1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Cabins & Bathrooms' started by Tracy Smith, Jun 7, 2002.

  1. Tracy Smith

    Tracy Smith Member

    I've seen photos of beds in many of Titanic's first-class suites. In all the pictures, the beds appear to be rather short, as if they would not comfortably accommodate my nearly six foot frame. Does anyone know the actuals dimensions of these beds?

    And the photos I've seen of the bunks in the other classes give the impression that they weren't much wider than a coffin. I'd be curious to know these dimensions as well.
  2. Tracy,

    Below is a picture of a 1st class bed. This bed was extensively used throughout most of Titanic's simpler cabins on B, C, D and E decks. This particular bed was 34in. (2ft. 10in.) wide and had a length of 79in. (6ft. 7in.). Most other narrow berths in first class had very similar dimensions, and were very capable of accommodating a 6ft. person (such as myself, I'm 6ft 1in.).


    Second class berths would have been similar, perhaps slightly narrower and not as long, but they would not have been much smaller. I don't have dimensions on 3rd class berths, but they would have been much smaller. Perhaps not much over 2ft. wide and about 6ft. long.

  3. Tracy Smith

    Tracy Smith Member

    The photo that inspired this question came from your post on the "Favorite Titanic Photos" thread, that you made last night. It was the fancier bed from cabin B59, which looks wider, but shorter than the bed in this photo above. Did the B59 bed have the same length as this bed as it appears to be much shorter.
  4. Tracy,

    Yep the bed was just as long. In fact the bed was possibly slightly longer than 79in. It was almost 4ft. 3in. wide, so compared to the bed above it looked shorter. It's only the width of that bed that makes it apprear quite short.


  5. Tracy Smith

    Tracy Smith Member

    Thanks, I appreciate it.
  6. Robert Bass

    Robert Bass Guest

    What is the white upside down T in the photo on the left? ...it doesn't appear to be in the right side photo.


  7. Eric Sauder

    Eric Sauder Member


    It's a wall bracket to hang one of the portable table lamps. It is in the right-hand photo (if you look *really* closely, you can see it "interrupting" the pattern of the wall paper), but it is more clearly visible in the one on the left because of the way the light is reflecting off of it.

    Eric Sauder
  8. Thanks for your post Eric. happy.gif Did you get my e-mail, I sent it a few days ago?

    Here's a picture of the lamp hanging on that bracket.



  9. Why did they have these portable lamps.
    I guess I could understand if it was a kerosene lamp, but this one appears to have a cord attached to it resulting in it not beeing mobile.
    What's the point of beeing able to take it down?
    Would it have been better to have it up permanently and putting that ugly cable inside the wall?
  10. Dave Gittins

    Dave Gittins Member

    Most of the time those wide beds would have been OK, but in rough weather the very narrow ones are the ones to have. Similarly, wide open spaces below decks are fine, until you get thrown across one. One the unstabilised ships of 1912, injuries caused by falls were common in bad weather.

    Speaking of the lamps, some of the table lamps look like afterthoughts, with yards of trailing cable. They look quite unseaworthy. Does anybody think that they might have been put on the tables just for the photos? Page 142 of The Birth of the Titanic has a bad example of this.
  11. Bill Sauder

    Bill Sauder Member


    Yes, permanent berth lights for reading would have been a better arrangement but White Star, for their own reasons, preferred a portable lamp on gimbals to do double duty as table lamp and berth light.

    I quite agree that the lamps look like after thoughts. The long cords are to ensure that the lamp can reach the outlet, typically at the head of the bed nestled between the switches.

    Photographers have been known to "dress up" a room with props. The third class dining room on the Lusitania had an archival photo taken with the table fully set. When I finally saw a large print I was excited because third class china for Cunard is under documented. I was furious to see that the tables had in fact been set with John Brown china, complete with their logo -- obviously borrowed from the commissary since the china had not arrived onboard by the time the photo was taken.

    I was on the 2000 mission to the Titanic and quite a number of these lamps have been recovered and observed on the sea bed. I would certainly think that they were standard issue for first class cabins.
  12. I guess portability of the lamps would give flexibility of uses for it. In the photo above, I doubt the lamp would have been hung on that T bracket very often. No it has nothing to do with the fact that the Titanic sank on her 1st voyage. If you notice, there is a permanent lamp above the head of the bed. This is seen in various other suite photos from Titanic and Olympic.

    In the simpler cabins, you needed to mount the lamp on one of those T brackets (usually at the head of the bed) and the plug was always nearby, which resulted in the ugly coiling of the chord around the lamp (the best example being the Fr. Browne photos of his cabins).
  13. Yes, would seem odd to have two bed lamps. Very strange.

    What is that other thing attached to the panneling above the bed in the photo above?
    Is it some kind of shelf or what?
  14. A mesh wall tiddie (I believe its called, unless I'm completely making up words now). That was used to keep things at night such as your watch, rings etc. The very 1st photo on this page shows it lowered (not lifted and fixed to the wall).
  15. Hey all, on the subject of beds - would'nt these beds have been far too narrow for couples to share the same bed? I mean it would have been a tight squeeze!!!
  16. Tom Wilson

    Tom Wilson Guest

    Not necessarily Richard. One woman was born exactly nine months after the shortened voyage and was always told by her mother that she was conceived on board and that her father had died in the tragedy. happy.gif
  17. There are other possible "naughty" activities in first class. Anyway, the smaller berths of course would not give enough room for two people to sleep comfortably. A 4ft bed is also not exactly what we know today as a double bed.

    According to the Cave list, all three Minahans were booked for C78. That cabin has only two beds. There is no further evidence to suggest either way, whether Dr. and wife were next door to Daisy (who was definitely in C78) or whethery they were with her in C78. If they were, this would mean that Dr. and Mrs. Minahan shared the 4ft. bed.
  18. I am a teacher and my fourth grade class is researching the Titanic. One question they have not been able to answer is "How many beds were there on the Titanic?" Can you help?
  19. Dave Gittins

    Dave Gittins Member

    Shannon, there was no fixed number. Titanic was approved to carry up to 3,547 passengers and crew. However, some of the accommodation at the aft end of G deck was removable and could be varied. Also, some of the beds were doubles, so there's no straight answer.

    The approved maximum number was split into

    905 First Class.
    564 Second Class.
    1134 Third Class
    944 Crew.

    In practice, it was unlikely that such numbers would ever be carried.
  20. Hey Everyone,

    I was just wondering if a couple would share a bed in a B or C deck cabin on the ship. The reason why I am asking about these decks is because I know most of bed on the other decks were slightly smaller. Back to the point... I dont think most couples would share beds due to their tiny width during the voyage (except for those spur of the moment activities). Also Im guessing it wasnt common to share a room with your kids for example if it had three beds. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks!