| Author |
Message |
    
James Hefner
Member
Username: survivingsteam
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 1:38 am: | 
|
I thought I read somewhere in the dozens of webpages I have gone through in the past few days that when the hull of the Titanic broke in two, and the section of the bottom feel out, dumping out the boilers, that the engines were broken in two as well.
Yet, the painting at:
http://titanic.marconigraph.com/km16.html
appears to show both engines intact, with the remains of the decks drapped over the rear half of the engines.
Which is right?
-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a
Surviving World Steam Project
http://www.survivingworldsteam.com |
James Hefner
Member
Username: survivingsteam
Post Number: 7
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 2:17 am: |
|
I guess this webpage answers my question:
http://home.flash.net/~rfm/STERN/R_engine.html
There is so much material out there, you can spend years reading it....
-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a
Surviving World Steam Project
http://www.survivingworldsteam.com |
Magnus Lundin
Member
Username: mange
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 10:42 pm: |
|
To add to your above post further, this was confirmed by a representative from Harland&Wolff during the Titanic Inc. expedition in '96. |
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 323
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 1:06 am: |
|
Dear James Hefner. Jon Hollis sent you a private e-mail in regards to your questions about the engines.
It appears when the stern broke loose from the missing middle section the forward cylinders did indeed break off. It looks like it broke at the crankshaft first as it 'appears' that one of the giant pistons complete with its connecting rod and a part of the crankshaft slipped out of the cylinder itself. Following are 3 photos that may clear this up for you. If you wish to contact me privately you can do so through Jon Hollis'e-mail
Regards Joshua Trainer
 |
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 324
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 1:09 am: |
|
James Hefner
Crankshaft 1985
Josh
Credit BPDMARSWHOI
Previous picture credit BDPMARSHW |
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 325
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 1:11 am: |
|
James Hefner
Piston with connecting rod and part of crankshaft attached 1986
Credit BDPMARSWHOI |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9394
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 2:13 am: |
|
I was about to ask if anyone had ever found the missing Low Pressure cylinders that broke off, but that last photo answered the question for at least one of them. Is the other one by chance close by?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 326
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 2:32 am: |
|
> [Mr. Standart, I will check with Jon H but I think this was the only cylinder photographed. If we find anything further in this pile of slides either Jon or I will let you know. Josh] |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 645
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
Good to see you back!
Best wishes
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 4:41 pm: |
|
> [Hello Mr. Lee, Sorry It's Josh, I will be doing most of Jons postings from now on and more pics perhaps, but we have thousands of slides/photos to try to put in order and catalog from the 1800's to 2004. Jon wants to sell the whole bit and bail out but I am trying to hold it together for him and Bulldog Productions. Thanks for your message. Josh (if you want to contact me direct use Jon e-mail address.) ] |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9408
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 3:06 am: |
|
Josh, if you're going to be posting on Mr. Hollis's behalf, please be so kind as to register under your own name. Registration is easy. Just go to http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin/discus/board-profile.cgi?action=register
Thank you in advance for you're co-operation in this matter.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 328
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 4:20 am: |
|
> [I am only helping Jon from getting aggrevated again with the forum by writing for him. I personally have no interest in joining your forum. Thank you for your offer however. Josh] |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9419
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 1:20 pm: |
|
>>I personally have no interest in joining your forum.<<
Then please don't use Jon's account. If you do, I'll have to suspend it until Jon can get back to using it. If Jon finds posting here too aggravating, then perhaps he should simply resign his membership, but that's for him to decide.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
James Hefner
Member
Username: survivingsteam
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Josh;
Thank you for an amazing selection of pictures. I cannot imagine the forces at work that could not only tear the hull in two, but break that size of crankshaft, engine bed, and engine. Incredible.
-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a
Surviving World Steam Project
http://www.survivingworldsteam.com |
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Just out of curiosity, how long would be the time Titanic required to go full astern on the engines as on the night of the accident- the reciprocating engines had a lot of mass, and must have required a time to get stopped and reversed when they were operating at cruise.
I am sure motion through the water would complicate it.
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13241
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Jim, I don't know if that much was ever timed in a realistic fashion. I know that something was done during trials to see how long it took the ship to come to a full stop, but that was with everybody at the controls to switch the engines from the forward to reverse modes. Out on the open ocean during a normal run, there would be no reason to have people standing by any of the wide assortment of valves and levers that would have to be worked.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
It is something I have been wondering about after hearing the theory that reversing the engines might have decreased rudder effectiveness- whether there was time to actually reverse them-
I had not considered the people aspect, only physically stopping and reversing the engines, but what you said makes sense.
Thanks, Michael-
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 777
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Jim: You may want to read this: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5919&post=136768#POST136768.
Cheers!
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13245
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:08 am: |
|
>>It is something I have been wondering about after hearing the theory that reversing the engines might have decreased rudder effectiveness- whether there was time to actually reverse them-<<
Understandable. With no propwash over the rudder, it's effectiveness would have gone down. Unavoidable really. I had a turn at the helm of the USS Comstock and near the end of that watch, the OOD ordered the engines reversed. I lost steerage way while the ship was still doing 17 knots.
It may well be a moot point anyway since the evidence would tend to indicate that no engine reversal took place until after the Titanic's encounter with the iceberg.
>>I had not considered the people aspect, only physically stopping and reversing the engines, but what you said makes sense.<<
Thanks. It's easy enough today to overlook the fact that everything then was completely manual. There was no direct control of the engines from the bridge. When you have to send orders down by a telegraph and people have to turn to in order to make it happen, things start to take more time then you would like.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jon Hollis
Member
Username: jonships
Post Number: 544
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
To embellish Mikes statement.
After the Engine Room telegraph registered Full Astern it was only 4 to 5 seconds after that ring the Titanic impacted the berg. So there was hardly enough tine for anyone to even get to the controls never mind reversing the engines |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 778
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
>>>After the Engine Room telegraph registered Full Astern it was only 4 to 5 seconds after that ring the Titanic impacted the berg.<<<
Did they register Full Astern? Or was it a Stop order as greaser Frederick Scott said it was?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
