Tramp Steamer Cruise Range?

[marianas_gamer]

I've been doing some searching on the web trying to determine the historical cruise ranges of steamers to no effect.  So, I figured that I would turn to the accumulated knowledge of the membership.  What would be the range of a steamer with a full coal bunker and the less efficient engines of ca. 1900?  I need to figure out how important coaling will need to be for my Sulawesi/Sarawak game.  Pesky Malay pirates of course do not have these worrys 
LB

[Arlequín]

I can't help on that, other than to point out that wood can also be used for coal powered vessels. It is less efficient, but in plentiful supply for those vessels caught short.

[former user]

well, I can't help You with a reference on such short notice
for a brief idea you might want to check these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#The_Industrial_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat

as a general development, you have to differentiate between:

steamwheelers
screw propelled steamers
turbine propelled steamers
the first two were of course boiler operated

with the emergence of steam turbines around 1900, steam propulsion became very efficient
but also required an enormous amount of coal
as a basic idea, you have to imagine that nowadays small ports had a huge economic importance as refuelling stops (check for example the history of Falklands)
also steam engines require special cleansed water, which is actually far more important than fuel
why so?
without fuel, the fire dies out and the engine stops
with too few water, the low level in the boiler can cause enormous heat differences  in the boilerplate, which very often leads to boiler explosions due to sudden evaporation
(for example, the last boiler explosion occurred in germany 1972, when the crew of a steam loco forgot to refuel water and entered the station. upon braking, the remaining water splashed onto the dry red hot boilerplate and blasted the engine - "luckily", only the crew was injured and no passenger)

this just as an idea for the economy of steam propulsion

thus, steamboats around 1900 are hardly "not so efficient", but are the peak of steam engine concept development. of course there were later refinements, up to nowadays electric generator steamturbines and modern steam locos, but the main jump in steampower efficiency occured at the end of the 19th C with the development of steam turbines

I am not sure what you need this information for, but you can simply interpolate that the refuelling with water and coal was so important, that otherwise unimportant small harbours flourished economically because of the need of steamers to stop by  (coal bunkers, water refinery,ship logistics and repair docks, tourism, trade and transport)

hope this was not useless

[Westfalia Chris]

well, I can't help You with a reference on such short notice
for a brief idea you might want to check these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#The_Industrial_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat

as a general development, you have to differentiate between:

steamwheelers
screw propelled steamers
turbine propelled steamers
the first two were of course boiler operated

To clarify that a bit, what you mean is the difference between turbine and piston engines; all steam-powered vessels (including nuclear-powered ships which are essentially steam-turbine vessels) require boilers for steam production

with the emergence of steam turbines around 1900, steam propulsion became very efficient
but also required an enormous amount of coal
as a basic idea, you have to imagine that nowadays small ports had a huge economic importance as refuelling stops (check for example the history of Falklands)

To be a bit more precise, turbine technology was very expensive and required large spaces to be economically viable; therefore, its use was mainly restricted to large ocean liners and large military vessels, which after ca. 1906 were exclusively constructed as oil-burners. Piston-engines (usually triple expansion type by ca.1914) remained in use for most freighters, which almost never used turbines - speed was not the most essential factor, and ship´s Diesel engines became more efficient for their sizes in the 1920s-1930s.

also steam engines require special cleansed water, which is actually far more important than fuel
why so?
without fuel, the fire dies out and the engine stops
with too few water, the low level in the boiler can cause enormous heat differences  in the boilerplate, which very often leads to boiler explosions due to sudden evaporation
(for example, the last boiler explosion occurred in germany 1972, when the crew of a steam loco forgot to refuel water and entered the station. upon braking, the remaining water splashed onto the dry red hot boilerplate and blasted the engine - "luckily", only the crew was injured and no passenger)

Quite right. That´s why they created the German "TÜV".

thus, steamboats around 1900 are hardly "not so efficient", but are the peak of steam engine concept development. of course there were later refinements, up to nowadays electric generator steamturbines and modern steam locos, but the main jump in steampower efficiency occured at the end of the 19th C with the development of steam turbines

That is generally correct. The triple-expansion piston engine is pretty much the peak of the conventional piston steam engine, turbines being faster and with better energy yield, but far more complex and costly and therefore, as noted above, mainly restricted to warships and ocean passenger liners. Freighters almost completely took the switch from piston engine to Diesel.

I am not sure what you need this information for, but you can simply interpolate that the refuelling with water and coal was so important, that otherwise unimportant small harbours flourished economically because of the need of steamers to stop by  (coal bunkers, water refinery,ship logistics and repair docks, tourism, trade and transport)

I suspect he´s planning a kind of map-based campaign, which are awesome if you get the right people to play them with (which I sadly never found).

My educated guess would be an operative range between 1000 and 3000 nautical miles, depending on the age and size of the vessel, at an average speed of about 10 knots. Less if moving faster; oil-burners would have a better bunker space efficiency and, especially after ca. 1920, should be able to go further at comparable speeds. You could write up an Excel spreadsheet to calculate it.

[former user]

I stand corrected, thank You
as I said, on such short notice and my english terminology is not that good

well I guess the detailed Info Chris gave you should suffice for the time being

@chris, you are very well informed!
don't want to start a competition now since I am not very well informed about ships (and besides, it would be pointless ), but on the use of turbines - think of electric generators for the developing electricity networks and of turbine locos, which were not that infrequent and big
of course they are far more expensive than piston engines and moreover require better material and maintenance
but I would not rule out turbines for "tramp steamers" in general

uups, now I am a little bit irritated, caus I just checked contradicting sources
it seems that maintenance and coal expenditure of steam turbines must be researched more thoroughly

[Burgundavia]

I cannot answer for around 1900, but in 1937 a small, single screw, diesel ship, the MV Lady Rose, sailed across the atlantic. She was the first single screw, diesel vessel to cross that ocean and she isn't very big, 100ft long:


You can read more at http://www.ladyrosemarine.com/

[former user]

yes, but that's a different thing
it runs on diesel, and diesel has a different energy yield, so you can take more with you

[marianas_gamer]

Thanks Guys!  Lots of great information here.  I knew that someone on the forum could push me in the right direction.  I think that I can generally model the use of coal now.  Also, even though I "knew" that wood can be used I hadn't really considered it.  I can see a good game or two where the crew is forced to collect wood only to discover that the trees are already owned by various now hostile tribes or even worse have cut down a sacred grove!
LB

[former user]

wood was used only in emergency
wood stains the firebox, the smokebox and vent pipes in the boiler
but is was used when coal was not available

say - "uups capt'n we're running out of coal, let's stop at that coast forrest and chop down some trees"

[Westfalia Chris]

River steamers in areas with poor logistics/infrastructure (read, the North American river systems in the 19th century and most colonies in Africa) would generally run on wood since it was cheap and fuel efficiency was not the most important factor. Similar thing with the U.S. and Canadian railways, whose locos were in most cases wood-burners anywhere beyond the Eastern Seaboard.

[former user]

really?
all times and everywhere beyound east coast?
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=76340&PartnerID=107&LegitCheckError=1

surprises me a little bit

[Westfalia Chris]

Please note that I said "generally", not "exclusively".

In the period between ca. 1820 and 1860, the main means of long-range transport for the areas bordering the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio rivers was the riverboat. These usually ran on wood, because it could be locally chopped and prepared, whereas coal would have had to be transported in from the Alleghenys. The steamers were surpassed by the railways after the Civil War, but remained on duty until lines had been built.

The first East Coast railways ran on wood, too, but since there already were established communities and roads, it was easier to create coal depots for the locomotives; coastal cities could be supplied with coal by ship, and ocean-going ships would use coal from the start. In Europe, in contrast, locomotives alsmost exclusively burnt coal, since it was available in many places and the short distances meant it could be transported to depots with less effort than would be the case in the U.S. Around the time the riverboat was superceded by the railway, many railways in "civilized" areas (i.e. excluding the cross-continental lines) also changed to coal due to its better properties. and because it could now be economically supplied.

In the colonies, the problem of coal supply was exacerbated due to the almost total lack of transport lines except rivers. Riverboats in the early years (up to, say, 1890) would burn wood since it was readily available. On the other hand, colonial railways built after the original narrow-gauge era were constructed with coal depots from the start, since by then, very efficient (for this kind of operations) locos were technically feasible and economical. This was, of course, much easier in colonies which had ample access to coal deposits.

An interesting eample on the problems associated with coal-powered oceangoing vessels was the voyage of the Russian Baltic Fleet to the Chinese Sea theater of operations in the 1904 Russo-Japanese war. This was the first time that coaling (i.e. transferring coal from "coaler" supply ships to the naval vessels) was done off-shore, since a Portuguese (IIRC) official would not allow the Russian fleet to berth in Portuguese colonial waters. IIRC, the fleet took two stops re-coaling, one off the west coast of Africa, one off the east coast, then sailed across the Indian ocean to meet their doom at Tsushima.

[former user]

woahh complicated - but they did not need any for the trip back, so   

sorry, I was referring to railways, not to riverboats or ships
I should be more precise

ships are rather not my cup of tea
what I read is that during RCW, coal became sparse, and they started to use wood
an interesting story is that the czech legion traded Kolchak for some coal waggons and some part of the Tsar's Gold - if this is true

[Westfalia Chris]

woahh complicated - but they did not need any for the trip back, so   

Ouch! X-D

sorry, I was referring to railways, not to riverboats or ships
I should be more precise

You surely know those locos always associated with the old west, the 4-4-0 "American"? Almost all series of those used wood as fuel; some were converted to coal later on, but since the more effective (yet more complex as well) Moguls (2-6-0), Atlantics (4-4-2), Ten-wheelers (4-6-0) and Pacifics (4-6-2) became available to pull freight and passenger trains, many railway companies switched over to those (although other types of locos were also used).

what I read is that during RCW, coal became sparse, and they started to use wood

That would be an emergency measure, as you quite correctly pointed out. Interestingly enough, in WW2, a considerable number of lorries/trucks were converted to carry Imbert devices, which transformed wood into a combustible gas used to power a special engine (the system was called "Holzvergaser" in German).

[former user]

yes, I know, "holzgas"
and coal was hydrated to fuel

and yes, the "OLD WEST" locos  (don't know, old west is for me before 1865??)...
I even have this funnel extension  (spark catcher?) for one of my locos

and many types of coal were used

we should not degenerate this thread to our private Wikipedia 
however, we are "scratching" around the topic 
poor @marianas gamer simply wanted to plot coaling stops

I took interest in this detail when I read about the "glorious" past of the Falklands
and understood why the Brits could be interested in that godforgotten spot
my best friend owns a scrathbuilt paddle steamer, I should persuade him to post a picture