Speed Coal etc


Status
Not open for further replies.

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
(I thought I'd create a new thread -- the old one was becoming too slow to download.)

Hi, David:

>Since history does not reveal its alternatives, I have no idea of what
>Ismay might have done on Monday. However, if the ship had only 1080
>miles to steam from "the corner," ...........

The 1080 mile figure was not from "the corner," though -- it was supposedly the distance from the *disaster site* to New York.

>.......at 22.25 knots it would have arrived
>in New York at 4:00 pm on Tuesday.

Again, my math ability is not the greatest, but my calculator shows that, at 22.25 knots, Titanic would have covered the 1080 miles (between New York and the disaster site) in 48.5 hours. Since Titanic stopped moving at roughly midnight on April 14, that means she would have arrived in New York at about 12:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, April 17. At 22.5 knots (which is the figure I used in my book), she would have arrived at midnight. With a Monday speed trial etc., she would have arrived late Tuesday night. To have travelled the 1080 miles and arrived at 4 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon, however, Titanic would have had to steam at 27 knots.

>That happens to be the time printed
>by the New York Times on Monday, April 15, quoting a wireless message
>from Titanic through the White Star Line.

Diana Bristow presented that tidbit in her first book in 1989, but I've always had trouble with the info. The NYT article says the message was sent to Sandy Hook, that Titanic was 1,284 miles east at 2:15 a.m. (presumably April 14), and that she was due to arrive at 4 p.m. Since Titanic was incapable of steaming at the necessary 27 knots to reach New York by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, though, could the Marconigram have actually meant that Titanic would pass **Sandy Hook** at 4 p.m.?

All my best,

George
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
George,

I am not aware of any other example in the pre-wireless DF days where a ship would report its Closest Point of Approach (CPA) to a wireless station; therefore, I don't believe that the wireless report listed in the NYT was confusing a NYC arrival time with a CPA off Sandy Hook.

That being said, however, I share your concern with the expected arrival time, due to the various reasons covered in this and the previous discussion thread. I'll add one more consideration:

Ships move in a medium that is separate from the earth itself. The calculated time to cover a certain distance through the water is different from that over the surface of the earth. It actually required more speed on Titanic's part to complete the final leg of her westbound run on time than a simple measurement of her projected track would indicate.

However, unless Titanic's message was spoofed by an amateur wireless operator or misprinted in the NYT, the ship evidently reported a 4pm arrival time. The challenge is how to explain the reason why that report would have been made. Someone has to be incorrect...either those of us nowadays who contend that Titanic could not have made a 4pm arrival, or the unknown person (and without a signature, there is no evidence that that person had to be a Titanic crewman) who authored the message claiming that Titanic could.

Parks
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
George --

Beg your pardon on the 1080 miles. I read your message correctly, but had a "senior moment" when my brain processed it. I still think the ship was a bit farther from New York, but the amount is really insignificant for this discussion.

I have a copy of the New York Times page on which the wireless message is printed. My copy comes from a microfilm in the Cleveland (Ohio) public library. Some of it is smudged, but it plainly says Titanic will arrive 4 pm on Tuesday.

If the 1080 miles distance is correct, Titanic had about 41 hours 20 minutes to race from the accident site to New York. (11:40 pm accident + 40:20 steaming + @ 1 hr time difference.) As you calculated that would have required a speed of 26.25 knots.

Speculation is risky business. However, let's tread on thin ice. If Titanic had begun its 24 knot burst of speed at "the corner" approximately 5:00 pm on Sunday, what then? My numbers show that it could have arrived New York as early as 6:20 pm on Tuesday. This makes me think that Ismay wanted to begin full-speed on Sunday afternoon, not Monday, and was dissuaded by Captain Smith. The Baltic memo contains the two reasons for being cautious: Ice and Coal.

Ismay waffled to the U.S. hearings about the planned arrival time, stating only the official scheduled time on Wednesday and "forgetting" the Tuesday arrival printed in the New York Times. In that part of the questioning he was trying to give the impression that the ship was fast (needed to sell tickets on the two remaining Olympic Class ships) without admitting any excess speed for the conditions. That's a narrow tightrope since the sinking of the ship proved it was going too fast for conditions. By placing the high-speed run on Monday, Ismay avoided discussion of speeding through the known ice on Sunday evening. Again, he didn't quite lie because all possibilities are true about events that didn't happen.

Now, to walk on water with no ice for support. Here's how speculation can get you into trouble. If Titanic had been capable of 26 knots, it could have gone from "the corner" to New York in time for a 2:30 pm arrival, or about a 4:00 pm docking. Weight and beam are the two factors that most affected Titanic's speed. In fact, the ship was narrow (roughly 1:10 beam to length), and it was lightly constructed. We know the latter because discussion of its scantlings (weight of materials used) was an issue during the British hearings. Add to that Ismay's obvious expectation of some sort of high-speed flourish to end Titanic's maiden voyage. Could it be...(eerie music here)...that Titanic was really a 26 knot ship? Ah, that way madness leads. But then, we don't really know the true indicated horsepower of the engines. We only know the published horsepower. Ask any Navy man the diference between what's published in the public press and the truth about warship speed.

Back to reality. I'm still convinced that based on the facts, Captain Smith should have been concerned by the status of his bunkers. And, the Baltic memo regarding Deutschland being out of fuel was a perfect opportunity to bring Ismay into focus on this matter without offending "the boss."

To me, the importance of this whole issue lies in the relationship between the ship's de facto co-captains. Smith was master of Titanic, but Ismay was master of Smith. That was not a good combination on the bridge of a damaged ship without enough lifeboats in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

-- David G. Brown
 

Pat Cook

Member
Apr 26, 2000
1,277
6
313
David wrote: > Could it be...(eerie music here)...that Titanic was really a 26 knot ship?

As you mentioned, David, sometimes the publications may boast a bit but here's something I found recently. I picked up aome aquaprints of the 'De Luxe Atlantic Service', circa 1920's. In it there are prints and descriptions of Majestic, Homeric and Olympic. According to this, the Olympic has a normal speed of 23 knots. This, after all the refittings (thanks for that note, George!). This was faster than I thought the Olympia style ships were capable of, as a normal speed that is.

Thought I would pass that along.

Best regards,
Cook
 

Pat Cook

Member
Apr 26, 2000
1,277
6
313
It just occured to me this may have been after the Olympic had converted from coal to oil (don't have my references handy on that).

Best regards,
Cook
 
Nov 5, 2000
245
0
261
66
Hi Dave, hi Parks

You wrote about gulfstream:

Then add a variable...Titanic was running against the Gulf
Stream, which usually runs 0.5-2.5 knots.

Right.

I made similar calculations last year. When you start from the place of the desaster you have about 1 knot stream against the direction for 800 miles. When you continue aproaching NY Harbour you leave the gulf stream. Instead you have a Labrador current of about 0.5 knots in your back for the remaining 300 miles.

One can estimate roughly an average of
(-1 * 800 + 0.5 * 300) / 1100 = -0.7 knots against ships direction.

2 .. 2.5 knots are found between Miami and Cape Hatteras.

source:
Monatskarten für den Nordatlantischen Ozean Nr. 2420
Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie
Hamburg 1998 Rostock

Markus
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
David wrote:

>I have a copy of the New York Times page on which >the wireless message
>is printed. My copy comes from a microfilm in the >Cleveland (Ohio)
>public library. Some of it is smudged, but it >plainly says Titanic will
>arrive 4 pm on Tuesday.

Hi, David!

I didn't mean to imply that I questioned the existence of the article itself -- I just meant that the *information* it contains has given me a few sleepless hours. (That doesn't happen much any more, though -- nowadays I doze off at the drop of a hat; as Geoff Whitfield can testify, that's what happens when a person gets old.) :)

All my best,

George
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
George--

I certainly did not mean any offense with my wording about the New York Times article. Its existence has known for years.

Sherlock Holmes said that when you remove all of the likely possibilities, what remains even though it seems highly unlikely must be the truth. Our problem is to remove all of those likely possibilities. Ah, the game is afoot. The real attraction of Titanic is the enigma wrapped inside all the mysteries.

-- David G. Brown
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
In reference to the speculation about the Olympic class really being 26-knot ships, let's look at the record of the lead ship of the class:

Olympic completed the westbound leg of her maiden voyage in 5 days, 16 hrs, 42 minutes, at an average of 21.7 knots. She bested that time on the return leg (helped by a following current and with all 29 boilers lit), averaging 22.5 knots. By comparison, the converted oil-firing Olympic made her fastest crossing in 1922: 5 days, 12 hours and 39 minutes.

If Olympic was a 26-knot ship, then she took that secret with her to the grave.

To match Olympic's maiden voyage crossing time, Titanic would have had to dock on the afternoon of the 17th. To better it, a morning docking on the 17th would have been sufficient.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Dave,

I had never before considered that the face on Mars was tied in to the JFK assassination, but thanks to your post, I now see the connection! Quick, somebody call the Discovery Channel!!

Parks

P.S. This joke was in no way meant to be disrespectful to our late President, who died 37 years ago today. I'm poking fun at the myth, not the actual event.

P.S.S. I also meant no disrespect to Dave, an author whose ideas I respect greatly. If Dave has any failings, it's in his unreasonable belief that people apply common sense to resolving problems. I thought newsmen were more cynical than that. :)

T.S.S. Triple Screw Ship
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
Bill --

Your eye caught more than mine, but I have not looked as critically at the book.

In defense of authors...there are several errors in the first editions of my book that "appeared" between the time the text left my computer and when it went to press. These will be corrected in the second edition, along with some plain boneheaded mistakes by the author. Everyone is human and some us more so than others.

Photo captions seem to be the biggest target for errors because they are usually last-minute details in the production. Once, a publisher asked me to write captions for an entire "coffee table" photo book. I had about a week to get the job done. The only problem was that the publisher had no details about the photos and the man who shot them was on safari in Africa! Now, that was creative writing.

There is a serious side to this. Anyone who is doing research has to realize that just because something is in print, that does not mean it is correct. And, even if something has been repeated in every book since the world began, it can still be wrong.

--David G. Brown

I don't believe people always act rationally. If they did, Titanic would be a hotel in Long Beach. My belief is that people follow the patterns of their lives even during emergencies.
 
Nov 5, 2000
245
0
261
66
Lightoller, Pitman, Ismay - are they telling the truth ?

Hello George,

This post is not quite up todate. Last Sunday or Monday i saw with pleasure that your final
results about the arrival time in New York came quite close to my own results, so i saw no
necessity to interfere.
Last year i had hard fights with Susanne Stoermer about the Tuesday-Afternoon-Hypothesis,
which seemed after rough calculations unbelievable to me. It took me all my strength and my
power to calculate this down without mercy.


Now about the questions in your post, which are still waiting for answer:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. I am not sure about 21.5 knots. Lightoller said at any opportunity
>that the speed
>was 21.5 to 22 knots. (no specification whether over ground or through
>the water)

Yes, I know. For what it's worth, though, Pitman testified that Titanic had been making 21.5 knots for most of the 24 hours prior to the collision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as a ship is actually on its way the skippers cannot tell precisely the speed.
This depends on revolutions, current, wind, smooth sea or rough sea.
So they rely on their experience and say, considering all that items mentioned:
Probably the speed is somewhere between this and that. This is what Lightoller said.
To find out what the speed was indeed they need stellar and solar observations. They knew
afterwards how much they did, but never how much they were doing.

To assess whether Lightollers and Pitmans testimonies are correct i propose to look on the
daily runs of the Olympic as given by Simon Mills. To calculate the speed out of these
one has to be aware that the clock was set back every night by about 48 minutes.
Reason: The Titanic stepped forward 12 degrees longitude every day.
12° * 4 minutes = 48 minutes.

..........===Olympic===
..........mileage speed....time for speed calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. day....483.....20.6.....23.5
2. day....534.....21.5.....24.8
3. day....542.....21.9.....24.8
4. day....525.....21.2.....24.8
5. day....548.....22.1.....24.8

..........===Titanic===
3. day....546.....22.0.....24.8


I will set aside the first day, because this was not a full noon-to-noon day. The clock was
changed in a different way. (I am going to explain this in detail on another place.)

The average speed out of 2..5 is 21.7 knots, as Simon Mills has written.
Lighttollers statement 21.5 .. 22 knots is all right. At last we know that he is talking
about speed over ground.

What about Pitman, 21.5 knots during the last 24 hours ?
--------------------------------------------------------
What the Titanic exactly was doing he could not tell unless he knew the result of the
astronomical observations taken in the future.
I don't know whether he knew Lightollers position from 7.30 p.m. Sunday evening.
I don't know even whether he was on the Olympic on former trips.
May be he referred to the experience he gained from the Olympic and figured like this:
The Titanic made 22 knots from midnight til Sunday noon. The remaining 12 hours he relied
on the runs of Olympic, which made 21.2 knots. The average of 22 and 21.2 is 21.6 knots and
there we are. One cannot blame a sailor because he missed the speed by 0.1 knots.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All i can say is that your figures do seem to make sense but that I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling your numbers with the testimony of the Titanic's
officers (who seem to have thought -- or at least *claimed* -- that Titanic was travelling slower than your figures indicate she actually did.) On the
other hand, though, none of the surviving officers breathed a word about any speed increases that Titanic underwent during those last few hours, so I
guess we shouldn't necessarily take their word about anything as gospel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I perfectly agree with you. In the opposite, one should consider why the officers said
what they said. Susanne once told me: "One has to be careful with Lightoller, because he is
not always telling the truth. On the other hand he takes much care not to lie."

We have evidences from Beesley, Stengel and Barrett that the speed was increased. I do not stick
on the time. It doesn't matter whether the revolutions where increased after noon or at 7 pm.
Why did Lightoller not mention it ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...none of the surviving officers breathed a word about any speed increases that Titanic
underwent during those last few hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May i be allowed to ask a question to you:

Why should Lightoller breath words about things which nobody asked him for.
Lightoller said in the american testimony that he relieved the captain at 1 o´clock.
Asked about the speed at that time he said 21,5 .. 22 knots.
By my own calculations i found the average speed from noon to the disaster 22.1 knots
over ground or 23 knots through the water. Nobody asked Lightoller to specify this detail.


Eighty eight years of discussions show clearly that the increase of speed was suitable to
arouse high suspicion.
In german we say: "Keine schlafenden Hunde wecken!"

That means:"Do Not alert unnecessarily sleeping dogs!"

......(Hello Maureen, Tracy, i noted you understand German. Maybe you can give us a better translation.)

I can understand Lightoller.

Ismay
-----

Ismay said in his american testimony:
... as far as I am aware, she never exceeded 75 revolutions.
Senator Newlands asked: "What speed would 75 revolutions indicate ?" Ismay: "I should think
about 21 knots."

With my own calculations out of the first three day mileages and revolutions (70,72,75 rpm),
and taking into consideration the currents i found that 75 rpm correspond to 22.4 knots.

Asked for a statement whether Ismays testimony is correct i would answer (in german): "JEIN!"
Don't get a dictionary, you won't find it. It is a combination out of "Yes" and "No".
It means: Frank and from the first point of view 21 knots is not correct.
But thinking hard and putting enough interpretation upon one can find it is quite reasonable.

Ismay was neigther an engineer nor a sailor. He was a merchant, and he wanted to provide a
service with these requirements:

Departure ..Daunt Rock: .........Thursday, 3 p.m. english time, 10 a.m. New York time
Arrival ....New York Ambrose: ...Wednesday 5 a.m.
Time for passage: 6 days less 5 hours = 5 days 19 hours = 139 hours.
Speed = 2889 seamiles / 139 hours = 20.8 knots, round 21 knots.

Because of the gulf stream the minimum speed through the water is about 21.5 knots.
(daily currents estimated: -0.2, -0.4, -0.4, -1.0, -1.0, +0.5)
This applies for fine weather. Nobody can guarantee 6 fine days while crossing the atlantic.
Waves and storm are suitable to slow down the ship.
Solution: Use the fine days to save time by fastening 1 or 2 knots
(Olympic: 21.7 knots average over ground, 22.2 knots average through the water).
If all days are fine, than one can slow down the revolutions at the end of the journey.
If the last two days are rough, waves and storm will eat up the saved time, and hopefully
the ship arrives timely at 5 a.m. at Ambrose.

So the engineers will tell Ismay they have to design a machinery for at least 22 knots,
or better 22.5 knots to guarantee the average service speed of 21 knots. This machinery
makes 22.3 .. 22.5 knots through the water at smooth weather conditions.

And Ismay keeps in mind that he needs 75 rpm for 21 knots service speed.
So from his point of view his statement is correct.

On the other hand, Ismay gave all mileages and revolutions for the first three days.
The sum of his numbers and the 260 miles from the log (which IMO should have counted 270
miles ) meet exactly the distance from Daunt Rock to the wreckage. Presumed the information
about the clock was available as well (it was, Hitchens gave 47 minutes for the fourth night),
nothing more was necessary than take the mileage, divide by time and the knots will fall out.

Ismay gave all the information i needed to reconstruct mileages and speed as if i had found
the logbook.


all my best


Markus

P.S. Saw that you all left the engine room to go to Californians bridge to take some fresh air.
Probably because of coal dust and heat unbearable. Let's see how much time it takes to get you back here.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Markus,

Die Luft an Bord Californian ist muffig, so habe ich hier zurueck gekommen. :)

I do not exactly understand what your argument is. If you're saying that the message sent via Sandy Hook with the Tuesday 4pm arrival time might have been sent by Ismay, without direct input from either Smith or Boxhall, then I would agree with you. In my opinion, that is a possibility. I believe Smith was attempting a Wednesday morning arrival.

Parks
 
Sep 12, 2000
1,513
6
313
Dear Markus,

Am very pleased that you feel that I know german based on my feeble attempt. I have only about 2 years of high school German, while tracy has had much more than I. But I stand amazed at your ability to write such detailed posts.

Tracy's version is probably the more common usage by Americans at least for what you wrote above "Let sleeping dogs lie."

Thanks again for your posts.
Enjoy your day.
Maureen.
 
Nov 5, 2000
245
0
261
66
Hi Parks

i am not sure whether there is missunderstanding.
I do not argue for the Tuesday-afternoon. It was impossible.

My question is whether it was for any reason important to reach NY as fast as possible.

I am searching for a sensible reason for Ismay to prohibit Smith to take one of these precautions:

a) slow down between 49 and 51 long. west, 90 seamiles,

b) continue course 240° degrees at the corner until altitude 41°30', which is the revised south route from 1913.

Delay for a) 90 sm / 22 knots = 4 hours; 90 sm / 15 sm = 6 hours; -> delay 2 hours.

Delay for b), deviation 30 miles to south: because of the flat crack at the corner the total distance from Corner to Ambrose increases from 1214 sm to
1225 sm. Delay with 22 knots for ridiculous additional 11 miles: half an hour.

IMO it is a matter of entirely indifference
whether the Titanic reached Ambrose half an hour later than 10 or 11 of 12 pm.


So it was not Ismays decision to steam through the ice field.
But it was Smith's decision to think it was not necessary to steam around.

So far my arguement.

All my best

Markus
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Markus,

The reason for Titanic's track has always been a subject of controversy and with the lack of comprehensive evidence, one can only speculate.

I agree with you in your speculation that Ismay did not order Titanic through a known ice field. I also agree with your speculation that Smith felt he had a navigable passage through the ice barrier.

I do believe that Smith was determined to better the Olympic's maiden voyage crossing time, because it makes good business sense in the context of the industry at that time. It also appeared achieveable, as long as the weather remained clear.

I also feel that I know the reason why Smith decided to delay turning the "corner," but I prefer to save that for another time.

Parks
 
Nov 5, 2000
245
0
261
66
Hello Parks, - about Olympics mayden voyage

Thanks for your remarks.

You say Titanic intended to beat the time of Olympics mayden voyage. OK. But i wished i knew
what she as going to beat then. What i found until now about Olympics mayden voyage looks a little
bit queer.

I refer to Simon Mills "Olympic - The Old Reliable". He writes:

"... the performance of the engines was the most pleasing aspect of the voyage, with daily runs
of 428, 534, 542, 525 and 548 miles. By the time the Olympic tied up at pear 59 in New York, the
statistics of the voyage added up to a journey time of 5 days, 16 hours and 42 minutes and an
average speeds of 21.7 knots...."

So far.
Two years reading books about Titanic tought me not to believe anything before i calculated
it for myself. The total mileage from Queenstown/Daunt Rock to New York Ambrose i calculated
several times and found always 2889 miles.

After several books about the Blue Riband my understanding about the passage time was that
these times are taken between two points where the ships can steam at full speed, e.g.
Plymouth/Eddystone to New York/Sandy Hook or Queenstown/Daunt Rock to New York/Ambrose.
The Ambrose lightship was established 1909, as far as i can see from Blue Riband statistics.

Now back to Olympic. 5 days 16 hours 42 minutes are 136 hours 42 minutes = 136.7 hours.
Average speed: 2889 miles / 136.7 hours = 21.1 knots ! This does not equal 21.7 knots.

On the other hand, after i understood the priciples how that bloody Titanic clock was changed,
1 h 50 min in the first night and 46..50 minutes in the subsequent nights, i can calculate
the speed for the 2nd to the fifth day by dividing the daily mileage by 24.8 hours.
The speed varies from 21.2 til 22.1 knots. The average is indeed 21.7 knots, as stated by
Simon Mills.

The first days run is as far as i can see the mileage from Fastnet Rock to next day noon.
So i have to add 55 miles to get the distance from Queenstown/Daunt Rock to next day noon
and get 483 miles. If i did not, the Olympic would reach the corner not at 5.15 pm Sunday,
but much rather at 8 pm. Some officers on the Titanic were wondering because the Titanic
rounded the Corner at 5.50 pm instead of 5 or 5.15 pm. Obviously the Olympic used to round
the Corner earlier than 5.50 pm.

Now the total average speed of the journey is 21.1 knots, but the average speed of the
four noon-to-noon-days is 21.7 knots, which is perfectly believable for me.

The four noon-to-noon days cover (534 + 542 + 525 + 548) = 2149 miles.
The total time interval of these four days consists of four 24-hour days and
3 times 48 minutes because of clock retarding in the night.
Result: 4 * 24 h + 3 * 48 min = 96 hours 144 min = 98 hours 24 min, lets say 98.5 hours.

What was her speed before and after the four high speed days ?

.......remaining mileage = 2889 - 2149 miles = 740 miles

.......remaining time = 136.7 h - 98.5 h = 38.2 hours

.......speed: 740 miles / 38.2 h = 19.3 knots!

When the numbers of Simon Mills are correct, the Olympic did not intend to be as fast as possible,
she just was in time and slowed down after the fifth day was finished.

Estimated arrival time:

I don't know when she "departed" (...hello Tracy!...) in Queenstown.
Lets say Thursday 2 pm G.M.T. or 9 am E.S.T.
( Titanic started at 2.40 pm at Daunt Rock, as i can follow from a statement of the
general attorney in the British enquiry.)

Olympics journey lasted 5 days 16 hours 42 minutes, lets say 5 days 17 hours.

So the Olympic arrived at 2 am Wednesday morning somewhere, i think at Ambrose.


Now i found a queer remark in the book "The Titanic Conspiracy" of Robin Gardener and
Dan van der Vat, which troubles me a lot:
They said, that Olympic arrived early on her mayden voyage. It was for some reasons
painful when ships arrived early. Therefore Olympic masked her early arrival by wasting a lot
of time between Ambrose and Ellis Island.

Again I am troubled:
I thought these passage times were counted til Ambrose, not til Ellis Island ?

On the one hand it is painful for the Olympic to arrive early, on the other hand
Titanic can not afford to steam 30 miles south, which would her make half an hour late ?

I don't understand anything about anything anymore!

Dear Parks, George, Dave, Bill,

you are nearer to the sources than i am.
Is there any reliable evidence where and at which time that lazy-crazy Olympic arrived ?

a) at Ambrose
or b) at Sandy Hook
or c) at Ellis Island
or d) at Pier 59

all my best

Markus
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Markus,

I am in the same place as you. I have been hazy with my figures because I don't know all of the times needed to perform the calculations exactly. All I have to go on at the moment are rough estimates and a sense that for business purposes, Titanic was required to beat Olympic's previous time to New York. I believe that the official time was measured from Fastnet Rock to the Ambrose Lightship; at least, it was for at least one other shipping Line.

Because of this conversation, though, I have have begun digging and asking questions to see if this information can be determined. I'll let you know if I have any luck. Hopefully, someone else on this list will chime in with their research.

Parks
 
Dec 29, 2000
111
1
263
Dear David,
get your calculater at hand, and follow my research. Here we go:
A railroad steam engine, like to one which I had stokes this summer, needs about 1 ton (1000 kilo gramms) coals at one hour.
with some load at its hook and a driving speed of 100 kilometers per hour this can easily reach coal amounts of 2 tons per hour.
If we go on tour, we consider one and a half ton per 100 kilometers.
But at full power and with full load our engine can need up to 3,5 tons per hour. Reports are alos present, which mention that some boilers exceed 3 tones quite well, which leads in USA to mechanical stokers, because humans will not stand a load of 4 tons per hour in 4 hour stoking shift.
So now we consider 3 Tons per hour for each funance on Titanic per hour. I think this is not much and I guess they will have to shouvel much more into the boilers.
so Titanic has 29 boilers, 24 with two ends.
so we get 24 x 2 = 48 + 5 = 53 funaces. ( I have reports of more than 150 funances, but I considered only 50 funances)
Well, as Titanic was running full power, I guess only three funances were not used, as reserve if other had to be closed or were under maintainance.
So we will calculate with 50 firing places, each with approximately 3 tons per hour:
50 x 3 tons coal = 150 tons for one hour.
The day has 24 hours, so 150 x 24 hours is 3600 Tons of coal for a single day. Now you can consider how much coal Titanic needed, if we consider 100 funances, and each only 2 tons.
If Titanic was 5 days at sea, with engines at this power levels, we can consider 3600 tons x 5 days = 18000 tons for this travel.
So I cannot agree with Bill Saunders. But I can easily agree with the over 5000 tons in a bunker as amount for one day steaming.
So just for you: This a real facts and they were considered more carefully, as you can see. Because I found and based it onto self experience with a steam engine boiler, and with that you see how much coal the boilers will need for full power. And I found only 3600 tons per day, mentioned was nearly double for a single day...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads