Chris Mazzella
Member
Post Titanic Refit
- Thread starter Chris Mazzella
- Start date
Mark Baber
RIP
The New York Times, 13 March 1913
CALL OLYMPIC UNSINKABLE
---
Builders Have Placed Inner Hull in White Star Liner
---
By Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Telegraph to The New York Times
---
LONDON, March 12---A Belfast dispatch to The Evening News says:
"One of the most wonderful shipbuilding feats ever known has nearly been
finished on the White Star liner Olympic. The nature of the work has
thus far been kept secret, but I am now able to say that Harland & Wolff
are constructing an enormous steel shell inside her hull. It extends
nearly the full length of the ship, from No. 3 bulkhead forward to
the rear turbine room aft.
"If she collided with an iceberg, as her sister the Titanic did, and
her hull were ripped oft by a slanting blow she would not sink. The
inner hull would keep her afloat almost as if nothing had happened. It
would be the same if she ran into a submerged rock.
"Harland & Wolff's naval architects believe that they have realized the
quest of an unsinkable ship."
-30-
CALL OLYMPIC UNSINKABLE
---
Builders Have Placed Inner Hull in White Star Liner
---
By Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Telegraph to The New York Times
---
LONDON, March 12---A Belfast dispatch to The Evening News says:
"One of the most wonderful shipbuilding feats ever known has nearly been
finished on the White Star liner Olympic. The nature of the work has
thus far been kept secret, but I am now able to say that Harland & Wolff
are constructing an enormous steel shell inside her hull. It extends
nearly the full length of the ship, from No. 3 bulkhead forward to
the rear turbine room aft.
"If she collided with an iceberg, as her sister the Titanic did, and
her hull were ripped oft by a slanting blow she would not sink. The
inner hull would keep her afloat almost as if nothing had happened. It
would be the same if she ran into a submerged rock.
"Harland & Wolff's naval architects believe that they have realized the
quest of an unsinkable ship."
-30-
Again with the unsinkable statement. With the "egg on the face" that White Star would have been left with by letting the "unsinkable" concept perpetuate in relation to Titanic,this article surprises me - Do we really think that H&W's experienced architects would have used these particular words or is it just another case of the media twisting and exagerating things?.
I know that following Titanic, Olympic recieved a number of changes, namely safety related ones, but what about interior ones? I know she got a cafe Parisien like Titanic. What else was changed? I know originally Olympic lacked the A deck cabins near the aft grand staircase, were those ever added? And any other major interior changes. Thanks!
Tim Aldrich
Member
I recommend the book "Olympic, Titanic's Sister" by Mark Chirnside. It will tell you just about everything you would want to know about Olympic.
Augusto Félix Solari
Member
While reading Walter Lord's "A night to remember" it mentioned that Andrews was plannig to divide Titanic's unpopular Reading and Writing Room into deluxe suites. Does anybody know if that plan was carried out in Olympic or Britannic?
Mike Spooner
Member
Did they lose some coal bunker capacity. If so how much?
Yes, the Olympic recieved this change during her refit, and Britannic it was standard in the design. Also, note that Olympic recieved a cafe Parisien during her refit. Much like Titanic. However, Britannic lacked this feature as the A La Cart restaurant was extended the full width of the ship. The reception room for the restaurant was also enlarged compared to Olympics. Titanic didn't have an actual "reception" room for it, just an open area near the aft grand staircase. Interesting indeed...
Were Olympics and britannics water-tight bulkheads raised higher after the Titanic's disaster? I know they both received double hulls after the disaster, however, did the ship builders ever thought about the bulkheads? Because it was the low bulkheads that did Titanic in, we all know today the water just spilled over the top into the next compartments. If they never raised her sisters bulkheads, then what did the ship buildings thought what sunk titanic in regards to her design?
Steven Christian
Member
Not to sound too sarcastic but the ship builders probably thought..."don't run our ships into icebergs and avoid hitting mines". It wasn't so much the design... it was more they way they were operated. After the design changes and improvements it didn't do Britannic much good...she sank twice as fast as Titanic did. Olympic had a long career with basically the same design.
Steven Christian
Member
Yes they addressed those changes in Olympic and Britannic. But Britannic had changes even more than Olympic. I'm not a big fan of the guys style who made the video below but he does present interesting info on a lot but not all changes made to Britannic. You might give it a look. Cheers.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Also see here: Modifications_To_Olympic.
Stephen Carey
Member
Double sides weren't a good idea owing to the possibility of capsize, especially with coal burners where it wasn't easy to shut WT bunker doors in a hurry. Passenger ships nowadays don't have them for several reasons. With oil firing they were made WT and gave some protection against collision damage, but the stability problem remained.
The bulkhead height didn't really make a lot of difference other than possibly the time it took to sink - Archimedes Principle will out! The ship would stay afloat with any 2 adjacent compartments flooded or the 4 forward most as they were smaller. Any more and the ship may survive, but 5 or 6, not a hope.
Costa Concordia was an almost carbon copy accident. 5 or 6 compartments open to the sea and it's a mathematical certainty...
The bulkhead height didn't really make a lot of difference other than possibly the time it took to sink - Archimedes Principle will out! The ship would stay afloat with any 2 adjacent compartments flooded or the 4 forward most as they were smaller. Any more and the ship may survive, but 5 or 6, not a hope.
Costa Concordia was an almost carbon copy accident. 5 or 6 compartments open to the sea and it's a mathematical certainty...
Samuel Halpern
Member
Example of this was the Andrea Doria in 1956. within 15 minutes after being struck by Stockholm she took on a list of 25°. Half of her lifeboats became unlaunchable.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I understood that in the case of Andrea Doria, one of the factors that contributed to the rapid big list was the fact that her fuel tanks were almost empty as she had reached the end of her voyage,. After the collision, the ruptured starboard tanks flooded rapidly while the largely air filled port tanks' increased buoyancy made the list worse.
Am I right in thinking that Captain Calamai did not have time to close the WT doors in the starboard bulkheads before the flooding made that superfluous? Were there any WT doors in the logitudinal bulkhead that ran the length of the ship? Was there a possibility of opening them?
