1905/1950 USACE Tugboat/1944 US Army Tugboat.

[saddamsnightmare]

March 5th, 2014. (See post No. 6 below for the requested photographs)


Gents:

Not saying that its going to happen, but...... Depending on where my next posting is likely going to be, would either a 1905/1950 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Diesel Tugboat, or a 1944 built ex U.S.Army "ST" diesel tugboat qualify as a military vehicle for purposes of a forum slot on here?
I figure the only way I am going to catch up to Fleet Admiral Kenny is to get a fleet, er, a vessel, with military provenance in its history. The WWII vessel was fairly elegant for a design intended to last 5 years, and the 1905 vessel has much longer more elegant hull lines in keeping with the fact that it was a steam tugboat originally built in the Northeast.
One uses an EMD 16-567 diesel, the other an EMD 8-567 diesel, both familiar to most railroaders as road-switcher or switcher power-plants, the 567 is the Cubic Inch Displacement of each cylinder with one being about 1600 and the other 800 HP. The WWII vessel seems most intact in the interior as regards fittings and woodwork, the older vessel less so, as no doubt it underwent major modification in the conversion from steam to diesel. Still, amazing when you think that the older vessel was already 2 or 3 years old when the Titanic met up with the iceberg.

Let's hope I end up somewhere warm and near the coast so that I can push us into a marine forum, as you all do seem to be resistant to a military railroad one......

 

[dmetalmiki]

Some pictures would have been nice...how many cylinders do those engines have?..(and) I sp'ose a gallon of fuel won't last too long!

 

[Capt Pat]

Speaking from experience, you're right, the gallon isn't a normal measure of fuel on tugs like that. Also pictures or at least names/hull numbers would be nice. Being a tug captain now by trade and having retired from the Corps of Engineers two years ago, a number of the older tugs I "drove" have moved on to other things like the old tug "Washington" LT 1944 built on Long Island. The ST's were nice boats too, some sort of "smallish" when it came to engineering spaces but they were designed to be shipped in three sections to a theater of operations and assembled there for port rehabilitation.
The steam tugs are nice boats, can be "witches" in a quartering or beam sea and some times a following sea really can get ugly due to their being so narrow, but they're heavy built and have true classic style even when torn up inside. Personally, I like hearing about old military vessels on here, but I'm just one person. They were and are a fact of life. Anybody who served overseas in any war or era that thinks the US Navy supplied them with the "stuff" they used, be it fuel for the vehicle, bullits for the weapon or chow is gravely mistaken. The Merchant Marine did and still does and they used these historic ships and boats. It may have been called Army Transport Service or Military Sea Transport Service or the Military Sealift Command, but they were civil crewed. One of my M-725's served in Germany, went there and came back onboard a ship, though coming home it wasn't cared for as well as when it went.

 

[Artisan]

Is it made out of steel and was in ever enlisted? SOLD.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

March 6th, 2014.

Gents:

Currently the ex USACE vessel is for sale in South Carolina where she is in daily use, and the two Houston built boats, both 1944, one is in New Brunswick and one is I believe in New York. See "Scruton Marine Services' then "Tugboats", you will find the older boats are quite reasonable.

I will see if I can Copy out the entries here below for two of them. When we refer to EMD (GM) locomotive engines, they can be 567', 645's or 710's. Generally the cylinders are designated before or immediately after the displacement (model) number, so a 16-567 or an 8-567 are 16 or 8 cylinders, and in these units, normally aspirated with a Roots blower to create an air charge to help evacuate and recharge the cylinders (2 cycle diesels). The normal power calculation for a 567 Normally Aspirated EMD (GM) diesel works out to approximately 100 HP per cylinder for traction or propulsion power, a turbocharged 567 will of course run higher, with a 16-567 T reaching about 2250 total HP for traction or propulsion.

My preference would have been a diesel electric drive due to the controllability factors in maneuvering, but the diesel mechanicals through clutches have their points, provided that the clutches respond in a timely manner. If they don't, life can get fairly hairy fairly fast.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

March 6th, 2014.

Gents:


See photos below. Note the first tugboats black, buff and white paint scheme, very likely left over from the 1950's US Army Corps of Engineers days.

http://www.scrutonmarine.com/


File No. T2312
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
1909/1950 98' x 22' x 10.3' Steel Model Bow Tug
Gross tonnage: 149 tons
Net tonnage: 80 tons
Registered length: 91.7'
Overall length: 98'
Built in 1909 in Quincy, Mass for Army Corp of Engineers
Rebuilt in 1950
Engine: EMD 16-567 engine - 1660 hp
Gear: Falk 2.5:1 ratio
Air controls
4-71 GM 40 KW 110/220 3 phase genset
2-71 GM 20 KW 110/220 3 phase genset
2 air compressors
Crew's quarters: 2 bunks
Engineer's quarters: 1 bunk
Captain's quarters:2 bunks
Electronics: 3 VHF radios, GPS, 2 radars
All required fire safety equipment
Air conditioning
Vessel operating daily
Located in South Carolina



File No. T2220
<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[endif]-->
1944 82’ x 23’ x 8’ 800 hp Steel Coastwise Towing Vessel
Built in Houston, Texas in 1944 – built as a military tug with limited service
Gross tons: 145
Net tons: 96
Engine: Single GM EMD 8-567 c/w 2.5:1 reduction gear - 800 hp
Engine hours: 500 hrs
Fuel Capacity: Two 4,000 gallon steel fuel tanks
Generator: New John Deere Genset
Electronics: Davis Weather Wizard III, Standard Horizon Infinity VHF radio
Uniden MC535 VHF radio, Garmin 120 GPS, Furuno 8030D radar,
Mariner Intech V118VHF radio, 8” Kelvin White compass,
Radio Shack cellular telephone, Henschel rudder angle indicator

The WWII Army tugs of the design of the lower tugboat are always spotted by the curved wall or bulkhead right behind the pilot house, very stylish for a Military design, don't you think? I must say I am never thrilled with the added auxiliary pilot house on top of the regular one, but that indicates that it was handling tall barges late in its carrier. There is also a WWII Navy tug on Ms.Scruton's site, much like the "Hoga" which is at Saisun Bay.



I will see if I can Copy out the entries here below for two of them. When we refer to EMD (GM) locomotive engines, they can be 567', 645's or 710's. Generally the cylinders are designated before or immediately after the displacement (model) number, so a 16-567 or an 8-567 are 16 or 8 cylinders, and in these units, normally aspirated with a Roots blower to create an air charge to help evacuate and recharge the cylinders (2 cycle diesels). My preference would have been a diesel electric drive due to the controllability factors in maneuvering, but the diesel mechanicals through clutches have their points, provided that the clutches respond in a timely manner.

They are not too expensive to purchase, just a pit to maintain. Most EMD 567's are being upgraded to use the EMD 645 series power assemblies on the original crank and crankcase, with the governors being set back to reflect the increased power output.

Fuel consumption? Likely 30-45 GPH at working loads!

 

[mhassett]

Good enough for me.
I am a Marine Engineer anyway.
MHassett

 

[mhassett]

I have to have picture though.
MHassett

 

[saddamsnightmare]

March 7th, 2014.

Mhassett:

Try the links in Post number six below each file number. They should appear in yellow. If that doesn't work, I'll try to come up with a solution for you.

Have a Good Evening!

 

[Capt Pat]

Thanks for the effort and the pictures. Brings back memories. Wouldn't want to sail the "ST" from that elevated house in any kind of slop. We had one in Buffalo, the "Stanley". Last Corps tug I worked was the "Cheraw", an ex-Navy YTB out of Charleston SC now in Cleveland, Ohio. One of the 'Buffalo" boats is a museum ship not in Oswego, NY under her old Army name, the "Hensen", she served during the Normandy Invasion with the artificial harbors. She has an important date coming up, the 70th of D-Day. She has a German fighter to her credit too. She was a bit bigger and a better seaboat too.
Again, Thanks.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

March 8th, 2014.

Capt. Pat:

You can bet with no fear that should I end up with the "ST" that the auxiliary pilothouse is going to get scrapped. I understand that a lot of these tugboats got so modified to handle "notched" barges, and it raised the pilot's eyes enough to see over the barges somewhat. Depending on where my next posting is going to be, the tugboat may get a chance to run the upper Ohio River, and on the Monongahela that pilot house would forbid the vessel to clear a lot of older highway bridges. It would be worth it to see the reaction of the conventional towboat captains to something with a pointed, instead of a barge bow...
I almost bought the "Cornell" of the Lehigh Valley before I moved to Texas, which quashed that scheme, and she had a lower pilot house then her other sisters to get up the Haarlem River without forcing the drawbridges to open. I find it interesting how they push a conventional square stern barge with her, but I have learned something about line placements that are much different from towboat usage. The "ST" is not hugely different in beam from the USACE vessel, but I would suppose with a slightly narrower beam and longer hull the older tug should do a little better as to speed or at least reduced fuel consumption at lower throttle settings. My curiosity in the matter will be can the clutches and throttle be controlled from the pilothouse, as the diesel electrics routinely shift throttle and reverser functions to the bridge once the power-plant is placed on line.
A lot of the older boats were "Bell" boats, and that would not be of much use for my purposes is either of these suffer from that set up. The steam boats were always set up as bell boats (for an obvious reason), but some of the older Army "ST"s with Fairbanks Morse engines seemed to retain the engineer handling the throttle right to the end.

I've got to get to work, but permit me to wish you gentleman a very Good Weekend!

 

[saddamsnightmare]

March 8th, 2014.


Capt. Pat:

You can bet with no fear of losing, that should I end up with the "ST" that the auxiliary pilothouse is going to get scrapped. I understand that a lot of these tugboats got so modified to handle "notched" barges, and it raised the pilot's eyes enough to see over the barges somewhat. Depending on where my next posting is going to be, the tugboat may get a chance to run the upper Ohio River, and on the Monongahela that pilot house would forbid the vessel to clear a lot of older highway bridges. It would be worth it to see the reaction of the conventional towboat captains to something with a pointed, instead of a barge bow...
I almost bought the "Cornell" of the Lehigh Valley before I moved to Texas, which quashed that scheme, and she had a lower pilot house then her other sisters to get up the Haarlem River without forcing the drawbridges to open. I find it interesting how they push a conventional square stern barge with her, but I have learned something about line placements that are much different from towboat usage. The "ST" is not hugely different in beam from the USACE vessel, but I would suppose with a slightly narrower beam and longer hull the older tug should do a little better as to speed or at least reduced fuel consumption at lower throttle settings. My curiosity in the matter will be can the clutches and throttle be controlled from the pilothouse, as the diesel electrics routinely shift throttle and reverser functions to the bridge once the power-plant is placed on line.
A lot of the older boats were "Bell" boats, and that would not be of much use for my purposes is either of these suffer from that set up. The steam boats were always set up as bell boats (for an obvious reason), but some of the older Army "ST"s with Fairbanks Morse engines seemed to retain the engineer handling the throttle right to the end.


Of course, one should not count ones ducks, er, tugboats, before the PCS occurs. It should make an interesting forum in the event that it happens.

I've got to get to work, but permit me to wish you gentleman a very Good Weekend!