# Mooltan & Maloja



## tom e kelso (May 1, 2005)

In a recently published authoritive publication it is contended that these two ships completed in 1923, together with the following four "R" class ships of P & O, were completed as being coal-fired. The 1925 Lloyds Register describes these ships as being "fitted for oil fuel". Can anybody confirm that these ships were coal-fired on their completion by the builders, and if so, when were they were converted to oil-fired.
Rabson, in his Fleet History implies that the P & O Board decided that "for all new mail liners ordered after the Armistice, passenger ships would be oil-fired, "not because it was cheaper than coal, but becuase it did away with coaling and stoking.. In 1923, some P & O engineers took familiarisation voyages in MAJESTIC and OLYMPIC to get experience of oil-burners, and by the mid-1920's, some existing ships were being converted from coal"

Tom


----------



## R396040 (Sep 30, 2008)

*Maloja P&O*



tom e kelso said:


> In a recently published authoritive publication it is contended that these two ships completed in 1923, together with the following four "R" class ships of P & O, were completed as being coal-fired. The 1925 Lloyds Register describes these ships as being "fitted for oil fuel". Can anybody confirm that these ships were coal-fired on their completion by the builders, and if so, when were they were converted to oil-fired.
> Rabson, in his Fleet History implies that the P & O Board decided that "for all new mail liners ordered after the Armistice, passenger ships would be oil-fired, "not because it was cheaper than coal, but becuase it did away with coaling and stoking.. In 1923, some P & O engineers took familiarisation voyages in MAJESTIC and OLYMPIC to get experience of oil-burners, and by the mid-1920's, some existing ships were being converted from coal"
> 
> Tom


Sorry cant answer your question above. However did sail on MALOJA mentioned in 1952 as PRA to Australia on the £10 immigrant run and in those days she was definitly run on fuel. She was getting near the end of her days and we sailed from London to Fremantle, Melbourne Sydney & Brisbane. See on other entries the names were reused in later days for P&O tankers.
Stuart


----------



## jimmyc (Dec 28, 2005)

My father now 90 was on Maloja 1951


----------



## KYRENIA (Aug 10, 2007)

Tom. Having read the pragraph in Rabsons book it states "by the mid 1920`s some existing ships were converted from coal". Did this include the vessels you mentioned?
Cheers, John.


----------



## jimthehat (Aug 5, 2006)

R396040 said:


> Sorry cant answer your question above. However did sail on MALOJA mentioned in 1952 as PRA to Australia on the £10 immigrant run and in those days she was definitly run on fuel. She was getting near the end of her days and we sailed from London to Fremantle, Melbourne Sydney & Brisbane. See on other entries the names were reused in later days for P&O tankers.
> Stuart


 Dont know anything about fuel ,BUT the Mooltan had been adopted by our school and I remember going on a visit to her sometime in 1950 ish.

jim


----------



## Ian6 (Feb 1, 2006)

Tom
Hesitate to join in as I was on deck rather than below but two books I have give some more on Mooltan and Maloja. Neil McCart's '20th Centuty Passenger Ships of the P&O' (Snappy title) quotes both as being oil fired with six double ended and two single-ended boilers. As launched both ships had quadruple-expansion reciprocating engines but by 1929 (Mooltan) and 1930 (Maloja) were changed to turbines, the former driving electric motors the latter straight turbine driven. In each case their speed increased to 17 knots from their original 16 knots. Maybe the confusion occurred because of the engine change rather than a fuel change.
They were lovely ships that gave long service.

Ian


----------



## 7woodlane (Apr 20, 2009)

jimthehat said:


> Dont know anything about fuel ,BUT the Mooltan had been adopted by our school and I remember going on a visit to her sometime in 1950 ish.
> 
> jim


Like you, don't know for certain about the fuel niceties, except that she was oil-fired to the end of her days. I did the last two trips on her to Aus. Then off we went to the breakers in Scotland. Gareloch (Gairloch) was where we paid off on 22nd January 1954. Miserable wet day it was too.


----------



## tom e kelso (May 1, 2005)

Ian and John et al,
I have little doubt that ANY conversion to oil-fuel (as opposed to original provision by the builders) would have taken place before the Bauer-Wach turbine installation in 1929 (this only "augmented" the existing quadruple -expansion reciprocating engines) but I have yet to see it do***ented. It may seem a pedantic point, but the author in question appears to have implied significance to the M's and R's, being "coal-fired" in the first half of the 1920's

[The BI "crack" mail boats of 1938/39, (AMRA,ASKA and ARONDA) were coal-fired, albeit with "mechanical-stokers" but this resulted from a ready supply of owner-owned coal mines in Bihar for ships returning to Calcutta every seven days...AMRA and ARONDA were converted to oil-fuel in Durban about 1949, a 2-month sojourn greatly enjoyed by those aboard!) 

Tom


----------



## roibaird7 (Feb 8, 2009)

My brother Jamesie Gibson Belfast was crew member on the Maloja towards the end of the war1944 ...........he was on T124x articiles


----------



## Mario Sannino (Jan 11, 2008)

tom e kelso said:


> In a recently published authoritive publication it is contended that these two ships completed in 1923, together with the following four "R" class ships of P & O, were completed as being coal-fired. The 1925 Lloyds Register describes these ships as being "fitted for oil fuel". Can anybody confirm that these ships were coal-fired on their completion by the builders, and if so, when were they were converted to oil-fired.
> Rabson, in his Fleet History implies that the P & O Board decided that "for all new mail liners ordered after the Armistice, passenger ships would be oil-fired, "not because it was cheaper than coal, but becuase it did away with coaling and stoking.. In 1923, some P & O engineers took familiarisation voyages in MAJESTIC and OLYMPIC to get experience of oil-burners, and by the mid-1920's, some existing ships were being converted from coal"
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mario Sannino (Jan 11, 2008)

Sorry to arrive so late but I realized for this post only now ( 20th Jan. 2021)
So for what the assertion that "Mooltan" and "Maloja" were coal fired is concerned, this assertion seems to be wrong. On the well known Shipping Technical Review "The Shipbuilder" Vol. XXIX, 1923 November Issue No. 159 pag. 234 end of the first column of the article entitled <<The Peninsular & Oriental Liners "Mooltan" & "Maloja" >> it is clearly stated: "The boilers being arranged to *burn oil*, the fuel is carried in tanks arranged on each side of the boiler rooms arranged on each side of the boiler room and extending to the upper deck, as shown on Plate VI, while the double bottom tanks beneath the engine and boiler rooms are also utilized for carrying oil fuel. ...". At page 239 in the second column of the same article is stated: "Steam is generated in six double-ended and two single-ended cylindrical boilers arranged to *burn oil fuel *under forced draught and designed for a working pressure of 215 lb per sq. in. ..." . In conclusion it is clear that the two ships boilers were oil fired since the building and that they were *never* coal fired


----------

