Why Is the Battleship's Diesel Generator Missing?

In this episode we're talking about the ship's emergency diesel generators.
For our online store, go to:
battleshipnewj...
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support the museum and this channel, go to:
battleshipnewjersey.org/videofund
The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the content creator only and may not reflect the views and opinions of the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial, the Home Port Alliance for the USS New Jersey, Inc., its staff, crew, or others. The research presented herein represents the most up-to-date scholarship available to us at the time of filming, but our understanding of the past is constantly evolving. This video is made for entertainment purposes only.

[@cruser69]

I am going to guess you don’t remember our conversation about this unit when we went on a tour with you. Sorry for the bad news, here is what happened. Prior to last deployment, there was an electrical fault, and the forward diesel started, without the water pumps. Since it was a fault, no one realized it was running, so it ran for a while without cooling, scoring the cylinders because it overheated. It was torn down, hoping to get it repaired prior to deployment, however, replacement parts were not available, it’s too damn old. So we deployed on last cruise with a portable generator strapped to the superstructure, so if we needed it, we could start it and plug it into shore power outlets. Then when we were returning, we got the word of decom, so they just left it.

[@major__kong]

It's probably not practical to repair, but it probably can be repaired. Optimistic case is new cylinder liners and piston rings. The trick is finding someone that has or can make the right sizes. Worst case is pistons, rods, journals on the crank got smoked. I wouldn't repair except as a fun project opting instead for a modern generator for an operational platform. A lot more power for the same space like Ryan went through in the video.

[@fsodn]

Yeah, that makes sense. So the state of it seen in this video is torn down for overhaul (crank gone, heads gone, permanent parts still there) but then nothing done after that.

[@connorlafleur5224]

Great to know, thank you for your service.

[@corollaguy6740]

Makes you wonder where the parts are - scrapped? In a random box onboard? Sitting in a machine shop somewhere in the US tucked in a corner? Who knows

[@DaveSoCal]

Check with one of the RAILROAD museums

[@coolsnake1134]

Given the fact that the block looks to be intact and all the internals and external parts were removed down to the main bearings, heads, intake and exhaust, crankshaft pistons rings etc it looks like they were in the process of possibly doing a full overhaul on that engine and the ship was decommissioned before they could finish. You would not disassemble an engine like that for spares most of the time and if you did you usually wouldn't take single use parts like seals and bearings and piston rings as those all get replaced with new parts whenever you rebuild an engine

[@coolsnake1134]

If they were in the process of upgrading those to gas turbines they would not have been disassembled and even if they were aft emergency diesel would have been at a similar state because to upgrade the engines it most likely would have had to put the ship in a dry dock and cut holes through all the decks so they could lift the engines out and lift the new ones in and you would have seen evidence above the engines on each deck up to the main deck of pieces being cut out and welded back in

[@gregbrown4009]

I'm going with this answer. The most logical.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@coolsnake1134 Not necessarily. The halves of the block look small enough to make it thru the main hatches without needing to cut much esp. the deck armor. Also they would not have started taking the engines apart unless they had an actual contract/program/project number and Ryan would have that in his documents. That all he has is basically a sales pitch, means that never happened. So most likely, they were only doing an overhaul, or repair of the spinny bits on that one engine. There is even a pretty good chance that the top end and crank are still on board somewhere in one of New Jersey's storage areas.

[@ytlas3]

@@coolsnake1134 They didn't do that with battleships. Armor in the hull and decks. Only places they ever cut in the hull was back aft in the laundry. The Riggers would haul everything up to Broadway, then use the railing to help move their object aft. Then on the port side aft, they removed a couple of ladders and had the pier crane drop a cable straight down

[@ivoryjohnson4662]

Could be since they were going more electronics needed more power

[@ytlas3]

In the early 80's when the Leahy and Belknap CGs were coming through LBNSY for their New Threat Upgrade packages, they also had their forward emergency diesel generators replaced with the emergency gas turbine generators. They were located on the main deck, all the way forward, just inside the superstructure. It used the same exhaust system that the previous diesel generator used. Went directly to port, then through a muffler looking structure and out the port side. Would have been interesting if they would have installed one on the Jersey. On the very first one LBNSY installed on the USS Sterett, the very first time they tested it, they couldn't shut it down. The turbine kept increasing speed, so everyone evacuated the space. Just as the last person got out of the compartment and dogged down the door, it came apart and caused a fire. I had to work in that compartment about a week later and there were all kinds of shrapnel dents in the bulkheads and overhead.

[@someinternetguy955]

Heads and crank were likely out for machining work, liners, pistons and rods would all be pulled to do that. That engine is in the process of a rebuild, obviously it never got completed.

[@mikegetscher2165]

According to our records, these engines were installed in BB 61 and 62. The parent engine is the McIntosh & Seymour 531 series which was developed in the early 1930’s as a locomotive prime mover. McIntosh & Seymour was absorbed by ALCO in the late 30’s as they began to enter the diesel switch engine locomotive market. The engines were rebranded after that. We have images of this engine series with both M&S and ALCO names cast into the crankcase covers. The engine family includes 531, 538 and 539, all with turbocharger options. They were installed in ALCO HH locomotives as a start. I am aware of several which are still running. According to the ALCO history books, ALCO built a significant number of the 530 series engines for the Navy during the war. Often used in auxiliary vessels, it seems slightly surprising that they made their way into the BB world. The Fairbanks Morse OP engines were far more ubiquitous but may have been reserved for submarine production. We know many OP’s made their way into CV’s as well. The 530 Series never gained the broad acceptance of industry after the war. I am not surprised that the Navy was considering a repower scenario for the EGEN systems. By the 1980’s, these were essentially an unsupportable technology. IOWA’s engines are intact, and we have spares. The Navy has spare parts sitting in the former USS CHARLESTON. USS IOWA

[@iansinclair521]

Oddly, a wastewater treatment plant I operated some 40 years ago had a Saturn standby gas turbine generator setup for if we lost power. One advantage was that it would go from dead to full output (I forget what that was) in a matter of 10 or 30 seconds. Useful...

[@MisterLongShot_Official]

I saw a video of an auto start test for a backup turbine in the middle of some snow covered forest in the middle of nowhere, and it was very impressive.

[@TyphoonVstrom]

Turbines are great for this application. As they don't have to deal with thermal expansion of pistons etc, they can start and go to peak load without compromising engine life. Turbines are also air cooled, so as soon as they start they are self cooling.

[@JonBrase]

​@@TyphoonVstromWell, also, the forces on all your engine components are all more steady-state, so you have less wear from that, too. Turbines of any kind are generally more reliable than reciprocating machinery, except when you have a turbine acting as a turbocharger *for* reciprocating machinery, in which case it seems that incipient failures in the reciprocating machinery tend to do stuff that kills the turbo. I've heard of one case were an issue that was causing metal shavings in the oil killed two turbos in a row before it caused any trouble with the rest of the engine. The power loss attending the second turbo failure caused a fatal aircraft accident, and the "power recovery turbine" on one late '40s aircraft engine was known to mechanics as the "parts recovery turbine".

[@rynohorn3819]

Some sailors spent a lot of time wrapping those hand rails you're sitting on, Ryan! Looks like busy work for a boatswain's mate. I like these videos of the engineering spaces. As a non nuke engineman I didn't get the chance to see those spaces on my former ship

[@MK0272]

I saw the title of this video and thought, "Dang! Ryan said visitors tend to pilfer things but this is ridiculous!"

[@fsodn]

I'm laughing thinking about someone trying to smuggle that crankshaft out. "Hey...what's under your arm?" "This is my crutch." "It's 8 feet long and it's making holes in the decking" "it's an ANTIQUE crutch. They don't make 'em like that anymore!"

[@rusty_gold_garage7138]

Should do a deep dive into the machine shop spaces and stores and see if you can find the parts removed. It may shed some light on what the intent was to how they were stored and their condition. As a mechanic my first guess would be it went down for maintenance. Perhaps if there was maintenance records and access to them that would also shed light on it.

[@robertpoore7604]

I agree. Look into the machine shops for the cylinder head. Or maybe they sent it out.

[@davidg3944]

I suspect the parts were too large and specialized to be practically done onboard. The were likely either stored or sent to dedicated engine shops for repair.

[@MoparNewport]

Youve mentioned before that the museum is specifically prohibited from firing the steam plants. Does that include the diesel backups as well? Ie, suppose it were determined that after diesel was in running condition, would the contract permit it? Hearing those old beasts roar to life would be very impressive! Great vid as always!

[@kman-mi7su]

Yeah, that would be awesome to see them fire up, plus if they work, they possibly could be used for backup purposes in an emergency situation onboard. Not likely though but it would be good to know they are there and able to work if needed.

[@allangibson8494]

@@kman-mi7suLike running the bilge pumps and lighting…

[@JonathanBirdsey]

@@kman-mi7su I am guessing like so many other things on the ship, they are unusable regardless of permission due to some connection through the hull being sealed, and the museum isn't going to open any of those.

[@jeebusk]

loophole :)

[@gadget73]

@@JonathanBirdsey I believe he did specifically mention that. Not going to open the sea chests because its a possible spot for water intrusion.

[@Desert-edDave]

This channel is truly so very fascinating.

[@navelriver]

I have a magazine ad I found on the net somewhere referring to an ALCO 539 that looks much like the one on USS New Jersey

[@notacleverman9438]

Yea after doing a good boy of preliminary research I'd say the 539 is what we have here. Lots of images of the 539Ts look exactly like this but with a big ass turbo on the front

[@bravoA-su8xm]

thats a 540 same design but welded block in the video you can see the block is welded

[@jeebusk]

my guess is it's an M&S 300 upgraded to 330hp (~250kw) specs the model 539 is 1000hp ~750kw, "A very similar engine developed for the United States Navy was the 540T. This engine used a welded block. The welded construction was required because the specified shock tolerance requirements prohibit the use of cast blocks. The Navy 540 was used in patrol boats, mine sweepers, mine layers, and tug boats." they may have interchangeable parts

[@benjaminnoakes5799]

Definitely a variant of the 539 / 540 type without turbo. tentangtruck.blogspot.com/2010/05/539-539t.html?m=1

[@kman-mi7su]

Maybe someone who was in engineering back when that happened might remember why the engine was disassembled. It would be awesome if someone who did that work comes forward.

[@cruser69]

@@kman-mi7su I did post the reason.

[@oceanmariner]

The reason there are different diesels in the same ship classes was in trying to get the most ships built in the shortest time during WWII. In 1970-1 I was serving on a Leahy class DLD (later a CG) that had a gas turbine generator forward and a diesel generator aft. The story I was told, the navy only had enough gas turbine generators for the ships deployed in 6th and 7th fleets. So when you came home from deployment, the shipyard cut out a section of deck plating and removed the generator and welded up the empty space. When it was time to deploy, the deck was opened and a gas turbine generator reinstalled. Seemed like an expensive way to do it. But the stateside DLGs only had the diesel generator. Steaming south from Norfolk to Gtmo, we lost the steam load and had to shutdown and restart the boilers. With only the aft generator the boilermen had trouble getting relit. Most of the pumps, forced draft blowers ran on AC and the generator's switch boards were wired to supply power to the missile and radar systems first. We were in Windward Passage, east of Cuba and the wind was pushing the ship toward shallow waters. After frantic half hour rewiring of the power supply, they got one on the boilers lit and another lit after a wait for the steam generators to come on line. We traveled at 5 knots for about an hour but were running normal by the time we reached Gtmo. There was talk before I left the ship about the navy buying more gas turbine generators. By then almost all warships were burning jet fuel. Most of the WWII built ships were gone.

[@heritagetanker2937]

For the 250 kilowatt rating, that's the electrical output, not the horsepower. Rule of thumb is 20-25kw of generator output per 100 horsepower, which means the actual engine would be in the 1,000-1,250 hp range. As far as a model number, ALCO had a lot of engines in that power range, but they *did* make a welded block model (the 540/540T) of the 539 specifically for the Navy. You could check to see what the cylinder bore is (seeing as the forward diesel is apart), and see if that matched the 539/540s specs.

[@major__kong]

Where's the extra horsepower going? 1 HP = 745 W. 250kW is then about 333 HP. So there are losses in the system, but 700 HP of losses? Or is the generator oversized to handle inductive loads like motors starting up and 250kW is the average running load?

[@bravoA-su8xm]

its the 540 you can see in the video the block is welded

[@TyphoonVstrom]

@@major__kong Generator engines are never sized to run at maximum load, way too hard on them. Generator engines are typically specified so the engine runs in it's peak efficiency range at expected loads. This also means faster response times for the engine to maintain set speed when large loads come on and offline. So the engine will be capable of much more, but reliability and efficiency are the primary goals.

[@oldtruckswork8989]

The Camden and Sacramento were likely the destination of the parts you are missing. They received the Kentucky's power plants and much of the AMR equipment. Were probably needed for service replacements during a rebuild.

[@Tim.NavVet.EN2]

When I was aboard the USS Garcia (FF-1040) we had to run at least one of the EDGs as a SSDG (Emergency Diesel Generator & Ship's Service Diesel Generator) due to the increase of Onboard Electronics. I imagine that the increase of Power Rating (from 250 KW to 750 KW) was to support this. Downrating could be to allow the EDG to run for days if need be without putting too much of a strain on the system. ALCO was bought out, I forget who did it, but as of a few years ago, the company was still around. You might want to send some info (# of cylinders, bore, and what you think the stroke is) to them for help! BTW: On Perry Class FFGs, we had modified GM 16V149s (16 cylinders in a V configuration each with 149 Cubic Inches Displacement) that bore the name of Stewart-Stevenson. I wonder if the other company was building ALCO engines under license (like happened in the US very often during WW2) or perhaps built a modified ALCO. (IIRC there was something like over 90% parts commonality between our engines and a standard Turbo-Charged GM 16V149!)

[@thetrainshop]

Fairbanks-Morse bought out the ALCO engine product line

[@shopdog831]

If you do have an alco diesel than its not impossable that you could find parts to Reassemble the diesel plant using parts from locomotive salvage yards

[@F-Man]

Imma guess - like most other imminently useful things on the ship - pillaged for other ships upon final decommissioning.

[@charletonzimmerman4205]

Yes those "Fairbank Morse" 12 cylinder, ones are expensive, they can /are, used on all Navy ships. You think, we taxpayers are made of money?

[@foundersrule3496]

@@charletonzimmerman4205 There is some good background at a web site, Old Machine Press, see an article on the Fairbanks Morse Diamond Opposed-Piston Marine Engine.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

@@charletonzimmerman4205 Just as a point of info, the aux diesels on New Jersey are ALCO straight-six cylinder engines.

[@aserta]

@@charletonzimmerman4205 Taxpayers, nah. But the politicians' pensions, pensions for sitting decades on their asses... sure are, the taxpayers'.

[@richard6133]

Either that, or "personally salvaged" by the guys who worked on it... Not making any accusations, just when the government is "throwing things away," sometimes people that work on that equipment might decide to help themselves to some of the waste. If the government actually cared about it, then why are they throwing it away?... I'm not condoning the practice, I'm just pointing out that it does happen. Government property does at times inexplicably end up in people's personal inventory.

[@J-1410]

Solar was International Harvester's turbine division, later sold to Caterpillar. Turbines in some cases are more efficient, especially size wise in some cases, but are fuel hogs. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a trend to put a turbine in everything. Ford made a turbine semi truck, Chrysler made a turbine car, IH made a turbine tractor and semi, so, turbines in the military is a logical "lets put a turbine there" step. Turbine, as in like jet engine, not reciprocating diesel. That being said, IH was a massive engine producer up until the late 2000s when emissions forced them out.

[@robertthweatt1900]

As former emergency power tech, remember Solars, and a few Allisons. High kW vs diesels per unit size was attractive at one time. Diesels became more powerful, and have one great advantage..starting.

[@ravenbarsrepairs5594]

That engine looks like it was taken apart for service and the ship was decommissioned before they put it back together. If so, I'd expect somewhere in the machine shop spaces the missing parts are hiding.

[@jeebusk]

that would be cool.

[@DaveSoCal]

Someone mentioned maybe parts were left in the corner somewhere. It’s too bad unlike a lot of east coast shipyards absolutely nothing is left of LBNSY. When I first started driving in the ‘70’s buddies and I would go to the port and see many cool things. Spruce Goose was there albeit in her hanger and even at that time there was concrete and two hangers still standing from the navy airbase Reeves Field ? The hanger was used in a rock vid heavy metal religious hair band Slaughter maybe ??

[@kingofthepod5169]

Those alco's are either 531's or 539's from the days when Alco bought out mcintosh & seymour. Reliable smokey and memorable sounding. Whitewater valley has an operable alco S1 with the 539

[@jeebusk]

They're 300/330

[@MichaelKoehler-r6v]

These are NOT 531/538/539. I inspected them this summer. These are M&S Alco 300s. Basically a 3/4 size 539. Check Steinbrenners book the Navy orders are referenced. We also found original order documents and tech info. The stern unit is complete and intact and could likely run. The unit in the bow is stripped. Maybe it is possible to find parts in some government warehouse someplace ?

[@Formulabruce]

yup, Smokeys, all the Alcos of that era..

[@stevenckaroly]

My tug, USS Cocopa (ATF-101), had 4 Alco diesels when I was on her in 72-73. She was a diesel-electric drive.

[@jeebusk]

do you know what model?

[@stevenckaroly]

@@jeebusk no I don't.

[@jimmiles33]

I visited the ship a couple years ago and ID’d these for you. I know you’re busy so maybe you forgot!

[@touchofgrayphotos]

I'd say parts from these diesels were recycled to the Cimmeron class oiler built back in 1939/1940. The last of the class, which had been "jumbosized" weren't struck from the navy list till the early 90's, so they could of been a potential vessel for these parts.

[@thetrainshop]

The engine you're standing in front of is an ALCO 538 or 539. The Belknap class Cruisers I believe ended up using Alco-FM 251 engines, though what configuration, I can't seem to find. The 538 and 539 series engines were really reliable, but getting parts for them is increasingly difficult. This one looks to not have been turbocharged, which would explain a lower output, but de-rating is definitely possible too.

[@mrjumbly2338]

Admirable-class minesweepers and Auk-class minesweeper were built with the ALCO 538 or 539.

[@MichaelKoehler-r6v]

These are Alco 300s. 9 1/2 x 10 1/2. Basically a 3/4 size 531. The stern unit is complete. It all looks like a 539 but when you stand next to it you know for sure it is not 531/538/539/540.

[@thetrainshop]

@@MichaelKoehler-r6v very interesting! I thought it was some weird scaling going on! I had an itch in the back of my head that it was smaller than usual

[@edfromnc7660]

Most likely an ALCo (American Locomotive Company) 539 built by their Macintosh & Seymore Division in Alburn NY. These were used in many stationary applications. Some of which are still in service today.

[@jeebusk]

They're 300/330

[@o484]

I believe those are ALCO 539T diesels

[@johnk6278]

Most likely an Alco 539T or 540 engine connected to A GE DC generator. The Alco GE relationship ran for many years as Alco didn't do the electric half. The Navy used similar if not the same Alco drives on tugboats produced in WW2 one of which is the museum ship Hoga (Woban Class) now in Little Rock and a well known survivor of Pearl Harbor.

[@jeebusk]

that's what he discussed upgrading to, I think they were originally 300 and upgraded to 330hp spec.

[@chief80-s3r]

Always wondered how they got the crankshaft out of there.

[@TonboIV]

With profanity. Lots of it.

[@john-r1i8k]

I was on the Wainwright DLG-28 (CG-28) in 1968, we had a hybred with a Solar gas turbine generator foward and a diesel aft (I think it was a Fairbanks-Morse) both were from commissioning

[@jayhood7893]

Hey Ryan, there should be a data plate on the generator head unit itself. That data plate will give you the make, model and serial number of that unit. Its not common to have the engine and generator be manufactured by the same company. This can help narrow down more specific information such as if its made by Westinghouse or some other company. We have a surplus generator unit we bought at auction that came off an LST and this how we got the information on the powerplant it was designed for. Hope it helps

[@jeebusk]

I think some of those parts were upgraded when it was originally installed, and maybe they planned to upgrade it again to 540T specs

[@giovannideventuri4506]

Ryan said in the vid that all the plates had been removed

[@kennethhanks6712]

Probably Alco 244s, not the later 251s? Basically their rail locomotive prime movers.

[@edfromnc7660]

Not 244 or 251, when the Iowas were built predated the introduction of those. The 539s or 540s would be the ones in production.

[@richardbrobeck2384]

Great video !!

[@gavinosullivan7904]

With the likes of the Oriskany which was sunk to create a reef, was all this machinery removed?

[@thomaslance5428]

The opening sounds of your videos make me think of the opening of the Kiss song, "Torpedo Girl" lol. "Battle stations torpedo."

[@clank4001]

That looks like ALCO 539T for sure, the side covers are a giveaway.

[@kmoecub]

No turbo, so just a 539.

[@clank4001]

@@kmoecub makes sense, basically sea level!

[@jeebusk]

the 539T is 1000hp (750kw) these are 300 /330 (250kw)

[@MichaelKoehler-r6v]

It's an Alco 300.

[@bbake659]

Do you have copies of any outstanding CASREP's at the time of decommissioning? I would guess that it was disassembled and parts sent off to either SIMA or civilian machine shops for repair and/or fabrication of replacements and just were not returned before the ship was decommissioned. Also possible that it was cannibalized for other ships but I would expect the other two gens to be missing parts as well.

[@bradreinhardt1358]

All branches of the military had locomotive switch engines. Alco was allowed to make diesel electric switchers during the war, but was restrained by the government to build passenger and freight diesel electrics. I would suggest that the missing parts went to a switch engine. The Alco diesels from that era had durability issues.... like crankshaft failures.

[@thetrainshop]

Not the 539s, you're thinking 244s.

[@jeebusk]

They're 300 /330hp (~250kw) the 539T/540T are 1000hp (~750kw)

[@thetrainshop]

@@jeebusk turbocharged ones are, yes. The 539 could be naturally aspirated and derated.

[@michaelathens953]

I'm kind of an old diesel enthusiast, it'd be interesting to see specs on those old Diesel power plants.

[@bobroberts2371]

Time 325 The main bearing caps are missing ( these fit on the studs sticking up. ) These caps are not interchangeable for position or between different engines as the bores are machined with the caps in place. I also don't see and bearing inserts in the engine block. If the intent was to rebuild the engine, the caps would have been saved for reassembly. It is possible that the engine was stripped for spare parts for another ship and no one checked to make sure the engine was the same size. I'd be contacting antique locomotive museums for more info on the engines.

[@occamsrazor1285]

5:55 There's a high probability that the components were "out of round" (you notice the crank is removed). In auto mechanics (and I have no reason to think the same thing wouldn't be true here), "rotational assemblies" can be re-ground to be brought back into spec, but if too far out of spec the part is junk. Perhaps those parts were being refurbished and they were just in too poor condition to be reused? And well, that's all she wrote since those were "Amco" engines?

[@AugustusTitus]

The 750 kW Solar gas-turbine generator was also used in a number of AT&T Long Lines sites that housed Autovon switches. Keep that documentation. It is useful.

[@Orxenhorf]

Another possibility is that there is an Alco locomotive out there somewhere that was being restored during the time that New Jersey was decommissioned and they came to her for parts.

[@petegossett5494]

I was thinking the navy may have taken the parts to get one of their Alco switchers back up & running.

[@eddie3722]

Goodness guys, @ cruser69 already explained what happened to the generator, slow down a little with all the ideas, & yes I’m almost positive the gens draw cooling water through a sea chest, so even though it’s not to hard to get an old engine like that running ie. the aft one if it’s intact, it still couldn’t be ran because of it’s cooling system being welded shut & while it would be an extra safety measure in case of total power loss or some sudden leak in the ship, I doubt even if it was brand new no one would want to pay for divers to cut open a freshly painted hull just to get cooling water to it, you would think they would have been some way to pipe water in through the side but I guess with all the armor and fuel tanks that would be impossible now, I know ships have to have so many places to draw water from the bottom but my lord 113 or whatever Ryan said they had seems completely counterintuitive to a ship that was supposed to be built to last as long as these, especially since almost everything else has backup after backup and knowing the worst thing you can do to all those water shutoff valves is let them sit there drying out over & over for a ship with all its redundancy’s you know every valve would have to be replaced, since New Jersey was reactivated on the cheap in 82 my guess is none of those things ever got replaced & just think, if they were all new with the good shape the hull is in any leak would be almost impossible, I know all the sea chests were checked but weld’s are still going to be the first thing to rust around and start leaking someday, remember they just checked them out they didn’t go through & re weld all of them & it would be a shame if in 10 years some started rusting through, cause you can’t really ultrasound weld’s in corners and stuff, it really sucks the Navy wanted to end their service when they did, I mean look at the Wisconsin, because it was built last & always activated last & then had the fire it was only in service a total of 13 or 14 years and was only in service from what 89 or 90 to the last of 91, by far the most money spent on it for nothing, I personally think the Navy got scared after the Iowa turret explosion and decided to end the program then, when what should have been done since so much was being spent would have been to destroy all the old 16” gunpowder and manafure new, if they had started that the same time New Jersey was being reactivated they would have had plenty of new safe powder but they put more in getting the tomahawks on & dropped the ball on the gunpowder, also I think opening the powder bags to check them & then the way some were repackage just made things worse, although I don’t know if any on the Iowa had been opened or not & since they were using the smaller bags that day I don’t have a clue if any of them were ever checked, sorry I’ve ranted on I just love those old ships & know they’ll never be anything else like them, one last thing, the Navy said it cost a million dollars a day for one ship and I wish someone would have called them to the carpet on that, I don’t think it would be that much in today’s money.

[@largesleepermadness6648]

The Virginia class CGNs had Fairbanks Morse EDGs. Can’t remember the KW size. But they were tall and long.

[@patrickperry3007]

Those documents were for gas turbine sets, not diesel generator sets. That would have been a very nice upgrade.

[@jeebusk]

are they?

[@soopaman2]

You are kind of close to Atlantic city, which has 5 pawnshops on every street, I would check there.

[@gdrriley420]

If you can get the cylinder bore that would help identify the family it comes from. Given the time period I’d expect a 531 or maybe a 538/39/40 but running a lower RPM to make 60hz power.

[@jeebusk]

all the info is on Wikipedia

[@DavidSmith-cx8dg]

Considering the power requirements of modern systems it's not surprising they might have been looking for a way to upgrade ships electrical capacity . The way the engine has been taken apart and protected suggests maintenance rather than stripping for parts .

[@hurgar7596]

bet the answer is in a maintenance log some where. to get it in that state of disassembly took awhile. that big of a job would have been recorded some where.

[@wallyschmidt4063]

A 750KW gas turbine generator, would fit in the diesel place. What would be hard is the inlet air and exhaust trunking. Does the diesel exhaust go to the funnels? The amount of air a gt takes is large. So trunking might have to be larger than the diesels trunking. Also I think the gt exhaust would be hotter than the diesel exhaust temperature. Another factor to consider is the noise a gt produces too.

[@RaceBanner_]

For Sale: Slightly used diesel generator. Rumored to have come from a battleship in Iowa. Buyer must have own transportation. Will trade for missile silo.

[@rtwpsom2]

My guess is that NJ's FWD generator experienced some problems and they took it apart to fix it and they found out that repairing it was going to be too expensive. So they sent out for bids to replace them and they settled on the 750 kw one.

[@Formulabruce]

Alco diesels in the Railroad industry ( 40's to 60's ) were not as reliable as EMD engines ( General Motors) . Not all diesels had the same brand generators hooked to them as the engine itself. Maybe Alco made a small switcher rail road engine like EMD (sw-1), and used an engine this size. EMD engine in the switcher was a 6 cylinder.

[@daleeasternbrat816]

Wow. Diesel Generators are what I do. I would love to have the model, serial and a specification on the forward and aft diesels on New Jersey. The engines, electrical ends, cooling systems, controls and any switchgear, parrelling gear or automatic buss transfers (ABT) associated with these generators. Also, a list of what is missing. Is there a log for the unit that's been stripped? If so , what was the last entry? I never knew one of these was stripped. The power systems on these ships are interesting technology. When I was a kid I remember hearing about Missouri being hooked up to the power system in Seattle during a power failure. She supplied power to the city for a while with her steam plant. I would like the details on these diesels, if convenient.

[@jeebusk]

I think they were originally 300hp models and upgraded to 330hp spec. idk if the 540T is similar enough to use the same block but that may be what they were doing.

[@johnm7249]

Looks like all the "wear parts" have been removed. Heads, pistons, crankshaft. No evidence of high pressure injection pump, either. Everything that can be carried off without cutting into the structure of the ship. Are there any rating plates on the generators?

[@paulreuter7763]

both the CG 16 and 26 class ships had a Fairbanks double acting piston and a solar gas turbine emergency generator. I was MPA on CG 33 USS FOX

[@leegarrison6082]

If you have the ESWS ( enlisted surface warfare specialist) ship specific book i wil put a 95% surety the info for the EDG is in there. That would be a definitive bit of info necessary to get through the A gang portion of the engineering section of your ESWS qualification. When I joined the Navy i wanted to be stationed on the New Jersey….

[@kqc7011]

Those ALCO engines probably had brass data plates and those brass data plates make real nice souvenirs.

[@jeebusk]

I think they were upgraded, that's probably why the original (incorrect) plates were removed but they should've been replaced with something.

[@thereddog223]

Wish I could see USS New Jersey

[@michaelsparks8786]

My dad worked for Solar turbines during this time period!!!

[@jeffwxyz]

You may find more info on that engine if you look for info on McIntosh & Seymour engines. It is probably a McIntosh & Seymour 330. They are extremely rare! The number designation refers to when the engine was designed: 3rd month of 1930. They are a lot smaller than the much more popular 539. The 330's were not made past 1939, by there may have been an exception for the Navy and I would expect that the Navy would want an engine that was mature in its state of needing updates from ALCO.

[@jeebusk]

it wasn't clear to me (from Wikipedia) if the cylinder was the same size, that would make sense since the 539/540T have like quadruple the hp.

[@jeffwxyz]

@@jeebusk Just from the video and trying to judge the scale, this is about 50% of the scale of a 539. The cylinder heads of a 539 would be at about eye level. You can tell that it is related because the covers on the side are the same shape, but scaled down.

[@antontsau]

If your genset rated 250kw it means the diesel must be 400kw or so, as it has to work not on full power but 1800, 1200 or (ancient or extremely big) 900 revs to provide 60hz (for US) frequency.

[@kevinbelcher8490]

Would you be allowed to fire up the diesel engine for a video?

[@gregrees9146]

Different manufacturers does not always mean they are different engines. During WW2 the navy and army would have several places building the same airplane, tank, ship etc to the same set of plans using the same tooling.

[@daleeasternbrat816]

Where can we find one?

[@stevevanosdall416]

If Spares... Maybe the Sacramento class? They had half an Iowa powerplant... Maybe similar diesels, too.

[@simonhall8979]

I am intrigued, as I put in the chat I understand removing parts for another vessel, but why remove the name plate? Is it what I am thinking the metal plate which contains operating parameters, serial number, model number etc or similar? If so, it makes no sense to remove these (to me), is that a US Navy standard operating procedure somewhere?

[@michaelcraig4710]

most likely the name plate's were stolen by sailor's as a momento.the name plates on the main engine's are also gone.

[@ytlas3]

@@michaelcraig4710 That would be my guess too. A souvenir for a sailor or yardbird

[@aperson7238]

they are alco model 540T diesels the welded block version of the 539T

[@adiamondforever7890]

How many diesel fire pumps and where? As a marine engineer for over 40 years, I have come across military derating of various engines, as duty cycles vary. I have two Onan gen sets, civilian ratings being 20 to 30% higher than the ‘same’ unit in military form. If mil rating is 100% continuous duty cycle, it would be easy to understand. Have fun

[@196cupcake]

How would they fix lost steam power? I mean, any break along the loop and you'd loose steam pressure, so that seems like a hard problem.

[@wfoj2]

it varies - lack details. Maybe just the explosion just interrupted air flow loss of flames in boiler. GOT to be careful check stiff - but just relight. IN that case steam side is intact - will maintain most pressure. IF steam side damaged- what do you do to repair those pipes.

[@jeebusk]

I think there's multiple routes from the boilers to the turbines, and they can switch routes if something is compromised to maintain pressure in the system.

[@cruser69]

@@196cupcake depends on the situation. During battle, like was discussed, the boilers were actually “blown out”. The lost flames, and had to restart. We would generally run with 4 boilers and 6 gens running. You generally would not have a steam line break, that would kill all in the space probably. The 4 plants were not generally cross connected so if we lost a boiler, the other three will still operate. We can cross connect the plants to get up faster.

[@JVoltCUAF]

the Special Collections Research Center at syracuse might have the info the battleship is looking for they seem to have the collection of ALCO files and stuff they might be able to help you figure out more about you engine....its pre alco 241 type engine.......since the engine would have been built prior to that one.

[@dave4882]

A measurement of cylinder diameter and if you can get the stroke length from the other generator that would almost tell you exactly which alco you have.

[@x1heavy]

Whomever took that apart did it with care and some love. Probably with a goal to rebuild it like new almost someday. Its a difficult situation to see most everything taken off that thing.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

It’s possible they were stripped for the Coast Guard. The USCG has plenty of elderly vessels and might have had something at the time that still used the 250kW Alcos.

[@carldaniel6510]

Alco 540T? Any chance of getting a video of the other Diesel that isn't torn apart?

[@wfoj2]

it has been in a prior video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJS5dZd8qqZsd7s - 5 year old (don't seem that long to me)

[@jeebusk]

the 540T is what I think they wanted to upgrade them to, it's possible the block was similar /interchangeable with the 300 /330.

[@MichaelKoehler-r6v]

Not interchangeable with 540. Totally different size. This is a 300.

That's weird. 250KW X 2 is only 500KW emergency electric. I've worked on several yachts in the 100 ft range (class limited to 12 passengers + crew) that had that much generator capability. Hotel demand loads must have gone up exponentially in the intervening 80 years.

[@samthemultimediaman]

I don't know why they just didn't install some EMD gensets at any point in the ships service, would have been a way better option in every way.

[@JoshuaTootell]

I would imagine space would be an issue. The smallest EMD (6-567) was about twice the horsepower.

[@adiamondforever7890]

Cleveland’s would be historically a better fit, but still to big with a limited ceiling. Have fun

[@1648Christopher]

During WW II, were contract items for the military, ... manufactured by various manufacturers; made to the same specifications? So that a part made by one, would fit into another..., Say rifle parts made by Remington fit into a rifle made by say... Goodyear? Would the same logic work here? "I need to fix my diesel generator made by ALCO, Ok the parts from Cooper Bessimer fit just fine. Would that be true?

[@jasondavis9354]

Ryan. You not going to find a diesel engine that drive a generator supplying the sake power as the gen head. You have to over power the gen to keep steady rpm at full load. If your pulling 200kw and need to pull another 40 it would drop rpm and cover slowly. If you over power it your not going to drop rpm. Rpm equals frequency.

[@SuperPirate100]

Johnny Cash been aboard by any chance? One piece at a time 🎵🎶

[@franks471]

That sort of output seems on par with the very earliest diesel switcher locomotives when the concept was new, and the engines likely came from a 3rd party. Possibly from Ingersol-Rand. Just a guess.

[@jeebusk]

using a train locomotive engine as a geny is pretty badass...

[@jimmiles33]

Same as the EMD engines on LSTs. Just modified cooling systems and sumps.

[@5695q]

If the engine isn't direct drive, then it is operating as a genset on a locomotive.

[@inothome]

Actually was pretty common with the EMD two strokes, same engines in trains, ships and stationary gensets. Largest I worked on was an EMD V20 -710, 3.5MW which is about 5,000HP. Same engine they sued in the SD80MAC trains and a few others. But there is also the 567 and 645 series too. The numbers represent one cylinder's cubic inch displacement. So yeah, a V20 710 has 20 710 Cubic inch cylinders. Here it is starting up and full load: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nne5e2yCnc2gZqs

[@ktachimoto]

Nice. Solar Turbines. Great turbines. Would have consumed so much more diesel than a DEA.

[@donkeyboy585]

Yeah it was most likely being rebuilt and being a roughly 50 year old engine they were gonna reuse as much as possible. Now did the head, crank, rods, pistons ever leave the ship to get machined?

[@robertwilcox7267]

Wisconsin did have Cooper Bessemer EDGs. They were naturally aspirated.

[@farmrrick]

When they were refit in the 80s ALCO probably was out of business. They were big in the railroad business especially steam era.

[@paulpeterson5214]

----- Unless the same battle damage that damages the boilers damages the main electrical switchboards. If that happens then you have power but no way to direct it to where it needs to be. Can you imagine the noise level in that space with the diesels running? Tinnitus country for sure!

[@allangibson8494]

The electrical distribution was specifically designed to be bypassed. If a switchboard physically still existed, it could be powered by jumper leads…

[@DarthMcLeod]

Suppose this was decommissioning work that was started but not completed. Was there work needed to be done to mothball the diesel engines that would require this kind of disassembly? If the process ran out of time, the navy might have left work on the generator half-finished.

[@obsidianjane4413]

No. All they would have done was fog and seal up the engine, if that.

[@AlexanderSchreiber]

As for not finding a matching diesels in the Alco catalog at the time: maybe they were diesels with a higher design rating and were intentionally derated for reliability and service life?

[@manitoba-op4jx]

another wonderful example of the sheer size of these ships, the "backup" generators are a pair of diesel locomotive prime movers... 😂

[@marceallonardo]

is it possible the Navy stripped the parts for the Polar Class ice breakers. I believe they used ALCO diesels.

[@JoshuaTootell]

They used MUCH larger Alcos for mains, but I don't know about for generators.

[@RobW-hb7tq]

Polar Class used ALCO 251 F and gas turbines in Combined diesel-electric or gas (CODLOG) propulsion.

[@Jpdt19]

Huh. Amusing synchronity. HMS Belfast lost one of her two main diesels when she went into reserve also.

[@CAPNMAC82]

Dunno if finding out that the ALCO diesels/parts are available doesn't open a different can of worms in whether to restore the ability to have backup power or not.

[@TheIcetemp]

I think this was a planned overhaul. I was a MM1C back in the 80s and we would never re-use seals or bearings. My Chief would have dropped dead first.

[@derekhieb7458]

I believe both LT's and YTL used both thpes diesels as diesel electric tugs.

[@viridimontes]

7:04 pronounced BELL-nap. The k is silent like knife.

[@danquigg8311]

How are these emergency diesel generators different from the auxiliary diesel generators?

[@epajarjestelmainsinoori9037]

I would guess more power to feed critical systems when steam is out. But not designed for long periods (years) of continuous duty.

[@RobW-hb7tq]

Difference is emergency diesels are designed to start and carry a portion of the electrical plant load while restoring main power. Auxiliary diesels are designed to parallel with the normal buss and supplement the the normal generation plant.