Pirrie Ismay Carlisle and then Morgan

[Steve Krienke]

Hello Everyone,

My name is Steve Krienke. I just registerd for ET, but I have been reading everyones posts for about two months now. I am a play writer. I am also a big Titanic researcher, I know a great deal about her, as do the rest of you.

I have wrote two Titanic plays. When refering to them, I call them the "small" play and the "big play." The small play is my schools play this year. It is being preformed Friday, Nov. 12th 2004..this week. The big one is going to be in Alexandria (I live in MN) Alexandria has to theatres I could use...I am still in the process of deciding which theatre to use.

Anyway! The first scene of the big play is that fateful Dinner Party...then were on to the 2nd Scene. I want to have Pirrie, Ismay, and Carlisle go to the bosses desk, Morgan. I want to show Pirrie and Ismay introducing the basic ideas of the ships, then have Carlisle show ideas such as the Grand Stair Case, the Gym, the Smoking room, etc. Now please keep in mind I am very anti 97' movie, I cannot stand how real people were pushed aside to make room for a naked women and a poor guy.

I do not know if the three men went to Morgan, but if they didnt, I do not think this scene would cause an uproar. Its not like I am lying about something, or making fake people (Everything and everyone in this play is real) I am just having them telling the boss things that we would find out later anyway (like the great attractions and stuff)

Please let me know your opionions on this, I would love to make this as historically accurate as possible.

Thanks,
Steve Krienke
[email protected]

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I don't know if any of these people went directly to J.P. Morgan with the proposal, but I'm sure at some point, he would have been brought into the loop. I think it more likely that the proposals were discussed and at some point, a representative in America like P.A.S. Franklin was given the informtion who in turn passed it on to Morgan.

Bear in mind that this is speculation and I could have the sequence all wrong. I'm more the nuts and bolts techie/forensics type and not so hot on dates and the people. Perhaps somebody who's up on this can speak to the matter.

 

[Steve Krienke]

Well,

Thank you Mr. Standart. I have noticed you have hundreds of posts, you must be very well aqquainted with the Titanic.

What are your areas of intrest?

Steve Krienke
[email protected]

 

[Michael H. Standart]

As I indicated, I'm your basic techie/forensics kind of guy. I have a passing familiarity with the ship, but then I've had some right good teachers in this forum who I've learned from.

 

[Steve Krienke]

Well Mr. Standart,

I am sure we will be in touch..after all, I am only familliar with the passengers and there storys, also I am in familiarity with the crew and there storys

Steve Krienke
[email protected]

 

[Steve Krienke]

Im still looking for someone that would know the process of command about who told who about the ideas!

Steve Krienke

 

[Dave Gittins]

Bruce Ismay was President of International Mercantile Marine, Morgan's big company that owned White Star and other lines. Ismay obviously would have told Morgan what he was doing, thought Morgan may not have been much concerned with the details. They are what he paid Pirrie to attend to. Morgan was certainly "in the loop", because he lent Harland & Wolff £150,000 to help preparations.

There's circumstantial evidence that the real originator of the Olympic class was Lord Pirrie, the big chief of H & W. By 1912 he was pretty much a dictator. As early as 1902, he persuaded the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to build the Thompson Graving Dock, in order to be ready for the big ships of the future. He may well have talked Ismay into the scheme. Pirrie could sell refrigerators to Inuit.

Alexander Carlisle was only an employee of H & W and would not have had a say in deciding to build the ships. Pirrie designed the hull form and the general layout of the ships. Carlisle did the interiors and other equipment. Andrews was more of an engineer, concerned with structure. Edward Wilding was the naval architect who did calculations of buoyancy and stability. The part of Andrews was much exaggerated after his death, as so often happens.

 

[monica e. hall]

Moved to Miscellaneous Questions on this section.

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

I believe the biggest player in the Olympic class ships was Lord Pirrie. From the time he got Morgan to takeover Oceanic Steam Navigation Company to the ships were built. Lord Pirrie used several years to carry out his plans for these ships although he never got to build the fourth ship he wanted.

As for Alexander Carlisle, he was bit more than an employee as he carried quite a bit of weigh in shipping. Don't lets forget the other Alexander Carlisle, he was an employee for 51 years!!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Eh? Let me get this straight: There was a proposal to build four Olympic class ships? Or was Number 4 the aborted Oceanic?

 

[Steven Hall]

"There was a proposal to build four Olympic class ships?"
That's news to me.

Steve

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

Yes,

You caught me when I am out in the North sea. Pirrie had hoped that a fourth ship would be built in the 1920s. My Shipbuilders to the World book is at home otherwise I could have quoted the name of it.

Don't you have this wonderful book. It started with a H. I get home in 10days and will let you know.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Don't you have this wonderful book. <<

I'm afraid not. I may have to make a point of getting it if I can afford the price. I'm wondering if Lord Pierre was being realistic in hoping to get a forth ship built, be it an Olympic or an improved version. In 1912, there was only so much of a market base to go around even with the immigrant trade in full swing.

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

It was after the sinking of Titanic and Britannic that he hoped for a fourth ship. Remember the Olympic class ships should have been three in service as this was more profitable and economical than the two heavy fuel using Cunards.

 

[David G. Brown]

Something I've found intriguing about the construction of the Olympic class is that two slipways were constructed. The nature of ship construction is staged, with the making of parts before the erecting of the hull, before launch, etc. With three ships on order, a single slipway would be most cost-effective ("profitable"). Two slipways make sense only if four ships were to be built in the shortest period of time possible.

My quick reckoning tells me it would take about six years to complete three Olympic class ships on a single slipway if nothing unusual occurred. With two slipways, the same crew of workers could be expected to finish a fourth ship in that same time span. I suggest that was the original plan--build four ships in six years.

Olympic had problems with HMS Hawke; Titanic sank; Britannic was heavily re-designed. The result was three ships launched. All we have of a fourth ship are vague comments after WW-I and the double slipway.

Given what we know, I can't help thinking that the Olympic class was to be four ships. In fact, White Star wound up paying as much for the three completions as for the full four-ship fleet. I think the fourth Olympic became the double sides in Olympic, the redesign/double sides of Britannic, and the monetary loss resulting from the loss of Titanic.

Just speculating!

-- David G. Brown

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

David,

They built other ships on Slipways two and three. They were used up to the end of the 1960's.

Then in 1967 it was decided to construct the world'd largest dry dock with the idea of building 1,000,000 ton tankers because of the Suez closure.

Jim Carlisle

 

[David G. Brown]

Jim-- Good management of any building company (houses, boats, etc.) is to have your customers buy you the tools needed for increased production capacity. The big slipways and double gantry at H&W, for instance, should have been paid for by the Olympic class project. That way, H&W would have been in a better economic situation to bid on other ship construction--both large and small.

It is dangerous business to build something the size of the second Olympic Class slipway on the "if come." This sort of risk taking opens the company to potential bankruptcy resulting from a short-term economic slump that it otherwise might have survived. The best way is to embed the cost of expansion in current contracts--have the customer pay for the company's economic growth.

The logic behind this method of increasing capacity is the motivation for my suggestion that the two side-by-side gantries were intended to produce four ships over six years. That it did not happen was an accident of history. Not all human plans come to fruition. But, I cannot see H&W (or any other company) freely spending money on a second gantry and slipway if only three ships were to be constructed. A less-costly single slipway would have been just as efficient in terms of delivering the three completed ships. There was no economic benefit to either H&W or White Star to have two side-by-side building facilities for just three ships.

If only three ships were planned, then the cost of the second setup would have come directly out of H&W's money. White Star may have had a "cost plus" deal with the shipbuilder, but those costs were confined to the actual hulls delivered and not to the aggrandizement of H&W. White Star had to pay for the building of one gantry and slipway, else none of the ships could have been constructed. But, two gantries were not necessary as the second one would not have increased the speed of delivery of just three ships. It is only if four vessels were desired in the shortest possible time that the second gantry and slipway become a necessary expense within the White Star "cost plus" contract.

Once constructed, the second gantry and slipway was H&W's to do with as it pleased. There was nothing to prevent the company from working on other ships using those building facilities so long as it met the White Star contract regarding the Olympic Class ships. This would particularly have been true during the final phases of the contract when only one vessel remained to be completed.

-- David G. Brown

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

David,

The slipways were Lord Pirrie's plan right from the beginning. To get JP Morgan involved in the White Star Line, to build the Olympic class ships, especially his "child" Olympic. Those slipways came in useful just 2 years after Titanic sank. From 1911 to 1938 H&W used the numbers 401 to 1000. Quite a few ships indeed (although some cancellations are included in these numbers. I believe it was Pirrie's intention to build more larger ships for different Shipping companies.

By 1960 the Arrol Gantry was not used for Canberra (1621) Slipway No. 14 was used.

Pirrie was intent on having the world'd largest shipyard, largest dry dock, build the world's largest ships etc.

He was almost bankrupt when he died....

Best regards

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

The name of the fourth ship was to be Homeric, it was to be a replacement for Britannic.

Lord Pirrie was bitterly disappointed when HA Sanderson announced that he could not the need for such large ships at the present.

This was after the Olympic was refitted in 1920.