| Author |
Message |
    
Jeremy Lee
Member
Username: achynes
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:36 am: | 
|
Iron grating? But the again hot coals and sparks could fly out and over the grating.
[hkspirit] Abuse vote kick will be *BAN* and *KICK* without prior notice.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11439
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
I think it would be more along the lines of some sort of screen or a couple of glass doors rather then a grating. This would serve to keep any burning coals in place and prevent sparks from flying out. You can buy much the same at just about any home improvement place today, albit as a seasonal item or available by special order.
It would have not only been silly but downright dangerous for a ship not to have something like that for safety reasons on a real fireplace.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 871
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Yes, but did they have glass doors or elaborate screens for fireplaces at that time? Remember what you always say, Michael: Never assess the Titanic by today's standards or technology. Still, I agree: They probably had some form of protective barrier or something to prevent that from happening. On the other hand, they cut down the number of lifeboats to the bare minimum because they never thought they'd need any more. Is it possible that they took the same attitude with fireplaces?
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
I grew up in the 1950s, when open fires were still the standard form of domestic heating and fire safety was drummed into us from an early age. There were two kinds of protective device. The essential one was a steel or brass 'fender' which projected from the base of the fireplace to stop the movement of falling embers which might otherwise roll onto the floor. You can see these clearly in photos and artwork of Titanic/Olympic. The other device was the wire mesh fireguard, which served to intercept flying sparks and was more of an optional device, used mainly when children were present. These don't appear in any pics I've seen, but I don't think I've seen any in which the fires are lit.
. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11443
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
>>Yes, but did they have glass doors or elaborate screens for fireplaces at that time?<<
I don't know. However, I recall the photos taken of those electric fireplaces in the "Millionairre's Suites" had a fender much like what Bob described. I'd be greatly surprised if a real functional fireplace on a ship didn't have similar provisions. I don't think you'll find the attitudes of sailors towards fire safety was anywhere near as cavalier as the pravailing attitudes towards lifeboats. (The latter of which was as much a corperate decision as anything else. The sailors didn't get a vote on that one.)
If safety devices and retainers hadn't been designed and built in, you can be damned good and sure that the sailors aboard would have improvised something or made sure they were never used. The reason for this is because the spectre of a shipboard fire even to this day absolutely tops the list of a mariner's very worst fears. If the the ship burns, there's just nowhere to go except the briney deep.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Looking at photos of the smoking room it does appear as if this fireplace (the only one generally agreed to be functional) is the only 'fireplace' on Titanic which did not have a fender! But the grate itself does have high bars to front and sides, much more of an enclosing cage than the conventional low grates seen on the mock fireplaces. I guess that was enough to contain the coals except in a Poseidon Adventure situation.
I would have thought, incidentally, that this one fire in a well-attended public room presented less of a risk than the hundreds of tiny fires burning on the ends of cigarettes and cigars in a great many locations throughout the ship.
. |
Stephen DeNicholas
Member
Username: steve_wd
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hello everyone. This is my first time posting and I am honored to join all of you. I would like to humbly add that I think that even if the fireplace discharges it's contents, little damage would have been done. At the time the ship reached enough of an angle for the hot logs or embers to spill out, the ship was close to breaking anyway. I agree with Roy Mengot in that during the breakup, the side walls and roof were ripped off of the smoking room. I am not an engineer but it makes sense that a terrific suction would be caused by this happening. All contents of the room including, tragiclly Mr. Andrews as well, would have been tossed out into the sea. I certainly welcome any thoughts you folks might have on this.  |
Noel F.Jones
Member
Username: ver1tas
Post Number: 412
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 3:28 am: |
|
I believe some of the German liners had 'live' fireplaces. And, according to Captain Diggle, the Aquitania used to employ a chimney sweep on turnround - but maybe that was for the galley flue!
I would only countenance a 'live' fireplace on a ship if it faced aft. As Bob Godfrey says, a fireplace in a public room under the constant eye of the public room stewards was probably reasonably safe. I don't doubt they would have had a contingency plan for emergency situations.
There are two types of fireguard, the one to stop children - and the occasional drunk - from getting at or accidentally falling into the fireplace; the other, known as a 'spark guard', to guard against spitting coals or logs.
As has been said above, the fender was intended to stop any gross collapse of coals onto the hearthrug.
Noel |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 2004
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hallo, Stephen, and welcome to the forum. In the most recent postings in this thread we have been talking about the safety issue of open fires during relatively normal operation. As regards the sinking, I doubt that the Smoking Room fire was still alight at the time the ship broke up. For some time after the collision those of the stewards who were still at their duties continued to observe them 'as normal', and that would have included putting the fire out in the Smoking Room at 'lights out' (midnight), if it had not been allowed already to burn itself out. If memories of coal scuttle duties serve me right, a fire doesn't burn on for hours unattended. On that particular night, of course, the Smoking Room either was not closed or was re-opened and it may be that somebody found time to continue feeding the fire, but if the ever-attentive Andrews was present he would surely (knowing what he did) have discouraged this?
. |
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Would someone be willing to fill me in on where word of the "dull red glow" in the vicinity of the smoking room comes from? Pellegrino seemed to think it was Stewart Ray, but I've gone thru his US testimony several times and can't find any such thing. Did I miss something? Where should I be looking?
Roy |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11453
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
>>Did I miss something? Where should I be looking?<<
Probably not. I haven't seen any such claim in any of the testimony offered, though it's possible somebody may have made that claim to a newspaper. That might be a good place to look.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Matter of fact, Michael, Pellegrino cites both Ray and Ranger in the same paragraph (p. 200) and I didn't see anything in Ranger either. But then, Pellegrino has been known to make outlandish claims before this. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11462
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:21 am: |
|
The question is, have you seen the *original* source for yourself? As you indicated, Pellegrino has been known to get creative with his material. They may well have said what's claimed, but I don't know of any such in the official inquiries. That's why I suggested trying newspaper accounts.
I know...I know...newspapers have been known to get creative as well, but at least you know where it came from.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
>>The question is, have you seen the *original* source for yourself?
That's about the size of it, Michael. Pellegrino isn't great about citing his sources. But both Ray and Ranger testified and, in his paragraph, he seems to be alluding to their testimonies. It's sad when trust goes down the tube.
...But then, after "Her Name - Titanic", I can't say it was all that strong to begin with. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
