Engine looks like a General Motors 3 268A . (later called Detroit Diesel) It was widely used as emergency diesel generators on many ships such as the Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing class destroyers.
I wouldn’t bet against you. A great example of “off the shelf” technology on board is the double effect, solo shell evaporator added late in the ship’s career as an emergency source of fresh water. The same unit was commonly used on destroyers and de’s.
I was going to guess it was a smaller Whenten. I am not good at spelling. Whenten is the forefather of the Detroit and the EMD 567, 645 and 710 engines.
Tom, I've said it before but your knowledge and passion for the battleship texas from it's main engines to the rivets that hold it together, blows me away, I always look forward to another video and rewatch some others, but Tom what a great way to share your knowledge, instead sharing it with a few, share it with the world it is our history. Thankyou again Tom, from myself and possibly everyone in the UK👍
i'm in UK too - well said that man - i say this on a few channels, these videos serve as an important document on how these battleships were used, what does what and the folk that used them - but its also an important piece of history to share with everyone of Tom's vast knowledge and love on the subject, not just the visitors who may get parts of the story here and there, its fantastic to know someone with such a good understanding, future custodians will seldom have the understanding of what made things tick, a gun will be just a gun to them, but Tom clearly shows us every detail, and with the odd corrections put into the footage, i always enjoy a good anecdote here and there too i wonder if the diesel genies have ever been fired up to test the lighting? - its surprising to see these so deep in the ship, you'd think in case of emergency they'd be nearer the top side hidden in the main deck, say in case of sinking, to keep some of the emergency systems running till the end, lighting for example (maybe emergency lighting ran direct from batteries, don't know)
You are very welcome! I am very partial to it, especially the dynamo control and feeder protection on the bulkhead that opposes the distribution switchboard. That's where the big stuff lives!
Tom, every time I see one of your videos, I find myself wishing we had your knowledge and expertise back in '84-'85 when doing the initial inventory. I don't recall ever seeing this compartment then, but I vividly recall always carrying a copy to the booklet of plans and a helmet light just so we could find our way around in the darkness! Thanks for your documentary series!
Thanks, Paul. Much of what I know is based only partially on the ability to explore and research. Most is likely is due to learning from others, both staff and volunteers, who came before me!
This is so cool to see her being taken care of, when I watched Texas coming into San Jac in '88 ' 89 there about, I was amazed at her size, then finally got to go aboard. Second deck was the only available touring place on the ship, but. Well worth it! Thank y'all for seeing to her needs.
Loved the video. Miss my days as a volunteer on her. The engines are two cycle opposed piston engines. There is a vertical drive on the generator end which connects the upper and lower crankshaft. There is a blower for the combustion air and supporting pumps on the other end all driven by the engine. The design is similar to the Fairbanks Morse engines used in submarines. The blower takes air suction on the compartment with an air trunk leading above the waterline. The intake manifold is on one side in the middle. The exhaust manifold is on the other side. The exhaust has a trunk which comes out of the hull on the second deck as I recall. The engines were located low in the ship to simplify the Sea water supply for them and provide the maximum protection from battle damage.
@michael kennedy Yep...... While I'm not certain I would imagine the generator was installed in her 1924 refit. Consider this for a moment and consider how much power 100kw was back then. Only 20% of the US homes has electricity in 1920 and 68% by 1930 with only 10% of the rural communities having been electrified. Houses that DID have electrical service during those times at most had a 60 amp service. The vast majority of homes during that era were 30 amp services though. Regardless the only voltage available was single phase 120. For those that aren't aware that's only 3.6kW for 30 amp house or 7.2 kW for a 60 amp house. So the USS Texas had somewhere between the power capability to power 28-14 homes of that era, and she had two generators of that size, albeit I'm certain they weren't designed to be run in parallel. Definitely puts everything in a different perspective EDIT: I just ran across something that I figured I would share. Apparently the University of North Texas somehow got a ahold of some engineering drawings for a refit the Texas had in 1943. Kinda cool. texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1053401/m1/1/
I do not have not seen documentation that firmly sets a date, but I am pretty confident that the two emergency diesel generators were installed in the early 1940's. Primary power came from four 400,000kw steam turbine driven dynamos capable of providing more than 3,300 continuous amps. That was enough to power more than 3,000 homes of the era since the typical house had 100 amp service or less. The university site that you linked two scanned and archived most, if not all, thousands of drawings stored in the ship's archives on behalf of their conservator, Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Wow. What a complex and incredible thing a battleship is. So many different pieces of equipment needed to make the whole thing run efficiently and smoothly. The crew has to operate all of these machines and maintain all of them, just to keep the ship going, they have to do twice as much when they're in combat. I can just imagine the hubub of activity the Texas must have been when she was off the beaches of Normandy shelling the Axis positions. A thousand men, doing a thousand jobs at once a ship alive and in motion, it must have been a sight to see when the Texas cut loose with all five turrets and all ten big guns in action. Behind the scenes a lot of sweating sailors performing countless tasks. Amazing to think about.
I was just thinking the same thing. It appears the guys who did the layup maintenance on it did a surprisingly good job, especially for a ship they were probably aware wasn't going to return to active duty. Well done to them.
The correct terminology when identifying the fire pump would be Horizontal split case electric fire pump. Looks like a 750 or 1000 GPM. I would love to see more of the water-based fire protection equipment aboard these ships. Great video on the Gen-Sets of these ships. You have a new Subscriber.
You are right if they tried to move it down as a single unit. I assume that it was at least partially disassembled brought down and reassembled. Regardless, it wasn't a simple matter.
That diesel engine is a GM 3-268 A, 2 cycle diesel. Operating rpm for generating was 1270 RPM. This engine was a small brother to other series 268 diesels. I operated an 8 -268A as main propulsion (one of two) on the USS Littlehales (AGSC15)
Speaking from experience (not on a ship) but in large buildings during flooding in NYC, you don't put generators below ground where they can get flooded. We had a number of them flood out and destroy them as the sub basements fill with water. So then we got smart and moved them up a number of floors above street level in the buildings. That worked great except the next time it flooded, someone forgot the fuel pumps were still in the basement and as soon as those flooded no more fuel for the generators. Now in the latest revision to keep things running, is to have waterproof enclosures for the pumps and controls that are rated to be deep under water. So seeing all that equipment at the bottom of the boat you have to wonder if it would have worked correctly had the ship started flooding, when they needed it. Most likely when needing that equipment bad things were happening and taking on water. Great video into the bowels of the ship! 👍
Where to place equipment on a ship always has been and always will be a major design consideration. Some, like engines and boilers, have to be placed low due to their size and weight so that the ship will maintain a proper center of gravity and stability. In this case where the generators were added late in the ship's career, the major consideration was likely what compartments could be used that didn't require major alterations or moving other equipment that would take a lot of time and money. Also included was the need for locations where cable could be routed, along with exhaust ducts, etc. Lastly, the selected locations were good precisely because they had good protection from flooding. Even though they were close to the bottom, they were not only watertight themselves, they were surrounded by layers formed by other watertight compartments and a double bottom below it.
we can't go to the moon anymore, I don't think we'll ever be able to achieve anything like this ever again, just computer chips everywhere, and god forbid we have a microchip shortage.
@@OfficialUSKRprogram That is not true at all. We can go to the Moon any time we want to. The problem is that "we" (the government and those who decides what it does) doesn't feel the need or want to.
I was lucky to visit the ship in early 2018 with my brother. I would of loved to of gone into the lower decks, unfortunately that wasn't an option. Thankfully you have these videos so I can still get to see what the public doesn't get to see. Appreciate the fact you upload these. Very informative and interesting.
I have toured the Texas! I like how you show the paths. That adds a lot! Also, I supposed it really sucked to be in the generator room if the CO2 system was remotely activated!
The oil tanker I was on was built in the early 1960s, but it had a (short) time delay and an alarm horn to warn you to get out of the compartment before the CO2 bottles dumped.
I agree that it probably would. Unfortunately, with no good means in place to provide cooling water or remove exhaust, all we can do is occasionally visit and admire it!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Where did the exhaust normally go?? Is it just a matter of the exhaust plumbing being gone or sealed off??? Seeing that engine, Id love to dive in and resto/rehab it and hear it fire again!!
@@wheels-n-tires1846 See the replies to Mark Wales posted 2 days ago. Much of the lines are still there, but the opening through the outer hull was sealed decades ago. Likewise, while the seacock, used to provide cooling water, is still mounted on the deck, the through hull opening for it was plated over 30 years ago. I agree that it would be really cool to start and run it, but I don't see that happening for a number of reasons.
Imagine having to place that generator after the ship is built. Crawling around without carrying anything seems to be difficult enough. One giant maze. Somehow there must be an exhaust too for this generator.
Fortunately, there is a trunk (vertical shaft) that travels from the main deck down to this level just outside of the room. The generator was lowered in pieces down the trunk and into the room where it was reassembled. There were both intake and exhaust lines, now removed, that came in from outside the ship, through compartments above it to the generator.
(02:54) As a retrofit, Sailors would have had to completely disassemble the entire diesel generator, engine block, head(s), rotating assembly (pistons, rods and crank), stator housing, armature, rotor and the like. Then carry the massively heavy, awkward pieces down the labyrinth of cramp passages and reassemble them where the generator sits today. The thought of being tasked to do that makes chipping and painting seem like a good assignment.
You're right, since deck hatches were only a couple of feet square, it was necessary to disassemble, lower, then reassemble the generator to get it into the space. Fortunately, they were able to lower the parts straight down a trunk from the main deck that is just a few feet from the compartment, so it only required carrying them a few feet to get them into the compartment.
As I watch this and I think of these seldom visited spaces, I think that every ship on the bottom of the sea has the same nooks and crannies. Somehow melancholy…
Tom - your videos are great, the more detailed the better. One request - can you do a video on the subject of the topmast? Its construction, how one climbed to the spotting platform, what's up there, etc. If possible, include discussion of earlier cage mast. Don't know if now accessible, but video from up there would be great. Thanks
Great video Tom. I maintain electrical gear similar to this in the aluminum plant I work in. Ours was manufactured by GE. I noticed this equipment is Westinghouse. The slateboad has a tag at the top that appears to date this installation to 5/45. All of these components are serviceable, and sadly, equipment of this quality is no longer made. BTW, why would they wrap the firefighting pipes and valves in asbestos? I would also love to know who built the diesel engine.
My best answer for it is that asbestos was a good insulator even though it didn't have to protect against high temperatures on these pipes. I can see where insulating against potentially very cold seawater drawn into the pipes and pumps wasn't so much a temperature issue as it was a moisture issue. Very cold pipes will condense moisture out of the air, just like an iced tea glass, that may gather on equipment, and compartment surfaces. As far as using asbestos, why not? It was inexpensive, plentiful and its danger wasn't recognized at the time. Anyway, those are my speculations.
Outstanding shipmate. Press on. USS Kitty Hawk CV-63. Jan 1980 to July 1983. i beleave the battle ship Texas is going to get alot of press when it moves down here to Galveston Island.
Yes, the aft generator was damaged beyond any hope for repair due to flooding over an extended period of time. While a marine contractor didn't try to repair the equipment, they did clean and spray it with an encapsulate when they repaired the ship's hull framing and inner hull plating in that compartment.
Sorry, but I do not have access to the top of the main mast, so I won't be creating any videos there. There is a possibility that Battleship Texas Foundation may do it on their channel sometime in the future, so keep an eye on them.
Love your videos Tom and seeing the VERY off path parts of the old gal. Two questions, is it safe you being on your own so far down in the ship and will the restoration restore electrical lighting to these locations?
I am safe because I closely follow established safety protocols and have proven my ability to negotiate passages, trunks and spaces. By the way, that isn't a small thing. It requires close and constant attention to small things that must become second nature. Close to the top of the list is training oneself to carefully check that hatches at the top of ladders are properly secured before climbing past them. Grabbing a hatch to pull yourself up is a natural and unconscious thing to do that can lead to serious injury if it hasn't been secured and slams closed on one or both hands. You not only crush your hand, you then fall to the bottom of the ladder onto whatever bad surface is at the bottom. Having said that, I still bang my head on things because I am looking down at where I am walking. While I am not a decision maker on these matters, I suspect that restoration of lighting in rarely visited spaces is probably very low on the list of priorities.
You may be off the mark just a tad with the F/O pump feeds. While you are correct that the EDG could be used to keep fuel flowing to the boilers, I'm not sure that was the base intent. While the ship that I was on was MUCH newer (1968) the primary intent of the EDG was to RECOVER from an engineering casualty. The generator was sized to accommodate the minimum electrical load required to bring the plant up from cold to where you could spin an SSTG. F/O feed, forced draft blower, feed water, minimal lighting...Everything required to sustain fires with the minimum burners required to make steam. Once you were making steam, you could start shifting aux equipment over to steam until you could bring more burners up. Once you reached the point where the aux load was on steam and more burners could be supported, you could spin up an SSTG and have enough power and steam available to start bringing up more boilers, another SSTG, etc., as well as look to such niceties as lighting, ventilation, etc. The priority is always engineering, as without steam you have no way to move or fight the ship. The saving grace here is that if you are at sea, you are bringing up the plant from a warm condition...The boilers are hot, the water is hot, the piping is hot...everything theoretically near operating temperatures. Compared to lighting off after sitting at the pier for a few months, amount of heat required to get steam up is relatively small and the time required to get things heated up to safe temps is shorter as well. (Things expand as they are heated. If you dump steam directly into cold systems you get burst pipes, cracked housings, etc.)
Kevin, thanks for your detailed comments. I always appreciate hearing from someone who has hands-on experience with these types of systems. I agree 100% with everything that you say. I also completely agree that the great value of the EDG's was to provide power to critical loads during an engineering casualty that didn't necessarily include f.o. pumps. I went back and watched the video and was unpleasantly surprised to see and hear what you took away from it which was that I overemphasized powering the electric fuel oil pumps. While I can see a need for that, it would be extremely rare since it pretty much assumes that they would be faced with six boilers that if not cold, were at least not hot enough to produce usable steam. It was not my intention to emphasize the pumps, even when I was shooting the video. That is one of the dangers of working unscripted. Reviewing the circuits to better determine EDG functions; there were three 30 amp circuits serving two ventilation circuits and a lube oil alarm for the EDG itself. Three 60 amp circuits were for f.o. pumps. There were two 100 amp circuits for auxiliary lighting and a fourth f.o. pump . There was also a 400 amp circuit that fed the electric fire pump located in the compartment next door. I find the most interesting ones to be two, 200 amp circuits. One was for forward radar and another fed the i.c. and f.c switchboard. That was the interior communications and fire control switchboard that distributed power to the circuits for all of the targeting and director equipment used to aim and fire the 14" guns. Due to the way the steam system was split according to the ship's WWII engineering casualty control book, it was also possible that the ship's electrical system was also split into forward and aft halves during combat, with each separately fed by the fore and aft dynamo rooms. If that was the case, I could see that providing emergency power to the 14" batteries would be a top priority if there was a major casualty in the forward dynamo room. What is frustrating about all of this was that the two EDG's were installed in 1942, the early days of WWII. By then, the ship carried its first generation of radar, and the 14" fire control systems and the majority of the ship's systems were in their final form. That meant that they knew exactly what their priorities were for emergency power and it is interesting that so much was allowed for the f.o. pumps. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any documentation that describes that and any veteran that may have known is most certainly deceased. Anyway, thanks again for your input. It was very good!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I was on a Replenishment Oiler. We had 1 boiler room with 3 boilers, and 1 engine room with 4 SSTGs and appropriate Propulsion Turbines/reduction gears for two shafts. Main Steam could be cross-connected or isolated pretty much however it needed to be. Memory dims a bit after almost 35 years, but we had two or three electric fire pumps and 1 steam turbine F/P. For lighting off from Cold Iron we had pretty much one of everything required to fire a boiler that was electrical. That load was within the capabilities of either Shore Power or the EDG. We had two main electrical switchboards, with 1/2 of critical loads fed from each switchboard. They were generally configured with at least 1 SSTG feeding each board, but with the boards tied together. 1 board fed the "Normal" bus, and 1 the "ALT bus, with the EDG feeding the "Emergency" bus. Important spaces/equipment would have an ABT (Auto Bus Transfer Switch) for Normal/Alt, while critical spaces has a Normal/Alt/Emergency ABT. The bus ties between the EDG and the main switchboards were generally left open, so if we lost the SSTGs the EDG would auto-start and feed the Emergency Bus. The main boards would be isolated and "stripped" (everything except vital circuits to "open") then the emergency bus ties would be closed after the EDG was manned up and comms established so as to be able to control the load on the EDG. I believe that I have the details correct, but it HAS been many years. I can assure you that the ship was a dark, hot, stuffy place to be until we got steam back up...unless you were fortunate enough to be in one of the spaces which were deemed to be critical enough to warrant a connection to the Emergency bus...Like the IC/Gyro shop. We ALWAYS had power if it was available. The main IC Switchboard fed not only the gyros, but also the fire/flooding alarms, the fireroom/engine room alarms (Temp, lo lube pressure, etc.), the 1MC, dial telephone, etc. plus a lot of other systems either directly or via feeds to local switchboards. As an aside, the Master Gyro not only fed heading data to the gyro repeaters, but also Heading/pitch/roll data to the weapons platforms for stabilization. They had their own gyro systems as well, but the signal from the Master Gyro was generally much more accurate. Both the Master and Aux gyros had battery backup as well...took up to 24 hours to get them back up and stable/accurate if they went offline. The heading/pitch/roll signals from the gyros were distributed from the main IC switchboard, as were the wind speed/direction and the ship's speed from the Underwater Log (Pitsword). This allowed isolation of a specific repeater or group of repeaters in case of damage.
@@kevincrosby1760 Interesting, especially with the gyros. Texas had two master gyros that provided own ship's heading info to the main battery range keepers. Pitch and roll (level and cross level) was separately provided by the stable element. However, that very possibly changed on later battleships that used newer range keepers that also controlled turret train and elevation through servos, which is an ability that Texas never had. I.C. on Texas has a board dedicated to feeding main battery plotting room and associated equipment. 1MC and other circuits that you mention were also powered from there, but appear to be fed separately from the plot board, so I don't know if the EDT's fed them. There is a large sound powered phone board that is integral to the board in main battery plot that controls the directors and turret information, but by definition, it didn't require power. Things could have been worse for you on a ship with cold boilers. Texas didn't gain the ability to operate electric f.o. pumps until the EDT's were installed in 1942. Prior to that, they initially fired the boilers using hand pumps to feed them with diesel. I assume that required at least a couple of hours of heavy manual labor to get steam to start the steam fed booster pumps, service pumps and f.o. heaters.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Most bases provided steam as part of pier services which in theory could be used to at least get things warmed up and run some low-pressure auxiliary equipment. In reality, pier steam was something that we isolated to "hotel services" such as space heating, galley, etc., and condensate was routed to the bilges. Big difference between "OK with Engineering" and "OK to heat buildings". Base facilities tended more towards "Feed water is what you have after you let the rust settle out of the condensate". Trying to fire a boiler with the requirement that you had to keep the fuel pressure and boiler water level up using hand pumps does not sound like fun. As you no doubt figured out I was an IC. I made it a point to have at least a basic understanding of how the plant worked and how my equipment interfaced with or affected a given piece of equipment. If nothing else, it made the arguments shorter when discussing if it was my sensor or their equipment which was malfunctioning. One of my systems was the Salinity Indicating System, which determined whether Condensate went to the DFT or to the bilges. Of course we NEVER had contaminated condensate, it was ALWAYS the sensors...until the Oil King finished analyzing the sample... Most of what I worked with WAS servos. Everything from the gyro repeaters to the ones which opened the spool valves on the rudder hydraulics when you moved the helm wheel. If not servos, I was working on alarms or Valve-position indicators. Ever stopped to think how many remote-actuated valves an Oiler might have? However, I'm almost convinced that Deck Dept. conducted special training on how to properly mangle a sound-powered headset.
This is a distribution switchboard, meaning that loads were never controlled from there. It was only used to provide overload protection to each circuit using fuses and the switches served as power disconnects, not as means of control. For that reason, they remained closed and were only opened to remove power from a circuit that had problem. No one needed to be down except if a fault needed to be cleared. There could be a problem starting the generator if there were large loads hooked to it. However, there were two ways the starting load could be reduced. They could telephone the control locations for the major loads and tell them to turn the loads off off, start the generator, then turn the loads back on. The other was to start the generators and already have them on line as part of the damage control procedure prior to going into action. While I don't know if that was a standard procedure for them, it is in line with other strategies that I know were used prior to going into battle. The nice thing is since they generated d.c. current, they didn't require complicated synchronizing and simply supplemented the main generators.
I have never seen a rationalization for their choice of system voltage of 120 volts direct current, but I don't think that saving copper was an issue for them. My guess is that the lower voltage, at the cost of larger conductors, manual switches and electrical contactors, was chosen due to it being easier to achieve and control. What I find more interesting was their choice of direct current rather than alternating current. They were certainly capable of producing and controlling ac, plus ac became the norm in later ships. I will say one thing about dc over ac. In spite of its lower efficiency and system losses, it is much easier to control. With dc, you can reverse motors simply by reversing polarity, and very smoothly control motor speed using variable or stepped resistors in the circuit. This isn't possible with ac. You can also add any number of generators to a circuit simply by matching their output voltages. AC requires constant monitoring and matching sine waves. There is one room in a compartment called Interior Communications that contains two large AC motor/generator sets that produced 120 volts ac and were paralleled together. Beside them is a large control board that appeared to need manual supervision and control to keep them matched.
Regular utility power is brought on board and distributed on board using modern distribution panels strategically located around the ship. Some historic wiring is used once it has been tested for safe use and modern wiring has been pulled where using historic is inappropriate.
I was thinking that it could be an F-M 38E5-1/4. They did make a 3 cylinder unit, and the blower on the end of the engine makes me think F-M versus GM.
@@tomscotttheolderone364They posted a vid yesterday or a few days ago about the CIS and restoration there. I wish you and Ryan would get together. The 2 of you would make an amazing pair for battleship info.
The plan is for the ship to go to dry dock sometime around May or June this year. The major work will be replacement the outer hull shell plating below the waterline.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I've forgotten; is she still free-floating, or is she sitting on a mud bank? If she's on a mud bank I can see it might be expensive to get her floating enough to get to a drydock.
A wonderful video, like all of yours. When I see the emergency diesel generators located at the very bottom of the ship, I would think they would be extremely vulnerable to being put out of action through flooding of the compartment. Any thoughts? Also, the fuel oil service pumps certainly would be extremely valuable to keep running, but what about the blowers that supply air to the boilers. Without combustion air, pumping fuel oil doesn't accomplish very much.
I believe the general idea was to put safety equipment as far as possible from direct shell damage, which meant putting it low. That of course opened the possibility of flooding, but it was also placed close to the centerline of the ship, so was hopefully unlikely to be in a ruptured compartment in case of torpedo. I'm pretty sure all the hatches in this area would have been dogged down before going into combat, so flooding a nearby compartment should not have automatically flooded the generator room. Which was another reason for operating it remotely -- you may not have been able to get to it after damage.
I don't think the generator compartments are anymore subject to flooding than any other compartments that are below the waterline. The ships were designed to accept the fact that there would be flooding due to damage which is why the hull below the waterline was highly compartmented. In fact, if you look closely at the video, the passage that I initially entered with the valves is divided by a watertight door. Both of the rooms that I entered have watertight doors and there are compartments on the outboard ends of the passage with watertight doors. All of those would be closed during combat so that flooding would be restricted to very small areas as long as a bulkhead or door wasn't ruptured. It is even possible for compartments above them to flood without them flooding. While the blowers provide forced draft for good steam generation and burning efficiency, you can shut them off and still operate on natural draft, but at much lower steam output. Besides, they are all steam driven by the boilers in the room that they serve.
@@lwilton All of that is true. The main reason for remote start is that those compartments wouldn't be occupied and would be battened down anytime the ship was in action. So, it was the only way the engines could be started.
@@ericbowen650 The electric service pumps were obviously considered a critical load, but saying that the generators' primary function was to "jump-start" boilers requires a leap of speculation that I am not willing to make.
Those are actually pretty resistant to flooding. They are in an area well protected from shells and bombs, and are away from the sides and close to the center line of the ship. The hold deck that they are on is also extremely compartmented, so the possibility of flooding is very low.
Two questions: 1) Do you know when the generator was installed? 2) Where does the exhaust pipe run? I was working on a ship from that era (MV Doulos) and worked on a proposal to add a waste incinerator, but that never got implemented. Planning a route for the exhaust pipe was a challenge.
1) Since it had to be installed after any manufacturing date shown on labels, it would have to be sometime after May 1943. 2) I don't know for sure since I have never tried to trace it. Looking through some plans and photos of compartments above it, the exhaust may go up to the next level across a compartment, then up again into a diesel pump room. I thought it may combine with the exhaust from that engine, where the combined lines go into the anchor windlass room next door. From there, it may run with the anchor engine's steam supply and exhaust lines. You can see that room and engine in my video, "Weighing Anchor on Battleship Texas". I thought that maybe the exhaust line may run alongside the steam lines, but when I looked at the compartment above, I only saw steam lines, so that's where I lost track.
The exhaust runs upwards, crosses the ship, goes up into the port side of the wardroom and exhausts through the side of the ship. The exhaust’s water trap (which was in the wardroom) became a massive beehive and we had to remove the water trap and blank the exhaust to keep the bees from coming back.
That’s exactly what they did. There are vertical trunks that lead down from forward 14” gun turret handling rooms that are large enough to pass pieces.
While I have never seen any documentation that addresses this issue, at least partial disassembly then reassembly is the only option that makes sense. It would be extremely difficult and impractical to enlarged deck hatches and cut open decks to accomplish the task.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 If it was done in the 1924 renovation they may well have cut holes through the hull of the ship and hard-patched them before building out the torpedo protection tanks which were added at that time. The 1943 dated nameplate could have been a replacement part or upgraded component which was installed during a maintenance availability.
@@ericbowen650 We do know that emergency generators were installed late in the ship's career, even though we do not have an exact date. We know this because none of the plans indicate a space for them, including the 1937 Booklet of Plans that show the forward compartment to be a provisions store room and the aft the Marines store room. Also, there are other legend plates on major components that generally agree with the 1943 date.
You said the generators provided 120VAC. I believe that normal ships power is 440VAC. Also, some ships power is at 400hz rather than normal 60hz. What are those generators providing?
The ship's four 400kw dynamos and the emergency diesel generators provided 120vdc for ship's power. This wasn't uncommon when Texas was built and there were some good reasons for doing it, even though it was pretty inefficient. One big reason is that d.c. allowed much simpler variable speed and reversing motor controllers. However, there were many systems on board that required ac and/or different voltages, especially with the growth of electronics on board during WWII. In order to feed them, they used motor-generator sets that ran on 120vdc and put out whatever voltage was required. This allowed them to set mg sets close to their intended loads and wire them into the ship's system.
I am not aware of any documentation that tells us that they did that, but it's easy for me to believe that they may have occasionally used them during WWII. One great advantages of the ship's somewhat archaic 120 volt dc system is that it was very easy to tie the two emergency generators into it to provide extra capacity if they had everything turned on and were running short of power.
Tom, thanks for another terrific video. Question: on the power distribution panel, there didn’t seem to be supply switches for the turrets. In the event of steam generation failure, where did auxiliary power for turret movement come from? Thanks for all your work!
Sorry it took this long to reply. That is a good question that requires a complicated answer. First, there was no auxiliary power for the turrets. The limited amount of emergency power would be desperately needed for critical loads needed for pumps and limited lighting. However, you didn't simply loose steam power unless the ship took so much damage that she would probably be incapable of fighting and most efforts would concentrate on saving her. When preparing for battle, the steam system was set up so that there were two separate mains, one running down each side of the ship. The port side boilers in each of the three boiler rooms fed the port engine and aft generators and the starboard boilers did the same for the starboard engine and forward generators. This meant that a main steam rupture would only affect 1/2 of the engines and power generation. Once the damage was isolated or repaired, they could cut the undamaged sections back into the system. If a hit completely disabled a boiler room, affecting both steam mains, it could be cut out of both systems using valves located outside of the room, thus restoring pressure to both mains at a reduced rate. If this happened, they could also supplement any reduced electrical power with the emergency generators. This would allow power for most, if not all, of the turrets. They actually had written procedures that were studied and rehearsed for all conceivable problems like this, so while it was possible that you could lose all power to the turrets, it was exceptionally unlikely.
In pieces, moved down through hatches from the main deck, then on trolleys and rails on the 3rd deck to the hatches where they can be lowered to the area I first entered.
Engine looks like a General Motors 3 268A . (later called Detroit Diesel) It was widely used as emergency diesel generators on many ships such as the Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing class destroyers.
Thanks for the info!
I wouldn’t bet against you. A great example of “off the shelf” technology on board is the double effect, solo shell evaporator added late in the ship’s career as an emergency source of fresh water. The same unit was commonly used on destroyers and de’s.
Looked like a Detroit to me as well. It would probably start up after a 30 minute cleanup
I was going to guess it was a smaller Whenten. I am not good at spelling. Whenten is the forefather of the Detroit and the EMD 567, 645 and 710 engines.
@@ryandavis7593 I think it is Winton, but I may be wrong.
Tom, I've said it before but your knowledge and passion for the battleship texas from it's main engines to the rivets that hold it together, blows me away, I always look forward to another video and rewatch some others, but Tom what a great way to share your knowledge, instead sharing it with a few, share it with the world it is our history. Thankyou again Tom, from myself and possibly everyone in the UK👍
Thank you, you are very kind!
i'm in UK too - well said that man - i say this on a few channels, these videos serve as an important document on how these battleships were used, what does what and the folk that used them - but its also an important piece of history to share with everyone of Tom's vast knowledge and love on the subject, not just the visitors who may get parts of the story here and there, its fantastic to know someone with such a good understanding, future custodians will seldom have the understanding of what made things tick, a gun will be just a gun to them, but Tom clearly shows us every detail, and with the odd corrections put into the footage, i always enjoy a good anecdote here and there too
i wonder if the diesel genies have ever been fired up to test the lighting? - its surprising to see these so deep in the ship, you'd think in case of emergency they'd be nearer the top side hidden in the main deck, say in case of sinking, to keep some of the emergency systems running till the end, lighting for example (maybe emergency lighting ran direct from batteries, don't know)
I'm an industrial electrician and I love seeing this old electrical equipment. Thanks for doing these videos.
You are very welcome! I am very partial to it, especially the dynamo control and feeder protection on the bulkhead that opposes the distribution switchboard. That's where the big stuff lives!
Tom, every time I see one of your videos, I find myself wishing we had your knowledge and expertise back in '84-'85 when doing the initial inventory. I don't recall ever seeing this compartment then, but I vividly recall always carrying a copy to the booklet of plans and a helmet light just so we could find our way around in the darkness! Thanks for your documentary series!
Thanks, Paul. Much of what I know is based only partially on the ability to explore and research. Most is likely is due to learning from others, both staff and volunteers, who came before me!
This is so cool to see her being taken care of, when I watched Texas coming into San Jac in '88 ' 89 there about, I was amazed at her size, then finally got to go aboard. Second deck was the only available touring place on the ship, but. Well worth it! Thank y'all for seeing to her needs.
Loved the video. Miss my days as a volunteer on her.
The engines are two cycle opposed piston engines. There is a vertical drive on the generator end which connects the upper and lower crankshaft. There is a blower for the combustion air and supporting pumps on the other end all driven by the engine. The design is similar to the Fairbanks Morse engines used in submarines. The blower takes air suction on the compartment with an air trunk leading above the waterline. The intake manifold is on one side in the middle. The exhaust manifold is on the other side. The exhaust has a trunk which comes out of the hull on the second deck as I recall.
The engines were located low in the ship to simplify the Sea water supply for them and provide the maximum protection from battle damage.
@michael kennedy Yep...... While I'm not certain I would imagine the generator was installed in her 1924 refit. Consider this for a moment and consider how much power 100kw was back then. Only 20% of the US homes has electricity in 1920 and 68% by 1930 with only 10% of the rural communities having been electrified.
Houses that DID have electrical service during those times at most had a 60 amp service. The vast majority of homes during that era were 30 amp services though. Regardless the only voltage available was single phase 120. For those that aren't aware that's only 3.6kW for 30 amp house or 7.2 kW for a 60 amp house. So the USS Texas had somewhere between the power capability to power 28-14 homes of that era, and she had two generators of that size, albeit I'm certain they weren't designed to be run in parallel. Definitely puts everything in a different perspective
EDIT: I just ran across something that I figured I would share. Apparently the University of North Texas somehow got a ahold of some engineering drawings for a refit the Texas had in 1943. Kinda cool. texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1053401/m1/1/
I do not have not seen documentation that firmly sets a date, but I am pretty confident that the two emergency diesel generators were installed in the early 1940's.
Primary power came from four 400,000kw steam turbine driven dynamos capable of providing more than 3,300 continuous amps. That was enough to power more than 3,000 homes of the era since the typical house had 100 amp service or less.
The university site that you linked two scanned and archived most, if not all, thousands of drawings stored in the ship's archives on behalf of their conservator, Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 3,300 amps at 120 volts is 400 kW or 400,000 watts.
The engine is a General Motors Cleveland 3-268 diesel engine.
Wow. What a complex and incredible thing a battleship is. So many different pieces of equipment needed to make the whole thing run efficiently and smoothly. The crew has to operate all of these machines and maintain all of them, just to keep the ship going, they have to do twice as much when they're in combat. I can just imagine the hubub of activity the Texas must have been when she was off the beaches of Normandy shelling the Axis positions. A thousand men, doing a thousand jobs at once a ship alive and in motion, it must have been a sight to see when the Texas cut loose with all five turrets and all ten big guns in action. Behind the scenes a lot of sweating sailors performing countless tasks. Amazing to think about.
Tom, very interesting video. That generator still looks like it could be started up in short order.
Thanks!
I was just thinking the same thing. It appears the guys who did the layup maintenance on it did a surprisingly good job, especially for a ship they were probably aware wasn't going to return to active duty. Well done to them.
@@robertf3479 In Navy parlance; Bravo Zulu!
The correct terminology when identifying the fire pump would be Horizontal split case electric fire pump. Looks like a 750 or 1000 GPM. I would love to see more of the water-based fire protection equipment aboard these ships. Great video on the Gen-Sets of these ships. You have a new Subscriber.
You said that this was added as a refit.
That must have been a major pain getting that equipment down there in the first place.
You are right if they tried to move it down as a single unit. I assume that it was at least partially disassembled brought down and reassembled. Regardless, it wasn't a simple matter.
That crossed my mind as well. Thanks for asking.
That diesel engine is a GM 3-268 A, 2 cycle diesel. Operating rpm for generating was 1270 RPM. This engine was a small brother to other series 268 diesels. I operated an 8 -268A as main propulsion (one of two) on the USS Littlehales (AGSC15)
Speaking from experience (not on a ship) but in large buildings during flooding in NYC, you don't put generators below ground where they can get flooded. We had a number of them flood out and destroy them as the sub basements fill with water. So then we got smart and moved them up a number of floors above street level in the buildings. That worked great except the next time it flooded, someone forgot the fuel pumps were still in the basement and as soon as those flooded no more fuel for the generators. Now in the latest revision to keep things running, is to have waterproof enclosures for the pumps and controls that are rated to be deep under water.
So seeing all that equipment at the bottom of the boat you have to wonder if it would have worked correctly had the ship started flooding, when they needed it. Most likely when needing that equipment bad things were happening and taking on water. Great video into the bowels of the ship! 👍
Where to place equipment on a ship always has been and always will be a major design consideration. Some, like engines and boilers, have to be placed low due to their size and weight so that the ship will maintain a proper center of gravity and stability. In this case where the generators were added late in the ship's career, the major consideration was likely what compartments could be used that didn't require major alterations or moving other equipment that would take a lot of time and money. Also included was the need for locations where cable could be routed, along with exhaust ducts, etc. Lastly, the selected locations were good precisely because they had good protection from flooding. Even though they were close to the bottom, they were not only watertight themselves, they were surrounded by layers formed by other watertight compartments and a double bottom below it.
Love it, thank you for your walk through, explanation, and preservation of these areas.
WOW! that is so cool, showing us the ship's emergency back up generator. U know alot of the components of the generator. Thx 4 sharing on Utube.
Never ceases to amaze what we, as a nation were capable of accomplishing in times of need.
we can't go to the moon anymore, I don't think we'll ever be able to achieve anything like this ever again, just computer chips everywhere, and god forbid we have a microchip shortage.
@@OfficialUSKRprogram That is not true at all. We can go to the Moon any time we want to. The problem is that "we" (the government and those who decides what it does) doesn't feel the need or want to.
I was lucky to visit the ship in early 2018 with my brother. I would of loved to of gone into the lower decks, unfortunately that wasn't an option. Thankfully you have these videos so I can still get to see what the public doesn't get to see. Appreciate the fact you upload these. Very informative and interesting.
Really can't thank you enough for your exploration of this fascinating, historic Relic!
Another great video Tom! Thanks. I’m so envious of your access to the ship!
Fantastic Im in the uk and only dream of visiting this ship.
I am glad that you can at least visit it virtually. Be sure to see more about the ship on the Battleship Texas Foundation channel.
Thank you for doing these.
I have toured the Texas!
I like how you show the paths. That adds a lot! Also, I supposed it really sucked to be in the generator room if the CO2 system was remotely activated!
You’re not wrong, but the truth is that if things have gotten that bad- you’ve got bigger problems.
The oil tanker I was on was built in the early 1960s, but it had a (short) time delay and an alarm horn to warn you to get out of the compartment before the CO2 bottles dumped.
Looks like it would start pretty easily after a few hours of cleaning and lubricaction... amazing after all those years!
I agree that it probably would. Unfortunately, with no good means in place to provide cooling water or remove exhaust, all we can do is occasionally visit and admire it!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Where did the exhaust normally go?? Is it just a matter of the exhaust plumbing being gone or sealed off??? Seeing that engine, Id love to dive in and resto/rehab it and hear it fire again!!
@@wheels-n-tires1846 See the replies to Mark Wales posted 2 days ago. Much of the lines are still there, but the opening through the outer hull was sealed decades ago. Likewise, while the seacock, used to provide cooling water, is still mounted on the deck, the through hull opening for it was plated over 30 years ago. I agree that it would be really cool to start and run it, but I don't see that happening for a number of reasons.
This channel is a great find. Fascinating video!
The circuit breaker lock-in device.
When I was in the navy we called that a "battle short" all of our major equipment had them.
I grateful that we have people that know these old ships so well. I think it’s important to remember our history
Thanks for your time making this for us
Imagine having to place that generator after the ship is built. Crawling around without carrying anything seems to be difficult enough. One giant maze. Somehow there must be an exhaust too for this generator.
Fortunately, there is a trunk (vertical shaft) that travels from the main deck down to this level just outside of the room. The generator was lowered in pieces down the trunk and into the room where it was reassembled. There were both intake and exhaust lines, now removed, that came in from outside the ship, through compartments above it to the generator.
Very cool I enjoyed visiting the USS Texas, looking forward to going back.
Thank you good sir. 😉👍
Poor old Lady. A few of us still love you💖
Again sir very well done. Your videos are amazingly informative.
Glad you like them!
(02:54) As a retrofit, Sailors would have had to completely disassemble the entire diesel generator, engine block, head(s), rotating assembly (pistons, rods and crank), stator housing, armature, rotor and the like. Then carry the massively heavy, awkward pieces down the labyrinth of cramp passages and reassemble them where the generator sits today. The thought of being tasked to do that makes chipping and painting seem like a good assignment.
You're right, since deck hatches were only a couple of feet square, it was necessary to disassemble, lower, then reassemble the generator to get it into the space. Fortunately, they were able to lower the parts straight down a trunk from the main deck that is just a few feet from the compartment, so it only required carrying them a few feet to get them into the compartment.
As I watch this and I think of these seldom visited spaces, I think that every ship on the bottom of the sea has the same nooks and crannies. Somehow melancholy…
Tom - your videos are great, the more detailed the better. One request - can you do a video on the subject of the topmast? Its construction, how one climbed to the spotting platform, what's up there, etc. If possible, include discussion of earlier cage mast. Don't know if now accessible, but video from up there would be great. Thanks
It does look in really good shape. I wonder if you could get it running again? 😉
Great video Tom. I maintain electrical gear similar to this in the aluminum plant I work in. Ours was manufactured by GE. I noticed this equipment is Westinghouse. The slateboad has a tag at the top that appears to date this installation to 5/45. All of these components are serviceable, and sadly, equipment of this quality is no longer made. BTW, why would they wrap the firefighting pipes and valves in asbestos? I would also love to know who built the diesel engine.
My best answer for it is that asbestos was a good insulator even though it didn't have to protect against high temperatures on these pipes. I can see where insulating against potentially very cold seawater drawn into the pipes and pumps wasn't so much a temperature issue as it was a moisture issue. Very cold pipes will condense moisture out of the air, just like an iced tea glass, that may gather on equipment, and compartment surfaces. As far as using asbestos, why not? It was inexpensive, plentiful and its danger wasn't
recognized at the time. Anyway, those are my
speculations.
5/43
Those plates on the side like the one he took off look like Detroit Diesel.
Outstanding shipmate. Press on. USS Kitty Hawk CV-63. Jan 1980 to July 1983. i beleave the battle ship Texas is going to get alot of press when it moves down here to Galveston Island.
Yes, very cool!
Very cool, the stern diesel gen was flooded at one time but would love to see it!
Yes, the aft generator was damaged beyond any hope for repair due to flooding over an extended period of time. While a marine contractor didn't try to repair the equipment, they did clean and spray it with an encapsulate when they repaired the ship's hull framing and inner hull plating in that compartment.
all i gotta say from seeing these reach rods is thank god for hydraulically and solenoid operated valves
Nice video thank you 😊
That was a GE drive motor and GE Line-Arc contactors in that control panel
very very cool
Could you do a video of the main mast and fire control rooms. I kow this would be hard to get too. Thanks for the great videos
Sorry, but I do not have access to the top of the main mast, so I won't be creating any videos there. There is a possibility that Battleship Texas Foundation may do it on their channel sometime in the future, so keep an eye on them.
Love your videos Tom and seeing the VERY off path parts of the old gal. Two questions, is it safe you being on your own so far down in the ship and will the restoration restore electrical lighting to these locations?
I am safe because I closely follow established safety protocols and have proven my ability to negotiate passages, trunks and spaces. By the way, that isn't a small thing. It requires close and constant attention to small things that must become second nature. Close to the top of the list is training oneself to carefully check that hatches at the top of ladders are properly secured before climbing past them. Grabbing a hatch to pull yourself up is a natural and unconscious thing to do that can lead to serious injury if it hasn't been secured and slams closed on one or both hands. You not only crush your hand, you then fall to the bottom of the ladder onto whatever bad surface is at the bottom. Having said that, I still bang my head on things because I am looking down at where I am walking.
While I am not a decision maker on these matters, I suspect that restoration of lighting in rarely visited spaces is probably very low on the list of priorities.
Didn’t realize the old generator was a 2 stroke
You may be off the mark just a tad with the F/O pump feeds. While you are correct that the EDG could be used to keep fuel flowing to the boilers, I'm not sure that was the base intent.
While the ship that I was on was MUCH newer (1968) the primary intent of the EDG was to RECOVER from an engineering casualty. The generator was sized to accommodate the minimum electrical load required to bring the plant up from cold to where you could spin an SSTG. F/O feed, forced draft blower, feed water, minimal lighting...Everything required to sustain fires with the minimum burners required to make steam. Once you were making steam, you could start shifting aux equipment over to steam until you could bring more burners up.
Once you reached the point where the aux load was on steam and more burners could be supported, you could spin up an SSTG and have enough power and steam available to start bringing up more boilers, another SSTG, etc., as well as look to such niceties as lighting, ventilation, etc. The priority is always engineering, as without steam you have no way to move or fight the ship.
The saving grace here is that if you are at sea, you are bringing up the plant from a warm condition...The boilers are hot, the water is hot, the piping is hot...everything theoretically near operating temperatures. Compared to lighting off after sitting at the pier for a few months, amount of heat required to get steam up is relatively small and the time required to get things heated up to safe temps is shorter as well. (Things expand as they are heated. If you dump steam directly into cold systems you get burst pipes, cracked housings, etc.)
Kevin, thanks for your detailed comments. I always appreciate hearing from someone who has hands-on experience with these types of systems. I agree 100% with everything that you say. I also completely agree that the great value of the EDG's was to provide power to critical loads during an engineering casualty that didn't necessarily include f.o. pumps. I went back and watched the video and was unpleasantly surprised to see and hear what you took away from it which was that I overemphasized powering the electric fuel oil pumps. While I can see a need for that, it would be extremely rare since it pretty much assumes that they would be faced with six boilers that if not cold, were at least not hot enough to produce usable steam. It was not my intention to emphasize the pumps, even when I was shooting the video. That is one of the dangers of working unscripted.
Reviewing the circuits to better determine EDG functions; there were three 30 amp circuits serving two ventilation circuits and a lube oil alarm for the EDG itself. Three 60 amp circuits were for f.o. pumps. There were two 100 amp circuits for auxiliary lighting and a fourth f.o. pump . There was also a 400 amp circuit that fed the electric fire pump located in the compartment next door. I find the most interesting ones to be two, 200 amp circuits. One was for forward radar and another fed the i.c. and f.c switchboard. That was the interior communications and fire control switchboard that distributed power to the circuits for all of the targeting and director equipment used to aim and fire the 14" guns. Due to the way the steam system was split according to the ship's WWII engineering casualty control book, it was also possible that the ship's electrical system was also split into forward and aft halves during combat, with each separately fed by the fore and aft dynamo rooms. If that was the case, I could see that providing emergency power to the 14" batteries would be a top priority if there was a major casualty in the forward dynamo room.
What is frustrating about all of this was that the two EDG's were installed in 1942, the early days of WWII. By then, the ship carried its first generation of radar, and the 14" fire control systems and the majority of the ship's systems were in their final form. That meant that they knew exactly what their priorities were for emergency power and it is interesting that so much was allowed for the f.o. pumps. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any documentation that describes that and any veteran that may have known is most certainly deceased.
Anyway, thanks again for your input. It was very good!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I was on a Replenishment Oiler. We had 1 boiler room with 3 boilers, and 1 engine room with 4 SSTGs and appropriate Propulsion Turbines/reduction gears for two shafts. Main Steam could be cross-connected or isolated pretty much however it needed to be.
Memory dims a bit after almost 35 years, but we had two or three electric fire pumps and 1 steam turbine F/P.
For lighting off from Cold Iron we had pretty much one of everything required to fire a boiler that was electrical. That load was within the capabilities of either Shore Power or the EDG.
We had two main electrical switchboards, with 1/2 of critical loads fed from each switchboard. They were generally configured with at least 1 SSTG feeding each board, but with the boards tied together. 1 board fed the "Normal" bus, and 1 the "ALT bus, with the EDG feeding the "Emergency" bus.
Important spaces/equipment would have an ABT (Auto Bus Transfer Switch) for Normal/Alt, while critical spaces has a Normal/Alt/Emergency ABT.
The bus ties between the EDG and the main switchboards were generally left open, so if we lost the SSTGs the EDG would auto-start and feed the Emergency Bus. The main boards would be isolated and "stripped" (everything except vital circuits to "open") then the emergency bus ties would be closed after the EDG was manned up and comms established so as to be able to control the load on the EDG.
I believe that I have the details correct, but it HAS been many years. I can assure you that the ship was a dark, hot, stuffy place to be until we got steam back up...unless you were fortunate enough to be in one of the spaces which were deemed to be critical enough to warrant a connection to the Emergency bus...Like the IC/Gyro shop. We ALWAYS had power if it was available.
The main IC Switchboard fed not only the gyros, but also the fire/flooding alarms, the fireroom/engine room alarms (Temp, lo lube pressure, etc.), the 1MC, dial telephone, etc. plus a lot of other systems either directly or via feeds to local switchboards.
As an aside, the Master Gyro not only fed heading data to the gyro repeaters, but also Heading/pitch/roll data to the weapons platforms for stabilization. They had their own gyro systems as well, but the signal from the Master Gyro was generally much more accurate. Both the Master and Aux gyros had battery backup as well...took up to 24 hours to get them back up and stable/accurate if they went offline.
The heading/pitch/roll signals from the gyros were distributed from the main IC switchboard, as were the wind speed/direction and the ship's speed from the Underwater Log (Pitsword). This allowed isolation of a specific repeater or group of repeaters in case of damage.
@@kevincrosby1760 Interesting, especially with the gyros. Texas had two master gyros that provided own ship's heading info to the main battery range keepers. Pitch and roll (level and cross level) was separately provided by the stable element. However, that very possibly changed on later battleships that used newer range keepers that also controlled turret train and elevation through servos, which is an ability that Texas never had.
I.C. on Texas has a board dedicated to feeding main battery plotting room and associated equipment. 1MC and other circuits that you mention were also powered from there, but appear to be fed separately from the plot board, so I don't know if the EDT's fed them. There is a large sound powered phone board that is integral to the board in main battery plot that controls the directors and turret information, but by definition, it didn't require power.
Things could have been worse for you on a ship with cold boilers. Texas didn't gain the ability to operate electric f.o. pumps until the EDT's were installed in 1942. Prior to that, they initially fired the boilers using hand pumps to feed them with diesel. I assume that required at least a couple of hours of heavy manual labor to get steam to start the steam fed booster pumps, service pumps and f.o. heaters.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Most bases provided steam as part of pier services which in theory could be used to at least get things warmed up and run some low-pressure auxiliary equipment.
In reality, pier steam was something that we isolated to "hotel services" such as space heating, galley, etc., and condensate was routed to the bilges.
Big difference between "OK with Engineering" and "OK to heat buildings". Base facilities tended more towards "Feed water is what you have after you let the rust settle out of the condensate".
Trying to fire a boiler with the requirement that you had to keep the fuel pressure and boiler water level up using hand pumps does not sound like fun.
As you no doubt figured out I was an IC. I made it a point to have at least a basic understanding of how the plant worked and how my equipment interfaced with or affected a given piece of equipment. If nothing else, it made the arguments shorter when discussing if it was my sensor or their equipment which was malfunctioning.
One of my systems was the Salinity Indicating System, which determined whether Condensate went to the DFT or to the bilges. Of course we NEVER had contaminated condensate, it was ALWAYS the sensors...until the Oil King finished analyzing the sample...
Most of what I worked with WAS servos. Everything from the gyro repeaters to the ones which opened the spool valves on the rudder hydraulics when you moved the helm wheel. If not servos, I was working on alarms or Valve-position indicators. Ever stopped to think how many remote-actuated valves an Oiler might have?
However, I'm almost convinced that Deck Dept. conducted special training on how to properly mangle a sound-powered headset.
Thank you for posting
Great!
The engine is a General Motors Cleveland 3-268 diesel.
“Athwartships“. I miss the Navy!
Navy porn! :)
6:10 Sometimes later known as a 'Battle Short' switch. Overrides all protection.
I bet you that engine will still run...
Just think; it’s been over a century since any of those spaces saw natural light!
Great content
That engine doesn't even look broken in I have no doubt that it would start vary easy
It doesnt matter if you can remote start the diesel gen because you need to manually operate the switchboard.
This is a distribution switchboard, meaning that loads were never controlled from there. It was only used to provide overload protection to each circuit using fuses and the switches served as power disconnects, not as means of control. For that reason, they remained closed and were only opened to remove power from a circuit that had problem. No one needed to be down except if a fault needed to be cleared. There could be a problem starting the generator if there were large loads hooked to it. However, there were two ways the starting load could be reduced. They could telephone the control locations for the major loads and tell them to turn the loads off off, start the generator, then turn the loads back on. The other was to start the generators and already have them on line as part of the damage control procedure prior to going into action. While I don't know if that was a standard procedure for them, it is in line with other strategies that I know were used prior to going into battle. The nice thing is since they generated d.c. current, they didn't require complicated synchronizing and simply supplemented the main generators.
Kinda looks like a Fairbanks-Morse generator
New Jersey sent me
They could have saved a lot of copper if they ran a higher voltage, did they chose 120v so they could connect to the local grid when docked in port.
I have never seen a rationalization for their choice of system voltage of 120 volts direct current, but I don't think that saving copper was an issue for them. My guess is that the lower voltage, at the cost of larger conductors, manual switches and electrical contactors, was chosen due to it being easier to achieve and control. What I find more interesting was their choice of direct current rather than alternating current. They were certainly capable of producing and controlling ac, plus ac became the norm in later ships. I will say one thing about dc over ac. In spite of its lower efficiency and system losses, it is much easier to control. With dc, you can reverse motors simply by reversing polarity, and very smoothly control motor speed using variable or stepped resistors in the circuit. This isn't possible with ac. You can also add any number of generators to a circuit simply by matching their output voltages. AC requires constant monitoring and matching sine waves. There is one room in a compartment called Interior Communications that contains two large AC motor/generator sets that produced 120 volts ac and were paralleled together. Beside them is a large control board that appeared to need manual supervision and control to keep them matched.
If you had to use any of that equipment, you were in a bad way friend.....
You are probably right, but these could also be used to supplement the regular systems if they need extra capacity.
I'm curious how is the ship currently getting electric power?
Regular utility power is brought on board and distributed on board using modern distribution panels strategically located around the ship. Some historic wiring is used once it has been tested for safe use and modern wiring has been pulled where using historic is inappropriate.
That engine appears to be an early GM or Cleveland. If its an Opposed-Piston then its a Fairbanks-Morse
I was thinking that it could be an F-M 38E5-1/4.
They did make a 3 cylinder unit, and the blower on the end of the engine makes me think F-M versus GM.
It is a General Motors Cleveland 3-268 diesel engine.
did you happen to catch up with the folks from Battle Ship New Jersey?
I've seen many of their videos.
@@tomscotttheolderone364They posted a vid yesterday or a few days ago about the CIS and restoration there. I wish you and Ryan would get together. The 2 of you would make an amazing pair for battleship info.
poor old girl needs dry docking badly.
i hope that one day she'll get all the TLC she need to be in top shape once again.
The plan is for the ship to go to dry dock sometime around May or June this year. The major work will be replacement the outer hull shell plating below the waterline.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I've forgotten; is she still free-floating, or is she sitting on a mud bank? If she's on a mud bank I can see it might be expensive to get her floating enough to get to a drydock.
@@lwilton She floats.
A wonderful video, like all of yours.
When I see the emergency diesel generators located at the very bottom of the ship, I would think they would be extremely vulnerable to being put out of action through flooding of the compartment. Any thoughts? Also, the fuel oil service pumps certainly would be extremely valuable to keep running, but what about the blowers that supply air to the boilers. Without combustion air, pumping fuel oil doesn't accomplish very much.
I believe the general idea was to put safety equipment as far as possible from direct shell damage, which meant putting it low. That of course opened the possibility of flooding, but it was also placed close to the centerline of the ship, so was hopefully unlikely to be in a ruptured compartment in case of torpedo. I'm pretty sure all the hatches in this area would have been dogged down before going into combat, so flooding a nearby compartment should not have automatically flooded the generator room. Which was another reason for operating it remotely -- you may not have been able to get to it after damage.
I don't think the generator compartments are anymore subject to flooding than any other compartments that are below the waterline. The ships were designed to accept the fact that there would be flooding due to damage which is why the hull below the waterline was highly compartmented. In fact, if you look closely at the video, the passage that I initially entered with the valves is divided by a watertight door. Both of the rooms that I entered have watertight doors and there are compartments on the outboard ends of the passage with watertight doors. All of those would be closed during combat so that flooding would be restricted to very small areas as long as a bulkhead or door wasn't ruptured. It is even possible for compartments above them to flood without them flooding.
While the blowers provide forced draft for good steam generation and burning efficiency, you can shut them off and still operate on natural draft, but at much lower steam output. Besides, they are all steam driven by the boilers in the room that they serve.
@@lwilton All of that is true. The main reason for remote start is that those compartments wouldn't be occupied and would be battened down anytime the ship was in action. So, it was the only way the engines could be started.
Well, remember that there are both forward and aft emergency generators. And they are >>emergency
@@ericbowen650 The electric service pumps were obviously considered a critical load, but saying that the generators' primary function was to "jump-start" boilers requires a leap of speculation that I am not willing to make.
Why would they put aux generators in the very bottom of the hull that would be the first area to flood?
Those are actually pretty resistant to flooding. They are in an area well protected from shells and bombs, and are away from the sides and close to the center line of the ship. The hold deck that they are on is also extremely compartmented, so the possibility of flooding is very low.
Two questions:
1) Do you know when the generator was installed?
2) Where does the exhaust pipe run? I was working on a ship from that era (MV Doulos) and worked on a proposal to add a waste incinerator, but that never got implemented. Planning a route for the exhaust pipe was a challenge.
1) Since it had to be installed after any manufacturing date shown on labels, it would have to be sometime after May 1943.
2) I don't know for sure since I have never tried to trace it. Looking through some plans and photos of compartments above it, the exhaust may go up to the next level across a compartment, then up again into a diesel pump room. I thought it may combine with the exhaust from that engine, where the combined lines go into the anchor windlass room next door. From there, it may run with the anchor engine's steam supply and exhaust lines. You can see that room and engine in my video, "Weighing Anchor on Battleship Texas". I thought that maybe the exhaust line may run alongside the steam lines, but when I looked at the compartment above, I only saw steam lines, so that's where I lost track.
The exhaust runs upwards, crosses the ship, goes up into the port side of the wardroom and exhausts through the side of the ship. The exhaust’s water trap (which was in the wardroom) became a massive beehive and we had to remove the water trap and blank the exhaust to keep the bees from coming back.
How the heck did they install that engine? Take it apart and reassemble it in place?
That’s exactly what they did. There are vertical trunks that lead down from forward 14” gun turret handling rooms that are large enough to pass pieces.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 WOW....COOL :-)
You said that the generator/ Deisel components were added later. HOW did they get it down there? Completely disassemble/reassembled in place?
While I have never seen any documentation that addresses this issue, at least partial disassembly then reassembly is the only option that makes sense. It would be extremely difficult and impractical to enlarged deck hatches and cut open decks to accomplish the task.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 If it was done in the 1924 renovation they may well have cut holes through the hull of the ship and hard-patched them before building out the torpedo protection tanks which were added at that time. The 1943 dated nameplate could have been a replacement part or upgraded component which was installed during a maintenance availability.
@@ericbowen650 We do know that emergency generators were installed late in the ship's career, even though we do not have an exact date. We know this because none of the plans indicate a space for them, including the 1937 Booklet of Plans that show the forward compartment to be a provisions store room and the aft the Marines store room. Also, there are other legend plates on major components that generally agree with the 1943 date.
You said the generators provided 120VAC. I believe that normal ships power is 440VAC. Also, some ships power is at 400hz rather than normal 60hz. What are those generators providing?
The ship's four 400kw dynamos and the emergency diesel generators provided 120vdc for ship's power. This wasn't uncommon when Texas was built and there were some good reasons for doing it, even though it was pretty inefficient. One big reason is that d.c. allowed much simpler variable speed and reversing motor controllers. However, there were many systems on board that required ac and/or different voltages, especially with the growth of electronics on board during WWII. In order to feed them, they used motor-generator sets that ran on 120vdc and put out whatever voltage was required. This allowed them to set mg sets close to their intended loads and wire them into the ship's system.
Remember too, the Texas was originally built in 1912 - so the electrical system was not what we typically find in ships built even 20 years later.
Detroit Diesel . Winton Diesel you can tell by the blower
Да охренеть.. я бы там жил месяц, пока все не облазил...
In comparison to the battleship New Jersey, compartments of Texas seem to be much more spacious.
Was the generator ever used in combat?
I am not aware of any documentation that tells us that they did that, but it's easy for me to believe that they may have occasionally used them during WWII. One great advantages of the ship's somewhat archaic 120 volt dc system is that it was very easy to tie the two emergency generators into it to provide extra capacity if they had everything turned on and were running short of power.
Tom, thanks for another terrific video. Question: on the power distribution panel, there didn’t seem to be supply switches for the turrets. In the event of steam generation failure, where did auxiliary power for turret movement come from? Thanks for all your work!
Sorry it took this long to reply. That is a good question that requires a complicated answer. First, there was no auxiliary power for the turrets. The limited amount of emergency power would be desperately needed for critical loads needed for pumps and limited lighting. However, you didn't simply loose steam power unless the ship took so much damage that she would probably be incapable of fighting and most efforts would concentrate on saving her. When preparing for battle, the steam system was set up so that there were two separate mains, one running down each side of the ship. The port side boilers in each of the three boiler rooms fed the port engine and aft generators and the starboard boilers did the same for the starboard engine and forward generators. This meant that a main steam rupture would only affect 1/2 of the engines and power generation. Once the damage was isolated or repaired, they could cut the undamaged sections back into the system. If a hit completely disabled a boiler room, affecting both steam mains, it could be cut out of both systems using valves located outside of the room, thus restoring pressure to both mains at a reduced rate. If this happened, they could also supplement any reduced electrical power with the emergency generators. This would allow power for most, if not all, of the turrets. They actually had written procedures that were studied and rehearsed for all conceivable problems like this, so while it was possible that you could lose all power to the turrets, it was exceptionally unlikely.
Is this a untouched section of the ship? Meaning not restored?
That is correct.
how did they get that diesel engine down there??
In pieces.
Starter should be a delco
How did they ever install that generator
In pieces, moved down through hatches from the main deck, then on trolleys and rails on the 3rd deck to the hatches where they can be lowered to the area I first entered.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 must of been a very big undertaking, be cool to fire it up again
Great presentation made difficult to watch.. Why not invest in relatively inexpensive Gyro for your camera to abate the constant annoying shake..