Maritime Terminology in 1912

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

As with any account that deals with maritime matters much use is made of terms and phrases that may be somewhat unfamiliar to the nonnautical minded person. Furthermore some terms and phrases used in 1912 differed from those that are used today. In particular angular directions and helm orders seem to be the most confusing. Angles and Bearings References to angular directions were usually given in compass points or degrees. In all there are 32 points in a cir... Titanica! Fri, 21 Jan 2022

Maritime Terminology in 1912

As with any account that deals with maritime matters, much use is made of terms and phrases that may be somewhat unfamiliar to the non-nautical minded...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Thank you Phil for posting this article. My hope is that it clarifies some of the terms and phrases that were used back in the days, and gives further insight into the terminology used, especially to those who are new to the subject.

 

[Georges Guay]

HELM ORDERS given on British ships prior to 1934 were relative to tiller movement «irrespective» of whether steering was by tiller or wheel.

The orders given by the Officer of the Watch (OOW) indicated the direction in which the tiller was to be moved or in which direction the wheel was to be turned; the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered.»

Helm Orders - Naval Historical Society of Australia

HELM ORDERS GIVEN in British ships prior to 1934 were relative to tiller movement irrespective of whether steering was by tiller or wheel. The orders of the Officer of the

www.navyhistory.org.au

 

[Samuel Halpern]

the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered.»

So why were the wheel mechanisms on ships built in the 1880s and early 1900s rigged so that if they were turned counter-clockwise the tiller, which was attached via ropes and pulleys, would be thrown to starboard?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

NAVY DEPARTMENT
Washington, D. C., May 5, 1913

ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.

1. On and after July 1, 1913, the present designations "starboard" and "port" governing movements of a ship's helm are hereby ordered discontinued in orders or directions to the steersman, and the terms "right" and "left," referring to movement of the ship's head, shall thereafter be used instead.

2. The orders as to rudder angle shall be given in such terms as "Ten degrees rudder; half-rudder; standard rudder; full rudder;" etc., so that a complete order would be "Right--Half-rudder," etc.

3. Commanders in chief and commanding officers acting independently may, in their discretion, institute the above changes at an earlier date.

F. D. ROOSEVELT,
Acting Secretary of the Navy.
**************************************************************************
NAVY DEPARTMENT
Washington, D. C., May 18, 1914

ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.

1. This order supersedes General Order No. 30, of May 5, 1913, which should be marked "Canceled" across its face.

2. The term "helm" shall not be used in any command or directions connected with the operation of the rudder; in lieu thereof the term "rudder" shall be used--standard rudder, half rudder, etc.

3. The commands "starboard" and "port" shall not be used as governing the movement of the rudder; in lieu thereof the word "right" shall be employed when the wheel (or lever) and rudder are to be moved to the right to turn the ship's head to the right (with headway on), and "left" to turn to turn the ship's head to the left (with headway on). Instructions in regard to the rudder angle shall be given to the steersman in such terms as "handsomely," "ten degrees rudder," "half rudder," "standard rudder," "full rudder," "left—handsomely," etc. The steersman should afterwards be informed of the new course by such terms as "course—135°."

JOSEPHUS DANIELS,
Secretary of the Navy.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Just to point out that the steering gear in all the vessels of the navy was not changed. Only the orders given were changed.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Another example whereby the only thing that changed was the set of orders given, not the steering gear of vessels:

 

[Georges Guay]

So why were the wheel mechanisms on ships built in the 1880s and early 1900s rigged so that if they were turned counter-clockwise the tiller, which was attached via ropes and pulleys, would be thrown to starboard?

What you are describing here is a Direct Wheel System; if you order the wheel counter-clockwise or to Port, the tiller is thrown to Starboard so the head will turned to Port. In a Tiller System, the Wheel-chain is rolled up the Barrel the other way around.

What this essay is suggesting is that Titanic was arranged with a Tiller System; the hydraulic piping (pressure/vacuum) being inverted, like the chain rolled up the barrel the other way around. The order Hard-a-Starboard was carried out by turning the wheel clockwise to Starboard, the tiller thrown to Starboard so the head would turn to Port. The reason for using a tiller system is that it allows preserving the Practice of the Past… while avoiding to leave the helmsman, the burden to decide which side to turn the wheel to achieve a tiller effect. The ultimate responsibility to decide in which direction the head of a vessel has to turn according to her steering system, rest in the hand of the OOW, not on the AB’s.

Therefore, the most logic and trouble-free system if you wish to preserve the tiller order mode while avoiding confusion from the quartermaster, is to adopt the Tiller System. If the aim of the OOW is to turn the head to Port in the tiller mode, he orders the wheel to Starboard, the AB turns the wheel to Starboard without any doubt, and the tiller is then thrown to Starboard so the head will finally swing to Port.

I don’t know what system they really work with, but the view of that essay merits consideration. Anyhow, I wouldn’t be surprise that The Movie was also in error by portraying the helmsman turning the wheel to Port in response to a Hard-a-Starboard order...

 

[Samuel Halpern]

From what I've been able to find, it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System" as you call it. A good article, with references, can be read here: A Note on Helm Orders After the Coming of Steam | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core

 

[Samuel Halpern]

See highlighted area in this report:

 

[Georges Guay]

From what I've been able to find, it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System" as you call it. A good article, with references, can be read here: A Note on Helm Orders After the Coming of Steam | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core

I don’t see where in your article that «it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System"». From what I can read, it is the exact opposite;

«Prior to the French decree of 1874, the practice of French ships in relation to helm orders appears to have been the same as that of the English»

«From Grimsby to the South Sand Head Light the English pilot had charge of the ship, and his order ‘port’ implies, according to the custom and practice of England, that the ship's head shall go to the right (starboard). From Dungeness to Le Havre the French pilot has charge and his order ‘port’ implies, according to the decree of the French Government, that the ship shall go to the left (port)»

«According to the London Times 20th February 1884, the French ship Indus was navigating the Thames in the charge of a pilot. The pilot gave the order “Tribord” to which the French crew responded by turning the ship to starboard in accordance with the French usage. The pilot, of course, intended the ship to turn to port in accordance with the English custom. The error caused the Indus to allide with the training-ship Shaftesbury. In subsequent proceedings, the pilot was held to blame»

«The pamphleteer mentioned how a yacht called the Stella, built originally for an English nobleman and used by him was bought by a French gentleman and subsequently chartered by Mr MacIver, of Cunard's Co., who found that the Frenchman had reversed the wheel chains and helm indicator, so that when the word “Port!” was given the order was literally obeyed, instead of the contrary, as in a British ship.»

A direct steering system is if you wish turn the head to Port, you order the wheel to Port, the AB repeats the order and turns the wheel to Port, the tiller is thrown to Starboard so the head will alter to Port.

If Titanic had a direct steering system like depicted in the movie, the OOW ordered Hard-a-Starboard, the AB repeated the order «but» turned the wheel to Port, the tiller was then thrown to Starboard and by so, the head was altered to Port.

If Titanic had a tiller or indirect steering system, the OOW ordered Hard-a-Starboard, the AB repeated the order and turned the wheel to Starboard, the tiller was thrown to Starboard so the head was altered to Port.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Sorry, the French apparently did not do that. I was thinking of the Frenchman who owned the yacht Stella who reverse the gear so that when the order came "port" they would turn the wheel to port. my mistake. Just before that it read, "He [the pamphleteer] seems to have been unaware that the French had effectively done this by decree in 1874 [changed the orders] but instead he stated that the French had corrected the anomaly in most of their ships by reversing their wheels so that they were turned in the direction of the given order – that is to say when the word “Port!” was given, the wheel was turned to port, the rudder and the ship turning to starboard."

If the French had done as that pamphleteer suggested, then it would mean that the steering gear was was changed to the tiller system as you call it whereby, if the wheel was turned to port, then the tiller would go to port, the rudder over to starboard, and the ship turning to starboard. But that was not really done. It was the orders that were changed from the indirect order system to the direct order system that we have now.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

By the way, the writer of that Australian article is the one who got it wrong. What was shown in the 1997 movie was correct. In the indirect order system used back then, we see the helmsman turning the wheel hard over to his left after receiving the order 'hard-astarboard'. The opposite when he received the 'hard-aport' order. As Rear Admiral Tarwresey said, the top of the wheel moved in a direction opposite to the motion of the helm. Thus an order to put the helm to starboard meant that the wheel had to be turned to port as depicted correctly in the movie.

The problem I find with articles such as the one written in that Australian naval historical society paper, is the lack of any references. He stated as fact, "the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered."
Move the tiller in the direction of the order, yes.; but turn the wheel in the same direction, NO.

 

[Georges Guay]

Who else could right?

Sorry again but, if we are to believe the proof without the shadow of a doubt demonstrated in The Movie, Titanic was equipped with a Direct (reversing) System, not with a Tiller (indirect) System! A Tiller (indirect) System is what the Australian Naval Historical Society paper proposes.

Again; ships were either built with a Tiller (indirect) System or a Direct (reversing) System.

A vessel built with a Tiller (indirect) System is when the wheel was turned in the same direction as the order but made the vessel to alter her head in the opposite direction from the order. Graphically, the wheel or the barrel pulled the tiller in the same direction as the wheel’s turn.

A ship constructed with a Direct (reversing) System, is when the wheel was turned in the direction opposite from the order but made the vessel to alter in the same direction as the wheel’s turn. Graphically, the wheel or the barrel pulled the tiller in a direction opposite (reversing) of the wheel’s turn.

If she was built with a Tiller System; the builders did not endorse the International Law Association 1899 resolutions where all nations were members. If she was built with a Direct System; the Officers did not endorse the resolutions by allowing orders to be given in the opposite direction from where the ship had to head.

The French adopted the Direct (reversing) System in 1874, The International Law Association resolved in 1899 that the construction of steering gear and orders to the wheelsman be adapted to produce the result of the Direct (reversing) System and finally, in 1931 the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) forced by law the few remaining nations nostalgic of the Practice of the Past, to adopt the direct steering system and orders that still exist today.

Nowadays, a standard cargo vessel is equipped with a Direct Steering System where the order, the hands of the wheelsman on top or the bottom of the wheel, the wheel, the mechanical and electric rudder indicators and the head are all turning in the same circular direction, with the exception of the tiller. Nevertheless, it was and still is the prime responsibility of maritime officers to ascertain that the wheel is turned in the proper direction and that the rudder indicator pointers follow so to obtain the expected results...

 

[Georges Guay]

See highlighted area in this report:

See highlighted area in this report:
View attachment 110361

Here is a maritime anecdote over a Commander and Admiral of the Royal Navy Fleet.

On June 26th 1959, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip officially opened the St-Lawrence Seaway on board the Royal Yacht Britannia, along with Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower and of several other dignitaries. Léon Balcer, a Progressive Conservator member of parliament for Trois-Rivières from 1949 to 1965 and several times Minister under John Diefenbaker, recounts his experience aboard during a docking maneuver of the Royal Yacht Britannia in Trois-Rivières under the conduct of Prince Phillip;

«Waking up very early, I went up to the bridge where I had the honor of meeting Mr. Hamelin, senior compulsory maritime pilot of the Central St. Lawrence Corporation. We also chat amicably with the Commanding Officer of the royal yacht. The weather was fine as we approach my hometown, Trois-Rivières. The port authorities had erected a landing stage decorated with the royal coat of arms. Already, thousands of people from Trois-Rivières had gathered on the quays.

At about a mile, Prince Phillip came up to the navigation bridge and announced to the master that he will dock the yacht himself. As Prince Phillip was a former sailor, his request seemed timely, however, I could not help to notice some annoyance in the eyes of the Vice Admiral and the pilot for whom it was his legal responsibility.

Having misjudged the current, Prince Phillip executed a false maneuver. It is too late to correct the blunder; the sailors running across the deck fitted with line fenders to lessen the shock of the inevitable impact, however without much success. Part of the landing stage was demolished and the port forward bulwark was sunk on the length of ten feet. Prince Phillip vanished instantly like an arrow, leaving the blame for the incident in the eyes of thousands on the Commanding Officer and (but most probably on) the pilot.»

Questions;

- Was Royal Yacht Britannia equipped with a Tiller (indirect) System or a Direct (reversing) System?
- Did the Commander and Admiral of the Royal Navy Fleet called upon the Compulsory Pilotage Defense for the blunder?

Now just imagine the talent of a Rear Admiral...

View attachment 110361