USS Texas

S

shadow01

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
110
Is their any current information on the USS Texas after she began taken on water and listing?

Are they going to be taken her to drydock for proper repairs?
 
There are ongoing repairs occurring while the ship is in the water using cofferdams. As it is, the Texas would not survive a tow to a shipyard. The shipyard that repaired her in 1988 is gone and the closest drydock that can handle her is in Pascagoula, Ms and she barely survived the trip to Galveston in 1988. She was taking on a lot of water when she cleared that drydock and only had 6 inches to spare when she did.

One of the major structural focuses of the ongoing repairs is to frames under the engine rooms midships. Her frames look like swiss cheese (and I'm not talking about the intentional lightening holes) and couldn't support her weight, whether drydocked or dry-berthed. Dry berthing is still the long term goal.

Here's a recent update from TPWD
Battleship Texas Project: Structural Repairs and Dry Berth - YouTube

Here's an article that is from May, but is still indicative of the current situation:
USS Texas repairs underway, but that won't be enough - Houston Chronicle

There are pictures of the frames in the previous Texas thread:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battleships-board/62816-uss-texas.html
 
One would think, with the booming oil industry making billions, a few might step up to the plate and handle the construction of the dry berth. Drop in the bucket money for them and they could put up a large plaque on the dry berth extolling their contribution.

The weight of those triple expansion engines certainly doesn't do Texas any good.
 
Last edited:
Yea but they need all those billions for chest thumping and such :confu:. It sucks cause they have more money then they could ever spend so it'd be nice if they would do that BUT if they would give to one museum what's to stop the others from bugging them about theirs and so on and so on.
 
I was always impressed with the Texas and her layout.

We used too (not so sure anymore) have Travis here that worked onboard the Texas that would give us periodic updates on her.

What I would like to know is if the armored "citidel" (broadway to us) ran the entire span between all 5 turrets and could they transfer shells/machinery/parts to all 5 turrets via the citadel.
 
Dreadnought said:
I was always impressed with the Texas and her layout.

We used too (not so sure anymore) have Travis here that worked onboard the Texas that would give us periodic updates on her.

What I would like to know is if the armored "citidel" (broadway to us) ran the entire span between all 5 turrets and could they transfer shells/machinery/parts to all 5 turrets via the citadel.
Click to expand...

Travis still works on the ship.

The citadel does not run between all 5 turrets. It is primarily on the second deck, begins at turret 2 and ends at turret 3. This is about 170' of the ship's length. It vertically extends down to the first platform forward, but not below the second deck aft. Its primary purpose is to protect the spaces above the boiler rooms containing critical machinery, such as uptakes, condensers, etc.

All ammo transfers occurred on the third deck. While 14' shells could be moved between magazines along its length, I doubt that it was done very often. Doing so required using 2 chain lifts to carry a shell tilted at an angle so that it would clear doors. My guess is that it would have been very difficult and dangerous for handlers to do when at sea and underway. However, the third deck was a busy place during action since secondary battery ammo was transferred between lower hoists traveling from magazines to the third deck and over to upper hoists that carried it up to the mounts.
 
I think they need Clark Griswold to go in there with some chewing gum lol. Hopefully they get the money though. Definitely needs a nice long REAL Drydock time instead of a mediocre cofferdam system.
 
Ctom3 said:
Travis still works on the ship.

The citadel does not run between all 5 turrets. It is primarily on the second deck, begins at turret 2 and ends at turret 3. This is about 170' of the ship's length. It vertically extends down to the first platform forward, but not below the second deck aft. Its primary purpose is to protect the spaces above the boiler rooms containing critical machinery, such as uptakes, condensers, etc.

All ammo transfers occurred on the third deck. While 14' shells could be moved between magazines along its length, I doubt that it was done very often. Doing so required using 2 chain lifts to carry a shell tilted at an angle so that it would clear doors. My guess is that it would have been very difficult and dangerous for handlers to do when at sea and underway. However, the third deck was a busy place during action since secondary battery ammo was transferred between lower hoists traveling from magazines to the third deck and over to upper hoists that carried it up to the mounts.
Click to expand...

Thank You for the reply and please give Travis my regards and keep up the good work.
 
Ctom3 said:
Travis still works on the ship.

The citadel does not run between all 5 turrets. It is primarily on the second deck, begins at turret 2 and ends at turret 3. This is about 170' of the ship's length. It vertically extends down to the first platform forward, but not below the second deck aft. Its primary purpose is to protect the spaces above the boiler rooms containing critical machinery, such as uptakes, condensers, etc.

All ammo transfers occurred on the third deck. While 14' shells could be moved between magazines along its length, I doubt that it was done very often. Doing so required using 2 chain lifts to carry a shell tilted at an angle so that it would clear doors. My guess is that it would have been very difficult and dangerous for handlers to do when at sea and underway. However, the third deck was a busy place during action since secondary battery ammo was transferred between lower hoists traveling from magazines to the third deck and over to upper hoists that carried it up to the mounts.
Click to expand...

By the way...Congrats on the 100th Birthday celebration.
 
85 gt kid said:
I think they need Clark Griswold to go in there with some chewing gum lol. Hopefully they get the money though. Definitely needs a nice long REAL Drydock time instead of a mediocre cofferdam system.
Click to expand...

Considering that a Texas colleague told me that the state will be running a $2.5 billion surplus this coming year you would think they would want to help get the job done.
 
You'd think so but im sure it'll just go to things it shouldnt. Was looking at pics again of her resto and shes looking great hopefully they can keep at it.
 
tbm3fan said:
One would think, with the booming oil industry making billions, a few might step up to the plate and handle the construction of the dry berth. Drop in the bucket money for them and they could put up a large plaque on the dry berth extolling their contribution.

The weight of those triple expansion engines certainly doesn't do Texas any good.
Click to expand...

No, but I do believe it is because of those triple expansion engines that the Texas is a historic piece, at least in one aspect.
 
85 gt kid said:
Just got a confirmation email about the firing being fireworks :(. Guy can dream right?
Click to expand...

Problem is...lots of liability, not just for the crew that would fire it but the spectators as well. Alot of work would need to be done ahead of time and alot of knowledge shared by those that know.
 
You also have to remember the fragile condition of the Texas. While it would be cool to shoot off a real "blank", they would have to be totally insane to do anything like that that would put any sort of stress or odd motion on the hull, especially with the ongoing frame replacement while still in the water, under a reported million pounds of reciprocating engines.

I've also gone on a "Hard hat tour" and have sat in the gunners seats, which are underneath the left 14" barrel. I can honestly say none of that stuff has been maintained in 68 years and I’d be surprised if any of it functioned.
 
Last edited:
January 21 2015: Happy 2015 to everyone! The start of the new year finds the Battleship Texas Structural Repair project complete! As of January 15, 2015, Taylor Marine Construction (TMC) is complete with all of the work they were contracted to execute on the ship, and all of their equipment shore-side has been removed. TMC, the design team led by AECOM, the Battleship Texas Foundation and the entire TPWD team all did a great job on this project, and the repaired portions of the ship are most certainly stronger than they have ever been!

Significant structural work on the ship remains to be done, but unfortunately that work will have to wait until additional funding is realized. Therefore, no further updates will be posted to this website until then next project is kicked off. TPWD welcomes your continued interest and your comments over the past 3 years. In fact, all of the comments posted to this site have been read and taken into consideration over the course of the project, and 100% of those comments posted through December 31, 2014 will be compiled and included in the project record. Thanks again to all of you out there keeping up with our beloved Battleship Texas, and offering your comments and suggestions. Onward!

Battleship Texas Dry Berth Project: Preserving an Invaluable Place in History
 
Pictures .....

Pictures .....

ChrisV71 said:
January 21 2015: Happy 2015 to everyone! The start of the new year finds the Battleship Texas Structural Repair project complete! As of January 15, 2015, Taylor Marine Construction (TMC) is complete with all of the work they were contracted to execute on the ship, and all of their equipment shore-side has been removed. TMC, the design team led by AECOM, the Battleship Texas Foundation and the entire TPWD team all did a great job on this project, and the repaired portions of the ship are most certainly stronger than they have ever been!

Significant structural work on the ship remains to be done, but unfortunately that work will have to wait until additional funding is realized. Therefore, no further updates will be posted to this website until then next project is kicked off. TPWD welcomes your continued interest and your comments over the past 3 years. In fact, all of the comments posted to this site have been read and taken into consideration over the course of the project, and 100% of those comments posted through December 31, 2014 will be compiled and included in the project record. Thanks again to all of you out there keeping up with our beloved Battleship Texas, and offering your comments and suggestions. Onward!

Battleship Texas Dry Berth Project: Preserving an Invaluable Place in History
Click to expand...


got any pictures???
 
I last visited the Texas in 2002. Very much enjoyed the tour. I have also visited the Alabama and was struck by the contrast in the condition of the ships with less than 30 years difference in age. Does the Texas have programs for community participation to up the citizen's interest? The Alabama often has youth groups spend the night in berthing spaces and they use the mess spaces. So you have a younger generation with fond memories and I suspect future support.
 
Well the Texas was stripped and turned into a museum right after the war. She had no work really done to her to refit her since she wasn't an asset anymore so that didn't help. She also had a rough first 30 years as a museum because the caretakers sucked and did no upkeep on her.

Meanwhile the Alabama, like all the fast BBs, was refitted and put into reserve so she was in much better condition and I believe has had a decent amount of upkeep throughout the years.
 
Battleship Texas could gain repair funds in Senate budget

By Madlin Mekelburg | April 1, 2015

The Battleship Texas could be in line for some much needed funding after the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday voted to allocate $25 million for repairs to the aging vessel.

If approved in the final budget, it would mark the second time in eight years that the deteriorating ship parked adjacent to the San Jacinto Battlefield State Historic Site has been the beneficiary of public funds. Texas voters in 2007 approved a $25 million bond proposal to help preserve the ship.

Andy Smith, Manager of Battleship Texas, said the bond funds already have been utilized, but the ship still has major repair needs vital to maintaining the integrity of the vessel. Smith said the long-term goal of the repairs is to ensure the ship is structurally sound enough to be moved to a dry berth to improve the likelihood of preservation.

According to Smith, some parts on the ship are endanger of deteriorating and potentially collapsing if they do not receive repairs – although he said he could not predict the exact timetable.

"They've lasted 100 years, could they last a year more? Five years more?" Smith said. "These repairs, they have to be done if we want to save the ship."

Bruce Bramlett, executive director of the Battleship Texas Foundation, said one danger of waiting to allot funds for repairs is an inevitable increase in the cost of the work.

"To me, the biggest issue is that the ship is 101 years old and for a long time there has been a lot of deferred maintenance that needs to be done," Bramlett said. "The longer you defer things ... it doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive."

The battleship, which participated in both world wars and has been docked at the San Jacinto Battleground site as a museum ship since 1948, developed a series of debilitating leaks in the summer of 2012. More than $2 million was spent on repairs.

Battleship Texas could gain repair funds in Senate budget - Houston Chronicle
 
Any news or updates?

Given her importance, I don't totally understand why she doesn't receive more attention or better care. Yes it costs money but money is being spent on less worthwhile projects. Just venting there.

I visited the Texas back in the late eighties and then again in the late nineties. They had made a lot of progress in restoring her, but had more sections closed off for safety reasons (the downside to more public attention).
 
Representative Culberson also offered an amendment to the NDAA legislation, which was adopted by voice vote, to preserve our nation’s historic battleships. The amendment creates a competitive grant program within the Department of the Interior to maintain historic battleships, like the USS Texas.

“These historic battleships played an important role in America’s success in World War I and II. These battleships are floating museums that stand as a memorial to the bravery and sacrifice of the servicemen that fought on them. This amendment ensures that those battleships can be preserved so that we never lose these national treasures,” Rep. Culberson stated.

For text of Representative Culberson’s amendment, click here.
 
More problems on the USS Texas over Veterans Day. Apparently they started taking on water from the stern and the ship developed a bit of a list. They HAVE to get this ship out of the water or eventually pony up for a major drydocking and hull job (I know, no money...). The TV interview with the curator makes reference to some of the 2012 patches "being loose" with complete replacement of at least one patch happening as an emergency repair.

Any more info out there on what broke loose?

Eric

http://www.khou.com/news/local/battleship-texas-closed-through-saturday-for-leak-repairs/351118694
 
Last edited:
Band-aids. That hull has got thin spots all over it and they keep doing band-aids. Either get it out of the water for good, or dry dock it for correct repairs, or admit you just aren't up to the task.
 
Texas & Olympia ???

Texas & Olympia ???

Time is running out for both of these museum ships and the ugly truth is no one wants his hand on the trigger to put both of these ailing vessels down.

The options are clear and there is no $$$$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top