Battleship Texas, Spelunking Deep In The Belly Of The Beast! 

Very cool 😎👌

Yea .. definitely ,your engineer is showing:p

Thanks, Paul. It is more than a little helpful to have digital cameras and LED floodlights. That may have been an issue in 1983!

Thanks, but now I'm embarrassed.

Thanks, Bob. That is high praise when it comes from a real battleship sailor!

Thanks for the kind compliments. Your dad was certainly in the middle of history!

You said it man. Wow.

@@woska7493 i am with you on that

Hell I would pay to do so! A former boat mechanic...

I visited the ship about 5 years ago... wish I'd been able to get down there.

The name was applied to the room containing large CO2 compressors that provided cooling to heat exchangers outside each group of 14" powder magazines to keep the powder stable. The name comes from the fact that there is a large chest in the room that circulates chilled salt water past fresh water filled tubs that made ice.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 awesome thank you for descriptively visible explanation very very cool

Thanks for the compliment! Regarding the whistle, it has been blown using compressed air. Unfortunately, there is vast difference between the density and expansion rates of compressed air and high pressure steam. That means blowing it with air pales in comparison to what it should sound like.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 my apologies if I read this wrong, but does this mean that the whistle has been blown at least once during her active museum career? If so, im am very surprised to not find any videos of this event. As far as I know, there is only one recording of her blowing her whistle but that was when she was still in service.

@@bigchungusfootfungus1964 I'll lay you eight to five it happened before personal video recording became so ubiquitous. 🤔

While I agree in general, there were two major limiting factors when designing hard hat tours. We found that the limit to length and exertion for guests was about 3-1/2 hours. Since tour guides and their assistants gave 2 tours a day, they would be very tired by the end of the day and adding an extra hour or two would be too much. Considering the time limit, it then became an issue of providing the most content rich locations available to us. Having said that, we also started providing separate, specialized tours that centered around particular subjects, like the key locations on board during D-Day. We were working on a couple more when the ship closed for repairs. However, none of them took us very far out of the areas covered by the regular tours. The most important consideration was that of safety. The ship's management was very strict about safety, as they should be. It we couldn't build a compelling case for going into a new area, or if there was any serious safety hazard, it wasn't going to happen. A good example are ladders. If you recall, there was a lot of ladder climbing involved. Most of them were slanted so that you could climb or descend them like steep stairs without too much effort. Very few were truly vertical. Those on the route had limited height so that if you fell, you could only fall one deck level before hitting bottom. We could monitor those carefully and help people who needed it. Unfortunately, the vast majority outside of the established routes exposed people to vertical ladder climbs that meant falling 2, 3 or more levels. If that happened, we would not only have a seriously injured guest, it would require trained people with specialized equipment to get them out. So, there was simply too much risk of serious injury to allow using those. By the way, we only experienced one significant injury during the years of hard hat tours. A guest tripped on a 2" tall door combing and face planted on a steel deck. That was after we warned everyone about the ledge. She then admitted that she had a physical problem that lead to the accident.

Aka dust

Most of the compartments in this video would never be occupied by crew when in battle condition, so there is no reason to make them easy to get out of. Large hatches leading to compartments that are manned typically have small scuttles or manholes in them that are just large enough for someone open and squeeze through. That eliminates having to open a hatch that weighs several hundred pounds so that you only have to open one that weighs less than 50 lbs. to get out. However, all bets are off for anyone on the lower decks if the ship is listing heavily or capsized.

Sorry, but I am not aware of any internet source for that kind of information.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 dang, thanks for responding though

I researched it after the video and confirmed that it was a 2-1/2" valve and Malcomb strainer that served as a cooling outlet. There was a 3" setup that served as an inlet that was removed at some point in the past. While its basic use was easy to guess at the time I shot it, I have gotten in the habit of not guessing during a video. I've found that I'm wrong more often than I like when I hip shoot guesses, so I simply say I don't know.

There certainly had to be guys just like you on BB-35 between 1911 and 1914 while she was being built at Newport News where she was also known as hull number 147.

@@tomscotttheolderone364. I have no doubt there were other-the-ordinary sailors like me back in the early 1900's. :) In 1901, Guglielmo Marconi sent the first radio signals across the Atlantic, so I'm sure the U.S. Navy needed electronics techs, which is what I was, by 1914 to fix their then bleeding-edge technology communications gear . Also, hats off to you for making these videos, they're quite intriguing. [Bonus: the TR's shipyard hull number was 624D]

I tried to give a large donation to get access,,,couldn't get it with the old guys that ran it for TPWD,,,,I'll try again later with the Battleship Texas Foundation...I believe they would welcome me

@@tomcatmcgillicutty6913 🤔 I wonder...? I'm sure that if it was up to the individuals they would not have any complaint, but I'm willing to bet the legal department would have a full litter of kittens at the thought of the liability of people crawling around the bowels of the belly of the Beast.

@@tomcatmcgillicutty6913 I have to admit that I'm very sympathetic and intrigued by the private tour idea. I really think it needs to be honestly discussed and explored with BTF instead of them dismissing it out of hand. I believe, with the proper physical requirements, training, pre-planning, and PPE, 1-2 donors with an experienced guide could extensively and safely tour the ship. Apparently, people enter these spaces quite frequently based on the trash they leave behind. How much are you willing to donate? Are we talking 4 or 5-figures or more? Would you be willing to buy insurance or a bond to cover the cost of a rescue if required? Would you submit to a background check if necessary?

@@rek-tekconsultingllc8827 We'll let's put it this way,,I have to pass a background check every year for my job,,actually just had on a week ago also have a CCW which requires an FBI background check..So if they'd want to spend the money on one that's fine with me..2nd I've contracted with FEMA in the past during certain hurricanes rescuing people and looking for missing/deceased people..So no I wouldn't spend anything on a bond or insurance to tour a ship,,I already have excellent insurance..I would be happy to provide rescue to anyone needing assistance though..Honestly after touring many other museum ships through the years,,I just can't understand why our Battleship Texas is so ooooo much more dangerous than the others..Tight spaces,,steep ladders,,hitting you head on some steel yeah I get it be carefull but when there's 60 65 70yr old guys doing it,,,why can't i..Guarantee you'll be pulling those guys out of there injured before me,,promise you..I've been in plenty of very dangerous situations,,not bragging here either..As for what I can donate well that will be between me and the foundation,,,,,when buisness picks up..I've taken a real financial hit during this pandemic as has many other buisness owners..I hope that the foundation is more receptive than TPWD and some of the others associated with them...

@@rek-tekconsultingllc8827 Also I'd be happy to sign a waiver,,I believe that if the ship was safe enough for sailors,,some teenagers to serve aboard during 2 world wars,,then I'm confident it is safe enough for select tourism..It was TPWD and others associated with them,,that always said no..I thought at 1 point it was going to happen,,was close however lost contact with that person..I'll try again when the time is right for me,,again I'm busy restructuring and rebuilding a buisness..I'll make confident it will happen someday....

The renovation work up until now has concentrated on framing and bulkhead repairs inside the hull. The upcoming trip to dry dock after hurricane season will address replacing hull and torpedo blister shell plating below the waterline. It is my understanding that all work will all be welded, which makes perfect sense. Not only is riveting far more labor intensive and cost vastly more than welding, the number of skilled workmen and equipment needed to rivet for a project this size simply doesn't exist. Besides, riveted hulls tend to leak and the problem grows over time. Reading reports from inspections of Texas' hull, tanks and inner bottom made in 1945 and 1946 indicates that they had hundreds of leaks. This issue is pretty much eliminated with welding.

Really, Lisa? You like the mosquitoes live in the bilges? :)

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Lol, you bet! 😉 On some Hard Hat or Restoration days, I think the heat was worse than those darn mosqitoes.

1. The void contains pipes and valves for the emergency fuel tanks at the point where they feed into the fuel mains. I am not sure about the exact identity of the pipe without looking at plans. There are 2 sets of fuel, and fire and flooding mains that run down each side of the ship. This is likely one of the cross connects that join them together. 2. I'm not sure if it was ever flooded. It seems a little doubtful since it is both well sealed and higher than other spaces that did flood. Based upon the high movement of air through it, it is possible that a lot of dust and moisture has been drawn through it over the years that encouraged corrosion and dirt buildup. 3. Portions of the system are used once they have been tested for continuity, grounds and integrity of their insulation. Even though it was designed for dc, it is easier to use for ac. Each circuit has both positive and negative conductors, unlike wiring used in commercial and industrial applications. Also, dc requires much heavier switches and contacts to control it than does ac. So, once a circuit has been verified as safe and intact, it can be used. The only issues are that they cannot be grounded without possibly creating currents in the ship's hull that can damage it due to electrolysis. Also, the vast amount of its insulation is made of cambric cloth that becomes very brittle over the years. While it is still electrically safe, it takes someone who really knows how to handle it to splice into it without damaging it.

There will be videos of a turret and its systems in the not too distant future.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 cool, would you have access to any of the other turrets? I have heard turret 3 was a pain to work in due to it being between the boiler rooms and engine room and all the steam pipes had to go around this turret.

@@hinahanta Yes, I have been in all of the turrets. I don't think that the temps in the turret were any higher than other turrets since they were all well ventilated with outside air. Turret 3 was also well above the steam passages you are referring to. There were powder and shell magazines serving turret 3 that sat between the steam passages containing the lines and the turret handling rooms. Shells were totally unaffected by the elevated temperatures, so it wasn't a problem for them. There was some worry with the powder magazines sitting next to the steam lines. The concern was that the burning characteristics of powder stored at an elevated temperature would perform differently than that stored in the other magazines. It wasn't enough to be dangerous, but it could have a noticeable effect upon shooting accuracy.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Very cool, what conditions are the other turrets in? I have always wanted to visit the un restored closed off parts of the ship like turrets 2 through 5 and the un restored boiler rooms. Whould you have any footage or would you be able to get some footage before the Texas goes to drydock?

@@hinahanta I have no plans to create videos beyond turret 2 and boiler room 3. They are very representative of the others, they show better than their neighbors. Unless there is a very specific job to be done requiring access, it is pretty much impossible for anyone other than the ship's staff to go on board now. Unfortunately, my videos do not meet the level of need to go on board.

That's a really good question. I don't know. Close review of still photos of the equipment shows that both in and out pipes are lagged their full length, except where they join to the pump.

Access to trunks is highly variable. Most trunks typically provide access from the main deck so that equipment and supplies can be lowered to where they need to go. This is required since the ship's lower decks are subdivided into watertight sections that do not allow access between them. A couple of trunks are fully enclosed and only open up to the 1st platform and lower, not allowing access to 2nd deck, the half decks or 3rd deck. There are others, such as ammo loading, that aren't actually enclosed trunks, but a series of hatches that vertically align on each deck and open into passages on upper decks, or short watertight passages on lower decks. As I recall, the emergency diesels were installed immediately prior to WWII. Before that, there was no backup beyond the steam driven dynamos. I do not have details on their engines other than what a Facebook poster wrote that they are 2 stroke, 3 cylinder opposed pistons. I haven't verified that. The exhaust ducts have been removed. I assume either just before release by the Navy or not long after arrival in Texas. It makes sense to me because that was just one more means of access by water and moisture. I have no idea if there is any wiring from 1914 on board.

Opposed piston engines were somewhat common in that era, many were Fairbanks Morse. I didn’t see enough to tell if it was a FM or not. FM provided a lot of submarine Diesel engines so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Texas engines are FMs.

It is certainly one of the best. It is the fortunate result of no leaks in that part of the ship and limited ventilation resulting in lower moisture and humidity that encourages deterioration and corrosion. Another superb space is the anchor windlass engine room. You can see a video of it at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0nLlJqIy8qQ.html

The only places that I am aware of where there may be toxic gasses are the fuel oil tanks. While all have been drained, many were not thoroughly cleaned, leaving enough residue to create hazardous gasses. For that reason, I only look in them through open manholes, never extend my face below the opening and only stay there for a few seconds. In fact, some had strong enough fumes that I held my breath while looking into them. The bigger issue is oxygen depletion in closed spaces caused by rusting. Your body cannot sense that, so the only way you can tell that it is dangerously low is with an O2 detector. Entering a space like that will make you quickly lose consciousness without warning, and death will soon follow if not quickly pulled out. For that reason, I never enter fuel tanks, voids or any other spaces that are closed. I will enter them if there is a blower handy that I can use to ventilate them. However, other safety protocols prohibit me from entering many spaces like tanks and voids due to the danger of falling and the difficulty of getting me out if that happened.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Many thanks Mister Scott !! 👌 Please two more questions, 1. When was the boiler of the Texas last operated under steam and 2. How many hours does it take to heat up a cold boiler and steam engine before the ship can sail under its own power?

@@stubi1103 There are 6 boilers on Texas. Four of them were last fired in early 1946 when she left service. The remaining two were fired and used to to run electrical generators and pumps during her tow to Texas from Virginia in March of 1948. Completely cold boilers could take up to 12 hours to reach full operating temperature. Heating them too quickly could destroy the refractory brick that acted as insulation in their fire boxes and could damage expansion joints in the pipes. Cold engines could be warmed to operating temperature in a couple of hours if full steam was available. However, it took a lot of work and careful monitoring to do that. Both boilers and engines could be pushed to operate sooner in emergency conditions, but damage would be expected.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Mister Scott thank you for your qualified answer! 👌 I reckoned with hours but not 12 hours. I think the experience and skills of the machinists must have been great because it is a very sensitive physical process. Maybe one day I'll manage to visit America and the ship Texas. Thank you again ! 👍

A main battery director, secondary battery director and battle lookout are located at the top of the foremast. The Navy stripped them of their equipment and nothing more than an empty shell remains. The pilot house; i.e., navigation bridge, is immediately above and behind turret 2. It has much of its equipment and is in good condition. CIC was in the latter stages of a several year restoration when the ship was closed for preparation for towing to be repaired. As a result, the latest video I have of it shows a lot of empty spaces and covered equipment. One of two PPI radar repeaters is in CIC, but it is in very poor condition. There is one on the bridge that is in pretty good shape. No promises about doing a video there, but the PPI will show pretty well if I do one. If you like radar, there are complete SG radar and FC3 fire control radar transceivers in CIC. There are SG and SK transceivers located in auxiliary CIC on second deck that show really well. The Navy left them on board when the ship was decommissioned because they were too obsolete to be useful by the time Texas was decommissioned.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thanks for the excellent information. Hopefully they will get CIC restored.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 that’s a real shame. It would have been especially interesting to see the fire control arrangements on a ship of this vintage with the old style masts. Are there any pictures out there of those spaces from when she was in service?

@@jetdriver Yeah, there are no directors or range keepers still on board, which is really sad. Those were the really sophisticated gear on the ship. The two range keepers that were removed were designed by Hannibal Ford and were analog computers used to continuously calculate elevation and train angles for the 14" guns. They were original production units from the 1918-19 period. In fact, his original protoype was tested on Texas in 1916 and was wildly successful. It now resides in a classroom building at Annapolis. I've seen a couple of shots of crew members in main battery director at the top, but they didn't show any of the equipment. One problem is that the position is too small to get much of it with anything less than a fisheye lens.

I am in no position to make that kind of decision, but I doubt that will ever happen. The possibility of damage is too great to what is now an historic artifact. Besides, it would take considerable effort to route new exhaust ducting and provide cooling for the relatively small payoff of simply hearing the engine run.

You would think so, but I enjoy it. My only concern is with safety. It is really easy to get hurt, so I focus on the deck at all times when I am moving around, and double check every ladder rung that I haven't recently used. I also never have less than 3 flashlights with me. If one goes out, I immediately head back up to daylight.

Sometime after early November, after hurricane season ends.

Cool, thx. She deserves some love and attention.

You are right. I was 90% sure when I shot the video that it was, but that wasn't good enough to state it as fact. Since then, I confirmed it on a set of plans drawn for the generator's installation in 1942.

Former Battleship Electrician here - USS Iowa (BB-61) 80's crew through post-decom. Wasn't sure since color code painting probably didn't exist yet when Texas was active last, but that was my best engineering guess.

@@BlackIceOldGuy They actually did use color code stripes on all pipes. However there are very few where you can still see that. Most were painted over at sometime in the past without regard to the stripes. This is particularly true where pipes were insulated with asbestos that required being encapsulated.

The compartments you see are empty because supplies and parts stored in them were removed when the ship was decommissioned. There is nothing missing from the degaussing circuits in the compartment at 6:00. Wiring and junction boxes are all that should be there. The equipment that supplied and controlled the degaussing circuits is located in the forward dynamo room on the first platform and also immediately forward of the ice making room on the third deck. All of that is still there. You can see one of its control boards at 1:45 in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lYbM__7GXww.html

Even though it was called the ice making room, its main function was to provide chilled seawater pumped to heat exchangers at the 14" powder magazines to refrigerate them. However, it did produce ice and also refrigerated the reefer, which are the refrigerated spaces used to store meat and dairy supplies.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thanks, Tom. I'd be curious to know how this was accomplished on these early 20th century ships as there seems to be a dearth of information about this tech. available where I've looked. Ammonia, maybe?

@@davef.2811 The system on Battleship Texas used co2 as the refrigerant. The evaporator coils in the system were in a tank that made ice. That, in turn chilled sea water in a heat exchanger that was circulated out to the powder magazines. While it was pretty inefficient, it was commonly used on U.S. warships of the period and was far safer than ammonia. By WWII, the engineering division on the ship was pretty fed up with the system and the high level of maintenance required by the 1912 vintage compressors. Plans had been drawn up to replace the system with a freon based one, but it was never installed.

No, it is physically and financially impossible to bring the ship back to any kind of active status. Not only that, she was both worn out and obsolete by the end of World War II. There is no means of producing parts or repairing the systems that would require complete rebuild or replacement. Even if all of that could happen, she would end up an anachronism that at best would be a slow moving target incapable of filling any role in a modern combat arena. However, she now performs excellent service as a museum loaded with historic artifacts and a memorial to those who served on her.

I appreciate your suggestion and you may very well be right. While it would be nice to have that size following, I am not sure that I want the pressure of having to continually crank out content that comes with the territory. I have been a volunteer on board Texas and have contributed to her in many ways for many years. However, I am not a member of the ship's staff and have no official status beyond being a volunteer. I don't want the ship's name on my channel to avoid any assumptions made about that. i also want to leave it open so that Battleship Texas Foundation has full access to the name. What I have done is make a point of starting the title of each video with the ship's name to help with searches. I figure that once here, viewers can easily find my channel and decide if they want to subscribe.

The coal bunkers were tall and very large compartments adjacent to the boiler rooms in which more than 2,800 tons of coal could be stored. There were openings in the bulkheads between the bunkers and boiler rooms called scuttles that coal passers would shovel coal into piles onto the floor in front of each boiler. From there, stokers would feed it into the boilers. As coal was consumed and the level in the bunkers dropped, trimmers would enter the bunkers to spread it around so that it would feed properly to the scuttles. It was not only hot and dirty work, it was also a continuous, 24 hour per day operation as long as that boiler was in use. The worse part of handling coal was taking on a load in what was called coaling the ship. As much as 2,000 tons, or more, of coal would be dumped onto the ship's main deck either at a coaling dock or from a collier ship using conveyor belts. It may also have been lifted onto the deck using large bags from barges. The process required as much as a day and the entire enlisted crew to shovel it from huge piles on the main deck through 2' diameter coal scuttles, or openings, that were in the deck through which it dropped into the bunkers. It then took another day of scrubbing to clean the ship in what was called "field day".

This is a years long process that doesn't lend itself to structured learning. Even this old ship is extremely complex and most people want to concentrate on one area of specific interest. The best way for a person to learn is to find their own way with knowledgeable folks available to answer questions and lend some direction.

All videos and photos were taken between August 2019 and October 2020 as part of a photo survey of the ship. None are flooded.

That's good news. Thank you.

She's in drydock now so no flooding anywhere! 😂

Left there by ancient Egyptian sailors no doubt.

I believe I first stated output as 100,000 watts. I then called it 100 kilowatts, which is simply a different way of saying exactly the same thing. Since one kilowatt= 1,000 watts, multiplying that times 100 gives us 100,000 watts.

The forward emergency diesel generator looks pretty good, but I am not aware of any attempt or plans to make it run. I would be surprised if any effort is ever made to restore it to operating condition for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that the money and labor required to do the work needs to go to items that are in worse condition and that are more important. The aft generator was damaged beyond repair decades ago by flooding.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 I completely understand and I appreciate the answer! Do you happen to know the future for Texas other than drydock for the hull? Since it is the only and largest expansion engine left are they going to attempt to do anything to it? I’m just curious what the future hold for her.

@@mdtransmissionspecialties As you may know, the upcoming dry dock repairs will largely replace the outer hull shell to at least theoretically add decades to the life of the ship. Battleship Texas will not be returning to her current location at San Jacinto, so Battleship Texas Foundation is taking proposals for a new home port somewhere along the Texas gulf coast. Chances are it will be somewhere in the general Houston-Galveston area. However, I do not know that for certain and I am not privy to any conversations that will narrow it down more than that. Future maintenance and repairs will depend upon visitor income and donations.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you Tom. I typically work around that area if I’m working in Texas so I plan on donating every hour I can towards her. Thank you again for what you do. Hopefully we can meet someday and you explain a few questions you can only answer in person. Enjoy your Thanksgiving Tom we greatly appreciate everything you do.

A tradition going back to sailing ships. The red color was to conceal blood on the deck from casualties.

It's not a general problem. However, we don't enter spaces that have been closed for a while without testing it. No one enters places like tanks and voids unless they are certified to do so. I am not, so I simply look into them and photograph them from outside.

You just made it under the wire! :) The ship was equipped with OS2-U float planes during WWII that were capable of carrying 100lb. bombs and small depth charges. During the invasion of North Africa, one of her aircraft dropped a depth charge, with its fuse set on instant, that directly hit a German tank and overturned two more. The reason for the depth charge was because that was what was on the plane as it sat on the catapult. They received a request for immediate support, so it launched with what it had. It seemed to work out pretty well!

It's just me and I don't post on Twitter, only here and in a couple of Facebook groups.

@@tomscotttheolderone364 Ah ok. I was going to say, its an excellent way to interact with local politicians and fundraisers who could help. With all the work Elon Musk is doing down there, he might make a donation or two.

What remains is usually in isolated locations and generally hard to find. The Navy did a lot of painting between 1946-48 that likely eliminated much of it. It's unlikely that people doing that work simply didn't care about it, so what survived was probably missed by the paint brush due to its inaccessibility. Two notable ones is a nice little pencil drawing in the Marine Sgt.'s stateroom. Another that is very unusual and protected from destruction was drawn on an engine room gauge face, behind its protective glass.