How long was the voyage from Queenstown to NYC

How long was the Titanic's voyage expected to take? I'm doing some research and am having trouble finding out how long the voyage from Queenstown Ireland to Ellis Island New York took around the same time that Titanic sailed. The ships I'm researching are actually the Caronia I and the Oceanic II.

The Caronia I arrived in Ellis Island on May 4, 1913 and the Oceanic II arrived on July 6, 1910. Can anyone tell me about how long it would have taken for these ships to travel from Queenstown Ireland to Ellis Island New York?
 
Solution
In 1911, Olympic would pull up anchor at Queenstown about noon on a Thursday and was expected to arrive at quarantine off Staten Island in in New York harbor late on Tuesday night. She would then be docked at Pier 59 by about 8 am Wednesday morning to discharge passengers. The crossing times were measured when they took departure from the Daunt's Rock LV outside of Queenstown harbor until they passed the Ambrose Channel LV before entering NY harbor. On her third westbound crossing, Olympic made the 2890 nautical mile crossing in 5 days, 12 hours, 23 minutes from Daunt's Rock to Ambrose at an average crossing speed over ground of 21.83 knots.

Jim Currie

Member
From Daunt Rock full away on passage to Noon April 14, she had covered a distance of about 1549 miles. A minute after impact, the patent log which was set at Noon , read 260. It follows that she had covered a total distance of 1809 nautical miles when she stopped for good. The Reeds Tables distance from Queenstown to New York is listed as 2875 miles. Therefore, Titanic had 1066 nautical miles left to steam at Midnight on April 14. If she had averaged 22 knots from there, she would have beeen steaming for 48 hours 45 minutes. This means that she would have arrived too early so there is little doubt they would have slowed her down to arrive at daylight on the morning of April 17.

PS, if you log onto titanicinquiry.org and go to page 5 of the US inquiry, you will find a memo from 3rd Officer Pitman which lists the distances travelled from queenstown to Noon April 14.
 

Jeffery

Member
From Daunt Rock full away on passage to Noon April 14, she had covered a distance of about 1549 miles. A minute after impact, the patent log which was set at Noon , read 260. It follows that she had covered a total distance of 1809 nautical miles when she stopped for good. The Reeds Tables distance from Queenstown to New York is listed as 2875 miles. Therefore, Titanic had 1066 nautical miles left to steam at Midnight on April 14. If she had averaged 22 knots from there, she would have beeen steaming for 48 hours 45 minutes. This means that she would have arrived too early so there is little doubt they would have slowed her down to arrive at daylight on the morning of April 17.

PS, if you log onto titanicinquiry.org and go to page 5 of the US inquiry, you will find a memo from 3rd Officer Pitman which lists the distances travelled from queenstown to Noon April 14.
Thank you for the response, Jim! I appreciate it!
 

Jeffery

Member
Titanic was doing good speed and would have arrived at the evening of April 16th. Olympic already arrived a few times Tuesday nights in New York.
However unknown is if she had not hit the iceberg if she might have come into the ice field ahead and might have slow down or try to find another way round....

Maybe this one might help.
Olympic and Titanic : Maiden Voyage Mysteries
Thank you, Ioannis. I didn't know that about Olympic.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Took some time and did proper work on it. The Reeds Table distances are for a track 68 miles longer than the one followed by Titanic and Olympic . The "If" scenario is as follows:

We know from the planned clock change of 47 minutes between Noon April 14 to Noon April 15 that a speed trial was not contemplated before Noon April 15.
By calculation, using the reported speed of 22.5 knots at the time of impact and from the place of impact: IF there had been nothing in front of Titanic, she would have had exactly 619.6 miles to go from Noon April 15 until she was at the Ambrose Light Vessel at the entrance to the buoyed channel up to New York. If she had maintained her speed of 22.5 knots, she would have arrived at the light vessel at or near to 3 pm on the afternoon of April, 17 and would have been up at the Quarantine Station about two hours later. The sun set at about 6-30 pm that evening so there was plenty of light to berth and start disembarkation. However there was always a problem with an evening arrival at New York. More often than not, a large proportion of passengers were moving onward throughout America. Some were even going as far as Canada. The arrangements for onward travel were often a logistic nightmare.
Ioannis is correct in pointing out that Titanic could easily have arrived in the early evening of April 16. However Captain Smith was an old hand at the game, he knew that at that time of the year, in that part of the ocean, he could be fog bound or meet with a SW gale. He also had a coal problem....he did not have a surplus.
There was another factor that folks forget...the chances of Titanic ever again making 22.5 knots carrying the same engine revolutions of 75per minute were extremely slim. The reason being that the speed in question was due to abnormal weather conditions for that part of the world...flat calm and no sea or swell. Not only that, but it was bad engineering practice to fully load a new engine so soon on a maiden voyage. The normal practice was to run-in the machinery, much as was the practice with a newe automobile or steam train up until fairly recently in the history of mechanical engineering
 
Titanic was doing good speed and would have arrived at the evening of April 16th. Olympic already arrived a few times Tuesday nights in New York.

That's quite right, Ioannis.

In fact, the evidence we have from 1911-12 is that it was normal for Olympic to arrive at the Ambrose Channel Lightship on the Tuesday evening: it was the *exception* for her to arrive Wednesday (after midnight). There are six voyages out of her first eight which I have data for:
  • on four occasions she arrived on Tuesday evening;
  • on one occasion (her maiden voyage) she arrived 2 hours 24 minutes after midnight (having started from Queenstown three hours late); and
  • on the other one she was delayed very badly by a storm in January 1912 and arrived very late, averaging under 18 knots (one of the worst of her career).
Best wishes

Mark.
 
He also had a coal problem....he did not have a surplus.

That's not the case, Jim.

The coal consumption requirements of Olympic and Titanic are very well documented, as is the amount of coal Titanic was supplied with. Using that data and assuming she had been driven at 23 knots for the remainder of the crossing (a higher speed that would entail greater fuel consumption), she would still have had a usable reserve equating to almost two days' steaming at a speed of 21 knots.

This reserve is very much in keeping with J. Bruce Ismay's statement that he believed she would have had about two days' spare consumption.

Best wishes

Mark.
 

Jim Currie

Member
That's not the case, Jim.

The coal consumption requirements of Olympic and Titanic are very well documented, as is the amount of coal Titanic was supplied with. Using that data and assuming she had been driven at 23 knots for the remainder of the crossing (a higher speed that would entail greater fuel consumption), she would still have had a usable reserve equating to almost two days' steaming at a speed of 21 knots.

This reserve is very much in keeping with J. Bruce Ismay's statement that he believed she would have had about two days' spare consumption.

Hello there Mark, nice to see you are still "up n' 'at 'em".

I based my statement regading coal on the evidence of 3rd Officer Pitman. I quote:

"Senator SMITH: Were you trying to reach 24 knots? A: Mr. PITMAN... No; we had to study the coal. We had not the coal to do it.
Senator SMITH:You had not the coal? A: Mr. PITMAN...No, sir.
Senator FLETCHER: Twenty-one and one-half knots per hour. And you say you had to study the question of coal? What do you mean by that? Did you take account of the amount of coal you had?
Mr. PITMAN: Yes; I understood we had not quite sufficient; there was not sufficient there on board to drive here on at full speed.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. PITMAN: I had that from one of the engineers."


Since he was there, he must have had a reason for making that observation.

I know that Titanic had more than enough coal to get her over to the other side.
Whe using the word "surplus" I meant that they had to be careful with what they did have. As you probably know, the word "study" as used by Pitman meant they had to be careful how much coal they used. That would have been a wise move considering that the UK National Coal Strike had been settled a mere 4 days before Titanic sailed from Southampton and there had not been any coal production for the previous 37 days. Although Titanic had all that coal on board, there was still a world shortage at coaling ports due to vessels bunkering abroad rather than at home.
Significantly, there was a great deal of unrest among American Mine Workers at the same time so perhaps the act of prudence regarding coal consumption was uppermost in the shipping world of April, 1912 and specifically in the minds of Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Bell?

You will be aware of the following UK Government Surveyor's Report issued at Southampton (I think).

"The coal on board is certified to amount to 5,892 tons, which is sufficient to take the ship to her next coaling port."


In fact, the answer to the original question: "How long was the voyage from Queenstown to NYC" is simply that it depends on what speed the ship was averaging over the entire route.
 

Aaron_2016

Former Member
If the Titanic had more than sufficient coal, was it possible that this surplus was not intended for the remaining voyage at full speed, but for the Titanic's return journey as they did not want to pay American rates? Was the extra coal intended for some other White Star vessel waiting in New York for the Titanic's arrival, or for another purpose on dry land? Did large passenger ships ever transport coal that was not to be used? Did they carry extra coal that was intended for lighting, heating, and emergencies and was to be treated separately from the rest of the coal intake that was used for speed and travel? This could mean that the Titanic did carry sufficient coal to travel at full speed to New York, but they did not wish to use up their entire supply. Perhaps the authorities in America did not allow arriving ships to come in with their bunkers empty in case they were denied entry?


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I based my statement regading coal on the evidence of 3rd Officer Pitman.

We need to look at the totality of what he said. He explained further that the engineer had advised him that ‘we had not sufficient coal on board to drive her full speed all the way across [my emphasis].’

The problem is that it is irrelevant for the reality of the situation because Titanic was not driven at full speed earlier in the voyage: in keeping with the practice on Olympic's maiden voyage the year previously, the speed was being increased gradually throughout the voyage and coal consumption earlier on was correspondingly lower. (Pitman's statement is approximately correct - if on the cautious side - given the available data about the ship's coal consumption at different speeds and loading conditions. For example, increasing speed from 20.5 to 23 knots - up 12% - increases coal consumption by about 32%.)

Best wishes

Mark.
 

Jim Currie

Member
We need to look at the totality of what he said. He explained further that the engineer had advised him that ‘we had not sufficient coal on board to drive her full speed all the way across [my emphasis].’

The problem is that it is irrelevant for the reality of the situation because Titanic was not driven at full speed earlier in the voyage: in keeping with the practice on Olympic's maiden voyage the year previously, the speed was being increased gradually throughout the voyage and coal consumption earlier on was correspondingly lower. (Pitman's statement is approximately correct - if on the cautious side - given the available data about the ship's coal consumption at different speeds and loading conditions. For example, increasing speed from 20.5 to 23 knots - up 12% - increases coal consumption by about 32%.)

Best wishes

Mark.

From a very long time ago:
The consumption of coal varied approximately as the cube of the speed, also as speed squared multiplied by distance. That worked fine up to a speed of about 14 knots Thereafter, the ratio of consumption to speed increased very rapidly.

As for the WSL rules for running -in new ships... that was standard practice o most Companies.

I've seen remarks in these pages about Captains keeping a bit of reserve. What many won't know is that often, captains had to almost twist their Chief's arms up their backs to find out what they had up their sleeve by way of spare fuel.
 
Top