"DSK" wrote in message

The original steam propulsion plant MUST be replaced. You have been
warned.

A great uncle used to own and skipper a steam-powered tug in NY Harbor back
in the Twenties and Thirties. According to him, steam was far more reliable
than any old "POS diesel" ("Ever had a steam engine quit on ya at a critical
time, kid?"), and the power output could be regulated over a far greater
range than any gas or diesel engine. We took him out on our first sailboat
when he was approaching 95 and fairly uncommunicative. The boat's Perkins
4-107 ran like a well-oiled sewing machine and was flawless that day, but
Uncle Guy, who'd remained silent all day, couldn't contain himself as we
came in to dock. "Wouldn't give you a pile of dog **** wrapped in brown
paper for that POS engine. You should repower with steam, kid."

Your comment reminded me of that occasion.

Max

The original steam propulsion plant MUST be replaced. You have been
warned.


Maxprop wrote:
A great uncle used to own and skipper a steam-powered tug in NY Harbor back
in the Twenties and Thirties.

That must have been an oldie. While there were steam tugs in
service up thru the 1940s (and steam trains up thru the
early 1960s) the business was going to diesel not long after
1900. I've read about a number of tugs & pilot boats
converted from steam to diesel in 19-teens.

OTOH a lot of companies were very fond of steam power and
clung to it, possibly your uncle was in one.

.... According to him, steam was far more reliable
than any old "POS diesel" ("Ever had a steam engine quit on ya at a critical
time, kid?")

Yes. Several times. Of course, that was on much bigger &
more complicated plants. But for such a simple device, a
steam engine has many things that can shut it down...
furthermore everything affects everything else... lift
safeties & run low water; lose feed pressure & run high
water; burner drops out (or lose fuel pressure) & lose
boiler pressure & run high water; blah blah blah.


... and the power output could be regulated over a far greater
range than any gas or diesel engine.

That part may be true, especially for a single-expansion
engine with an advanced valve train such as would have been
common in the 1920s onward.

http://www.carferries.com/triple/page13.jpg

Actually this whole web page is great
http://www.carferries.com/triple/

... We took him out on our first sailboat
when he was approaching 95 and fairly uncommunicative. The boat's Perkins
4-107 ran like a well-oiled sewing machine and was flawless that day, but
Uncle Guy, who'd remained silent all day, couldn't contain himself as we
came in to dock. "Wouldn't give you a pile of dog **** wrapped in brown
paper for that POS engine. You should repower with steam, kid."

Your comment reminded me of that occasion.


I hope he was having fun anyway.

There are a surprising number of small steamers running
around, but it's not practical for a sailboat if you want to
have anything else in the cabin. Steam engines and all the
associated boilers & pumps are bulky.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...

There are a surprising number of small steamers running
around, but it's not practical for a sailboat if you want to
have anything else in the cabin. Steam engines and all the
associated boilers & pumps are bulky.


Not to mention carrying the 'fuel'.

SBV

"DSK" wrote in message
...
The original steam propulsion plant MUST be replaced. You have been
warned.


Maxprop wrote:
A great uncle used to own and skipper a steam-powered tug in NY Harbor
back in the Twenties and Thirties.

That must have been an oldie. While there were steam tugs in service up
thru the 1940s (and steam trains up thru the early 1960s) the business was
going to diesel not long after 1900. I've read about a number of tugs &
pilot boats converted from steam to diesel in 19-teens.

OTOH a lot of companies were very fond of steam power and clung to it,
possibly your uncle was in one.

Guy owned his own tug. He contracted with one of the smaller firms in NY
Harbor. He was the same sort who protested the internal ("infernal")
combustion engine replacing the horse. He explained the diesel as a means
of reducing the crew by one man--the fireman. The fireman was a featherbed
job, actually, because most of the steam tugs were fueled with coal oil
automatically.


.... According to him, steam was far more reliable than any old "POS
diesel" ("Ever had a steam engine quit on ya at a critical time, kid?")

Yes. Several times. Of course, that was on much bigger & more complicated
plants. But for such a simple device, a steam engine has many things that
can shut it down... furthermore everything affects everything else... lift
safeties & run low water; lose feed pressure & run high water; burner
drops out (or lose fuel pressure) & lose boiler pressure & run high water;
blah blah blah.

Guy proudly stated that he'd never lost power during his years as a tugboat
captain. Then again Guy was Irish and inclined to "exaggeration."

... and the power output could be regulated over a far greater range than
any gas or diesel engine.

That part may be true, especially for a single-expansion engine with an
advanced valve train such as would have been common in the 1920s onward.

http://www.carferries.com/triple/page13.jpg

Actually this whole web page is great
http://www.carferries.com/triple/

A good website. Thanks.

... We took him out on our first sailboat when he was approaching 95 and
fairly uncommunicative. The boat's Perkins 4-107 ran like a well-oiled
sewing machine and was flawless that day, but Uncle Guy, who'd remained
silent all day, couldn't contain himself as we came in to dock.
"Wouldn't give you a pile of dog **** wrapped in brown paper for that POS
engine. You should repower with steam, kid."

Your comment reminded me of that occasion.


I hope he was having fun anyway.

He never seemed to enjoy himself. I think he was only happy when he was at
the helm of his boats, or when complaining. His negative comment about my
Perkins did bring the hint of a grin to his lips, however.

There are a surprising number of small steamers running around, but it's
not practical for a sailboat if you want to have anything else in the
cabin. Steam engines and all the associated boilers & pumps are bulky.

And heavy. If I ever lost my current Universal diesel, I'd repower with a
lighter weight Yanmar.

Max

OTOH a lot of companies were very fond of steam power and clung to it,
possibly your uncle was in one.


Maxprop wrote:
Guy owned his own tug. He contracted with one of the smaller firms in NY
Harbor. He was the same sort who protested the internal ("infernal")
combustion engine replacing the horse.

Bet he never had to shovel manure, then

... He explained the diesel as a means
of reducing the crew by one man--the fireman. The fireman was a featherbed
job, actually, because most of the steam tugs were fueled with coal oil
automatically.


Yes and no... keeping a steam boiler lit up properly is not
easily automated, even in this day & time. One of my
bread-and-butter jobs is troubleshooting, repairing, and
calibrating combustion controls. Back in those days, it
would be very easy to lose fires due to loss of fuel
pressure, gunk in the fuel, sticking blower throttle, or
even on a small boat, a wave lapping over the uptakes. But
it still beats shoveling coal!


Guy proudly stated that he'd never lost power during his years as a tugboat
captain. Then again Guy was Irish and inclined to "exaggeration."


It's possible that he never did lose power, just rather
unlikely IMHO. It would be a testament to his engineer(s) if
true. In the 17 years or so I worked in steam ships, I saw
plants drop off line by genuine accident maybe 20 times or
so, usually during warm-up.



I hope he was having fun anyway.


He never seemed to enjoy himself. I think he was only happy when he was at
the helm of his boats, or when complaining. His negative comment about my
Perkins did bring the hint of a grin to his lips, however.


We used to say "A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor."

DSK