Britannic


J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
I'm not saying that the Olympic was not a completely original design, in fact I think that most of the features of the Olympic were very futuristic and impressive, and probably sped along the evolution of ocean liners by at least fifteen years. I was actually talking about Isambard Brunel's Great Eastern, which was the first steamship to incorporate watertight bulkheads and a double skin into her design. It's a good thing too, otherwise the ship probably would be lying on the ocean floor right now.
 
J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
I'm only pointing out the similarities in the designs of the safety features
 
J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
*LOL* Sorry I didn't make much sense on the last couple of posts, I've been writing them at work, and they've been keeping me pretty busy.
happy.gif
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
127
258
Hi Joshua!

My confusion stems from the comparison of Olympic with Great Eastern. Why not the more contemporary Adriatic, or even Mauretania as an example of exceptional -- or perhaps not
wink.gif
-- *merchant* steamship construction to A1 Lloyd's standards? Or the Imperator, which had a limp?

All I am saying is that we should surely compare Olympic to her contemporaries, if we are going to discuss the superiority of her safety features, or their advantages and disadvantages. There was a lot of change between the mid-1800s and 1910, and I am just saying that surely the 1907-1913 era ships would be a fairer comparison? I mean, why compare the first car from the 1960s (just an example) with front seatbelts to a 1999 car with seat belts? There were many technological developments in between.

I know you've not given your posts in this thread your best, but if you could expand on them we would have a good discussion going. There are so many techies and rivet-counters (eaters!) on this board. I am sorry if I am missing the point here, but I'd just like to be clear on what we're meant to be discussing on this thread.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
Mark,
*LOL* I see I've pretty much ruined the spirit of a board dedicated to the Britannic, but the reason I compared the Olympic to the Great Eastern was because she was after all the first to have these features, so I automatically thought of her (the Mauretania didn't even cross my mind until an hour ago) Like I said, I NEED CAFFEINE!!! I'm actually not a rivet counter at all, which is probably why I sound like such a moron, in fact one of my biggest beefs with many steamship historians is that they make their books inaccessible to many people by going off into rants about how much horsepower the ship had and the details about the engines of ships like the Britannic. It gets a bit too confusing for most people, and even after eight years of reading about these ships I still find myself scratching my head from time to time. Let's forget that I said anything, I'm feeling like a moron.
happy.gif
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
127
258
Hi Joshua!

I see now that you were comparing Olympic to Great Eastern to show the changes that took place in between, but I am sorry that I did not understand that earlier. But I can't say that there were many practical improvements -- technological, yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find a ship by 1900 like the Great Eastern's design of safety features: bulkheads, watertight decks, skins, etc. Great Eastern was as you know an economic disaster, though I've never bothered to research her in detail.

I'm actually not a rivet counter at all, which is probably why I sound like such a moron,

You don't sound like a moron. Not to me anyway.

in fact one of my biggest beefs with many steamship historians is that they make their books inaccessible to many people by going off into rants about how much horsepower the ship had and the details about the engines of ships like the Britannic.

Which Historians? I'd love a book that 'ranted' about ship's engines and other features! I wouldn't say that that it makes books innaccessible to many people, though; you don't need an engineering mind to know that 50,000 horsepower is the power of fifty thousand horses.

Let's forget that I said anything, I'm feeling like a moron.

Well, there's no need to. All I was confused about was why you were comparing Olympic to Great Eastern rather than her contemporaries; now I see where you're coming from.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
Well, as odd or ludicrous as this may sound, I have read many books that were obviously written for those who are already familiar with the ships. I probably exaggerated a bit with the engines crack, but Jack Eaton and Charles Haas spring to mind. Their writing is very stiff, which actually makes it a pretty hard read.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads