TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
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:
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,396
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
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.
 

TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
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 displacement level to where it met the black part of the hull paint.

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

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
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.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,396
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
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.
 

Doug Criner

Member
Dec 2, 2009
447
68
133
USA
That picture is a painting, not even a colorized photo. There are several, probably many, glaring inaccuracies in the painting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
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.
Im so confused. You could see a little of the water line but not a boot topping line???? what???
 

TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
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.
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?
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
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?
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".
 

Doug Criner

Member
Dec 2, 2009
447
68
133
USA
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?
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
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?
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
So the picture is accurate?

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.
 

TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
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.

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

Aaron_2016

Guest
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 by a moderator:

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
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.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads