Can anyone suggest what percentage of the Dreadnought battle fleet was oil-fired during World War One? This question has arisen because of a debate on another forum about the so-called "Jellicoe Specials", which were supposed to have been coal trains running between South Wales and the north of Scotland. If the main units of the fleet were oil fired these trains are surely more likely to have been taking coal to merchant ports such as Liverpool, although some coal would clearly have been needed to fuel the older units in the battle fleet. Would it be more accurate to regard the Jellicoe Specials as naval supply trains, which conveyed a mixture of coal, oil, ordance and supplies, rather than just coal?

The Welsh coalfields produced a very high grade anthracite. Highly desirable as a fuel, think high octane petrol in your car. It is not impossible that some of that would be sent to the North of Scotland. There were a lot of other coalfields nearer to Scapa Flow than Wales, including one by Helmsdale where ordinary coal was produced.

Stanley,

ISTR that only the "Queen Elizabeth" class were oil-fired at the time of Jutland. I believe the subsequent "Royal Sovereign" class reverted to coal (though with oil sprayers); oil firing was an innovation supported by Churchill when 1st SL, but there were doubts about the security of the source of supply. Plus ca change....

The 5 ships of Queen Elizabeth class were the world's first entirely oil fired dreadnoughts. The subsequent R class were originally meant to be coal fired but Fisher had them converted to oil when he was recalled as First Sea Lord in October 1914. 2 of the 5 R class vessels, Royal Oak and Revenge, were at Jutland, along with 4 Queen Elizabeths: Queen Elizabeth herself was in dock for maintenance at the time. The battle cruisers Renown and Repulse, intended to be R class battleships until Fisher's return, which joined the Grand Fleet later in 1916, were also oil fired.

All the older dreadnoughts and battle cruisers were fuelled by a mixture of oil and coal, which had changed from around a quarter oil in the early dreadnoughts to 50/50 in HMS Tiger.The newer light cruisers were entirely oil fuelled. The first oil fuelled British destroyers were those of the 1905 programme and subsequently the 16 vessels of the Beagle class of 1908 were the only coal burning British destroyers built.

The Grand Fleet did, however, need a lot of coal for its older dreadnoughts and battle cruisers, and its armoured cruisers. As Tom says, South Welsh coal was the best for naval purposes and so it, rather than the inferior products of closer fields, would be sent to Scapa Flow.

I shouldn't really be here. I should be writing my PhD, which is titled 'British Strategy and Oil, 1914-1923.'

Thank you "Gibbo". That is more or less what I have argued elsewhere - ie, the main units of the fleet were oil-fired, which means that the importance attached to the "Jellicoe Specials" by many railway fans is somewhat over-stated. Oil may well have been moving northwards by rail, but not necessarily for the mighty Dreadnoughts.

I fear you may have mis interpreted Gibbo. The majority of the fleet was still depedent on coal

But not the Dreadnought battle ships.

Most of them too - only the newer ones were entirely oil fired

As I understand it (and I may of course be entirely wrong), ships such as HMS Collingwood needed coal to initiate combustion - the oil being sprayed onto a bed of white-hot coal. They also had the ability to run only on coal fuel as, when they were designed, there were obvious worries that the supply of oil might be impeded in time of war.

You could not be further from the truth with this statement. When Gibbo talks about "the older dreadnoughts" he is talking about ships such as the Iron Duke Class, which were only completed in 1914! Only six battleships at Jutland were completely oil fueled; a sixth of the total. Also there were no completely oil fueled battlecruisers at the battle. In addition there were the older armoured cruisers to consider. In terms of ships there may have been more present that were oil fuelled, because of the number on destroyers; in terms of tonnage there was more that were at best only partly oil fuelled.

There were still a large number of coal fired battleships with the Grand Fleet at the end of the war. The Grand Fleet's need for oil grew sharply over the war but it still used a lot of coal. The figures below are taken from an article titled 'British Naval Operational Logistics, 1914-1918' by Jon Tetsuro Sumida in The Journal of Military History, vol. 57, no. 3 (July 1993).

Maximum Fuel Capacity of Major Warships of the Grand Fleet (tons).
Date Aug-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
Coal 136,798 149,869 155,864 127,139 123,850
Oil 47,141 61,141 90,577 132,015 152,982

In 1917, tanker losses led to an oil shortage, which required oil fired ships to restrict their fuel consumption and thus their speed. When a squadron of US dreadnoughts was sent to join the Grand Fleet the British specifically asked that it be comprised of coal burners.

On the subject of transportation of supplies, Sumida says that in the first 5 months of the war, fuel, supplies and personnel were sent by rail to Dingwall and shortly afterwards Scrabster through Thurso. Inadequate port and rail facilities at these places meant that from January 1915 naval, ordnance (other than ammunition) and medical supplies were sent by rail to Aberdeen and then by sea to Scapa. Dingwall was dropped and Thurso-Scrabster used just for personnel along with Inverness, which was also used for mail and ammunition. Ammunition was also sent via Grangemouth from March 1915. Food went directly from southern victualling yards by sea until 1916, when it started to go to Aberdeen and Grangemouth by rail.

In the first year of the war, coal was sent by rail to Glasgow and Grangemouth but from autumn 1915 it either went directly by sea from South Wales or to Grangemouth by rail. Oil arrived at Glasgow from overseas and was then sent by canal to Grangemouth, and then by sea to Invergordon. The canal was replaced by a pipeline in late 1918.

As I understand it that is the opposite way around to standard practice for most ships. You mention His Majesty’s Ship Collingwood, according to Jane’s 'Fighting Ships 1919' she carried a maximum of 2,800 tons of coal; 940 tons of oil and 190 tons of patent fuel. The Iron Duke class carried a maximum of 3,250 tons of coal and 1,600 tons of oil. The Queen Elizabeth class carried 3,400 tons of oil and 100 tons of coal described as: for starting boilers and "domestic purposes."

PS: Note that the figures in the table in my previous post, which unfortunately formatted poorly, are for the capacity, not usage of coal and oil. Oil shortages in 1917 mean that it's likely that the ships that could use either coal or oil would use more coal.

The RN had 33 dreadnoughts and 9 battle cruisers at the end of the war. 10 and 2 respectively were entirely oil fuelled. A few of the coal fired ships weren't serving with the Grand Fleet but it included 5 coal burning US Dreadnoughts.

Whoops - Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, not 1SL. Apologies.

I did not say that any of the vessels at Jutland were "completely oil fuelled" because I assumed that all of the oil-fired Dreadnoughts needed coal to initiate combustion. I am trying to ascertain the relative importance of coal firing in the Dreadnought battle fleet because I suspect that the role of the "Jellicoe Specials" has been misunderstood - many railway enthusiasts seem to think that the Royal Navy was still entirely coal-fired and that huge quantities of steam coal was send by rail from South Wales to the far north of Scotland.

Looking at the figures in post 11 it would seem that it was

Totally wrong assumption, unless the Dreadnoughts did not carry any diesel or patent fuel, which would be required for oil fuel heating.
I believe in the Collingwood, that you referred to, that the oil was used as a method of quickly raising steam, however I am mystified as to why she carried such a high proportion of oil as fuel, must have had a big oil fired galley.
Anthracite, bitumous and oil do not mix, under any sense of the imagination. It is not a five minute job changing from one coal to another, never mind changing from coal to oil.

Alan

In the ships equipped for mixed firing (all capital ships from 1904 up to the "Iron Duke" class) the oil was carried to increase the ship's endurance. The oil was sprayed on the burning coal but it could cause excessive smoke problems.

Coal was vital to the Dreadnought and battlecruiser battle fleets in 1918, let alone 1916. The transition to oil had not really begun by August 1914, as no Dreadnoughts were then in service that depended exclusively on it for the main proportion of their propulsion. The first, Queen Elizabeth, was not commissioned until 1915. Gibbo has already pointed out that this was the first class to go predominantly oil fueled and again he has shown that predominantly oil fueled Dreadnoughts were not even 50% of the fleet in 1918.

Again this 'newer' does not exclude ships that served with the Fleets at Jutland. Ships like HMS Southampton were largely coal fueled.

In a thesis somewhere there is a pretty convincing argument that Sumida screwed up his calculations and that the figures he uses are vastly over-estimated. I will dig it out (I only looked at it the other day) and post the relevant sections here.

Simon

"supplying the Scottish anchorages by sea was inviting the attention of enemy submarines and commerce raiders"
"by the end of 1919 it (the Navy) had secured the use of over 16,000 wagons. The bulk of these were used to carry steam coal from South Wales"
"By May 1919 it was recorded that 5,500,000 tons of coal had passed north of Pontypool Road, and this figure does not include that sent to English ports"

Britain's Railways at War 1914 -1918

Sumida states in his JMH article that the figures for maximum fuel capacity are sourced from Conway's "All the Worlds Fighting Ships" and Burt. A quick check of his August, 1914 figure in Oscar Parkes indicates that he is close, bearing in mind that maximum stowages are used throughout.

It seems that the railway enthusiasts were not wide of the mark. Thank you centurion for supplying that useful reference.

If there was such a thesis I'm surprised that it was passed for any major qualification. The St Vincent Class (which included Collingwood) required a maximum 8,400 tons of coal and 2,820 tons of oil; the Iron Duke Class 13,000 tons of coal and 2,820 tons of oil; the Queen Elizabeth Class required 17,000 tons of oil. The requirements of the Grand Fleet would also include fuel for the depot ships and stocks for a reserve.

In addition there are the requirements for Pre-Dreadnoughts and units such as the 10th Cruiser Squadron, operating from various ports around the country, to be considered.

Does anyone have a link to a more detailed description of this process. To the layman, this might sound as if the oil is sprayed onto the coal and it burns on the coal. In practice this does not happen. Try spraying a can of lighter petrol on to an open fire and watch what happens. Lighting an oil fire off a red hot furnace floor was a normal occurance, but the jet of oil burns, unless being bown hard into the furnace, where it just makes an explosive mess. As coal fired vessels around this period were only draughted by the uptakes, any jet of oil would have burned bad.

Alan

Closed stokeholds and forced draught were introduced for large ships in the RN in 1882.

I know more about railway oil-burning systems than the marine versions, although I suspect that they worked in much the same way. On the Great Eastern Railway, a mixture of pre-heated air and oil was spayed onto a bed of ordinary coal by means of an oil injector - exhaust steam being used for the pre-heating. (The oil was of course heavy oil, rather than petrol).

Also bearing in mind that the Navy in WWI did not operate the ludicrous 'just in time' ordering system.

I’ve followed this topic with interest. My experience has been confined to machines driven steam turbines and in earlier years with duel fuel, oil and gas fired furnaces. It was a real pain to switch from gas to oil control when refinery conditions required it.
I’m just staggered by the quantities and the shear hard graft needed to power those war ships.


Alan - No offence intended but this suggestion sets my nerves on edge. Even twelve years on, after having spent the best part of almost 30 years signing permits and writing procedures with safety as important as profit!

Cheers, Terry

Closed stokeholds, forgot about them. Usual pressure in the stokehold at full steaming was about 1/2" I think. Not quite forced draught, as the stokeholds and not the furnaces were pressurised and the height of the funnel was still reguired to draw the fire. Can you imagine shoveling coal into a furnace that had F.D. fans. A Bit warm to say the least.

Terry, non taken at all. Never had to deal with those procedures till the mid 90s, which encouraged me to give steam up. Should have had some procedures for home bonfire makers, every year the addition of petrol was the cause of horrific burns.

Alan