Oceanic III

T

Timothy Trower

Guest
I'm not an expert on the Belgenland, but it sure doesn't look like any variation of the Oceanic III.
 

Ryan Thompson

Member
Dec 6, 2005
261
0
86
That B&W image of the model, where's that from? Is that one of H&W's models? Really interesting.

NICE model Richard! Cool! How big (L, W, H) did you say that came to?
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
Hi Ryan, thanks for your kind words. The model is 813mm long, 87mm wide and 122mm high (approx) to the top of the funnels at 1/350 scale.
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
The H&W builders model posted above is almost certainly Belgenland. Compare the aft superstructure and open and enclosed prom decks of the model to any photo of Belgenland on the net and you will see that they match perfectly.

That model is definitely NOT Oceanic.

Cheers, Rich
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
Hi everyone, here's a little treat for you, as I'm sure very few of you have seen this.

These are some photos of my scratch built 1/350 scale model of White Star's proposed Oceanic III of 1928.

I built her from the general arrangement plans and the rigging diagrams of Britannic III supplied by H&W. She was built from sheet styrene and the boats and masts were spares bought from Toyway.

Now here's the juicy stuff! From the G.A. I can reveal that Oceanic was 935 feet long, 100 feet wide and 105 feet high and probably weighed around 52,000 tons. That makes her the same size as her contemporaries Bremen and Europa.

To put it simply Oceanic was the enlarged and modernised fourth Olympic class liner with the upper deck houses and gym and swimming pool of Majestic.

She was NOT going to be the 1010 feet long 60,000 monster that we have always been led to believe, that drawing that we have seen time and time again, was - according to H&W - the initial design proposal White Star gave to Harlands, that is why the drawing looks so much like Majestic.

If you would like to know any more, let me know.

Love Rich x
 
May 12, 2002
211
0
146
Hi Rich,

Looking forward to seeing these! The plans you refer to - are these the ones that were actually used to start building the Oceanic III whose keel was laid in the mid-to-late 20s?

Cheers

Paul
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
Hi Paul, yes those are the plans in question. As the project was cancelled most of the plans were chucked out ten years later and only the very basic GA was retained for future reference.

Rich
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,581
371
283
Easley South Carolina
Richard, unfortunately, all I got when I clicked on your link was "You must be a registered user to view images!
To register click on the REGISTER button in the menu above."

Do your perhaps have something with Photobucket. Short of that, you may want to try the Upload Oversize Image function below and follow the prompts. What it will do is put the image on a seperate page and provide a link.
 
S

Scott R. Andrews

Guest
"...Now here's the juicy stuff! From the G.A. I can reveal that Oceanic was 935 feet long, 100 feet wide and 105 feet high..."

Richard,

That's great that you were able to obtain a copy of the G/A for the Oceanic III! Back in 1998, I ordered her midship section from H&W-TS, but I instead received the midship section for No. 317, Oceanic II of 1899. Unfortunately, they never did get that one straightened out before the plug was pulled on the entire organization.

Regarding the length, if this was the length recorded on the G/A, are you certain that this is the LOA? It's been my experience that when recording the dimensions of their ships in the title on the G/A, H&W had the habit of routinely recording the length between perpendiculars rather than the LOA, and the molded breadth, and then not labeling them as such.

If 935' is in fact the LBP, because of the cruiser stern and the rake at the bow, the LOA will be quite a bit more than the LBP. At that time, with merchant vessel having this stern and rudder configuration, the after perpendicular was determined from the after end of the stern post just ahead of the rudder, while the forward perpendicular was determined by the intersection of the "upper deck" (the bulkhead deck) with the molded line of the stem. However, even if that figure is the LBP, purely on a gut level, neither end seems to have sufficient overhang to account for stretching a LBP of 935' the additional 65' necessary to hit the 1000' mark. The Normandie, for instance, had a LBP of 962' and a LOA of 1029', a difference of 67', but then she had a strongly raked and cut away stem which threw her forward perpendicular well aft of the peak of her stem. The form of the Queen Mary would be a better indicator in this case; from memory, I believe her LBP is about 975' while her LOA is something like 1019', a difference of 44'.

Regards,
Scott Andrews
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
Hi Scott.

Oceanic's LOA is 935 feet and LBP is 875 feet as per the GA. Thanks for explaining how they calculated the LBP, I never could work it out for myself. Her length was the first thing I confirmed once I received the plans - just by looking at her lines I could tell she was no 1000 footer, 935 feet was just the first of the revelations concerning O3.

Rich
 
Jun 13, 2006
69
0
76
Hi Tom.

The GA is made up of two x 1 meter square sheets of paper and I'm afraid I don't have a scanner that size. Plus Harland and Wolff own the copyright and I don't really want them breathing down my neck, especially as I'm a professional model maker!

Rich
 
B

Brent Holt

Guest
Great model! I am envious!

(Now here's the juicy stuff! From the G.A. I can reveal that Oceanic was 935 feet long, 100 feet wide and 105 feet high and probably weighed around 52,000 tons....She was NOT going to be the 1010 feet long 60,000 monster that we have always been led to believe.)

Not to nitpick too much, but Oceanic would not have weighed 52,00 tons. Gross Registered Tonnage represents the internal space of a ship, not weight. Each ton equals 100 cubic feet of enclosed space. (Perhaps you refer to displacement?)

I assume from the M.V. that she would have been a motor vessel? What about her service speed? I have seen 25 knots and 30 knots mentioned. I still wonder if the timing was too soon to use diesels in such a large vessel. A turbo-electric plant would have had its advantages without the technical risk.

The family resemblance to the latter Britannic is obvious. It's a shame she was not built.

Brent
 
S

Scott R. Andrews

Guest
Hello Brent,

This very topic was being discussed a few days ago in the following thread: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6937/94300.html?1150081767. Oceanic III was to intended to have diesel-electric propulsion along the lines of the current propulsion plant of the QE2. However, due to the state of the art circa 1925-1930, the power would have been split over four shafts and four propulsion motors rather than two, and the power would have been generated by 47 six cylinder diesel alternator sets rather than the nine considerably larger diesel alternator sets which provide the power aboard the QE2. A turbo-electric plant was being evaluated as the back-up plan. In either case, the SHP figures I've seen estimated for the D/E plant indicate that the 28.5 knot service speed typical for ships of this class by the early 30's should have been no trouble to maintain, and a top speed of 30 knots may not have been a struggle.

Regards,
Scott Andrews
 
B

Brent Holt

Guest
It is fascinating to think about what would have happened if Oceanic III had been built. What if WS could have gotten her at least to the launching stage as Cunard nearly did with the QM before construction stopped? This would changed the bargaining position of WS in regards to the "merger" with Cunard. I suspect WS would have gotten more shares in the combined company and that the QE would not have been built. It also would have accelerated the end of the Olympic, Majestic, Berengaria, & Aquitania since both of the new ships would have been ready around the same time.
A very interesting what if? I feel like we have been cheated by history in not seeing the M.V. Oceanic built. She would have been quite a site.