SS United States, the fastest passenger liner ever built | Hacker News Reader

SS United States, the fastest passenger liner ever built

lflank.wordpress.com

127 pointsdxs91 comments

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.

What a story. For what it’s worth: I’d love to read more like this, especially in greater detail!

Was Britain the destination, and if not how did the journey continue?

That's an awesome story. I'm sure it could have been 30 degrees.

If I can share...It reminded me of waiting outside school one day to be picked up for a scout sailing trip. Talking with friends about CS class assignments.

Watching it grow later and later. Dark clouds. Then being picked up late by the busy, but adventurous, doctor who owned a sailboat.

Arriving at the port late. Leaving late.

Setting sail just in time for the storm to arrive. The Puget Sound and not the Atlantic but damn scary.

Instead of "ah better be careful, got a bunch of kids here," just a, "I think we can make it."

Those who wanted to be out in the weather were up top. Those who didn't want, were below sitting on one of the old bench-couches reading or playing cards.

Thank god it was ok to be down there. Until it wasn't.

"Everybody out!" Pitch, pitch black outside. Walking downward across the deck because it was natural. Feeling waves smack my hand because the waves were at arm's reach.

"Get on the high side!" More orders. This was the guy who asked us what the hell we were doing back there screaming and throwing backpacks around (we hadn't touched them), while he was talking on the analog cell phone and eating a sandwich, while driving his van on two wheels around a corner while driving up to Mt. St. Helens. The tilt threw the backpacks around, not us.

Then most of us kids, leaning off the high side, no....more like just sitting on the side. You could make out the big beautiful hull structure over your shoulder.

How dead were we?

More orders. Eventually being dropped off under those tall metal streetlights, on some island (wrong island).

Sleeping overnight on concrete slab, under some large pavilion at an indigenous cultural center that wasn't patrolled. Waking up thirsty. Drinking from the little water hose at a small island airport.

Sign: "Do not drink" oh.

Later, rendezvous and the same boring scout food. Those who brought Jolly Ranchers already ate 'em. Boredom. Hijinks. Adults decide it's time to go home. Much easier travels on the way back.

Sorry, just had to share, it's contagious.

Crazy stuff!

(Also quite irresponsible, but fun since it all turned out okay)

Passenger liners were great. I travelled on the Ellinis twice. It was a sister ship of the Australis, which was the renamed SS America mentioned in the post.

I went with my parents and two sisters to Holland from Australia for a year in late 1970 returning early 1972. While only turning 7 on the trip out, I still remember it and the return vividly. By the time the 5 weeks were over you had very much got your bearings and explored all that you were (and probably not) allowed. Everything from terrorising the stewards on roller skates around the decks (nabbing cake from each side of the ship's afternoon tea service), to seeing how far you could fly a paper plane from the top deck.

And my understanding it was far cheaper to travel by ship than to fly around the globe (certainly with the dozens of trunks and tea chests we were allowed portage for on the way back).

I recall also there were certainly a few stormy days where the food service was quite limited, and anything that could move was tied down as much as possible (wet table cloths also come to mind to stop things sliding around)

Wow, what a beautiful memory! If you don't mind, about what time period was this?

Now you can get to what used to be the bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9185843,-75.1374112,2a,75y,2...

I had one trip, westbound, as a small child in 1963 or '64. Don't know what class, but I did get seasick. How do you get seasick on a ship that size?

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.

That's insanely impressive.

Is this record for any sea path from Hong Kong to New York, or specifically the no Panama Canal path?

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.

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.

Prevailing winds in the northern Atlantic are West to East. Even for powered ships the eastbound passage is measurably quicker.

I remember reading a blog about traversing the Suez on a sailing yacht describing how you need to bribe everyone with cigarettes every step of the way

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.

Makes sense that it was called the Sea Witch, after all witches are also made of wood.

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.

I thought witches sink rather than float, though?

Nah; that's how you tell they're witches. If they sink, they're not witches. If they float, they're witches and must be burned at the stake. Flawless logic.

"Fair cop, then."

Well, that's messy. One could just use a duck to derive if they float and stay dry.

That, plus the fact that being a witch she'd weigh the same as a duck. Now imagine a wooden duck with a few thousand square metres of sail and you've got yourself a blazingly fast witch.

> This was done with a full load of high value cargo (tea, porcelain, spices), which is what the clippers were built to carry.

I can see demand for tea and spices to arrive fresher, but why porcelain?

Wild guess: was that added mostly because a ship filled with tea and spices wasn’t heavy enough, and needed ballast?

Cost of capital. If you have an expensive cargo load on sea for 80 days port to port, it's a lot cheaper to finance than for 120 or 150 days. Same reason we air-freight some cargo today, rather than sea, even if it's not perishable. Interest rates for this business were also higher than the risk-free rate, and rates were higher overall.

Also if you’re first to market in a period of high demand, you can sell at higher prices than those that come later. See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-tea-race-of...

“But in the middle of the 19th century, demand for fresh tea was such that the first vessel home from Fuzhou or Shanghai could command a premium of at least 10 percent for her wares, and a clipper ship that cost perhaps £12,000 or £15,000 to build might bring home a cargo worth almost £3,000 on her first voyage.“

Yeah, it's like the Beaujolais Nouveau Day rush every year, shipping 8lb/gallon wine by air to get it faster :)

High value. Not per Shia or, but John value and rather subject to breakage (so the fewer days it spends at sea presumably the less breakage).

One clever thing they did to prevent the porcelain from breaking was that they used tea for the packaging. Not sure what they generally used in those days as polystyrene foam wasn't available, maybe wood cuttings? But if they can use something that is itself valuable cargo like tea, why not!

If you haven't read it, "the last grain race" by Eric Newby is a great read, of his time on the pre-ww2 era sailing vessel "moshulu" doing the Australia-Europe run with bagged wheat. He had a very interesting and varied life, this is only one lacuna in it.

It made me get Henry Dana, Melville off the shelf too. And then dive into Aubrey/Maturin novels and N.A.M. Roger's history of the Georgian Navy.

I’ll add it to the list… but I’ve got like 40 naval books I haven’t read yet ;)

Got a couple shelves of them.

(And I already have NAM Rodgers books on the Royal Navy… assuming Georgian is an autocorrect.

It's a fascinating subject, precisely because the exercise of sailing was so highly developed (due to both the length of its history and functional importance) and then... effectively disappeared.

The mind boggles imagining the number of crew they had on large ships, including up in the rigging, adjusting the boat in real time as a team. Even moreso, under battle conditions!

I guess a cautionary tale for companies to be aware of the fundamental value their businesses are built on, should the world start to shift.

Something was able to go faster... and freight sailing was no more.

It may come back in niche spaces. Semi-automated rigid sail wind power has been a nice idea for a while now. It doesn't suit short time-line supply chain dynamics but if your goods are capable of being delivered more slowly, it has lower TCO overall per weight carried, against a green economic outcome. If you don't care about CO, CO2 or fly-ash, its never going to win.

A biassed but interesting source:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-powered-cargo-ships-are-the...

I had no idea Ariane was going to use it. Sweet!

On the off chance you haven't read it yet, I would like to add 'Erebus' to your list, by Michael Palin.

+1 on this

You can go and see Moshulu in Philadelphia now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshulu

Ironically , oil tankers might be one of the most logical uses since they tend to amongst the slowest cargo ships.

Hey, thanks for that… I’m actually planning on a day of naval exploring in Philly in the next couple of months… starting to look like 2 actually now that I realize this is here and USS NJ is really in Philly and not somewhere else. I always thought it was nearer NYC

The battleship nj is in camden, nj. Across the river from Philadelphia. Its a mile walk from the Broadway PATCO train stop(closer to a commuter subway between Philadelphia and nj). Theres an aquarium there as well. Theres a ferry during the summer months that you might be interested in as well.

Seconding that. Newby's book is a great recounting of a slice of seaborne life. The author had some luck in making it without getting lost at sea in storms.

The sailing clippers were fast and were sailed hard.

The monohull sailing record for 24 hours was set in 1854 by "Champion of the Sea" at 467nm[1]. It wasn't broken by another monohull until 2003 by "Illbruck".

The modern foiling (or at least foil stabalized) IMOCA 60 ft boats are up to 558nm[2] while foiling trimarans are up to 908nm (!)

[1] https://www.sailspeedrecords.com/24-hour-distance

[2] https://www.imoca.org/en/standings/records

The reason why monohull records had not been broken in a long time is because speed is largely a measure of wet hull length (unless you're planing or on foils). Race sail boats are just much shorter than those old freight boats, so they really only started breaking records once they build such they could get consistently onto the plane or foils.

Yes this is true and a great point, although it's mildly surprising that some of the maxis from the 1970's onwards weren't reliably planing.

I had a quick look at race records, and even pretty formidable ones like Kialoa III's Sydney-Hobart records from 1975 that stood for 21 years was only 10 knots[1] (compared to over 20 for the clipper records)

[1] https://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news/2005/pre-race/kialoa-s-ra...

Interesting, I thought the fastest clipper was Cutty Sark

Sailor Historian, a collection of essays by Samuel Eliot Morison, has a couple of pieces about the clipper ships, taken from his Maritime History of Massachusetts. I have not seen the latter book, but the first is very readable.

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.

Some people want to be the king of the world: some people just want to live like a king. ;)

What's wrong with large interior spaces?

More space to flood with a single hole. Military ships (and I assume the SS United States) have water tight doors between the compartments and the compartment are not oversized for the purpose they serve.

It was built to navy standards...

https://youtu.be/VCR4TnEe9rI?t=66

> I knew about it because my father was a naval architect by education and he had a machine shop and he built the watertight doors the SS United States

https://www.ssusc.org/history-design-launch

> The U.S. government also realized the value of having luxury liners that could be converted into troop ships, as the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth had done during the war. When the military conflict in Korea escalated in the late 1940s, the US government agreed to subsidize a large part of the new liner’s cost and operating expenses, with the understanding that it could be requisitioned for military purposes.

> ...

> Dry dock construction was not Gibbs’ only introduction of new shipbuilding techniques for the United States. The design incorporated the most rigid U.S. Navy standards, including strict compartmentalization to combat flooding, and dual engine rooms to provide power in case one was immobilized. The low and graceful superstructure was built entirely in aluminum, which gave the ship a dead weight of 45,400 long tons, compared to the 77,000 long tons for the similarly sized Cunard Queens.

>The low and graceful superstructure was built entirely in aluminum

Interesting, apparently no lessons were learned back then on disparate metal shipbuilding because the US still has problems with aluminum in shipbuilding to this day.

They knew about the problems (and the lack of solutions). Making it out of aluminum was a statement of the wealth of the nation - very much in the same way that the cap of the Washington Monument being made out of aluminum was.

Battleship New Jersey's First Hull Leak (not aluminum, same problems - made a decade before the SS United States) - https://youtu.be/DtNVAz_moAk

Entering service in 1940, the America made regular passenger runs across the Atlantic

The Pentagon also quickly took interest in the project. ... Of the estimated $78 million budget, the Pentagon provided almost two-thirds, plus a portion of the yearly operating expenses.

Funny they called the US Department of War the "Pentagon," because it wasn't yet built! Construction of the Pentagon started on September 11th, 1941, and was completed on January 15th, 1943. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon/wiki/The_Pentagon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...

> $78 million budget

$78 million? That's insane. An Iowa-class battleship cost about $100 million. Iowa was heavier (57000 tons vs 47000 tons), had a bit less power (212000 hp vs 240000 hp) and was slightly slower (32.5 knots vs 35 knots).

An Essex class carrier cost (per wikipedia) between $68 and $78 million. It was only 36000 tons, but it had a speed of 33 knots.

So this civilian passenger ship cost as much as the most expensive warships that the US built during WW2. Mind blown.

https://www.ssusc.org/history-design-launch

> The low and graceful superstructure was built entirely in aluminum, which gave the ship a dead weight of 45,400 long tons, compared to the 77,000 long tons for the similarly sized Cunard Queens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

> The construction of the ship's superstructure involved the most extensive use of aluminum in any construction project up to that time, which posed a galvanic corrosion challenge to the builders in joining the aluminum superstructure to the steel decks below. However, the extensive use of aluminum meant significant weight savings, as well.

The price of pig iron in 1950 ($/t) was 47.20.

The price of steel in 1950 ($/t) was 76.50.

The price of aluminum in 1950 ($/t) was 390. (The decimal point is in the right spot).

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c...

This makes sense.

But it's still stunning compared to today. The largest cruise ships today cost between $1 and $2 billion to build, and they weight more than 200000 tons and carry more than 5000 passengers.

The smallest (and newest) warship in the US Navy, the frigate Constellation, currently under construction, will cost about $1.3 billion [2], and weighs only 7300 tons.

[1] https://cruisedeals.expert/how-much-does-a-cruise-ship-cost-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate

Accounting for inflation, 1950 to today would but $78M to $968M so...

It's worth noting that american ship design and planning and infrastructure is kind of struggling, with multiple public and meaningful failures in procurement and planning (zumwalt gun, zumwalt deckhouse material, the entire LCS program) with the end result being we will buy some ships from nations that had better results until we get things under control.

Meanwhile, I think most cruise ships are built in the big, extremely experienced shipyards of china or south korea. America mostly doesn't build big ships anymore, excepting the supercarriers.

Armchair chief of staffing... I'm gonna say that the current philosophy of one design that can be "easily" modified to do anything (fighter jet, naval ship, etc...) seem to be showing its costs compared to purpose built systems. It will likely take another generational update of the military to change that philosophy back.

The "make a ship that can do everything" is likely met with a gleam in the contractor's accounting department eyes as they say "we'll need to do some R&D on this since it isn't something that we've successfully done before." I believe that this is a "the ideas are overly ambitious with the tangential goal of having parts made in every congressional district" rather than being first a useful system that is needed. ... I'm also sitting in an armchair at a keyboard so take my comments with the appropriate seasoning.

The general "America is lacking on its heavy manufacturing industry" is a real concern but one that I'm not sure how it can be solved without getting into significant subsidizing (see the chip production) that starts rising hackles over at the WTO. How far do you have to subsidize those industries to get them to be competitive... or do you have a government naval yard that doesn't really care about being competitive with Marinette Marine (aside: https://www.wisconsinmaritime.org is quite interesting).

Doesn't seem unreasonable for a potentially decisive military asset that's mostly self supporting in peacetime? I'm no expert (far from it) but I'd imagine that speed would be a major factor in success probability, sitting duck vs narrow interception windows.

You're conflating ships in the article. The 1940 quote is referring to the America while the quote about the Pentagon is referring to the the SS United States built in the 1950s.

Cool, but my heart belongs to the NS Savannah.

https://marine-digital.com/article_nssavannah

Nice. Nuclear powered. Reminds me of Russia's nuclear-powered ice breakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-class_icebreaker

FTA: “The Savannah's 74-milliwatt cylindrical reactor”

Reminder: SI prefixes are case-sensitive.

Outstandingly efficient

It even had nuclear-powered microwave ovens :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah#/media/File:NS_Sav...

The other photos from the wikipedia page are cool too

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.

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.

I bet you'd love it. The North Atlantic in a storm is quite spectacular.

I was on a cruise ship once, and the captain announced they were going to go around a storm rather than through it. I transmitted my disappointment to the captain.

It's currently docked in Philadelphia across the street from an IKEA. It actually makes for a pretty nice view from the floor-to-ceiling windows of the IKEA restaurant.

The best Cheesesteaks in Philly are from the Home Depot across the street.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aAK9pdyf9ui4CDKT8

You can see it nicely here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pier+82,+Philadelphia,+PA+...

Neat Google street view of the deck of the ship. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly, with how horrible air travel has become, I'd consider taking a ship across the Atlantic to Europe if it could make the journey in ~2 days.

Enough space to stretch my legs, plus some WiFi, and plenty of time to adjust to the time zone difference (of course, this only works if you're planning a long vacation, not for a one-week trip).

> To move American troops to Europe as quickly as possible, the military wanted a troopship that would be capable of carrying an entire army division–some 15,000 men–over the Atlantic in one trip.

That's a lot of eggs in one fast-moving basket.

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.

I think this story would make a great basis for a STAR TREK episode. Something about a civilian starship whose secret purpose was to be converted into a troop carrier in times of high emergency, perhaps named, 'The Federation'.

If I were a gazillionaire, this would be my yacht. Updated (sympathetically) to modern standards and efficiency, and open to the public as a museum ship when not in use.

Averaging about 40mph...

34.75 knots

It's easier for me to understand the speed of a boat in boat speed units I'm familiar with.

Clipping at 40 mph would make for some heavy winds on the main deck for recreation.

Not that unusual for transatlantic liner to be close to that kind of speed.

They’re transport, not recreation.

Titanic could hit almost 30.

> 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.

You mean Olympic? Same design and specs as Titanic.

:) reminded me of https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/10c8ntp/the_t...

Yes, my bad Olympic.

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.

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.

Man, if the Navy's air wing was made up entirely of bush planes, they could all take off together without even starting up their engines.

The Queen Mary 2 can supposedly hit 30 knots for a transatlantic crossing but, in practice, stretches out the crossing a bit.

I remember being on the deck in that mighty breeze. Lost my hat :-) My mom had a death grip on my hand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com