View Single Post
  #145  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:49 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
Long-winded reply follows (written at the same time as I searched the net for the answers).
Quick answer about fuel load and range - scroll to the bottom.

I haven't found enough hard data yet to confirm or deny this but it was said on one site that the two "Rivers" were also employed taking iron ore from West Australian ports serving the iron ore industry (which means mostly north-west WA) to Newcastle. That's a fair distance to travel without many coal loading ports inbetween if you travel through the Bight.
I think it would be easier to go via the top end and hit the coal ports in Qld but what the hell do I know about maritime trade!

Just found a PDF of an investigation into an incident where the patrol boat HMAS Fremantle and MV River Embly had a bit of a blue in 1997. The last page has a little more info on the Embly but still nothing indicating what sort of range she had. The PDF indicates that the Embly was a regular in Queensland waters but that's no surprise if she was carrying ore from Weipa to Gladstone.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1508366/mair112_001.pdf

The distance between Weipa and Gladstone is pretty short in terms of maritime travel, however...
The coal bunker for both ships appears to be substantial... but then how much coal would she burn in a day? In the picture on the following two links, the coal bunker is said to be the large grey structure behind the bridge.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/...hp?lid=1183929
https://www.issystems.com.au/product...gineering.html

While the coal bunker looks quite large, I'm inclined to think that if it's true that the "Rivers" travelled between WA ports and Newcastle, the trip via Qld would be better suited for refuelling purposes.
The distance from WA to Newcastle is in my poor estimation, longer via the top end but much calmer sailing than through the Southern Ocean.
Fascinating... but none of which doesn't get me any closer to figuring the range Embly would have

Note that MV Fitzroy River was originally named TNT Capricornia and MV Endeavour River was originally named TNT Carpentaria. Both ships were built in Italy (whereas the two "Rivers" were built in Japan)
I've just found an archived newspaper report from 1991 that mentions Capricornia being robbed by pirates two days out from Singapore (the ship was unloaded and heading to Singapore to be put into drydock)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...&searchLimits=
And a second report that actually mentions that Capricornia was "... 350 miles south of Singapore, or 24 hours travelling time..."
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...12-31|||sortby
But but but... then there's this post on a forum devoted to ships stating that the "TNTs" had auxillary diesel engines.
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=3193

I'm starting to think that this is a job for the Jane's Maritime yearbooks

EUREKA!
Found something in the newspaper archives about the capacity of the "Rivers" with the implication that the "TNTs" are similar.
3000 tonnes (note the use of metric tonnes) of coal for 4500 nautical miles.
Plus it mentions that coal has only two-thirds the heating capacity of oil so three times as much coal in weight is needed for the same power output.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...eTo=2001-12-31
and then I see this post - very nice indeed!!! Not only lots of info about range but even suggestions for a very nice T2K scenario (i.e. the robbed by pirates that actually happened in real life)

This is one reason I love this site - you can find all kinds of fascinating information here
Reply With Quote