1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information you’ve provided to them or they’ve collected from your use of their services. More information
    Dismiss Notice

Hull paint

Discussion in 'Hull & Construction Issues' started by TitanicNerd, Feb 3, 2014.

  1. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    So I look in Titanic pictures I can tell a little bit of the water line is visible the whole way of the ship, but how much feet tall is the sliver of the waterline above the water? Is a sliver or is it actually big? And what color is the water line???? :confused:
     
  2. Jim Currie

    Jim Currie Member

    Don't know what picture you are looking at but you are describing what is called a 'boot-topping line'. As far as I know, Titanic did not have one. The underwater part of her hull was painted in a red-anti-fouling paint. This was continued above the light dispalcement level to where it met the black part of the hull paint.

    Jim C.
     
  3. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    So you could see a little sliver the whole way of the ship? Just a little? This is the picture I am looking at:
     
  4. TimTurner

    TimTurner Member

    You could probably see about 3 to 6 feet of the red paint all the way along the side. I'd have to look around to find the exact width in feet.

    I don't think the "water line" was painted on the ship. The water line would change based on how loaded the ship was. A ship with no passengers, cargo, or coal would ride pretty high in the water. A heavily loaded ship would ride lower in the water. The purpose of the red paint is not primarily to show where the water should be. I believe its purpose is to prevent barnacles and things from sticking to the ship (anti-fouling paint). As such, you'd want it to be slightly above the water's usual level, so the paint would do its job even if the water lapped up a bit high.

    For proportion, each of those rows of portholes in that picture are about 9 feet apart.
     
  5. Jim Currie

    Jim Currie Member

    You're right Tim. There was no Boot-topping line.

    we can get a fair idea of the exposed anti-fouling depth from th details of the RMS Olympic. Her light draft was 27'10.5" and her loaded draft was about 34'07". The amount of anti-fouling showing at light draft would be the difference between these two...6'08.5" or thereabouts. Titanic would be an inch or two more.

    It is highly unlikely that the anti-fouling would be carried above the load waterline. It worked on the basis of chemical release when submerged in salt water and was ineffective in air. It was also extemely expensive stuff.

    Jim C.
     
  6. Doug Criner

    Doug Criner Member

    That picture is a painting, not even a colorized photo. There are several, probably many, glaring inaccuracies in the painting.
     
    Robert T. Paige likes this.
  7. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    Please explain
     
  8. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    Im so confused. You could see a little of the water line but not a boot topping line???? what???
     
  9. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    OHHHHH now I sorta get it. A boot topping line was for example, black hull, blue stripe, red hull. The blue stripe being the boot topping line??? Ok, so a little part of RED part of the hull showed? How much feet above the water?
     
  10. TimTurner

    TimTurner Member

    About 6 feet of the red paint showed when the ship was empty, according to Jim. Almost none would show if it was fully loaded But it is technically incorrect to refer to this red paint as a "waterline".
     
  11. Doug Criner

    Doug Criner Member

    Look at the pix again. Obviously it's an artist's rendering, probably photo-shopped, or cooked up on digital editing software. The lifeboats, for example, are silly. The atmospheric lighting is clearly fake. The portholes are incorrect, as is the rigging for the masts.

    Next?
     
  12. TimTurner

    TimTurner Member

    Doug, I'm pretty sure it's a painting. I don't see how that's relevant. The question is about the red paint, which is visible on Titanic photographs in the proper light conditions. The painting is for illustration, not technical dissection, to show what the original poster was talking about. I don't believe that any question that has been asked so far has been based on any of the inaccurate features of the painting. The portholes are approximately the correct dimensions (close enough for this discussion - obviously the G Deck portholes should cut out under the superstructure, and the dinning saloon portholes should be doubled up, etc, but that isn't really part of this discussion, is it?). The red paint is visible, as it was known to be. The poster's question is how much red was visible?
     
  13. Doug Criner

    Doug Criner Member

    Look at the rigging - wrong. Also the lifeboats, many other issues. The sky and ambient lighting is fake.
     
  14. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    So the picture is accurate?
     
  15. TimTurner

    TimTurner Member

    Parts of the picture are "close enough". You probably would have seen about the same amount of red paint on the real Titanic. What Doug is complaining about is details like the arrangement of windows and the ropes. Those parts are quite wrong.
     
  16. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    I agree, the picture is for a Titanic Exhibit. I think it's just to show "oh look a wild Titanic exhibit yay"
     
  17. TitanicNerd

    TitanicNerd Member

    What type of red? Dark red? Light red? Pinkish red? Lightish and Darkish red?
     
  18. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    Does anyone know how resilient the hull paint was and how much would have been removed during her maiden voyage? If she had survived the iceberg impact and steamed through the ice field would there be noticeable patches of paint missing as she approached New York?


    Looking at photos of the Olympic's maiden voyage it appears the waves have washed away patches of paint and have revealed her original 'white launch paint' underneath. She also appears to have crashed into or brushed against the pier which has scratched off a considerable strip of her paint. Was that an accident or a common occurrence on ships?




    paint01.PNG

    paint1.PNG



    Also is that Ismay and Captain Smith on the bridge?



    ismaysmith.PNG


    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  19. Doug Criner

    Doug Criner Member

    Paint coming off a ship's hull is common, requiring touchup by the crew when in port.
     
  20. Harland Duzen

    Harland Duzen Member

    I never noticed those two figures before, however, it's also possible that could be New York's Harbour Pilot (If such a role existed). If not, good find! Ismay would't have been pleased.

    Actually, if Ismay is the figure in that photo, it shows he did have a tendency to enter the bridge, something he denied in the enquires.

    Is it also possible Murdoch or Lightoller is in one of these photos? I heard protocol meant they had to stand at the bow's forward end to act as a lookout.