Modern Ship's Engines

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi Steffan, the link I was referring to was the one identified as Rothornbahn, not the DLM page. The DLM page makes a lot of claims as one would expect from somebody trying to sell something. In light of that, I cannot count anything they say as the proof that they found something new to make steam more attractive. If they have or can, then more power to them. However, what I asked for is data from peer reviewed studies, articles and publications and I would still insist on that if anyone wants me to accept DLM's claims.

If you care to try and find something on line, try the Google search engine at http://www.google.com/ and then type in "Online peer review journals, naval engineering." I did just that and got 1410 hits. You might get lucky there.

On your teacher's remark, to wit; <FONT COLOR="ff0000">"The goal of higher education is not believing in things written in books", In general principle, this is not bad advice. However, in the context of this particular debate, I find it to be a bit disturbing as it could be mis-construed as saying, "Don't bother to check the facts." I hope you're not taking advocacy in that direction as I most assuredly won't follow along.

Since I can't be everywhere and do the experiments myself, there comes a time in one's research that you simply have to take somebody's word for it, so the question goes begging, who do you trust? The DLM websight which is put together by people with an obvious vested interest? Or do I go with textbooks written to teach the subject on a collegiate level by recognised authorities in the field, containing material that has been fact checked and peer reviewed?

To me, it's not even a contest. I go with the textbooks until somebody has better information which is proven to be accurate. DLM cannot satisfy that requirement.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Steffen Reichel]

Dear Michael,
I just posted the Rothornbahn Link, because they once had 5 steam locos, now the have six, because two old were replaced by 3 new developed ones, having now one more, and this is a sign that the new ones were realy something fiting to the demand.
Who to trust I realy often a question! Well, you watch most of the book written about engine manufacture, written as knowledgebase for student are often not withholding all the knowledge. The knowledge representing in a book is the focus of the author or publisher. So watch many books reference and check out, how old their references about steam engines and boiler is.. Sometime this could not be a reflection of existing today facts.
If you come along right thru the internet, you will also find articel about boilers, just the same as for naval engineering, just look about boiler construction, and watch the results. Okay, some are silly, just about modells and nothing real, but you will finbd fact sheets from Siemens KWU, the ABB (formerly BBC or Babcock) ands many other manufactures, who still today build boilers. And now compare! Trust is a thing of believe, but knowledge will only come with misbelieve and comparing existing facts to grasp the truth!
So we believe in book, written 1938 about steam enginiering, but we do not believe in their oil recomendations, because this has changed, so we did too. Same for the water treatment, they recommend the Soda principe, but we use a mix of different chemicals for treatment, because development in this point has changed with time.
Should we only believe in what is written? The fact about treatment is only for stationary water tube boilers, but we have a water filled, smoke tube boiler on a mobile'rack', should we believe in their fact sheet, or in their word, that it will be work good also? Well, we tried, and we found is worked more than good, better as expected. Only one backdraw: The chemical will not dilute good in cold water, so we found many deposits of chemical in the water tank, so this might be something not good for our purpose... This is not mentioned, because modern boilers have hot feed water treatment injectors... Trust?
yes, something allways to take care about, but trust means not mindless believe!

If you do not take to someone, who might have better informations, you might not get them... How long did it take till the first engineers handbook was published? How many discused engines were before publishing in work, and how many new facts have been found after publishing?
If you allways expect something new to match existing and proven facts, you might not accept new facts, because they might to be different to the once proven thing.s But something new might be differnt form old.
Example: the steel of Titanic was proven steel, long used in ship manufacturing. None could believe that it will break due temperature. This is something modern studies have found, and is today believed. How would somebody be treaten if he claimed this during Titanics manufacturing, teeling that riveting is not good and the steel should be of a better quality, and telling how the steel must be treaten. Wouldn't you also guess he would be a 'laugher' or 'clown priest' at the docks or steel companies?
Do noit forgett: Richard Trevithick found superheated steam during the earll 1800 years. He build the first high-pressure engines, but his engines were never be found practical or usefull. First Robert Stephenson made the company of his father George to a locomotive manufacture with world wide attraction. First in the beginning of the 20th century, Dr. Schmidt established the smoke tube super heating, which was the nused by many boilers world wide, Trevithicks claim about high pressure steam and superheating get nearly forgotten. Today we remeber, but now browse your books.. No word about Threvithick, who buld more efficient engines than the better known James Watt was able to!
So his claims were right, but unpublished, and thus forgotten, till today. Is an unpublished claim worthless or something not to think about it or to try to grasp the truth? Trevithick never published a book, and his claims were not regarded by the machinery factures, he died poor and unfamous.
So this about claims, trust and truth.
And: You can be criticaly to claims, no mind about this, but if you start thinking about these claims, and you are not sure whom to turst, why not using the web and question those guys who claimed that? If they are the claim worth, they will answer. Rothornbahn did and DLM did, providing good facts about their locos and about they Montreux engines.
Just for you these are the biolers I knew much about! you may translate the page by Altavista to understand it.

This poage referrs about a marine destroyer with steam turbine propulsion, use Altavista again for translation.
So here a modern, fast response boiler is used, and in a military surface operating ship... the ship was placed out of service fall 1999.

 

[Morgan Eric Ford]

Even if the maintenance and fuel costs of a steam engine were lower than a diesel or turbine there are other factors that might make it uneconomical.

Fuel economy and maintenance are not the only factors in marine engine design. The ship also has to be able to haul enough cargo or passengers to make a profit. Steam powerplants take up a lot more room than diesels. A ship that operates in saltwater is going to need condensers and circulating pumps in addition to the boilers. This is not a factor for locomotives.

Firetube boilers are much easier to operate and repair than watertube boilers yet they were obsolete for marine applications by the 1930's. A big factor in this was the amount of space they consume. The shipping industry decided the higher maintenance and operating costs of a watertube boiler were compensated for by the increased cargo/passenger capacity.

Steffen,

Has the German navy bought any steam ships recently?

There is a well preserved WWII diesel generator at Berchtesgarten. I think it's a 300 KW Mann. Worth seeing if you are in the area.

 

[Erik Wood]

I think Morgan hit it on the head. He also took into consideration things that I hadn't even thought of. Especially about water tube boilers.

On the Great Lakes steam is still very widly used. Mainly because it is cheaper to keep the old system then it is to buy a new one.

Erik

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi Steffan, in regards changing facts, one fact that doesn't change are the problems asocciated with streight out thermodynamics. You still need so many BTUs to raise the temperature of a given volumn of water to the point where you can generated enough steam to do any useful work. This takes a large boiler with a large firebox and a lot of heat which translates into fuel being used in ample quantities. The passage of time does not make this go away. In any event, what I'm asking for is peer reviewed material from naval engineers which would either support or refute the claims made by DLM, not further comments from DLM themselves. Since they have a vested interest in their systems, it's not likely that they'll be keen to advertise anything that's troublesome with any of it.

You may be tired of my insisting on peer reviewed material, but it's the sort of thing I absolutely stick with. If anybody is going to assert something as a "fact", then I want to hear it from a nuetral source that has the appropriate credentials and qualifications to say that, and the hard data to back it up. If you cannot offer that, then with all due respect, I see no point in continueing this conversation. We'll just end up wasting each other's time without resolution.

On the destroyer you mentioned, I doubt if you could possibly have cited a worse example if you want to make your case. I happen to be familier with this type vessel. The Rommel was a highly modified version of the Charles F. Adams class destroyer which was first produced for the U.S. Navy in the early sixties. This would mean a design process going back to the 1950s! The plant used in the Lutjens class as it was known in the German Navy were geared steam turbines with the steam being produced by four Combustion Engineering boilers at an operating temperature of 510 degrees C and an operating pressure of 84.4 kilograms per cubic centimeters. In sum, we're talking about half century old technology with all the attendant troubles that go with it. It's interesting to note that the two surviving sister ships are due to be paid off while all new construction of major warships in the German Navy are either gas turbines or diesels or CODOG plants.

Source for technical data on Lutjens class destroyers; Jane's Fighting Ships, 2001-2002, page 250

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Steffen Reichel]

Dear Michael,
I cannot completely agree with you, as you might understand. You only count
on the things, which a published several years ago. Maybe you understand, if
you once come home and watch you oil boiler at home for the central heating.
It works nearly particle emmission free, does have a very low oil consumption
and a very good response time. Those boilers are a result of the former
quick response boiler.
You also consider the boilers of the L&uuml;tjens class a old, as they are, but
the modifications with the US HAGANS boiler control made it possible to go
without firemen and stokers. This is only a simple modification, but consider:
Titanic without stokers and an automatic stoking control which feed the
boilers all the time with the only neccessary fuel, not less not more!
To stoke a boilers isn't an easy job, as modern power plants have more
regulatory systems to control the boiler performance than to cotrol the engine
itself. The boiler today first gets a complete blowing through with fresh air.
Next the air is pressed through an air preheating unit, as most of the water
enter the boiler tubes preheated. These two things are still different from
the typical marine boilers. Now the oil burners a lighted, the hot air presse
the oil through a spray nossle to mix oil and air to best air-fuel mixture.
The flame is enlighte, and secondary air ensures that the nossle will not be
damaged by the flame as to suport the flame with additional heat, to prevent
left of unburned oil particules. The tertiary air further supports the flame
with additional air, contols the heat and the main emmissions. Up in the boiler
quatiary air valves let more additionaly air pass through, to cool down the
heat atop and to cause any left oil particles in to combustion chamber to
enlight. So we have four air suports, the DLM uses only two, because the oil in
the locomotive is blown into the combustion chamber with steam, so the
primary air is the air to cool the nozzle and the secondry air is the additional
air to support the complete oil combustion. In the power plant boilers the air
now passes the second step water preheating, and the air preheater. The air
comes into the boiler with often more then 200&deg;C which results in a much
better combustion than in the common marine boilers, also the boiler can be
smaller in the combustion area. This type of boiler is an ABB patent and not widly
distributed. The condensator cooles down the water from steam only little
under the boiling point, completly in a closed pressure circle, so the
temperature will not much drop below 110&deg;C, after passing the second step of water
prehaeting by hot exaust combustion gases the temperature raises above 200&deg;C at
which the water will enter the feed drum, were first water and steam is
divided, the steam passes atop into the steam tubes, the water sinks down into the
evaporation tubes, so the steam is soon heated up to more then 350&deg;C, before
antering the steam drum, were the steam reseve of the boiler is kept and the
emergency valve is placed. From here the steam passes into the superheating
tubes, were superheating steam cooling nozzles inject cooler steam the
prevent that steam temperature will rise above 600&deg;C (!!!). Now the steam enters
the turbine.
How would you compare this to any marine boiler? DLM uses an special steam
nozzle burner in theirships boiler, with an adjustable secondary air valve and
an tertiary additional combustion air support. So the combustion chamber is
complety air thight, so the combustion can be very fine addjusted by the
seconday and tertiary air. The exaust preheating as second step of water
preheating is still hold, and a condensator is still optional in use to rise the
boiler perfomance. Special steel alloys allow a much better heat absorbtion to
the water (this is not a water tube boiler which DLM uses!).
But there a further studies: I small nickel alloy steel quick response
boiler was developed by Le&oacute;n Serpollet 1889, more than 100 years ago. Just an
example: The US steam car 'Double' boiler made steam of 51 bar within 30 Minutes,
the car itself was able to speed up to 65 km/h in 8 seconds and the maximum
speed was 140 km/h. (don't forget, we talk about a car with a weight of less
than 2 tons weight, so we do not talk about large boilers!)The Serpollet
boiler is the basic study for the modern quick response boilers. So in the
study, made by GE first, such a modificated quick response boiler feed steam into
the drum of small water tube boiler, were the main burners producd the main
steam. The quick response boiler was only the auxillary steam generator, so
the main water tube boiler was ready to alert within 60 Minutes from cold. From
cold, I will repeat!
And now we have to advantage of the four time air inlt into the boiler,
these are three more air inlets then a diesl engine has, three more posibilities
to control the combustion the maximum efficiency by additional air.
Do you still need more info o start to watch to steam engines from an other
point of view? Or are al I talk about still products of my phantasy? Then use
google again, and stay behind the googles!
Today it is possibe to construct a water tube boiler with extraordinary
performances, basic studis of the Double and the Serpollet boiler, combining with
the ABB modicated Velox Boiler have other posibillities than just talking
about facts from nearly a half millenium ago.
And since now I have lost no word about the engine itself! No word about
Hagans 8 cylinder monoblock steam motor, not word about the Lancashire Steam
Motor Co. with their studies of a 4 x triple expansion monoblock motor.
All things not mentioned in the marine books, because not used in marine
technology, because were never successfull in the land, because of the further
use of the diesel and gasoline engines, and here a boiler was to big... So
these facts did not found their way marine technologies,
But in 1991 the DLM discovered those things, and started their project about
modern steam.
Today, their 8 mountain railroad steam engines were widly in use, because
less expensive then many diesel locos, have less maintainace and a good visitor
attraction, because being a steam engine! But, if those engines were not
effective and economicaly, the Rothhornbahn in Switzerland would not have
ordered two additional engines after testing the first engine, and the austrian
railways would not have taken 6 engines if they were not as what DLM claims....
So what know if we now consider this to marine engines? And I have lost no
word about flat outboad condensators, which was once considered for submarine
use, but abandoned because of the high heat signature... And I have lost not
word about the famous sulzer boiler control equipment, or the ABB boiler
control ware...
I know, you will never belive or consider it possible, but I even did not
guess about the possibility. A diesel act with 35% efficiency, a velox boiler
with more than 87 % efficienty, and a triple expansion engine could go with
72% effecifity, so together they were compareable with any diesel today, after
50 year without further development!
For you these are not facts, mre myths as I know.
But I posted it to make you think about it, not to make you believe. I am
not a priest, but if somebody just claims facts from books, which do withhold
some important facts about several boilers and possibilitys, I cannot agree.
And again:A 160 MegaWatt boiler today is operationsable in 4 hours from
cold. This is a fact! I do not know any diesel engine which could compete with
this time nor with that power. No Sir, how should I believe in your claims?
I questioned a diesel engines on a freighter, and he told me, that all
diesel engines he knew must have a lubricating and cooling water preheating before
getting started. Large diesel need often one or two hours before they were
ready to start. Most guys do not realize, because if main engine is shut off,
auxilary heating devices keep the diesel at temperature. Usualy this is found
on modern turbo injector diesels which have slow round number, than in small
diesels for shifting locomotives or street cars, but as larger the diesel
gets, as more common the preheating gets.
So I will not loose any word about it, and will not further disturb you nice
diesel discussion...
BTW: If you once return to DLM homepage, do not miss the picture gallery and watch how big the montreux ship engine realy is.. I guess the boiler is very little, if I compare it to other paddle wheelers here around....

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Steffan, with all due respect, I'm not going to do this tapdance. I didn't ask for a repetition of the claims made by DLM...you've made them and your opinion on them clear enough. Nor did I ask to be referred once again to their website. I'm sure they have some interesting concepts and ideas.

What I asked for were references to peer reviewed material whereby qualified marine engineers with no obligation to or interest in DLM have put DLM's claims to the test and actually verified or refuted them. To help out, I have offered a URL to the Google.com search engine whereby you may search for such documentation on-line if it's published there at all.

Solid proof from qualified sources please. That's all I ask.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Colleen Collier]

HO BOY!!! Let me roll up my sleeves, (and pant legs) and start......
I am in no way any sort of "know all" when it comes to steam and diesel. (news flash there, hee hee), but I have had the honor and pleasure of working in, and around the 2 largest locomotives in the world. The 300 ton 4-8-8-4- articulated Big Boy and the DD-40-X 6900 diesel. I met many of the retired engineers, fireman, and novices in my volunteering, and they all told me that steam was king it her time, but when they started to put diesels in service, they all saw the advantages as far as maintainance, simplicity, manpower requirements, and fuel efficiancy, so the answer was obvious. In the case of a locomotive, if they needed more power, they found it best to just couple more engines, and with a steam engine, the weight and pure size had a tendancy to tear up tracks. They had problems with corners and weight as well with the big diesel, but it was the next test and evolution. The large steam trains were very limited to certain areas and tracks that were rated a high quality, or damage to freight and possible death would occur, when it broke the track and derailed the train. A steam locomotive is higher maintainance just due to the fact that if it is running, you had BETTER be sitting there to adjust the valves and so on, and if you shut it off, you had better have the time needed to get it up and going again. When they had to go in for service, and the boilers checked, the process of tearing it down to check the water tube boilers was extensive and down time was costly.
If anyone remembers that once apon a time they had a car called the Stanley Steamer. Great invention, YES, but it didn't win everyone over and we drive gas and diesel vehicles today.

As far as Disney goes, I have to stop you there. The steam trains they use there were built especially for the park for Walt Disney, as he was a huge steam train buff and it is part of the enchantment and dream he wanted to live on. An engineer for almost 20 years at Knotts Berry Farm was my p.e. teacher at school and I got a great insiders view of those trains. Let me say that they are babied and loved as no other. They have a shop built on the premisis to take care of anything that the engines may need. I also know that they have had a few problems with one of them, just because it is as stubborn as a donkey.
I also have seen first hand a steam train known as the 3751 sitting in "mothball" and not even able to take excursion trips because it is due to have the boilers certified, and they can't raise the money to get it done. It was rebuilt and run MAYBE 3 times in the 10 years, but rules are rules, so it sits in seclusion for no one to even get to enjoy. There is always talk of taking an engine, restoring her, and using her for something, but when the costs are calculated, sadly, the figures are too high to make it happen.
My husband knows much more, and specific details when it comes to this subject, so let me get him over here to post. Colleen

 

[Robert W. Collier]

I have been lurking about the board and been watching the steam/diesel exchange and decided to step up to the plate and put in my opinon, for what it may be worth. A little background, I spent many years at a railroad museum learning alot from the old timers there who either engineered or fired them, and there were always comparing going on between steam and diesel motive power. I was fortunate to learn from both steam and diesel engineers. I gained more experience operating scaled down locomotives (live steamers), which operate the same as the full size, only in miniture. Ships have always fascinated me, and have studied the evolution from, sail, to steam on to diesel and nuclear power. Now having said that.....

Though I am very much a steam enthusiest, but a realist as well. Steam has had its day, but is past being a primary motive power for either ships or rail roads. There have been numorous improvements over the years in steam. One factory I worked for had a Babcoc and Wilcox boiler (from the same place such ships as the Uss Arizona BB-39 got its boilers from) to operate all our steam equipment, it was natural gas fired and computer controlled. It had low emissions, and normally, all the maintenance man had to do was to check it regularly. But on occasion, it would go down, costing the company in downtime and repair, and lost production. It however was never allowed to shut down completely for weekends or holidays. It was kept on low so to speak, and monitored still by a person. In the 1980's there were plans of improved coal fired steam engines being built to compete with diesel railroad locomotives. Though the plans were impressive, they still could not compete with "off the shelf" diesel power from current manufactures. To reiterate some prior posted information, you cannot get around the thermodynamics, it is the nature of the beast. It is more time and labor consuming to go from a cold start. Then the equipment itself is more complex, therefore, more labor intensive in upkeep and repairs, which translates into more expense. You also have to ride herd on steam power. An engineer/official for the Union Pacific railroad, while speaking on the two steam locomotives that they tour the country with, said, "You cannot just walk away from them, you have to watch them 24 hours a day and tend to them." while they are on tour. As opposed to a diesel unit, which can sit idleing all night by itself. It is my understanding, ships are very much the same. You have to have a full enginecrew keeping a steam power plant, be it coal, oil or nuclear fired, round the clock. In ships using diesel, you still have to have support personelle, but not as extensive. One thing I did learn, is a steam engine can be a "cantankerous monster", if it gets it in it's head to quit on you.

Another point to look at, is location in the world where steam is used. In the late 1980's I watched a special, on a facility in China, that still produced large, coal fired steam locomotives, not unlike the ones produced in the United States in the early 20th century. In China, coal and cheap labor are in plentiful supply so there is no real encintive to go to anything else. Such as the ships on the Great Lakes as mentioned previously by Captain Wood, it is simply more economical to stick with what is already there. Even in railroading in the U.S., by the 1930's and 40's, all major rail lines had converted to oil fired locomotives, except for the Union Pacific, which mined it's own coal, and had many coal fired engines till everything finally converted to diesel. It was simply cheaper to stick with coal fired.

A friend of my wifes commented while he was stationed with the Army, in Germany about all the steam powered trains he saw and rode on while there. So perhaps what they have in Germany with the DLM, works good there. However, I don't believe it would be of practical, or economical use here in the states.

Respectfully,
Robert W. Collier

 

[Steffen Reichel]

Just something additional, before I realy quit:

You all talk about boilers bild long years ago. I was talking about a boiler which was build 1996 and for Montreux in 21th milennium, not in the past, actually!!!
So the compare of a fuel wasting 'bigBoy' with a economicaly designed injection diesel has the humpback. So you should compare such old diesel with same aged constructions, like Henschel 'RedDevil' for South Africa, or the second series of the Henschel Patent F15C engines, also in SouthAfrica.
I would never try to compare a common rail injection diesel with turbo loaded, air coolers and turbo cooling devices with a ships engine of Titanic type, even if Titanics engine were very ecconomical.
No, I won't. I also won't not to have steam street cars, no I won't. But, were the engines have some room, especially in power plants and ships, we should consider modern steam engines in a competition, especially here for ships. And a brittish 9F boiler as a ALCO Series4000 Boiler nearly work the same, not modern! Also a L&ouml;ffler boiler, LaMont boiler or Schmidt boiler were decades old... OLD!!

I was talking about modern steam engines, steam eniges developed in the last decade (developed, not only manufactured!). So now you further can hammer onto: Steam is old, but in every power plant a steam engine still does it rounds, and the diesel was only possible to make points in 'little power plants' up to 2 MegaWatt Poweroutput, but often far from being economicaly realy 'fantastic' and easy to maintain.
So go on, hammer it... Each nuclear ship and each today power plant will tell you lies. As I will replies: BTU or not: 4 hours to 160 MegaWatts from cold.... 45 Minutes till a DLM Loco will left the shop from cold! And: I know many steam engies which remain the night without attendance. Not many 'more modern' steam engines need to be 'hatched' all the night. Yes, our steam loco from 1934 needs that, but the other one from 1956 doesn't need... Get asleep and kick it in the morning...

Nothing to add...

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Steffan, when you have the peer reviewed material to offer to back up DLM's claims, I'll gladly consider them on their merits. Until then, go in peace.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Robert W. Collier]

Steffan,
With all due respect, I have to agree with Mr. Standart, I would like to see some addtional material backing up DLM's claim. It certainly sounds like an interesting concept and I would be interested in seeing more.

Respectfully,
Robert W. Collier

 

[Steffen Reichel]

You both are funny....
WEll, I have material, indeed. It is in papaers, and how should I transfer this into this website? Scanning and then fixing the picture? Doing an OCR and placing the text here? Maybe, but who will read those lines, which also have nothing to be proof.
Also: All material I have is written in German, so a translatation will be neccessary. But you can order the material maybe in english, if you contact DLM and about the locos the Rothornbahn.
For the boilers go to the ABB Homepage, but I do not know I if you then will get the material I will have, as this material was handed out for the boiler operation personal, and I was one of these guys, also written in german.The other material are the handbooks about railway and locomoboile boiler constructions, some of them reprints from Lanz, Hanomag and the BBC.
All material will not widly help you, it just helped me.
But I gave you so much words, and as google user you can find with those words enough material about what I wrote, so I cannot believe that you realy want to understand... Because many facts are online, and can be found, if you just do the effort and search about. Give it a try and search for RedDevil (F15NC-NG), espacially South Africa. Watch what you may find, and now guess if this could be true. Consider how old, and what I told you about today, if further development maybe done... (RedDevil is still old, but has another boiler standart, than any other locomotive or marine boiler, it works different, and thats the key).
But I think, you do not want. I haven't the books you mention here, but I believed that your books are right. So it is your turn, so gather the material, if you desire. But the ones who sit, and rest, often do not want to stand up and do the first step. Waiting for the hand to lift them up and push them along. No, Sirs, not this way.
If you're realy believe in your books, test if they are proof, and it's easy to find it out!
First head down to your engineer, ask him about preheating, and maybe get the first sign.... (if the engine is only large enough. Smaller engines with high rotations do often not require preheating, because of higher rounds and smaller piston strokes...).
But you must do it...