# Northern Star. Machinery Problems



## alaric

The various machinery problems and failures that plagued the early life of the ship are well known; main engine thrust bearings, feed pumps and boilers to name some. Sailing as a Junior Engineer for the first four voyages I am very familiar with these, but thereafter I had no further involvement with the ship during its short life.
Northern Star went to the breakers just 13 years after entering service, in contrast to Southern Cross which almost achieved 50 years before being scrapped.
Does anyone know why the Star was scrapped rather than being sold on for further service as a cruise ship?
I have heard that continuing machinery failures were the reason, with both the boilers and pitting of the reduction gears being suggested as the main problems.
It would be interesting to know the real cause.


----------



## Duncan112

One of the lecturers at South Shields, the late R G Ralph was involved with the trials and suggested that the gearing and thrust damage was due to the use of sulphur EP additives in the lub oil.


----------



## alaric

*Thrust failures*

Thanks for your response Duncan.
Yes, the use of EP oil was a contributing factor in the failures of both the HP turbine thrust bearings, twice each, on the maiden voyage. But this did not cause any damage to the gears at this time as far as I know.
What I would like to know, is what machinery problems led to the ship being scrapped 13 years later?


----------



## A.D.FROST

A quote ( "ShawSavill & Albion" by R.de Kerbrech )from Lord Beching,group chairman at the time from Furness Withy Group annual meeting.
Ships such as these inspire a strong sentimental attachment and I am sure many of our shareholders will regret their passing just as we do.Never the less,it must be said from a financial point of view,their disposal gives rise to nothing but a sigh of rellief.They have become a loss-making worry and there could be no surer way of improving the profitability of Shaw Savil than by withdrawing them.Following the withdrawel of OCEAN MONARCH(EMPRESS OF ENGLAND) the company felt it was not economic to operate only one liner(NORTHERN STAR).It was more due to the loss of £10 "pom"
SOUTHERN CROSS was laid up before being sold.
Un-like the CANBERRA she was sold for scrap at a loss rather than being sold on.


----------



## alaric

Yes ADFrost, it is well do***ented that Northern Star was withdrawn from service because it was not sensible to operate just one passenger liner on its own.
My question is; Why was it scrapped instead of being sold on at a higher price as a cruise ship? Dr. Beeching was not known for his sentiment, he was known for making short term decisions, and selling for the highest price would have been his preferred option I believe. These decisions were made just before the 1976 oil price hike, it seems likely that there would have been potential buyers about at this time.
Was the high cost of necessary machinery repairs the reason for scrapping? If so, what were they, boilers or gears?


----------



## brandane

*Northern Star*

Hi Alaric

Have passed your question to one of the surving members of Shaw Savill Management at that time ~ and will post his response once I receive.
Cheers Jamie
Shaw Savill Society (NZ Branch)




alaric said:


> Yes ADFrost, it is well do***ented that Northern Star was withdrawn from service because it was not sensible to operate just one passenger liner on its own.
> My question is; Why was it scrapped instead of being sold on at a higher price as a cruise ship? Dr. Beeching was not known for his sentiment, he was known for making short term decisions, and selling for the highest price would have been his preferred option I believe. These decisions were made just before the 1976 oil price hike, it seems likely that there would have been potential buyers about at this time.
> Was the high cost of necessary machinery repairs the reason for scrapping? If so, what were they, boilers or gears?


----------



## gadgee

Moved thread from Shaw Savill forum at request of originator alaric


----------



## Cisco

Maybe with her record re machinery probs the best offer received when she went on the market was from the knackers?
Just a thought .... but if the owners had been offered more for further trading surely they would have taken it......


----------



## Ian Read

*kiwi shipper*

I am surprised no one has advised the main issue with NStar was she had only two boilers while SCross had three. Financial pressure changes meant the ship would no longer have a maintenance layup in Belfast as had been in the plans. While SCross could shut down one boiler and operate on two the NStar could not and the time taken to cool the boiler down before a tube could be withdrawn to be replaced was too long. So the boilers suffered accordingly. I also understand the cost to open up the ship to replace engine room equipment with more satisfactory machinery was considered prohibitive in the light of the viability of cruising and line voyages at that time. Plus the huge loss on the bad buy of Ocean Monarch had stretched the Line's credit with the owners. All very sad for those who had a career with Shaw Savill's passenger diviision.
Ian


----------



## johnmac

*Northern Star Machinery Problems*



Ian Read said:


> I am surprised no one has advised the main issue with NStar was she had only two boilers while SCross had three. Financial pressure changes meant the ship would no longer have a maintenance layup in Belfast as had been in the plans. While SCross could shut down one boiler and operate on two the NStar could not and the time taken to cool the boiler down before a tube could be withdrawn to be replaced was too long. So the boilers suffered accordingly. I also understand the cost to open up the ship to replace engine room equipment with more satisfactory machinery was considered prohibitive in the light of the viability of cruising and line voyages at that time. Plus the huge loss on the bad buy of Ocean Monarch had stretched the Line's credit with the owners. All very sad for those who had a career with Shaw Savill's passenger diviision.
> Ian


As far as I can remember the Southern Cross had two Yarrow Type Marine Boilers. The main problem I found with the Star was a lot of untried unproven machinery. The thoughts at the time were that the R.N. used to try a lot of this equipment but the navy was doing less of this as an economy measure. I don't know if this was correct or not.
Johnmac


----------



## JET

As Ian said, the S. C. had three boilers.

John


----------



## johnmac

*Northern star machinery troubles*



JET said:


> As Ian said, the S. C. had three boilers.
> 
> John


Hi sorry about that Ian and John, referred to notes and she did have three boilers. Guess I was too long on Corinthic class.
John


----------



## alaric

Ian Read said:


> I am surprised no one has advised the main issue with NStar was she had only two boilers while SCross had three. Financial pressure changes meant the ship would no longer have a maintenance layup in Belfast as had been in the plans. While SCross could shut down one boiler and operate on two the NStar could not and the time taken to cool the boiler down before a tube could be withdrawn to be replaced was too long. So the boilers suffered accordingly. I also understand the cost to open up the ship to replace engine room equipment with more satisfactory machinery was considered prohibitive in the light of the viability of cruising and line voyages at that time. Plus the huge loss on the bad buy of Ocean Monarch had stretched the Line's credit with the owners. All very sad for those who had a career with Shaw Savill's passenger diviision.
> Ian


Valid points Ian. With hind sight, it can be seen that NStar would have benefitted from 3 main boilers rather than just 2. However, I don’t think that this was a design fault. At the time most steamships were built with 2 main boilers.
SCross on the other hand did have 3 main boilers, it bucked the trend in this respect as in many other ways. Although I am not sure of all the reasons taken into account when deciding on 3 boilers, having one out for maintenance and steaming on two was probably not considered.
The four times a year, round the world schedule was such that all 3 boilers had to be on line on the 4 long sectors. The original plan, which was adhered to for many years, included an annual 3 week maintenance lay-up with the builders. Ample time for major re-tubing of boilers.
The machinery layout dictated that the boilers were sited at the extreme after end, on a platform above the propeller shafts, behind the turbines and gearing. The space available was triangular, and was ideal for 3 boilers. Perhaps this was the overriding reason the ship was built with 3 main boilers? The LP auxiliary boilers were waste heat recovery units and were located forward of the engine room, adjacent to the 6 diesel generators.
Having said all that, having 3 boilers did prove to be an enormous benefit in later years when operating as a cruise liner at lower speeds. As Ocean Breeze the norm was to steam on just 2 boilers.
Now back to NStar, which had a beam 4ft greater than her young sister, and fuller lines at the after end. This just allowed space for fitting 2 Babcock Controlled Superheat boilers, which had a greater output/unit floor area than the Yarrow 3 drum boilers of SCross. There were 3 boilers, but the third was an oil fired LP auxiliary for port use. Northern Star initially followed the annual 3 week annual maintenance plan. Building the ship with just 2 main boilers should therefore not be seen as a design fault as such, but problems did emerge.
NStar was designed to operate at 900F, although in practice it was nearer 800F due to the superheater ****ging with deposits from the high vanadium content Venezuelan fuel. Note that all previous SSAs steamers bunkered the same fuel, but were designed to operate at 750-800F steam temperature, and were able to maintain these, with the aid of steam sootblowers with no real problems. From what I gather, boiler trouble was a feature, to some extent at least, of NStar’s entire service, and I believe 900F was the root cause.
There is an alternative suggestion that the straw that broke the Star’s back was not in fact the boilers at all, but extensive pitting of the main gearing. Caused by bacterial contamination of the lub oil.
Two NStar questions still remain a mystery to me.
1.	What exactly were the machinery problems that led to the ship being taken out of service? Or were the machinery and its problems not a factor at all? Maybe the machinery problems were to be found on Ocean Monarch, not NStar. 
2.	Why was the ship scrapped after just 13 years? It seems to have been a far better basis for conversion from liner to cruise ship than many of the ships that were given this treatment, including, ironically, Southern Cross.


----------



## alaric

johnmac said:


> As far as I can remember the Southern Cross had two Yarrow Type Marine Boilers. The main problem I found with the Star was a lot of untried unproven machinery. The thoughts at the time were that the R.N. used to try a lot of this equipment but the navy was doing less of this as an economy measure. I don't know if this was correct or not.
> Johnmac


I don't think this is correct Johnmac.
RN were thinking more about gas turbines in 1962.
Voyage 1 turbine thrust bearing failures were in part caused by the use of Extreme Pressure lub oil. RN normally used EP oil with their highly rated turbines/gears.
This could be the cause of the suggestion.


----------



## chadburn

Sounds very similar to the RN Y101 propulsion system, the first Class of Warships to have the twin screw version were the Whitby Class, I served on 'HMS Eastbourne' in 1958 when I joined her at Torbay.


----------



## Pete D Pirate

Alaric,
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to initiate this thread.

I'll forward it to a couple of friends who were discussing it many years back.

Cheers,
Pete.


----------



## waffle-sproket

*I remember it well*

(Cloud)I note all the comments on N/S boilers and having sailed on her for a few voyages, they had 2 problems 

1) Superheater tube pitch was to small thus the steam temperature was reduced to 800 degrees, to help slow down the vanadium ****ging.
2 ) The dreaded diamond air puff soot blowers did not help either and the problems may have been reduced if steam soot blowers had been fitted instead. 

We could go on about Feed Pumps Flash Evaps etc but its not time for nightmares. 
I was also the O/M as well as I sailed on the first voyage after the refit. 
dear oh dear I hear you cry


----------



## alaric

waffle-sproket said:


> (Cloud)I note all the comments on N/S boilers and having sailed on her for a few voyages, they had 2 problems
> 
> 1) Superheater tube pitch was to small thus the steam temperature was reduced to 800 degrees, to help slow down the vanadium ****ging.
> 2 ) The dreaded diamond air puff soot blowers did not help either and the problems may have been reduced if steam soot blowers had been fitted instead.
> 
> We could go on about Feed Pumps Flash Evaps etc but its not time for nightmares.
> I was also the O/M as well as I sailed on the first voyage after the refit.
> dear oh dear I hear you cry


Yes, agree with your conclusions re the boilers, but as I remember the early voyages, we didn't reduce steam temperature down to 800F by use of the control damper, it happened as a result of **** build up. (**** = vanadium deposits, site nanny does not allow ****, although I see it allowed ****ging!).
A couple of years ago I wrote an account of NStar's machinery problems during the first year of service, an extract is copied below.
Which post refit voyage did you sail on? I was a Junior, then 5E on voyages 1-4.

The Flash Evaporator was one of the success stories of the advanced machinery, and it gave little trouble during the first year of operation, although I do remember on V2 or V3 there was an occasion when due to some malfunction, the shell and tube heater scaled up and had to be cleared out manually.
In fact, had it been known in advance how well the evaporator performed, the boilers would probably have been fitted with steam soot blowers instead of the compressed air units actually installed.
In my experience, partly because of the higher pressures used, steam soot blowers seem to be more effective than air units. The big disadvantage is the quantity of steam, and hence boiler make-up they need. 
On Northern Star, the one problem never experienced was a shortage of feed water. It is ironic that the Boiler troubles which I believe were experienced throughout the life of the ship, could perhaps have been prevented or at least reduced if the ship had been equipped with steam soot blowers.

The publicity given to the Thrust Bearing failures on V1 had the effect of drawing attention away from problems with the Boilers. These started very early on. Shortly after leaving Southampton on V2, a hole developed in one of the superheater tubes. It was probably just an isolated material defect, not linked to subsequent superheater problems. However, it stays in my mind because of the temporary fix carried out at Las Palmas. Doc Lovatt was anxious to get on with the job of plugging off the defective tube in the short time available in port. One of the burners was removed and a couple of timber planks were thrown into the combustion chamber, to give some degree of insulation from the heat still being given off by the furnace floor. 
Doc was just in the act of climbing into the furnace when the timbers burst into flames! He made a swift exit and waited a couple of hours before going back in to finish the job. Little consideration was given to personal health and safety in 1962, but this incident illustrates the dedication and effort the Engineering Staff put into their ships. Was this appreciated in Leadenhall Street? I doubt it. “Bloody Engineers made the ship late again.”
The main problem that affected the Boilers, at least during the first 4 voyages, but probably for the ship’s entire life, was the build up of clinker on and around the superheater tubes. The correct engineering term for this condition is “****ging,” and Northern Star had **** in spades! 
The main cause was a design fault with the Babcock Boilers. The superheater tubes were pitched too close to each other, allowing the **** to build up on the tubes and then bridge the small gap across to the adjacent tubes. The whole superheater became blocked which resulted in a low superheat temperature, eventually we operated at about 800F instead of the design 900F. This was a high figure for a marine boiler of the time, the design temperature on Southern Cross was only 800F. Ironically, had the design temperature been 800F, the tubes could have been more widely spaced and the bridging and blocking would not have occurred to the extent it did. Had the boilers also been fitted with steam instead of air blowers, the whole installation would probably have operated with a lot less trouble. 
Could the ship perhaps have enjoyed as long a life as her illustrious sister? Who can tell, but it is a great shame that Northern Star was scrapped as early as 1975. Essentially a straightforward and well thought out development from Southern Cross, it was indeed unlucky that a few minor design details blighted the operation and reputation of Northern Star. It would be interesting to hear about the machinery problems that persisted after the first four voyages.
It was not just the machinery that caused problems in Northern Star’s first year. Remember, the ship started its seagoing life by leaving the Tyne stern first. But it ended the first year by making a very fast homeward passage on V4. This was because the ship spent an extra 2 days at Wellington having temporary repairs made to a long gash (50ft?) in the side plating just above the water line. The gash was caused while berthing during a gale. Why was it that the company usually did not use tugs to help berthing in Windy Wellington?

If you would like the whole article, to help recall your worst nightmares, send a PM with your email address.


----------



## alaric

Pete D Pirate said:


> Alaric,
> Thank you for taking the time and trouble to initiate this thread.
> 
> I'll forward it to a couple of friends who were discussing it many years back.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pete.


Try scrolling down page under the yellow 'read' box Pete.


----------



## skilly57

Alaric, you jogged my memory when you referred to 'that gash'. I was an apprentice with Wm Cable in Wellington, and had been repacking steam stop valve glands in the E.R. Took my toolbox ashore, and was watching the boiler makers finishing off the last of the patch repairs when one of them started gas cutting off the staging that had been welded to the hull to give access for the repairs. Staging & welders ended up in the drink! All the pax and people ashore had a ringside view.
Cheers
Skilly


----------



## alaric

skilly57 said:


> Alaric, you jogged my memory when you referred to 'that gash'. I was an apprentice with Wm Cable in Wellington, and had been repacking steam stop valve glands in the E.R. Took my toolbox ashore, and was watching the boiler makers finishing off the last of the patch repairs when one of them started gas cutting off the staging that had been welded to the hull to give access for the repairs. Staging & welders ended up in the drink! All the pax and people ashore had a ringside view.
> Cheers
> Skilly


Jogging memories is what this site is all about Skilly.
Although I had remembered the gash, I had forgotten the welders doing their classic 'cutting off their own platform trick', although I hadn't been lucky enough to see it.
Thanks for jogging my memory.


----------

