[HN Gopher] SS United States, the fastest passenger liner ever b...
___________________________________________________________________
SS United States, the fastest passenger liner ever built
Author : dxs
Score : 50 points
Date : 2023-02-14 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lflank.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lflank.wordpress.com)
| OliverJones wrote:
| I sailed on that fine ship several times, before the Boeing 707
| era, as a little kid. My dad was a junior diplomat at the time
| and so he and his family traveled "cabin class". The classes were
| "first", "cabin", and "tourist".
|
| It was four and a half days from New York to Southampton.
|
| It was some kind of fun for an inquisitive 8-year-old boy. I
| think I drove my parents crazy by roaming all over the place,
| getting into every space I could. (The engine rooms weren't
| accessible, but the guy in the radio room was great.)
|
| One crossing, eastbound, was in the dead of winter, late January.
| Me and my brothers were in bunks pretending to sleep in a cabin
| fairly near the water line (cabin class, right?) with one of
| those circular portholes. A crew member knocked on the door, and
| walked in with a steel plate and four big bolts. She proceeded to
| bolt the plate over the porthole. She said, "storm coming, boys"
| and moved on to the next cabin.
|
| Now that was a storm. The kitchen was closed (no hot food) for a
| whole day. It felt like we were rolling 30 degrees. I'm sure it
| wasn't but it sure felt that way.
|
| The ship only lost four hours off her schedule for that voyage;
| she had to head upwind for an hour or two in the worst of the
| storm. They don't make passenger ships like that any more. But
| the North Atlantic ocean in winter is still that dangerous.
|
| Once the 707 was available, junior diplomats didn't get to travel
| by ship any more. Faster, but much less of an adventure.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| What a story. For what it's worth: I'd love to read more like
| this, especially in greater detail!
| archgoon wrote:
| [dead]
| TylerE wrote:
| A cool bit of trivia I learned just last night: The (sail) record
| for Hong Kong - New York was set by the then almost-new US ship
| Sea Witch, one of the original "clippers" in 1847, at about 78
| days. Obviously this is the "long" way, no Panama Canal for you.
|
| This was done with a full load of high value cargo (tea,
| porcelain, spices), which is what the clippers were built to
| carry.
|
| This record was not beaten until _this millennium_ , by a racing
| trimaran, and even then by less than 10%.
|
| Really incredible what Sea Witch did... The captain of the
| trimaran said there was absolutely no way his ship and crew could
| have come even close without modern technology - No weather
| reports, radio, or even especially accurate maps in the mid 19th
| century.
|
| Sea Witch still holds the record for a monohull.
|
| This is, as far as I know, the oldest unbroken speed record of
| any kind.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Is this record for any sea path from Hong Kong to New York, or
| specifically the no Panama Canal path?
| jabl wrote:
| Guess you could do the Suez canal. Per https://sea-
| distances.org/ it seems the distance between Hong Kong and
| New York are about the same for either Suez or Panama. Not
| sure about the prevailing winds, which would be expected to
| be faster.
|
| If we count canals as cheating, another alternative is via
| the Cape of Good Hope. Seems it's about 3000 nm shorter than
| going via Cape Horn but again, much depends on the prevailing
| winds.
| TylerE wrote:
| Prevailing winds in the northern Atlantic are West to East.
| Even for powered ships the eastbound passage is measurably
| quicker.
| TylerE wrote:
| Probably a distinction without a difference in this case.
|
| The Canal really does not like sailboats, so it's expensive,
| and can take upwards of a week to get all the measuring and
| certification done, which must be done in person in Panama
| and cannot be done in advance.
|
| A small racing boat (it only had 2 people onboard) may well
| also not be able to accommodate the required pilot and
| handlers onboard.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Makes sense that it was called the Sea Witch, after all witches
| are also made of wood.
| zen_of_prog wrote:
| I would think the weight would play a much greater role than
| the material. The Sea Witch would have to be pretty light,
| since a witch weighs the same as a duck.
| TylerE wrote:
| Few corrections since I can't edit now there are replies:
|
| 1849 not 1847
|
| 74 days not 78
|
| The trimaran actually beat the record by less than 2 days.
| Seanambers wrote:
| That's insanely impressive.
| shagie wrote:
| There's a film out there - https://www.ssusc.org/made-in-america
| (ssusc is for SS United States Conservancy).
|
| Chapter 2 is about the speed record.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I remember crossing the Atlantic in it when I was very young.
| I've always had a soft spot for that liner. Makes me sad to see
| it crumbling away.
| ghaff wrote:
| I periodically think about taking the Queen Mary 2 to London
| when it's in ocean liner mode but circumstances have never
| lined up in a way that made sense.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Cool, but my heart belongs to the NS Savannah.
|
| https://marine-digital.com/article_nssavannah
| dmitriid wrote:
| Nice. Nuclear powered. Reminds me of Russia's nuclear-powered
| ice breakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-
| class_icebreaker
| altcognito wrote:
| Clipping at 40 mph would make for some heavy winds on the main
| deck for recreation.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I remember being on the deck in that mighty breeze. Lost my hat
| :-) My mom had a death grip on my hand.
| TylerE wrote:
| Not that unusual for transatlantic liner to be close to that
| kind of speed.
|
| They're transport, not recreation.
|
| Titanic could hit almost 30.
| warmwaffles wrote:
| > Titanic could hit almost 30.
|
| The better comparison would be the Olympia since she lived
| longer and did that trip far more times and was successful.
| TylerE wrote:
| You mean Olympic? Same design and specs as Titanic.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| The Queen Mary 2 can supposedly hit 30 knots for a
| transatlantic crossing but, in practice, stretches out the
| crossing a bit.
| moffkalast wrote:
| They say the CVN Enterprise was able to do nearly 50, I
| imagine you'd get straight up blown off the flight deck at
| full speed haha.
| TylerE wrote:
| 50mph wind really isn't that bad if it isn't gusty. Just
| lean in to it a bit. A flat deck isn't going to induce
| turbulence the way a traditional warship superstructure
| probably would have in those days.
| Animats wrote:
| Still afloat, but nobody can find a use for the ship. Not for
| lack of trying.
|
| _" You can't set her on fire, you can't sink her, and you can't
| catch her."_ -- William Francis Gibbs.
|
| The S.S. United States was built to warship standards, and could
| be used as a troop ship. Multiple engine rooms, many watertight
| compartments, few large interior spaces, and high speed. Look at
| cruise ships today. Those things are resort hotels that float.
| Huge open interior spaces. Open decks and pools. That's what
| people want. Not plowing across the Atlantic at a speed where you
| don't go on deck without a good reason.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-14 23:00 UTC)