Battleship Texas repairs

3,789 Views | 19 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by dcnelle
swampy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Been following the plight of the great ship in the news (Personally think it's way more worth saving than the Astrodome). But anyway, does anyone know when they plan to move the ship out to dry dock - in Alabama, I believe? I would love to be there to watch it move down the channel.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swampy said:

Been following the plight of the great ship in the news (Personally think it's way more worth saving than the Astrodome). But anyway, does anyone know when they plan to move the ship out to dry dock - in Alabama, I believe? I would love to be there to watch it move down the channel.


I think I heard/read sometime in December
Ciboag96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That thing sinks in the middle of the ship channel, it would mean disaster to the Houston economy.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And military Sealift.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Last i recall reading, the Texas' hull is so corroded it can no longer support its weight afloat.

Has something changed?
swampy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's going to be moved, supposedly using huge pontoons to support hull.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Last i recall reading, the Texas' hull is so corroded it can no longer support its weight afloat.

Has something changed?
She's afloat right now. She rises and falls with the tides every day. When she sprung the bad leak a few years back she began to list. She wouldn't list if she were stuck in the bottom.
terata
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.


It's not as easy as plugging a hole and dry docking.

The ships hull has actually corroded away to a point that her 100+year old hull would not be able to support itself in dry dock.

The reason she's being moved for repairs is to reinforce it to be dry docked.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.
With a lot of support from many different avenues the USS Texas got legislative support. This movement to the dry dock will allow the reconstruction that will allow the ship to be sustained for decades to come. I'm not sure where the disappointment comes from?
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Ag_of_08 said:

terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.


It's not as easy as plugging a hole and dry docking.

The ships hull has actually corroded away to a point that her 100+year old hull would not be able to support itself in dry dock.

The reason she's being moved for repairs is to reinforce it to be dry docked.
That is correct. But what is even more concerning is that it is far from obvious that the Texas can make the transit down the channel and to any drydock.

Are any of you familiar with the salvage of the USS Oklahoma in 1943-1944 after Pearl Harbor? The fears of it sinking in channel just on the very brief trip across to the dry-dock there? (Her damage was far, far, far, greater, so don't take analogy too far).[In fact, Oklahoma DID sink on the way back to the West Coast] But the concern is this -- if a patch of weakened hull gives way suddenly, if she floods, the pumps are not what they used to be. She could capsize and founder IN the channel. The cost in lost shipping and delays is astronomical for anyone familiar with the importance of the Houston ship channel.

By far the best route would have been to make her simply part of the dock where at, fill it in, something like was done with the Mikasa of Battle of Tsushima fame in Tokyo and other ship preservations. But they have waited so long that allegedly the hull can't take the necessary "concretizing' encasement either. I am not sure I believe that though.
terata
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With a lot of support from many different avenues the USS Texas got legislative support. This movement to the dry dock will allow the reconstruction that will allow the ship to be sustained for decades to come. I'm not sure where the disappointment comes from?


Yeah, that "commitment" of support has had many daddies and the USS Texas is still corroding quickly. The "support" has been akin to millions of dollars of promises and about .02 cents on delivery. Hopefully will be maintained better in the future.
jbeaman88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems to be a bit of misinformation on here. To get a more accurate story, read fellow Aggie Bruce Bramlett's status updates on the Battleship Texas Foundation's website at https://battleshiptexas.org/battleship-updates/
AllTheFishes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
terata said:

HWith a lot of support from many different avenues the USS Texas got legislative support. This movement to the dry dock will allow the reconstruction that will allow the ship to be sustained for decades to come. I'm not sure where the disappointment comes from?


Yeah, that "commitment" of support has had many daddies and the USS Texas is still corroding quickly. The "support" has been akin to millions of dollars of promises and about .02 cents on delivery. Hopefully will be maintained better in the future.
So you don't think the bill authorizing the money to move her to Alabama and repair her and then bring her back, that was passed by the last legislature and signed by the governor is a legitimate commitment? And if not why, specifically don't you?
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

Ag_of_08 said:

terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.


It's not as easy as plugging a hole and dry docking.

The ships hull has actually corroded away to a point that her 100+year old hull would not be able to support itself in dry dock.

The reason she's being moved for repairs is to reinforce it to be dry docked.
That is correct. But what is even more concerning is that it is far from obvious that the Texas can make the transit down the channel and to any drydock.

Are any of you familiar with the salvage of the USS Oklahoma in 1943-1944 after Pearl Harbor? The fears of it sinking in channel just on the very brief trip across to the dry-dock there? (Her damage was far, far, far, greater, so don't take analogy too far).[In fact, Oklahoma DID sink on the way back to the West Coast] But the concern is this -- if a patch of weakened hull gives way suddenly, if she floods, the pumps are not what they used to be. She could capsize and founder IN the channel. The cost in lost shipping and delays is astronomical for anyone familiar with the importance of the Houston ship channel.

By far the best route would have been to make her simply part of the dock where at, fill it in, something like was done with the Mikasa of Battle of Tsushima fame in Tokyo and other ship preservations. But they have waited so long that allegedly the hull can't take the necessary "concretizing' encasement either. I am not sure I believe that though.


I'm in agreement with you, and I have stated elsewhere that I fear she will not make the journey.

It makes me angry that the people running the park have been allowed to do what they've done, and now are stating they dont want the ship.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag_of_08 said:

titan said:

Ag_of_08 said:

terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.


It's not as easy as plugging a hole and dry docking.

The ships hull has actually corroded away to a point that her 100+year old hull would not be able to support itself in dry dock.

The reason she's being moved for repairs is to reinforce it to be dry docked.
That is correct. But what is even more concerning is that it is far from obvious that the Texas can make the transit down the channel and to any drydock.

Are any of you familiar with the salvage of the USS Oklahoma in 1943-1944 after Pearl Harbor? The fears of it sinking in channel just on the very brief trip across to the dry-dock there? (Her damage was far, far, far, greater, so don't take analogy too far).[In fact, Oklahoma DID sink on the way back to the West Coast] But the concern is this -- if a patch of weakened hull gives way suddenly, if she floods, the pumps are not what they used to be. She could capsize and founder IN the channel. The cost in lost shipping and delays is astronomical for anyone familiar with the importance of the Houston ship channel.

By far the best route would have been to make her simply part of the dock where at, fill it in, something like was done with the Mikasa of Battle of Tsushima fame in Tokyo and other ship preservations. But they have waited so long that allegedly the hull can't take the necessary "concretizing' encasement either. I am not sure I believe that though.


I'm in agreement with you, and I have stated elsewhere that I fear she will not make the journey.

It makes me angry that the people running the park have been allowed to do what they've done, and now are stating they dont want the ship.
Who has said they don't want the ship? There is so much disinformation and out right ignorance on this thread it's maddening.
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CT'97 said:

Ag_of_08 said:

titan said:

Ag_of_08 said:

terata said:

It's very disappointing no one seems to GAF about the fate of the USS Texas. Plug the hole, pump the water out, sit it up on a permanent drydock, then maintain it.


It's not as easy as plugging a hole and dry docking.

The ships hull has actually corroded away to a point that her 100+year old hull would not be able to support itself in dry dock.

The reason she's being moved for repairs is to reinforce it to be dry docked.
That is correct. But what is even more concerning is that it is far from obvious that the Texas can make the transit down the channel and to any drydock.

Are any of you familiar with the salvage of the USS Oklahoma in 1943-1944 after Pearl Harbor? The fears of it sinking in channel just on the very brief trip across to the dry-dock there? (Her damage was far, far, far, greater, so don't take analogy too far).[In fact, Oklahoma DID sink on the way back to the West Coast] But the concern is this -- if a patch of weakened hull gives way suddenly, if she floods, the pumps are not what they used to be. She could capsize and founder IN the channel. The cost in lost shipping and delays is astronomical for anyone familiar with the importance of the Houston ship channel.

By far the best route would have been to make her simply part of the dock where at, fill it in, something like was done with the Mikasa of Battle of Tsushima fame in Tokyo and other ship preservations. But they have waited so long that allegedly the hull can't take the necessary "concretizing' encasement either. I am not sure I believe that though.


I'm in agreement with you, and I have stated elsewhere that I fear she will not make the journey.

It makes me angry that the people running the park have been allowed to do what they've done, and now are stating they dont want the ship.
Who has said they don't want the ship? There is so much disinformation and out right ignorance on this thread it's maddening.


Previous thread on the subject indicated that the battleground did not want it to maintain any longer. Lines up with prior anecdotal experiences with people directly involved with the battlefield. No I dont have links.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:



Previous thread on the subject indicated that the battleground did not want it to maintain any longer. Lines up with prior anecdotal experiences with people directly involved with the battlefield. No I dont have links.
That is a misrepresentation of what was said. What they said, and has been consistent for a long time, is that the USS Texas can not be maintained at her current location. She simply does not get enough public exposure and the ticket revenue is not enough to keep her stable. So the solutions are scrap her for good and loose the last of the WW1 dreadnoughts or do what Texas is currently are doing which includes the legislature stepping up and funding her repair and re-homing to a location where she will get the public access and attention that will allow her to be maintained for the foreseeable future.

I don't understand why that is a bad thing?
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
CT'97 said:

Quote:



Previous thread on the subject indicated that the battleground did not want it to maintain any longer. Lines up with prior anecdotal experiences with people directly involved with the battlefield. No I dont have links.
That is a misrepresentation of what was said. What they said, and has been consistent for a long time, is that the USS Texas can not be maintained at her current location. She simply does not get enough public exposure and the ticket revenue is not enough to keep her stable. So the solutions are scrap her for good and loose the last of the WW1 dreadnoughts or do what Texas is currently are doing which includes the legislature stepping up and funding her repair and re-homing to a location where she will get the public access and attention that will allow her to be maintained for the foreseeable future.

I don't understand why that is a bad thing?
On the contrary, its a very good thing.

The only real concern (in own view) is whether Texas can make the journey. But one has to imagine engineering ingenuity has already taken into account these variables, and they know full well the risks of blocking the ship channel with a patch giving way. It will be a great thing indeed if the battleship finds a new visitor location more favorable to maintain the revenue. USS Lexington for example seems to do well at Corpus Christi -- its certainly a well-run set up, as is the North Carolina to use a battleship comparison. Have visited both in recent years.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who doesn't want to visit LaPorte, or Deer Park, or Pasadena? Come on that's a tourist magnet.


(Other than to eat at the monument inn once a year for moms B-Day, at which time we do our yearly pilgrimage to the Texas and monument, I avoid that area like the plague)
dcnelle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regardless of where she is taken after these repairs, if she isn't either encased like the Mikasa or put in dry berth like what was rendered in 2013, I for one will be pretty upset. Most of the talk I've seen about new locations seems to be thinking about just docking her somewhere. If she's left in the water at the new location, they're just kicking this can down the road. Unless they're planning to raise enough money to take her to dry dock regularly to deal with corrosion, the saltwater is going to continue eating away at her hull and causing more of the same problems they're dealing with now.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.