OIL FUEL ON OCEAN LINERS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 336, 24 June 1911, Page 9

OIL FUEL ON OCEAN LINERS.

ITS GREAT ADVANTAGES. Among the frequent studies which have been made of the problem and the many eulogistic articles which have been written in favor of oil fuel, one of the best is | an editorial in a recent issue of the Steamship, which brielly summarises the advantages of oil firing as follows: "(Steady steam pressure; au absence .of dirty fires, and no nccensity for cleaning fires' (which last, ■beeau.se. of the opening of fire doors and cooling off of furnaces, is estimated to cause a loss of \i l /-i | ,M cent, of steam on a seven-day voyage, willi a corresponding loss of speed); reduction for coal, and a great reduction in the number of stokers., It is pointed out that portions of a ship which are ■now useless for coal Dunkers, because of their narrowness or inaccessible positions, are always available for the storage of oil fuel. The double-bottom may be thus used, and the trim of the ship may be preserved by admitting sea water to the emptied oil tanks. The objectionable list to port or starboard, due to using more coal from one side of the ship than the other, is avoided; a steam pump serving to transfer oil fuel from side to side at a moment's call. Mow, in view of the many above advantages, it may be asked why the leading Atlantie steamship lines have not adopted oil fuel. The delay is due. to the fact that these \ ships were built in the "coal age," and that, coupled with the prejudice, due largely to ignorance, of shipowners against oil fuel there has been the financial objection to the cost of making the necessary changes in the bunkers. As a matter of fact, the advantages of oil firing, if applied to the fast trans-Atlan-tic liners, would be so great and so quickly realised that we look for its early introduction. Our contemporary makes a study of conditions on the Mauretania and Lusitauia, wliich shows, in a very striking way, what oil fuel could do for these great, ships. The average consumption at a sea speed of 25 knots is 5500 tons of coal for a single voyage, or 11,000 tons for the round trip. If oil were used, 3300 tons could be stored in the double bottom of the ship, leaving the coal hunkers for cargo. It is esti-' mated that COO tons ol oil would do, in 24 hours, the work now accomplished by 1000 tons of coal; and this would represent a saving of about 2000 tons of I luel on ihe five-day single voyage, or of | 4000 tons on the round trip. If the vacant bunker space, or its equivalent, in a ship of similar size and speed, were utilised for .freight at, say, £1 per. ton, the earning capacity of the ship would be greatly increased.' Of the 312 firemen and coal trimmers now carried on the Mauritania, 255 could he sent ashore and used in handling the extra cargo that would be carried. In place of 312 firemen, it is estimated that 27 greasers would be sullieient to attend to the oil burners and to the water teed of the boilers. By alterations of the accommodation now reserved for tne 28a firemen and trimmers, it is estimated that at least 200 third-class passengers additional could be carried at about X.n per passenger. An estimate of the total economies show that the increased earning, capacity of the Mauretania on a round voyage from Liverpool to New York and back, would be about £12,500. Lastly, on the important question of speed, it is argued that since 32 fires out of 102 furnaces in the boiler rooms of the Mauretania are cleaned everv four hours, some 10,000 out of 70,000' horse-power must he lost through that disturbance of the fires and the cooling-ofl of the furnaces which is inseparable from cleaning —all of which is avoided under oil firing. Our contemporary believes that the use of oil fuel would reduce the time of the voyage between Queenstown and New York by from eight to ten hours. If so, the Mauretania might be able to make the voyage in an even four days.