# Marconi "Conqueror" and "Commandant" TX



## Paul Braxton

Hi. Just wondering idly whether anyone out there got to sail with the legendary "Conqueror" transmitter, and have any remarks or stories to tell of it.

One of the reasons I'm asking is sheer curiosity. I had the joy of sailing with the smaller "Commandant SD and HS" varieties of tx, the latter with the "Spector" telex setup, and was hugely impressed with both, and the telex system, of course. Coming from the "Oceanspan"/"Atalanta", or even the "Mercury"/"Elettra" to the newer installations was a real joy.

I had to do a 2 week course in Govan, Glasgow for the transmitters. Found that an excellent course and until recently had the manual, complete with all the jottings, notes, waveforms and voltage readings written in. Unfortunately, in a moment of sheer madness I dumped all my old Mimco manuals, all of which were in pristine condition.

Sailed firstly with the "Commandant SD" on the "Benhope" and found it a real pleasure to use. That set had a very intriguing synthesiser drift, which I spent hours trying to repair, all to no avail. It was only minor, but I was determined to get to the bottom of it, but unfortunately never did, though I had a lot of fun trying. The shore techs never cracked it either, as I recall, even after replacing the oven assembly.

Had a visit from a couple of shoresiders in Houston in '78. They had a massive and expensive ham setup with what they termed an 'antenna farm' and were absolutely dumbstruck when I showed them round the shack on the "Benhope", especially with the "Commandant". We set up an unofficial daily sked after sailing for the Pacific, and they could hear me on HF until we were halfway to NZ, though their transmitting capabilities weren't up to it. (I got a letter from them in Auckland). They wanted to know if they could buy one. Wonder if they ever did.

It was an incredible experience, coming to those newer transmitters and receivers after being with the old stuff. (Not that I have any complaints. The "'Span" was a good enough set when you used it to its best advantage. As for the "Atalanta", well absolutely no complaints about it either.) 

Lovely gear, Marconi. At least they were to me, though reading through some of these threads I see that not everybody thought so.


----------



## Troppo

I sailed with quite a few Conquerors.

Good tx.

The Conqueror/Apollo/Salvor3/Lifeguard N/Sentinel combo was good.

http://www.gmdss.com.au/Lake%20boat%202.jpg


----------



## trotterdotpom

Is that Lake Eyre? I was on her but can't recall if the call sign was VJLL or not. Others were Lake Barrine, Lake Eildon and Lake Hume. The Eyre was one of my favourite ships, although a bit uncomfortable in bad weather.

John T


----------



## Troppo

Yep - Eyre was VJLL.

I did 2 swings on the Barrine/VLLB as well. That was a lovely ship. Much nicer than the Eyre, for some reason.

Hume was VLLH and Eildon was VJLN.


----------



## richardwakeley

I also sailed with Conqueror/Apollo, on Blue Funnel's Centaur/9VGQ, Fremantle-Straits etc. in 1979. Really liked that Marconi gear. Tune for maximum smoke! It was a retrofit with the Globespan still retained, which I used for MF morse as it was in a handier operating position.


----------



## richardwakeley

She was reflagged sometime in the mid 70s. and run from Singapore by the Straits Shipping superintendent (Dave K?????). Still crewed by Blue Funnel and I had me bags nailed to the deck until they replaced all us Junior officers with Straits Shipping guys in November 1979. Photo attached taken at Manila as I waved her off.


----------



## hawkey01

Visited Centaur in 9VG when I was on the Sarpedon. Beautiful vessel and all those luvverly sheilas!!
I nearly went back to sea in the early 70's and I was to rejoin BF. Destined to take over on Centaur so I was over the moon. It all came crashing down as I failed the medical. I suffer from acute sinus problems and it was deemed as much of the relieving was by air I was no longer fit! How things had changed, before it was OK if you could stand! I have lost count of the number of flights I have made in the years since then.

Hawkey01


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> Yep - Eyre was VJLL.
> 
> I did 2 swings on the Barrine/VLLB as well. That was a lovely ship. Much nicer than the Eyre, for some reason.
> 
> Hume was VLLH and Eildon was VJLN.


Thanks Troppo. Was it you who broke the callsign? I had a great time on Lake Eyre .... Trips to New Zealand, Cairns and what not. I'll take your word for it that we had a Conqueror. 

Eildon became "Cementco" and stayed on the coast for quite a lengthy period ... Outlasted ANL, I believe.

John T


----------



## Troppo

No mate, not me.

Yes, we had 2 weeks alongside in Auckland and a week in Cairns on the Barrine....wonderful days.


----------



## 5TT

I sailed with the Conqueror a four times and for me at least they were solid and reliable, but I did hear some with obvious issues.

The TX on one of our sister shifts developed a peculiar frequency shifting, up and down by just a few hz with about a 1 second period, the rig would have been 2-3 years old by this time. I informed the r/o about it but when I heard the same ship a couple of months later it was still the same. 

Also, some years after I left the sea I stumbled across one of my old ships on H/F and by then it had a very rough a/c cw note, and I wondered at the time how it would have sounded on SSB, I imagined something like one of those pepper-pot robots that Dr Who often had to contend with.

One wonders how many problems were operator induced though, I handed over a station in Capetown once, went through everything as it was the first time with Marconi gear for the new lad, however I did suspect he wasn't paying much attention. When the ship arrived back from the coast run a week or so later I went on board to fetch something I'd left behind and was soon summoned to the radio room, new lad couldn't tune the Conqueror. 
So I went through it again on m/f, i/f and h/f but all the while it was "yes I know that". I left unconvinced and it was no surprise to me to hear that the ship subsequently arrived in Southampton with the Conqueror out of service. 

= Adrian +


----------



## trotterdotpom

Adrian, there are a few tales on the site about ROs "improving" the equipment. I always thought we were there to preserve the status quo, fix the faults and leave it at that. I tended to just work with what they gave me.

John T


----------



## ernhelenbarrett

Also sailed on the Lake Hume and Lake Eildon, mainly coastal Melbourne Sydney to Brisbane and Gladstone, had quite a bit of trouble with the Battery banks on the Hume, they were Japanese manufacture and had a "memory" installed, believe somebody in ANL shore side Engineering purchased them and I had to get the lot replaced, believe it or not they purchased the same brand!!
Ern Barrett


----------



## Troppo

They were nicad batteries, mate.

The problem was that the ship's emergency batteries were also nicad and they shared the same compartment (on the next deck up).

You can't mix nicad and lead acid batts in the same compartment...

So, ANL went through all kinds of BS with special chargers and a load you switched across the batts (in port, obviously).

It would have been much, much easier to replace all the batts with good old lead acid...

I had sealed lead acid batts on my last ship (Kelvin/VNGH) - they were truly zero maintenance. It was amusing writing NOT REQUIRED in the monthly SG reading section of the Log Book part 1...


----------



## richardwakeley

G'day John,
Like you, I didn't do much 'improving' of equipment. But one thing I did after we had SSB TXs installed (Redifon on BF cargo ships and Conqueror on Centaur), I changed the channel switch on the retained Globespan Tx to use all the old A3 crystal slots for CW channels. Since we no longer used AM for telephone and the Globespan was still handy for morse communication, and they had changed the system of calling channels. Really because the Globespan was still right at the R/Os operating position while the retrofit Tx was at the other end of the radio room.
Richard


----------



## richardwakeley

G'day Troppo,
Radio batteries are still a very relevant topic, for those of us doing radio surveys! Majority of ships now have maintenance free lead-acid sealed type, and the better owners have a replacement every few years. They are supposed to be subjected to an annual discharge test (in port) and some class checklists (ABS etc) require do***entary proof it has been done, but it would be one ship in a million where anyone on board has ever heard of this. So now, when I do a radio survey, my first step is to knock off the charger and switch on all the gear with DC power. Last step is testing the MF/HF, so the battery already been under load for quite some time. I ask them permission to write up my discharge test in their log book.
Brgds, Richard


----------



## trotterdotpom

richardwakeley said:


> G'day John,
> Like you, I didn't do much 'improving' of equipment. But one thing I did after we had SSB TXs installed (Redifon on BF cargo ships and Conqueror on Centaur), I changed the channel switch on the retained Globespan Tx to use all the old A3 crystal slots for CW channels. Since we no longer used AM for telephone and the Globespan was still handy for morse communication, and they had changed the system of calling channels. Really because the Globespan was still right at the R/Os operating position while the retrofit Tx was at the other end of the radio room.
> Richard


Presumably, the Globespan was surplus to requirements at that stage. I think I would have hidden gin in it and made sure there were a couple of lights lit in port.

John T


----------



## Troppo

Hello Richard.

We had an electronic battery load tester. It switched a load across the batts, and you could adjust the load up to about 25A. It also had an AH meter, and low voltage cut out. A very useful piece of kit.

It was amazing how many batts failed quite quickly....


----------



## richardwakeley

John,
As a lifelong beer drinker, there has never been a Tx big enough to store my drinks in.
Richard


----------



## trotterdotpom

richardwakeley said:


> John,
> As a lifelong beer drinker, there has never been a Tx big enough to store my drinks in.
> Richard


Good job you didn't have to log the SGs, Richard (of the beer that is). What did Surveyors check on non UK ships where there was no SG log kept?

I suppose if the AH capacity was found wanting, the companies just bought new batteries. No big deal when you saw the wastage elsewhere.

John T


----------



## richardwakeley

Troppo,
Don't see many bad batteries during surveys in recent years. Maybe the modern sealed ones are better, and the mates have learned they have to knock off the AC power to the charger when doing their daily tests. Even in this day of 'surveys on behalf of class', the radio battery is definitely not an item for an exemption or short-term certificate - must be replaced before vsl departs if found defective.
Richard


----------



## richardwakeley

John,
I really don't concern myself with the log - as long as they have one that's fine. We don't have the test gear that Troppo mentioned, but if NBDP is good for nothing else it's good for battery testing. If I leave the battery on discharge for an hour or two and then call up XSG on ARQ and it still holds up 24v, I know the capacity is good.
Richard


----------



## trotterdotpom

Richard, when I sailed on German ships, there was no battery log. I assumed it was peculiar to British ships.

Is XSG Shanghai? They must have improved, in my day you'd have killed the battery calling them on the emergency transmitter.

John T


----------



## trotterdotpom

I never sailed with a reserve transmitter that had HF frequencies.

John T


----------



## richardwakeley

John
Yes, Shanghai/XSG and the other Chinese coast stations still have ARQ available, which is good luck for us here in Asia doing radio surveys. Don't know if they get any real traffic, but they respond to a call with an automated Quick Brown Fox etc. Can't think of any real use for H/F NBDP other than testing, certainly no mates are ever going to use it in a distress situation. You, I and Troppo have been through this before in the past I think. I still consider SSB and DSC to be an essential part of GMDSS, but NBDP is just an old sparky's dream.


----------



## trotterdotpom

R651400 said:


> Oceanspan MK I before the days of a separate MF emergency transmitter?


Before my time. I was talking about emergency transmitters, obviously if you didn't have a separate emergency transmitter, the main transmitter would have had HF frequencies.

John T


----------



## richardwakeley

I can't remember what Centaur's emegency tx was, or on the 'Super Ps', which also had Globespan as the main Tx. When the new SSB main Txs were installed, the Globespan was retained as an auxy Tx, it didn't take over as emergy tx.
I just dug out my old 'TR Book' and see that Centaur was GLRU in 1973 but already 9VGQ when I had a QSO on the GTZB sked in January 1974.
Also found a photo of the 9VGQ radio room showing Apollo, but the Conqueror is out of shot. Will scan and upload next time I'm in our office.


----------



## richardwakeley

Not much, definitely no space to swing a cat. On 9VGQ, young ladies invited into the radio room to make their phone calls had to sit on my lap. Old ladies had to use the phone booth down at the purser's office.


----------



## Naytikos

Not a lot to do with the Conqueror Tx., but from the various references to batteries it appears no other follower of this thread ever met NIFE batteries. Common on Scandinavian ships. SG never changes, last forever without losing capacity. Just top them up with water when the electrolyte evaporates in warm climates and perhaps a splash of sodium hydroxide once a year as a treat!


----------



## trotterdotpom

R651400 said:


> Separate emergency transmitters decreed essential by early 50's Solas never to my knowledge had HF.
> As in the case of GTZB Centaur above when transmitters like Conqueror etc came along it looks like old crystal controlled MF/HF Oceanspans took the place of the LC controlled MF only emergecy transmitters such as Reliance..


They may have been kept as an "extra" but surely not as an emergency transmitter. The Emergency Transmitter was required to be able to run off the 24v battery.

John T

PS Sorry, just saw your post #33.


----------



## Ron Stringer

The "Emergency Radiotelegraph Transmitter" was only required to operate from the emergency radio source of supply (normally a set of rechargable batteries for near-exclusive use by the radio installation) and to be capable of transmitting on the Radiotelegraph Distress and Calling frequency of 500 kc/s (500kHz in later parlance). No other frequencies were required. During my time in the industry (1960-2003) I never came across an emergency transmitter and Marconi never made one.

The "Reserve Radiotelegraph Transmitter" had the same requirement but was also permitted to operate on other frequencies. Most commonly that meant one or more additional frequencies in the MF Radiotelegraph band (405-535 kc/s) and during my time at sea most ships carried one such transmitter (rather than an Emergency Radiotelegraph Transmitter) in addition to the main transmitter. 

Marconi made the "_Reliance_" transmitter for that purpose, replacing it in the catalogue by various "_Salvor_" transmitter variants ("_Salvor _"_Salvor II_", "_Salvor III_" and "_Salvor 4_"). However they also supplied a variant of the "_Oceanspan VII_" (called "_Oceanspan VIIE_") with a built-in rotary converter to enable operation from 24V d.c. and which provided all the facilities of the "_Oceanspan VII_"; i.e. in addition to MF telegraphy it could be used on MF telephony (1.6-3.8 MHz dsb) and HF telegraphy (cw).

Finally they had a self-tuning MF reserve transmitter, part of the "_Oceanlink_" range of transmitters, called "_Oceanlink EMX_". This was a purely MF telegraphy transmitter operating from 24V dc.


----------



## Troppo

I used to use the SALVOR 3 em tx on MF when on the coast all the time. 

Much easier and quicker to tune up and QSY than the Conqueror.


----------



## Troppo

richardwakeley said:


> NBDP is just an old sparky's dream.


Ha ha!

(Applause)

Spot on.

I have never heard of it being used in anger by GMDSS ships.

The rationale is that it is supposed to be used by those with English as a second language. Championed by the Japs.

GMDSS A3 ships can choose not to fit it, so it should be got rid of completely, IMHO.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Emergency/schmergency .... I think many of us referred to the Reserve Transmitter as the "Emergency Transwmitter" - see Troppo in post #39.

I never heard of the Oceanspan VIIE - that would have been handy to have sometimes. We live and learn.

John T


----------



## richardwakeley

G'day Troppo,
Incredibly, new ships are still being fitted with NBDP. Especially ships owned by those Japanese owners who install the minimum required kit (like only one gyrocompass in a 100,000grt container ship). For the equipment our company sells, an MF/HF with NBDP + 1 unit Inmarsat-C is slightly cheaper than MF + 2 units Inmarsat-C for the A3 option. Thats mainly because the radio companies don't actually make sets for MF only - it's the same MF/HF SSB/DSC gear just without the telex display & keyboard.
Richard.


----------



## richardwakeley

G'day Naytikos,
I do remember being on a ship with NIFE batteries. Probably when I was in Jardines, as most of my ships there were Norwegian-owned Gearbulkers. The big disadvantage of NIFE or Alkaline batteries is cost and they can't be in the same room as Lead-Acid cells - the Radio Reserve Batt is usually in the same battery room as the ship's General (Emergency) Batt. Therefore replacement in a rush (like a failed survey) could involve replacing both sets. Sealed lead-acid batteries of 12V 200AH are quite easily obtainable anywhere. Nowadays most ships are using two of these for the 24V radio batt, maybe 300AH for the General Batt.
Richard


----------



## Troppo

richardwakeley said:


> G'day Troppo,
> Incredibly, new ships are still being fitted with NBDP. Especially ships owned by those Japanese owners who install the minimum required kit (like only one gyrocompass in a 100,000grt container ship). For the equipment our company sells, an MF/HF with NBDP + 1 unit Inmarsat-C is slightly cheaper than MF + 2 units Inmarsat-C for the A3 option. Thats mainly because the radio companies don't actually make sets for MF only - it's the same MF/HF SSB/DSC gear just without the telex display & keyboard.
> Richard.


Thanks Richard

Yes, that's the problem....cheapskate shipping companies... 

It was ever thus.


----------



## duncs

Interesting. I got a Commandant/Nebula retrofit in '72. Brilliant.
I, also, did the Conqueror course in Govan,(Tom ?). Sailed with it with MIMCO many times, great tx. Tuning it was critical, if not properly tuned, the bias resistors in the F.S. could burn out.
About 6 yrs after leaving MIMCO, I joined a bulker, Jap built. I think I was the second R/O on it. The main station was a state of the art MIMCO set up. Conqueror and 2 x Pacific X Rxs. My first, since leaving them. What a disaster! My predecessor had warned me, but he had no answer. The Tx and Rxs were completely unstable, no use for the telex.( I had a Jap satcom, fortunately).
I spent many hours trying to sort it out, to no avail. We discharged a part cargo in Newport, S.Wales. I called in MIMCO, the techs hadn't a clue!
I've thought about it at length, and I suspect it might have been an earthing problem. A brand new ship, state of the art radio equipment, completely useless!
Didn't sail with any MIMCO gear after that.

Duncs

P.S. Prior to paying off, and handing over to a Singapore Indian, I did a radio survey in Richard's Bay, S.A. Passed with flying colours! Main Tx, Rx's, Sitor, etc., all OK!
"You can fool some of the people, some of the time...."


----------



## Troppo

I sailed in a Shell VLCC Nivosa/VJNV - she had the last generation Conqueror with the LED freq display.

She also had a Salvor 4 (solid state) em tx, 2 x Pacific main rx and a Sentinel em rx.

The aa was a last generation lifeguard 4 - without a BFO - that made it useless for watchkeeping, but I had enough rxers to use the Sentinel for 500.

Nice station.


----------



## Troppo

www.gmdss.info


----------



## ernhelenbarrett

Believe it or not Gentlemen, my Emergency Transmitter on the British Gratitude/MAGQ in1954 was a S P A R K set!!!!!
Ern Barrett


----------



## Ron Stringer

trotterdotpom said:


> Emergency/schmergency .... I think many of us referred to the Reserve Transmitter as the "Emergency Transwmitter" - see Troppo in post #39.
> 
> I never heard of the Oceanspan VIIE - that would have been handy to have sometimes. We live and learn.
> 
> John T


Probably you never met it John was for the reason given in #44. (*))


----------



## trotterdotpom

I don't doubt it, Ron. Sometimes you had to wonder about their priorities.

John T


----------



## Ron Stringer

trotterdotpom said:


> Emergency/schmergency .... I think many of us referred to the Reserve Transmitter as the "Emergency Transwmitter"


I believe that the reason we all did that same thing was that the compulsory ITU/IMO carriage requirements only called for the ship to carry Main and Emergency MF radiotelegraph transmitters. Anything else was optional, including the additional frequencies provided on the Reserve Transmitter. 

It was not the shipowners that forced the GPO to produce an enhanced specification, for a _Reserve _radiotelegraph transmitter to be used on British ships. Marconi's, supported by the other manufacturers, argued that the small additional expense of adding MF working frequencies to create such a device would pay dividends in easing the load on 500 kc/s and helping traffic to be cleared through the GPO's MF coast stations. Other benefits were cited, but as I was told this information by my boss about 50 years ago, I can't remember all the details.

It came about when he was having a rant about shipowners that insisted on fitting MF-only main transmitters, even in the 1960s. He said they would never change since they were only concerned with fitting the bare minimum to meet the regulations and were not interested in increasing either safety or operational effectiveness. I must admit that there were times over the years that I thought he was right.


----------



## Naytikos

Re: Ron's last paragraph:

I did two trips from London City Docks to Italy on GSNC's Shelldrake/MWMN.

Main Tx: Reliance. 'Emergency' Tx: Salvor.
Receivers: Mercury (Or Elettra, whichever was the LF/MF one) and Alert.

Oh how I wished for the original DEBEG equipment from the ships earlier life under the german flag!


----------



## ernhelenbarrett

Forgot to mention that on British Gratitude the main Tx was a type 381, the main Rx was a CR300 (with a cats whisker incorporated) and the emergency Rx
was a square grey box where you lifted the lid and the interior had coils calibrated in metres so you had to calculate metres to kHz when changing freqs
and insert the appropriate coils to change freq. Having just completed my 6 months on an ex Empire boat built in 1944 we had an Oceanspan 1 with the 
pushy/pully switch near the Ae input where you pushed it in to transmit and pulled it out to receive (or vice versa) and can anyone who sailed on the BI Gulf "D's" remember the Radiolocator Mk1 radars with the 468 or was it 846 valves in drawers you pulled out from the mainframe like we had on the Dara??
Ern Barrett


----------



## duncs

Hi, Ern. Sorry, but I'm after your time. On the Dwarka, '72, we had a Hermes radar. Nice when it worked. Tx/Rx in a steel hut on the monkey island. Loads of valves, plenty heat, plenty problems.

Duncs


----------



## Troppo

I remember visiting an East German ship that had been reflagged to Australia.

The emerg tx could be run off the mains _or_ batts....

It opened my eyes.

Of course, the Salvor 3 could be run off the ships a/c mains as well, from memory.....I think there was a switch on the front panel, if memory serves.


----------



## Troppo

No restriction on MF working freqs in OZ.

We used them all, including 512 with VIS.


----------



## Ron Stringer

R651400 said:


> British registered ships when Reliance appeared were allocated by regulation only two of the the four MF frequencies 425,454,468 & 480 kcs. Was this not the same for the emergency (reserve) transmitter as well?


No, they had a full complement of the usual working frequencies, as per the main transmitter.



R651400 said:


> I rate the post WW2 Marconi Oceanspan Mk1 MF/HF main and emergency transmitter, CR300 LF/MF/HF receiver, Type M Auto Alarm and Lodestone DF as an installation that was capable right up to the demise of marine radio. Technology demanded otherwise.


Probably a lot of truth in that as far a safety radio communications go, but with the closure of the Commonwealth Area system to merchant ships in the late 1960s, the low power on HF could be a handicap at times. The transmitter range problem was exacerbated by changes to ship design, resulting in the loss of all the long and tall T- and inverted L-shaped, wire antennas (that lifted the radiation clear of the superstructure) on newbuildings. Short lengths of wire or whip antennas clamped alongside funnels or sampson posts were no substitute and it was several years before decent self-supporting mast radiators became available and were accepted by shipowners. 

After about 1970 everyone seemed to be demanding 1.5kW transmitters to cope with the changed conditions. 

From an operational point of view, such an installation could not cope with the move of business communications into long-range radiotelephony (SSB took over) and radiotelex (NBDP). Changes in the radio facilities had to follow. A ship was a major investment and contemporary business thinking was that such investments needed tight control. Gone were the days of one MSG to the office once clear of port and then another some days/weeks later giving the ETA; more frequent and detailed communications were demanded.

Cost-cutting in crew numbers was supposed to be offset by transferring admin and other management tasks ashore. Telex messages of many hundreds, even thousands of words became common. In terms of communication, a ship became no more than another office or factory within the owner's or charterer's organisation. Eventually of course, satcoms took over and the ship became just another number for the office to dial on the network.

They call it progress.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Dunno about pre the late '60s, but I'm pretty sure we had all the working frequencies after that. Usually, the UK coast stations would direct you which one to use, e.g GLD used 425 kcs to match their 438 kcs (i think).

John T


----------



## Ron Stringer

R651400 said:


> I disagree with main transmitter circa 1954/60 as there were only two allocated working MF frequencies on British ships out of the four including of course 410 and 512 kc/s but cannot vouch for the emergency which for me was mainly Redifon and only once with Reliance but I cannot see them having the full allocation either if the regs only allowed two.


The capability of the equipment and the allocation of frequencies to British ships by the GPO were two quite unrelated things. 

Even the Oceanspan I could provide all MF working frequencies (variable tuning) but the later reserve transmitters (Salvor etc.,) had sockets for a full complement of frequencies - it was the whim of the GPO licensing branch as to which crystals you were allowed to fit on any particular British ship. That all changed later, of course and all such restrictions were removed.


----------



## Troppo

The modern version of the GPO isn't much better....very underwhelming....along with the maritime "safety" agency...


----------



## jimg0nxx

I remember only having two working freqs plus 410 and 512 in the sixties. With the older Oceanspans with LC tuning on MF the first thing I did on joining was to tune in all four working freqs and make a note of the readings. Unfortunately with the more modern TXs with crystal controlled MF, was limited to the allotted two.
Jim


----------



## Ancient-Mariner

I was on mv Newport Bay (a P&O Nedlloyd) ship, my second trip following GMDSS, as a 2OT a P&ONL term for ETO. Going through the Suez Canal I had a call in the Control Room to ask if I knew how to use the RadioTelex? Too right I did! The Suez Canal pilot had asked for contact to be made with SUQ. I had never used the JRC kit as fitted on board, but was familiar with Sait, ITT and Marconi so no problem. The Mates were not impressed..... 

Cheers!

Clive


----------



## richardwakeley

G'day Clive,

So I'm not the only one who has actually used GMDSS gear for NBDP! When we retrofitted the GMDSS on Jardine-managed ships during voyages in 1990s, I often taught the mates how to use it to send AMVER, OBS etc. But I never see it used these days. I'm working on JRC gear by the way.

Brgds,
Richard


----------



## Troppo

Mates will never use NBDP - and they should not be required to.

It is a remnant of Radio Officers.

DSC is almost as bad....we are trying hard at ITU to make it simpler...it is an uphill battle, let me tell you...we almost won the battle to delete the stupid commercial second telecommands (and thus make the whole thing much easier to use), until the Russians decided that they were still using it for phone calls...


----------



## Ron Stringer

R651400 said:


> So what you are actually saying is Marconi provided British ships with transmitter frequencies they condoned outside those allocated by PMG/BOT regs?


What an odd way of looking at things. 

Marconi sold equipment (and lots of it) outside the UK, There were sufficient crystal positions for more than two working frequencies. British ships were only (on paper that is) permitted to crystal up two of those positions with the working frequencies for which the GPO licensed the ship.


----------



## Varley

Ron Stringer said:


> What an odd way of looking at things.
> 
> Marconi sold equipment (and lots of it) outside the UK, There were sufficient crystal positions for more than two working frequencies. British ships were only (on paper that is) permitted to crystal up two of those positions with the working frequencies for which the GPO licensed the ship.


Ron, Indeed. But weren't high traffic ships allotted more?


----------



## Duncan112

I find this allocation of frequencies interesting (and typical of a Government department) - was anyone ever taken to task for using an unallocated frequency?


----------



## Troppo

Yes...very typical...only a Gov't dept would think that putting more ships on less channels (and thereby increasing QRM) would be a good idea....

Sir Humphrey would be proud.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Varley said:


> Ron, Indeed. But weren't high traffic ships allotted more?


I can't say, David, I was never on a high traffic ship when I was at sea. Any visits that I made when working ashore usually involved something a little more serious than the number of crystals fitted.

I know that R/Os on FOC ships that I worked on had more frequencies fitted than Red Duster ships but I never thought anything of it. Remember being sent to a Liberian flag tanker in Brigham and Cowans to add a couple more HF crystals to a Crusader and struggling to find a place to fit them in. Chargeable job!


----------



## Ron Stringer

R651400 said:


> Really? What era are you actually talking about with regard to Mimco rpt Mimco international sales?
> I saw little or no evidence of anything Mimco during the 1960's that was on the same scale as SAIT JRC and IMR who knew the international marine radio market inside out.


Need you be so combative? Have I done something to offend you?

I only have relevant experience in the late 1960s and onwards but the Despatch Stores was a large warehouse and was always stacked several high with shipping crates containing Crusaders etc., on their way overseas. Companies such as Debeg, Radio Holland, NMK, SIRM (Italy), CRM (France) and HRM (Spain) used to place bulk orders for transmitters, receivers and other equipment such as D/Fs and auto alarms, which they used in the radio stations that they configured to offer to their clients. They either offered them in MIMCO colours or had them painted/repainted to their preference.

We even had a specific Sales department (Associated Company Sales) which did not sell to end users, only to other radio companies. One of the salesmen from that department, George Cockburn (ex-R/O from ED passenger ships, ex-technician from Liverpool depot and ex-salesman from Glasgow depot) organises our monthly get-together in Chelmsford. He can provide much more detailed information than I and I am sure he will be willing to answer any questions.

The company won Queen's Awards for Export several times in the 1960's and '70s (in addition to Queen's Awards for Technology). The Awards for Export were made to companies that exported more than a certain percentage of their output so Marconi Marine must have been doing something right. I even have a photo somewhere of the Duke of Kent towering above my 5' 6" figure when he visited Elettra House following the presentation one such award.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Troppo said:


> Yes...very typical...only a Gov't dept would think that putting more ships on less channels (and thereby increasing QRM) would be a good idea....
> 
> Sir Humphrey would be proud.


I believe that the idea behind it (not one that I, as an R/O agreed with) was that the available frequencies would be spread so that all the ships working say GNI's 464 c/s would not be on 468 kc/s. This was a corollary of the practice on HF CW calling frequencies but there was some logic in the spread on HF, to avoid all the ships calling on the same frequency and jamming each other. 

Never did understand the reasoning when it came to MF.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Duncan112 said:


> I find this allocation of frequencies interesting (and typical of a Government department) - was anyone ever taken to task for using an unallocated frequency?


Not that I heard of, Duncan. But on a couple of occasions when present at a GPO radio survey, I saw the GPO surveyor insist on crystals being removed because the ship was not licensed to transmit on them. One that I remember involved the infamous Harry Gilder on a coaster, I think it was the _Corsea_, at Whiting's jetty (now virtually under the QEII Bridge at the Dartford crossing) and the other was on the _Esso Milford Haven_ but I can't remember who was the surveyor or even in which port.

In both instances the removed crystals went into a drawer, so I have no doubt that they were replaced as soon as the surveyor stepped ashore.


----------



## Troppo

Ron Stringer said:


> In both instances the removed crystals went into a drawer, so I have no doubt that they were replaced as soon as the surveyor stepped ashore.



Oh!

No way....


----------



## Troppo

Yet another tale is coming back to me re freqs.

I was relieved on an Aussie flag ship (Lake Barrine/VLLB) by a friend, who was a first tripper by herself.

After I got home, I received a panicked phone call from her, asking what working frequencies I used on HF CW (ship had a Conqueror...so this post is back on topic...(*)) )

I never bothered with the licenced working freq, and always used the good old half rule: 8400, 12600, etc.

Of course, once I became a surveyor, I was a sticker for the rules...

(Thumb)


----------



## jimg0nxx

Varley said:


> Ron, Indeed. But weren't high traffic ships allotted more?


Indeed they were, I was on two high tfc ships, Devonia and Empress of Canada. They had the four MF working frequency crystals fitted.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> I remember visiting an East German ship that had been reflagged to Australia.
> 
> The emerg tx could be run off the mains _or_ batts....
> 
> It opened my eyes.
> 
> Of course, the Salvor 3 could be run off the ships a/c mains as well, from memory.....I think there was a switch on the front panel, if memory serves.


Was that Iron Baron, Troppo?

John T


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> Yet another tale is coming back to me re freqs.
> 
> I was relieved on an Aussie flag ship (Lake Barrine/VLLB) by a friend, who was a first tripper by herself.
> 
> After I got home, I received a panicked phone call from her, asking what working frequencies I used on HF CW (ship had a Conqueror...so this post is back on topic...(*)) )
> 
> I never bothered with the licenced working freq, and always used the good old half rule: 8400, 12600, etc
> 
> Of course, once I became a surveyor, I was a sticker for the rules...
> 
> (Thumb)


Is that a tale or a Yarnton, Troppo?

With synthesised transmitters you could select any frquency you liked, no coast station was going to check your working frequency allocation. However, I just used my proper frequencies - does this mean I'm anal retentive?

John T


----------



## richardwakeley

This goes back to my earlier post about modifying the Globespan for extra A1 channels after Conqueror was installed. This thread has been most enjoyable, and nostalgic, so thanks to Paul Braxton for starting it off.

You're right again Troppo, the mates have much more important duties than messing around with radio telex. Much better to send the Amvers and Obs on Inmarsat-C, just press F1 'send' and go back to keeping a lookout. Or by e-mail.


----------



## Paul Braxton

Hi 5TT. That's interesting about the Conqueror having a frequency shift, a bit like my Commandant on "Benhope" in 1980.

Your story about the relieving R/O made me laugh a bit. Brought back memories of handing over on the above ship to a guy who'd never seen the Tx and didn't look too keen on using it. Mind you, by the time I'd tried to show him something of all the paper work we had to do on those ships for the Old Man, he freaked! When he realised that part of his new duties was going to be signing crew on and off ship's articles he went very quiet indeed. When I left him he was just sitting motionless in the signing on room, staring at the mounds of paperwork with a long queue of crewmembers waiting in the alleyway waiting to sign off. I felt extremely sorry for him but there was no time to say or do anything more. We had a date at the airport. (Mustn't grumble: did get 190 quid a month extra for doing the Old Man's secretarial duties, luckily. Even more luckily, the Old Man was very keen on doing it himself, so I had plenty of time to learn the ropes.)

Had similar problems when handing over a Commandant/Spector telex setup on Shaw Savill's "Mayfield" a few months before that. The new guy just didn't understand anything I tried to tell him and didn't seem to be listening. Hadn't done a course either, so what happened to him I dread to think. Couldn't touchtype either, which wouldn't have helped with some of those extemely lengthy stores order msgs. God! still remember that huge roll of punched tape, all ready for transmission to GKA, fingers crossed tightly that the teleprinter would hold up. Oh how I loved those mechanical faults!

Good times and good ships, some of them.


----------



## Troppo

trotterdotpom said:


> Was that Iron Baron, Troppo?
> 
> John T


Sure was...


----------



## Troppo

trotterdotpom said:


> Is that a tale or a Yarnton, Troppo?
> 
> With synthesised transmitters you could select any frquency you liked, no coast station was going to check your working frequency allocation. However, I just used my proper frequencies - does this mean I'm anal retentive?
> 
> John T


Ha! Yes, indeed.


----------



## duncs

Paul Braxton said:


> Couldn't touchtype either, which wouldn't have helped with some of those extemely lengthy stores order msgs.


I find this observation rather insulting to R/Os who couldn't touchtype. I couldn't touchtype, yet could take press, wx and navs with two finger typing, often, ciggie in one hand, typing with other. I worked as a R/Op on an oil rig, where all was continuous telex work,(4 ttys on the go at one time) far more than a cargo boat. I had no problems, and a touchtypist was no faster than me. In fact the tty artist made more mistakes than me.
Incidently, after coming ashore, I taught myself to touchtype, just for kicks. 70wpm was the best I achieved, just to see if I could be as fast as a tlx tty!


----------



## duncs

Re MF freqs. I'm sure that I was on a v/l where the MF freqs not on the Oceanspan, were on the Reliance, and vice versa. Depending on the station being worked, depended the Tx to use. Warm them both up and use whichever one suited.

Duncs


----------



## Troppo

R651400 said:


> More often than not the MF working frequency was used for calling and tfc leaving 500 kc/s clear which makes a lot of sense.



Yes, that was a great idea. More stations should have done it.


----------



## richardwakeley

Re touch typing. Same for me, still a 2-finger typist. But I always took the JMH weather just before lunchtime on the 2nd high speed transmission, just to minimise my absence from the bar.


----------



## Troppo

R651400 said:


> When foc I used this procedure all the time on the Japanese coast.
> Digressing slightly Japanese ships were mostly H24 with three R/O's yet it was rare to hear them on 500 kc/s. Early 60's on the US to Japan run the Pacific was swarming with Greek rust-buckets carrying scrap iron to Japan and MF was full of SV, SX & SW chatter.
> Mid Pacific one of them sent XXX medico and suddenly there was a deathly silence except an immediate response from two or three Japanese ships in the vicinity!



The Japs always took it very seriously. Superb HF coast stations. BIG signals, good ops.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> The Japs always took it very seriously. Superb HF coast stations. BIG signals, good ops.


Espe ially as they has that weirdo Japanese morse to master as well as ours.

If you're in touch with Heather, please pass on my regards (and her husband, who I sailed with on Iron Pacific).

I sailed in Iron Baron (aka Hitler's Revenge), but struggling to remember what radio gear she had .... Maybe Elektriskburo (sp?). Great ship for a non-combatant.

John T


----------



## Troppo

trotterdotpom said:


> Espe ially as they has that weirdo Japanese morse to master as well as ours.
> 
> If you're in touch with Heather, please pass on my regards (and her husband, who I sailed with on Iron Pacific).
> 
> I sailed in Iron Baron (aka Hitler's Revenge), but struggling to remember what radio gear she had .... Maybe Elektriskburo (sp?). Great ship for a non-combatant.
> 
> John T


Heather worked for me as a surveyor for a while.

I haven't seen her for at least 15 years. Last I heard, she had a couple of kids.


----------



## Troppo

trotterdotpom said:


> Espe ially as they has that weirdo Japanese morse to master as well as ours.
> 
> 
> John T


I never forget hearing it for the first time as a first tripper in Ariake/GWED....JOS switched to it from normal morse....I just sat there and shook my head....I thought I was going mad.

The chief R/O laughed...


----------



## Wismajorvik

R651400 said:


> Apols for pedantry Jim..
> Mark 1 Oceanspan variable MF tuning was not LC (permeability/capacitance) but with fixed capacitor and coil with variable copper slug known as eddy-current tuning giving a finer degree of frequency control using the decade mechanical counter readout (missing in image) you were obviously familiar with to get those other "illegal" frequencies.


Understood it was called 'reluctance tuning'.
Siemens had an MF transmitter fitted with the standard two working frequency crystals but you could switch to an LC back-up for either of the two frequencies should a crystal fail. These LC circuits could be adjusted to the missing working frequencies by any enterprising R/O.Unfortunately in Birkenhead the radio surveyor discovered this with his magic wavemeter and had me retune them to match the crystals.


----------



## charles henry

*Could never understand the Marconi's fancy names*

Considering that an HF transmitter can be designed and a basic one build within a few minutes I always found Marconi's names for equipment rather funny.

Whilst the Ocean Span was a "usefull" package I always wondered why they used a "negative resistance oscillator". Presumably because someone in the design group was bored.

The golden rule in the design department of the Canadian company I worked for was "KISS" which stood for , "Keep It Simple Stupid" 

Just a thought to stir the pot

Chas (Pint)(Pint)


----------



## Naytikos

In re: Charles' post 104

I recall Terry Crowther, who taught 'gear' at Plymouth (all MIMCo stuff) saying something like: 'when you get to sea you will meet equipment from other manufacturers and soon come to realise that most of it will have cathode decoupling circuits consisting of one resistor and one capacitor, but anything by Marconis will have two resistors, three capacitors and a choke'!


----------



## hughesy

I always thought that Marconci TXs you had to do to many switches to change freqs BUt SAIT gear much quicker and simplier to change freqency?? and thought on that observevation??

all the best 
Hughesy


----------



## Varley

Marconi much easier - tune for Max smoke - that's why the output bottles were in class chimneys and the overload was a photocell - much like funnel smoke density monitor. SAIT, changing synthesiser frequency very easy - it did it by itself!


----------



## Paul Braxton

Hi Duncs. With reference to your post about touch typing, and my observations on such, I meant no disrespect to non touchers of course. It was nice not to have to look at the keyboard under certain cir***stances and could be a distinct advantage in some cases, though not entirely necessary, perhaps. As you say, some two finger typists can put up a fair speed and accuracy.

I was always very glad I paid attention back at Norwood Tech for the typing lessons , (though I didn't always see the point of doing it at all. It was nice to interact with the girls on the secretarial course next door though!) Skills from way back then are still serving me well to this day. 

And!... there was never an opportunity to actually use a typewriter as such at sea until nearly the end of my time, in the early '80's, though the teleprinter used with the telex setup was the nearest I actually got to doing so. Thinking about it, I never did take down morse on either a typewriter or teleprinter for some reason, even though taught to do so at college. There was always something which made me think that to do so would introduce errors of some kind, and the good old pencil on paper always worked out fine.

Paul


----------



## duncs

Hi Paul, I think it was the way you said it, that made me take umbrage, at the time of reading, and felt that I had to respond. Looking back on it, I don't think your post was in any way offensive, more jocular.
Which reminds me....
I once QSP'd for a v/l who claimed HF tx u/s. Can't remember flag or nationality of R/O. When sending him his traffic, at, about, a slow, steady 20wpm, he stopped me, saying his typewriter was broken, and he couldn't write that fast. I sent him his tfc at abt 10wpm or less, before he QSL'd it.
It makes one wonder.

Regards
Duncs


----------



## trotterdotpom

I wish I'd been taught to type at college. Eventually learned when I had a long stay in Archangel. The Filipino 3rd Mate taught me, in between bouts with vodka and tomato sauce. It came in very handy.

When I left the sea I applied for a job in the Antarctic and had to provide a certificate saying I could type at 50 wpm. I went to a local Secretarial School and they tested me. I passed easily but can't remember what my speed was. I didn't get the job though - their loss.

I rather liked the clatter of a manual typewriter - apparently the first electronic keyboards were silent and they had to put a "click" into them because the typists weren't getting the same level of job satisfaction. 

After all that, I'm back to one finger on this iPad because my paws are too big for the keypad.

John T


----------



## Troppo

My first chief R/O insisted that I learn to take wx/navs on the typewriter.

It was a very useful skill.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> My first chief R/O insisted that I learn to take wx/navs on the typewriter.
> 
> It was a very useful skill.


Who was that, Troppo?

John T


----------



## duncs

trotterdotpom said:


> After all that, I'm back to one finger on this iPad because my paws are too big for the keypad.
> 
> John T


Ditto, JT. Tho' it's a laptop I use. Too close for both hands to touchtype. Hence, left hand for beer/ciggie, right hand index finger for typing. Same, same, early days at sea!

Duncs


----------



## 5TT

The thing I remember about using typewriters for off-air radio traffic is that you couldn't trust them when the ship was rolling, the carriage didn't go up hill reliably.

= Adrian +


----------



## Ron Stringer

5TT said:


> The thing I remember about using typewriters for off-air radio traffic is that you couldn't trust them when the ship was rolling, the carriage didn't go up hill reliably.
> 
> = Adrian +


It was for that reason we never used them to take press in the North Atlantic. Even typing up the copy (received and written down by hand) after reception could be a very hit and miss affair, involving lots of use of correcting fluid on the fair copy that was to be passed to the Purser for the daily newspaper.

Many times you would find that more than the carriage was moving across the desk, as you were trying to type/hang on to the desk/chair or to catch the passing radio log/pencils/mug etc.


----------



## charles henry

You havent lived till you have been in a true distress situation. With all the fools and idiots filling five tons with "where distress" etc etc.

On an such an occasion you cant beat the old "Sparks TX"

Finding that when off the Californian coast and the the normal watchkeeping time arrived it became obvious which ships had not had their auto alarm equipment on I switched on the emergency spark tx, put a book on the key and went into the chartroom and had a coffee.

Returned, lifted the book, five tons were QUIET, I repeated my distress call and had no further trouble, BUT I HAD LOGGED EVERY IDIOT THAT HAD QRMed MY DISTRESS TRAFFIC.
Sincerely hope they lost their tickets but I doubt it.

Ah memories
Chas


----------



## Troppo

trotterdotpom said:


> Who was that, Troppo?
> 
> John T


Tom Brady.

Great bloke. Still a mate, although I haven't seen him for a couple of years.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Troppo said:


> Tom Brady.
> 
> Great bloke. Still a mate, although I haven't seen him for a couple of years.


Thanks for that, know the name but don't think I ever met him.

John T


----------



## Naytikos

posted by 5TT


> _The thing I remember about using typewriters for off-air radio traffic is that you couldn't trust them when the ship was rolling, the carriage didn't go up hill reliably._


My solution was to place the typewriter fore-and-aft. If the radio room benches didn't suit, then I made a shelf out of whatever I could find.

I recall typing non-stop for two hours when the colonels abolished the monarchy and SVA broadcast the entire proclamation; using a roman typewriter unfortunately. The Captain stood beside me feeding sheets of paper into the machine as required.

I subsequently acquired a greek portable which made such exercises much easier.


----------



## Tony Selman

I couldn't type when I went to sea but after a couple of years realised it would be an advantage so bought myself a Teach Yourself To Touch Type book and a portable typewriter. Took this with me for several years until typewriters became more standard on ships. I was certainly glad of the ability to type on passenger ships. If you had a load of press on the 12-4 you didn't want to have to take that lot by hand and then type it up at the end of the watch.
I am touch typing this and continue to impress my son with the speed and accuracy I can type at and it is a skill I am glad I acquired. I knew any number of R/O's who could not touch type and equally knew a few who could type with two hands very quickly. If I remember correctly when I left P&O in 1975 it was compulsory that any information leaving the Radio Room had to have been typed and that had been the policy for a while.


----------



## endure

Naytikos said:


> In re: Charles' post 104
> 
> I recall Terry Crowther, who taught 'gear' at Plymouth (all MIMCo stuff) saying something like: 'when you get to sea you will meet equipment from other manufacturers and soon come to realise that most of it will have cathode decoupling circuits consisting of one resistor and one capacitor, but anything by Marconis will have two resistors, three capacitors and a choke'!


It's rumored that some Marconi kit was derived from the stuff they designed for the military where the contracts were on a 'cost plus percentage' basis so the more bits they stuck in the more more money they made.


----------



## Ron Stringer

endure said:


> It's rumored that some Marconi kit was derived from the stuff they designed for the military where the contracts were on a 'cost plus percentage' basis so the more bits they stuck in the more more money they made.


Not since the Oceanspan I and the Reliance came out. I was told that the multicoloured control knobs derived from equipment intended for use by wartime trainee operators. "Red knobs control the ....."


----------



## holland25

The R1154 TX, as used in the Lancasters, has knobs that look just like the Oceanspan.


----------



## endure

Ron Stringer said:


> Not since the Oceanspan I and the Reliance came out. I was told that the multicoloured control knobs derived from equipment intended for use by wartime trainee operators. "Red knobs control the ....."


I was told that the Apollo was a derivative of an HF receiver that they'd developed to ride around in the back of army jeeps. Not true?
I have to admit I'm not at all familiar with Marconi gear. I did my training at Riversdale on it but after that only ever did one trip with it. All the others were IMR, Redifon or Kelvin Hughes.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Post WW2 and prior to the 1980s, almost all of the MIMCo equipment that was manufactured by the main Marconi Company was designed by a group called Marine Development. They had their own engineers, some transferred in from other groups within the main company, others recruited directly into the group from university or other companies. The exceptions were for the data transmission products, such as Autospec, Editor and Spector, which were designed by a part of Lines Division who were located in the village of Writtle, near to Chelmsford. 

Marine Development Group had its own design drawing office (as did each of the separate product divisions) and were located on the New Street site. They were quite independent of the other design groups for military products, point-to-point products etc. and as far as I know, there was little interchange of ideas between the various groups - the management of the groups tended to run them as separate fiefdoms and resented any "outside"interference with their developments.

Unhappy with the cost of new product development by the Marine Development Group and hoping to get some benefit from sharing in expertise and product investment existing elsewhere in the Marconi Company, I once started along the lines of trying to discover whether one of the HF Communications Division's receivers could be adapted for marine use but gave up when I found that its manufacturing cost was more than 5 times the selling price of the Apollo. Heaven knows what a ruggedised, military mobile, version of any Marconi receiver would have cost. I feel confident that it would have been far more than the British shipowner would have been prepared to fork out.


----------



## gwzm

Hi Tony,

Like you I bought one of the Teach Yourself books and a portable typewriter which I carried around with me. It certainly saved a lot of time on the north Atlantic when we had to copy every weather and ice report going. Interesting on the Aulania and Andania in heavy weather trying to touch type when the typewriter was sliding up and down the desk.
Happy days,
gwzm/John


----------



## Troppo

Hey Ron, what was the idea behind the dial locks on the Apollo?

Rough weather effecting tuning?

Rgds


----------



## endure

If it's possible could you give us some idea of how much MIMCo charged a shipowner for the Apollo?


----------



## richardwakeley

Ok, back to the subject of typing - not exactly 'on thread'. On Centaur/9VGQ in 1979 we didn't get a proper press, but I had to wake up every morning at around 6am after a late night in the passy bar to listen to the Western Australia news on a frequency somewhere around 6Mc/s. Vital points were the WA footy results, e.g west fremantle v east fremantle. Then listen to the BBC world service at 7am with more notes. Then type up a daily newspaper on one of those old wax stencil sheets and take it down to the pursers office. The newspaper was all my own words really, I had complete editorial freedom. One trip a young Welsh lady asked me why there wasn't any welsh news, so next morning I wrote - Today's welsh news: Nothing happened in wales sincre yesterday.
Nostalgia!
Richard


----------



## Ron Stringer

Troppo said:


> Hey Ron, what was the idea behind the dial locks on the Apollo?
> 
> Rough weather effecting tuning?
> 
> Rgds


Dunno. I don't even remember the dial locks or what they were! As an R/O I never sailed with anything more advanced than an Atalanta, although after I came ashore I fitted and used most of the other MIMCo comms equipment either in the lab, on evaluation trials or during type approvals.


----------



## Ron Stringer

endure said:


> If it's possible could you give us some idea of how much MIMCo charged a shipowner for the Apollo?


Can't remember now. Will ask at this month's get together (tomorrow) but there is only one ex-salesman attends and he was involved with inter-company trading, rather than selling to the end user. But he may know something relevant.


----------



## Naytikos

posted by Ron


> _I found that its manufacturing cost was more than 5 times the selling price of the Apollo_


Would this be because they produced so few and the development costs had to be apportioned?

The non-communication between departments described by Ron sounds farcical but I do love the snippets of background information.


----------



## J. Davies

All,

I trained on the Apollo at radio college and sailed with it a couple of times...it was the last of the conventional analogue marine superhets, with that clever hi-stability section for use on the marine bands. Nixie tube display, an absolutely gorgeous example of elegant design.

I have a collection of marine receivers (Sailor, ITT etc) and would love to own an Apollo. Please contact me if you know of one for sale.


----------



## Troppo

I sat in front of a working Apollo for the first time in about 20 years not long ago.

A mate has an Apollo in his ham shack.

Positively prehistoric compared with my PC controlled SDR receiver....but, gee it took me back, especially when we put it on the callband from HLG.....one of the only ones left.


----------



## J. Davies

R651400 said:


> Looking at the first date of manufacture of the Apollo as 1970 surely Marconi had moved on from superhet design to phase lock loop if not frequency synthesis?


It was the old superhet with free-running local oscillator. Another LO using a separate high stability tuning cap was switched in for the marine bands. There were no phase lock loops or synthesizers...the set used the tried and trusted tripple-ganged tuning capacitor for RF/Mixer and LO. It still drifted like any other conventional superhet.

The only revolutionary bit was the Nixie tube digital frequency display. That was really great !

All the best


----------



## Tony Selman

I have an Apollo sitting in my garage at the moment. When I collected it about 3 months ago the thing that amazed me was the weight of the receiver. As time has gone on I think we have forgotten how heavy the kit was back in the 'old days'. It was bigger than I remember it and it was sure as hell a lot heavier than I was expecting. Even worse was an old Lodestone D/F, that really was a heavy lift derrick job. There must be a transformer in there you could use for ballast on your yacht. Haven't opened any of it up yet to check, that will be a trip down memory lane.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Tony Selman said:


> I have an Apollo sitting in my garage at the moment. When I collected it about 3 months ago the thing that amazed me was the weight of the receiver.


Oh, how I remember that weight.

We used to try out various new systems (selcall, telex and the like) on coastal tankers, such as Shell's lightering vessels, Esso Milford Haven and the Matco vessels, or short-trip vessels like the Methane boats. That was so that we could get to them at short intervals to monitor results and make adjustments, which was very convenient. What was less convenient was that they generally tied up at refineries with long, long jetties where we could not go in a (petrol) van. So everything had to be lugged along the jetty and then up long access piers or gangways and finally up several decks to the radio room.

Carry an _Apollo_ in its case (which itself was extraordinarily heavy) or a _Creed 444_ teleprinter along the jetty at Coryton or Shellhaven and you were more than ready for a sit down and a cup of tea when you get on board. Even if there were two people involved and the weather was good, it was still a test.


----------



## J. Davies

I have a Racal RA17 receiver on my work bench. It weighs 35 kg. Every time I want to turn it over to get at the underside to change a capacitor or something I have to ask my son to help ! Getting too old 

Then I have an Elecraft K2 100 Watt HF transciever which I can pick up with one hand...

Time to give up !


----------



## CrazySparks

Sailed with the Conqueror (HS2?) and actually almost got working from Australia to Portishead direct! Great Tx! That would have been on Bank Line's Riverbank in 77 - my first trip as solo R/O.


----------



## Troppo

I used to QSO GKA direct from the Aussie east coast no problems with a Conqueror.

12 MHz in the late arvo (about 0600Z) was best.


----------



## King Ratt

One of my demos to brand new makee learnee sparkies was to call VIS or VIM or the naval VHM or VHK from the UK coast just before breakfast time, on 12 Megs and either with a Conqueror or Marconi NT204. The latter had a max o/p of about 500 watts and fed a whip antenna. Very rarely failed to get a reply.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Agree, I made numerous calls to the UK from Australia without any problems. You just had to pick the time and frequency.

John T


----------



## King Ratt

Thanks R651400. It was VIS and I only used CW or ARQ. The two naval station were called/answered also CW.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Don't think there were any Conquerors around when the Area Scheme was on the go. 

I too was talking about WT not RT - wrong office hours amongst other things.

John T


----------



## Moulder

I believe the first Conqueror was operational at sea circa 1974.

(Thumb)


----------



## King Ratt

Hello again R651400. Talking of greyline prop. Graham Mercer the OIC at GPK some years ago used to work ships in the South Pacific and off the kiwi coast using greyline for successful link calls. GPK on 1883 Khz and ship on whatever 2 Mhz freq he was fitted with.


----------



## Troppo

R651400 said:


> Are we not talking era after the Area Scheme?
> During Area Scheme days all H/F R/T calls via GKA were channeled thru GBR and few ships (neither wonder) except H24 used this service..
> St Lys/FFL direct to anywhere world-wide was a better option and the call charges almost the same.
> KR... As far as I can recall Melbourne/VIM was a M/F cw and r/t Oz coast station with no h/f.


Yes, VIM was MF only on CW.


----------



## Paul Braxton

Hi Moulder (and others).

Certainly didn't know that the Conqueror was at sea as early as '74. I didn't hear of the existence of the new breed of synthesised Tx's until the later '70's, certainly well after '74. Amazing!

As to the comments about contacting GKA from Aus/NZ, I never really had too much trouble with just the Oceanspan VII. As remarked, it was really just a question of having a lot of patience and using the right frequencies at the right time. I seem to recall 12MHz as being used quite a lot. Those propagation (Optimal Traffic Frequencies) monthly issues were quite useful, if I remember them right.

Sometimes GKA would be booming in on 12/16MHz at certain times of the day, and presumably vice-versa, 'cos I got a few QSA 4/5 reports from him on the 'Span.

Quite a science in all that propagation stuff. I recall the theory of it all being drummed into us at college.


----------



## 5TT

Apologies for digging up this old thread but I couldn't find a more suitable place to ask this question in the current bunch of threads without going off topic. Does anybody remember what PA valves the Conqueror used?

Thanks

Adrian


----------



## 31552

*pa valves*

3 x QY4-400 tetrodes in parallel iirc

hth

Peter 31552


----------



## Troppo

Thanks for resurrecting the thread!


----------



## BobClay

The only Marconi HF Tx I sailed with was an Oceanspan in 70/71. My first deep sea trip on my own. The next ship was the Hudson Friendship with a fully synthesised station, ITT Mackay as I remember it.

I did my PMG2 ticket exam on a Marconi Crusader, which wasn't synthesised as I remember it … so what was the difference between a Crusader and a Conquerer ?


----------



## Troppo

Commandant was the lower powered version of the Conqueror.


----------



## BobClay

So did the Commandant and Conqueror come after the Crusader ?


----------



## Bill.B

Only TX that defeated me as a shore tech was a Conquerer on an Italian vessel. I ran out of time in the end. It would work ok but as you increased the power it would blow the EHT fuse. It wasn't going into parasitic oscillation. I tried it with each single PA valve and wouldn't blow. Once you put all of the PA valves in it would blow. Looked at the screen caps but couldn't really test them. It was very frustrating. The wine at lunch time helped dull the angst though.


----------



## 5TT

Thanks very much Peter, the subject came up recently and I could not remember.

Bill B, in the past I've defeated the fuse in order for the real culprit to destroy itself but that tactic can bite you too, I've had to rewind input tuned circuits on ham gear because of valves arcing over. It probably wasn't the case back in our day but certainly now you need to worry about a valve's manufacture, the quality and attention to detail is not what it was. I've got about 450 volts on push-pull Chinese EL-34s here on our hi-fi and don't expect any trouble, but on some 811a triodes from the same manufacturer the anode cap connection runs dangerously close to the filament suspension springs, causes problems. 

Thanks again Peter

Regards

Adrian


----------



## Bill.B

5TT. Couldn't do a destructive test as was better for them to have 3/4 power than a blown up PA or PSU. Redifon RMT1500's had a habit of taking the EHT fuse out but was always PA tube arcing when it happened to me. The Conquerer will always be the one that got away.


----------



## J. Davies

I can never remember which transmitter this is, on MT Buffalo/ZSUH 1979. Same transmitter we did at Brunel Tech in Bristol. Anyone recognise it? Commandant I think but not sure.


----------



## 31552

BobClay said:


> So did the Commandant and Conqueror come after the Crusader ?


IIRC crusader was a mid-late 60s design conqueror/commandant arrived 73 or 74ish when Marconi managed to do a synthesised drive stage.

Peter 31552


----------



## 31552

5TT said:


> Thanks very much Peter, the subject came up recently and I could not remember.
> 
> Bill B, in the past I've defeated the fuse in order for the real culprit to destroy itself but that tactic can bite you too, I've had to rewind input tuned circuits on ham gear because of valves arcing over. It probably wasn't the case back in our day but certainly now you need to worry about a valve's manufacture, the quality and attention to detail is not what it was. I've got about 450 volts on push-pull Chinese EL-34s here on our hi-fi and don't expect any trouble, but on some 811a triodes from the same manufacturer the anode cap connection runs dangerously close to the filament suspension springs, causes problems.
> 
> Thanks again Peter
> 
> Regards
> 
> Adrian


you're Welcome Adrian

Peter


----------



## Searcher2004

J. Davies said:


> I can never remember which transmitter this is, on MT Buffalo/ZSUH 1979. Same transmitter we did at Brunel Tech in Bristol. Anyone recognise it? Commandant I think but not sure.


It is a Commandant, with the Apollo receiver to the left of it.

73

'2004


----------



## BobClay

31552 said:


> IIRC crusader was a mid-late 60s design conqueror/commandant arrived 73 or 74ish when Marconi managed to do a synthesised drive stage.
> 
> Peter 31552


Thanks Peter. I never saw a Marconi synthesised tx. I do remember the Crusader was getting near, if my memory isn't discomnobulated it used crystals for working frequencies, but phase loop locked them down to a very stable oven controlled oscillator … (5Mhz I think, but that's a dim memory.)


----------



## Paul Braxton

The little blue lamp to the right lower side on the Crusader was quite mesmerising. Never saw a Crusader until I left college in '69, but first ship had one. Scary great thing! Sitting watching that blue lamp blinking on and off was quite soothing, waiting your turn in GKA's list... 

The so-called 'Ledex' system of changing bands was hairy. Always waiting for it to fall over (and it often did). Never trained to deal with natty stuff like that. Only ever saw an Oceanspan VII ever, at college so it was always a case of hoping the damn thing didn't go wrong.


----------



## BobClay

Oh yeah I remember those ledex switches …  .. Like a battery of Gatling guns going off …


----------



## J. Davies

Re#170 thanks Searcher.....never had any trouble with the gear on this ship. Apollo was a good receiver. I would like to find one second hand but they are as rare as hen's teeth. Didn't sail with Marconi after that ship. 

73


----------



## Searcher2004

J. Davies said:


> Re#170 thanks Searcher.....never had any trouble with the gear on this ship. Apollo was a good receiver. I would like to find one second hand but they are as rare as hen's teeth. Didn't sail with Marconi after that ship.
> 
> 73



















Here's a couple of pix taken about 2005 of an Apollo and a Commandant that the Lowestoft Sea Cadets had, ex- a Min of Ag and Fish trawler, I think. The Pye base station was for the cadets VHF channel, 69.3MHz AM.

They were out of service with the cadets at the time of the photo and had been slightly vandalised whilst in storage. From Lowestoft they went to the Muckleburgh Collection in North Norfolk but when their radio exhibit closed a few years ago they may have been scrapped. 

When the cadets had the gear, I did a mod on the synth deck to allow LSB operation on their HF net, 6972kHz, IIRC. Got good reports from around the UK with it.

73

'2004


----------



## P.Arnold

Moulder said:


> I believe the first Conqueror was operational at sea circa 1974.
> 
> (Thumb)


In 1971 I was on a Commandant / Commander training course at Marconi’s office in Glasgow.

On completion of the course I was appointed to the Canberra Star which had just been installed with a “new TX”.
Having, up to this time, sailed with O’Spans, GlobeSpans, I could only imagine sailing with the New generation TX.

I was to be disappointed, the “new TX” was an O’Span VII E. With MF/HF. 
After the area scheme, I found working GKA on cross band calling/receiving the most effective.

The original station was Redifon or maybe IMR, the main RX was an RM50, I think. 
To service the ‘old’ TX, you rotated the the units.

In 1974 I sailed on Globtik Tokyo with Crusader/Apollo Tlx.
Her sister, the Globtik London launched in 1973 had a Conqueror/Apollo arrangement.

In mid 80’s after the Transocean TX (self tuning) Marconi’s brought out the ‘Challenger’ before moving onto the OceanLinks, but I think Ron will know more about them than me.

Peter


----------



## Ron Stringer

*Brief History of Commandant & Conqueror Transmitters*

The _Crusader _was followed into service by the _Commander _shortly after I moved to Chelmsford, in the summer of 1967. Like all other major Marconi Marine products introduced prior to the 1980s, it was designed and manufactured under the auspices of the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Company. 

Prototypes of the _Commander _were being tested prior to entry into service at sea by the small team that I joined, led by George Gardiner. Evaluation of the _Commander _was the responsibility of Cyril Henshaw, who had been an inspector at the East Ham depot and in my view he did an excellent job, within the limits of the situation, since although the transmitter was already about to enter service (which precluded any major alterations) he was able to avoid many of the problems that had arisen during the lifetime of the _Crusader_.

The _Commander _was introduced as a replacement for the _Oceanspan _but with added SSB facilities. Excitation was still provided by discrete crystals as with the _Crusader _but these were installed on a normal printed-circuit board, rather than in the _Crusader's_ elaborate rotating drum. This was both simple and very reliable. The use of a large cabinet, almost as big as that of the _Crusader_, meant that the lower-powered _Commander _did not need any forced-air cooling or mechanical ventilation. The SSB output was 400W pep and the set proved to be easy to use, reliable and to provide excellent service.

When it was eventually agreed to replace the _Crusader_, by common consent it had to be synthesised but in delays in the development of the synthesised drive unit meant that the initial model was delivered with a version of the _Commander's_ discrete crystal unit. The output power had to be at least 1500W (which was the ITU's 'recommended' maximum for marine use - observed almost as much in the breach as in its observation). Against my arguments, it was decided to stick with 3-phase operation. Since the transmitter only took about the same as a kettle or an electric iron (under 3kW), I wanted the reduced costs, lighter weight and wider availability of 115/230V single-phase ac but I lost out to the Installations Department, who wanted to stick with 380/440V 3-phase, as they had with previous 'high-power' marine transmitters. They claimed, - but - I never saw any proof of the claim - that shipyards preferred to keep things off the single-phase supplies. I am not sure why the Installations Manager (who was older and held a senior position to me) prevailed, perhaps it was internal politics between departments, perhaps I was not sufficiently skilled in argument, but it seemed such a no-brainer. *** 

Early in the 1970s, development of the _Conqueror _was finalised and proceeded with the 3-phase power supply and a design target to provide at least 1600W in continuous operation at +55°C and achieved that with ease. An extraction fan was added to the cabinet (as with _Crusader_) to ventilate the cabinet. Under bench-test conditions, 2kW could be produced at room temperature for periods of up to 15 minutes before any signs of overheating appeared. The transmitter proved reliable and I am sure that removal of nearly all the electro-mechanical components, such as the many motorised switches of the _Crusader_, contributed significantly to this. The new synthesised drive unit eventually came on stream and the name of the transmitter was changed to _Conqueror SD_.

In parallel with the _Conqueror _programme the _Commander _was updated with only minor changes in appearance, the RF amplifier and ATU section and renamed _Commandant_. Later it was fitted with the same synthesised drive unit developed for the _Conqueror _and renamed _Commandant SD_.

Later in the 1970s, the drive unit's stability was improved to provide the long-term 10Hz stability required for unattended telex operation. The transmitters using this unit were _Commandant HS_ and _Conqueror HS_.

***PS I eventually got my way and the _Conqueror's_ successor, _Challenger_, was single-phase and bench mounted, rather than requiring it to be mounted on a huge 3-phase power supply unit to be deck mounted like the _Crusader_.


----------



## BobClay

Thanks for the info Ron. I never sailed with the Crusader but I did my first ticket on it at Leith. Can you confirm, (just as a test of my memory which is a bit rubbish after 50 years) did the master oscillator in it's oven oscillate at 5 Mhz ?

What I also remember is was that it was quite a large beast … or at least it looked big in the Leith Nautical equipment room.


----------



## Ron Stringer

BobClay said:


> I never sailed with the Crusader but I did my first ticket on it at Leith. Can you confirm, (just as a test of my memory which is a bit rubbish after 50 years) did the master oscillator in it's oven oscillate at 5 Mhz ?


Yes, all of the transmitters used a 5MHz reference crystal in a temperature-controlled oven.


----------



## Troppo

Ron Stringer said:


> The _Crusader _was followed into service by the _Commander _shortly after I moved to Chelmsford, in the summer of 1967. Like all other major Marconi Marine products introduced prior to the 1980s, it was designed and manufactured under the auspices of the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Company.
> 
> Prototypes of the _Commander _were being tested prior to entry into service at sea by the small team that I joined, led by George Gardiner. Evaluation of the _Commander _was the responsibility of Cyril Henshaw, who had been an inspector at the East Ham depot and in my view he did an excellent job, within the limits of the situation, since although the transmitter was already about to enter service (which precluded any major alterations) he was able to avoid many of the problems that had arisen during the lifetime of the _Crusader_.
> 
> The _Commander _was introduced as a replacement for the _Oceanspan _but with added SSB facilities. Excitation was still provided by discrete crystals as with the _Crusader _but these were installed on a normal printed-circuit board, rather than in the _Crusader's_ elaborate rotating drum. This was both simple and very reliable. The use of a large cabinet, almost as big as that of the _Crusader_, meant that the lower-powered _Commander _did not need any forced-air cooling or mechanical ventilation. The SSB output was 400W pep and the set proved to be easy to use, reliable and to provide excellent service.
> 
> When it was eventually agreed to replace the _Crusader_, by common consent it had to be synthesised but in delays in the development of the synthesised drive unit meant that the initial model was delivered with a version of the _Commander's_ discrete crystal unit. The output power had to be at least 1500W (which was the ITU's 'recommended' maximum for marine use - observed almost as much in the breach as in its observation). Against my arguments, it was decided to stick with 3-phase operation. Since the transmitter only took about the same as a kettle or an electric iron (under 3kW), I wanted the reduced costs, lighter weight and wider availability of 115/230V single-phase ac but I lost out to the Installations Department, who wanted to stick with 380/440V 3-phase, as they had with previous 'high-power' marine transmitters. They claimed, - but - I never saw any proof of the claim - that shipyards preferred to keep things off the single-phase supplies. I am not sure why the Installations Manager (who was older and held a senior position to me) prevailed, perhaps it was internal politics between departments, perhaps I was not sufficiently skilled in argument, but it seemed such a no-brainer. ***
> 
> Early in the 1970s, development of the _Conqueror _was finalised and proceeded with the 3-phase power supply and a design target to provide at least 1600W in continuous operation at +55°C and achieved that with ease. An extraction fan was added to the cabinet (as with _Crusader_) to ventilate the cabinet. Under bench-test conditions, 2kW could be produced at room temperature for periods of up to 15 minutes before any signs of overheating appeared. The transmitter proved reliable and I am sure that removal of nearly all the electro-mechanical components, such as the many motorised switches of the _Crusader_, contributed significantly to this. The new synthesised drive unit eventually came on stream and the name of the transmitter was changed to _Conqueror SD_.
> 
> In parallel with the _Conqueror _programme the _Commander _was updated with only minor changes in appearance, the RF amplifier and ATU section and renamed _Commandant_. Later it was fitted with the same synthesised drive unit developed for the _Conqueror _and renamed _Commandant SD_.
> 
> Later in the 1970s, the drive unit's stability was improved to provide the long-term 10Hz stability required for unattended telex operation. The transmitters using this unit were _Commandant HS_ and _Conqueror HS_.
> 
> ***PS I eventually got my way and the _Conqueror's_ successor, _Challenger_, was single-phase and bench mounted, rather than requiring it to be mounted on a huge 3-phase power supply unit to be deck mounted like the _Crusader_.


Fascinating, particularly the three phase info!

Thanks.


----------



## J. Davies

Regarding the single phase / three phase argument - 3 ph may have been alright on newbuilds where the yard could run a cable up from the main switchboard. On retrofits is would have been difficult if there were no 3 ph supplies existing on the bridge, which was often the case. The accommodation block rarely had 3 ph above the galley deck. Single phase would be easier. I may be wrong.....


----------



## Troppo

J. Davies said:


> Regarding the single phase / three phase argument - 3 ph may have been alright on newbuilds where the yard could run a cable up from the main switchboard. On retrofits is would have been difficult if there were no 3 ph supplies existing on the bridge, which was often the case. The accommodation block rarely had 3 ph above the galley deck. Single phase would be easier. I may be wrong.....


We replaced the Crusader on Wiltshire/VJEK with a Conqueror. Yep - the only 3 phase feed from the main switchboard to the accommodation was to the radio room....lucky we had it....


----------



## Ron Stringer

J. Davies said:


> Regarding the single phase / three phase argument - 3 ph may have been alright on newbuilds where the yard could run a cable up from the main switchboard. On retrofits is would have been difficult if there were no 3 ph supplies existing on the bridge, which was often the case. The accommodation block rarely had 3 ph above the galley deck. Single phase would be easier. I may be wrong.....


I made that argument too. I also suggested that because the load was relatively light (by shipboard standards), single-phase would enable the radio room to be connected to the emergency generator, allowing use of the main transmitter in emergencies, rather than having to go on to a low-powered transmitter operating on batteries. 

Neither point seemed to carry any weight. I recall that the counter-claim to the argument about absence of 3-phase on the upper deck inhibiting re-fits, was that bigger (and more expensive) transmitters were rarely used on refits, since they involved older vessels having to up-date their radio installations to comply with regulatory changes (such as the banning of DSB radiotelephony). The owners always opted for minimum compliance and therefore chose the least expensive product (like an _Oceanspan_, in the case of marine transmitters) and not something like a _Conqueror_. 

There might have been something in that because I cannot recall anyone replacing a spark transmitter with a _Conqueror_!


----------



## 31552

Ron Stringer said:


> The _Crusader _was followed into service by the _Commander _shortly after I moved to Chelmsford, in the summer of 1967. Like all other major Marconi Marine products introduced prior to the 1980s, it was designed and manufactured under the auspices of the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Company.
> 
> Prototypes of the _Commander _were being tested prior to entry into service at sea by the small team that I joined, led by George Gardiner. Evaluation of the _Commander _was the responsibility of Cyril Henshaw, who had been an inspector at the East Ham depot and in my view he did an excellent job, within the limits of the situation, since although the transmitter was already about to enter service (which precluded any major alterations) he was able to avoid many of the problems that had arisen during the lifetime of the _Crusader_.
> 
> The _Commander _was introduced as a replacement for the _Oceanspan _but with added SSB facilities. Excitation was still provided by discrete crystals as with the _Crusader _but these were installed on a normal printed-circuit board, rather than in the _Crusader's_ elaborate rotating drum. This was both simple and very reliable. The use of a large cabinet, almost as big as that of the _Crusader_, meant that the lower-powered _Commander _did not need any forced-air cooling or mechanical ventilation. The SSB output was 400W pep and the set proved to be easy to use, reliable and to provide excellent service.
> 
> When it was eventually agreed to replace the _Crusader_, by common consent it had to be synthesised but in delays in the development of the synthesised drive unit meant that the initial model was delivered with a version of the _Commander's_ discrete crystal unit. The output power had to be at least 1500W (which was the ITU's 'recommended' maximum for marine use - observed almost as much in the breach as in its observation). Against my arguments, it was decided to stick with 3-phase operation. Since the transmitter only took about the same as a kettle or an electric iron (under 3kW), I wanted the reduced costs, lighter weight and wider availability of 115/230V single-phase ac but I lost out to the Installations Department, who wanted to stick with 380/440V 3-phase, as they had with previous 'high-power' marine transmitters. They claimed, - but - I never saw any proof of the claim - that shipyards preferred to keep things off the single-phase supplies. I am not sure why the Installations Manager (who was older and held a senior position to me) prevailed, perhaps it was internal politics between departments, perhaps I was not sufficiently skilled in argument, but it seemed such a no-brainer. ***
> 
> Early in the 1970s, development of the _Conqueror _was finalised and proceeded with the 3-phase power supply and a design target to provide at least 1600W in continuous operation at +55°C and achieved that with ease. An extraction fan was added to the cabinet (as with _Crusader_) to ventilate the cabinet. Under bench-test conditions, 2kW could be produced at room temperature for periods of up to 15 minutes before any signs of overheating appeared. The transmitter proved reliable and I am sure that removal of nearly all the electro-mechanical components, such as the many motorised switches of the _Crusader_, contributed significantly to this. The new synthesised drive unit eventually came on stream and the name of the transmitter was changed to _Conqueror SD_.
> 
> In parallel with the _Conqueror _programme the _Commander _was updated with only minor changes in appearance, the RF amplifier and ATU section and renamed _Commandant_. Later it was fitted with the same synthesised drive unit developed for the _Conqueror _and renamed _Commandant SD_.
> 
> Later in the 1970s, the drive unit's stability was improved to provide the long-term 10Hz stability required for unattended telex operation. The transmitters using this unit were _Commandant HS_ and _Conqueror HS_.
> 
> ***PS I eventually got my way and the _Conqueror's_ successor, _Challenger_, was single-phase and bench mounted, rather than requiring it to be mounted on a huge 3-phase power supply unit to be deck mounted like the _Crusader_.


Many Thanks Ron, I knew "some" of that but it's nice to get the "full gen"

Interesting tale about the choice of power supply... I can't think of any reason why the 3 phase was chosen over 1 phase given your arguements... unless the psu was specified in the original design and nobody dared to go back and change it...

They wouldn't, by any chance, have already ordered the supply components from the manufacturers and were committed to the contract; hence changing the spec' would mean a lot of expensive, unusable bits...? 

I have experience of that in my later years; the "its been ordered, too late to change it now" arguement; from someone who jumped the gun...

Peter 31552


----------



## Paul Braxton

All really fascinating and very interesting stuff, Ron. Thanks very much for all that. You write extremely well. I wonder, have you already had a book (or books) published on any of this sort of stuff? If not, I think it might be a labour of love for you. 

So interesting to have all this gen about the equipment we used back then. I had no idea at all about the background of the gear, how it was designed, came into being, etc. I remember meeting a Commandant/Conqueror HS setup for the very first time in the late '70's at Glasgow, on a training course for the new 'Spector' RTT gear. Up until then, I had had no idea of how good some of Mimco's gear really could be (I never sailed with any other companies' stuff), and was blown away.

As I think I may already have mentioned, somewhere back in the mists on this site, I met a couple of very serious radio hams while in Houston, on the "Mayfield", which ship, along with its sister "Lindfield" (GRUA and GRUN) carried the Spector setup. These two guys came back to the ship, eager as hell to have a look at 'my' gear, of which I was (justifiably) proud. Eyes popping, they extolled the virtues of the new Mimco gear and were very keen to approach the company with a view to buying a Commandant, or Conqueror. Having no idea whether such a proposal was even possible, I gave them the contact details and sailed away, keeping an unofficial (and illegal) sked wvery day with them as we headed back through Panama for the Kiwi Coast.

It went well. They could still hear me halfway across the Pacific, but it got more and more difficult to read them, until eventually they went QSA0/1, at which time I was apparently still coming in at a stronger level than that at their 'antenna farm' site (a phrase I had never encountered before). Obviously having really decent aerials was a great boon.

I always loved the clean lines and stylish look of the new synthesised equipment, the Apollo and associated TX's. They were always a joy to use and reasuuringly reliable in operation.

Yep, that was probably my high point, as regards sailing with what I termed impressive gear, the year that Elvis died, 1977, on GRUA. The guys at East Ham knew how much I enjoyed the delights of Shaw Savill, and gave me several trips, all consecutive, on just the runs I wanted. They even made it their business to make sure I had been given the right training so that I could sail on 'Mayfield', with its more rigorous requirements. The training course in Glasgow was a great experience. I only wish I had kept my training manuals for the gear, one of which we were all issued with and into which we went very deeply indeed, covering every circuit. Absolutely amazing! Each virgin page was soon covered with minute script, notations and drawings of waveforms, etc. 

What a fool, chucking all that out along with a load of dusty old junk (which really needed chucking) from the groaning loft at home. Oh well, too bad. Tant pis pour moi, as the French might say. 

I think it was probably the first time I ever got into the technical side of marine radio (and radar) equipment, other than simply doing the hard yards just to pass the exams. It all seemed to kindle some new kind of zeal, got me into the real business of enjoying it for its own sake, something which stayed with me when I left the service.


----------



## Troppo

Ron Stringer said:


> I made that argument too. I also suggested that because the load was relatively light (by shipboard standards), single-phase would enable the radio room to be connected to the emergency generator, allowing use of the main transmitter in emergencies, rather than having to go on to a low-powered transmitter operating on batteries.


What a great idea that would have been....SOLAS was so hopelessly out of date, pre-GMDSS....


----------



## Troppo

I remember my first ship had collins main and em rx'ers - both worked off the mains and 24v...and switched to 24v automatically....the ship was built in 1977.

Really ahead of its time.


----------



## Naytikos

Thanks to Ron for all of the background; I too would like to see your reminiscences published in a book.

When I did the Crusader course at Maldon, the instructor, who had obviously never encountered a 3-phase supply in any other application, took great delight in telling us that the centre-point of a wye-connected 3-phase transformer secondary delivered DC not AC. It seems someone had decided to make use of this fact in the design of the PSU.

The one Crusader I did sail with was a nightmare. The 5MHz reference oscillator changed frequency when the oven thermostat cycled; one of the QY4-400s would go parasitic way before being cranked up to full power; most of the bandswitch wafers arced and burnt the dielectric between the contacts.
I was there for 16 months. Replacing the switch wafers was tedious; took from the Cape to Krakatoa, meanwhile I connected temporary jumpers for 16MHz when it was essential to get on HF.


----------



## Troppo

The aforementioned Crusader we replaced on Wiltshire was an original 60's fit. It was dry joint city! Awful....gave no end of trouble.


----------



## 5TT

> The one Crusader I did sail with was a nightmare. The 5MHz reference oscillator changed frequency when the oven thermostat cycled;


I've heard a Conqueror HS cycling a few hz up and down with a regular period of about a second or less, possibly the same fault? I while later I heard the same transmitter barking like a bullfrog, very rough A/C note and later I heard another Conqueror equipped ship in the fleet sounding that way too. Can only imagine what those transmitters would have sounded like on SSB.

Quick question totally off topic. Can anybody remember how the Marconi Monitor operated off 24V? Did it have an internal motor / generator set? For the life of me I cannot remember.

Thanks

Adrian


----------



## duncs

Had a 'commandant' (xtal controlled) retrofitted in Bombay, late '72. Being a DC ship(1946 build), required a DC to 3 phase AC MA. This was fitted on a shelf, with a cover, on the bulkhead outside the RR. After the O'span/mercury/elettra setup, this, with the 'Nebula' rx, was bliss.


----------

