The San Francisco call., 1910-08-03

for oil 56 per cent required of that
taken by the coal.
If a vessel plies to a port where oil
for return fuel is available, the weight
Of oil carried is about so per cent OF
that of the equivalent coal.
OIL INCREASES SPEED
The use of coal at sea is the means
of increasing the speed capacity and
extending the steaming radius. II
materially reduces the fire room force
as the coal passer is eliminated and
one fireman can, on one large vessel
do the work of four where coal is
used. 1t reduces the labor in port in
cleaning, both outside and inside the
boiler room
'The economic advantage of using
oil for fuel at the present prices is so
manifest that those who have looked
into the matter have usually adopted
oil without much experiment. while
those by whom it is used are usually
satisfied to find their fuel bills de-
creased so per cent or more without
caring to require details.
"One of the first deep sea vessels on
the Pacific coast to be fitted for oil
was the Oceanic steamship company S
Mariposa, running from San Francisco
to Tahiti. The total crew was 81, but
since the change from coal to oil, 16
neer's force, reducing the crew to Ga
men,"
The experience of the Southern
Pacific with oil in it's bay fleet is set
down as follows:
FERRY STEAMERS USE OIL
The bay and ferry steamers of the
Southern Pacific company burn oil ex-
clusively with the most satisfactory
results The change from coal to oil
involved merely the building of tanks
in the coal bunker space, the installa-
tion of the necessary pumps, and the
substitution of checker walls for
CRATES in the furnaces. 1t is stated
that the oil installation on one of the
largest ferry boats cost $1,700 COM
plete.
Bearing on the economy incident to
the substitution of oil for coal in
marine work. figures have been OBJ
tained in regard to the fuel consump-
tion of seven steamers plying on the
bay and rivers. The data for one
month were obtained from official
sources and may be relied upon.
with steamer No. l, the cost for
coal would. have been $1,515.98. The
cost for oil was sSs2.S1, saving OF
s62317, slightly over II per cent
besides the saving of $40 for labor on
the months run.
would have been s1.o97.19, The cost
for oil was $734.37, a saving OF
s362S2, or over 33 per cent, in addition
to saving of $3.50 on labor.
with steamer No. 3, the cost for
coal would have been s3,20o.15. The
cost for oil was s1.353.74. saving Of
s1,S46.40 or almost SO per cent, besides
the saving of $40 on labor.
with steamer No. 4. the cost for
coal would have been s2,so1.10. The
cost for oil was s1,234.05. saving of
s1,6s7.O5, or over 81 per cent. besides
the savings of $3.50 on labor.
with steamer No. 5, the cost OF
coal would have been s1,28o.44. The
cost for oil was s776.49, a saving OF
s51295, or 40 per cent.
with steamer No. s, the cost OF
coal would have been s1,440.24. The
cost for oil was s734.24. a saving OF
s706 or almost 49 per cent.
with steamer No. z, the cost for
coal would have been $1,363.12. The
cost for oil was s716.10, a saving OF
s647.02, or almost 4S per cent.
1T should be remembered that these
figures are for one month only, and
that these steamers went on the bay
and are by no means the largest OF
the oil burning ships. Yet the annual
saving on the basis of this months
run for the seven vessels would aggre-
gate S74,38492"