Author Topic: HMS Kent  (Read 2212 times)

Offline castle261

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2020, 05:27:56 PM »
I know it was not just a job of shoveling coal on a fire.
I had to take over when the stoker, who was 6 ft 4 in x 18 stone, lost his job - suddenly.
There were four boiler`s to keep going + getting all the clinker out as well. I learnt the
hard way. My only experience before that was, stoking a dockyard portable boiler.
I was 6ft 1 in x 12 st 7 lb in them days.

Offline MartinR

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Yorkshire exile, father of two Men of Kent
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2020, 01:16:07 PM »
IIRC, and I've just spent 15 minutes looking for the reference, coaling was an "all hands" job.

The stokers were more skilled than many realise.  Boilers for ships and railway engines have large grates that behave differntly from a domestic fire.  When coal is put on part of a fire you initially get a cold spot, so excessive coaling actually reduces the steam immediately available.  However if the coal is not put on in time you get "holes" in the fire and the air passes straight through.  This reduces the air to the parts of the grate that are correctly trimmed, so reducing output, as well as introducing cold air into the fire tubes.  With a cold blast, such as on trains, this can even set up strains within the boiler shell.  Ships usually use a preheated blast so chilling the fire tubes is less of an issue.  A stoker needs to be continuously monitoring the fire and applying coal when and where needed, not just shoveling it on, a gravity shoot could do that.

Offline Dave Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2020, 12:13:22 PM »
MartinR. Many thanks for clearing up that anomaly. Bit like BSF, UNF, & Metric, never the twain shall meet! alkhamills. Do you think that "cloud" in the 2nd jpeg contains a blasphemy about loading all that coal in baskets? Never ending I suspect, no wonder that stokers were the highest paid matelots.

Offline alkhamhills

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2020, 09:22:41 AM »
HMS Kent in 1911 Census

Offline alkhamhills

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2020, 08:02:02 PM »
HMS Kent

Offline alkhamhills

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2020, 07:55:32 PM »
My Grandfather was a Stoker on HMS Kent 30.11.1910 to 22.12.1911. They were on the China Station .
I have 2 pics of Coaling at Malta in 1910, but cannot convert into jpegs
 
 

Offline MartinR

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Yorkshire exile, father of two Men of Kent
Re: HMS Kent
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2020, 03:45:24 PM »
I'm guessing that you've looked at this in Wikipedia and seen "Displacement: 4,900 t (4,800 long tons; 5,400 short tons)".  There are three types of measurement being used: metric, imperial and US customary.  In this example 4,900t is a BIPM accepted non-SI term for 4.9 Gg or 4,900 Mg.
In the UK the stone weights 14 lb and there are 8 stone to the hundredweight of 112 lb.  The US has never used stones, and uses 100lb to the hundredweight.  To distinguish the two the imperial 112 lb is called a long hundredweight whereas the US 100 lb one is a short cwt.  In both systems there are 20cwt in a ton, but of course since the hundredweights are different the tons are as well.  A long ton (UK) is 2,240 lb, a short ton (US) is 2,000 lb.

Offline Dave Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
HMS Kent
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2020, 03:24:28 PM »
I'm intrigued by the "long ton" reference to the weight of this ship. I'm sure someone can explain please?