Coal Fired Type 42 Sheffield class

Tzoli

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
2,591
A number of books, including Friedman's British DD book mentions drawings and newspaper articles about the coal fired versions of then modern RN destroyers like the Sheffield class Type 42 from the early 1970's of the Oil Crisis.
Does anybody have such news articles or even drawings/sketches about these coal powered Type 42's???

1707915634431.png
 
That text isn't in Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates (the only reference to the oil crisis in that book discusses the cuts in numbers of escorts as a result). I think it must be from his battleships book, which I don't have. But even from that text, it seems the "coal-fired T42" was just a jokey cartoon sketch, not an actual design.
 
DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard states that the plans were to convert the coal into oil using coal liquefaction, and then run existing machinery with said oil, so I doubt there would be any specific sketch designs of coal-fired Type 42s.

EDIT: The section you've already posted above.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard states that the plans were to convert the coal into oil using coal liquefaction, and then run existing machinery with said oil, so I doubt there would be any specific sketch designs of coal-fired Type 42s.
Click to expand...
Rebuilding the Royal Navy does state that 'coal burning was considered', but gives no further detail beyond the existence of the cartoon and the conclusion that coal liquefaction was the economic solution.

This does imply that someone spent an afternoon thinking about the implications of a coal-fired Type 42, if only to provide the Official and Conclusive Proof that it was a Bad Idea. Sometimes it's necessary to write the paper to get the Very Senior Officer to stop going on about their pet silly idea.
 
I'm just interested in the 4 funnelled Sheffield! :D
Yes, my screenshot is from a different book, Nelson to Vanguard, but Friedman too mentions it.
 
The sketch was likely in some internal RCNC publication, or something that was passed around the office. Sounds like something only someone who is in the industry and knew people from that time might be able to get a hold of, perhaps @RP1 might know?
 
Yellow Palace said:
Sometimes it's necessary to write the paper to get the Very Senior Officer to stop going on about their pet silly idea.
Click to expand...
I once had to talk a superior out of doing something stupid when he kept asking me whether it was possible to follow a certain procedure.Telling him it was unwise, because of etc. etc... didn't work. In the end I told him 'Yes, it is possible - possible in the same way that you can get out on the balcony and jump over the railing, which will be perfectly OK until you hit the ground'. That did the job, we were thirteen floors up.
 
WOE would the 'coal hole' go? I vbery much doubt there would be sufficient space for much of it and the reworking would make a clean sheet design more cost effective.

I suspect an April 1st effort forgotten in the mists of time.
 
Arjen said:
I once had to talk a superior out of doing something stupid when he kept asking me whether it was possible to follow a certain procedure.Telling him it was unwise, because of etc. etc... didn't work. In the end I told him 'Yes, it is possible - possible in the same way that you can get out on the balcony and jump over the railing, which will be perfectly OK until you hit the ground'. That did the job, we were thirteen floors up.
Click to expand...
I've had better.
Manager "Can we just _____(an idea that might work if done in the right order)"
Me "ok let's try it!"
Proceeds to prove my suspicions correct, it breached H&S fundamentally by order of timing in loading. Manager fails to get other staff to do it in the right sequence.

Manager abandons idea after a couple of days.

A month later....
The same Manager "can we just _____(the same idea)"
Me "it didn't work last time, what makes you think it will this?"
Manager "let's just try it"
Me "....ok"
Proceeds to repeat events of the first time.
A couple of months later...
The very same Manager "can we try _____(the same idea)"
Me (very pointed look) "again?"
Manager (all optimism and cheerfulness) "let's just try it"
And so we try again.

This went on for a year.

So I've no surprise that certain ideas such held by Treasury officials or Officers have to be repeatedly shown to be unworkable. Often at great expense.
 
Foo Fighter said:
WOE would the 'coal hole' go? I vbery much doubt there would be sufficient space for much of it and the reworking would make a clean sheet design more cost effective.

I suspect an April 1st effort forgotten in the mists of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect it was a genuine, if brief, study. Probably parametric; the final memorandum likely looked something like;

If we do this, it will add X tonnes of weight, Y cubic metres in volume (equating to Z metres of length), require P additional crew and cost Q million pounds. This is clearly ridiculous, so we're not going to waste drawing office resources on a proper layout.

But I was bored on lunch break, so here's a silly cartoon.
 
Yellow Palace said:
But I was bored on lunch break, so here's a silly cartoon.
Click to expand...
Well, we have all been there I think. I wonder where we would be if we didn't but would rather not go there either.....

Have a great week mate.
 
Just stumbled across this, in DK Brown's article, Into the 20th Century, Warship Volume VI No.22, Conway Maritime Press 1982:

MACHINERY
The obvious fuels for the future fleet are coal, oil and nuclear. Oil will get much more expensive, at least doubling in real price by the end of the century. However at that price level there are a number of low grade sources of oil, such as shale, which become viable, and it will be also be economic to convert coal into oil. The direct use of coal seems less attractive. Coates (Ref 10) has given a comparison of a coal fired Type 42(C) with HMS Sheffield, Table 5. Nuclear power is very expensive and is only sensible for large (10,000-tonne), high speed ships which it is unlikely that the RN can afford.
It seems that the surface Navy is likely to use oil fuel well into the 21st century, possibly made from rich coal deposits under the UK. Modern gas turbines such as the SM1A (Spey) have a fuel consumption very similar to that of a diesel and are likely to be used for the bigger ships but diesels will increasingly be used for smaller craft.

TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF HMS SHEFFIELD AND A COAL FIRED TYPE 42
Displacement (tonnes)Power (MW)Speed (Knots)CrewCost Ratio
Oil400036282201
Coal750040283301.4

REFERENCES
10 J F Coates RCNC (Contribution to RINA, 1979)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
While it's not a Type 42 with 4 smokestacks, there's a very nice illustration of a three masted future corvette (ie sail-powered) in Brown's FUTURE BRITISH SURFACE FLEET
 
Still seems crazy that the RCNC actually looked at the numbers for using direct coal.
I wonder if it would be pulverised coal (like power stations use)? But the provision of 110 extra crew seems to imply a lot of extra labour for the engine room crew. They can't have been thinking of manual stoking surely?

An Exocet hitting a coal bunker full of coal dust though would be one fine way to start a barbeque! Doesn't bear thinking about really.
 
Hood said:
Still seems crazy that the RCNC actually looked at the numbers for using direct coal.
I wonder if it would be pulverised coal (like power stations use)? But the provision of 110 extra crew seems to imply a lot of extra labour for the engine room crew. They can't have been thinking of manual stoking surely?
Click to expand...
DNC*: The Honourable Member for the 17th Century** is making noise about coal-fired warships, be a good fellow and run up some estimates. Worst assumptions possible, note you.
Junior Constructor: So manual stoking and vertical boilers?
DNC: Precisely my meaning, off you go now.

* Probably Director General Ships by then? But DNC by any other name

** Contemporary political humour
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom