Engine Change in the MS Mount Washington

[dmjr]

Does anyone know when they are going to start the engine change in the MS Mount Washington? Are they going to have to pull it out of the water?

[Kamper]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8647

The latest news is that the M/S Mount Washington will stay in the water for the winter. She will NOT be put into drydock. Here's an excerpt from an email I received:

Quote
The ship will be heading into Center Harbor ( Weather permitting ) Saturday [31-Oct] after our Charter.. We are looking at the 4 o'clock departure from Weirs heading to Center Harbor. The boat will definitely not be pulled out of the water we are going to change the engines out on the starboard side. We are awaiting the bids form all the engine providers. As soon as we determine what engines are available and in stock at a price we like then we will move ahead with cutting the hole and taking out the engines. We are trying to make this event as public as possible. There are discussions of having the web cam moved to the top of the ship yard building looking down at the work platform. As well as doing regular press releases. As soon as precise dates start to come in regarding delivery of engines, gear boxes and installation, I will certainly pass it along. As of right now we are moving full steam ahead on upgrading to our tear 2 engine re-powering.




Nothing on the date has been added since that post. The rest is normal normal noise and static. :rolleye2:

[Grady223]

Will the new engines be more efficient and less polluting?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

1 out of 2

Less efficient.
Less Polluting

[trfour]

Diesel engines have the highest thermal efficiency of any internal or external combustion engine. The carbon monoxide of the exhaust is minimal, therefore diesel engines are used in underground mines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

[Dave R]

1 out of 2

Less efficient.
Less Polluting


What are the new engines? Seems like it would be a shame to not use common rail technology and a turbo. I'd think it would be quite a bit more efficient than what's there now.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

1 out of 2

Less efficient.
Less Polluting

Been thinking about my comment.

Obviously the engines are to be less polluting which was the intent of the procedure.
I don't think I have any data to justify my efficiency statement.
Probably my skepticism at most Government endeavors these days.

Please ignore my comment.

I look forward to hearing the MPG or GPM stats when they take her out.

Gonna miss that sound though....:(

[trfour]

What are the new engines? Seems like it would be a shame to not use common rail technology and a turbo. I'd think it would be quite a bit more efficient than what's there now.

From what was in the Citizen article, Quote, "The current twin 615 horsepower Enterprise diesel engines were installed in the spring of 1946 at the conclusion of World War II, which added 30 tons to the ship's weight and enabled it to be run on electricity. All steam equipment was removed and replaced with electrical power, including the steering plant and propellers." ... This tells me that the setup that was installed back in 1946 was Diesel Electric, which is still being used today in rail locomotives.

We are all waiting to see what the new engines will be.

PS, side note. I've been told that they are making huge strides with steam turbine power and efficiency. Wouldn't it be a kick in our bucket lists, to some day have the M/S Mount Washington converted back to steam power! :eek: :)

[Happy Gourmand]

.....ya, RG, I agree..I'll miss the sound of the Mount as she passes through Meredith Bay...I wonder if they could replicate it and put it on speaker from the top deck...wouldn't that be something?

[trfour]

that Her unique sound will be distinctively different with an engine change! I have been rebuilding diesel, gas and electric motors for most of my life, and have been blessed with an acute sense of hearing that has helped me tune them to their maximum efficiency...

Even with catalytic exhaust stacks to decrease emissions, She will have Her identity preciously preserved to all while motoring to Her ports of call around Lake Winnipesaukee! :) :) :) :)

Stay tuned, and Enjoy a Very Happy Thanksgiving!

[Bizer]

Does anyone know when they are going to start the engine change in the MS Mount Washington? Are they going to have to pull it out of the water?I heard that the engines are due to be delivered by mid-December. Work will not commence until the engines are on-site. The Mount will remain in the water for the winter. They are still planning to have her underway by late-April or early-May.

[trfour]

We are looking forward to finding out the make-model of the new engines. They must be something special to be replacing The Enterprise!

In the meantime, here's a link to some history on the old motors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Engine

Scroll down and you will find an interesting link to a map of known remaining Enterprise diesel engines! Quite an impressive list! :)

[robmac]

Got an email from the company that the engines have been located and should be here mid Feb. Can't wait to watch the change over on her web cam a once in a lifetime event.

[BoulderBronco]

...Obviously the engines are to be less polluting which was the intent of the procedure.
Probably my skepticism at most Government endeavors these days.
I look forward to hearing the MPG or GPM stats when they take her out.

You're not alone. The new diesels in todays light duty trucks Ford, Chevy, and Dodge, are a perfect examples. Excellent emissions but it is paid for by fuel efficiency. These new Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF's) the EPA requires kills the mileage on the trucks. So while the emissions is technically down (thats a whole nother argument because the diesels bad reputation for emissions is based on the visual black soot that actually sinks back to the earth and does not stay in the air) the MPG is down as well.
I forget the number I read and don't want to start rumors. But in my truck (F350 6.4L Diesel) the MPG would be anywhere from 2-6 MPG better without the EPA mandated DPF. So lets say for arguments sake it's on average 3MPG better without the DPF. Now lets say there are 200K of these trucks on the road in a given year each driven an average of 15K miles a year for a total of 3 Billion miles a year. At the typical crappy 12MPG these trucks get thats 250 million gallons of fuel a year. Increase the efficiency by just 3MPG (which again can be done without the DPF) and all these trucks now get 15MPG. So they are using 200 million gallons of Diesel a year. So the DPF forces the use of an extra 50 million gallons of fuel a year. Efficiency?

Sorry but once I started this rant I couldn't stop.
Back on topic.

Like you said it should be interesting to see the GPM numbers on the Mount with the new engines.

[trfour]

I would just like to point out that in marine applications, engine fuel consumption is measured by GPH, as in gallons per hour...

Captain Jim Morash says in this news clip that the old engines are very fuel efficient, even by today's standards, and use about 33 GPH but that getting replacement parts was becoming more of an issue.
http://multimedia.boston.com/m/25325482/ms-mt-washington-gets-green-upgrade.htm#q=%22Environmentally+Friendly%22

Video link to some history of the M/S Mount Washington.
http://web.me.com/mediavideo1/Out_To_find/MSMTWashington_3.html
Did you notice bobby oar, with the broom? :)

About The Engines; http://www.cruisenh.com/GreeningOfTheMOUNT.pdf


I love that phrase in the engine room; " Engine Room, 'gona Light The Candle!" :) :) :) :)

[robmac]

With DPFs your required to use ultra low sulfur fuel that is not available nation wide. If you don't you clog the DPF and cause extra damage as a result.