Peak Tank Rooms on Orlop and Tanktop Decks


May 8, 2001
1,359
15
233
>>>I am told about 500 times each day that I must "celebrate the diversity and traditions" of others.
Now it's my turn to celebrate my centuries-old tradition. Ships are she.<<<<<

Since no women have commented here, I WILL....

Perfect, Bill! I will second the other comment you made on Wednesday, 17 July, 2002 - 6:26 pm too!

Heaven help if ~I~ were a tour guide on QM today. Guess I would be fired for noncompliance. Ships have earned the title "SHE". (Hey did I just insult myself here?)
blush.gif

Colleen
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,646
11
313
South Carolina USA
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether ships are called she or it....or even he! People should use whatever they feel most comfortable with.

I guess most other languages have it easier because all nouns are "gendered", even inanimate objects. For instance, German has der, die, and das; masculine, feminine, and neuter. "Pencil", Der Bleistift, is masculine, "Pen", Die Feder, is feminine, but Das Madchen (young girl) is neuter! Go figure.

Phil.....I had to reword one of my sentences because it wouldn't allow me to use the verb "is" after the word "pen"......sigh.
 

Noel F. Jones

Member
May 14, 2002
857
6
183
Regarding tankage management:

I was referring to general cargo practice rather than large passenger vessels; and by the way I should have said 'fresh water' rather than 'drinking water'. Actual potable (drinking) water costs more and is better placed in the double bottom tanks. There was/is a possibility of contamination in the peaks from weeping rivets started by panting forward and propeller vibration aft.

Non-potable fresh is shipped for boiler feed water and cooling jackets and for general hotel services and sculleries. Potable is piped to health-sensitive outlets such as food prep., bar faucets and service pantries. If supplies were running low sanitizing chemical, usually calcium hypochorite, was routinely carried for converting non-potable to potable. If you are going to ship water as ballast it makes sense to press up your tankage with fresh if available. It goes in the double bottom as well and can usually be transferred between all. The practice varies from company to company, ship to ship – and chief officer to chief officer!

Sanitary water is exclusively salt (unless one is out of drydock or a prolongued spell in port). Seawater was supplied to bathrooms in the older passenger ships and required a special seawater soap – I've never seen it myself. Swimming pools were filled on passage. I've never know 'paid for' fresh water to be used in swimming pools but maybe some cruise ships do it nowadays. They'd need dedicated filtration/sanitization plant.

The ability to quickly longitudinally trim ship can be critical in some operating conditions such as river steaming. Steaming 'by the head' can obviate running flat aground and gives you a second chance.


On intentional 'hogging':– the peak tanks were only supplemental in this, the greater effect being achieved by cargo deadweight. The practice was not illegal per se, the requisite load line criteria being satisfied and (unlike Erik Wood's examples) it did not subtend actual unseaworthiness. The occasion I referred to involved a most prestigious cargo liner company whose ships were in any case built to superior scantlings. And I hasten to add they were as concerned to accommodate important shippers as to garner more freight. Space was at a premium and shippers wanted 'end of month' bills of lading – all to do with bank interest.

I'm rambling again!

To return to the Olympic/Titanic, the peaks may well have been isolated from the fresh water circulating/abstraction system; I have no information. They seem to transcend the tank tops and, as others have pointed out, there were fresh water wing tanks in way of the generator room. But the tank tops were precisely what the name indicates. There was a system of tankage below the plating which does not show up on the general arrangement plan, but all that frame space was not wasted. Gas oil and some 'luboil' also had to be accommodated and, in the case of the Olympic after conversion, much boiler oil.

To my knowledge, there were no on-board distillation or R/O plants in those days and all fresh water had to be shipped prior to sailing.

By the way, what's ships' gender got to do with tankage?

Noel
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
If you check the Shipbulder, you'll find that the Olympics certainly did have water distillation capability. An absolute nesseccity for the large liners given the hotel demands and the requirements of the steam plant. If you check page 63 of John Maxtone-Graham's reprint, you'll find the plant described as "The latest Quiggan's type, and have been supplied by the Liverpool Engineering and Condenser Co." The Olympic class vessels had three of them with a capacity of 60 tons per day each.

I have another history text on the history of steam propulsion and I'll have to dig it out when I have the time, but it indicates that evaporators had been around since the 19th Century.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Mr. Jones

Sanitary water is exclusively salt (unless one is out of drydock or a prolongued spell in port). Seawater was supplied to bathrooms in the older passenger ships and required a special seawater soap – I've never seen it myself. Swimming pools were filled on passage. I've never know 'paid for' fresh water to be used in swimming pools but maybe some cruise ships do it nowadays. They'd need dedicated filtration/sanitization plant.

Please site youre sources on this. I have experience to the contrary, but then again I have trouble remembering my name.

On intentional 'hogging':– the peak tanks were only supplemental in this, the greater effect being achieved by cargo deadweight. The practice was not illegal per se, the requisite load line criteria being satisfied and (unlike Erik Wood's examples) it did not subtend actual unseaworthiness.

Under 46 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) put out by the United States Coast Guard, ships who practice intentional hogging are "in violation of there orginal load line certificate" and "any attempt to manipulate the reading of draft markings, or dead cargo weight by tonnage, pounds or any other weight measurement will result in immediate suspension of clearance to sail.."

Now those quotations are off the top of my head. I had questions referencing this on my recent Surveyor and Incident Investigator Cerfitication test. Those where my answers. Now, granted that isn't International Law and every country does it differently. Plus, that is my understanding of the law, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

All that being said, it is still common practice and rarely discovered by the Coast Guard when they check.

Erik
 

Noel F. Jones

Member
May 14, 2002
857
6
183
Distillation plant:

"To my knowledge, there were no on-board distillation or R/O plants in those days and all fresh water had to be shipped prior to sailing."

Now how can I circumlocute my way out of this one? I could say that my comment was an injudicious afterthought, written on the wing immediately prior to posting. So what did I have in mind when I wrote it?

Anent the five vessels built for the Indian Troop Service 1865-1895, "as was the practice at that time, seawater was used for boiler feed in all five vessels. Drinking water was distilled from the main boilers to satisfy the heavy demand when troops were carried. This meant a constant rate of change in the boilers. A beneficial result of this was that a chemical equilibrium was generated, precipitating scaling sufficient to inhibit corrosion of the metal surfaces but not to an extent as would impede the transmission of heat from the furnaces. Fresh water feed was first tried in the "Jumna" during the 1874-75 trooping season."

And I wrote that myself.

It gets worse. There is an example of distillation apparatus to be seen on Nelson's HMS Victory; a copper still driven from the galley fires, the distillate presumably used primarily for cooking. This pushes things back to about 1755 and I don't doubt there are earlier examples.

As one who perceives a duty not to misinform, I can do no other than retract, revoke and abnegate my earlier statement and offer my apologies.

On the matter of sanitary water, baths and swimpools; I was really fishing for more info. from contributors. If you were to tell me that all hotel services, including swimpools, can now be supplied with potable water I wouldn't be surprised. As for seawater soap - maybe some old shipchandlers' advertising may throw up something. I believe it was in use in the long haul far eastern/Australian passenger vessels.

On the matter of MCT and the peak tanks; Mike Standart asks: "What I'm wondering however is the source for the following comment that Noel made; ">>Fore- and afterpeak tanks are normally used as drinking water reservoirs. Being at the extremities of the ship they also exert a significant MCT (moment to change trim) and can therefore be used to quickly trim ship.<<"

I'm not sure what case I am to answer. I can only say that alternative terms for these tanks are 'trimming' and 'ballast' (in which trimming is implicit); and that their deployment invokes a basic principle of physics - a 'free-free' version of the terrestrial steelyard. But you knew that already.

On the matter of intentional hogging: Erik Wood reassures us that the practice is now proscribed under US law and I'm sure elsewhere (SOLAS anybody?), but difficult nevertheless to enforce. Presumably this could only be done in the past by comparing the midship draft with that at the extremities but there are only centimetres in it and this can be difficult especially with a torch at night, even in enclosed dock systems if there is a lop on the water. As for getting a case up (when time is both money and pressing) this might mean the inspectorate trying to reconcile a general cargo stowage plan with its concomitant stowage factors along the vessel's length. Difficult.

Can modern draft-measuring sensors return hog and sag? And would not intentionally hogging a modern container vessel necessitate entering the box cycling software so as to disable an 'even strain' safety attribute?

Noel
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>On the matter of sanitary water, baths and swimpools; I was really fishing for more info. from contributors. <<

Ah, well if thats the case, simply ask the question. somebody here either knows the answer ot where to find it.

In the case of steam plants at sea and their auxilaries such as evaporator plants, you might want to buy "Steam at Sea: Two Centuries of Steam-Powered Ships" by Dr. Denis Griffiths. It can be had at Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0851776663/qid=1027225538/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5139240-3140102 for $43.00. A bit pricy, but worth it.

Regarding scaling of boilers with sea salt, have to point out that steam engineers were definately of the opinion conterary to yours. Shutting down the plant every so often to chip it away was brutally hard work, labour intensive and a waste of time. The corrosive effects of salt water at very high temperatures were far from welcome as well. Hence the motivation to find ways to provide fresh water to the plant.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Salt water soap is readily available from yacht chandlers. $2-50 Aus per cake.

I have a feeling that water distillation plant was compulsory on liners in 1912. Certainly Titanic's capacity was noted when she was cleared for the voyage. I'll dig for the rules.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Here's the dinkum oil on water distilling.

In simple terms, emigrant ships, such as Titanic had three options.

1. Carry a prescribed amount of water in dedicated tanks that were not part of a double bottom. Standards were laid down for construction, filtration, etc.

2. Carry half the prescribed amount in similar tanks, plus a distillation plant able to produce one gallon of water every twenty-four hours for each person on board. Again, standards were set, including approved manufacturers and capable operators. There was even a prescribed list of tools, among them a 14" flat b******. (For those who know what that is).

3. Water could be carried in the double bottom under prescribed rules, such as dividing it between several tanks. In that case, a distillation plant capable of producing the ship's prescribed daily requirement had to be carried. That was the system on Titanic and her plant could produce 14,000 gallons per day, or 62.5 tons.

(All units are Imperial)
 

Bill Sauder

Member
Nov 14, 2000
230
20
263
Dave:

Are you refering to a 14" flat b****** file? (a file of uncertain paternaty I guess)

(I love this filter to prevent "naughty" language on the board.)

Good thing we're not talking about oscillating engines. The NAACP would have a field day with us.

Bill Sauder
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
12
183
Tracy.
The "full stop" was simply meant to indicate that to me the matter is not negotiable. Ships are "she", and in my book will remain so - stressing that I am talking for myself and that others can naturally do as they wish. I guess Americans would have said "period"!
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
12
183
With some South African drivers, full go is what a car comes to at a stop sign or red light...they would have rammed that pesky iceberg head on all right!
 

Williamz902

Member
Sep 18, 2015
2
0
31
Height from Tank Top to Orlop Deck

I'm trying to find out what the height was from the Tank Top to the Orlop Deck. I realize that in different parts of the ship, the height from the Tank Top to the Orlop Deck may have varied, but can someone give me a general average, or even specific heights?

I've tried searching the internet and one website gave me 8 feet as an average, while others gave me 14 feet as an average?

Regards,

William.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,810
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
William,

As you may already know, the Orlop deck was in two parts. One part extended 190 ft forward of boilers, and the second part extended 210 ft aft of machinery spaces. The Orlop deck was listed as being 13' 6" below a 34' 7" waterline, which therefore brings it to 21' 1" above the ship's keel. The tank top was about 5 ft above the keel and extended for the full breadth of the vessel from bulkhead A aft to 20 ft before bulkhead P. Therefore, this places the Orlop deck about 16 ft above the level of the Tank Top. The Orlop deck abaft of the turbine engine-room and forward of the collision bulkhead (A) was watertight.
 

Williamz902

Member
Sep 18, 2015
2
0
31
Thanks

William,

As you may already know, the Orlop deck was in two parts. One part extended 190 ft forward of boilers, and the second part extended 210 ft aft of machinery spaces. The Orlop deck was listed as being 13' 6" below a 34' 7" waterline, which therefore brings it to 21' 1" above the ship's keel. The tank top was about 5 ft above the keel and extended for the full breadth of the vessel from bulkhead A aft to 20 ft before bulkhead P. Therefore, this places the Orlop deck about 16 ft above the level of the Tank Top. The Orlop deck abaft of the turbine engine-room and forward of the collision bulkhead (A) was watertight.



Thank you, that helps.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads