D.Q., M.Q. Boilers

New DQ boilers

Fred, several years ago Chief Dennis Shenk had developed a plan for new DQ boilers which would have been very efficient, and as you said, costly up front but worth it over the long haul. He got nowhere with his plan, what a surprise!

Chief Dennis had a wealth of good ideas. Alas, no one in power seemed to listen. He once told me that he often felt like a dog barking at the wind.

That will always be the problem.

If you don't own one of these boats ideas are just useless banter. The people who own our beloved boats could care less about them or us. All they care about them is how much money they can get out of them and us. The MQ & DQ didn't meet the standards they wanted, this is why they wound up being pulled off the rivers. I feel their spirits cursed thw company due to "boat abuse".

I ran the LST 325 on a short trip from Evansville to Mt. Vernon, Indiana about a month ago and we had several Coast Guardsmen from around the country doing a walk through aboard the LST on what they are calling a "Vintage Vessel Inspection Tour". They are doing inspections of vintage vessels around the country that carry passengers.

Anyhow, I was talking with the lead inspector, he was from Washington, DC (I'm not going to mention his name), and I said, "speaking of vintage vessels, how about the Delta Queen?" He said he was very familiar with the DQ and had actually written a report to Congress about her. We got into a fairly lengthy discussion about the boat and he said he was very impressed with her maintenance when he was aboard a couple of years ago and that her wooden superstructure wasn't really his concern. His concern was the antiquated boilers. He was talking about an inspection he had done on an old steamship on the East coast and how the crew (mostly older volunteers) all seemed older and broken down while the ship was docked, but when they fired up the steam plant the next day, they all seemed about 20 years younger. He even spoke of the need to preserve this type of history.

I mentioned my idea of running the boat during daylight hours, tying up at night and allowing passengers to stay aboard, and he said with at least one new boiler, he didn't see any reason why that wouldn't be possible. Without saying it directly, he even sounded like he would be in favor of a full exemption if the boilers were updated.

Take it for what it's worth, but I think if someone was willing to spend some money and really try to work with the Coast Guard, the CG would be willing to bend some also.

There may be hope....

John

Boilers vs Wood

John,

You hit the nail on the head. I have never read a CGHQ report on the DQ, but I would have guessed that her boilers were the big hang up. The DQ can be saved and it will take new boilers and that equals $.

I have been asked quite a few times about the cost of replacing the DQ's boilers. My very first reaction is to ask if there is an "off the shelf" boiler available in the same configuration as the DQ's? I searched...the DQ's boilers are a tad unique in todays setting, the are very long, very narrow with TWO burners in the long sides, i.e. two boilers , four burners. So no, there is no premade boilers like the boiler that was replaced in the Natchez.

Which is a problem...every boiler I'm aware of is long and narrow with the burner at the short end, but appears 'fatter' than the DQ's boilers. Could the DQ be retrofitted to accept a custom made boiler with the burner on the end? Probably, but the confines of the DQ would probably dictate custom made boiler(s) anyways, very narrow, and there is the rub...$$$.

If anything is to happen, Number 6 fuel oil, better known as "Bunker C" is a fuel any company that owned the boat should RUN away from. It's dirty, VERY dirty, requires preheating just to flow which makes for a VERY interesting start-up procedure, was the reason for the tremendous amount of soot on the deck, and the EPA severely frowns upon using it...and why not use Number 2 oil anyways, MUCH cleaner firing and MUCH more readily available, doesn't require preheating to flow which allows for an easy 'cold start' and the boat has number 2 tankage already to fire the generators, all you would need to do is expand the tankage...also, Number 6 was a little difficult to find, which hindered operations...

The boilers will have to be semi-custom, they will have to be brought inside the boat in pieces, assembled , then tested via ASME testing to provide 200 PSI steam. I've done a couple of big boilers lately, 2000 hp, 200psi, natural gas was $950000 FOB, no installation costs. Say two custom Number two fuel oil boilers, say 750 HP apiece (per my friend Dennis, RIP), with auto oxygen trim fuel management, plus cut out and removal of the old ones, but NO asbestos in this cost... VERY rough estimate, I'm thinking a cool $4 mill oughta cover it...maybe 3 if the climate and stars were right...

Bruno: The only reasons I know that No.6 Oil was and mebbe still is used was the fact that it was, at one time at least, much cheaper and has more energy per gallon/pound than No.2 oil. We burned it for probably three quarters of a century and did NOT have a soot problem. If we had, the EPA would have been on us like a duck on a June bug. They would have been lucky to get there before management fired the fireman for not maintaining a clean (economical) fire! That soot (and smoke) represents wasted money. As it was the EPA did get on us for using it, but not because of soot, but the fact that No.6 has more sulfur in it than the legal limit (at least our sources did). So we ended up getting a blend of No.2 and No.6 which we called No.4. No.6 (same as Bunker C) is still-bottoms with the light ends driven off and very viscous at room temperatures and it IS very messy to handle but, as in most things, economics was and likely still is the driving force. Start up was no serious problem to us since we were never off line long enough for the stuff to cool off and solidify in our lines. We were 24/7/52 folks and ANY outage was a five-alarm affair in a full-court press! I have no idea what the current economics might be but suspect that with the demise of steam ship/boats, No.6 is becoming hard to get. I suppose that they can 'crack' the still bottoms into gasoline and such and don't have to sell it off as a by-product like they once did but cracking it would take more energy and time. I've been out of the loop for a full decade now so things may be much different. Cap'n Walnut

Y'all, I'm not going to go into refining in a big way, but here's what's happening now with heavy oils: sometimes, they take asphalt and blend it with lighter stock to make #6 Oil. A lot of this they ship overseas to (can you guess?) China. On the other end of the spectrum, they are, as a whole, making less in the way of bottom products since they can crack more out of it. Many refiners are going with cokers which allow them to get all the liquids out leaving petroleum coke as a residue. They usually sell this, but I am told that even if they take it to the dump, the money they make getting the lighter ends out makes up for any loss on the bottom stuff.

It is all driven by economics. If they can make money on it, they'll make it and sell it. If not, they'll do something else.

Are you suggesting water tube or fire tube?

Bruno is the one to answer this. My experience is only with water tube boilers from forty pounds of steam (water weight) up to a half-million pounds per hour size...burning primarily pulverized coal with oil back up on the biggie; propane only on the little one. I like the safety of water tube boilers and we had efficiency in the low 90s % on the biggie; mebbe 60% on MISSIE. Bruno will know what can be had commercially. All of "mine" were custom built by Riley Steam Boiler, Babcock and Wilcox and Perkins. What Bob sez about No.6 oil makes sense...I'm long out of the loop. Cap'n Walnut.

HI all,
Water Tube boilers are inherently safer than fire tube boilers. They can also be made very efficient. Many "package boilers" sold today are actually steam generators; units that create steam on demand. I'm old school and think that boilers with reserve capacity are more useful in situations where the steam demand can fluctuate quickly. Consider this: the wheel is in full forward, and suddenly a change is required (snag ahead, etc.) so the engines are stopped and put in slow reverse. Very sudden changes in steam demand. Add to this someone deciding to play a big cord on the calliope, creating more variations on steam demand. One reason the boilers on the DQ have lasted so long is that they were way overrated for the use they were put to (originally built for some military ships at much higher pressures). Overbuilt gives longer life. If the boilers need to be changed out, I do hope that the new ones are also overbuilt, so they can last a long time. She deserves such care!
I would imagine that new boilers would also mean a modern "fire room" which will also contribute to fire safety--something the CG would like!
S'
David D.

Possible but is it probable?

I was on her today and listened in on a tour that was going on while cleaning one of the models sent to the hotel, when the person giving the tour gave the asking price for the Delta Queen 10 milion. With this in mind and looking at the woodwork needing done and the boiler work and dollars being tossed around here, make me wonder if she won't become a forever hotel. There are so many unanwerable questions right now in this critical time. the more seh stays here the more likely she will not leave here. She has many water leaks and some of the paneling is showing water damage. I see the work needing done yet I will be the first to admit I know little to nothing about how these boats operate. Only what I have learned from your alls posts and reading history about the boats. It seem the boiler systems are not to differant from the heating systems in northern homes and here in Tennessee. My family used to do boiler heat work on many home in Kingsport until they were replaced with modern heating systems. The boilers were very cheap to operate but with oil prices put them into decline for electric. Wouldn't a good plumber be able to work on these boilers cheaper? I will explore this more at a later time. It may be that the systems are more differant than I understand. So much to learn. Please excuse my ignorance. I will eventually catch on.

Firetube boilers for the DQ are not an option as there isn't room to install them, PLUS the added issue that firetube boilers are not 'assembled' in place. Firetube boilers in the 750 horsepower range are pretty big mamas, and I see no way of getting them inside the DQ without rude alterations. I have seen the pictures of the Natchez's boiler being replaced and the hole required was huge. The beauties of a watertube that really apply here is that you can make it any shape you want as long as you have the $$$, and with a lot of grunt work, can assemble it in place.. A firetube can only be a big round tank that gets fatter and longer the more power you need outa it.

I disagree with my friend David, history doesn't really prove out that watertubes are safer than firetubes. There are more accidents with firetubes because there are a bazzilion more firetubes out there. Steamships/steamboats were mostly watertubes but I can think of a few that had (and in the case of the Natchez HAS) firetubes, i.e. the boiler room of the Titanic is an impressive display of firetubes. Also the efficiency of a boiler is TOTALLY dependent on the amount of heat transfer surface and how cool you are willing to allow the flue gases to become. As the boiler is allowed to become more efficient, more exotic metals like stainless steel, are required. With an economizer and allowing for flue gas recirculation, 84% efficiency is easy to get with Number 2, 88% on natural gas but that doesn't apply here. Anything more efficient than that on oil is a bit of a bear...

OK, at the risk of being flamed ad nauseum, I'm going to throw this out for discussion. I can hear my buddy in California weeping...

Why replace the boilers? Why not replace the method of propulsion? Yes, it's an obscene dream for the DQ for some, but think about it. Would you be willing to give up the paddlewheel to have our beloved girl moving on the rivers again?

This IS ugly, but I'm thinking the Coast Guard would really like this idea. I'm thinking 5 Mercury Verado outboards at 300 hp each. The reliability is there, the 'back-up' redundancy is there, maneuverability is WAY improved, and replacement is a snap. And frankly I can get a higher efficiency outa a four stroke than I can get outa the paddlewheel...

and the decks will stay cleaner 🙂

And it's very, very cheap...like $500000 cheap

I won't flame you, I'll just say "no", pure and simple.

Ed, a good plumber might be able to work on them cheaper. However, the U.S. Coast Guard dictates almost everything to do with operating a steamboat, from inspecting and approving plans, to supervising the actual work as it progresses to examining and licensing the operating crew. This is really not government intrusion, it is a direct result of past (as in 19th century) boiler explosions, sinkings, etc. with great loss of life. The USCG may seem a bit stringent to some of us sometimes, but believe me, if they weren't there, greedy owners would take every advantage to maximize profits, damage the environment, etc., with little to no regard for safety, the "public" be damned!

So, in answer to your question, certified boilers built to certain specifications installed and operated by licensed personnel are what would be required.

Changing ideas.

As far as alternative power, why not a nice natural gas or bio-diesel conversion? One way that would be very green and eventually make the boat almost free to operate is solar power. This way she can remain steam powered. All good alternatives, and make the boat more eco-friendly. The most important point to these power methods is that she can keep her paddlewheel.

Now You're Thinking!

Thanks Bruno-- I needed a chuckle this morning. You made my day start out just right. But would you, the purist steamboat buff you seem to be, ride the boat in such a configuration? The paddlewheel buckets in the water would have to be removed, and 99.375% of the people riding the Queen would never know the difference. Actually, I have taken a replica of a 1792 flatboat, the ADVENTURE GALLEY II, to New Orleans with outboard motors hidden under the stern rake, and it was quite effective. With your idea in place, the old boiler room could be turned into additional crew space, or with the installation of watertight windows, become the 'Submarine Room Bar'. I like it.

On a more serious note ....
Ed reported: "She has many water leaks and some of the paneling is showing water damage."
Water is the worst enemy of a boat if it is entering from above. More boats rust or rot away from water coming from above than from below. If the DELTA QUEEN is leaking from the roof or the decks, this MUST be repaired before the damage becomes extensive, and such leaks can usually be repaired relatively easy and inexpensively. What Ed has disclosed is a real problem that we can actually do something about to help Save the DELTA QUEEN.

Capt, no pun intended! There is no way I would prefer to have the DQ sans-paddlewheel...

But we all need to get a grip...my idea works and I can see the CG smiling all the way up here in New York...

We can handle the calliope, AND the whistle. Frankly, I don't give a rats if the paddlewheel is making rainbows, actually I do, a bit, but I'll give that up in a New York minute if the boat will take me from Pittsburgh to Memphis again...really do we FRN's care? This one doesn't, witness how many non-steam cruises me and Deb have taken since the Grande Silencing...and there have been a bunch of us ex-DQ officianos cruising with us since the boat was 'silenced' in Chattanooga cruising sans-steam...And, guess what, we're still going to cruise together in the future, all of the cruises booked are non-steam (though at least one is generator/electric/chain paddlewheel). Which leads me to ponder...is it the boat? Is it the infamous steam? Or is it the river?

I'm not about to split hairs here, on whether steam is the way to go. Was the River Explorer a non-solution? I'm thinking no...

And Capt, think of the possibilities... Two Verados in reverse, three in forward, with the bow thruster boogying, turn on a dime!

I think it would take more than 5. Fifty maybe?

Bob: I'm sure you are correct. I don't know the details on the river (CG) but in Ohio we had a cadre of certified welders working for us and we were NOT allowed to weld on ANY pressure vessel other than piping. After the first flange on any nozzle of the boiler shell we were good to go, but the vessel itself required a special code stamp. We employed Hohnhorst in Cincinnati and sometimes others to do that work. Most boiler tubes are rolled in requiring special tools to do so. Plus the finished work must be subjected to a witnessed hydraulic test to 1.5x (sometimes 2x or 2.5x) the working pressure. While my little steamers do not legally require it, I so test them every spring before putting them in service and LOG IN THE RESULTS. Cap'n Walnut.

River, Aye

Which leads me to ponder...is it the boat? Is it the infamous steam? Or is it the river?

Given Bruno's choices to ponder, I, personally, would choose "the river" without hesitation. First I love the river, then I love boats of any and all descriptions; last, though not least, I am a steamboatman, and there's nothing finer than the smells, sounds, and that indescribable feeling of a good ole steamboat under foot.

Among the greatest times, personally, I ever had on the river was hitching rides on ancient, bug-infested, lazy 'blue logs' slowly making their way to the sea, some two-thousand miles downstream. Had I been on a fire-breathing cotton queen with Mark Twain at the helm, I could not have been more satisfied. But, if I hadn't been out there on that log drifting down the Licking River, I would have been over on the riverbank 'looking at the river' and dreaming of an old log, and wishing one was a’ coming in sight so I could swim out and climb aboard with the green beetles and other wood-boring critters that also enjoyed a ride to the sea aboard such a noble craft.

Reality now mandates that "infamous steam" has, for the exception of a couple of stalwart steamboats, passed into history with the rest of its era of origin, but "the river" will always be there. The greatest trip, ever, down "the river" was aboard a log raft that started this whole nostalgic yearning for Tom, Huck and Jim, Mark Twain, steamboats, and the Mississippi River. Without that raft ride, none of us would be gathered around these pages, today. It is the draw of the river and the eternal curiosity to see what is around the next bend that originally spawned the rest of Mr. B's choices and will continue to do so as long as rivers flow.
.

It is the river, I agree. But as has been discussed on this board before, the DELTA QUEEN is something else entirely, and a very, very special boat. I love being on the river on towboats, but it is not the same as being on the DQ whether a passenger or crew member.

And the Delta Queen without steam, or the paddle wheel is NOT the Delta Queen.
That is not the way to put her back on the river. If all you want is a boat to go up and down the river, get a modern old-fashioned looking one.
If this economic situation does not improve, I will never likely be able to go on a cruise anyways.
It is obvious to me that the DQ will not run again without many $$$ spent on her. Who in this "new world" has that kind of money to gamble with?
Apparently the MQ could have been purchased for under one million, a lot less money than any other riverboat around, that I'm aware of. Yes, she needed/needs lots of work, but that price should have left lots for the rebuild for a new owner's investment.
These are sad times indeed.
S'
David D.