Hamburg America ship Prinz Adalbert passes iceberg that sank the Titanic

PITAI

Member
Jul 20, 2013
39
0
36
Would the crew actually have been unaware of the previous night's ruckus?

"...the Titanic's hull was painted red above the waterline."

I've never actually read this, but wasn't the difference between the black and the red anti-fouling paint supposed to be the waterline? I suppose a more relevant question would be how heavy or light was Titanic on this particular journey?
 
J

Jack Dawson

Guest
Hi PITAI, the paint did not actually follow the exact waterline. As you have indicated the waterline of a ship depends on it's load, and it will vary from voyage to voyage. Most ships have 'draft markings' which help determine how low in the water the ship is sitting.
 

mueller

Member
Apr 1, 2012
23
0
31
hi pital the crew aboard prinz adalbert said they did not know about the sinking of the titanic until sometime later.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,946
607
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello there!

The SS Prinz Adalbert passed about 3 miles to the west of the Titanic wreck site at about 6-30 am on the morning of April 16. By that time, the iceberg that sank Titanic would be well away to the east and possibly southward of the area. Besides which, there would be no reason for anyone to take a photograph at that place since on April 16, 1912, everyone thought that Titanic had gone down 10 miles to the west-north-westward. To illustrate this, I have amended a sketch to show the probable movements of Prince Adalbert that morning. I obtained the data to build this picture from the work of Dr. Paul Lee. See here:

Copy of Vessel Movements.JPG

The red dotted lines lead to and from an alternative position for the ship as given in an ice report but this must be wrong for obvious reasons.

The 10 am position given by the captain of the Prince Adalbert was 41-31'North, in longitude of 50-14'West. That longitude is the longitude of Titanic's distress position. The Prince Adalbert was 10 miles south of that and the offending iceberg would have been at least 13 miles to the eastward on the far side of the ice.

Brian T. Hill, Alan Ruffman and Rolf-Werner Baak published a very full account of the movements of this ship. It can be read at http://www.paullee.com/titanic/Adalbert/.

Perhaps potential buyers of that photograph should have their attentions drawn to it?

Jim C.

Copy of Vessel Movements.JPG
 

PITAI

Member
Jul 20, 2013
39
0
36
As a follow up question, would the burning of the coal cause the ship to get noticeably lighter?

Also, is your name actually Jack Dawson?
 
J

Jack Dawson

Guest
Hi, I'm no expert so I could be wrong about some details, but there would be a difference between a ship's draft with fully loaded coal bunkers and a ship with empty coal bunkers. I'm not sure how much of a difference it would really make in Titanic's case though. The draft or load markings normally factor that sort of a 'normal' load I think, and are more for the loading of actual cargo. Mis-marked draft/load markings can be deadly; so that should illustrate their importance. See page 37 of this NTSB report for a little history of the markings: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0905.pdf

If it was I would be the butt of many jokes. :p
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,946
607
183
Funchal. Madeira
The "Jack Dawson" remarks are way above my head. However I do know a thing or three about draft marks etc.

The answer to your question Ptai is as follows:

The approximate recorded TPI - Tons Per Inch immersion of Olympic was between 139 and 144. i.e. at a light draft, it would take 139 tons to sink the ship 1 inch. It would take about 144 tons to do the same thing at a fully loaded draft. The reason for the difference is the underwater shape of the hull at these drafts. Simply put, A vessel of the same underwater shape as Olympic would sink by an inch every time that amount of weight was loaded. Logically, she would rise by 1 inch every time that amount was used-up or discharged.
Since the underwater shape of Titanic was virtually the same as that of Olympic; it follows that if you know how many tons of coal Titanic had burned between Queenstown and the time of her sinking then you will also know how many inches her draft was reduced due to coal consumption alone. However she would also loose draft due to the consumption of food and fresh water and any other items consumed on the voyage.

Jim C.
 

PITAI

Member
Jul 20, 2013
39
0
36
So it has 6,611 tons of coal and takes an average of 141.5 tons to lift or lower the ship an inch, does that mean that the draft can fluctuate by 46 inches (nearly 4 feet)? That sounds like a bit much. I must be calculating that wrong. The source may be wrong for the amount of coal she carried, though.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,946
607
183
Funchal. Madeira
No you're not wrong, PITAI. Titanic's light (unladen but with boilers full) draft was just under 28 feet. The loaded draft was 34 feet 4 inches. That means that the draft from light to loaded would have changed by about 78 inches. 78 x 141.5 = 11,037 tons
Subtracting coal from that would still leave 4426 tons to load to get to loaded draft. That was made up of passengers, fresh water,stores and a small amount of cargo. Allow 160 tons for passengers and there' plenty left for the remainder.

Jim C.
 
J

Jack Dawson

Guest
Hi Jim, PITAI asked if it was my real name, I meant that using it was a joke in of itself. Sorry for the confusion.