The Rise of Turbine Liners

When reciprocating steam engines had reached their economic fastest, shipping lines like Cunard turned to an emerging technology: marine steam turbines. Turbines literally thrust liners into a new future of super fast, and ultra-smooth voyages.
#oceanliner #engineering #ships
FOOTAGE CREDIT:
Titanic scenes are sequences from the James Cameron movie
Engine Room footage of SS JEREMIAH O'BRIEN is credit to Richard Gusmanov:
• 1997 Titanic Reciproca...
Engine Room footage of Titanic is from Titanic Honor & Glory, credit to Derek Verveer:
• Titanic: Honor and Glo...
MUSIC CREDIT:
"Scott Buckley - Legacy" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) license.
creativecommon....
www.scottbuckl...
Music powered by BreakingCopyright: • 🦸 Superhero (Free Musi...
"Alex Productions - Love" is is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons....
kzbin.info....
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • ❤️‍🔥 Romantic & Piano ...
SOURCES/REFERENCES:
"The Only Way To Cross" by John Maxtone Graham
"The Unseen Mauretania" by J. Kent Layton
"Mauretania" by Marc D. Warren
"The Cunard White Star Quadruple Screw Liner Queen Mary" Bonanza Books
"RMS Queen Mary: Queen of the Queens" by William J. Duncan
---------------------------------
I plan to sail to the UK to film dozens upon dozens of historic places for this channel, if you would like to learn more about it, or help support the effort, visit the links below!
Video: • Video
GoFundMe: gofund.me/0598...
My email: [e-mail]
Facebook Page: Alex The Historian
If you'd like to buy me a cup of coffee/tea, support my channel, or donate to it, you can choose any of the methods below, thank you! Links:
Venmo: @AlexAHistorian
Paypal: [e-mail]
KZbin Membership: Become a member of my KZbin channel to receive exclusive perks like your name in the credits, early access to new videos, and so on. Learn more here:
/ @alexthehistorian
DISCLAIMER: I am not a University-educated historian, Alex the Historian was a nickname I got while working at Disneyland as a tour guide. After 6 years of using it as a stage name for my channel, it would be detrimental to the channel to suddenly change the name.

[@carltrotter7622]

Another exceptional video as always! Thank you for all you do, Alex. The one thing I would say, however, is that at 2:31 where you point out that the Carmania was the first Merchant Ship fitted with Turbines, in fact there was a smaller vessel in 1901 called the TS King Edward which was a passenger vessel operating on the River Clyde build on the gamble that turbines would provide the vessel with more revenue from higher speeds and therefore being able to reach the piers of the Scottish Islands before the competing paddle steamers and pleasure steamers could. The turbines for the TS King Edward, alongside her bell are at the Riverside Museum (Also known as the 'Transport Museum') in Glasgow, where the original wind tunnel model for the Queen Mary and display model for Queen Elizabeth are also kept alongside numerous other artifacts. Without the TS King Edward, Cunard, nor fellow Clyde shipbuilding company John Browns who built the Carmania would have had the confidence to embark on such a wonderful yet novel idea as building a ship with turbines. I hope you've had a wonderful January Alex, and are enjoying all 2023 has to offer for you. As always, God Save the Queen (Mary)!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Oh I didn't know about TS King Edward, thank you!

[@carltrotter7622]

@@AlextheHistorian I can name 1,000 facts I didn't know before I discovered your channel, that's what the Internet is wonderful about - It's the biggest opportunity for learning! Have a nice day my dear fellow, and thank you for being a legend!

[@Shipwright1918]

It should be mentioned that reciprocating steam plants didn't go away entirely after turbines came onto the scene, they continued to be used in applications where the higher torque/lower shaft rpms plus their simpler construction and maintenance would be an advantage, such as freighters, tugs, and cargo/passenger liners. The Liberty Ships, such as Titanic's movie engine room stand in SS Jeremiah O'Brien, were designed at the outset to have a triple-expansion reciprocating plant to a nearly 50 year old design. Why? Because they would be simpler to mass produce, operate, and maintain in wartime, and there was a wide pool of engineering crew who knew how to run and fix them. The last coal fired steamship still in commercial service, SS Badger, has reciprocating engines, of the Skinner Unaflow design. Similar to a diesel engine, they use poppet valves and have twin single-acting cylinders with twin cylinder heads.

[@Kaidhicksii]

Finally made time to listen to this while weed whacking this very large field. Only thing I really have to add is that Normandie, when she retook the Riband from Mary in '37, actually managed to produce some 195,000shp. This was super cool learning more about steam turbines and other engines. You should do more videos like this when you're not covering topics like Queen Mary!

[@monsieurcommissaire1628]

I hadn't heard of that! That's really cool. I know that the CGT was planning a running mate for Normandie, likely named Bretagne, and that they intended for her to have a significant increase in shaft horsepower. It makes sense for Normandie to have gotten an upgrade, or it's possible that by then her machinery was well run-in and the engineers had learned how to get the best out of her. Anyway, thank you for sharing that!

[@KPen3750]

Nothing against you, but I find it funny how you said little turbine as the rotor just dwarves the workers installing it. Fantastic rundown on the application of turbines

[@joukoniemi9250]

Nice video, thanks. There were a few details that need to be defined. One is the comparison with turbine and piston engine. Titanic`s reciprocating engines had totally 30 000 hp by 215 psi and the turbine got steam from these two engines having 16 000 hp by 9 psi. The steam expanded in the turbine to vacume so, that the pressure drop was bigger. This is important because the power is pressure drop x volume flow. For example 1N x 1m3/1s = 1W. The steam leaving the piston engine has already great volume flow and when expanding in the turbine even to vacume it becomes huge. So you can`t compare steam turbine and reciprocating engine like that. RMS Mauretania never made 29 knots, it was 28 knots but 29 miles per hour. Knots and miles per hour are not the same. SS Normandie made about 30 knots. So RMS Mauretania never took the blue ribbon from SS Normandie. RMS Queen Mary and SS Normandie with a more hydro dynamic hull had same speed. First the Blue Ribbon went to SS Normandie, then to RMS Queen Mary and after new propellers back to SS Normandie and then back to RMS Queen Mary.

[@joukoniemi9250]

Sorry my mistake. 1N/1m2 x 1m3/1s = 1W

[@AlextheHistorian]

From the information I have, it's been published in books like "the only way to cross", that Titanics engines all together, had a combined output of 46,000 shaft horsepower. That comes out to 16,000 for the turbine, each reciprocating engine had 15,000. If you can point to a source that says each engine could do 30,000 putting the total of the ship to 76,000, it would be helpful with my future research. I dont recall saying Mauretania took the Riband from Normandie, but I have seen an abstract log showing the Mauretania making 29 knots, I dont think it was consistent through the voyage, but then again the speeds never are. Both Normandie and Queen Mary were matched with hydrodynamic hulls, but for very different reasons. Most people don't know that QM's cruiser stern helped keep her higher in the water at speed, reducing drag. Just as Normandie's slight bulbous bow helped reduce the bow wave, which in turn helped reduce drag...but her stern still dug into the water at speed, negating that drag decrease to an extent.

[@joukoniemi9250]

@@AlextheHistorian Thanks. Most people don`t know... I didn`t either. Great detail of QM`s hull structure. I just read from Great Ocean Liners, that Mauretania made even 31 miles per hour. So it really is 29 knots. You didn`t say Mauretania took the BR from Normandie. A long telefone call between writing mixed my thoughts. This wrong text was from the Finnish Wikipedia I had just red: During her last voyage ss Mauretania took the Blue Ribbon back from SS Normandie. This can`t be true. But I tried to clarify, that 215 Psi / 15 000 Hp -> 9 Psi 16 000 Hp should be 215 Psi / 30 000 Hp -> 9 Psi 16 000 Hp, because the turbine got steam from both reciprocating engines. And the power is not comparable just to the pressure but also to the volume flow. Some watchers could get too bad impression of reciprocating engines if they don`t consider this. If steam temperature is steady (of course it drops) and the pressure drops to half, then the volume grows two times higher. So the steam volume really exploses in the turbine when flowing to the condenser vacuum, and the turbine can utilise this. To utilise this explosion in a reciprocatin engine would need monster LP cylinders with huge power lost and need of space. To combine piston engines and a steam turbine was one way to combine advantages of those two methods, but it combined also disadvantages, for exampel the need of lubrication oil. Reciprocatin engines and steam turbines have the same thermodynamic base, but they have very different features like internal combustion engine and gas turbine.

[@AlextheHistorian]

I see. Thank you for the info!

[@BPJJohn]

That transition from the movie to present was perfection. 👌0:49

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@jetsons101]

Another work of "Video" art. Speaking of the SS United States, is sad to see it's just rotting away in Philadelphia. Alex, you have come a long way since your early "One man, One camera" videos of Disneyland. Thank again for all your time and effort you put into your work.....

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you Mike! Yeah I agree, it's been an ever-changing journey here on KZbin!

[@eucliduschaumeau8813]

Last I heard it was still for sale. It's been stripped down inside, but it still is salvageable I think.

[@titanicx8693]

Well, she was engineered to military specs. :3

[@imanvideos8288]

I love the way you make your videos. They inspire curiosity inside me, and they leave me wanting more. Keep up the phenomenal work!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you!

[@michaeltaylor1603]

Turbine engines in any application has long been a fascination with me. When America's Smithsonian traveled to Houston, TX. there was an operating model of a jet turbine engine. I was enchanted. Maritime technology has come a long way.

[@therandomytchannel4318]

Airplane ✈️ jet turbine can also be applied to marine applications, so turbine ships continue to sail to this day 🎉

[@lukegreen5341]

0:25 Great Scotland Yard. It's James Cameron's Titanic. Thanks Mate. X

[@BimDaTitanicNerd]

Great video alex!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you!

[@jayhawklife88]

I like to watch your videos on Queen Mary. Thanks for all of the history information in all these videos. I just started learning about the Queen Mary a few years ago.

[@josephpiskac2781]

Years and years ago I read that Titanic's steam turbine was huge possibly the largest turbine ever placed on a ship. Another great presentation by Alex the Professor!

[@AlextheHistorian]

It's hard to say, I would think that the low pressure turbine on SS United States would be the largest, but on the internet, there exists no blueprints or vintage photos of the turbines. It's possible Titanic's was the largest, but I gotta admit, it looks identical in every way to Mauretania's low pressure turbine.

[@awuma]

It may be interesting to compare with the turbines of the Iowa-class battleships, which had power similar to that of the "Queen Mary". It's great that they all still exist. The "United States" has a similar powerplant.

[@campbejk1]

Titanic's equally ill-fated sister Britannic had a slightly larger turbine (Britannic was slightly larger and so they tried to make it more powerful). It weighed 420 tons and according to marine engineer and historian Denis Griffiths it is the physically largest marine steam turbine ever built, but not the most powerful since it operated at low pressure.

[@josephpiskac2781]

@@campbejk1 Thank you extremely interesting!

[@paulcosentino1140]

I saw the SS United States 3 days ago. Poor thing is a rusted hulk now

[@greenturtlgaming2554]

Although steam turbines are no longer used on most ships, they are still the hearts of many aircraft carriers and submarines today, being heated by nuclear reactors instead of boilers. Thanks to having steam turbines instead of diesel engines, the Nimitz-Class supercarriers can reach a top speed of an astounding 31.5 knots and have a maximum power output of 260,000 shaft horsepower.

[@johnjones5354]

USS Enterprise produced 280,000 shaft horsepower to produce a speed of (classified) knots. (Yeah, I know what wikipedia claims for top speed. They're wrong. USS Enterprise, Reactor department, 1981-1984)

[@patriciap1214]

Very nice video I work in a small trash the steam plant or a little turbine is 60,000 hp and makes 37 MW of electricity and I’ve worked on it for 24 years. The biggest one I’ve ever worked on was 1900 MW and believe me, it was a little machines they were amazing. Very nice video.

[@noneofyourbusiness7600]

1900MW in the US? The only turbines I know capable of 1900MW are the Arabelle units from Alstom.

[@N330AA]

The biggest advantage was the massive reduction in moving parts.

[@docjc1842]

This was so good! KZbin algorithm is all messed up for me I never got this in my feed!

[@jamesdot1700]

This video is excellently done and has insights I've never heard before 👌

[@mikedrown2721]

Thanks Alex for this video 👍👏

[@AlextheHistorian]

You're welcome!

[@patrickryan6065]

Great information as always Alex.

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you

[@ginog5037]

Fantastic video Alex!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you!

[@pedenharley6266]

Alex, very good video! I love your engineering videos. You explain things clearly and well but still keep card-carrying boat-nerds like me interested. Thank you!!!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks thats a big compliment 😅 I do my best to make the information understandable to the newbies.

[@nicolaiholm7458]

Great video once again Alex

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@AviatorsTandR]

Amazing explanations! I love the video very much! Some of it I knew, some of it I didn’t, and thank you for this well-produced video.

[@AlextheHistorian]

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it

[@KingdaToro]

SS United States has almost exactly the same propulsion plant and propeller configuration as the Iowa-class battleships. Those could reach 33 knots, and were obviously far heavier.

[@lostinwanderland8318]

Another excellent video, Alex! I’ve learned so much from you. Thanks!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Awesome, thank you!

[@sidz0001]

Absolutely fantastic and detailed video!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@lindasolis7117]

Very interesting, Alex. Thanks!🙂

[@Nicetrains]

I am not far from the SS United States in Philly. It is just wasting away at the dock.

[@paulhorn2665]

In germany in the 1920s there was a turbine driven paddle steamer on the river Rhine. It was no succsess because the reduction gear was often broken.

[@AlextheHistorian]

Oh wow, I'd never heard of a turbine paddle steamer!

[@Shadow1V]

Great video! Thanks for everything you do! Also Thanks for making the video so detailed and informative! 😁

[@AlextheHistorian]

You're welcome!

[@TheTransportationFanfromCA]

Very informative 2023 and already amazing videos.

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks! Lots more to come!

[@AJ67901]

Excellent!

[@garynorton9938]

Omg I loved this very good job sir. Very well put 🎉

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@dima343.]

Wish Olympic was preserved, just to look at these breathtakingly huge reciprocating engines! I know that turbines a more efficient and have more power/weight ratio, but i want reciprocating steam engined ship. That's why I admire Olympic class, except their balanced exterior aesthetics, they were last big liners, equipped with reciprocating engines. Comparing reciprocating engines and turbines for me is like comparing mechanical watches/clocks to battery-operated ones.

[@stevehoffman9735]

Thank you!

[@danielintheantipodes6741]

Thank you for the video

[@jeffreyhutton8283]

Good work Alex Mr History

[@lucasread1743]

Love your videos! Keep up the good work man👍

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@lucasread1743]

No problem👍

[@superkamehameha1744]

The engineer in me: Bruce Ismay should've used turbines for his new ships.. Inner kid in me: The reciprocating engines were much much cooler though

[@AlextheHistorian]

To be honest, I like the reciprocating engines more, as well.

[@monsieurcommissaire1628]

I've pondered that same thought, and since I love steam turbines, I tend to often feel the same way. However, for the Olympic class, the reciprocating engines somehow seem appropriate and rather iconic. Ultimately, I believe it was a good choice, as Olympic was exceptionally reliable, hence her nickname, "Old Reliable".

[@superkamehameha1744]

@@monsieurcommissaire1628 Without the expansion engines, the full speed ahead scene in titanic would be very very different and possibly even be dull and boring.

[@conrad4667]

Very educational.

[@kennethgroves6552]

Thank You for the good videos.

[@STEN3326]

7:02 Take a good look at the wake of the Queen Mary, it seems that there is a reversal maneuver on the starboard side as the foam pulses forward. I had already noticed this thing on other extracts. Do they want to make a controlled skid transfer, like pulling the parking brake on a car ?

[@AlextheHistorian]

I know it might seem like a sign of a mechanical maneuver, but honestly wakes can look different depending on wind and current. I believe in that footage, Queen Mary was starting to slow as she approached New York, so it could even be possible her own wake was catching up to her. If Queen Mary was doing a hard stop, you would see huge circular bulbs of white water kick up along the hull.

[@mrs6968]

Epic

[@danbajuk3387]

Thanks!

[@AlextheHistorian]

My pleasure Dan! Thanks for the super thanks!

[@mike.4277]

Excellent video 😎👍.

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you!

[@RylandMeredith]

Perfect vid bro

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thank you! Glad you liked it

[@rogerpearson9081]

Very happy you have your car back. I would love to have a drive in one for the sensory experience but 6'6" and bank balance would make it hard. Really good job of fettling it. Somebody who takes pride in a job well done. Sounds magnificent when you started to stretch it a bit. How much it cost is the price you pay for the privilege of owning one of these cars. Glad it was you not me but no quibbles about the value you got

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks!

[@knutarneaakra6013]

I do love your credit to the united states at the end of your as allways brilliant vlogs. What a era, what a grand time those ocean races really was held. I do love thise theme, in fact it is my lifetime hobby learning all this historical facts. Did one cruise on ss norway many years ago,as you all know she was former ss france. What a sad ending. All the best from Norway. Keep on your great job SIR

[@johnqe8222]

The down fall of steamships was the efficiency of the boilers compared to diesel power plants. Which is a shame as steam turbine power plants are clean , no vibration and take up less space.

[@AlextheHistorian]

I'm curious what you mean because many ocean liners with steam turbine power suffered vibration issues that forced a reduction in speed to maximize passenger comfort. RMS Mauretania and RMS Queen Mary both had to undergo strengthening modification in the stern areas just to reduce vibration in Second Class. Not only that but the power plant for their steam turbine system occupied the entire lower deck nearly from stem to stern. However, diesel ships like Queen Mary 2, only dedicate about one-fifth of their lower deck to the power plant, leaving the rest to food storage space.

[@johnqe8222]

Hi Alex the steam plant is vibration free . Vibration is caused by cavitation of the propellers which is increased as the speed increases . Above 24 knots the vibration increases noticeably . Most passenger ships now don’t go above 24 knots. Queen Victoria currently has a big vibration problem from the props above 16 knots. John Chillingworth

[@reenabearkitty]

Wow I learned something today. Thanks again 😊

[@Adammikke]

This video was well put togheter but it has a few problems the bigest of wich is using horsepower to compare reciprocating engines to turbines. Usualy you would want to mesure reciprocating engines power in torque becuse reciprocating engines have a lot of torque but litle rpm sinch horsepower = torque x rpm and reciprocating engines have their max amaunt of torque at 0 rpm

[@SAOS451316]

A very well-made video! I hope it does well for you. :)

[@AlextheHistorian]

Thanks! It's doing successfully so far!

[@goofyrulez7914]

Ocean Liners weren't the only way to cross the Atlantic... You could swim (if you were REALLY determined). 🙃😄

[@creeguyvernon]

I'll go on the cargo carrier MV Blue Lady, which is powered by 2 GM 710 V16 Diesel engines 😎

[@kaycey7361]

Loved the bqckground music. What is that music?

[@samanli-tw3id]

Turbine liners were jetliners of the sea

[@Airships]

Enjoyable video, but there is an animation problem. You show both the rotor blades and stator blades spinning together (5:36), but the key design element of a steam turbine is that the stator blades are stationary (thus the name).

[@AlextheHistorian]

Yeah I didn't create the animation I pulled it from Google images.

[@jayhawklife88]

I’m sorry great video on the Titanic.

[@MrJeep75]

Charles Parsons one of my distant relatives

[@angellight495]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the 1904 RMS Victorian built for the Allan line the first Turbine passenger liner? Also I believe that the Normandie was rated for 160SHP but achieved over 180SHP. Just like the QM was rated for 180SHP but could go over 200SHP. And it must be said it took the QM that 20kSHP to achieve that fraction of a knot higher speed higher speed due to her much less efficient hull design. PS: Love the video!

[@AlextheHistorian]

Yes you're right about RMS Victorian, that information was not made available to me until after I made this video. As for Queen Mary vs Normadie actually the two ships had tradeoffs with their hulls. Normandie reduced drag with her bow. Queen Mary reduced drag with her stern. I made a video that answers why: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hom4o32aa7qshZI&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

[@campbejk1]

Victorian and her sister Virginian made their maiden transatlantic voyages in March/April 1905 and were the first turbine powered ocean liners. Previous turbine vessels were much smaller and for shorter routes (the Clyde River, or short distance ferries).

[@AhmadSolikul-rd2rk]

Itu pmesin piston uap disambungkan ke turbin uap kan cepan dan enteng putaran cepat

[@Knot_Sean]

With a turbine that is meant to run at 9psi and generate 16,000hp from it at that…. I get confused by trying to understand on how and where that steam pressure goes? Does it re-condense, is there an outlet that it vents out of? 5:00

[@AlextheHistorian]

Yes, after the steam is used up it is vented into condensers which use cool sea water to condense the steam back into its liquid state, and that water is then pumped back to the boilers to restart the steam cycle.

[@felixbeutin9530]

Technical Terminology is sometimes a bit wonky but overall ok

[@Kangenpower7]

It is to bad that the USS Long Beach was retired before demonstrating how quickly it could cross the Atlantic Ocean. It was able to go over 40 knots due to the nuclear power plant. USS Long Beach was designed to keep up with the modern nuclear carriers and even pass them! The only thing faster at crossing the Atlantic would be a nuclear submarine. But they are never reported as being able to go faster than 28 knots.

[@jeromehugues]

Hello, Very good. It would have been interesting to explain why *steam* reciprocating piston engines had less yield than *steam* turbines whereas *internal combustion* piston engines still have today better efficiency (especially when combined with steam turbine). It's because steam temp, even reheated (under 500°C) is well managable by turbine blades while internal combustion chamber can go up to +2.000°C. So compression ratio of internal combustion turbines cannot challenge piston engines in term of yield. Gas turbines can also handle 1.200 °C. When combined, they can pretend to approach piston engined combined with steam turbine. By the way today non combined gas turbines are generally used only when space and/or weight power ratio is the main criterion. Helicopter, mid alt aircrafts. For sea ships purpose today : combined gas turbine + steam turbine are also good competitor of combined piston engines + steam turbines. Note that steam turbines only, as used on LNG ships do not have the best fuel efficiency. Without combined cycle, 2 strokes turbo diesel has still the best efficiency. P.S : I also understand that the piston steam engines of the 1900+ ocean liners, at least initially, required much less maintenance than the first steam turbines. And Mauretania and Lusitania had their engine to be revised some years while Olympic's run without major serviced until 1933. Regards

[@AlextheHistorian]

The reason I didn't explain it is because I'm a history guy and I can barely understand any of that engineering jargon. Even with your explanation above, I was lost at the first time you said "yield".

[@jeromehugues]

A historian is just someone who does research ;-) But I put myself in the place of the reader that I am and inevitably the question of why there are still pistons today, including in cars, will come up. But the historical question of the choice between the white star and its competitors is a question worthy of interest. It would probably be necessary to dive back into the literature of the time to find out if the choice was so simple when it came to choosing for the white star.

[@AlextheHistorian]

I dont understand your question, "choosing the white star"? What do you mean?

[@jeromehugues]

@@AlextheHistorian Sorry. I've fixed the typo. 'for the white star". I imagine that the choice for the engineers who worked for the white star to do without pistons or not was not necessarily an obvious choice. I don't know if an engineer interview technically supported this choice of the hybrid solution.

[@sssniperboofygoofy]

Yayyyy

[@northernmetalworker]

What was the reason why they stopped using steam turbines and switched to diesel engines?

[@AlextheHistorian]

Cheaper to operate and more fuel efficient.

[@TalesOfGothic]

It's probably better by weight to carry oil in barrels then coal as it's a more powerful fuel source

[@701983]

@@TalesOfGothic They switched from coal to oil before they switched from steam turbines to diesel engines. The Queen Mary (1936) was fueled by fuel oil, not coal.

[@brick6347]

Steam turbines are still in use - nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers etc use them. I actually think they maybe in for a bit of a renaissance as oil prices increase and smaller, safer, and cheaper reactors become available. I mean, I don't think liners are making much of a comeback any time soon, but there's plenty of gas guzzling cargo ships. However, I'd imagine a nuclear reactor on a cruise ship (and it has been tried btw, eg NS Savannah) is probably a long ways off as the public is still pretty squeamish about that sort of technology!

[@Eriksen2854]

Some LNG carriers still use steam turbines, they run on the boiloff gas from the cargo.

[@ManzaraHarika]

there are laws banning nuclear, it has nothing to do with the public

[@paulstubbs7678]

So if they were so good, how come we are now using piston engines?

[@AlextheHistorian]

Technically, our best vessels at sea still use turbines. Military vessels that are nuclear powered are some of the fastest and most powerful ships, and they move using steam turbine. Slow moving cruise ships use the cheapest solution: diesel-electric propulsion. But when moving a ship, steam turbine is still the fastest and most powerful way.

[@jeromehugues]

Today naval ships use INTERNAL combustion (often 2 strokes engines) not (external combustion) steam engines. Do not confuse internal combustion engines with external combustion engines. Please see my last comment in the video for more explanation about why piston engines are in this case the best.

[@AlextheHistorian]

I dont think Paul or I said anything about external combustion engines.

[@jeromehugues]

@@AlextheHistorian Your video was about (external combustion implicit) steam turbines. His natural question is why today container ship that are a kind of descendant of the big sea vessel use piston engines. I understand that.

[@AlextheHistorian]

I see

[@jerryumfress9030]

The turbine powered engine was a quantum leap from the reciprocating engines.

[@jamestavish427]

Music jsut dosnt fit ngl

[@frasermitchell9183]

And , of course, there are marine gas turbines which don't need any boilers in the ship. I'm not sure how their economy compares to steam turbines, but neither can match the economy of marine diesels.

[@monsieurcommissaire1628]

Yes, diesels are economical, but they bore me to tears! Gas turbines are not too economical but they are very powerful and a popular choice for fast military ships like the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. I believe they use General Electric turbines much like the ones in large passenger jets, only driving a shaft.

[@701983]

@@monsieurcommissaire1628 The Queen Mary 2 has two gas turbines additionally to the diesel engines. For maximum power, when it comes to fast atlantic crossing. But the propulsion is electric, the diesel engines and gas turbines drive generators.

[@helpmehelp3009]

Charles Parsons was a Englishman from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, i was an apprentice there and when they sold out to the Yanks a lot of good be left their lively hood, most he was first also to produce electricity from same turbines.