Coal bunkers

Seumas

Seumas

Member
I don't know them personally but I have a strong hunch that Tad Fitch, J. Kent Layton and Bill Wormstedt would be upset that their fine work is being deliberately twisted to support ridiculous theories such as those posted above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ioannis Georgiou
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Or perhaps captain Lord didn't have his company boss on board!
Are you saying that Capt. Lord approach the same icefield in the correct manor at reduce speed with extra lookouts? Well I guess you don't know all the facts. Lord never slowed his ship down. He never took it further south to avoid ice that was reported ahead of him on the his latitude. Around 10:20pm Sunday night, Lord Was forced to take evasive action when he spotted ice ahead by reversing his engine and putting his helm hard aport. You picked a poor example.
I believe Smith was under huge pressure and stress and clearly lacking in shore time leave.
So somehow you think that Smith was under huge pressure? To do what? More pressure than any other sea captain on any other voyage? If you want to know about pressure, take a vessel out in a raging North Atlantic storm. Are you buying this nonsense about him wanting to get to NY fast because of a raging fire in a bunker, or afraid another fire will be discovered before their arrival there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich, Ioannis Georgiou, David G. Brown and 2 others
McCready

McCready

Member
Bit of a throw back to the coal bunker question I asked a while ago. Im still having trouble sorting this out. Even TTSM vol. 1 doesnt seem to suffice.

On G deck, on the shelf around the boiler rooms which formed the upper coal bunker, there were the triangular acess "hatches" or holes if you will to allow coal to dropped into the transverse bunkers and for trimmers to drop down through to do their job.

Specifically, how did the trimmers acess the g deck portion of the coal bunks which formed the shelf around the boiler room?
 
Georges Guay

Georges Guay

Member
So somehow you think that Smith was under huge pressure? To do what? More pressure than any other sea captain on any other voyage? If you want to know about pressure, take a vessel out in a raging North Atlantic storm.

Generally speaking, ocean going passenger vessel’s captains have more pressure than any other ship’s masters. Every single authority keeps an eye on them. They are responsible of the safety of thousands of souls, around the clock and even when they’re in their bunk. Bulk cargo doesn’t file any complain that they could have to address to owner. Just think about navigation occurrences, fire, which could result in evacuating thousands of persons in the middle of the night. Tight schedule, economic pressure. Every time they show up, they have to constantly answer questions from the stupidest to the trickiest ones. They have the last word, wishing it’s the proper one. So they really put their head on the block for not that counterpart money.

I have twelve months of sea time as an OOW aboard passenger vessels. It means twelve months of 30 days, 7 days a week, a minimum of 12 hours per day and not a single day off. In and out the busiest ports of the USA East Coast on tight schedule. You better had to be in shape to follow that pressure rhythm. I pilot dozens of cruise ships, meeting fully loaded oil tankers at 125 foot off at a relative speed of 24 knots. Like it or not, you can sense the pressure on the bridge, recorded by cameras and by VDRs. The more the berth approaches after a sleepless night … the more the pressure. Unless someone has done the job, he doesn’t realize what pressure means.

«Capt Haddock undergoes five days ordeal which would wreck most men’s nerves»
«Five years is the outside limit that a human endurance can resist such strain»
«At 5,000$ a year, or less, he assumes responsibility over thousands of lives and million in money»
«To guide a mighty ship at top speed by night and day is the most nerve shattering of profession»


Captain Herbert James Haddock
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Spooner, Rancor and Jim Currie
TimTurner

TimTurner

Member
Specifically, how did the trimmers acess the g deck portion of the coal bunks which formed the shelf around the boiler room?
McCready, I've been trying to find this out myself.

The access could not be higher than G deck. F deck directly above contained places like the 3rd class dining saloon. There's no way a bunch of thilthy coal trimmers are going to climb all the way to E deck, then down into passenger dining spaces on F deck to open coal hatches onto G deck in the middle of breakfast.

At the highest, the access would have been through the fan rooms on F deck, which I think is unlikely. Perhaps there was an auxiliary access there for when the bunkers were truly full to the top (but I expect there was always a couple of feet between the ceiling and the coal.)

Access inside the bunker can also be ruled out. While there could easily have been a ladder inside for convenience, it couldn't have been the only access. While filling the bunkers, the trimmers would have been trapped at the top with no way down since the ladders would be covered in coal.

We also need to keep in mind that coal could be any level at any time, and require access. This means that access hatches must have been pretty high, and that there must have been some kind of ladder inside the bunker near those hatches.

We know there were catwalks in the boiler rooms, leading up through G deck level. Therefore, it's pretty certain that there were hatches from the catwalks on G deck inside the boiler room casings into the coal bunkers, where there were probably ladders.
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

Member
From the British testimony of trimmer George Cavell, it appears there were indeed hatches and ladders inside the boiler room. I'd assume that at least some of these were on Gdeck, but there may have been others lower down. Cavell was inside the bunker when the iceberg hit and was partly burried by shifting coal.

4205. You got out into the stokehold there, I suppose?
- Yes. After that I came up right up to the bunker door, and then came into the stokehold.

4206. Is that higher up, at a higher level?
- Yes.

4207. And you climbed out of that, did you?
- Yes.

4208. And you got into the stokehold?
- I came down the ladder and came into the stokehold.

4209. On to the plate?
- Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich
S

Steve Corlett

Member
What was Britannic's operating pressure ? I understand it was slightly more than Olympic and Titanic.
 
Roger Southern

Roger Southern

Member
215 psi was normal pressure. I don't think it was markedly different for any ship in that series.
 
G

gogators1987

Member
The coal bunkers had 5 doors directly close to the boilers. BR 6 had only 4 if I remember right.
from what george cavell a trimmer said...there are 6 doors in boiler room 4 he was working in starboard side aft bunker and that he felt a shock and the coal fell around him...he also said that he got out of bunker door at a higher level...so that tells me that there's five bunker doors across from the boilers and one bunker door at top of the bunker
 
G

gogators1987

Member
how many coal bunker doors where there on the coal bunkers...?
 
trimmer_a

trimmer_a

Member
Does anyone have photos of the coal bunkering in the Titanic - Olympic?
 
Vincent Brannigan

Vincent Brannigan

Member
I am working on a point involving the coal fire. I am Prof. Emeritus Fire Protection Engineering U of Maryland. I am a safety regulatory specialist with publications on carbon monoxide. My biggest problem with the bulkhead theory is the products of combustion /fire size issue. Everyone , including "fire and ice" focuses on temperature , which is meaningless. A match and a forest fire have the same temperature. references to temperature in reference to heating the water in the swimming pool are likewise meaningless.
The key issue is fire size which is measured in watts. (Or BTU/hr) Titanic's fire is an under ventilated smoldering coal fire in a closed steel compartment That means carbon monoxide as a fraction of combustion products is enormous.

That's whey they tell you a charcoal barbeque indoors can kill you quickly. Carbon monoxide is an odorless gas that causes thousands of deaths each year in North America. Breathing in carbon monoxide is very dangerous. It is the leading cause of poisoning death in the United States.

I have asked about the trimmers openings at the top of the bunkers and I have some measurements for the doors at the bottom. That is the air supply which determines the burning rate and heat output. in the normal case cold air would enter at the bottom and hot products of combustion vent out the top, unless the fire is of a near trivial size those products of combustion are lethal . If the trimmers openings at the top are closed the combustion gets more complex and the CO can go through the roof.
Yuan and Smith CO and CO2 emissions from spontaneous heating of coal under different ventilation rates
October 2011 International Journal of Coal Geology 88(1):24-30

Now if the fire is small enough and has enough air the CO itself can burn to CO2. Boilers are designed to make that happen Coal bunkers are not.
Coal bunkers are normally designed to feed coal by gravity to the access door so working the coal out did not require entering the bunker However if ther is a substantial concentration of carbon monoxide anyone near the door would be directly affected.

These all argue for a persistent but very small smouldering fire
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich
jran112

jran112

Member
That's exactly what it was. It was not a raging inferno as some revisionist would like others to believe.

i never really understood how anyone assumed it was some raging inferno like some people do. If it was, Barrett (Who was very descriptive and pretty accurate as far as i know in terms of everything he was asked) would've stated so.

Also, maybe im wrong but, im not really sure how a fire could get SO hot in such a case considering the keel/hull of titanic are traveling through ~0F water, the hull is iron, iron is very thermally conductive....id assume that the keel/side hull inside that bunker is probably quite cool, thus is a massive heat sink for any potential fire... which AGAIN points to a smoldering, relatively cool, fire.

But yeah sure it got so hot that it reduced the yield strength of the bulkhead so much that it failed under a few thousand psi of stress.

(lol)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Samuel Halpern
Vincent Brannigan

Vincent Brannigan

Member
i never really understood how anyone assumed it was some raging inferno like some people do. If it was, Barrett (Who was very descriptive and pretty accurate as far as i know in terms of everything he was asked) would've stated so.

Also, maybe im wrong but, im not really sure how a fire could get SO hot in such a case considering the keel/hull of titanic are traveling through ~0F water, the hull is iron, iron is very thermally conductive....id assume that the keel/side hull inside that bunker is probably quite cool, thus is a massive heat sink for any potential fire... which AGAIN points to a smoldering, relatively cool, fire.

But yeah sure it got so hot that it reduced the yield strength of the bulkhead so much that it failed under a few thousand psi of stress.

(lol)
In a large well ventilated fire The bunker would not be efficiently cooled by the sea water adjacent to hull The biggest insulator against the hull is the coal itself . Think of a boiler takes a lot of tube "area" to transfer the fire's heat to the water Coal is burned to hot gas with is then circulated
Now think of the coal in the bunker. The cold hull could keep the coal near it cooler but coal is a much better insulator then steel
the net result is a kind of "coking furnace" where volatiles are driven off the lower temperature coal near the steel wall and consumed in the fire .
 
Top