| Author |
Message |
    
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:28 pm: | 
|
Where did Titanic split in half, and what rooms were effected by the splitting.
I heard the lounge, smoking room, aft grand staircase, a la carte restaurant and other rooms were effected, but these rooms are not all in the same area on the ship.
Any replies would be appreciated greatly. Thanks! |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11463
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:25 am: |
|
This Section of Roy Mengot's website may help explain things better for you. The breakup happened in the region of the Engine room and Boiler Room One with a nice sized chunk above that basically collapsing in on itself.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:43 am: |
|
Thanks Michael! |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 894
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Matt, generally speaking, the split centered around the aft expansion joint located just aft of the third funnel and just forward of the reciprocating engine casing. Several feet forward and aft of that point crumbled away. This might help give you a basic idea.
As for the rooms/objects affected:
Extending through all decks:
* Third and Fourth (turbine) funnel casings
* Ash ejectors and ventilation ducts (situated in front of and immediately after the above funnel casings. These extend downward through about F-deck)
Specifically...
Boatdeck:
* Deck chair housings (both sides)
* Crew mess (starboard side)
* Aft Grand staircase foyer
* Reciprocating Engine casing
* Raised roof over 1st-class smoking room
* Tank room (both sides)
* Engineers' smoking room (starboard side)
* Aft part of raised roof over 1st-class lounge
* Engineers' promenade (both sides)
* Area reserved for LBs 9, 10, 11, 12
* Aft wenches (one on each side)
* Turbine casing platform and fourth funnel
* Third funnel base and third funnel
* Assorted fan housings and vents around third and fourth funnel bases.
A-Deck:
* Corridor between 1st-class lounge and smoking room, w revolving door (port side)
* Cloak rooms (one on each side)
* Deck chair storage area (port side)
* Lounge deck pantry
* Lounge bar (starboard side)
* Tank room (starboard side)
* 1st-class Suites A-36 (Andrews) and A-37 (Father Browne [cross-channel)
* Most of 1st-class lounge
* Most of 1st-class smoking room
* Lavatory between fourth funnel (turbine) casing and aft grand staircase
* Linen lockers situated around third and fourth funnel casing
* Ash ejectors and ventilation ducts situated around the third and fourth funnel casing
B-Deck:
* 1st-class suites B-68 through B-78 (est.)
* Linen lockers and ventilation ducts situated at the third funnel base
* Most of 1st-class restaurant and all of the restaurant reception room
* Lavatories
* Restaurant galley
* All of the Cafe Parisian
C-Deck:
* 1st-class suites C-63 through C-148 (est.)
* Lavatories situated between surgery and C-93 on the starboard side and C- 98, C-100, and C-102 on the port side
* Linen lockers right aft of the aft grand staircase and the third funnel casing
* Ventilation ducts situated, as usual, around the third and fourth funnel casings
* Large linen closets just forward of the turbine (fourth funnel) casing
* Water closets and an engine room just aft of the turbine (fourth funnel) casing
* Chief Steward Mortimer's room (port side, inboard)
D-Deck:
* The back portion of the 1st-class dining saloon
* 1st-class pantry
* 1st-/2nd-class galley
* 2nd-class pantry
* Hospital, next to the 2nd-class pantry (starboard side)
E-Deck:
* Central portion of "Scotland Road"
* Chief Baker's Jougin's room (port side)
* Chef's room (port side)
* Engineers' mess (port side)
* Pantry to Engineers' mess (port side)
* Carpenters' room (port side)
* Bartenders' room (port side)
* Staff lavatories (port side)
* 1st-class cooks' rooms (port side)
* 1st-class bedroom stewards' room (port side)
* Staff baths (port side)
* Ash, fan, and tank rooms (port side)
* Saloon waiters' room (port side)
* Passenger lavatories situated between the second and third funnels
* 1st-class suites E-45 through E-76 (est.) (starboard side)
F-Deck:
* Back portion to 3rd-class dining saloon
* 3rd-class galley (starboard side)
* 3rd-class pantry (both sides)
* 3rd-class stewards' room (port side)
* Bakery (starboard side, inboard)
* Fan room (just forward of reciprocating engine casing)
* Kennels (starboard side, just aft of 3rd-class galley)
* Chief Engineer Bell's room and bathroom (starboard, just aft of the kennels)
* Writers' rooms (starboard, aft of chief engineers' room)
* Assistant Engineers' rooms (port side and starboard, aft of chief engineers' room)
*Engineers's bathrooms, with water closets (port and starboard, aft of the assistant engineers' rooms)
G-Deck:
* Coal bunker casings and boiler casings to BRs 1 & 2
* Engineers' store (both sides)
* Paint store (port side)
* Engine oil tanks and the Brine (sp.?) tank room (port side)
* Workshop (starboard side)
Orlop Deck:
* Coal bunker and boiler casings for BRs 1 & 2
* Front portion of Reciprocating Engine Room
Tank Top Deck:
* BR 1
* Aft coal bunker to BR 2
* Front portion of Reciprocating Engine Room
This was estimated by me by studying the blue prints in E & H's Triumph and Tragedy. Of course, this will probably be off, depending on how far forward and aft of the "split" actually crumbled away. Most, as we can surmise, is accurate, but we will never really know for sure as to what was affected by the break, the flooding, or the collision with the bottom of the ocean.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 897
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Sorry, made a mistake. Under C-Deck, I stated that the Chief Steward was "Mortimer." That is incorrect. The Chief Steward was Andrew Latimer. It was close, but still incorrect. I put this here so that no one may come up and "correct" me with the terribly obvious.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 898
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Ooops! Another typo! It should be 1st-class suites B-68 through B-98 (not B-78). The print was small. I misread but knew that it couldn't have been right.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Thanks Mark that was a very nice reply. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 902
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Well, it was detailed, which what I think is what you wanted, so I hope it helps more than confuses, hehe.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:47 pm: |
|
It helps alot. I can use this info to highlite these areas on my Titanic floor plans.
Thanks Again! |
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:49 pm: |
|
On more thing, did you know this or as you somewhat mentioned got it somewhere. If so, where? It seems anywhere with this kind of info would be a great source to look at or buy if you can. Thanks! |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11473
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:19 am: |
|
Matt, if you look at the ship's deckplans for yourself, and compare them with the known condition of the wreck, you can get a very good picture of what happened and the areas affected. It won't be perfect as some details went to the bottom with the people who were unlucky enough to be in a position to see it, but it'll likely be as close to reality as you'll ever get.
BTW, if you click on Resources in the taskbar above, you'll be able to access the deck plans available on this site.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 903
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Matt,
I figured it out from studying, comparing, etc. As Mike, said, is won't be perfect, but it's just about there. The only thing that may be off are the suites, but not by much. The secret is to know where it split and to estimate through studies of the photo collages and paintings (Marschall) of both bow and stern (I trust the accuracy of Ken's paintings), and you can just about get the idea of what was affected by the split. Some of it had to be done by comparing Ken's paintings with the blue prints (plans) and then pretty much theorizing those parts of the ship most likely affected by the split. I'm still not finished with that; I'm still looking at it closely. The complexity of the tear makes that challenging but very difficult.
By the way, Michael, what do you think of my lengthy assessment above? I am curious about your thoughts on it. Thanks.
--Mark
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2542
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
Mark,
Great job and assessment. I wish I had the time to be that indepth. Roy Mengot's site is a good one.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 904
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
By the way, Matt, I used Eaton and Haas' source (mentioned above) as a reference, although it, itself, is now out-of-date. You'll be able to find some clues in there that will lead you off on the right path. Good luck!
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 905
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
I also drew from Roy's site on the stern. He has a very accurate model. As soon as I can find the link (wherever it is), I'll post it for you. It needs updating, too, but it is very, very detailed and explicative.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 2764
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Here's the link Mark:
http://home.flash.net/~rfm/STERN/stern.html
I agree with Erik, great post and very detailed.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11479
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
>>By the way, Michael, what do you think of my lengthy assessment above? I am curious about your thoughts on it. Thanks. <<
I thought it was very well done. Like Erik, time is not something I can always spare to go into such details. Obviously, there's no way it can possibly be 100% accurate, but I think it's about as close as anyone can ever get short of interviewing those who were there by way of a Ouija Board!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 906
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Erik, Jason, Michael,
Thank you for your kind words. This assessment actually has been done - studying the photos and the blue prints and then comparing the two - over a period of time, like doing research. I've always been interested in what lay in the break and have done the work in phases and parts, which made it easier. Although, as said, it's impossible to discern with 100% guarantee as to everything actually affected by the break, especially aft, on the forward part of the stern, I continue to expand and provide further depth on it all the time.
Just one question: Do you think it serves as the beginning of a publishable article? Also, would it be acceptable to use Ken's paintings as a major (although by no means sole) reference?
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
Thanks again Mark and yes this would be a great article. It's detailed shows that you know great depth in this subject and will be interesting to Titanic readers everywhere.
PS. I never thought about comparing the floor plans with Ken's paintings, it was a good idea. It makes me curious to study these paintings and see what lays underneath the collapsed decks on the bow, though I have a pretty good idea.
I can not express in words how thankful I am of this info Mark, it was just what I was asking for.
"Music to die by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 914
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:24 am: |
|
Hey, no problem, Matt. I just wish you luck on your venture with it. Titanic is always fascinating, no matter which way you cut it. If you've become inspired, then it was all worth the while. ;)
As for the comparison, that was just my angle. There may be even other alternatives there that can help you, too. The only reason I considered Ken's paintings, aside from the fact that they instantly pulled me in and stimulated my imagination, is that he is an authority on the structure of the ship and the wreck, as his eye for detail shows, and I trust his perception.
Again, glad I could help. 
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
"Do you think it serves as the beginning of a publishable article? Also, would it be acceptable to use Ken's paintings as a major (although by no means sole) reference?"
I would say a definite yes to both. While the research may not be 100% percent accurate as Mike said, I believe it would serve as a terrific and valuable research tool for those wanting to study the break up in more depth. I for one, would be very interested in reading it.
As for Ken, his paintings are a valuable tool when it comes to how her interiors looked in all her glory. His attention to detail is incredible and he is considered an authority on the visual aspects of her. Exactly the reason as to why James Cameron wanted him as the visual historian for Titanic. I had the great pleasure of meeting Ken last April on the QM2 and being able to talk to him personally about this was incredible, but that's another story.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11485
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
>>like doing research.<<
Like doing research? Research is exactly what you did. Looks to me like you were thinking in three demensions when you did it too...which is how I've been trained to think for damage control purposes. I'll be happy to elaborate on this further if you like.
>>Do you think it serves as the beginning of a publishable article?<<
Yes. You might want to check with Ken about the paintings if he drops by. The man is extremely thorough, but his renditions are only as useful as the information he had available at the time, some of which was almost certainly less then perfect. If he was to do the work today, I'm sure you'd see some differences and my bet is he'd be the first to tell you that. Like you, I trust his perceptions, but he may have good reason to *not* trust some of the sources available at the time.
While you're at it, you may want to address the causes of the break. Beware of the Gibbs and Cox computer simulations. They did the best they could, but one of the things I believe to be problematic is that they didn't account for the possibility of severe bottom damage on the belly of the ship.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 919
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Michael,
Well, yeah, but a large part of it was calculation, too, if that's deemed as a form, or a part of, doing research.
Yes, I would very much like to discuss it further with you. Would you like me to contact you through email, or do you wish to contact me? Either way is fine with me. Please, by all means, feel free to email me. I am very interested and curious about your further thoughts on 3-D perception regarding damage control purposes, not to mention the dynamics of ship behavior under stress.
Although the insights that come about through discussion can benefit everybody, I noticed that many people here working on private projects prefer to keep their developing concepts exclusive until the overall information is ready to share with others.
I would be more than happy to discuss the paintings with Ken in the context of my comparisons, but his email address is, of course, unavailable. The thing with this is there is no telling when he'll stop by, as he seems to drop in once in a blue moon (of course he's very busy, so that's understandable). Any suggestions on this? I rely on his thoroughness, and I would like to discuss the issue with him regarding what to trust and not to trust in his paintings and the sources for those paintings. I think that's critical to establish immediately.
As for the cause of the break, some aspects are known and obvious, other aspects are still speculative. I have a few theories I wish to pursue about that. However, I think that it's more relevant to describe how the breaking process affected the interior of the ship, which is the point on which I should focus. Th put it in a nutshell: What happened to the inside of the ship during the break. This would add a new angle to the break. What do you think?
Thanks for the warning about Gibbs and Cox. I'll make sure I remain objective. I don't expect any research on the break to be perfect, as that aspect of the sinking was so chaotic that 100% precision all the way around would be impossible. Still, I believe in having the points be well-explained and as detailed as possible. As long as I concentrate on making my points clear and coherent (not to mention correlative to some know data), that should put me on solid ground.
When it comes to the belly damage, I will certainly keep that in mind while doing my assessment. I will always welcome your insights on that, however....
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11492
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 2:33 am: |
|
If you want to discuss it privately, you can contact me through e-mail by way of my profile. In terms of thinking in three dimensions however, it's actually pretty strieghtforward. You have a number of decks built on top of each other, and say, for example, that you have a fire raging away in one or two spaces.
Well, since fire gives off a lot of heat, the question then becomes how it effects the spaces surrounding it. You have rooms surrounding the one that's burning, but also above and below it, and you have spaces next to them. That's why you would set fireteams in them to cool the deck, the overhead, and the bulkheads as needed to keep it from spreading while the main fire team goes in to attack the fire at the source.
You also need to consider what's in a given space and the ones adjacent to it. If it's just a void, it may not be that much of a concern, but if it's an ammunition magazine or a storeroom full of flammables, you might want to pay closer attention to it for obvious reasons.
Ahhhhh...but it doesn't end there. Through each space, you have wiring, hydralic runs, plumbing, ventilation conduits, cableways, and the like which go up, down, and all around in a complex web. Ventilation can cause a lot of problems in trying not only to locate a fire...smoke can travel a respectable distance away from the source...they can also act as a conduit to spread same on multiple levels. They can also serve as a means for floodwater communicating from one space to another if you have a hull breech. That's why you close them off.
The nuances are fairly complicated, but the objective is dirt simple. You need to contain the casualty to keep it from spreading.
On the question of the structure, I think you'll find it to be a lot more important then you know as it speaks to *why* the ship broke up in the first place as well as to the how. Think of the keel as the backbone and the frames as the ribs, all f which carry the load. Do damage to any of that, and now they can't carry the weight of the structure as well as befor. In the event of a grounding event, they may not carry the load at all, yet when flood waters are coming in, that's exactly what they're being asked to do. If you have uneven flooding imposing shearing stresses on the sturture, sooner or later, it's going to give up the ghost on you.
With that little primer in mind, feel free to ask whatever you will here or off list.
Regarding Ken Marschall, as you said, he's a busy chap. I suspect with the upcoming expedition, he'll be even busier still! All I can suggest is that you hope he drops by and takes an interest.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stephen DeNicholas
Member
Username: steve_wd
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi all. Have been reading all your wonderful posts and would like to say that Roy Mengot's site "The Wreck of RMS Titanic" gives a deck by deck look at where the split occured and what areas on those decks were affected. Also, as Mr. Mengot has stated,and I agree with, the break happened bottom up, not top down. If that had happened, the stern would look different than it does now. Just the evidence of the smoking room being torn apart suggests that the bow broke off behind boiler room #1, and as it detached, buyont forces which were trying to keep the stern afloat, tore, not broke the area of the first class smoking room off the ship. I beleive that is why the engines, that were located at the bottom of the ship, with 5 or 6 decks above them now lie open to view. It appears that in a top down break, the smoking room would be left virtually intact, as the initial break was fore of it. Hope this helps, please feel free to disagree, I have a thick skin. ;) |
Mark Draper
Member
Username: mark_draper
Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
I agree too in Roy's study of the break up. |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2545
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 2:22 am: |
|
For some reason I find the need to post more about fires on ships then is probably needed.
As Michael pointed out ventilation is a ships worst enemy when it comes to fire. Unlike land based firefighting that sometimes requires venlitation and actually aids in the firefighting process.
On passenger ships the complexity of sealing off or isolating a fire is much more...well complex then say in a bulk freighter or container boat.
Today's systems are all controlled by switches on the bridge, which are backed up by switchs in main control, which are again backed up by onsite switchs. These last switchs have battery back up systems in case power is cut or lost. Before isolation the master must take into account the location and nature of the fire, how many passengers could be nearby, the ships heading, weather conditions outside. All of these things must be processed within a instant and the master must come to a decisive course of action.
In relation to ventilation. That is normally one of the first things accomplished once fire or smoke is reported. The entire ventilation system is sealed to prevent the spread of smoke and fire through this system and starting dozens of remote fires that will take attack crews lots of time to find.
Once you begin fighting the fire you have to now worry about the ships stability, the amount of water you are using, where it is going once it leaves the nozzle and how much you are dumping to one side.
This can have a direct effect on the ships structural stability.
On the breakup:
I agree with Michael. You need to determine what caused what, retrace everything. Each action has a reaction and vice versa. Meaning that flooding we know occured in one space directly effects spaces after that both in structural stability (in regards to the whole ship) and future sequence of events based off the ships design.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11520
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
>>In relation to ventilation. That is normally one of the first things accomplished once fire or smoke is reported. The entire ventilation system is sealed to prevent the spread of smoke and fire through this system and starting dozens of remote fires that will take attack crews lots of time to find.<<
This lesson was driven home to us on the USS Ranger back in 1981 when some idiot set fire to the wardroom on the O-3 level which is just below the flight deck. The smoke was first noted coming out through the vents in the Combat Information Centre which was located about 300 feet aft of where the fire was actually burning.
Guess where the fire parties went first!
By the time the mistake was realized, the wardroom was fully involved and it took the rest of the night to put it out. The stabilty aspect that Erik spoke to can be tricky as well. If it's down below decks in the engineering spaces, dewatering can be fairly easy using the existing pumps. If it's located up high on the ship and there's no way of easily dewatering, that can add up to some really nasty topweight problems if it can't be removed. If you're stabilty is already on the razors edge for any reason, that could add up to some serious hurt. (Read that to mean capsize!)
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 407
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
|
What burns on a warship? I mean the ship is made of steel, and there isn't carpet, or wood paneling or even much furniture. So what is it that could burn so long on a warship anyway?
I want to make sure I'm understood here, I'm asking from a truly inquisitive desire to understand the issue. I'm not trying to be cute or disrespectful.
I've visited a few warships that are open to the public and pretty much all I saw was lots of steel in all directions. Now I should clarify, I know that there are ordinance magazines, and fuel and munitions aboard. I'm not talking about that because those things are obviously explosive and will be the most watched over by the crew to prevent ignition sources from coming too close. I'm talking about all the other places on a warship. Crew spaces, machine areas, etc. How can there be enough fuel around in these unguarded places to allow a fire to grow to a size that threatens the ship???
I confess that I've never been in a house fire, or around any fire that was out of control or dangerous. I've only seen things like this on TV or in the movies. So I admit that I am looking at this from the point of ignorance.
Why can't a crew simply close off, ie contain, a fire and wait for the fuel to run out?? And how is it that fires get started on ships anyway? Maybe I'm wrong, but I pressume there is no smoking onboard a warship while at sea, correct?
Respectfully,
Yuri
Rowan County North Carolina
USA
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:14 am: |
|
Erik,
There is one thing you mentioned that completley confuses me. How can smoke traveling through an ventitlation system start another fire. First of all smoke can't cause a fire, or can it. Can someone clear this up for me. Thanks.
"Music to drown by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11527
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
>>What burns on a warship? I mean the ship is made of steel, and there isn't carpet, or wood paneling or even much furniture. So what is it that could burn so long on a warship anyway?<<
Paint, mattresses, supplies in cases of wood and/or cardboard, fuel, linoleum tile, insulation on wires, the furnishings in wardrooms and messdecks, blankets and pillows in berthing compartments...be thee not decieved. There's plenty on a warship that'll burn!
The fire which gutted the mainspace on the Ranger got started when a fuel oil transfer went sour. The pumps couldn't be turned off so it just kept pouring in even after it was set alight. It wasn't lost on anybody that there was one big ammunition magazine right next to that.
>>Why can't a crew simply close off, ie contain, a fire and wait for the fuel to run out?? <<
That's exactly what we try to do when fire boundries are set up. The problem is that heat radiating through a steel bulkhead can set anything in the adjoining space alight. That's why you have fire teams attack the fire while the teams on the boundries cool things down.
>>And how is it that fires get started on ships anyway?<<
Depends. Taking a hit in combat is one way. The USS Franklin and the USS Bunker Hill come to mind. Arson happens too. That's how that wardroom on my ship got going. (Never did catch the ratbag scumbucket who started it as far as I know.)
Don't forget the rocket that fired off on the USS Forrestal which got things going and the incident with that fire on the USS Enterprise. These were accidents that weren't even remotely connected to combat operations. The fire that got going on the USS Oriskany started when a flare was found burning and somebody tossed it into the flare locker.
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I pressume there is no smoking onboard a warship while at sea, correct?<<
Nope. Smoking is allowed in designated areas.
>>How can there be enough fuel around in these unguarded places to allow a fire to grow to a size that threatens the ship???<<
An aircraft carrier typically carries several thousand tons of the stuff. Diesel Fuel Marine, JP-5, even some quantities of aviation gasoline for emergency pumps and/or drones...and if it get's loose by accident, it can be hell on roller skates to deal with.
>>How can smoke traveling through an ventitlation system start another fire. First of all smoke can't cause a fire, or can it. Can someone clear this up for me. Thanks.<<
The smoke doesn't. The catch is that ventilation ducts aren't always perfectly clean. If dust, debris and who knows what else builds up, it can be a wonderful way to spread a fire. This problem is particularly acute in shipboard laundries where lint can buid up in surprising quantities if it's not cleaned out regularly, and boy does it burn like fun!
Absent that, the smoke being blown from one space to another can be very misleading. You start looking for the fire where it isn't while not getting to where it is!!!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
david wilson
Member
Username: skiboo
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
"what burns on a warship"? I served an apprenticeship as a ship's plater,shipfitter, on hms berwick,a frigate,hms kent,a destroyer & hms fearless,assault ship.I also witnessed the launch of "CANBERRA"a passenger liner built for the australian migration office.All of these ships upperworks was made of alluminium.That is to say,from the weather deck up.Kent & Fearless saw action in the falklands "war",but none of them took a "hit".On the other hand, several of the RN ships,coventry & sheffield took hits from an exorset missile to the superstructure.This caught fire & burned with such intensity,that it caused the Admirality to rethink future design in this regard.Metal will burn,depending on the conditions!
regards.
dw. |
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Thanks Michael.
I didn't know dust burned like that. I have never witnessed a fire and I hope I never will. I also have never been on a ship, just on boats. Thanks again for clearing that up.
"Music to drown by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2551
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:54 pm: |
|
It is key to remeber that smoke or the product of combustion, is combustable and flammable. Flame rollover as seen in movies is a very good example. Better put, the smoke contains gas, which is also flammable. These two things create a thermal layer, or layers. I could go deeper into fire science but I think I made my point.
In a ventilation system as smoke and heat pass through the ventilation system, other combustable things heat up, or dust, dirt, filters, dead animals you name it and if brought to the correct temperature ignite. Fire also creates heat, which radiates throughout the ship. Also remeber that most things are connected to some sort of bulkhead. As the fire creates heat, it heats bulkheads, which heats things attached to those bulkheads and as I described before things ignite when brought to the correct temperature.
Now smoke does not always create fire as Michael pointed, and can confuse the heck out of those looking for the fire.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11533
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
>>Better put, the smoke contains gas, which is also flammable. These two things create a thermal layer, or layers. I could go deeper into fire science but I think I made my point.<<
I think what Erik is talking about here is known as flashover, and it's one of a firefighter's worst nightmares. You could have smoke and the flammable gases build up in a space and though flammable, it won't ignite because it's oxygen starved. Now watch what happens if somebody opens a door, or hatch and a rush of oxygen goes into the space. If you survive it, you'ed almost think a bomb had gone off.
Lots of firefighters have ended up as "Crispy critters" that way.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2555
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
Actually Mike, you are talking about "backdraft" where the fire is in a confinced space and eaten all of the oxygen or part of the fires four requirements. Once more is introduced BANG! you get "crispy critters".
Flashover, is when all of the rooms contents reach there ignition temperature at almost the same time, and all burnable contents ignite at once. Firefighters are killed yearly because of this. This too can cause a big bang.
Thermal layering is VERY important when ventilating a house fire. The attack crew on the inside DOES NOT want to disturb this layer or layers, because if they do the heat up top will "cook" them. So applying water is not always the first option. The coordination of the two, ventilation and fire attack must be accomoplished together. This is particularly important aboard ship board fires, where the fire has access to the open air. By breaking the windows (and proper ship position) or other natural ventilation and then attacking the fire, you signicantly decrease the fires ability to travel. You also decrease the work load of fire investigators (or spotters) and by properly ventilating you can control the path of the fire.
Keep in mind heat rises, and if you make whole somewhere that is where the heat will go. So the hole needs to be directly above or as close to directly above the fire as you can.
When it is confined in a center compartment, or in a main space (engine room or galley) you need the opposite. No ventilation, and the attack crew goes in with a "cooling crew" as we called them directly behind to provide for the cooling of the attack team and to keep the built up thermal layers from rolling down.
Using "cooling crews" also keeps rollover from occuring, or fire rolling behind the attack crew.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11544
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:57 am: |
|
>>Actually Mike, you are talking about "backdraft"<<
I stand corrected. Either one can ruin your day.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 409
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Are there any fireplaces on modern liners like there were on Titanic?
Yuri
Rowan County North Carolina
USA
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11549
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
I wouldn't be surprised if a few existed, but I havr to wonder if they're functional, or just there for appearances. As seriously as fire safety regulation is taken, I doubt these things are commonplace.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Yuri,
I don't know the answer to your question, but I found a link that shows closeup pictures of the Queen Mary 2. I didn't see any but you could look.
This is a pretty cool link,
http://www.cunard.com/QM2/home.asp
"Music to drown by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 2799
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
I can confirm, that there are no fireplaces aboard the Queen Mary 2.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Speaking of Queen Mary 2. Were there any fireplaces on the Queen Mary. It is quite old. Were they so protect of fire back then.
"Music to drown by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2557
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:06 am: |
|
I have seen pictures in books of liners having what appeared to be functional wood burning fire places, this is all pre Queen Mary.
A book called Ocean Liners and I believe the Maxton-Grahm book Liners to the Sun has some pictures of these.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Hi, Erik!
>>A book called Ocean Liners . . .
Is that the Gordon Newell book? (I think I have the right name.)
Roy |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2565
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 1:27 am: |
|
Oddly enough at present I can't find it. But I believe so. It was first published back in the late 80's if that helps. As soon as I can dig it up, I will post it here.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
|
