This is my father at 1:15, Hans Karl. The Texas was his first ship in the US Navy and he was a rammerman in division one which is the first turret. What a pleasant surprise to see his photo on You tube. The photo was taken around 1927.
As a marine engineer with reciprocating steam engine time under my belt (Yes, there a few of us even in the 21st Century!!!) this was a surprisingly good introductory video to how these engines operate. Good job!!!
The Texas has been part of my family history for years. My step-grandfather was a cook on her at the start of WWI. You can imagine my surprise after my mother in law died we found a series of photos of the Texas in my father in law's photo album. My father in law was a store keep during WWII. From what I've been told he was stationed in Subic Bay. My guess is the Texas the pulled in for fuel and supplies. During Desert Storm I was in Bahrain with MIUW 202 and was able to go on board the USS Missouri and bought a ball cap in the ships store. I really love the battleships.
The Battleship Texas is like an old friend to me. I first tour her in 1972 on a school field trip. I visit her again when I got my driver's license. And just before I left for Desert Shield just days after she returned from 2 years of restoration. Have not seen the Ole Gal since, but hopefully someday...
Love the photo at the end with the men's names, my Dad served in the Navy at the end of the war and has many photos like this. He is passed on, but I treasure these photos of young men, good friends, serving their country.
When I was a child not long after she was berthed at the San Jacinto Monument My mom took me and my brother out to see her. At that time we were allowed free access to the majority of the ship and there were some sailors who had served on her giving tours. They had served in the engine room, main gun, and other parts of the ship. We were allowed to climb in the main gun turrets and on the Ack Ack gun an swing them to and from tracking aircraft flying high overhead. It was a trip I shall never forget and various trips later on. But I have not been there in over 50 years now. Hopefully they will be able to save her and do a restoration that will keep her afloat for future Texans and naval personal to see and tour.
James Maxwell Texas has already been to drydock and repaired. The park service is looking at a permanent drydock display currently where the ship resides. She's going to be around for a long time. See the UA-cam on the USS Texas restoration. The vessel that is in trouble is the USS Olympia, their having difficulty raising the funds to do the same thing with that ship.
I may be mistaken but did not not collect money from citizens to put her in dry dock for some needed repairs about 10 years ago? I seem to remember a effort to collect money to help stabalizer her and keep her safe. What happened to those monies?
Repairs done a decade ago on a hull then over 90 years ago were a stop-gap. Rust never sleeps. When these ships were in commission they were attended by a huge crew being paid low wages. There was a saying among swabbies in the USN: "If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, PAINT it!"
Nice to see a detailed view of the important part of a ship! Nice narration, thanks for positing! Been looking for something like this ever since I retired from the Navy.
I've been down in the engines room aboard The Texas. Back in 72 it was not off limits like i believe it is today. I remember very well walking the catwalk between those two massive engines. Then and now i just think "Incredible !" LONG LIVE BATTLESHIP TEXAS !
@ 4"14, the throttle does not regulate steam pressure, it controls the volume of steam admitted to the engine. Steam pressure is regulated by safety valves on the boilers.
Steam pressure is regulated by the firing rate or the amount of oil admitted at the burners. Safety valves are there in case of over pressure on the boilers.
As one could expect, everything on USS Texas is BIG !!! (36 foot crankshaft !!!) I suspect that she is one of, if not the only example of its class that us "landlubbers" can actually walk on and touch!!! My cover is off to those who have taken on the labor of love that is turning USS Texas into something that we can all enjoy. I toured the USS Alabama right after she was opened to the public (and several times thereafter)and among other things, learned why it takes so long for someone to earn the privilege of command of such a complex piece of gear. I could have spend days just walking the decks of that ship.
You do realize that there are two parts to the power train? First you make steam and then you use it. A nuke plant is just a way of boiling water without using coal or oil. So all you would be replacing would be the steam boilers with a slightly different design. You might then think about replacing the triple expansion engines with turbines. But you could think about that using the existing boilers just as well.
What's amazing about watching this demonstration of a piece of machinery that was built in early 1900's was the technology of the day. It amazes me how anyone from that time period and even before this time would have the know how the technology and the machinery to build something so elaborate. This was time before computers Yes I know that people made these computers and even that amazes me to. Where on earth are people coming up with these technical ideas. Makes you wonder a bit about our universe. Amazing stuff over 100 years ago
If you visit BB-35, the USS Texas. Make a point to go below and stand next to this massive engine. Just the sheer size of the Crankshaft, Connecting Rods and Low Pressure Cylinder will impress you. Been there done that.
All new British and German ships of the era had steam turbines for about 8 years already by the time this was built. The couldn't cut gears was the problem with US ships at the time and this engine is the result. Still very interesting. Once they could cut gears well the rest is history ...
@@ThePaulv12 Not necessarily the case. The U.S. unable to produce the turbines quick enough. Hence why you see U.S.S. _North Dakota,_ both _Florida_ class and both _Wyoming_ have geared turbines. But then the _New Yorks_ and _Oklahoma_ going back to expanding piston engines.
@@peterson7082 In the WW1 era my sources (plural) indicate there was indeed an incapacity to cut gears however I am unable to confirm my sources at this time as my reference material is in storage. A quick Google reveals nothing, however a book on battleship construction given to me by my son reaffirmed what I already knew. The first reference was perhaps the book Jutland by Capt Donald Macintyre (of the Royal Navy) but perhaps not. If you haven't read Macintyre's book it it is a hoot of a read. You can find it on eBay for a fiver. Great book particularly on fire control and gunnery. Most people are rooted in broadside firing in ship/ship combat but that's not how it generally happened. Broadsides are for public spectacles, propaganda and specific circumstances. Concentrated gunfire called rapid fire mode was used where once the range was found a shell left a single gun every 8-10 or so seconds. Even the two gun turrets fired individually. The individual barrel crew would signal fire control when ready and only when the fire control officer signalled back would they fire.
its amazing all the wire cables tubing piping walkways living quarters etc etc someone designed too go into the interior of those ships the people who designed these must have been on the brink of madness :)
I wonder what condition those engines are in today. I doubt they could run again, but probably not because of the engines themselves. I've watched restoration working being done on steam locomotives that handle pressures at 250 to 315psi and repairing those boilers is a real chore. I couldn't imagine anyone reconstituting the boilers on Texas to a point where they could handle 400+psi again. It's a shame though. Seeing a ship like that move under its own power would be a once in a lifetime event.
Blame funding and the standard battleship fighting doctrine. Those are the reasons why all the ships from the Wyoming's to the Colorado's were all slower than the rest of the worlds navies.
@@peterson7082 After the Kaiserliche Marine was dismantled, our battleships were slower than their counter parts in the IJN, Royal Navy and Marine National. Despite having the same rated speed as some of those navies slower ships , many of our battleships relied on the triple expansion engine which means they were not capable of prolonged high speed use like a turbine was. This became a problem as under the standard battleship doctrine, the US Navy realized that if an enemy ran, they could not pursue, and if we had to run, we were un-able.
@@airplanenut89 For the super dreadnoughts, there were only three out of the sixteen ships that had expansion engines, likewise only three of the six preceding dreadnoughts had such as well. U.S. ships were as slow as the _R_ class, _Iron Duke_ class, _Andrea Doria/ Conte Di Cavour,_ and the _Bretagne_ and _Courbet_ class dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts.
At the time they built it, the triple expansion piston system was considered more reliable, as contemporary turbines had issues. Shortly after, the way turbines were engineered changed, so everyone swapped to turbines.
So, when I'm looking at that 3D laser image, all the holes and daylight that I see in the scan.....Are those actually holes and cracks in the engine infrastructure that is still on Texas? For example at 3:50 and beyond. Or is it a cut away or something other? If that's rot, it's really sad. I am aware that Texas is in very rough shape. I truly wish the gov't would take steps to preserve her.
The gaps are almost certainly artifacts of the 3D laser imaging - they'll set up the later in different places, but still might not get good reading of every square cm of every surface. Of course it is possible to clean up the result by hand, but this can be very time consuming.
The old steam engines are fascinating. I had a chance to visit the Liberty ship John W. Brown when she visited Toronto a few years ago. Spent about an hour in the engine room chatting with the old fellas who steam her today. Turns out she crossed paths with my Father in the Mediterranean during the Dragoon landings on the south coast of France. Dad was on the opposing team aboard U-969.
HMS Dreadnaught already had steam turbines years earlier. The US Navy didn't want to experiment with those 'new-fangled' contraptions. Reciprocating engines suffered from high levels of vibration and need for more frequent overhauls. They were totally unsuited for the high-HP demands of later 'fast' battleships.
Russ G Actually, The US did experiment with steam turbines starting with the Delaware class-battleship USS North Dakota which had steam turbines while the Delaware herself had reciprocating engines, the Florida class was the first to be built with steam turbines (both ships using them not a mixture like the Delaware class) along with the Wyoming class. The US was not sold on the idea because they were not fuel efficient and it lacked the extensive coaling stations that the British and French had access to coupled with patrolling both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (the Pacific especially, which also brings the added danger of needing coal and not being able to purchase it from a third party either because they are not allowed to due to their country’s laws or they refuse to such as what happened to Russia during the Russo-Japanese War when the Russian Baltic Fleet made the mistake of firing upon a group of British trawlers which angered Great Britain or the possibility of running out in the middle of the ocean far away from a suitable port to go along with it) which is why the reciprocating engines were used in the New York class. The US went back to using turbines when the Nevada class was introduced due to the technology improving and they became more fuel efficient. The Nevada class was the second and last time that the propulsion mixture was used with Nevada having turbines and Oklahoma having the reciprocating engines to test which one truly was better. Of course every ship after Nevada used turbines. The adoption of oil probably helped as well because refueling ships with it is much simpler than trying to transfer coal between ships (all you really need is a hose), plus its easier to transport and you can carry a lot of it.
A good engineer to go over it once. It was mothballed in running order. But why? They recommissioned 3 of the Iowa class back in the 80s, only to decommission them 10 years later. They do look super cool, I will say that, but they are floating targets in modern warfare. Airplanes, and submarines are the nay's new weapons.
Unless the shafts have been routinely rotated, then you would need to do more that "to go over it once". You would probably need to strip the entire engine down, check for corrosion (after all, mothballing just _delays_ corrosion, it doesn't permanently stop it), lubricate everything, and reassemble it. Not a small job...... Later, Matt
Why does the piston size get bigger for each stage when the steam pressure is gradually getting lower? Wouldn’t you need consecutively smaller pistons to help maintain the same pushing force for the gradually lowering steam pressure?
The force the input piston puts out is determined by the pressure of the steam in PSI times however many square inches the piston face has. So bigger pistons will give a bigger force other things equal. In hydraulics you also have an output piston where the reverse is true; perhaps you are thinking of that.
+Thomas Hockin yes and no,the Titanic used two triple expansion 4 cylinder engines but they were much bigger standing nearly 40ft tall they also used exhaust gasses from the triple expansion engines to drive a turbine which powered the Titanic's center shaft.
+Jesse Ramsay: Actually they're Quadruple Expansion engines-one high pressure, two intermediate pressure and one low pressure cylinder if I recall correctly. A classmate of mine once got a personal guided tour of Texas's engine rooms something I am still quite jealous of . . .
Actually, Joseph Greeley, they are 4 cylinder triple expansion engines, as the 2 low pressure cylinders work together. If they were quadruple expansion engines, the steam would go to the high pressure cylinder first, then the first intermediate pressure cylinder, which is larger, then the second intermediate cylinder, which is larger again, then the low pressure cylinder, which is the largest. There were a few quadruple expansion engines made, but they're very rare as the advantage over a triple expansion engine does not justify the extra cost of manufacture and extra complications. The Titanic could be called a quadruple expansion set, as the turbine was an extra stage, but it wasn't part of the two reciprocating piston engines which were also 4 cylinder triple expansion engines, so it doesn't really count that way.
Interesting that you didn't mention WHY Texas had recips instead of turbines like the previous class of US BBs. That's an interesting story in itself ;)
lots of steam. emery paper, grease, and a Dept of Parks and Wrecks that knows a thing about ships. Ships have funnels not stacks, and VTE steam engines only use the pressure expansive attritube of steam and not thermal. That is something turbines do
Much of the triple expansion engines are coated heavily in oil inside and out which prevented wear. though it is noted that after thousands of miles these engine would, 'shake themselves apart'. and then would need medium to heavy maintenance as pistons and support wore down before continuing to perform.
@@tomjones4318 water used in these engines ran on a closed loop system, and was constantly reused after being made into steam. so it likely wasn't soluble if it made it that far. but it wouldn't really matter as it'd be burned off in the boilers.
Inferior to the turbines that powered other navies battleships but it would be cool if those could be made to work again. I trust they would work as well as the video claims.
According to a book I read years ago, the US Navy was "hidebound to tradition". They knew about turbines. GE would have gladly made them. But, triple expansion technology was trusted. It wasn't untill the Nevada that the Navy switched to turbines. Nevada's sister ship Oklahoma still used VTE engines. Hence she was never considered for rebuild after Pearl Harbor.
I say thing one time from a distance but it's a super dreadnought? and is the only surviving Super Dreadnought type battle ship left and she is like ether 100 years old or nearly 100 years old
I am proud to be a Texan and am proud of the mighty battleship. But I am ashamed to see her in the condition she is in now. Texas Parks and Wildlife needs to get their heads out of their backsides and allocate at least $10 million dollars to the resoration of the pride of the Texas Fleet but I know that will never be done because of polictics and due to that people now adays do not care about history. The battleship USS TEXAS BB 35 needs to be restored before it is too late.
up to 85% deteriorated at this point in places. The state has given her a large sum of money to be moved to Alabama in order to repair or replace her hull and make other repairs before returning her to Texas.
Just a guess, but with the rapid development in naval technology around that era and the massive cost that would be involved in ripping out and replacing all the machinery and associated equipment and piping it would probably make more sense to dedicate that money to constructing a new vessel instead. As you can see, despite her reciprocating engines she managed to provide thirty-two years of satisfactory service, so it is questionable whether such an expense would have made that much of a difference in the service she provided.
Gordon Greninger Hi Gordon my only knowledge of the Texas is from this video I though that she may have been built or updated along the lines of the British super dreadnought classes. I'm certainly no expert but just enjoy naval history which is helpful as.I work in dockyard in Plymouth.
I think I may know the reason why, although I'm about two years late. There was controversy over the new steam turbines at the time, and the technology was still considered untested and so forth. Not only that, but the reciprocating engines were still considered to be more efficient than the early turbines. She was the last battleship class in the US to recieve these engines, and as to why they were not replaced in her refit, my guess is cost. I hope this helps!
This is taken directly from Norman Friedmans "U.S. Battleships" (excellent book) WARNING! VERY LONG READ BELOW "Alone among the great navies, the U.S Navy required great range in its capital ships. But poor fuel economy was the only great defect of early turbines. Trials of the turbine prototype North Dakota during 1910 made this point. At cruising power, she was nearly 30 percent less economical than her reciprocating-engine sister. For Battleship 35 (Texas), it was estimated that reciprocating engines would confer a radius of 7,060nm at 12 knots, Curtis turbines only 5,606. In the latter case the ship would be unable, for example, to reach Manila from the West Coast, even though one of the central scenarios for U.S. naval strategy was war with Japan in the Far East. By this time the development of forced lubrication had made the piston engine much more reliable at full power. The reciprocating engine might have little potential for future development, but that was not the question. The battle fleet must not be an experiment, it must be a reliable instrument for the projection of power over great distances. The General Board had to opt for the reciprocating-engined ship proposed by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company. Ironically, the greater propulsive efficiency of the piston engine permitted a reduction in installed power, so that in the end the New York required only 28,100IHP to make 21 knots, whereas a major factor in the design had been the allowance for 32,000. At least at first, the reciprocating engines seem to have been quite successful. However, they were a constant cause of complaint during the interwar period." (U.S. Battleships, an illustrated design history by Norman Friedman, The Wyoming and New York Classes, 1910-11 p. 96-97) In short, at the time of design of New York and Texas, the steam turbine engine was horribly inefficient and was still new technology when BB34 and BB35 were made, they were later improved by the time BB36 and BB37 were constructed, which is why BB36 had new steam turbines, and BB37 still had the old piston engines, to test the true comparison to which is REALLY better.
It was the hushed rubbing sound of oil sliding through oil on a score of bearing surfaces. The slide valves and piston rings made a drier, muffled whispering. Steam blowing through ports and receivers roared hollowly far off, like a million hoofs drumming a distant prairie. The scores of valve gear bushings made a lisping, oil-muted chatter. All the sounds sang together. The quick, light throb of the circulator rustled cooling water through the condenser tubes like a woman walking in silk. The air pump plunged and all its bucket valves clanked shut and it rose straining and gasping to sluice the condensed steam to the hot well for the groaning feed pumps. Air wheezed out of the hot well vent with the wet smell of steam and the wet hay smell of oily loofa sponges, and it mixed with the burnt rubber smell of hot packing and hot swabbing oil. From the fireroom came the hiss and the sulfur smell of coal smoke and water on hot ashes, the scrape of shovels and the clang of fire doors, and the shrill voices of the stoker coolies calling each other lazy turtles. All the voices sang with the engine. And then, standing with eyes open, to stride with the rods and plunge with the crossheads and jog with the valve gear and catch the intricate play of light and shadow as the wild horses spun whitely aft into the dimness of the shaft alley. And to take in through feet and fingertips the same white horses, transmuted by screw thresh, spreading from the thrust block to join the slower, smoother engine vibration feeding down through the soleplate chocks. To have knowing in their bones the same vibration that trembled water in glasses topside, and rattled loose windows, and worked rivets and stringers and frames minutely rubbing and creaking and whispering the old ship’s secret life through all its structure, there knowing and controlling and almost being the source of the ship’s life-that was how it was. “The Sand Pebbles” Richard McKenna
Pretty sure the HMS Queen Elizabeth with her eight 15" guns was afloat before Texas, which means Texas was never the powerful afloat. Yes, two more guns, but the weight of fire, range and accuracy of the 15" guns was unmatched, and the QE class were better protected and with more modern engines.
Technicalities here....... USS Texas was Both launched and Commissioned before HMS Queen Elizabeth, so what the video said "For a time, was the most powerful" is correct. Prior to QE, the British ships were armed with 13.5 inch guns, again, making the 14's on Texas and her sister New York, the trend setter. When the Brits went to 15 inch, we went to 16" in the Colorado class.
This is my father at 1:15, Hans Karl. The Texas was his first ship in the US Navy and he was a rammerman in division one which is the first turret. What a pleasant surprise to see his photo on You tube. The photo was taken around 1927.
NICE
That had to be a shocker!!! I never knew either of my Grandfathers. They were gone before I was born. You now have a treasure.
My father was in turret number 2 during the battle of North Africa
Awesome. He looks so young.
Incredible!
As a marine engineer with reciprocating steam engine time under my belt (Yes, there a few of us even in the 21st Century!!!) this was a surprisingly good introductory video to how these engines operate. Good job!!!
The Texas has been part of my family history for years. My step-grandfather was a cook on her at the start of WWI. You can imagine my surprise after my mother in law died we found a series of photos of the Texas in my father in law's photo album. My father in law was a store keep during WWII. From what I've been told he was stationed in Subic Bay. My guess is the Texas the pulled in for fuel and supplies. During Desert Storm I was in Bahrain with MIUW 202 and was able to go on board the USS Missouri and bought a ball cap in the ships store. I really love the battleships.
I toured the Battle Ship Texas in 1965. I was only ten years old at the time, but was so impressed, I can recall it like it was only yesterday.
The Battleship Texas is like an old friend to me. I first tour her in 1972 on a school field trip. I visit her again when I got my driver's license. And just before I left for Desert Shield just days after she returned from 2 years of restoration. Have not seen the Ole Gal since, but hopefully someday...
Then you better get ready because she is getting dressed all nice and pretty as we speak.
Love the photo at the end with the men's names, my Dad served in the Navy at the end of the war and has many photos like this. He is passed on, but I treasure these photos of young men, good friends, serving their country.
When I was a child not long after she was berthed at the San Jacinto Monument My
mom took me and my brother out to see her. At that time we were allowed free access
to the majority of the ship and there were some sailors who had served on her giving
tours. They had served in the engine room, main gun, and other parts of the ship.
We were allowed to climb in the main gun turrets and on the Ack Ack gun an swing
them to and from tracking aircraft flying high overhead. It was a trip I shall never
forget and various trips later on. But I have not been there in over 50 years now.
Hopefully they will be able to save her and do a restoration that will keep her afloat for
future Texans and naval personal to see and tour.
James Maxwell Texas has already been to drydock and repaired. The park service is looking at a permanent drydock display currently where the ship resides. She's going to be around for a long time. See the UA-cam on the USS Texas restoration. The vessel that is in trouble is the USS Olympia, their having difficulty raising the funds to do the same thing with that ship.
I may be mistaken but did not not collect money from citizens to put her in dry dock for some needed repairs about 10 years ago? I seem to remember a effort to collect money to help stabalizer her and keep her safe. What happened to those monies?
the ship needs regular maintenance and will need to be put in permanent dry dock or she will rust away.
Repairs done a decade ago on a hull then over 90 years ago were a stop-gap. Rust never sleeps. When these ships were in commission they were attended by a huge crew being paid low wages. There was a saying among swabbies in the USN: "If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, PAINT it!"
Good news, she’s finally being dry docked in mobile Alabama. They plan to move her somewhere else along the Texas coast, where, it’s not sure.
Thank you Texas for making such an informative video. This was the coolest thing I've learned all day.
Nice to see a detailed view of the important part of a ship! Nice narration, thanks for positing! Been looking for something like this ever since I retired from the Navy.
Fabulous display; thank you.
My Grandfather was the Chief Engineer on the job of digging out the original berth at San Jacinto when she was retired.
Toured her in 2016. Fabulous experience. My fave battleship!
I've been down in the engines room aboard The Texas. Back in 72 it was not off limits like i believe it is today. I remember very well walking the catwalk between those two massive engines. Then and now i just think "Incredible !" LONG LIVE BATTLESHIP TEXAS !
Thanks s good description of how triple expansion steam engines worked !
Visited several times with my Dad in the 1950s and 1960s. This brings back memories. He served in the Navy in WW2, though not on this ship.
I taught Steam Engineering for the Navy at Great Lakes for 4 yrs, great vid new Sub.
A treat for the tens of thousands out there who have the shared interests of Dreadnought Battleships and Rag Time.
Excellent explanation of how the triple expansion steam engines worked. Thoroughly enjoyed your video.
Bravo Zulu! Very good explanation of the Texas's steam engine process. Good enough for a Enlisted Warfare Specialist Pin!
@ 4"14, the throttle does not regulate steam pressure, it controls the volume of steam admitted to the engine. Steam pressure is regulated by safety valves on the boilers.
Steam pressure is regulated by the firing rate or the amount of oil admitted at the burners. Safety valves are there in case of over pressure on the boilers.
As one could expect, everything on USS Texas is BIG !!! (36 foot crankshaft !!!) I suspect that she is one of, if not the only example of its class that us "landlubbers" can actually walk on and touch!!! My cover is off to those who have taken on the labor of love that is turning USS Texas into something that we can all enjoy. I toured the USS Alabama right after she was opened to the public (and several times thereafter)and among other things, learned why it takes so long for someone to earn the privilege of command of such a complex piece of gear. I could have spend days just walking the decks of that ship.
it would be interesting to see a theoretical retrofit to a thorium nuclear power system for this ship.
It would be more interesting if they restored the original engines lul :)
@@idiedoof4339 Conventional steam is a lot more interesting
Well that was random.
Wow, very hyper-specific request/thought
You do realize that there are two parts to the power train? First you make steam and then you use it. A nuke plant is just a way of boiling water without using coal or oil. So all you would be replacing would be the steam boilers with a slightly different design.
You might then think about replacing the triple expansion engines with turbines. But you could think about that using the existing boilers just as well.
Great presentation. Thanks!
What's amazing about watching this demonstration of a piece of machinery that was built in early 1900's was the technology of the day. It amazes me how anyone from that time period and even before this time would have the know how the technology and the machinery to build something so elaborate. This was time before computers Yes I know that people made these computers and even that amazes me to. Where on earth are people coming up with these technical ideas. Makes you wonder a bit about our universe. Amazing stuff over 100 years ago
Thank you so much! I have recently been very interested in what dreadnought engines looked like and how they worked, and thanks to you, now I know!
If you visit BB-35, the USS Texas. Make a point to go below and stand next to this massive engine. Just the sheer size of the Crankshaft, Connecting Rods and Low Pressure Cylinder will impress you.
Been there done that.
Fantastic Video...Thanks Texas
How cool is that ! Last super-dreadnought, shame these engines are not running anymore. Who knows one day in the future ?!
I just can't imagine the amount of head scratching planning that engine. Marvelous piece of steam engineering.
All new British and German ships of the era had steam turbines for about 8 years already by the time this was built. The couldn't cut gears was the problem with US ships at the time and this engine is the result. Still very interesting. Once they could cut gears well the rest is history ...
@@ThePaulv12 Not necessarily the case.
The U.S. unable to produce the turbines quick enough. Hence why you see U.S.S. _North Dakota,_ both _Florida_ class and both _Wyoming_ have geared turbines. But then the _New Yorks_ and _Oklahoma_ going back to expanding piston engines.
@@peterson7082 In the WW1 era my sources (plural) indicate there was indeed an incapacity to cut gears however I am unable to confirm my sources at this time as my reference material is in storage.
A quick Google reveals nothing, however a book on battleship construction given to me by my son reaffirmed what I already knew. The first reference was perhaps the book Jutland by Capt Donald Macintyre (of the Royal Navy) but perhaps not. If you haven't read Macintyre's book it it is a hoot of a read. You can find it on eBay for a fiver. Great book particularly on fire control and gunnery. Most people are rooted in broadside firing in ship/ship combat but that's not how it generally happened. Broadsides are for public spectacles, propaganda and specific circumstances. Concentrated gunfire called rapid fire mode was used where once the range was found a shell left a single gun every 8-10 or so seconds.
Even the two gun turrets fired individually.
The individual barrel crew would signal fire control when ready and only when the fire control officer signalled back would they fire.
its amazing all the wire cables tubing piping walkways living quarters etc etc someone designed too go into the interior of those ships the people who designed these must have been on the brink of madness :)
@Gage Exactly, checked and re checked before being approved for building.
That 3D render was sick thanks
Excellent description!
valving is the heart and soul of the triple expansion steam engine
Any engine.
an amazing feat of engibeering for it's time.
Those steam engines required science!!!!. Those people were damn smart!!.
Those engine rooms were hot , noisy.
Loud, coal dusty, those men were proud sailors, and proud of their ships.
I wonder what condition those engines are in today. I doubt they could run again, but probably not because of the engines themselves. I've watched restoration working being done on steam locomotives that handle pressures at 250 to 315psi and repairing those boilers is a real chore. I couldn't imagine anyone reconstituting the boilers on Texas to a point where they could handle 400+psi again. It's a shame though. Seeing a ship like that move under its own power would be a once in a lifetime event.
The crazy thing is that texas isn't even considred a high pressure boielr by naval standards
Anything can be rebuilt .
Amazing history..
I'm surprised that the Texas didn't have turbines. Cool video.
Blame funding and the standard battleship fighting doctrine. Those are the reasons why all the ships from the Wyoming's to the Colorado's were all slower than the rest of the worlds navies.
@@airplanenut89 Not slower than all the rest.
@@peterson7082 After the Kaiserliche Marine was dismantled, our battleships were slower than their counter parts in the IJN, Royal Navy and Marine National. Despite having the same rated speed as some of those navies slower ships , many of our battleships relied on the triple expansion engine which means they were not capable of prolonged high speed use like a turbine was. This became a problem as under the standard battleship doctrine, the US Navy realized that if an enemy ran, they could not pursue, and if we had to run, we were un-able.
@@airplanenut89 For the super dreadnoughts, there were only three out of the sixteen ships that had expansion engines, likewise only three of the six preceding dreadnoughts had such as well.
U.S. ships were as slow as the _R_ class, _Iron Duke_ class, _Andrea Doria/ Conte Di Cavour,_ and the _Bretagne_ and _Courbet_ class dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts.
At the time they built it, the triple expansion piston system was considered more reliable, as contemporary turbines had issues. Shortly after, the way turbines were engineered changed, so everyone swapped to turbines.
Last of the piston steam engines. Amazing how they were forced to conspire together in order to drive a battleship 100 years ago!
we pass by it every tuesday i see it i am like i went there 40 yrs ago when my parents toke me there even san jasinto manument
28,000 HP?! And probably a million ft. lbs. of torque. That absolutely insane. Did it run on coal or oil?
Initially coal with fuel oil sprayers. Later turned into fuel oil boilers.
Great guess at the torque output! Doing the math, I get (28000HP)(5252)/120RPM = 1,225,467 lb-ft of torque.
Fascinating. High tech engineering for the time.
So, when I'm looking at that 3D laser image, all the holes and daylight that I see in the scan.....Are those actually holes and cracks in the engine infrastructure that is still on Texas?
For example at 3:50 and beyond.
Or is it a cut away or something other?
If that's rot, it's really sad. I am aware that Texas is in very rough shape. I truly wish the gov't would take steps to preserve her.
The gaps are almost certainly artifacts of the 3D laser imaging - they'll set up the later in different places, but still might not get good reading of every square cm of every surface. Of course it is possible to clean up the result by hand, but this can be very time consuming.
Great video, very well done and informative! I would love to see those running especially the old coal burners.
The old steam engines are fascinating. I had a chance to visit the Liberty ship John W. Brown when she visited Toronto a few years ago. Spent about an hour in the engine room chatting with the old fellas who steam her today. Turns out she crossed paths with my Father in the Mediterranean during the Dragoon landings on the south coast of France. Dad was on the opposing team aboard U-969.
That was awesome! Steam engine technology at its apex! Thank you!
HMS Dreadnaught already had steam turbines years earlier. The US Navy didn't want to experiment with those 'new-fangled' contraptions. Reciprocating engines suffered from high levels of vibration and need for more frequent overhauls. They were totally unsuited for the high-HP demands of later 'fast' battleships.
Russ G Actually, The US did experiment with steam turbines starting with the Delaware class-battleship USS North Dakota which had steam turbines while the Delaware herself had reciprocating engines, the Florida class was the first to be built with steam turbines (both ships using them not a mixture like the Delaware class) along with the Wyoming class. The US was not sold on the idea because they were not fuel efficient and it lacked the extensive coaling stations that the British and French had access to coupled with patrolling both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (the Pacific especially, which also brings the added danger of needing coal and not being able to purchase it from a third party either because they are not allowed to due to their country’s laws or they refuse to such as what happened to Russia during the Russo-Japanese War when the Russian Baltic Fleet made the mistake of firing upon a group of British trawlers which angered Great Britain or the possibility of running out in the middle of the ocean far away from a suitable port to go along with it) which is why the reciprocating engines were used in the New York class. The US went back to using turbines when the Nevada class was introduced due to the technology improving and they became more fuel efficient. The Nevada class was the second and last time that the propulsion mixture was used with Nevada having turbines and Oklahoma having the reciprocating engines to test which one truly was better. Of course every ship after Nevada used turbines. The adoption of oil probably helped as well because refueling ships with it is much simpler than trying to transfer coal between ships (all you really need is a hose), plus its easier to transport and you can carry a lot of it.
My neighbor served on the Texas and was in Normandy and Iwo Jima
The piano music gets annoying after about 30 seconds. What would it take to make this engine run again today?
A good engineer to go over it once. It was mothballed in running order. But why? They recommissioned 3 of the Iowa class back in the 80s, only to decommission them 10 years later. They do look super cool, I will say that, but they are floating targets in modern warfare. Airplanes, and submarines are the nay's new weapons.
Unless the shafts have been routinely rotated, then you would need to do more that "to go over it once".
You would probably need to strip the entire engine down, check for corrosion (after all, mothballing just _delays_ corrosion, it doesn't permanently stop it), lubricate everything, and reassemble it.
Not a small job......
Later, Matt
Yeah Matt, I guess I understated that a bit, you gave a more in depth description, I didn't mean it as coy as it sounded, but you're right
What would it take? Gwops of money that no one has to spend on doing so.
they are having enough trouble trying to find money to keep her afloat as it is...
Why does the piston size get bigger for each stage when the steam pressure is gradually getting lower? Wouldn’t you need consecutively smaller pistons to help maintain the same pushing force for the gradually lowering steam pressure?
The force the input piston puts out is determined by the pressure of the steam in PSI times however many square inches the piston face has. So bigger pistons will give a bigger force other things equal. In hydraulics you also have an output piston where the reverse is true; perhaps you are thinking of that.
did they get the water from the ocean? If so did the salt cause problems?
Incorrect. The steam engines do not produce “ deafening noise” when all the bearing have the correct it would have been almost silent.
I would like to find out what the case pressure would be on a 14inch gun. must be crazy high.
Wonder how many of those bolts have never been unbolted.
Do they reverse the engines to back the ship? With direct drive it would seem that it is the only way.
I think they reroute the steam to the astern turbines, but I'm not 100 percent sure
Very interesting video! When was the last time Texas was underway, under her own power?
1946.
Fascinating info. These were the same kind of engines as the Titanic aren't they. Which were bigger?? Do you know?
+Thomas Hockin yes and no,the Titanic used two triple expansion 4 cylinder engines but they were much bigger standing nearly 40ft tall they also used exhaust gasses from the triple expansion engines to drive a turbine which powered the Titanic's center shaft.
+Jesse Ramsay: Actually they're Quadruple Expansion engines-one high pressure, two intermediate pressure and one low pressure cylinder if I recall correctly. A classmate of mine once got a personal guided tour of Texas's engine rooms something I am still quite jealous of . . .
Titanic had physically larger engines. However, power from these engines was similar to Titanic based on higher steam pressure and higher rpm.
interestingly enough both the Titanic and Texas were built at about the same time and had similar top speeds
Actually, Joseph Greeley, they are 4 cylinder triple expansion engines, as the 2 low pressure cylinders work together. If they were quadruple expansion engines, the steam would go to the high pressure cylinder first, then the first intermediate pressure cylinder, which is larger, then the second intermediate cylinder, which is larger again, then the low pressure cylinder, which is the largest. There were a few quadruple expansion engines made, but they're very rare as the advantage over a triple expansion engine does not justify the extra cost of manufacture and extra complications. The Titanic could be called a quadruple expansion set, as the turbine was an extra stage, but it wasn't part of the two reciprocating piston engines which were also 4 cylinder triple expansion engines, so it doesn't really count that way.
The Texas really needs some major Cosmoline work on her engines to stop the growing corrosion.
She wasn't completely de-milled completely as I recall?
Great Video ....
John M brown is still Sailing ...
Liberty Ship John W. Brown leaving port
straight bow, real oldschool 🤪
Is there a video of phase two of the ship restoration?
Interesting that you didn't mention WHY Texas had recips instead of turbines like the previous class of US BBs. That's an interesting story in itself ;)
The Texas was converted to oil early on, I think in the 1920s.
So the engine is made by Dyson?
the laser diagram thing is pretty cool, didn't know she had 5 turret's
Can this ever run again ???
No
Where is the reverse gear?
I wonder how do you change a piston or a crankshaft. It seems to be no space to work.
and they were built by who?
The music was too loud and distracting.
lots of steam. emery paper, grease, and a Dept of Parks and Wrecks that knows a thing about ships. Ships have funnels not stacks, and VTE steam engines only use the pressure expansive attritube of steam and not thermal. That is something turbines do
Very interesting, not at all how I imagined they worked.
That was the music at the time she was built .
SideclonerPlays - That is amazing! How is it that you managed to do that?
OK how do you prevent wear on the cylinder walls?
Much of the triple expansion engines are coated heavily in oil inside and out which prevented wear. though it is noted that after thousands of miles these engine would, 'shake themselves apart'. and then would need medium to heavy maintenance as pistons and support wore down before continuing to perform.
Oil Mist Injection Into The Steam Also Was A Way To Lubricate Them !! 😎
Wonder if water soluble oils were used.
@@tomjones4318 water used in these engines ran on a closed loop system, and was constantly reused after being made into steam. so it likely wasn't soluble if it made it that far. but it wouldn't really matter as it'd be burned off in the boilers.
Arghh! Such a great video but turn off the music...we get it...its old!
Its like its doing a "Ken Burns".
EXELENT EXPOSURE AT THE TIME THE MOST ADVANCED TRIPLE EXPANSION ENGINES. I WONDER IF THEY COULD TURN AGAIN???
I heard that to become a museum ship, the engines must be made inoperable.
Very interesting...I like that :)
Inferior to the turbines that powered other navies battleships but it would be cool if those could be made to work again. I trust they would work as well as the video claims.
According to a book I read years ago, the US Navy was "hidebound to tradition". They knew about turbines. GE would have gladly made them. But, triple expansion technology was trusted. It wasn't untill the Nevada that the Navy switched to turbines. Nevada's sister ship Oklahoma still used VTE engines. Hence she was never considered for rebuild after Pearl Harbor.
@@markwilliams2620 I'm sure "Hidebound to tradition" is just a nice way of saying congress doesn't like giving us new things. Which they kinda didn't.
@@markwilliams2620 not really the case, the prior two classes plus one ship of battleships were turbine driven.
I say thing one time from a distance but it's a super dreadnought? and is the only surviving Super Dreadnought type battle ship left and she is like ether 100 years old or nearly 100 years old
Andrew Clutter she's over 100 years old
I am proud to be a Texan and am proud of the mighty battleship. But I am ashamed to see her in the condition she is in now. Texas Parks and Wildlife needs to get their heads out of their backsides and allocate at least $10 million dollars to the resoration of the pride of the Texas Fleet but I know that will never be done because of polictics and due to that people now adays do not care about history. The battleship USS TEXAS BB 35 needs to be restored before it is too late.
Time for someone to draw this up in CAD so it can be better demonstrated...
We have the scans if you want to model it.
Does any one know what the status of her hull I heard it was not in good shape?
up to 85% deteriorated at this point in places. The state has given her a large sum of money to be moved to Alabama in order to repair or replace her hull and make other repairs before returning her to Texas.
Wasn't like half the ship sunk and underwater?
No.
Thank goodness for marine turbines and Navy DFO.
Can anyone tell me why she was never fitted with steam turbines
Just a guess, but with the rapid development in naval technology around that era and the massive cost that would be involved in ripping out and replacing all the machinery and associated equipment and piping it would probably make more sense to dedicate that money to constructing a new vessel instead. As you can see, despite her reciprocating engines she managed to provide thirty-two years of satisfactory service, so it is questionable whether such an expense would have made that much of a difference in the service she provided.
senatorclaghorn three turrets above her engineering spaces probably has something to do with it.
Gordon Greninger Hi Gordon my only knowledge of the Texas is from this video I though that she may have been built or updated along the lines of the British super dreadnought classes. I'm certainly no expert but just enjoy naval history which is helpful as.I work in dockyard in Plymouth.
I think I may know the reason why, although I'm about two years late. There was controversy over the new steam turbines at the time, and the technology was still considered untested and so forth. Not only that, but the reciprocating engines were still considered to be more efficient than the early turbines. She was the last battleship class in the US to recieve these engines, and as to why they were not replaced in her refit, my guess is cost. I hope this helps!
This is taken directly from Norman Friedmans "U.S. Battleships" (excellent book) WARNING! VERY LONG READ BELOW
"Alone among the great navies, the U.S Navy required great range in its capital ships. But poor fuel economy was the only great defect of early turbines. Trials of the turbine prototype North Dakota during 1910 made this point. At cruising power, she was nearly 30 percent less economical than her reciprocating-engine sister. For Battleship 35 (Texas), it was estimated that reciprocating engines would confer a radius of 7,060nm at 12 knots, Curtis turbines only 5,606. In the latter case the ship would be unable, for example, to reach Manila from the West Coast, even though one of the central scenarios for U.S. naval strategy was war with Japan in the Far East. By this time the development of forced lubrication had made the piston engine much more reliable at full power. The reciprocating engine might have little potential for future development, but that was not the question. The battle fleet must not be an experiment, it must be a reliable instrument for the projection of power over great distances. The General Board had to opt for the reciprocating-engined ship proposed by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company.
Ironically, the greater propulsive efficiency of the piston engine permitted a reduction in installed power, so that in the end the New York required only 28,100IHP to make 21 knots, whereas a major factor in the design had been the allowance for 32,000. At least at first, the reciprocating engines seem to have been quite successful. However, they were a constant cause of complaint during the interwar period."
(U.S. Battleships, an illustrated design history by Norman Friedman, The Wyoming and New York Classes, 1910-11 p. 96-97)
In short, at the time of design of New York and Texas, the steam turbine engine was horribly inefficient and was still new technology when BB34 and BB35 were made, they were later improved by the time BB36 and BB37 were constructed, which is why BB36 had new steam turbines, and BB37 still had the old piston engines, to test the true comparison to which is REALLY better.
So.... this beast weighed in at 54,000,000 lbs?! Good God Almighty!!! That's almost unfathomable....
Medic83 now consider the Nimitz is twice as long and weighs about 3x as much.
Medic83 Don't you use tons in the U.S. like the rest of the world.
All my x"s live n Texas!
music during narration is annoying but nice graphic of the engine
Damn, here I thought all the dreadnoughts that would have survived the Washington naval treaty would have used turbines.
Several battleships after her had electric drives.
is a very nice picture :)
1,000 pounds of coal A MINUTE that thing burned and sent the acidic smoke up the stack, how insane
It was the hushed rubbing sound of oil sliding through oil on
a score of bearing surfaces. The slide valves and piston
rings made a drier, muffled whispering. Steam blowing
through ports and receivers roared hollowly far off, like a
million hoofs drumming a distant prairie. The scores of
valve gear bushings made a lisping, oil-muted chatter. All
the sounds sang together. The quick, light throb of the
circulator rustled cooling water through the condenser tubes
like a woman walking in silk. The air pump plunged and all
its bucket valves clanked shut and it rose straining and
gasping to sluice the condensed steam to the hot well for
the groaning feed pumps. Air wheezed out of the hot well
vent with the wet smell of steam and the wet hay smell of
oily loofa sponges, and it mixed with the burnt rubber smell
of hot packing and hot swabbing oil. From the fireroom
came the hiss and the sulfur smell of coal smoke and water
on hot ashes, the scrape of shovels and the clang of fire
doors, and the shrill voices of the stoker coolies calling
each other lazy turtles. All the voices sang with the engine.
And then, standing with eyes open, to stride with the rods
and plunge with the crossheads and jog with the valve gear
and catch the intricate play of light and shadow as the wild
horses spun whitely aft into the dimness of the shaft alley.
And to take in through feet and fingertips the same white
horses, transmuted by screw thresh, spreading from the
thrust block to join the slower, smoother engine vibration
feeding down through the soleplate chocks. To have
knowing in their bones the same vibration that trembled
water in glasses topside, and rattled loose windows, and
worked rivets and stringers and frames minutely rubbing
and creaking and whispering the old ship’s secret life
through all its structure, there knowing and controlling and
almost being the source of the ship’s life-that was how it
was.
“The Sand Pebbles”
Richard McKenna
Only got a 4 cylinder, huh?
And eight power strokes per revolution.
How does that compare to a petrol V8 - two power strokes per revolution!
Then you compare this design to the last of the WWII battleships, the Iowa class, with 218,000 hp steam turbines. Leaps and bounds.
Pretty sure the HMS Queen Elizabeth with her eight 15" guns was afloat before Texas, which means Texas was never the powerful afloat. Yes, two more guns, but the weight of fire, range and accuracy of the 15" guns was unmatched, and the QE class were better protected and with more modern engines.
Technicalities here....... USS Texas was Both launched and Commissioned before HMS Queen Elizabeth, so what the video said "For a time, was the most powerful" is correct. Prior to QE, the British ships were armed with 13.5 inch guns, again, making the 14's on Texas and her sister New York, the trend setter. When the Brits went to 15 inch, we went to 16" in the Colorado class.
nice
The engines that will never see steam again :-(
It was, in 1927.
wished that piano could have quit at some point... just up and left. Sheeeeeeeesh!!!
the background piano kills me....