SS MT Washington II

carguy · 09-10-2006, 05:02 PM

The Mount was originally christened the MT. Washington II when she was launched on August 12, 1940 in Lakeport on Paugus Bay near where the current Corvette Store is located on Rte 3. I believe the roman numeral "II" was dropped after WW II in 1946 when the Mount was repowered with the twin diesel motors and the pilot house was moved to the the third deck. In 1940 and 1941 the Mount was powered by steam engines, and I believe the Mount had a more pronounced exhaust emitting from the smokestack. I have seen postcards in this forum, one in particular of the Mount passing Lake Shore Park where there is a large plume of smoke coming from the exhaust. Normally the Mount does not emit a very discernible exhaust plume since it was repowered with the twin diesels. I was hoping some of our resident Lake Winnipesaukee Historians might want to provide me with the correct date when the "II" was dropped. This question recently came about to me when I won in ebay a Lake Winnipesaukee sterling silver commerative spoon. Upon close examination of the spoon you will see a picture of the Mount and it looks like the wheel house might be on the second deck, and the name of the ship is titledSS MT WASHINGTON II. I might be able to answer my own questions in a few days when I receive my recently purchased copyfrom amazon.com ofThe Story of the Steamboat Era on Lake Winnipesaukee by Edward Blackstone. Attached are photos of the spoon and the launching of the MT WASHINGTON II My spoon could possibly date from sometime in the 1940's. I believe the Mount has had three different prefix designations:

SS for Steam Ship, MS for Motor Ship, and MV for Motor Vessell.

Picture of Launching Day August 12, 1940:

GWC... · 09-10-2006, 05:28 PM

Can you name the person who christened her?

Hint: Her family has been "toying" with boats for a few days, even have some patents.

GWC... · 09-10-2006, 05:37 PM

You may find this link interesting to read.

http://www.lwhs.us/steam-mtwashhistory.htm

No-Mo-Shun · 09-10-2006, 06:30 PM

CARGUY, In "The Boats and Ports of Lake Winnipesaukee" by Bruce D Heald, there is a 1942 photo of The Mount with a barge crane alongside, having her boilers and engine removed for the war effort. She was laid up for 4 years and then repowered with diesels in 1946. I couldn't find any info about when the II was dropped from her name.

WeirsBeachBoater · 09-10-2006, 06:58 PM

in 1946 to M/V Mount Washington, as SS was no longer appropriate with the installation of the diesel engines. What some people don't realize is that those same engines still power her today!

Rattlesnake Gal · 09-10-2006, 09:23 PM

Carguy, you should find this thread of interest.
PS: You will definitely enjoy Farewell Old Mount Washington!
Sincerely,
RG

carguy · 09-10-2006, 09:48 PM

GWC:

I believe Dottie Irwin christened the MT WASHINGTON II on August 12, 1940. I wonder if anyone took a motion picture of the event. It woulld be nice to see the launching on a DVD. I was born a few years too late to witness this event. On my Lake Shore Park DVD covering the years 1947-1952 there is some nice footage of the MOUNT passing Lake Shore Park. This was taken somewhere between 1947-1949. She appears to be in her post war configuration with the lifeboats on the davits, orange colored smoke stack, and the fantail area of the stern open. When playing back the DVD, I increased the playback speed and the MOUNT looked like she was doing forty knots.

carguy · 09-10-2006, 10:26 PM

RG:

Thank you for the information on the launching of the Mount. Here is another photo of her first trip to the Weirs. I have heard that they had to bring on many passengers to lower the boat enough in the water to pass under the bridge. I look forard to meeting you at the Forumfest III.

Resident 2B · 09-10-2006, 11:25 PM

Carguy,

Great picture!!

I was wondering how they got it under the Rt. 3 bridge. Now I know.

Thanks!

R2B

carguy · 09-28-2006, 03:19 PM

The Mount when originally put into service in late 1940 had some initial performance problems. The boat was steam powered and due to boiler heating problems and propeller cavitation, her cruising speed was lower than expected. She could not make her 65 mile four port run in four hours or under. She took nearly twice the normal four hours to complete the trip even with Center Harbor being omitted from the ports of call. The boiler problems were remedied by adjusting the boiler oil burners. The two propellers were not sitting deep enough in the water to get the bite they needed to drive the vessel. This problem was corrected by adding horizontal plates over each propeller to prevent the propeller cavitation that was caused by the propeller breaking the water surface.

The SS MT. WASHINGTON II had other problems mainly being financial. The boat had a very short operating season in 1940, and cost of operation increased immensely in 1941 due to shortages caused by the War in Europe. Income was inadequate to keep the boat in operation, and with the US entering WWII, the owners of the new SS MT WASHINGTON II declared bankruptcy in August of 1942. The boat sat idle during the war years at Center Harbor. Her steam engines commandeered by the Coast Guard during this lay-up period.

In 1946 the new owners of the Mount installed two new Enterprise diesel engines, 615 horsepower each to replace the steam plant that had been taken out in 1942. The pilot house was moved from the second deck to the third deck to provide for better visability and more passenger room. The official name of the vessel was changed from S.S. MT. WASHINGTON II to M.V. MOUNT WASHINGTON without the roman numeral II, and with full spelling of Mount.

Captain Bob · 09-28-2006, 06:09 PM

Know what I don't understand? I kind of remember that the mount had "twin 650-horse-power diesels". That's only 1300 horse-power for such a large boat that can go 25 knots or so - and some small boats have like 150-200 horse!

carguy · 09-28-2006, 06:43 PM

Captain Bob:

The Mount is only capable of a top end speed around 15 MPH. I have read conflicting reports on the horspower of the Enterprise diesels. Some sources state 615 HP, other soures 650 HP. Those engines are propelling a 230 foot 700 ton vessel.

Someone with access to the Mount should ask the Captain what speed the Mount is cruising at by GPS.

Pepper · 09-28-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy

...
Someone with access to the Mount should ask the Captain what speed the Mount is cruising at by GPS.

WeirsBeachBoater could probably provide any data you'd like with regard to speed, engine size, horsepower, etc.

Pepper · 09-28-2006, 09:09 PM

Here's another photo for perspective on the size of those engines ...

Resident 2B · 09-28-2006, 09:18 PM

I believe the engines are 6,500 hp each for a total of 13,000 hp. 615 hp or 650 hp each would not do much to move the Mount.

As far as top speed, remember this is a full displacement vessel so the length of the ship determines the top speed as long as the hp is adequate. I doubt it could get out of the hole and up on plane even with the 13,000 hp.

Their web site appears to be down at present, but I think my memory is somewhat accurate.

R2B

GWC... · 09-28-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I believe the engines are 6,500 hp each for a total of 13,000 hp. 615 hp or 650 hp each would not do much to move the Mount.

R2B

In a word: Torque

In two words: Big Pistons

In two more words: Big Cylinders

In three words: Lots of Torque

In the animal kingdom, engine wise, you're thinking mouse and you need to think elephant - moves slow but moves alot.

Resident 2B · 09-28-2006, 10:21 PM

GWC,

Assuming the 700 ton figure for the Mount Washington's displacement is correct, and I feel it is close, 1,300 hp is not going to move a 1,400,000 pound vessel anywhere near 15 knots, let alone provide adequate reverse thrust when docking.

I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just physically impossible.

I understand torque. It is often measured with a distance and a force, such as foot-pounds. You still need the force component to develop high torque. Energy cannot be created or destroyed! I believe that is still a principle of science.

Let's wait until the web site comes back and see what they claim for hp.

Best regards,

R2B

GWC... · 09-28-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

GWC,

I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just physically impossible.

Let's wait until the web site comes back and see what they claim for hp.

Best regards,

R2B

Okay, Don (Webmaster), I'm being good, even though I know the answer and do not need the data from the website and you're thinking, "GWC... you're trying, very trying."

The upside, this website is indeed informative and educational.

carguy · 09-28-2006, 10:47 PM

Resident 2B:

The Mount displaces approximately 700 tons of water (That is how they weigh ships, the amount in tons of the water displaced by the hull in the water). The diesel engines are 615 HP each for a total of 1230 HP. There are many other factors that determine the speed beside horsepower and displacement weight.

Resident 2B · 09-28-2006, 11:09 PM

Carguy,

I still think 1300 hp is not enough to do the job. I could be wrong, but to me it does not add up. From what I have read, the engines taken from the vessel in the 1940's were only 750 hp each, so you folks may be right. I am sure someone from the Mount Washington can give us the facts.

Regarding weight, the amount of water displaced is equal to the weight of the vessel. That is why it floats. If it weighted more than the water it could displace, it would sink. A vessel will displace an amount of water equal to it's weight and the waterline is established at that point.

If it displaces 700 tons of water and floats, it weighs 700 tons or 1.4 million pounds.

R2B

GWC... · 09-28-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bob

Know what I don't understand? I kind of remember that the mount had "twin 650-horse-power diesels". That's only 1300 horse-power for such a large boat that can go 25 knots or so - and some small boats have like 150-200 horse!

You forgot torque.

The Mounts' engines may seem small; but they really are larger than you perceive.

Notice the man in the picture of one of the Mounts' engines.

carguy · 10-29-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy

The Mount when originally put into service in late 1940 had some initial performance problems. The boat was steam powered and due to boiler heating problems and propeller cavitation, her cruising speed was lower than expected. She could not make her 65 mile four port run in four hours or under. She took nearly twice the normal four hours to complete the trip even with Center Harbor being omitted from the ports of call. The boiler problems were remedied by adjusting the boiler oil burners. The two propellers were not sitting deep enough in the water to get the bite they needed to drive the vessel. This problem was corrected by adding horizontal plates over each propeller to prevent the propeller cavitation that was caused by the propeller breaking the water surface.

The SS MT. WASHINGTON II had other problems mainly being financial. The boat had a very short operating season in 1940, and cost of operation increased immensely in 1941 due to shortages caused by the War in Europe. Income was inadequate to keep the boat in operation, and with the US entering WWII, the owners of the new SS MT WASHINGTON II declared bankruptcy in August of 1942. The boat sat idle during the war years at Center Harbor. Her steam engines commandeered by the Coast Guard during this lay-up period.

In 1946 the new owners of the Mount installed two new Enterprise diesel engines, 615 horsepower each to replace the steam plant that had been taken out in 1942. The pilot house was moved from the second deck to the third deck to provide for better visability and more passenger room. The official name of the vessel was changed from S.S. MT. WASHINGTON II to M.V. MOUNT WASHINGTON without the roman numeral II, and with full spelling of Mount.

I was looking at some photos today in this forum of the Mount in drydock. There is a good picture of the horizontal aligned cavitation plates that were added to the SS MT Washington II in order to give the propellers more bite in the water, thus making them more efficient and increasing the Mount's speed. The white arrow is pointing to the plates above the port side propeller.

Boat_captain · 12-02-2006, 01:42 PM

I think the Mt. Washington Carnival lights are a little tacky.
They often look burned out in segments.
Shouldn't they be replaced with something more fitting?
Whoever replaces the light bulbs must get tired of it.

Those lights would look better multi colored for the holiday's.

WeirsBeachBoater · 12-02-2006, 04:46 PM

The sections you mention are probably aft of the stack where soot accumulates. I am sure the man in charge of the carnival lights would love to see a change.

I do take some point in your post, but I can't help noticing that you only have 2 posts to your credit, and both are negative. I hope you realize that the winni.com community is a nice place and we all try and play well with others.

Boat_captain · 12-02-2006, 05:14 PM

I totaly agree with you about the exhaust causing problems on the lights.
It just seems they do get a little dull from time to time.
Maintenance must be a real pain for the guy that does the job on the lights.

09-10-2006, 05:02 PM	#1
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	SS MT Washington II The Mount was originally christened the MT. Washington II when she was launched on August 12, 1940 in Lakeport on Paugus Bay near where the current Corvette Store is located on Rte 3. I believe the roman numeral "II" was dropped after WW II in 1946 when the Mount was repowered with the twin diesel motors and the pilot house was moved to the the third deck. In 1940 and 1941 the Mount was powered by steam engines, and I believe the Mount had a more pronounced exhaust emitting from the smokestack. I have seen postcards in this forum, one in particular of the Mount passing Lake Shore Park where there is a large plume of smoke coming from the exhaust. Normally the Mount does not emit a very discernible exhaust plume since it was repowered with the twin diesels. I was hoping some of our resident Lake Winnipesaukee Historians might want to provide me with the correct date when the "II" was dropped. This question recently came about to me when I won in ebay a Lake Winnipesaukee sterling silver commerative spoon. Upon close examination of the spoon you will see a picture of the Mount and it looks like the wheel house might be on the second deck, and the name of the ship is titledSS MT WASHINGTON II. I might be able to answer my own questions in a few days when I receive my recently purchased copyfrom amazon.com ofThe Story of the Steamboat Era on Lake Winnipesaukee by Edward Blackstone. Attached are photos of the spoon and the launching of the MT WASHINGTON II My spoon could possibly date from sometime in the 1940's. I believe the Mount has had three different prefix designations: SS for Steam Ship, MS for Motor Ship, and MV for Motor Vessell. Picture of Launching Day August 12, 1940: Attached Images __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360 Last edited by carguy; 09-10-2006 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Better Picture of Launching

09-10-2006, 05:28 PM	#2
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Can you name the person who christened her? Hint: Her family has been "toying" with boats for a few days, even have some patents. __________________ [Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]

09-10-2006, 05:37 PM	#3
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	You may find this link interesting to read. http://www.lwhs.us/steam-mtwashhistory.htm __________________ [Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]

09-10-2006, 06:30 PM	#4
No-Mo-Shun Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Anacortes, Wa Posts: 29 Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts	The Mount CARGUY, In "The Boats and Ports of Lake Winnipesaukee" by Bruce D Heald, there is a 1942 photo of The Mount with a barge crane alongside, having her boilers and engine removed for the war effort. She was laid up for 4 years and then repowered with diesels in 1946. I couldn't find any info about when the II was dropped from her name. __________________ There is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing, Half So Much Worth Doing as Simply Messing About in Boats Kenneth Grahame

09-10-2006, 06:58 PM	#5
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	I believe it was changed in 1946 to M/V Mount Washington, as SS was no longer appropriate with the installation of the diesel engines. What some people don't realize is that those same engines still power her today!

09-10-2006, 09:23 PM	#6
Rattlesnake Gal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central NH Posts: 5,252 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1,447 Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts	Informative Thread Carguy, you should find this thread of interest. PS: You will definitely enjoy Farewell Old Mount Washington! Sincerely, RG

09-10-2006, 09:48 PM	#7
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	Who Christened the Mount? GWC: I believe Dottie Irwin christened the MT WASHINGTON II on August 12, 1940. I wonder if anyone took a motion picture of the event. It woulld be nice to see the launching on a DVD. I was born a few years too late to witness this event. On my Lake Shore Park DVD covering the years 1947-1952 there is some nice footage of the MOUNT passing Lake Shore Park. This was taken somewhere between 1947-1949. She appears to be in her post war configuration with the lifeboats on the davits, orange colored smoke stack, and the fantail area of the stern open. When playing back the DVD, I increased the playback speed and the MOUNT looked like she was doing forty knots. __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360

09-10-2006, 10:26 PM	#8
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	Thank You RG RG: Thank you for the information on the launching of the Mount. Here is another photo of her first trip to the Weirs. I have heard that they had to bring on many passengers to lower the boat enough in the water to pass under the bridge. I look forard to meeting you at the Forumfest III. Attached Images __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360

09-10-2006, 11:25 PM	#9
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Great Picture!! Carguy, Great picture!! I was wondering how they got it under the Rt. 3 bridge. Now I know. Thanks! R2B

09-28-2006, 03:19 PM	#10
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	More on the SS MT WASHINGTON II The Mount when originally put into service in late 1940 had some initial performance problems. The boat was steam powered and due to boiler heating problems and propeller cavitation, her cruising speed was lower than expected. She could not make her 65 mile four port run in four hours or under. She took nearly twice the normal four hours to complete the trip even with Center Harbor being omitted from the ports of call. The boiler problems were remedied by adjusting the boiler oil burners. The two propellers were not sitting deep enough in the water to get the bite they needed to drive the vessel. This problem was corrected by adding horizontal plates over each propeller to prevent the propeller cavitation that was caused by the propeller breaking the water surface. The SS MT. WASHINGTON II had other problems mainly being financial. The boat had a very short operating season in 1940, and cost of operation increased immensely in 1941 due to shortages caused by the War in Europe. Income was inadequate to keep the boat in operation, and with the US entering WWII, the owners of the new SS MT WASHINGTON II declared bankruptcy in August of 1942. The boat sat idle during the war years at Center Harbor. Her steam engines commandeered by the Coast Guard during this lay-up period. In 1946 the new owners of the Mount installed two new Enterprise diesel engines, 615 horsepower each to replace the steam plant that had been taken out in 1942. The pilot house was moved from the second deck to the third deck to provide for better visability and more passenger room. The official name of the vessel was changed from S.S. MT. WASHINGTON II to M.V. MOUNT WASHINGTON without the roman numeral II, and with full spelling of Mount. Attached Images __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360

09-28-2006, 06:09 PM	#11
Captain Bob Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 28 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Know what I don't understand? I kind of remember that the mount had "twin 650-horse-power diesels". That's only 1300 horse-power for such a large boat that can go 25 knots or so - and some small boats have like 150-200 horse!

09-28-2006, 06:43 PM	#12
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	Mount's Speed Captain Bob: The Mount is only capable of a top end speed around 15 MPH. I have read conflicting reports on the horspower of the Enterprise diesels. Some sources state 615 HP, other soures 650 HP. Those engines are propelling a 230 foot 700 ton vessel. Someone with access to the Mount should ask the Captain what speed the Mount is cruising at by GPS. __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360

09-28-2006, 09:09 PM	#14
Pepper Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Laconia, NH Posts: 1,284 Thanks: 409 Thanked 155 Times in 40 Posts	Here's another photo for perspective on the size of those engines ... __________________ Never waste time lamenting what was. Simply celebrate what is!

09-28-2006, 09:18 PM	#15
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Mount Washungton HP I believe the engines are 6,500 hp each for a total of 13,000 hp. 615 hp or 650 hp each would not do much to move the Mount. As far as top speed, remember this is a full displacement vessel so the length of the ship determines the top speed as long as the hp is adequate. I doubt it could get out of the hole and up on plane even with the 13,000 hp. Their web site appears to be down at present, but I think my memory is somewhat accurate. R2B

09-28-2006, 10:21 PM	#17
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Torque!!!! GWC, Assuming the 700 ton figure for the Mount Washington's displacement is correct, and I feel it is close, 1,300 hp is not going to move a 1,400,000 pound vessel anywhere near 15 knots, let alone provide adequate reverse thrust when docking. I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just physically impossible. I understand torque. It is often measured with a distance and a force, such as foot-pounds. You still need the force component to develop high torque. Energy cannot be created or destroyed! I believe that is still a principle of science. Let's wait until the web site comes back and see what they claim for hp. Best regards, R2B

09-28-2006, 10:47 PM	#19
carguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 199 Thanks: 4 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	Displacement and Horsepower Resident 2B: The Mount displaces approximately 700 tons of water (That is how they weigh ships, the amount in tons of the water displaced by the hull in the water). The diesel engines are 615 HP each for a total of 1230 HP. There are many other factors that determine the speed beside horsepower and displacement weight. __________________ Best Regards, Carguy Norwich, CT 06360

09-28-2006, 11:09 PM	#20
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Weight of displaced water = weight of the vessel Carguy, I still think 1300 hp is not enough to do the job. I could be wrong, but to me it does not add up. From what I have read, the engines taken from the vessel in the 1940's were only 750 hp each, so you folks may be right. I am sure someone from the Mount Washington can give us the facts. Regarding weight, the amount of water displaced is equal to the weight of the vessel. That is why it floats. If it weighted more than the water it could displace, it would sink. A vessel will displace an amount of water equal to it's weight and the waterline is established at that point. If it displaces 700 tons of water and floats, it weighs 700 tons or 1.4 million pounds. R2B

12-02-2006, 01:42 PM	#23
Boat_captain Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Meredith, NH Posts: 11 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Mt Washington Carnival Lights I think the Mt. Washington Carnival lights are a little tacky. They often look burned out in segments. Shouldn't they be replaced with something more fitting? Whoever replaces the light bulbs must get tired of it. Those lights would look better multi colored for the holiday's.

12-02-2006, 04:46 PM	#24
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	Carnival Lights The sections you mention are probably aft of the stack where soot accumulates. I am sure the man in charge of the carnival lights would love to see a change. I do take some point in your post, but I can't help noticing that you only have 2 posts to your credit, and both are negative. I hope you realize that the winni.com community is a nice place and we all try and play well with others.

12-02-2006, 05:14 PM	#25
Boat_captain Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Meredith, NH Posts: 11 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Carnival Lights on the Mount I totaly agree with you about the exhaust causing problems on the lights. It just seems they do get a little dull from time to time. Maintenance must be a real pain for the guy that does the job on the lights. Last edited by Boat_captain; 12-02-2006 at 06:19 PM.