| Author |
Message |
    
Nigel Bryant
| | Posted on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 11:07 am: | 
|
I have just noticed this.Looking a the two collapsibles which are situated on the roof of the Officer's quarters.
How could they probably launch them (without just floating them of when the ship sank)from the davits when the guy ropes that connected to the 1st funnel and the deck would block the boat to be launched?
The only way it looks like they could do it would be to cut the funnel support ropes and I don't think that would be a great idea.
Regards Nigel |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 11:52 am: |
|
They were supposed to hoist them out by attaching tackles to eyes attached to the funnel guys. The tackles were kept in the bosun's store. For some reason this method was not used and Lightoller even said that he would not have used it.
For me it's just another example of the casual attitude to the boats and the lack of planning. The collapsibles should have been prepared well in advance, as they were obviously going to be hard to handle. |
jean leysman
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Slides and suspenders were provided for the collapsible on starboard but not for the one on port. Why not? nobody knows, except maybe those who designed the ship.
I mean, why have lifeboats at the ready when you will never ever need them? Makes sense, doesn't it?
Regards,
Leysman |
Colleen Collier
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Jean. Maybe they didn't believe that they would have to use them at the same time. Hindsite is 20/20 and if they would have thought they needed it, I suppose they would have placed all 64 life boats on board too!
Then again, that is just a thought, and I am sure that one that knows for certain will tell us.
Colleen |
David G. Brown
| | Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 3:48 am: |
|
Just a guess-- but, it was probably anticipated that a single crew of men would handle getting both boats from the roof down to the boat deck. Thus, only one set of equipment was needed. Once the collapsibles were on the boat deck, they would have been handled by the port and starboard davit crews respectively.
-- David G. Brown |
Nigel Bryant
| | Posted on Monday, October 1, 2001 - 1:31 am: |
|
Hi all,
Some of the guy lines from the 1st funnel would be in front of the davits blocking the boat to be even launched. The collapsible boats ( A and B) would take a lot of man handle to be dragged to the point where it landed to the foremost davits anyway. Subsequently looking at photographs of the Olympic later on, the collapsibles A and B were later removed from the officer's deckhouse roof.
Regards,
Nigel |
jean leysman
| | Posted on Monday, October 1, 2001 - 3:48 pm: |
|
To Colleen Collier,
I guess you're absolutely right in assuming this Colleen, but nevertheless the number of lifeboats on Titanic met excactly what was required by law in those days. Knowing this you would expect all the lifeboats to be accessible at all times otherwise White Star would be in violation of applicable laws! Wich, by the way, they were anyhow, because apart from the number of lifeboats required by law, life RAFTS should have been provided with a total seating capacity of up to 75% of the number of conventional lifeboats!
This was the law! Nobody ever seems to have mentioned this in the Titanic enquiries. Does anybody know why not?
Regards
Leysman |
Timothy McCulloch
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Does the name James Dobbins, sound familiar to anyone?
From the little information I had received, He died from contusions and shock. I don't see that name on the victims list of the Titanic disaster.
He was a 42 years old man.
If someone does answer, is there a web page or something about James? Or something.
thanks, Tim |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 1:53 am: |
|
He did indeed die, but not in the sinking. He was killed by an accident during Titanic's launching. You'll find the story on this site if you search. |
Colin John James
| | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Can anybody tell me the colour around the top of the TITANIC'S lifeboats.
photos on deck often show lifeboats all one colour indicating the pictire was taken on Olympic. |
Dan Cherry
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Hello, Colin,
Most likely, the caps of Titanic's lifeboats were a wood-brown. Olympic's were painted white during her first months in service, but by March 1912 were wood in color to match Titanic's.
Regards,
Dan C. |
Colin John James
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 5:33 pm: |
|
thanks for that Dan,
Of course all the photos of Olympic would have been taken in her early days when she was White star's new baby.
There's no excuse now for me not to get on and make my model i've always promised myself |
Mark Chirnside
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Colin!
I'll disagree with that -- numerous photos exist from the 1920s and 1930s, not to mention post 1912 and during the war.
Hi Dan!
Didn't the Hawke collision photos show the lifeboat gunwales painted brown? I have a vague recollection.
Best regards,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside,
Warwickshire, England.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/olympic_chirnside.shtml
http://www.titanic-model.com/oly_vhl.shtml
http://members.tripod.com/michailakis/rmsbritannic.htm
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin....61.html
|
Dan Cherry
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Hello, Mark,
It could be so. I looked at one Olympic photo shortly after the collision and it looks as if the gunwales could be brown. My copy is not detailed enough to be 100% positive. I can say for sure that by March 1912 the gunwales were without a doubt brown, for there is an Olympic picture dated from that month...
Colin,
have fun with the model. I am building a 1:350 Titanic model myself.
Olympic was amply photographed throughout her career. Many pre-1912 photos exist because she was the first in the Olympic class, and then, of course after the Titanic and Britannic sinkings, she was the ONLY ship in the Olympic-class to sail the seas. Yet, for some reason I don't understand, most of the stock photos of Olympic in published books I own seem to be from the brief pre-Titanic era.
Colin, if you have any questions or need assistance on your model-building, let me know.
Regards,
Dan Cherry
co-author
The Official Titanic Scale Model Tutorial
http://rivetcounter.txc.net.au/ |
Mark Chirnside
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Dan!
I thought it might be -- I'll have to check.
Best regards,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside,
Warwickshire, England.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/olympic_chirnside.shtml
http://www.titanic-model.com/oly_vhl.shtml
http://members.tripod.com/michailakis/rmsbritannic.htm
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin....61.html
|
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 1:28 am: |
|
Ken Marschall shows them as brown, though I don't know his authority. I wonder if they were varnished wood. The old timers loved varnish and it gave the crew something to do. Personally, I hate the stuff but I don't have a crew to maintain it. |
joanna west
Member
Username: blowhan
Post Number: 1
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Does anyone know what number the builders yard that constructed Titanic was? |
Michael H. Standart
Member
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 3692
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 8:39 pm: |
|
As far as I know, the builders yard (Harland & Wolff) didn't have a number. However, the ships that they built had locally assigned numbers. The Titanic's was SS401
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Daniel Klistorner
Member
Username: danielr
Post Number: 545
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 12:59 am: |
|
Wasn't the builders number the "no pope" one? (390904?) |
Eric Sauder
Member
Username: eric
Post Number: 156
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 3:40 am: |
|
Oh, Daniel, not the "no pope" thing again! :-)
Eric Sauder |
Adam Leet
Member
Username: leet
Post Number: 203
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 4:34 am: |
|
How about "31041134"? Plug it into a calculator, look at it upside-down, and tell me what you think.
Adam |
Kyrila Scully
Member
Username: childstar413
Post Number: 718
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Let's not forget the ever popular 71077342!
Kyrila |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 184
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 11:11 pm: |
|
...Or the relatively unknown: 5317006 - which just about sums up the "No Pope" myth!
Regards,
Paul. |
joanna west
Member
Username: blowhan
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 7:57 am: |
|
Thank you Michael
just what i needed.
regards
JO |
Daniel Klistorner
Member
Username: danielr
Post Number: 547
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 8:26 am: |
|
what about ?  |
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Username: alick
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Try, 1234 and you get all the Olympic class Liners.
James (Jim) Alexander Carlisle
Belfast, Home of Titanic
www.belfast-titanic.com
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 881
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
With regard to the original question, wasn't it stated in the Ghosts of the Abyss book that, during the making of JC's "Titanic", they had to cut the starboard mast guy's to enable the collapsible to be dropped onto the deck below?
Cheers
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
