DQ hull question

Capt. Mike Williams put together a video of the process and offered to have the gift shop sell it. They turned him down. Perhaps he would be willing to share some photos with you via email.

Thanks Judy! I appreciate the info.

Please forgive a "newbie" question here, but What were the reasons for the new hull & why does it appear to have vertical "flanges" sticking out along the sides? I've only seen her in pics. so maybe I'm seeing something else?
I know the bow shape isn't as "pretty" as the original--but then there are differences between California boat hull designs and Mississippi River hulls & just what "pretty" is! 🙂 (and I'm from Calyfornia, as our Gov. calls it).
S'
David D.

Hopefully someone with more technical info can post about the hull, but two main reasons for putting this new ugly one over the old one, rather than replacing it: they now have much more storage space for fuel and potable water - they used to have to fuel every 7 days or so. Now I think its more like every 3 weeks. Back in my riding days, you couldn't drink the tap water, and the toilet water reflected the muddiness of the river. Now I guess they have enough space to use potable water everywhere. The second purpose of this hull was to raise the wheel out of the water more, it had been dipping too low. As to your other query, I don't have a clue. This new hull raised her up out of the water about 4 feet I think. Her previous height was 52'10" with everything lowered and I think she is now close to 57'.

David,
Boats, like people, get heavier as they age. It happens in tiny and unremarkable increments - a new front is installed on the bar; another coat of paint is added; the engineer's collection of tools and spare parts grows; radar is added; a new and wider stage is built; air conditioning is installed; the list is endless and no one of them seems to make any difference. The cumulative effect is to make a boat have a deeper draft, get slower, handling traits change, and so on.
The Delta Queen was a victim of all of these. Never a good handler, the weight caused the wheel to be too low and the entire hull to go out of trim. The new hull corrected the weight problems, but made her harder to handle than ever. Mistakes were made in the new stern rake shape and the size and number of rudders. She is easy to steer in open, deep (20 feet, or so) water and will hold to a line all day, but at a landing she is a sick dog to manage. Pilots and engineers are obliged to deal with this by handling rudders and engines with great delicacy.

The DQ went from 4 rudders to 2, and of course the 2 monkey rudders. By contrast, the NATCHEZ is a great handling boat. She has 3 rudders. Of course, she was designed by someone who knew the river, Alan Bates. Her rudders, as well as the machinery and wheel shaft, came from the CLAIRTON. Alan added a section to the rudders to conform to the NATCHEZ' stern rake.

Wheel Drew 10 Feet

There was a time when the wheel was drawing ten feet of water! Imagine lifting that much weight. We lightened her up a couple of feet after removing multi-tons of stuff including Chief Cal's beloved metal-turning lathe and enough oak lumber to rebuild the wheel a time or two over.

It's funny, but when the boat had the four flanking rudders, everyone said she would handle better if the number of rudders was reduced. Some wags claimed that the four rudders "made a wall" and "blanked-off" the flow of water when the rudders were placed hard-down-- especially when backing. It sounded feasible, but after the rudders were reduced, it only proved that the original design was the right one after all.

Just curious, when was the new hull installed? I was also under the impression that the boat was not originally outfitted with thrusters. If this is true, were the bow/stern thrusters added at that time?

And David asked why the new hull was installed. I think I remember reading something to the effect that the Coast Guard wasn't entirely happy with the original hull plate thickness as built in Scotland? Is this true, or is this senior-momentitis? I also vaguely remember reading about a bow repair that was done with concrete that the USCG wanted replaced with real metal? Were the above additional reasons, along with Judy's, that sorta pointed to a new hull installation being the right thing at the right time?

And Judy, the engineers told me that the toilet water and the sink/shower water are two different piping systems. Sink/shower/cooking/drinking water are from the "new" House tanks in the hull that are filled with chlorinated city water at shore stops. The House tanks have these spiffy green/orange/red LED gages, that you can see in the engine room, to monitor quantity left in the tanks. The "original" toilet water tank is now filled with clean condensate from the boilers, in essense distilled water. I'm still trying to rationalize all that, and suspect that water that needs to be made up to the boilers, as the boilers give their condensate to the toilet tanks, is via water from the House tanks, which would complete the cycle. Someone please quickly correct me if I'm all wet on this, pun intended.

And concerning the thrusters, again I'm under the impression that the bow thruster is a tube perpendicular to the length of the boat through the hull with a reversible prop, diesel powered? And the stern thruster is a small 360 degree thrust Z-drive, also diesel powered? 300HP? If this is true, wouldn't the stern thruster, hanging down is it is, be a bit of a bear when in shallow water, like a landing? I know I asked long ago if the boat could navigate with the stern thruster alone, and I was told it wasn't powerful enough to serve against the current. But in a true emergency, would the stern thruster work, provide enough speed to provide steerage with the current? And wouldn't the stern thruster add a whole slew of drag when not in use. Or...maybe, does it retract? Again, somebody please quickly correct me if I'm full of it.

Thanks in advance,
Bruno

Bruno,
In addition to getting heavier, hulls wear. The silt and sand and groundings at every landing take their toll. When the plates reach 75% (I think) of their original thickness they must be removed and replaced with metal of at least the original thickness. Increasing the thickness is not a good idea. The USCG does not use the original thickness as a criteria. Instead the rule is 75% of the original thickness of the new plates. For example: if the original plates were 1/4" thick they would be condemned at 3/16", or .1875". If the plate thickess is increased to 5/16", or .3175", it would be condemned at .2381", or just barely less than the original 1/4" applied when the boat was new. The rate of wear is the same regardless of thickness, so the 5/16" plate will not serve longer than 1/4".
Emergency repairs are often made using concrete in barges and in other vessels in dire straits. The technique is to drive dry shingles or wooden wedges into the crack or hole, then apply expanding concrete over it. The master or mate who does this on a passenger-carrying vessel will have a lot of uncomfortable explaining to do.
If it were not for dry shingles the towing industry would die in a week!

Yes Bruno, the DQ needed a new hull for the reasons you named, probably among others. So rather than replace it, they built the new one around it to create the additional storage space and to lift the wheel. A little life aboard info for those who haven't traveled on the DQ pre-new hull and water systems: Drinking water was available midship on each deck from a faucet. We had pitchers in each room we could fill. There were warning signs over the sink that the water was not fit to drink. You could put your toothbrush in it, but that was it. The toilet water was even less treated, mainly just 'strained' from the river, hence it took on the characteristics of whatever stretch of a river you were cruising. If you started in St. Paul, the water looked quite clear. As you proceeded downriver, it got a little darker as the silt came into the river. At St. Louis it became a dark tan, due to the confluence of the muddy Missouri just above the city. I always laughed to hear newcomers checking out their room in St. Louis, and flushing the toilet several times, thinking it hadn't been flushed. From St. Louis on down it remained this darker color, with one notable exception: Greenville Mississippi is off the main river, on Lake Ferguson, which is quite clear. So during that shore stop the toilet water cleared up. Once we hit the Mississippi again, the browntone reappeared. When I worked on the MQ for a week in 1983, I asked another crew member if we could drink the water out of the sink faucet, and she gave me a quizzical look, like why not? Of course the MQ came out with the purified water system. I don't know how often they now take on drinking water at shore stops, but we used to take it at each one, from the closest fire hydrant. (Doc said that in the AVALON days, they had a whole set of rings, fittings, connections, whatever you call them, for the many different towns they visited, as not all hydrants were the same size.) Most cities were glad to donate the water, as well as trash hauling, in exchange for having the DQ stop there. But one year the city of Dubuque, Iowa got the idea to charge for the water. For the next couple of years, Dubuque was left off as a shore stop. The city manager or bean counter didn't take into consideration the prestige of having the DQ there, nor the amount of money the passengers and crew spent in town, nor the amount of money made by the local tourist institutions from the organized shore tours. Dave Tsch., did you have a hand in convincing them to remove the water charge????

Judy has summed up the drinking water situation on the DQ prior to the new hull and holding tanks very good. Let me just add the explaination that I always gave people when asked about the water in the taps from the sink. My understanding was that the reason passengers were cautioned against drinking the water was that the holding tank was steel and not stainless steel. The water came from the same city source as the drinking water but it was just not a stainless steel tank. Am I correct on that point? Bob, Sam, or any of the past engineers can confirm or correct.

Potable Water

Prior to the new hull, there were two steel Potable (drinking) Water Tanks located in the lower boiler room. They held only about 4,000 gallons (more or less) of city water that was taken on at each stop via fire hoses into which a liberal douse of Clorox was administered before the hose was flushed-out and attached to deliver the precious liquid. The potable water was used in the kitchen, ice machines, coffee machines, and such, and there was no way this water ever found its way into the stateroom sinks. Tap water was river water called "house water" into which was dumped a couple of gallons of bleach each watch. One of the Mate's primary responsibilities was to monitor the level of the potable water tanks, and report this to Captain Wagner who considered this duty a sacred trust never to be neglected. To run short of water through negligence was inexcusable and considered a career buster.

On my 25th & final DQ cruise way back in 2005, I even had difficulty using the taps in the stateroom for water! I well remember the changing toilet water shades! Going St Louis to St Paul at least meant clear water as stated previously...

I can recall being on the Cabin Deck on the DQ before the new hull was added on and being able to reach out & touch the lock wall when locking through. Once the new hull was added, this was not possible...at least for me!

Ordinary carbon steel does just fine in potable water tanks. Those rust blisters provide the traces of iron needed for human health to avoid tired blood.

I find this to be a fascinating topic & since I didn't see a response to Bruno's earlier question I have to ask: when was the DQ fitted with her new hull?

Thanks.

Chuck

Charles, after I posted this question a wonderful DQ passenger friend of ours that shall remain nameless (hey there Pat!) gave me a copy of Capt. Mike's fantastic video of the hull being replaced, as she saw how I was so interested. I take it from the quality of the video signal and what I can see in the video that the hull was replaced in the mid to late 80's. Anybody on the forum, is this true? Captain Mike was Mate Mike in those days... And Capt. Williams, if you are lurking, the video is absolutely wonderful stuff, thanks a zillion, and I will be passing this video over to the next most rabid DQ admirer that I know, anybody want to guess who that is?...But I wonder, forumites have stated that raising the paddlewheel made her handle worse what with the additional rudder work, but did it increase her top speed?

I take it from the video that the new hull raised the boat 3 to 4 feet higher above the river. Correct? Was this increase in height any reason for the company(s) to change where they took the boat? I always wondered why the boat no longer goes up the Missouri, and was told the Missouri was too "wild". Is this true?

1991

I don't remember, as I had a black out period of DQ ridership, from Spring 1986 to Summer 1991...
so it was during that time frame, I believe.

I remember before when locking through, one could easily touch the lock wall from the cabin deck railings, but not so after the new hull was added...

There was discussion about it in the old forum: http://www.steamboats.org/talkshop/messages/19770.html

The Missouri is too shallow most of the time. It has been subject to various environmental drawdowns or whatever they are called which exacerbates the situation.

Bruno,
I had quite a few discussions with Travis V. on the new hull. It actually raised her further out of the water than planned, BUT, the rear engine room area settled down in the hull (apparently there is a crease in the original hull where this happened, so the wheel ended up about right. Rudder problems are apparently because she started with four rudders ahead of the wheel, and now has two ahead, and two behind. One theory is that three would make her handle better. It would take someone with a lot of paddlewheel design experience to figure it all out--and they're very hard to find nowadays!
If you look at pictures before the hull and after, you can readily see the change in her lines.
Hmm, maybe I should take my laptop along to see that video!!! Where would I put the thing in our Bunk Bed cabin?????
egads, 17 days, 12 hours--but I wouldn't be counting, would I???
S'
David D.

LOL, so we have two choices for extra iron - cheap red wine (aged in iron casks) and DQ water.