PostDisaster Refitting specifics


Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mike disch

Guest
Preface I know that Olympic had double keel extended higher up the sides, so it wasn't just a double keel, but a true double hull.
Question 1 Same for Brittanic?
Question 2 Any other refits? Were watertight bulkheads extended up higher? Were they capped off? My guess would be no, because because of the extent of changes required, but what the bloody hell do I know, I'm only the captain.
P.S. For those in the L.A. area, watch Vista L.A. on ABC Channel 7, May 11, some godawful hr of the a.m. for some video coverage of the L.A. Titanica Exhibit. Pass it on.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Hi Mike,

I've not been around for a while and I don't recall talking to you before -- nice to meet you. In answer to your questions, Olympic had a double *bottom* extended up the sides of the ship to form a double skin -- running for over half the ship's length. In 1913 she also had several watertight bulkheads extended up to the bridge deck, and these remained for the rest of her life. Several 1932/33 flooding analysis calculations are interesting in this respect.

Britannic essentially had the same sort of arrangement, although as usual I have not got the time to go into the specifics. Suffice to say, that broadly speaking she had the same double skin as Olympic, although her double bottom was somewhat improved.

With regard to Olympic, it's clear that she had plenty of refits, the first big one being 1913, the last big one 1933, and the last minor refit 1935.

There were tons of changes done to Olympic in 1913 besides the well-known inner skin and watertight bulkheads. Another bulkhead was added, dividing the electric engine room. The propellers were modified. Accommodation was altered. I could give an essay-length post, if time permitted, though I'm sure others have more time than me.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Mark -- Do you know at what forward bulkhead the double sides installed on Olympic began? Were they just in the way of the boiler and engine rooms, or did they go forward of bulkhead D?

-- David G. Brown
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Hi David!

The double skin extended from the forward side of the watertight bulkhead aft of the turbine engine room all the way forward to the aft side of the watertight bulkhead at the fore end of boiler room 6. I've had a quick check with the 1913 recomstruction plans and that seems accurate -- but let's face it, the electric engine room had water tanks at the sides anyway.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Mark -- Thanks, that's the information that I had, but I wanted a second opinion.

-- David G. Brown
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
No problem, David, glad I could help.

I'm intruiged [sic?] as to your line of thinking here -- might I be nosey and ask about it? (E-mail would be fine if the Board is too public.)

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Mark -- the board is not too public for my line of thinking. I just got curious. It would seem that the real trouble was ahead of bulkhead D. That's where the ship's single sides put it at risk, particularly in the turn of the bilge outside the margin plates.

-- David G. Brown
 
Sep 5, 2001
99
0
156
How was Olympic's 1913 refit paid for? Did White Star cover the costs, or was it Harland & Wolff? Was it paid with cash, or was there some sort of insurance coverage for the party who paid? Were there any disputes between WSL and H&W over the refit?

--NR
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Hi Nathan,

Offhand, I can't remember the method of payment. Even costs are sketchy, but seem to include around £156,000 for the safety modifications and the next £90,000 or more for the passenger areas; for a total around £250,000 which seems to be the generally accepted figure. That's all from memory.

As to disputes, it depends what you mean. Naturally, as you know, things were discussed and ideas tossed about, and selected. Could you be more specific?

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Sep 5, 2001
99
0
156
I'm wondering if there would have been a dispute over who would cover the costs of the refit, Harland & Wolff or WSL. I would presume that WSL paid for this, but I don't know for sure.

--NR
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Hi Nathan,

If there was a dispute then it is not well-known. Mind you, considering the number of things that should be well-known but are not, that might not be surprising. I can't see why Harlands would pay for the refit, as Olympic had been in service for a while by the close of 1912; I would go with White Star, without checking, but I'll be gladly corrected. It's never something that's occured to me.

Best.

Mark.
 
Sep 5, 2001
99
0
156
Mark,

I think what I'm getting at is this:

Did White Star say, "Hey, something is wrong with your ship design. It shouldn't have sunk. It should have been safer and had this...and this...and that!"

Or did H&W say, "No, you shouldn't have ran the ship into an iceberg. But we'll be happy to take your money to make additions!"

I would tend to agree with you that there is seemingly little reason for H&W to pay for the refit, at least by 1912 standards. But we live in an age of warranties, gurantees and what have you, where if there is a flaw in the vehicle or product, the manufacturer takes care of it. Given the status of H&W and WSL, it may be unfair to speculate on this topic. Any records are most likely long gone.

--NR
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
The answer may well be found in the financial pages of The New York Times or The Times. Both papers are indexed. I think IMM worked on a financial year ending March 31.

If I know Lord Pirrie, H & W didn't spend a penny on the alterations. The old fox would have done well out of it.
 

Remco Hillen

Member
Dec 13, 1999
322
9
263
Mark Baber posted a message which might be of some interest in the Olympic section; "Olympic, done over, once more in port"; dated the 10th of April.
The amount of money they mention there it $1,250,000.
I have some questions about that artical; but I'll post those in the Olympic section.

Regards,
Remco
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Hi!

Unless I'm mistaken, £250,000 would be $1,250,000. Dollars were worth about five times what a pound was worth.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads