# Motor or Steam



## BlythSpirit

Probably just for the engineering department guys:

I never sailed on motor ships at all - my whole 13 years at sea were on steam turbine ships, (and tankers at that).

I just wondered what impressions and preferences are, from those of you who did sail on both motor and steam vessels.

I refused to go on motor ships while still on tankers as I always thought that the time in port was short anyway without burdening myself with main engine maintenance as well.

I am of course aware that many people thoroughly enjoyed their motor ship experiences but I would be interested to hear what people's preferences were.


----------



## K urgess

From a purely aesthetic point of view I hated steam turbine ships.
Nothing to sing you to sleep at night.[=P] 
The only qualification was triple expansion which was an acceptable substitute for a 4 legged Dox.

From an engineering point of view any work I had to do in engine rooms was easier on turbine powered VLCCs where there was plenty of room, bloody great cathedrals! Some motor ships tended to stick bits in odd corners and make them very difficult to get at. Always seemed a bit claustrophobic on smaller vessels.


----------



## JoK

I loved the Skinner Uniflow steam engines.They ran like a top with minimal issues.


Froze on the motor ships. Was on one where I wore insulated coveralls on watch, 10*C in front of the main engine turbocharges. Had to plot a way around the engineroom to avoid the ventilators blowing down.


----------



## Toby T

*Steam or Motor*

I was fortune enough to join my first ship in May 1958 as an engineer on a triple expansion engined steam vessel, what a joy it was to stand at the control platform,open the main steam valve and watch those con. rods going round and then to see the link gear going over as you opened the valve on the reversing engine, a sight I still fondly remember after nearly 50 years. 

I then progressed (for want of a better word) to motor and diesel electric which did not hold the same magic as the old triple's. I finally ended up on the North Sea rig supply vessels with those horibble high speed turbo charged V 12 diesel's, it just was not the same.


----------



## steviej

*Hot or Cold Motors*



JoK said:


> I loved the Skinner Uniflow steam engines.They ran like a top with minimal issues.
> 
> 
> Froze on the motor ships. Was on one where I wore insulated coveralls on watch, 10*C in front of the main engine turbocharges. Had to plot a way around the engineroom to avoid the ventilators blowing down.


I sailed up the St Lawrence in winter on motors and I have to agree that it was comfortable. That was the exception the rest of the time my experience of motor ships was extremely hot. Medium speed high maintainance engines in small engine spaces in the tropics with temps reaching 130. I did sail on steam turbines and although it was hot and more humid I found that there was less maintainance than motor ships. I suppose if I had my time again I would have prefered more steam time but my favorite days at sea were on the Doxford(Thumb) 
steviej


----------



## Doxfordman

I had a very rounded education in both diciplines, although only on Steam ships to get the minimum steam time, as well as steam recip and was awarded bits of paper. I have to say the most rewarding times I had at sea were on Motor ships with older machinary, Doxfords and B & W's being the most gartifying, probably due to the people as much as the machinary itself. They were hard working, hard playing ships and generally had a great bunch of poeple in the engine room as well as on deck. There was very little oil and water!!!


----------



## BlythSpirit

> From a purely aesthetic point of view I hated steam turbine ships.
> Nothing to sing you to sleep at night.


Marconi Sahib - I always thought Messrs Gordon and Schweppes managed to do the trick - I forget how many cylinders they packed!


----------



## K urgess

Not a gin man, BS. I remember the smell from empty bottles after my parents' parties.[=P] 
Funnily enough didn't drink at sea above a couple of beers after last watch.
In port was a different matter altogether.
Joined one turbine ship at Liverpool late at night and woke up next morning in the middle of the Irish Sea. Didn't hear a thing whereas a Dox would've had me out of mi pit in a trice.[=P]


----------



## BlythSpirit

I can tell it was a lot more scary when everything went quiet in the middle of the night - the sound of turbine driven feed pumps tripping woke me every time!


----------



## Philthechill

*Phil Roe (Philthechill)*

For the ultimate buttock-clenching experience I reckon Cunards ACL ships "Atlantic Causeway" and "Atlantic Conveyor" took some beating! Two roof-fired Foster-Wheeler boilers operating at 900 p.s.i. and around 950F superheat certainly kept your mind on the job! Power was supplied by two miniscule AEI turbines whizzing round at 12500 r.p.m. driving the alternators! Feed-pumps were Weirs TWL (Turbine/Water-Lubricated)!!! The ultimate fiendishness was that the whole plot was automated to a very high degree and this was quite something! Rather than using electronic automation the powers-that-be went for pneumatic so, if you lost the air-supply, everything fell over! (In all fairness there were 3 air-compressors so total loss of air was extremely rare). However when things did fall over the resulting chaos happened very rapidly! One of the MOST memorable falling-overs was when the superheat safety-valve fell-off the main steam-pipe, on the for'd boiler on "Conveyor" when we were doing around 24 kts! Now THAT was an attention grabber! The noise in the control-room (about twenty feet away from the fallen-off safety-valve) was absolutely horrendous!!!! Yes sir! "Interesting" ships!!!


----------



## AlanTR

Sailed in all ranks up to and incl. 2nd Eng on Steam Turbine and 3rd, 2nd & Chief on Motor. Always preferred steam ships - the last one was for me was1975.


----------



## BlythSpirit

Not that we steam engineers didn't get dirty occasionally, but every time I went over to a motor ship to scrounge some kit, the white boiler suits the guys had were a long way away from white.

Phil Roes' comments re the ACL Atlantic boats were very similar to the early VLCCs I sailed on, I can remember the first time I saw a fully automated sootblowing set-up complete with electric motor drivers and an electronic control panel - I thought this is the life.(Thumb)


----------



## duggieslade

BlythSpirit said:


> Probably just for the engineering department guys:
> 
> I never sailed on motor ships at all - my whole 13 years at sea were on steam turbine ships, (and tankers at that).
> 
> I just wondered what impressions and preferences are, from those of you who did sail on both motor and steam vessels.
> 
> I refused to go on motor ships while still on tankers as I always thought that the time in port was short anyway without burdening myself with main engine maintenance as well.
> 
> I am of course aware that many people thoroughly enjoyed their motor ship experiences but I would be interested to hear what people's preferences were.


hello,i have sailed on many steamships tankers obo gascarrier and only on 2 motorships give me steam any time


----------



## Duncan112

Doxfordman said:


> I had a very rounded education in both diciplines, although only on Steam ships to get the minimum steam time, as well as steam recip and was awarded bits of paper. I have to say the most rewarding times I had at sea were on Motor ships with older machinary, Doxfords and B & W's being the most gartifying, probably due to the people as much as the machinary itself. They were hard working, hard playing ships and generally had a great bunch of poeple in the engine room as well as on deck. There was very little oil and water!!!


Well said Dox,

I much preferred the old nails that were either watchkeeping or had lost their UMS certificate - much more social. My heart always went out to the 12/4 bridge watchkeepeer on the UMS ships - no one to talk to at 4 am.

Duncan


----------



## R58484956

Greetings AlanTR and a warm welcome to SN. Enjoy the site and all it has to offer. Bon voyage.


----------



## Steve Hodges

BlythSpirit said:


> Probably just for the engineering department guys:
> 
> I never sailed on motor ships at all - my whole 13 years at sea were on steam turbine ships, (and tankers at that).
> 
> I just wondered what impressions and preferences are, from those of you who did sail on both motor and steam vessels.
> 
> I refused to go on motor ships while still on tankers as I always thought that the time in port was short anyway without burdening myself with main engine maintenance as well.
> 
> I am of course aware that many people thoroughly enjoyed their motor ship experiences but I would be interested to hear what people's preferences were.


Steam every time, as long as I didn't have to do the sootblowing by hand.

Im my time, BP eng.cadets did one trip each on motor and steam, then decided what they wanted to do after that. My first motor ship was a B&W - there seemed to be oil everywhere, and no space to work on anything. I took my tickets in steam, but actually had my last trip on an LB Doxford, with big mechanical scavenge pumps instead of turbochargers. It was so quiet it was like steam recip without a boiler, and I loved it. The only snag was crankcase inspections, done in a plastic boilersuit with hot lube oil raining down. You had to hit every nut with a hammer to check that it "rang" and wasn't loose. There were hundreds of them inside the beast, especially on the crosshead slides. I sweated so much I had to pour it out of my boots afterwards.

Steve


----------



## steviej

*Steam or Motor*



Steve Hodges said:


> Steam every time, as long as I didn't have to do the sootblowing by hand.
> 
> Im my time, BP eng.cadets did one trip each on motor and steam, then decided what they wanted to do after that. My first motor ship was a B&W - there seemed to be oil everywhere, and no space to work on anything. I took my tickets in steam, but actually had my last trip on an LB Doxford, with big mechanical scavenge pumps instead of turbochargers. It was so quiet it was like steam recip without a boiler, and I loved it. The only snag was crankcase inspections, done in a plastic boilersuit with hot lube oil raining down. You had to hit every nut with a hammer to check that it "rang" and wasn't loose. There were hundreds of them inside the beast, especially on the crosshead slides. I sweated so much I had to pour it out of my boots afterwards.
> 
> Steve


I am sure that in a recent message that a steam man said that they were frozen on a motor ship obviously he did not sail on the same ship as Steve[=P] 
steviej


----------



## JoK

That was me, I notice that not many of you went to the Arctic as regularly as I was going for awhile.


----------



## James_C

JoK,
We all had more sense to go the many Middle Eastern resorts instead!

LOL


----------



## BlythSpirit

I have noticed the huge response to the photo of the Doxford engine, and it has struck me that we steam engineers(of the turbine variety), didn't have any particular affection for our engines at all, probably because very few of us ever did any work on them - other than drain leaks etc. In thirteeen years at sea I was never involved with lifting the cover off steam turbines. 
Mind that wasn't an unusual occurrance - I worked in Venezuala at Esso's old refinery in Amuay and the Parsons Turbines installed there in 1948 were as good as new in 1980!


----------



## makko

I am a Motor Man. I agree that it is the required maintenance that binds the crowd, hard work and hard play! As previously mentioned, I much prefer Watchkeeping to UMS. It is much more sociable. 

I remember doing three majors (main engine cylinder maintenance) simultaneously in Venezuela, to ensure that we had plenty of "spare" time on the US coast. We started at 0700 and finished at about 1845. The whole team with black smudged faces and soaked in sweat and lube oil, climbing the ladders out of the ER like conquerors! (I remembered hard won rugby matches!)

It was especially memorable as, when we opened the alleyway door, there was a bunch of God squad people off an "Evangelical" vessel (Biblos?). They asked the 2/E if he had "heard" the word and thrust some books in his nostrils - He was a bluff Mancunian and his response unforgettable,

"You won't need to buy toilet paper from now on, son!" 

"Why?", asked the naive and bemused Bible basher.

"Because your f##king a##e will wipe itself after I insert those books up your {hawse pipe}!", whereupon he pushed through the multitude, shouting:

"That was a good job today! Free bar, the beer's on me!".

Regards,

Dave


----------



## offcumdum sanddancer

Good story that, Makko! As my seatime was almost equally divided into steam and motorships, I will give you my impressions of both. As an apprentice/cadet with BP my first trip was on the Dragoon and then the Argosy when she was the flagship, and thought they were both fairly boring deep sea steam ships, and not very happy ships. second trip I joined the M/V British Commerce and what a culture shock that was, 9 cylinder B & W. Very hard main engine maintenance, but a much happier crowd of engineers. Possibly a case of work hard/play hard. Come next trip I joined the Bulldog as acting junior and was I suppose a bit apprehensive. There was in those days no choice of motor or steamships, you went where you were sent. After a 9 month trip I left the ship as acting fourth, having been a proper junior for all of three months. As the Bulldog was an old ship by that time, and most things were hand-o-matic (except the main boiler robots) you had to learn fast. I made my fair share of mistakes (but more of that later) Again it was probably a case of work hard/play hard, but she was much happier that my first experience of steamships.
Over the next seven years I sailed exclusively on steamships as fourth to second engineer before leaving them to do my first class steam ticket in '76. Coming back to sea on the Border Shepherd as extra third (on seconds pay, great) to get my motor time. Steam ships by this time were a shrinking breed in BP, so on getting my motor endorsement in '77 I sailed on motorships as second until we were all made redundant in '86 and promotion being non-existent and the children were growing up, I decided to leave. My last ship was the re-engined ex-steamship British Resource, laid up fully loaded off Brunei. She was both steam ship and motor ship as she kept her original boilers and one high pressure T/A, and 4 turbine cargo pumps, but also had a 6 cylinder Mitsui B & W engine, waste heat boiler and Scotch boiler for the low pressure turbo-alternator. Fortunately she also had a Mitsui full power diesel alternator.
So I was both a steam engineer and a motor one. (I did one trip on the THV Ready, a steam reciprocating lighthouse tender for Trinity House but that was an aberration, so I won't count that) Now, the original question was which did we who went on both, prefer? Well, I did prefer the coasting in product carrier motorships, but that was because they were coasting (load in Europe and discharge at possibly several ports in Europe and Scandinavia. Not at all what you dry cargo people would know as coasting) So it was not motor or steamships for me which decided preference, it was ship size, ships trade and happy/unhappy crew which would be the clinchers. Work could be just as hard on some hell ships of steamships too.


----------



## Irvingman

I have to agree with JOK here. (Thumb) 

The boiler water tests were never done as carefully as when up the St Lawrence in winter - the only warm place to stand was at the test cabinet between the boliers! (Can't find a frozen smiley face!!  )


----------



## captkenn

BlythSpirit said:


> Probably just for the engineering department guys:
> I just wondered what impressions and preferences are, from those of you who did sail on both motor and steam vessels.
> 
> I would be interested to hear what people's preferences were.


The tanker that I spent most of my Deck apprenticeship on was the Sheaf Royal, a Motorship with a 6cyl opposed piston Doxford and with a Boiler Room containing three big Scotch Boilers*. The best of all worlds for someone like me who loves building model marine and static steam engines (not railway) and boilers. I also sailed with both Motor and Steam reciprocating and liked both. Despite usually living amidships you still awoke immediately they stopped. Never on a turbine.
* Before someone asks why. For all steam winches and cargo pumps and cargo heating coils


----------



## JoK

Ah, but on a steamer, especially a recip job you could sit in your cabin, listen to the condensor extration pumps and could tell that the recirc was on the condensors and that all of the feed temperatures were too low as a result, or:
You could tell by the same pumps that the duplex filters were plugged and needed cleaning.
After being there awhile, I could set the plant up, all manual adjustments, that you never had to adjust anything (until you started the bilge pump). But the ship had to be steaming for at least 20 hours to get everything warm.
Loved the plant, but she was unhappy. Especially at the end when word came out that she was done. People who rubbed together for years with no problems suddenly were at each other throats.
went to a steam turbine job after that-hated it passionately.


----------



## Jim Glover

steam any day


----------



## spongebob

Good to see a thread leap thirteen years , there were some good one back then.
No argument , for pleasure, perfection, peace and quiet steam was the theme but alas money intervenes and we had what was necessary over the later years.

Bob


----------



## howardang

Philthechill said:


> For the ultimate buttock-clenching experience I reckon Cunards ACL ships "Atlantic Causeway" and "Atlantic Conveyor" took some beating! Two roof-fired Foster-Wheeler boilers operating at 900 p.s.i. and around 950F superheat certainly kept your mind on the job! Power was supplied by two miniscule AEI turbines whizzing round at 12500 r.p.m. driving the alternators! Feed-pumps were Weirs TWL (Turbine/Water-Lubricated)!!! The ultimate fiendishness was that the whole plot was automated to a very high degree and this was quite something! Rather than using electronic automation the powers-that-be went for pneumatic so, if you lost the air-supply, everything fell over! (In all fairness there were 3 air-compressors so total loss of air was extremely rare). However when things did fall over the resulting chaos happened very rapidly! One of the MOST memorable falling-overs was when the superheat safety-valve fell-off the main steam-pipe, on the for'd boiler on "Conveyor" when we were doing around 24 kts! Now THAT was an attention grabber! The noise in the control-room (about twenty feet away from the fallen-off safety-valve) was absolutely horrendous!!!! Yes sir! "Interesting" ships!!!


Speaking of pneumatic systems, I have a memory of a mechanic on Causeway who was disciplined for some offence and told that he would be leaving the ship on arrival in the UK. He was overheard muttering to someone that be was going to chose his moment and get behind the desks in the contrio, room and switch round as many pipes as possible. I seem to remember that from then on he was watched like a hawk until he went down the gangway!

Howard


----------



## Laurie Ridyard

I was on deck, but I'll stick my bit in here.....

I sailed on mostly Doxfords, but as a Deck App., I did one trip on 
S.S. " Treglisson ", a triple expansion with exhaust steam turbine steamer;it's last trip.

It was probably one of the last of it's type, and Hains sold it on in February, 1960.

I spent some time down the ER and got to operating the controls on both motor and steam ships.

In 1967 ,I joined Metcalfe's S.S. " Dunelmia "as 2/0; but that was such a horrible rust bucket I only stayed 6 days. I think it was the last deep sea triple expansion vessel registered in the UK.

ATB

Laurie


----------



## david freeman

Just drifting and dreaming. In the 12.000dwt or 16.000dwt in the BP Tanker fleet of the 60's, were basically Motorships: However the auxiliaries apart from the DC Generators {Diesel powered 350KW?}, were in fact steam up and downers weirs single cylinder pumps-Steam from the 2 auxiliary scotch boilers 110psi, and I believe a basic steam doubl expansion emergency genny 75KW.dc. 110V.
Of course memory plays tricks, and this could be all balls???


----------



## Basil

david freeman said:


> Just drifting and dreaming. In the 12.000dwt or 16.000dwt in the BP Tanker fleet of the 60's, were basically Motorships: However the auxiliaries apart from the DC Generators {Diesel powered 350KW?}, were in fact steam up and downers weirs single cylinder pumps-Steam from the 2 auxiliary scotch boilers 110psi, and I believe a basic steam doubl expansion emergency genny 75KW.dc. 110V.
> Of course memory plays tricks, and this could be all balls???


My first ship, Harrison's Clyde 'British Monarch' was Diesel with all steam auxilliaries including the little DC generators.
My fantasy of operating a triple expansion main engine was never fulfilled and subsequent trips were steam turbine.


----------



## dannic

Philthechill said:


> For the ultimate buttock-clenching experience I reckon Cunards ACL ships "Atlantic Causeway" and "Atlantic Conveyor" took some beating! Two roof-fired Foster-Wheeler boilers operating at 900 p.s.i. and around 950F superheat certainly kept your mind on the job! Power was supplied by two miniscule AEI turbines whizzing round at 12500 r.p.m. driving the alternators! Feed-pumps were Weirs TWL (Turbine/Water-Lubricated)!!! The ultimate fiendishness was that the whole plot was automated to a very high degree and this was quite something! Rather than using electronic automation the powers-that-be went for pneumatic so, if you lost the air-supply, everything fell over! (In all fairness there were 3 air-compressors so total loss of air was extremely rare). However when things did fall over the resulting chaos happened very rapidly! One of the MOST memorable falling-overs was when the superheat safety-valve fell-off the main steam-pipe, on the for'd boiler on "Conveyor" when we were doing around 24 kts! Now THAT was an attention grabber! The noise in the control-room (about twenty feet away from the fallen-off safety-valve) was absolutely horrendous!!!! Yes sir! "Interesting" ships!!!


Yes was on Conveyor as cadet, back at college talking to P&O cadets who had been on Canberra etc, about how quiet steamships were - had to disagree!!
Next forty years motorships but often with turbo generators, superheated, cargo pumps etc but still had to do training record book to get endorsement a couple of years ago to work on steam recip!!

Dannic


----------



## spongebob

The one tool I used most during my apprentiship was a scraper, the type of engine I worked on most of this time were reciprocating steam engines as fitted to the Loch class frigates and to the bird class minesweepers , most of the ship's engine trials I went on were steam engined and when I came to go to sea there was nary a steamer in sight!
Motor ships soon illustrated the comforts of the former power but that's progress I guess,

Bob


----------



## Tim Gibbs

Philthechill's description of the Atlantic Causeway is very similar to my experience on ACT2 except for the 24 knots! Things did seem to go wrong in microseconds. One second everything was fine(ish) and the next there was no water in the boilers ..... and we no electro- feed pump to quickly restore control. And testing the overspeed trip on the 12,000 rpm T/A sets ...... not good for the underpants.
Perhaps the 75LB6 Doxfords weren't to bad after all .. except when a fuel valve stuck open. On one occasion the resulting explosion blew the relief valve uptake pipe off its flange and broke the spring in two place.


----------



## Tim Gibbs

Tim Gibbs said:


> Philthechill's description of the Atlantic Causeway is very similar to my experience on ACT2 except for the 24 knots! Things did seem to go wrong in microseconds. One second everything was fine(ish) and the next there was no water in the boilers ..... and we no electro- feed pump to quickly restore control. And testing the overspeed trip on the 12,000 rpm T/A sets ...... not good for the underpants.
> Perhaps the 75LB6 Doxfords weren't to bad after all .. except when a fuel valve stuck open. On one occasion the resulting explosion blew the relief valve uptake pipe off its flange and broke the spring in two place.


Actually on ACT2 a couple of things did happen slowly - neither of them good ; 
-the vacuum would slowly decrease over a few days but then start to recover before it tripped the plant. 
- the daily feed water consumption would increase during the passage but then return to an acceptable rate at the start of the return passage.
Despite much investigation, we never fathomed out what was going on.


----------



## Steve Hodges

As a bit of an aside to this " Motor or Steam" discussion, I note that the United States training ship "Empire State" still seems to be going strong at the grand old age of 58. She is single-screw steam turbine with two Foster Wheeler D-type boilers, original as far as I know, and so pretty similar to the sort of plant that I first sailed with nearly half a century ago. Unsurprisingly, I understand she is scheduled for replacement - but I wonder if a motor ship would have been so long-lived?


----------



## wl745

Not a sea going type but travelled the world attending to steam /diesel and gas turbines.So I found your comments very interesting!!I worked in Zambia on a power plant where the equipment was dragged out by ox cart in the late thirties and was still running in the mid seventies ...very high maintenance!


----------



## duncs

I remember(I had just joined) on the collier SS Deptford, before sailing from Battersea PS, where we were bound for, was told same abba. Didn't have a clue where that was. Back to my room and wait for sailing. After a couple of hours, nothing happening, I went up to the bridge. Bloody hell, we were clearing the Thames. Felt nothing with the steam engines.


----------



## stevekelly10

Tim Gibbs said:


> Actually on ACT2 a couple of things did happen slowly - neither of them good ;
> -the vacuum would slowly decrease over a few days but then start to recover before it tripped the plant.
> - the daily feed water consumption would increase during the passage but then return to an acceptable rate at the start of the return passage.
> Despite much investigation, we never fathomed out what was going on.


Some strange things happen on steam ships ! I sailed on 2 identical ULCC's. It was decided to replace the pneumatic Bailey mini line boiler controls with a new up to date electro\pneumatic system due to the cost of spares of the Bailey system. The first ship was done, the Stena King ! After it was done, every ballast passage when you started the IG scrubber pump, the port boiler water level dropped as the feed inlet valve would shut ??? and you had to take manual control of the valve ! Once the scrubber pump was stopped everything returned to normal ? despite numerous investigations the fault was never found ! Consequently the second ship was never converted, the ship I was on and we got a load of second hand Bailey mini line pares !


----------



## Varley

NITC's Alvand was refitted with electronic (pulse) controllers for boiler management generally during extensive drydocking in Sembawang in the early 90s. Much weirdness ensued. My solution (not Haven automation's as they claimed) was to swap the power supply to DC (basically the battery supply) to divorce them from possible mains borne interference.


----------



## Basil

Although only three years at sea, I suspect that, when manoeuvering, we had a trusted fireman doing the boilers. (Thumb)

As for Bailey boards


----------



## blueprint2002

From another perspective, as viewed on board warships on which I have served:
A 30-year-old “Black Swan” class sloop (WW2 vintage) was one of the earliest, a twin-screw ship with single-reduction, geared steam turbines taking saturated steam at just 225psi from two Admiralty 3-drum boilers. Only two 100kw turbo generators, steam reciprocating engines for other auxiliaries: FD fans, main circulators, steering and anchor windlass. Up-and-down, (direct-acting) steam pumps for everything else: FO, LO, feed water and so on. The evaporator had an extraordinary triple pump: three parallel pump plungers, crossheads linked by a rocking beam, all operated by a single steam cylinder. 
The only automatic devices on the ship were the feed regulators and the feed controllers; even the turbine gland steam was hand-controlled, though it didn’t take long to learn the art of adjusting the valve to give the faintest whiff of steam at the HP turbine forward gland. But practically every other gland leaked, some more and some less, so feed consumption was sometimes more than the one evaporator could cope with. In which case, the fresh water situation also quickly became critical. 
Open-front boilers, so there were air-locks at the boiler room entry hatches (still working perfectly after all those years), and who even thought about emergency escape arrangements? Burning Furnace Fuel Oil (similar to HFO), the registers soon acquired a glowing, lumpy ring of clinker, which had to be cleared manually, using a kind of poker, about twice each watch, hopefully without damaging the surrounding brickwork. 
But my abiding memory is of the double blow-down of the evaporator every middle watch, and the astonishing quantity of scale that had to be swept out into buckets which were then hauled up, manually of course, to be emptied over the side. Well, it was sea salt anyway, so no retrospective guilt feelings about polluting the ocean. The bilge water was another matter, always emulsified with the FO and LO that never stopped seeping through the pump and valve glands. 
For all that, rated shaft RPM was still achievable, briefly: maybe a testament to the longevity of the steam plant?


----------

