Decor of passageways


Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

Yes, you have it right. We find segments of tubing along that path, and the Browne photograph fills the largest void. The tubing would turn (the turn would actually begin before the corner) and continue outboard immediately aft of Stateroom W, as evidenced by the video grab reproduced in the Commutator.

The turns between the pneumatic motor and the exhaust shunt did not need to have such a long, easy curve because no carrier capsules travelled past the exhaust shunt hanging above the wire receiver basket....only air suction.

Concerning the tiles...I'm fairly confident that the tiles I built for my Marconi Room and Officers' Quarters are accurately depicted. However, there is no direct evidence for the passenger areas of the Boat Deck. Did they have time to re-tile those areas for the First Class before sailing day? Maybe. I won't fault your logic. I haven't actually built those areas in my model as of yet, as I am concentrating mainly on machinery and crew rooms, so I really haven't had to think about it. I usually prefer to leave passenger accommodations to others. So, I'm not arguing your point.

By the way, you'll see by the diagram that the sound of the capsules passing through the tubes would disturb only the Marconi operators as they slept in their quarters. The occupants in U and W might hear something outside in the corridor, but the noise wouldn't be as loud.

Parks
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
> Do you have the latest issue of the Commutator? I mapped out the Marconigram tube route on the Boat Deck level for Ken, who made a graphic that is seen on the last page of the "Ghosts of the Abyss" article.

Hello Parks! I appreciate your coming to a novice's rescue like this. I don't get "Commutator" at this point, but I believe the discussion here with you and Daniel has helped me out. Just yesterday, I ordered a copy of the "Ghosts of the Abyss" book just to study the Marconi Room illustration. Someone let me flip through one of those when it first came out, and that was the thing that impressed me the most about the book.


> The tubing ran directly to starboard from the aft wall of the Marconi Room, cutting through the operators' sleeping quarters.

Ahh... this explains the Father Browne picture -- the tubes curving to starboard along the wall. I couldn't understand that, based on the other explanations.


> It turned aft in the starboard-side passageway with an easy curve and ran directly aft down the middle of the passageway (in the overhead, of course).

Okay, makes sense to me. It has to curve gradually twice, once to aft, and again to starboard, so I can understand it being in more or less the middle, but my question here is about the lights, which would have also been in the middle. Should the tubes be offset slightly because of those?

> Because of the easy curve needed for the smooth travel of the pneumatic capsules, the curve had to begin long before the tubing reached a sharp corner.

...So they would start curving outward to starboard in the corridor overhead before they got to the GSC bulkhead...


> Therefore, I ran a quick render of a portion of my CG model (which is still in work and not yet ready for prime time) and threw it up on my website to illustrate what I mean:

Now, that is *NICE*! I really appreciate that glimpse. Solves the mystery about the three pipes in the Browne photo when I keep hearing about only two... So, the tube into the Gear Room was higher up. However, it looks like you still have it under what would be the cornice at the top of the paneling (don't know if the Marconi Room had that right under the beams, like in all the cabin photos I've been looking at). I suppose the other two tubes, which you have lower down over the recesses in the paneling would have been as high up as possible in the corridor, though -- right up against the frame beams?

I see that the tubes when running through the GSC bulkhead and the Marconi rooms were "stacked" one on top of the other and mounted to the wall, but in the corridor they would have been side-by-side, don't you think? ...up so they were out of the way as much as possible? ...also makes sense because of those brackets connected to the ceiling, instead of the bulkhead. If that is so, somewhere they have to swivel from stacked to side-by-side, then back again to stacked? Just wondering about that. Maybe they stayed stacked the whole way, but then those same kind of brackets wouldn't work, and it would also intrude into the passageway more, being vertical...


> A single brass pipe is not that exciting.

Well, when you're trying to reproduce it accurately, the simplest things can get exciting! Speaking of which, what diameter do you recommend? I was guessing 3." What about joints/segments? Sort of like PVC? Any input on how often/what they were like? Maybe there's something in the Browne photo, I'll check again.



> Daniel: Below I indicate what I understand the tubing location looked like.

> Yes, you have it right. We find segments of tubing along that path, and the Browne photograph fills the largest void.

Thanks, guys! I suppose these brass tubes would be painted white in the corridor?

Any other odds-and-ends you know of that might have been overhead in this corridor (besides the tubes and expansion joint)?

I really appreciate it a whole bunch,

Mike Mc
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
<font color="#000066">Just yesterday, I ordered a copy of the "Ghosts of the Abyss" book just to study the Marconi Room illustration. Someone let me flip through one of those when it first came out, and that was the thing that impressed me the most about the book.

Mike,

A CG artist such as yourself might appreciate how crude the illustration in the GotA book is, compared to what it could be. That illustration is actually a mixture of Lightwave and SolidWorks CG objects, smoothed over in Photoshop. It was the best that we could do at the time, but I felt that we could do so much better. Since the film's release, I have undertaken that arduous task of re-building the model entirely in Lightwave and adding the detail that was lacking in the original model. Along the way, new information has caused the appearance of the model to change somewhat; in fact, I'm still wrestling with some decisions on how things should appear. Just today, I have been trying to figure out the exact path that the wire that connected the valve charging switchboard to the ship's power should take. There's a small portion of it visible in the Browne photo...but what about the rest?

At any rate, I had to suspend work on my model earlier this month because when I upgraded my computer's OS, Lightwave no longer worked properly when running complex renders. Newtek says that the fix will be in their next release of Lightwave, so I have to wait for that (it should have been out by now) to continue work on the model. In the meantime, I can only run renders with a low polygon count, which is why the "tubes" render is so devoid of objects.

<font color="#000066">but my question here is about the lights, which would have also been in the middle. Should the tubes be offset slightly because of those?

At this point, I don't know...I haven't (virtually) ventured out into the passageway yet. The next time I review the wreck footage, I'll see if the camera ever pans up to the overhead and catches the light fixtures, but generally speaking, most of the overhead light fixtures have fallen, some still hanging by the electric wires. If the tubes were off-centre, though, I would say, based on the one video grab of the tubes exiting the passageway into the GSC area, that they would be just to port of the passageway's centreline.

<font color="#000066">So they would start curving outward to starboard in the corridor overhead before they got to the GSC bulkhead...

Exactly. That's the point that I was trying to convey. For the same reason, they would also start curving aft inside the Marconi operators' quarters.

<font color="#000066">So, the tube into the Gear Room was higher up. However, it looks like you still have it under what would be the cornice at the top of the paneling

Don't take the uppermost placement as being exact..I haven't determined that yet, which is why I plastered "Preliminary draft" across the image. I shaped the tubes by overlaying a cleaned-up copy of the Browne photo over the CG model, so that I could capture the exact curvature of the tubes, the placement of supports, the exact height of the nozzles above the desk, etc. The upper turn toward the elevator machinery room, though, is either out of frame or obscured by a "mystery curtain" that appears in the upper right corner of one of the exposures. I will settle on an exact height of that turn after I measure off the height of the wall. Right now, I'm building the model by using spatial relationships and archival photo overlays. When that work is complete, then I will work out the dimensions of everything, by extrapolating from a few known (benchmark) dimensions. The aft-ward turn of the tubes that you noticed is just notional at this point.

<font color="#000066">don't know if the Marconi Room had that right under the beams, like in all the cabin photos I've been looking at

There's a cornice visible in the Olympic Marconi Room photo, so I assume something similar in Titanic's.

<font color="#000066">I suppose the other two tubes, which you have lower down over the recesses in the paneling would have been as high up as possible in the corridor, though -- right up against the frame beams?

I don't think so. They are suspended at some distance from the overhead in both the Olympic and Titanic Marconi Room pictures and I think that there's good reason for that. I don't think that they wanted these metal tubes affected by heat radiating off the top deck on sunny days (or intense cold, for that matter), so they probably left a bit of air between the overhead and the tubes. On the other hand, the tubes enter the GSC area fairly close to the overhead (I don't have the picture in front of me as I write, so I can't be sure)...I'll have to think about this some more. Above all, turns in the tubing had to be kept to a minimum so that the capsules would not become jammed...that applies to the z axis, as well as the x and y.

<font color="#000066">but in the corridor they would have been side-by-side, don't you think?

Yes, they are side-by-side when they enter the GSC area, then "stack" again when they turn down toward C Deck.

<font color="#000066">Well, when you're trying to reproduce it accurately, the simplest things can get exciting!

Well, yes, to me...I find every detail exciting. However, the editor makes decisions based on what she thinks will sell to the general public. If I had had my way, every video grab we captured would have been included in the Commutator, but then there wouldn't have been enough room for the THS Convention photos or the adverts in the back.

<font color="#000066">Speaking of which, what diameter do you recommend? I was guessing 3."

Don't know yet. I was saving the calculation of dimensions for later in the development of the model, as I mentioned above. At this point, I'm still going mostly by visual cues.

<font color="#000066">What about joints/segments? Sort of like PVC? Any input on how often/what they were like?

Not sure what you're after here.

<font color="#000066">I suppose these brass tubes would be painted white in the corridor?

Modern experience would tell me that the tubes should be painted white in the corridor. However, is this what they would do in 1912? I'm not sure. The Browne photograph shows that the tubes were definitely not painted in Titanic's Marconi Room, and no paint is evident on the tube sections seen lying on the deck inside the Officers' Quarters or in the video grabs that captured them in the walls of the entrance area. Indeed, it was their brassy sheen that made them stand out in the muck. However, the Olympic photos show that her tubes were painted white, even in the Marconi Room. So, I don't know. I can't explain why there appears to be little or no paint on the tube sections observed in the wreck, so I would tend to believe that they were not originally painted in Titanic's case.

One more thing...the brackets I used to hold the tubes while "stacked" are different than those used to suspend the tubes side-by-side. Reference the Olympic photo for the latter type of suspension bracket.

Hope this helps,
Parks
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
> > Speaking of which, what diameter do you recommend? I was guessing 3."
> Don't know yet.

I got that figure from some site somebody here at ET recommended on the pneumatic mail system of Paris, which was in effect during that same era. Looks about right, though I haven't done any comparative measuring.


> At this point, I'm still going mostly by visual cues. ...then I will work out the dimensions of everything, by extrapolating from a few known (benchmark) dimensions.

Whew -- I know all about that! Can work pretty good, though!


> They are suspended at some distance from the
overhead in both the Olympic and Titanic Marconi Room pictures and I think that there's good reason for that. ...they probably left a bit of air between the overhead and the tubes.

Well, if they were up against the beams, there would be 4" of airspace above them.


> > What about joints/segments? Sort of like PVC? Any input on how often/what they were like?
> Not sure what you're after here.

Sorry. I just thought there would be joints here and there in the tubing where certain manufactured lengths were coupled together. I was wondering if you were aware of any in your studies of wreck images. Maybe the Browne photo shows some, I'll look again.


> The Browne photograph shows that the tubes were definitely not painted in Titanic's Marconi Room, and no paint is evident on the tube sections seen lying on the deck inside the Officers' Quarters or in the video grabs that captured them in the walls of the entrance area.

Okay! I'm tired of having almost everything white as it is! I would like a little variety in texture/color here and there, so I'll go with brass, then.


> > but in the corridor they would have been side-by-side, don't you think?
> Yes, they are side-by-side when they enter the GSC area, then "stack"
again when they turn down toward C Deck.

Pardon for going over this again. I'm probably just confusing things. Are you saying here they are side-by-side in the stbd wall of the GSC? I thought they were one-atop-the-other there. Sorry I don't have the Commutator write-up to speak more intelligently about this. But I'm wondering if the lowermost tube in the GSC bulkhead didn't angle up slightly to come level with the upper one, right before the turn into the corridor? I don't know what I'm talking about obviously, I'm just figuring how I'd do it if I were building it. The hidden ones in the GSC I won't be dealing with (which is what I presume the Commutator article is talking about), but I do need to have the best info "guess" possible about the exposed ones.

Here's another rephrasing of my question, approaching it from the opposite direction: When the tubes leave the starboard wall of the bedroom and enter the corridor, do you think would they would still be in the same orientation? (one atop the other?) That would undoubtedly be less complex and eliminate two slight jogs, but I was just thinking they'd be more in the way in that orientation. I'll have to try it out and see how it works out with the dimensions I've got in my walls.

I'm just rambling, sorry. I know everything isn't as esthetic as possible in ship system functionality. If you think they were one atop the other in the passageway, that's all I need to know -- MUCH easier to model it that way! (I couldn't understand if that's what you were saying before or not. But I DO think if they were as low --out in the corridor-- as in your preliminary model of the Marconi Room, you couldn't walk down the middle of the corridor, hence my questions about whether they reoriented themselves somehow upon leaving there.)


> Reference the Olympic photo for the latter type of suspension bracket.

Okay, great. I'll have to check out the Olympic picture. Do you know offhand what book it is in?

Thanks for putting up with my barage of speculations and questions.

Hope you get your Lightwave running again soon! I'm using a real relic: Autodesk 3D Studio 3.0 -- runs in DOS! Came out in about 93-94. Maybe someday I can upgrade...

Sincerely,

Mike Mc
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Mike,

<font color="#000066">Well, if they were up against the beams, there would be 4" of airspace above them.

Yes, looking at the Olympic photo again, the tubes hang down just below one of the ceiling flanges. I misunderstood you earlier...I thought you were saying the tubes would be right up against the overhead. My mistake.

<font color="#000066">I just thought there would be joints here and there in the tubing where certain manufactured lengths were coupled together. I was wondering if you were aware of any in your studies of wreck images.

Oh, I see. Well, there's not any that I noticed in the wreck images. There's quite a few segments with straight ends, so they evidently broke apart at a seam. I'd have to look into this for you, but I'm at work now, so I'll get back with you again later on this.

<font color="#000066">Here's another rephrasing of my question, approaching it from the opposite direction: When the tubes leave the starboard wall of the bedroom and enter the corridor, do you think would they would still be in the same orientation? (one atop the other?) That would undoubtedly be less complex and eliminate two slight jogs, but I was just thinking they'd be more in the way in that orientation.

For sake of discussion, we'll say that one tube above the other is "stacked," and the two tubes side-by-side are, well, "side-by-side."

In Titanic's Marconi Room, the tubes are obviously stacked, thanks to the Browne image. In the Browne photograph of Olympic's Marconi Room, taken in 1911, we see that the tubes are side-by-side, but that's not important now. In Titanic, the tubes go from stacked to side-by-side as they enter the starboard-side passageway, the same one you are rendering. Therefore, you should have them side-by-side. The tubes take a turn to starboard as they enter the GSC area, and remain side-by-side as they proceed to starboard. As the tubes turn downward to C Deck, though, they naturally fall into more of a stacked configuration...but it's different now because the tubes are running vertically. Maybe someone who has the ability to upload pictures here can post the picture from the Commutator article, so that you can see what I'm talking about.

<font color="#000066">I'll have to check out the Olympic picture. Do you know offhand what book it is in?

Again, let me get back to you. I've been working off an electronic copy on my computer and would have to find a book in my library at home that has the same photo.

<font color="#000066">Thanks for putting up with my barage of speculations and questions.

No problem...I know from firsthand experience how hard it is to capture every detail needed to render a photo-realistic scene.

Parks
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
Hi Parks,

> Yes, looking at the Olympic photo again, the tubes hang down just below one of the ceiling flanges.

Neat! Thanks for verifying that.

> Titanic, the tubes go from stacked to side-by-side as they enter the starboard-side passageway, the same one you are rendering.

Okay. Thanks! (I don't know about you, but all this modeling takes so much time --it isn't fun to have to keep remaking stuff from scratch every time you get a new piece of the puzzle. That's the only reason I've been pestering you with questions!)

> Maybe someone who has the ability to upload pictures here can post the picture from the Commutator article, so that you can see what I'm talking about.

I assume since you mention that, it is okay to post it here? (If not, someone in charge can delete it.) I finally got to see a scan of the picture. (Not the article about it, so excuse my ignorance about whatever was discussed therein.) I scribbled all over it so you could understand what I was seeing in the murk. Of course, I've seen no wreck video or anything like you, so I'm probably imagining things. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking for better understanding of what I'm looking at.

> The tubes take a turn to starboard as they enter the GSC area, and remain side-by-side as they proceed to starboard.

See my picture comments. I see two bright lines which look one atop the other in the photo. (Which to me would make sense to take up less fore-aft space in the narrow wall.) The only time they look remotely side-by-side to me is on the far left, where they get near the doorway. There actually looks like a bend upwards in the "bottom" tube. (I might just be seeing part of the mangledness of the wreck, and not a constructed feature.) Also, if they were "stacked" in the GSC wall, it would be simple thing to turn them downwards on the stbd side in the same orientation with no further twisting (I flipped the curved section to try to match the other one).

Maybe we're saying the same thing, I don't know.

Thanks,

Mike



85686.jpg
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
Hello Parks,

> ...the tubes hang down just below one of the ceiling flanges.

"Flange" -- This I took to mean just below the bulb on the ceiling beams? (This is what I was advocating.) I just realized, though, that that would have the tubes going right through the decorative cornice (which is also right under the beams). Easy to do in CG, but kind of messy in real wood. It would be a lot "cleaner/neater-looking" if they went through the flat horizontal top of the paneling, like you have your tube to the Elevator Gear Room in your preliminary model.

Just figurin' out loud to myself. I'm about ready to try them out, so I'll see how it looks...

Thanks,

Mike
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Mike,

When I first examined that picture, I thought that what I was seeing were side-by-side pipes in perspective, but now I'm not so sure. In your scan of the picture above, it even appears that the two tubes cross over at far right, just as they are turning downward, which I also didn't think they did. What I need to do is take a look again at the original video grabs and let you know if we are looking at side-by-side pipes in perspective, or two stacked pipes face-on.

This view of the pipes in the GSC area was taken on a dive different from the ones to the Marconi Room. I don't have the footage from that particular dive, and it may take me a few days to get it. The trouble with video grabs from a wreck is that you can see anything...it usually takes several "frames" of video to truly comprehend what is actually there. So, bear with me for a bit while I look into this more.

I don't believe that any of the tubing was run through the cornice. I also don't believe that the tube was run through a hole in the panelling of almost the same diameter as the tubing. Before I finish my model, I intend to have a cut-out in the panelling that will start at the overhead and come down to just under the tubing. Any cornice running along that panelling will have a break in it to accommodate that opening. This is just guesswork on my part, as I haven't seen any archival photograph that shows the tubing pass through a wall. I'll check my archives later tonight, though, just to be sure. I simply haven't done that yet because I'm not at the point where I'm ready to address that detail.

I am finding that there are two things that consume the most time in CGI...waiting for a multi-polygon scene to render and having to rebuild an object after you find that it doesn't come out just right. The reason why my Marconi Room model is taking so long to complete is because I often have to go back after the fact and totally re-build an object that I thought was already done. I built a model of a Marconi multiple tuner to put in this Marconi Room model and I verified the dimensions of the object by comparing it against archival photos of similar tuners and against measurements taken from a 1912 product catalogue and a surviving example in the Marconi Co. collection. However, when I overlay the model over a video grab of the Marconi tuner found in the Britannic wreck, then I find that everything is out of whack. So, for Britannic, I have to rebuild the darn thing. I can't tell you how glad I will be to be finished with the Marconi and Silent Rooms and can work on other spaces.

Speaking of which, another thing giving me fits in the Marconi and Silent Room models are all the electrical wires. In the wreck footage, all manner of electrical wiring hang down from the overhead in all the passageways, from single wires (usually running to light fixtures) to complete bundles. Are you including electrical wiring bundles in your passageway overhead?

Parks
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
> What I need to do is take a look again at the original video grabs and let you know if we are looking at side-by-side pipes in perspective, or two stacked pipes face-on... So, bear with me for a bit while I look into this more.

Hi Parks,

I'm not wishing to impose on your time over this, so no need to do it on my account. I'm not doing a cut-away of the GSC bulkhead or anything, just curiosity, more than anything. If you perhaps discover anything at some point, let me know if you think of it, please.

> I don't believe that any of the tubing was run through the cornice.

Yeah, I don't like that. There should be headroom to hang them just below that, since I'm making them side by side.

> Any cornice running along that panelling will have a break in it to accommodate that opening. This is just guesswork on my part...

I just went to a lot of trouble last night to cover up the gap in the cornice where the expansion joint is on the port corridor. Guesswork for me, too.

> I am finding that there are two things that consume the most time in CGI...waiting for a multi-polygon scene to render and having to rebuild an object after you find that it doesn't come out just right.

Luckily, my scene renders don't take but about 30 seconds. Great for continually checking progress of stuff. I also can render just the object I'm working on, which is practically instantaneous. If I was going to do a final render, I go to another program, and that could take a couple hours!

The rebuilding of things is time-consuming and frustrating, especially when you're itching to go on to something else.

> Are you including electrical wiring bundles in your passageway overhead?

I'm afraid I'm totally ignorant as to what that sort of thing should look like/where they would go. I originally got off on the Marconi tubes because I was asking in general what sort of junk might be hanging from the ceiling in the corridor, and the tubes were brought up.

If someone said "Here, make a mess of wires something like this and put them here and there," I'd give it a go, just to increase the realism. I've also wondered about light switches -- wouldn't there have been switches at the entrances of the corridors to turn on the lights? Any stuff like that, I'm clueless about.

Thanks for the discussion.

--Mike Mc
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Mike,

<font color="#000066">I'm not wishing to impose on your time over this, so no need to do it on my account. I'm not doing a cut-away of the GSC bulkhead or anything, just curiosity, more than anything. If you perhaps discover anything at some point, let me know if you think of it, please.

I have absolutely no problem going through this now. Even though you're hitting areas that I haven't gotten to yet, I know that my pursuits will take me there someday, so it's either now or later. The more I know about the entire Marconi system and related components, the better. Besides, I share your curiosity.

<font color="#000066">I just went to a lot of trouble last night to cover up the gap in the cornice where the expansion joint is on the port corridor.

The expansion joint...there's another wonderful thing to deal with. Unfortunately the wreck provides no clues on this, at least in the interior. The joint is captured well in the wreck video, but the panelling is all gone. It is interesting to note that there is an absence of electrical wires hanging down in the passageway just forward of the Marconi Room, but that's obviously because the expansion joint runs along that corridor. It makes one wonder how that corridor was lit. On the other hand, there is an electrical distribution panel and at least one major wire bundle that ran along the aft wall of that same corridor (which is also the forward wall of the Marconi rooms).

As I write, I can't help but wonder how they provided for flex in the wiring runs in the area of the expansion joint. The steam service pipes in the area of the joint had large loops in them to give them flex (that's another item that you need to include in your overhead), but I don't know about the wires. Hmmmmmmm....

<font color="#000066">If someone said "Here, make a mess of wires something like this and put them here and there," I'd give it a go, just to increase the realism.

In my experience aboard more modern vessels, wires in the overhead are usually held in place by two posts welded to the overhead above, with threaded ends pointing down. A bar is run across the two bolts and held in place by castellated nuts, or some other device. This retaining assembly repeats itself at intervals throughout the run of the wires. Usually, the retaining assembly and the wires themselves are painted the passageway colour. What they would have used in Titanic, I haven't researched yet, but I can look into it. I would have to do that eventually, anyway. Until I can find a good visual reference for this, you might be able to use my verbal description above to build something notional.

<font color="#000066">I've also wondered about light switches -- wouldn't there have been switches at the entrances of the corridors to turn on the lights? Any stuff like that, I'm clueless about.

Light switches, embedded panels, other fittings...as you try to re-create a photorealistic space, the details that you must accommodate seems endless. And the more you think on it, the more you come up with. It can seriously drive one mad. I would love to build a virtual Titanic in complete detail, but I'm afraid that it would take more than my lifetime to complete, even with help.

<font color="#000066">Luckily, my scene renders don't take but about 30 seconds.

For comparison, a render of my Marconi Room at maximum resolution takes at least 4 hours to complete, and that's just a single frame with no animation. Even when I run the render at the lowest resolution, it takes at least 15 minutes. Hopefully, the new version of Lightwave will streamline the rendering process and reduce the time I have to wait. I usually start a render when I'm going to bed and hope that when I wake up the next morning I'll find that the program didn't crash during the night (which it occasionally does with the Marconi Room model, which has an extraordinarily high polygon count), losing all that work.

Parks
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
Parks--

I ran across this somewhere. I guess it is the Olympic picture you were referring to. I don't have a good copy of is, but it looks like I can see some long "joints" here. Kind of like those bands on an earthworm...

--Mike Mc

85692.jpg
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
..also, extending the horizontal perspective and the vertical of the same tube, the two intersect right at the bottom of the cornice. The length of the hanger rod bears that out, looks like.

--Mike

85695.jpg
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Mike,

Yes, that's the Olympic picture I was talking about and yes, those "bands" you see look to be connecting segments.

I mentioned above that Browne took this photo...he did not. I was thinking of yet another Olympic photo that shows a Marconi operator in a blue uniform sitting at the station. Glad to see that you were not thrown off by my faux pas. When I don't have my reference material sitting right in front of me, I sometimes mix up some of the details in my memory.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Mike,

Turns out that I don't need to go scaring up the video. After looking at the original video grabs after I returned home from work, I see that the Marconigram tubes are stacked -- one right atop the other -- as they run along the forward wall of the GSC area. It also has that jog in one of the lines that you noticed, confirming that the tubes run side-by-side in the passageway. Essentially, your diagram above is correct.

The only question is whether the tubing was concealed in the GSC area or not. With the original panelling gone, it's hard to say. I have seen an archival photo of the door in question (taken from inside the Entrance area, looking forward into the passageway with a STATEROOM W placard above the door), but there's no evidence of Marconigram tubing or concealment (unless the concealment was very good) anywhere near the door frame.

Parks
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
Parks,

I know the photo you're referring to, it was taken in July 1920 by Bedford Lemere (out of the 56 photos he took that time, this one was numbered "1"). I had a look at it, and you're right, no tubing is visible above the frieze.

However we must keep in mind that the deck heingt of the officers' house is 1ft 3in lower than that of the grand staircase house. Considering that the tubes ran through the 1st class corridor 4in below that ceiling level (due to the overhead beams) they would have been 1ft 7in below the ceiling of the staircase foyer. But that still keeps it 1ft 3in below the frize in the staircase area. Unless the tubing rose to be behind the frieze in the staircase foyer after leaving the corridor, it was most likely much lower in the paneling.

The still in the Commutator is looking from above (rather than head on) so it is very hard to tell just what the tube did, and how it was and where.

Daniel.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

You, too, have a bunch of numbers that don't seem to add up? I thought that I was the only one with that problem. A ship is really a complicated thing.

I don't know why evidence of the pneumatic tubing is not visible in that 1920 photo, unless Olympic's tubes ran a different path. Or maybe the system was not used in 1920...I don't know. There's no real reason to do away with the pneumatic carrier system, because it actually was quite efficient. But, who knows? I guess that I could check the Olympic auction catalogue to see if its components show up there, but I'm at work right now.

Yes, it's too bad that the floor tiles cannot be made out in those photos of the doors off the GSC area. By the way, you made mention above that Ken thinks that the tiles in that area are like those that I have depicted in the Marconi Room...he doesn't. Like you, he's been trying to tell me that the tiles should be like those down on D Deck. I'm the only idiot asking if they had time to re-tile the Boat Deck passenger area before sailing day. They probably did...but in the absence of hard evidence, I like to explore all possibilities, especially if I'm going to have to depict it someday.

Parks
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
Parks,

My point previously was that a section of Titanic's Boat Deck was already designated to 1st class cabins, at the very least as early as August 1911. This is AMPLE time to furnish the corridor and cabins as 1st class from the very beginning, without any need for retiling at all.

I doubt I read it in a book, it was either here on ET, or through conversations either with you, Eric or Ken that I got the impression that Ken thinks the officers' house corridor floors (and by this I am *excluding* the 1st class corridor) were laid with the same tile as you have in your marconi room CGI. The two corridors were separate, the only connection was the door on the starboard side. There is thus every possibility that they could have had different tiles, especially considering that one of the corridors was servicing 1st class.

As for the deck heights, from beam to beam boat deck officers' house was 8ft 3in (99in) and the grand staircase house was 9ft 6in (114in) which is a 15in difference, or the 1ft 3in difference I mentioned above.

From the Commutator wreck photo, the tubing appears to run quite high up on the staircase wall, and almost on a straight line, run into the doorway. Unless the tubing ran on the roof of the officers' house (which we know is impossible) I would assume it curved down in order to clear the new height which was 15in lower! As I said before, the wreck photo in the Commutator is looking from above, and it is just the one still, so it would be very difficult to make any conclusions.

By the way, why do you think it did not run behind the frieze? The actual panel was angled and I would assume there would be plenty of room to run some tubing behind it, or perhaps some slight adjustments were made (in addition to the existing angle) to accommodate the tubing.

Here's an image:

85709.jpg


This is from the Olympic in 1920. If I'm understanding the Commutator wreck images correctly, Titanic's tubes would have been exposed on the outside in this area on the corner, and then ran into the staircase house and against that wall. There is no exposed tubing here, so it either ran completely behind the paneling, or on a different circuit? It did after all come from the same location on C deck on both ships. Anyway, I'm getting way out of my league here, so I'll end it here before I confuse myself and others any more.

Regards,

Daniel.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

I don't disagree that there wasn't time to do such a thing, just that's there's no direct evidence that they did. Look, I'm not telling you that your assumption is wrong, or that your logic is faulty. I'm just asking a question.

I'll tell you what I'm really waiting for. If or when I render those passageways myself, I will use whatever tiles show in the Britannic wreck. I know that's not definitive, but it's the best we can hope for, I'm afraid. The accumulation of silt in Titanic's Officers' Quarters is just too deep. Also, the Litosilo used in Titanic lifted much too easily as the ship sank. Judging by the Britannic images, the Veitchi held fast to the deck.

Yes, Ken believes that the tiles in the officers' section of the deckhouse uses the same tile as I used in the Marconi Room. This tile shows up in Olympic's Marconi Room, which became Stateroom X (I believe, without looking at the plan) in Titanic. Like you, he also believes that the passenger section of the deckhouse should be in the tile pattern seen on D Deck. I confirmed this with him just the other day, when we first started talking about this. I'm the only one questioning this.

I don't know if the tubing ran behind the panelling or not...depends on how much space there was between panelling and steel bulkhead. I don't think that the tubing ran behind the frieze because we are talking about two large-diameter pipes. The frieze would have to be massive to hide such tubes.

The Marconigram tubes in Titanic are exposed outside on Boat Deck because a large section of that outer wall has fallen away. Not only can a portion of the tubes be seen through the hole in the wall there, but also the interior of the Entrance area. If Olympic's tubes followed the same run in your 1920 photo as Titanic's did in 1912, then they are behind the wall in the corner there.

Parks
 
D

Damian In fante Ledesma

Guest
Hi to all,
Please, could any explain me what means long plain panels, fielded panels and machined Styles, or show me photos on the titanic were their appears?
 

MarkHutchins

Member
Aug 18, 2019
1
0
11
California
The well known photo of the corridor on Olympic during fitting out at least offers no doubt that the Honor and Glory Game First Class models are not accurate. Clearly the walls are white, even if this photo may show an undercoat rather than the finished wall color. The detailing and carving is wonderful and elegant. It does not help in the flooring, but I am inclined to believe the passageways in First Class were not carpeted. Several passeners remembered hearing the clicking of high heals in the corridors outside their staterooms and any carpeting would have not produced such a sound.
first-class-passage.jpg
 

Similar threads

Similar threads