# MS Toyama propellers



## KennyMcCabe (Nov 29, 2012)

Hi Guys,
Can anyone tell me the propeller type used on Wlihelmsens Toyama.
She had triple screws. I have found a photo of a builders model in a museum in Norway showing the main central screw being much bigger and 4 blade . The two outer screws smaller and 6 blade.
Can anyone shed any light on this 
Thanks
Kenny


----------



## George Rollinson (Jan 3, 2010)

Kenny, Your question started me off on a search. Built in 1972 I suppose the emphasis was on speed and not on fuel costs. Below is a link that sets out changes made to the propulsion plant around 1986. The centre engine was a 12 cylinder K84EF and the wing engines were 9 cylinder K84EF units. As for the different propellers this would be to match the different engine outputs. 
Here is the article. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=419276
Happy reading, George


----------



## Agger (Aug 6, 2015)

Hi!

I was 2nd engineer on her in 1994, when she was operated by A.P. Moller under the name Maersk Nanhai.

The centre engine had Kamewa CP propeller, while the two side engines had fixed propellers rotating opposite direction. We never actually started the side engines on air, just waiting for them to rotate on the CE speed and then kicking in fuel.

Have a nice day.
/A



KennyMcCabe said:


> Hi Guys,
> Can anyone tell me the propeller type used on Wlihelmsens Toyama.
> She had triple screws. I have found a photo of a builders model in a museum in Norway showing the main central screw being much bigger and 4 blade . The two outer screws smaller and 6 blade.
> Can anyone shed any light on this
> ...


----------



## chris baptista (Mar 12, 2017)

it's been a long time so i am hoping agger will see this message.
triple low-speed diesels on separate shafts must be unique to this class of ships, and operation of them must have been interesting.
would it be correct to say that the centre engine alone was used for manoeuvering and the outer engines started only after disembarking the pilot? and the pitch had to be increased as outer engine speed increased, so as to keep the centre engine loaded? do you recall any figures?
i read somewhere that the outer engines could be disconnected from the shafts; if so, what sort of clutch was provided?
not sure if this was done on toyama, but some of these ships had the centre engine derated by reducing it to only six cylinders, presumably the aft six. not often such drastic measures are taken!


----------



## Agger (Aug 6, 2015)

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply

Interesting yes, but actually the same as other ships - just more support systems. The Toyama had the CE reduced to 6 cyls, with only the crank shaft still rotating. Pretty odd when checking bearing clearance in an otherwise empty crank case. If you want I might be able to locate a video I took on the Toyama, and cut out a sequence of the amputated CE running. The CE was loaded on a load program, and I don't remember the load vs the side engines. The side engines were mainly used for sea passage, while the CE was used both while manoeuvering and at sea.
There were no clutch on the side engines on Toyama, but there were on MS Selandia and MS Jutlandia with the same engine type and all 12 cyls on CE. I served on both. The clutch was manual, and was aligned using the turning gear and, as I recall, clutched hydraulic and bolted when connected. The clutch was directly aft of the engine, thus the entire propeller shaft was rotating at sea regardless of a disconnected engine. Engaging and disengaging could, of course, not be done during sailing due to the need of manual alignment. The clutch system gave the advantage of different speed possibilities and we could do repair work on the side engines at sea. Often we only ran on the CE and one SE.

Actually both Selandia and Jutlandia still sails, although heavily rebuild for the US Navy as USNS Gilliland and USNS Gordon. I think only the main engines remain in them. Toyama/Maersk Nanhai was scrapped years ago.

Best regards
/A


----------



## chris baptista (Mar 12, 2017)

Thanks Agger for the prompt and informative reply!
Would love to see that video of yours if it is not too much trouble.
Aligning the teeth of those clutches for engagement must have been rather time consuming, as there could not have been much clearance. Disengagement may have been a little quicker?
I guess the crankshaft on that centre engine must have been left in place as it was, since complete dismantling would have been necessary to make any changes. Removal of the rods, pistons, fuel pumps, cylinder lubricators and so on would have been relatively simpler. Maybe even those sections of the camshaft.
Was there any noticeable change in the engine vibrations? I assume the RPM remained unchanged, and the pitch schedule was simply reprogrammed.
Regards,
Chris


----------



## Agger (Aug 6, 2015)

Hi Chris

I wouldn't know about the vibrations before and after - it was done years before my service, but the engine ran like any other two stroke I have seen. I'm not sure, but i think the propeller was changed when it was reduced to 6 cyls, but rpm would be the same.
There were no actual gears involved in the clutch. As I recall merely a number of heavy duty conical pins aligned with counterparts in the other half of the clutch. Yes, the camshaft was out from the chain drive forward and half of the exhaust and scavenge receivers blinded, two TC's out of service.
The video seems too large to upload in here though it's just a little over 3mb and 10 secs long. If you want, I can email it to you.

B Rgds


----------



## chris baptista (Mar 12, 2017)

Thank you Agger!
Look forward to seeing your video in my e-mail too. Much appreciate your help!
Though they did not start a design trend, it seems those ships were pioneers in that they were possibly the first all-diesel fast container ships of that size. Only steam turbines could provide that much power on one or two shafts until that time, but at a heavy cost in fuel. It would be interesting to compare the daily fuel rate of these ships, when running on all three shafts at NCR, with the same figure for a steam ship of similar size and speed.
But for those on board, maybe the price had to be paid in the increased maintenance burden resulting from
a)	No less than 30 cylinders of 840 bore! Even if shaft generators were fitted(?), at least two auxiliary diesels were probably needed as well.
b)	3 tailshafts and propellers to be seen to in drydock.
c)	Lubrication and cooling systems in triplicate, so too exhaust systems, turbochargers and scavenge blowers.
d)	Possibly access was not so good in what seems to be a rather crowded engine room. 
Perhaps additional engineers were carried to help deal with this; even after paying them the cost benefits must have been attractive.
Look forward to your views on the subject.
Regards,
Chris


----------

