices?

Is a multi-cycle steam turbine possible in maritime propulsion in the future?

And I suppose I should include cargo ships and ferries in this universe as well.

[ 12-15-2003: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

MONTEREY (1952)
THE TOPAZ (1956)
THE EMERALD (1958)
UNIVERSE EXPLORER (1958)
OCEANIC (1965)
MAXIM GORKIY (1969)
PACIFIC SKY (1984)

Others exist but are not in active service. Most of the above will probably be withdrawn within the next few years, I suspect that by the end of the decade PACIFIC SKY may well be the only one left.

Between QE2 (diesel-electric since 1986) in 1969 and FAIRSKY (now PACIFIC SKY) in 1984, no new large steam turbine passenger vessels were built, and none have been built since then. FAIRSKY was built with turbines simply because Boris Vlasov strongly disliked motorships, and refused to build any. His next newbuilds (FAIRMAJESTY, her unbuilt sister, and two other then-unnamed ships, now OCEAN VILLAGE, A'ROSA BLU, and REGAL PRINCESS) were also supposed to have steam turbine machinery but QE2's conversion to diesel-electric (she was the first large passenger ship to use that setup) was so sucessful that it convinced him to change over. As a result FAIRMAJESTY (which never entered service for Sitmar as they were bought by Princess just before her delivery and was renamed STAR PRINCESS) became in 1989 the very first large passenger ship to be built with diesel-electric machinery. Although diesel-mechanical propulsion remaind popular in newbuilds for a few years after, a gradual transition to diesel-electric in most newbuilds over 40,000 GRT or so (and thus most newbuilds in general) began to take place.

As for what tipped the scale, it was indeed primarily fuel prices. I have always wondered if PACIFIC SKY's turbines, in that they are 15 years newer than any other large passenger ship's, are perhaps more efficient than her predecessors. Still, I doubt that they could compete on efficiency with diesel, diesel-electric, or gas turbine propulsion, as I think otherwise steam turbines would not have been totally abandoned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
do the bottoming-cycle turbines on the RADIANCE- and MILLENNIUM-class ships, to which you refer, contribute to ship's propulsion

---

But, based on my consulting experience with the (US) Department of Energy, Fossil Fuels office, I noted that steam turbines provided most of the base load of major power plants, whether fueled by coal, oil, or Gas. (Nuclear not considered here.)

Said turbines hummed happily and were the least expensive way to generate electric power.

But, when they needed more generating power, they fired up the --get this -- more costly, diesel or gas turbine auxiliary units.

Now I find it passing strange that on land-based power plants, steam turbines are less expensive than either diesel or gas turbines, but in maritime applications, the opposite appears to be true!

Pourquoi?

[ 12-17-2003: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
I find it passing strange that on land-based power plants, steam turbines are less expensive than either diesel or gas turbines, but in maritime applications, the opposite appears to be true!

---

Gas turbines, for instance, have the highest initial cost but are the most efficient. As I understand it, over time, gas turbines and diesels wind up costing about the same.

OK, the fastest merchant ships in the world, right now, as I understand it, were built in 1972, and are now operated by the United States Navy as part of the fast deployment sealift force. I asume they did duty and are on duty in the current Iraq dustup.

Note I did not say passenger ships, or even cruise ships. But they are not warships, in at least the classical sense of the term.

The are the eight high-speed SL-7 container ships originally based on the design first laid down in the "Sea-Land Galloway," under contract to Sea-Land Shipping at A.G. Weser, Bremen, Germany, and launched, 1 May 1972. They were delivered to Sea-Land in 1 September 1972 and operated in high-speed global container service.

Check out these specs, good people:

Displacement 29,692 t.(lt) 61,987 t.(fl)
Length 947'
Beam 106' Draft 34' 10"
Speed 33 kts. [Yes that is thirty-three knots!!!]
Propulsion 2 Foster-Wheeler boilers, 875 psi (61.6kg/cm2); 9500F (5100C); 2 GE MST-19 steam turbines; 120,000 hp, two propellers.

Yes that is one-hundred and twenty thousand HP!!

Needless to say, their appetite for fuel was significant and their economic viability was not all that great. Sea-Land was happy to sell them to the US Navy, (although as "foreign bottoms" there was much to-ing and fro-wing in this issue).

The eight sisterships were assigned to Military Sealift Command (MSC) with the "SeaLand Glloway" becoming the "USNS Antares" (T-AK-294) I do not have the names of the others, but I can find them if you wish.

The class was redesignated Roll-on/Roll-off Vehicle Cargo Ships (T-AKR-294 et. seq), 1 November 1983

"Antares" (T-AKR-294) is one the eight Fast Sealift Ships in the "Surge Force," assigned to MSC. Atlantic .

Antares is maintained in ROS-4 status which means she is maintained in a four-day readiness status with a 10-person crew aboard. Operational manning is 43 civilian mariners.

As SL-7s they were the fastest merchant marine vessels in existence...although I await comment that there were some others out there.

[ 12-17-2003: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

Our major U.S. flag competitor in the U.S./Pacific trades was, of course, SeaLand. Speed was the name of the game in the 70's and we at APL were in dread of those huge German built SL-7s and their 33 knots. Fuel consumption really did them in though and they were happy to get them to the government and build more conventional and efficient containerships.

APL held the record for transpacific crossing with a 25+ knot crossing on the SeaMaster class ships until the SL-7s came out. I remember being on one returning to the U.S. from Japan in the early 70's. We were steaming at about 23 knots and from behind us came a SL-7 at full ahead. She went by us at 33 knots with a huge bow wave and a roostertail behind her that looked to be 100 feet long. She looked like a speeding motorboat on a flat lake! When they went at that speed the entire ship would be soaking wet from the spray.

SeaLand generally ran those ships in the same general 22-24 knot speed for the most part to save on the huge fuel consumption.

And Gohaze is right too, the steam plant was an older conventional type, not what we called "retro-fitted" or automated, therefore requiring a much larger engine department compliment.

Nevadaflip - Tell me more about the Seamaster APL ships. Size, power, speed, that sorta stuff.

I assume SeaLand was deliberately showboating the competition when they drag-raced you in the Pacific per your account. Shades of the Mississippi steamboat races!

Good story though.

[ 12-19-2003: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

The SeaMaster class ships were 5 in number and were built by Ingalls Shipbuilding Company in Pascagoula, Mississippi, delivered in 1967-68. They were modified Mariner (C-4) class, breakbulk and with 12 passenger configuration. The hull was modified (the engineers told us they were nearly like a destroyer hull, and we believed them as they rolled like one!) and the plant was a single boiler steam turbine and the auxiliary was a gas turbine. They were the first for us to have computerization in the engine room as well.

The passenger quarters and lounges were very nice, again being designed by Mary J., and reflecting the era of the President for which they were named. The had rooms that could be connected for suites, a couple of singles and all were nicely done with wood verneer and rich decoration. There was also a main lounge, small library, and bar/cardroom. They were the Presidents Van Buren, Taft, McKinley, Fillmore and Grant and as the newest and fastest ships were on the general transpacific service: San Francisco, Yokohama, Kobe, Keelung, Hong Kong, and return.
These are the ships that held the transpacific record for the time at 25.55 knots.

In 1972 the five ships underwent conversion to full container ships although keeping all the passenger areas the same. A 90 foot midbody section was added and the measurements went from the original 574 feet x 82 feet x 45 feet and 14,000 gross tons to 663 feet and 17,803 gross tons. Interestingly, the converted ship made 27 knots on sea trials, but was used at 22-24 knots in service.

While they didn't stay in port quite so long, the conversion made them a much better ship for passengers and the cruises were always sold out.

One, the PRESIDENT GRANT, went aground near the entrance to Keelung, Taiwan in heavy fog and bad weather, stranding on the rocks and in spite of concerted efforts to remove her, was lost and was a not very good advertisement for APL for several months as she was broken and abandoned on the reef just outside the harbor entrance for all ships coming and leaving that port to see.

All the others sailed for their viable lifetimes for APL and most were eventually sold to other companies.

And you are right about our friends on the SL-7 showboating for our benefit. We tracked the ship on radar and they had been following us for some time and when they got close opened it up, sped by us as if we were standing still, and when they got way beyond us, settled back down into the more conventional speed. Guess we would have done the same thing if we had been in their shoes!

Regards,

1. Jerry, what was their HP?

2. What do you believe were the economic factors (reward if you will) in getting seaborne cargo transpac fastest? SeaLand and APL obviously had the same objectives, so the operational weenies in charge of such things, obviously saw a market advantage in operating high-speed, expensive-to-operate ships.

But cargo handling was not that fast at that time, even with Harry Bridges' incentives!

And port clearing by high-speed freight trains was an element of the future.

And this was before the WalMart and others "just-in-time" stock and inventory systems. What was so all-fired inportant that cargo "get there fustest?"

And Japanese automobiles had not made their inroads yet.

I'm still trying to find the horsepower of the SeaMasters. I'm surprised, I don't seem to have an easy reference.

The speed thing though was a real competitive thing. I believe it was competitive pressure that speed became the selling point in the Pacific. By 1970 or so, almost 50% of the cargo across the Pacific was containerized. At least on APL.

While the intermodal container trains were in the near future, the idea of distribution by train and truck was in effect at that time.

Our sales effort was to insure to the shipper that warehouse costs would be reduced and really done away with because we could ship fast, reliabily and on schedule and therefore you could depend on getting your cargo on time. This was the beginning of "on time delivery".

Our schedule compliance really was pretty good and many companies bought into this concept.

Not too long after this the Japanese auto companies started the "just in time" concept.

Regards,

Coal consumption is 220 tonnes per day at sea and 80 tonnes in port. Bunker capacity is 3670 tones.

[ 05-04-2006: Message edited by: Indarra ]