| Author |
Message |
    
Daniel Odysseus
Member
Username: odysseus
Post Number: 39
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 9:31 pm: | 
|
When the funnels were torn from the ship (or in some cases, fallen) what ever happened to them? They obviously sank, too, but were they ever discovered? They'd probably be in the debris pile, but still, it would be hard to miss a gigantic funnel... Anyone know? |
greg robertson
Member
Username: gregrobertson
Post Number: 314
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Funnels are made from a different form of steel, mostly much lighter and I think more likey to corrode faster than the actual hull. |
Stefan Christiansson
Member
Username: raven
Post Number: 85
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 11:37 pm: |
|
They have found fragments of the funnels in the debris field close to the stern section. Not much remain of them though. |
Brandon Whited
Member
Username: andrews
Post Number: 653
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 3:05 am: |
|
They were squashed and flattened out, much like a cardboard toilet paper tube crushed and then spread out. I believe the remains of the fourth and third ones have been found, as Stefan pointed out, near the severed stern section.
Cheers, 
-B.W. |
Nigel Bryant
Member
Username: nbryant
Post Number: 253
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 19, 2002 - 9:36 am: |
|
The Britannic wreck shows a good example on what Brandon just mentioned above, though at a not so great depth the funnels in one of Ken Marschall's paitnings of the wrecksite show them flattened out. But with Titanic as we know the depth was so much greater so the funnels don't really reseamble there unqiue shape because of the long drop from the surface.
All the best,
Nigel |
Brandon Whited
Member
Username: andrews
Post Number: 680
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 19, 2002 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Yes, one of Britannic's funnels was found lying beside the bridge area. I believe the Carpathia's funnel was found to be in a similar condition, lying flattened beside the vessel.
Cheers,
-B.W. |
liam forber
Member
Username: charmedmad
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:27 pm: |
|
is it possible that the smokestacks or what ever they were called could of landed first then titanic landed on top of them
[Moderator's Note: This message, originally posted as a separate thread under a different topic, has been moved to this pre-existing thread addressing the same subject. MAB]
when the lights touched the water does whould they explode cos of cold water
|
Matt Courtman
Member
Username: mattymax
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 7:59 pm: |
|
I don't believe Ken Marshal's illustration of Britannic is an accurate source since it shows the damage from the explosion on the exposed (port) side of the hull when in fact it is on Starboard side on which the wreck lies. The illustration also shows the hull largely intact whereas in reality the bow is barely attached to the rest of the hull save for parts of B-Deck.
Forgive me if I am mistaken as it has been a while since I've actually seen the illustration, but I believe I am correct. Corrections are welcome as ever. |
Brian R Peterson
Member
Username: brian_peterson
Post Number: 666
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Hi Matt,
Ken Marshall has made a 'corrected' version of the painting where the bow is literally blown off and the damage is on the starboard side, I don't recall where I saw it, but I do remember seeing it.
Best Regards,
Brian
Damn the Torpedos - Full Speed Ahead! - RADM David G. Farragut
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12406
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 6:06 am: |
|
I don't think you'll find that the bow was blown off so much as it was broken off once it touched bottom. The Britannic sank in reletively shallow water so the bow was in contact with the bottom with the rest of the ship's weight bearing down on it before the rest of the hull was completely submerged.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2146
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Ken Marschall's corrected painting of the Britannic wreck is so accurate that it is used today as a reference by divers who risk their lives exploring the mangled area of the bow. It is a required resource for each pre-dive briefing and I included it in mine during last year's expedition.
You can see Ken's corrected painting in Simon Mills's article in the Britannic section of my website.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Matt Courtman
Member
Username: mattymax
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Thank you Parks, your website is a really interesting read! |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12414
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2007 - 4:33 am: |
|
For anyone new to this site who is unaquainted with Parks Stephenson's website, go to http://marconigraph.com/ Trust me, you won't regret it. It's not the largest on the web, but it's one of the most substantive.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2147
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2007 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Michael,
Thanks for the plug.
Really, folks, I don't pay him.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2007 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Having met both of you on different occasions, I'm sure Michael would be happy with a couple of cold beers.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Denise A. Hunyadi
Member
Username: dahunyadi
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2007 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Having met Mike at a couple of techie events, I'd say you're absolutely right, Sam! For him, there's nothing better than enjoying a couple cold ones while discussing shipboard damage control, or what the Inquiries say about Titanic's engine orders when she ran up on that iceberg 95 years ago this week, or any of a couple dozen other related topics that always come up when we get together.
Denise |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12420
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 6:09 am: |
|
Just make sure it's from a good microbrewry or one of the really good lables from the U.K.
I don't know when our next techie event will be, but I sure hope that Parks can get to it. Sure would be nice to get Roy Mengot there as well.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 237
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 12:10 pm: |
|
The base of #4 funnel was found near the stern (I say base as in the bottom portion of the funnel itself not the deck house roof that the funnel sat atop). Not sure about the other funnels, but most likely they would have disappeared into the debris field easily and look like bits of wreckage from the hull or decks |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12476
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Matt, you wouldn't happen to have a photo of that would you? Or perhaps a link to one on the 'net if there are any copyright issues.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 239
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 3:53 am: |
|
I dont have any pictures of the base of the number 4 funnel, I just heard it was. Ive been trying to find pictures but most of the pictures are all the same picture over and over nothing new. But I did hear it multiple times that the base portion of the number 4 funnel was laying near the stern. I think Roy`s website with the wreck of the model even mentioned it im not sure. |
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 240
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 4:07 am: |
|
Michael, I found one source where I noticed the foundation of the #4 funnel. In Charles book, Ghosts of the Titanic Page 135, theres a map of the stern wreck site, and theres a oval with the notation (Foundation of the "dummy" smokestack). To the left of the main wreck theres a flat panel drawn that has the notation (smokestack)
I also read about it else where but Im still looking for the other locations |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12483
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 5:33 am: |
|
Thanks, Matt. I'll have to check it out.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Robert T. Paige
Member
Username: jnb
Post Number: 632
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:40 am: |
|
>>Funnels are made from a different form of steel, mostly much lighter and I think more likey to corrode faster than the actual hull.<<
When the funnels on RMS Queen Mary were being removed during the conversion to Hotel Queen Mary, it was reported that they had corroded to such an extent that they simply fell apart, probably as a result of exposure to salt air, exhaust fumes, etc. for over thirty years. Perhaps submersion at the bottom had the same effect on Titanic's funnels ?
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert T. Paige
"The best I've seen, ma'am....Hardly any rats."
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 244
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:43 am: |
|
Robert its possible. The funnels were made from basicly the same kind of steel, its just that they were thinner. Titanics hull was 1" thick steel plates and the funnels were probably around 1/4" thick steel plates. They would have been flimsy. The deck house roof was made out of thinner steel also. It is possible that the funnels were made out of the same steel as the deck house to reduce top heavyness. |
Robert T. Paige
Member
Username: jnb
Post Number: 633
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:57 am: |
|
Just a sideline thought on RMS Queen Mary -vs.- Hotel Queen Mary. :
Hotel Queen Mary has since passed the mark where it (She ?) has now been in service as a hotel longer than RMS Queen Mary was as a ship. (1936-1967 -vs.- 1967-2007 )
Question: Which had/has the most "dummy funnels" -
RMS Titanic or Hotel Queen Mary ?
Answer: Hotel Queen Mary has 3 - Titanic had only 1. ;-)
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert T. Paige
"The best I've seen, ma'am....Hardly any rats."
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 246
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:59 am: |
|
Well funnels werent very rugged. Ive heard that they have been blown off ships in strong storms and such. Salt air can also hurt funnels as much as the burning coal being funneled up the funnel on the inside. |
Eric Longo
Member
Username: mauretania19061935
Post Number: 320
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 9:00 am: |
|
Hi All,
When Mauretania's funnels were "felled" at Rosyth in September of 1935 it was observed that they collapsed easily of their own weight after one or two vertical supports were carefully cut. The accumulated paint layers measured about 3/8" thick and her dazzle/war schemes could easily be seen between the orange layers.
Best,
Eric Longo
Mauretania photographs&postcards buy/sell - telexcollectibles@msn.com eBayID:telexcollectibles
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 247
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 2:30 am: |
|
Interesting. I would have thought they would remove the old paint. Paint atop paint eventually adds up in weight. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12507
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 3:51 am: |
|
>>Paint atop paint eventually adds up in weight.<<
In time, it also adds up to a substantial fire hazard as well. Still, a ship doesn't make money when she's undergoing a refit so often as not, it's just easier to "spruce things up" with fresh coats of paint.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 250
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 4:43 am: |
|
True, I can see the shipping companys not wanting to lose money by having the ship in dry dock longer than it has to, just to strip the paint off. |
Robert T. Paige
Member
Username: jnb
Post Number: 634
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 4:58 am: |
|
>>When Mauretania's funnels were "felled" at Rosyth in September of 1935 it was observed that they collapsed easily of their own weight after one or two vertical supports were carefully cut. The accumulated paint layers measured about 3/8" thick and her dazzle/war schemes could easily be seen between the orange layers.<<
>>Paint atop paint eventually adds up in weight.<<
Same was said of the Queen Mary. It seems they didn't follow the US Navy routines of chipping and painting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert T. Paige
"The best I've seen, ma'am....Hardly any rats."
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12514
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 4:59 am: |
|
Painting, pain in the Biblical Beast Of Burden that it is, is utterly essential to the preservation of the ship. It doesn't just look good, it also protects the metal from the ever present problem of corrosion. That said, it can also bite if it get's too far out of hand, and it can hide a multitude of sins.
One example is the Marine Electric which broke up and sank in a storm off the coast of Virginia. The spiffy paint job hid the fact that the hull had so much corrosion that holes were visible on the deck.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Stover
Member
Username: rlsflorida
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:01 am: |
|
Was that the ship that had the corroded hatches? Think it went to help out another ship in trouble and it ended up sinking herself.
I'll have to look but i think i have a book on that and similar sinkings. Was a lot of finger pointing about that incident if i remember correctly. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12518
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:54 am: |
|
>>Was that the ship that had the corroded hatches?<<
And corroded decks.
The Marine Electric was one of a number of World War Two mass produced cargo ships that soldiered on in private commercial service long after she should have been handed over to Gillette for razor blades. Since these ships weren't expected to have long service lives (The U-Boat menace!) they weren't built to last for the long haul.
A sister ship, the Marine Sulper Queen, came to a similar bad end, and while the wreck was never located, there was enough evidence of the vessels deficiencies that the families were able to sue the line and win.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jason Schultz
Member
Username: tytanik
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 7:25 pm: |
|
All 4 funnels collapsed above water I think.
No.1 went first and I think it went starboard as in ANTR as there is crushing similar to the mast that way and a width of the funnel.
No.2 collapsed at Jack in the dark, no one realy tells of it due to that darkness.
No.3 went as it broke I guess, I don't think much is told about it truly.
No.4 was told to collaps backwards to port, someone told of running from the aft most funnel. I think it fell when the list to port rose too much as the stern righted. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 19253
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 - 3:39 am: |
|
>>No.2 collapsed at Jack in the dark,...<<
Uhhhhhh...what Jack? Jackstaff? Jackstay?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Richard Stover
Member
Username: rlsflorida
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 - 9:43 pm: |
|
As long as it's not Jack Dawson...lol
I did find the book btw on the Marine electric. It's actually about quite a few ships and the investigations.
It's called "Deep Sea Detectives" and can be found on amazon in the book section. Has some info on the gaul, derbyshire, lacuna, estonia, ect.
May not be for everyone but i enjoyed reading it. |
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 - 11:52 pm: |
|
>>Uhhhhhh...what Jack? Jackstaff? Jackstay?
Possibly Jackdaw? Jack O'Lantern? Hiram "Hi" Jack? Jack B. Nimble?
(Sorry, Michael, but it's Friday afternoon at the end of a very mind-numbing work week!)
Roy |
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 4737
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 12:15 am: |
|
You forgot Jack B. Quick, Roy.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 44' 01" N, 79° 24' 16"W
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 19282
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 3:07 am: |
|
>>It's called "Deep Sea Detectives"<<
That's not the one I have on the subject. I'll have to see if I can dig it up but the book I have concentrated on this casualty exclusively.
Deep Sea Detectives did a show on this which appeared on The History Channel.
>>(Sorry, Michael, but it's Friday afternoon at the end of a very mind-numbing work week!) <<
Me too. A home improvement place is not where you want to be in the springtime if you like peace and quiet.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 12:20 am: |
|
>>You forgot Jack B. Quick, Roy.
Aw, Jason, from where I was sitting, I didn't see him. Sorry about that, Jack! '-) |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 19350
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 5:50 am: |
|
>>Sorry about that, Jack! '-)<<
Not as sorry as Jack was when he forgot that candlestick he was trying to jump over was on fire!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 4741
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 3:00 pm: |
|
quote:Aw, Jason, from where I was sitting, I didn't see him.
That's okay, Roy. He's so quick that he's hard to spot; hence his surname.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 44' 01" N, 79° 24' 16"W
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 11:28 pm: |
|
[Considerably off-topic:]
So, why was Jack trying to jump over that so-and-so candlestick in the first place? What's the fascination? Reminds me of the gal in that old calypso song . . .
"All night, all day, Marianne,
Down by the seaside sifting sand.
Even little children love Marianne,
Down by the seaside sifting sand...."
Doesn't she strike you as being just a teeny bit, uhm, addled? . . . |
Will C. White
Member
Username: seastorywriter
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008 - 1:56 am: |
|
She wouldn't seem addled here, she'd be digging for sand crabs (AKA sand fleas) to go perch fishing with! WILL |
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 863
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 - 12:09 am: |
|
...although it doesn't sound as if this gal ever got herself off the beach... |
Will C. White
Member
Username: seastorywriter
Post Number: 227
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 5:49 am: |
|
That's because she was drinking rum with Cap'n Jack Sparrow. Welcome to the tropics. Yeah, rum in the tropics-sounds like a plan! |
