I know this message board isnÂ’t quite the spot for this, but some good preservation news for a change: I just spotted this blurb on our paperÂ’s photo wire. No full story yet, but at least one cruise line has a soft spot for history:

The ocean liner SS United States sits in the water of the Delaware River where it is docked at an pier in South Philadelphia, in this Nov. 13, 1998, file photo. On Monday, April 14, 2003, Norwegian Cruise Line announced it has purchased the ship, known as the fastest ocean liner in the world. (AP Photo/Chris Gardner)

Kudos, Norwegian!
Kevin

> I know this message board isnÂ’t quite the
> spot for this, but some good preservation
> news for a change: I just spotted this blurb
> on our paperÂ’s photo wire. No full story
> yet, but at least one cruise line has a soft
> spot for history:

> The ocean liner SS United States sits in the
> water of the Delaware River where it is
> docked at an pier in South Philadelphia, in
> this Nov. 13, 1998, file photo. On Monday,
> April 14, 2003, Norwegian Cruise Line
> announced it has purchased the ship, known
> as the fastest ocean liner in the world. (AP
> Photo/Chris Gardner)

> Kudos, Norwegian!
> Kevin
This is the most exciting news I've heard in a long time. Is it a belated April 1st story?
If not, is there any indication what they plan to do with it? Maybe cash in on the value of the aluminum? If they plan to run it, it's a lot of jing, and you can bet the current steam turbines would not be part of the plan.
Mark D.

Dont you mean Kudos Star, NCL has not been NCL since 2000 when there was a Hostal takeover by Star which led to the fireing of most the board and lead to the comany to start sinking in their new Freestyle . I was recently on the S/s Norway and tha is the only non freestyle ship and you could tell they were sinking. I love NCL but with the onwership of 3 american ships United States, Independence and the unconpleted Queen of The Americas will they be giving american jobs andbring jobsto Merchant Marniers like me?



BEDT15@aol.com

Looks like NCL is planning on using her for cruises to Hawaii from the mainland.
Story at the link below.

There is nothing on the SS United States Foundation webpage about this.



http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/04/14/daily13.html
SJHussar@aol.com

The Norwegian Cruise Line website confirms the purchase of the SS United States.

> Looks like NCL is planning on using her for
> cruises to Hawaii from the mainland.
> Story at the link below.

> There is nothing on the SS United States
> Foundation webpage about this.


http://www.ncl.com/news/pr041403.htm
davew833@yahoo.com

> The Norwegian Cruise Line website confirms
> the purchase of the SS United States.

That is awesome! Hard to believe the way the economy is that the cruise industry is apparently doing well. Maybe we can talk the Norwegians into buying some 747s.


Railway Preservation News
hkading@rypn.org

Actually, it is a brilliant marketing strategy. Between terrorism and war people want to stay within the US. Here is a ship that will be US flagged so it can do an all US cruise. This may open up a lot of new US ports of call.

Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society
tstuy@eldcps.org

For those of us who are maritime neophytes, help us understand the significance of the ship being "US flagged". For some reason, I thought that the reason more ships aren't "US flagged" had something to do with cost, taxes, etc. I had no idea it had something to do with where the ship could operate. Thanks in advance.

shawsinoly@aol.com

There are restrictions on how a non-US flag ship can operate within the US. For example, a cruise originating in New York could not stop at Miami or Key West unless it first stops at a non-US port (such as Bermuda). This is why most Alaskan cruises start in Vancouver rather than say Seattle.

Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society
tstuy@eldcps.org

since I am the most maritime person on the site I'll help you here.

The Jones Act a very old law in the USA requires that ships in the Coastal Trades i.e. one US port to another, be built in the US and have American
(also Union crews).

Hawaii is a US Coastal port of call even if it is 2800 miles from the nearest land mass.

The debate about the law is long standing; has outlived its time etc. But as of now it is still the law of the land.

What I wonder is who is going to build the replacement engine room for the ship. I have read that a turbin plant is more than double the operating cost of a modern large Diesel plant.


ted_miles@nps.gov

> What I wonder is who is going to build the
> replacement engine room for the ship. I have
> read that a turbin plant is more than double
> the operating cost of a modern large Diesel
> plant.

Well, Sulzer -- the same outfit building the new generation superefficient steam locomotives in Switzerland - has built new efficient ,marine reciprocating steam plants, so wouldn't it be very cool to see a quadruple expansion up and down engine?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

How about a big Skinner Unaflow? I believe the SS US as built had a steam turbine power plant similar to the Iowa-class BB's and Midway-class CV's.

In reality, diesels don't require a fireroom and the associated boiler tenders. You don't have high-pressure steam piping, heat losses, etc. I believe QE2 was converted from steam turbine to diesel. What is Norway's power plant?

BTW the USN uses gas turbines in its new cruisers and destroyer-types, but these are much smaller than SS US.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> In reality, diesels don't require a fireroom
> and the associated boiler tenders. You don't
> have high-pressure steam piping, heat
> losses, etc. I believe QE2 was converted
> from steam turbine to diesel. What is
> Norway's power plant?

The Norway is still steam turbine powered, which leads me to wonder if the S.S. United States will be dieselized as fast as some think.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steamships
james1@pernet.net

> The Norway is still steam turbine powered,
> which leads me to wonder if the S.S. United
> States will be dieselized as fast as some
> think.

> -James Hefner
> Hebrews 10:20a
Everyone has an opinion, and here's mine.
The NORWAY had three turbines while it was the FRANCE. One was removed prior to its new life in cruise service.
That ship cannot possibly be earning a profit at this time, judging by the deals being promoted just to get people to ride.
Therefor, I think the days of the NORWAY are numbered, so it isn't worth converting to diesel at this time. In earlier years, the cost of operating the original steam power plant wasn't so great, and it was feasable to just leave two of the current engines in place. The center engine and shaft were removed because the speed of a transatlantic ferry service was no longer needed, or desired. Instead, greater electrical generation capacity became important and the resulting new space from the loss of the center engine became more generator capacity. At this time, it's probably kind of too late financially to convert to diesel.
In the case of the UNITED STATES, they are basically going to have to gut the boat and rebuild everything, as it is all in pretty shabby mechanical condition. Engines and boilers included. The entire electrical system, steering, navigation, plumbing, you name it. With this kind of expenditure, they must plan to run it for a long time. Therefor, it will make sense to convert to diesel.
If they do not convert to diesel, they would most certainly replace the four turbines currently in it with two smaller ones, and smaller boilers. Economy of operation is going to be the important factor, rather than raw speed.
Frankly, I personally prefer raw speed.
Mark D.

When the USN reactivated the Iowas in the 1980's they were seeking retired boiler tenders and machinist's mates who knew how to operate the old boilers and engines.

I assume SS US had not been upgraded either.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association