The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"]So Kevin, you sent us all out on an information hunt for which you already knew the answer? [/quote]
No Maarten we did not KNOW the answer, but that's what it [i]appears [/i]to be. Is it correct, lets see, but its the best we have so far. Nor did I ask ANYONE to get personally involved / waste their precious model building time. Nor did I [i]send [/i]anyone anywhere. Anyone / everyone's own choice who responds or ignores.

[b]And the 'answer' if you could call in that, was not [i]known [/i]when I started this 'discussion' about boiler layout, nor prior to me putting up the post above with the photo of the Exeter vets at ceremony in HMS Kent on 30/7.[/b] And given you're so bent outta shape at me wasting modelers time on non modeling subsets, why didnt you complain about that post of mine if I may ask?

I put the question here to try and get a [i]definitive [/i]answer that may have been seen / found in plans etc, as their IS a wealth of historical knowledge here. And besides I did not want to sully the waters by adding in what we [i]thought [/i] post 30/7 (as have seen that take the wrong course / be counterproductive in other threads). And another reason I have waited is I had hoped the Engineers Report in PDF form would be up online by now (but that is not in my hands and is taking longer than expected) so as others could access and make their own decision and not blindly follow / trust what we say / have come up with.

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"]If so, I'm glad I haven't put any time into this.[/quote]
Yeah me too Maarten, given your attitude, which I am very surprised coming from you. Que sera sera though.

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"]But for curiosity's sake: why is this piece of information so important for a ship's modeller? [/quote]
Not one bit, but didnt realise this thread was exclusively for modelers only, as there has been plenty of posts of an historical nature throughout.

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"]I can only see a historical importance, when you are reading the battle reports -- which I would like to do too in some cases, but I wouldn't bother the modelling fraternity with that, unless I find something relevant from a modeller's point of view.[/quote]
Gee Maarten, I am really sorry that I may have wasted someones precious time that they could have used to be working on their / a model. My apologies to all so unduly affected then.
[b]
EDIT: [/b]Maarten, after giving it some more thought I just [i]have [/i]to come back and ask, [i]as your post seems so out of character (to me)[/i], did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? :shipcaptain:

Kevin Denlay

[quote="KevinD"]Well gents with no further input forthcoming re numbering layout I will disclose our findings. And these finding are based on and supported by Exeter’s Captain Gordon’s AAR and the Engineering Officer’s “Report on the Loss of Exeter”.
.....
Yes, we know its odd / seemingly unconventional, and have yet to turn up anything else like it, but it is the only numbering layout that fits / coincides with both above mentioned reports.
[/quote]

So Kevin, you sent us all out on an information hunt for which you already knew the answer?

If so, I'm glad I haven't put any time into this.

But for curiosity's sake: why is this piece of information so important for a ship's modeller? I can only see a historical importance, when you are reading the battle reports -- which I would like to do too in some cases, but I wouldn't bother the modelling fraternity with that, unless I find something relevant from a modeller's point of view.

Well gents with no further input forthcoming re numbering layout I will disclose our findings. And these finding are based on and supported by Exeter’s Captain Gordon’s AAR and the Engineering Officer’s “Report on the Loss of Exeter”.

A little background then. A colleague (historian and author Anthony ‘Tony’ Tully; author [i]The Battle of Surigao Strait[/i] and co-author [i]Shattered Sword; The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway[/i]) and I were trying to figure out which boilers were still in operation after the hit on 27th Feb, and which knocked out / where shell hit 1st March ‘42. We were at a bit of an impasse until I sent Tony the Engineering Officers report and the below diagram / numbering system was what he came up with after comparing those reports. Then some days later I sent the Engineers Report and Gordon’s to another friend very knowledgeable in the RN (who had already made some educated but incorrect ‘guesses’ on the numbering layout) and after reading and comparing said reports, also came up with the identical numbering system as Tony (without being told what we already thought).

Yes, we know its odd / seemingly unconventional, and have yet to turn up anything else like it, but it is the only numbering layout that fits / coincides with both above mentioned reports.

BTW; at present Captain Gordon's AAR is online as a PDF, but am just waiting on the Engineers Report - which I have sent to the same host / webmaster - to accompany Gordon's and will post that link when available.

[quote="Guest"]The numbering should be standard: STB odd PORT even...

Fore & aft alphabetical, I guess.

Also, sometimes the plan schematics for those 3-drum boilers could be a bit misleading to read, I think.FWIW[/quote]
Yes guest, it 'should be" one would have (at first} at first thought / expected it to be, as did we, but from reading / comparing Captain Gordon's AAR and a seperate Engineering Officers's Report It [i]appears[/i] not to have been like that in Exeter. I'll give it another day or so here now in hope of something definitive and then post our findings. But thanks anyway.

The numbering should be standard: STB odd PORT even...

Fore & aft alphabetical, I guess.

Also, sometimes the plan schematics for those 3-drum boilers could be a bit misleading to read, I think.

FWIW

[quote="Ed R"]While it doesn't answer the question directly for Exeter, in the AOTS Warspite drawings the port side bolier rooms are even numbered, with the number increasing from bow to stern and the starboard side has odd numbers (e.g. first boiler room closest to the bow No.1[/quote]
Thanks for your input Ed!

That numbering system doesnt [i]seem[/i] to jibe though with Exeter's CO's AAR and report by Exeter's engineers with regards the damage to Exeter's boilers.

While it doesn't answer the question directly for Exeter, in the AOTS Warspite drawings the port side bolier rooms are even numbered, with the number increasing from bow to stern and the starboard side has odd numbers (e.g. first boiler room closest to the bow No.1).

[quote="Brett Morrow"]In relation to your question dated 29th, the 16 small long rectangular boxes I earlier referred to are the bases of the fans above the boiler rooms, but more likely the actual fan uptakes. 2 boxes per fan, 1 fan per boiler. As I had pointed out the funnel uptakes are situated above the boilers. The boilers are in the positions shown in the 2 cropped profiles I had previously uploaded, your platform deck overhead clearly states `funnel uptakes "over" which would indicate they are directly over the boilers.[/quote]
Understood Brett, but................. it is the [i]numbering[/i] that is (still) at an impasse / in question.

In relation to your question dated 29th, the 16 small long rectangular boxes I earlier referred to are the bases of the fans above the boiler rooms, but more likely the actual fan uptakes. 2 boxes per fan, 1 fan per boiler. As I had pointed out the funnel uptakes are situated above the boilers. The boilers are in the positions shown in the 2 cropped profiles I had previously uploaded, your platform deck overhead clearly states `funnel uptakes "over" which would indicate they are directly over the boilers.

While I await any more input here, I have posted another question re Exeter's consort at the time of her loss, HMS Encounter, here;
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=22703&p=1078630#p1078630

Gents, as it seems we have reached a little bit of an impasse here, and that both Tom and I knew a couple of men from the BR's in question, (the late great George Gaskell and Bill Francis, who have since 'crossed the bar'; George, who was in A Boiler Room on both days (27th and 1st), and Bill, who was in B Boiler Room, at least on 1st anyway), was wondering if anyone here would know any 'good' mediums so we could get in touch with the lads and sort this out once and for all............................[i]just joking[/i]! :big_grin:

Below, George right and Bill left, front row aboard HMS Kent over the wreck of HMS Exeter, Java Sea Memorial Service, 27th July, 2008. The other two men front row, Rob Rae, center left, and Joe Asher, center right, were in turrets 2 and 3, respectively. Vale all lads! (Tom, whose father served aboard Exeter, and I, second row.)

Well, just heard back from the son of an Exeter veteran (Tom Jowett :thumbs_up_1: ), and his below in italics. If so, and given thats how secondary guns [i]are [/i]also numbered, [b][u]EDIT: NO THEY ARE NOT*[/u]![/b] then the boiler numbering was staring me in the face the whole time! [b][u]Oh no it wasn't.[/u][/b] :doh_1:

*[b][u] Seems I had a temporary brain meltdown when I wrote the above. The 4" mounts are NOT numbered like that. The 'aft' starboard 4" mount that the fateful shell came through on 27th is numbered S2, whereas if it held true to the other 'system' below it would be S3,[i] but it is / was not. [/i]So??[/u]
[/b]

Now (it seems) we just need the layout placement / arrangement confirmed. [b][u]Well, not quite[/u]![/b]

[i]"So far as numbering on ships is concerned, it works from forward, with preference to starboard.
As an example: the lifeboats. All the ones on the starboard side are numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, &etc.
The ones on the port side are 2, 4, 6, &etc.
The reason (as explained to a deck cadet in the early 70s) No1 is the Captain's boat & as he lives on the starboard side, he has the shortest route.
None of these daft ideas about going down with the ship!
I can't see any reason for the boiler rooms to be any different.
(OK, stokers always want to be different from deckies, but feel convention might over-rule them.)"[/i]
[b]
If the above holds true ([u]which it does not for the secondary 4" mounts[/u][/b]) then;
The starboard side boilers would be numbered 1, 3, 5, 7
The port side boilers would be numbered 2, 4, 6, 8

What say 'you'?

[quote="Brett Morrow"]Yes, you can make an enquiry to get a digital copy emailed, but it will cost you. Probably have to pay for a copy of the whole book, after which the full digital copy is uploaded onto the site and made available to anyone, that`s the way it works. If you have those projections, you no doubt have this profile which shows what I previously posted and also shows the fan apparatus on the fan deck,[u] they are precisely in the position of the 16 strips[/u]. Sometimes the obvious can be missed, the overhead shows `Funnel uptake "over"[/quote]
Thanks again Brett! So are you saying above that those 16 'strips' [i]are [/i]the boilers (meaning [i]eight [/i]boilers per BR then), or as someone else said above, are they 'the base [i]for [/i]boilers', which could then still be / 'mean' just four boilers per BR, if what we are seeing (the 'strips') represent just the 'stands / base' for the boilers (i.e. two 'stands' per boiler, four boilers per BR)?

Yes, you can make an enquiry to get a digital copy emailed, but it will cost you. Probably have to pay for a copy of the whole book, after which the full digital copy is uploaded onto the site and made available to anyone, that`s the way it works. If you have those projections, you no doubt have this profile which shows what I previously posted and also shows the fan apparatus on the fan deck, they are precisely in the position of the 16 strips. Sometimes the obvious can be missed, the overhead shows `Funnel uptake "over"

[quote="Brett Morrow"]The possibility exists that the actual boilers/boiler deck are not shown on the overhead plan. It is also possible that what Tracy has pointed out may be the fan assemblies in the fan room above. While it is likely the boiler room plan remained as originally designed for a 3 funnel cruiser your first mission would be to ascertain if that was the case. The profile plan `as designed` matches that of a Kent class, HMAS Australia which also shows the boilers in the same positions of the funnel uptakes, so your green dots may actually show the boiler foundations. An overlay of the overhead lower deck plan matches the position of the boilers shown on the profile. [u]You could check Australia`s ships book No 4 at NAA Canberra[/u] which has the boiler reports and may possibly answer your question relating to A and B sets.[/quote]
Thanks for your input Brett, much appreciated! But re your suggestion above, is that doable on-line(?), as given that I live on the other side of the world, literally about as far from Oz as you can get before you hit the North Pole, it will be very difficult for me in person. :big_grin:

Be that as it may, below a collage of the three deck levels above / below where BR is located from the 'as designed' plans. As can see still no indication of exactly where they are. And my understanding is there are no plans of her 'as [i]actually [/i]built' (as opposed to 'as designed'), nor aware of any changes to BR's at any time. Of course, that doesn't mean there weren't any.

The possibility exists that the actual boilers/boiler deck are not shown on the overhead plan. It is also possible that what Tracy has pointed out may be the fan assemblies in the fan room above. While it is likely the boiler room plan remained as originally designed for a 3 funnel cruiser your first mission would be to ascertain if that was the case. The profile plan `as designed` matches that of a Kent class, HMAS Australia which also shows the boilers in the same positions of the funnel uptakes, so your green dots may actually show the boiler foundations. An overlay of the overhead lower deck plan matches the position of the boilers shown on the profile. You could check Australia`s ships book No 4 at NAA Canberra which has the boiler reports and may possibly answer your question relating to A and B sets.

[quote="Tracy White"]I am willing to bet that Exeter's Boilers were similar to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarrow_boiler]this yarrow design[/url] and the eight rectangular objects near the pillars were the foundations for the boilers.[/quote]
Thanks Tracy. Wiki, for all [i]that's[/i] worth (which is often not much, but sometimes..........) says this "[i]She[/i] (Exeter) [i]was powered by four Parsons geared steam turbine sets, each driving one shaft, [u]using steam provided by eight Admiralty 3-drum boilers[/u][/i]". So what you say may be the case. Again, lets see if others chime in.

But yes, thats what the boilers (your link) were similar to (same as?).

This below, again, from a link that [i]was [/i]in the Wiki excerpt above.

[quote="G-Opt"]The cylinder shapes should be the boilers, I would think. Funnel uptakes are something entirely different, if I'm not mistaken.[/quote]
As I wrote the below Tracy's post came in, but I'll post this still anyway.

Thanks G, but........although that's what I initially thought, not only does the scale / size of them 'seem' wrong (to me) in relation to size of each BR, but that would seem to mean there were 8 boilers per [i]each[/i] BR, and it is my understanding (rightly or wrongly?) that there were 8 total in the ship (i.e. 4 per BR). So I am not so entirely sure / convinced just yet. Let's see then what anyone else might say. But again, thanks for your input!

I am willing to bet that Exeter's Boilers were similar to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarrow_boiler]this yarrow design[/url] and the eight rectangular objects near the pillars were the foundations for the boilers.

The cylinder shapes should be the boilers, I would think. Funnel uptakes are something entirely different, if I'm not mistaken.