QE2 Engines (diesel-electric powerplant)

[Waverley]

QE2 diesel engines on test at the factory.  Have I found the correct diesel engine? 

Anyone able to confirm?

[Beardy Rich]

The engine shown in the top photo looks right. The cut-away picture isn't a 9 cylinder engine.

[Waverley]

To Skilly56 or Beardy Rich.   Can you please tell me if these diesel engines 9 cylinder  M.A.N. B&W 9L 58/64 were unique to the QE2 or were they fitted to other ships?

[skilly56]

Hi Waverly,

Not sure about the answer to this question. These engines were a new development in 1984 when they were introduced by MAN B&W - QE2 just had the largest concentration of these engines. They are manufactured in 6 to 9 cylinder versions, inline types only (ie, they do not manufacture a 'V' configuration engine with this cylinder bore). The maximum output of the current 9 cylinder version is 16,769 bhp at 428 rpm (correct me if a higher figure is found - development is ongoing), while QE2's engines developed 14,450 bhp at 400 rpm when new.

These engines were the first to feature a joint at the upper end of the connecting rod, which would have been why they were selected for the QE2. This joint enabled the engines to be installed in spaces with very low head room and still be able to lift out the piston. When the joint was unbolted, the piston would be lifted out while the long connecting rod remained inside the engine entablature.

At the time of QE2's conversion, 58/64 engines had already been installed in container ships, a bulk carrier, a large tanker, a trawler, four ferries, and a cruise liner that was being constructed in France. This latter ship was conceived as the 'Sitmar Fair Majesty', then taken over by P&O as the 'Star Princess', then re-named 'Arcadia', then 'Ocean Village One', and next month will be re-christened again in Auckland as the 'Pacific Pearl' . Aren't we very fortunate that humans do not continually re-christen themselves as frequently as this!  

In January this year I was on the 'Ocean Village' (ex Arcadia) in the Caribbean, and found she had four 8-cylinder versions of these 58/64 engines installed. A very comfortable ship - somewhere in one of the posts on here I have put a photo of one of her engines.

Although it was the most expensive option at conversion time, the diesel-electric conversion on QE2 paid for itself in 4 years when fuel savings, reliability, and depreciation were factored in.

Time to rush again - pack the bags and off to sea again on Friday.

Cheers

Skilly

[Twynkle]

Verging on/off topic! 

Look what I found
http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof1579/021105%20QE2_E.pdf

and to get back to Robert's 'Q' and Skilly's 'A'
http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof8165/6510-0060.pdf

[Waverley]

Skilly, thanks for the detailed info.  Bon voyage for Friday.

Rosie - well found info.

[skilly56]

Methinks Rosie could solve a lot of mysteries if she had an office at Scotland Yard!

Cheers

Skilly

[Rob Lightbody]

Well done Rosie!!  You can stay!!   

And Skilly - thanks so much for your fascinating posting - this is my favourite sort of stuff on the forum!!  I love going back in time to 1987 and QE2 with her brand new fancy "guts" !

[Twynkle]

Rob, Skilly, Beardy Rich, Robert and 'Everyone'
have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20-QE2_Re-engine.jpg

[skilly56]

Rosie,

Where do you find them?

At the moment she looks positively spanking compared with that photo during the re-engining.

So we should all be thankful - she has looked a lot worse.

Cheers

Skilly (who has a reprieve until Sinday, and I'm not flying on Qantas either, so that's even better!)

[Waverley]

Rosie well found. You are getting very good at this. 

[Isabelle Prondzynski]

I have been wondering whether it is possible to say what percentage of QE2's energy output would have been needed to propel her forward, amd what percentage would have been necessary for her hotel business? The two of these between them presumably made up 100 % of her energy output.

I suppose the break-down would have varied depending on the kind of day it was -- a sea day or a port day, a hot day or a cold day, a full complement of passengers or not.

But would it be possible to give an approximation, say, for an Atlantic crossing, or for a week of cruising?

With thanks in advance to our engineering geniuses, who make this Forum such a fascinating place!

[Peter Mugridge]

Some of the engine output would have been lost through slight inefficiencies in the systems ( that's why things get hot - energy being converted into heat ); it would be interesting to know the percentage for this as well.  It is probably not a very high percentage, though.

Speaking of which, what is the thermal efficiency of the engines when running under idle and full power?  And how would that compare with the thermal efficiency of the old steam powerplants?

[Rob Lightbody]

The Hotel took a maximum of one engine at full load, as i understand it.  However there were systems fitted to all engines that contributed to the Hotel services (steam, heat etc).

Stationary, fully of people, one engine full load.  Heading out to sea, I believe she has a minimum of 3 additional engines online.  So I guess, roughly, 25% for Hotel at slow speeds, and the % going down the faster QE2 went, to as low as about 11%.

What do the experts say?

[skilly56]

With reference back to the image in post # 90 below, the shaft power management settings on the Bridge show the hotel load as "approx 9.0 MW". The individual engine outputs were stated as 10.5 MW each when the engines were new - possibly a little less now due to wear and tear etc.

So, one engine is still more than capable of supplying all the hotel load for a full crew, along with 1,950 of us if we were to charge up the gangway and demand a shower, a steak, a cool wine and a good nights entertainment!

Cheers

Skilly (from stinking hot Lake Taupo)

And definitely not an expert - definition of an expert is a "drip under pressure"