The Olympic v the Titanic

[Beverly J. Crowder]

Stuart, Who can we write to, to save the Normadic?

Beverly

 

[Sam Brannigan]

Stuart

I am having severe trouble with sending e-mail and wish you could somehow pass on my feelings about the "Nomadic".

I think that it is a disgrace that such an important part of the worlds maritime heritage should be treated like this.

Notwithstanding the Titanic, the fact that the last surviving ship from a line such as White Star, which was so important for the immigrant trade at its most crucial time, should be dying in the 21st century is a total disgrace.

I hope Senan reads this and can inform the relevant authorities in Cobh as to whats happening.

Lets bring the old girl back to "Queenstown"!

Sam

 

[Scott Cosso]

Its pretty simple why we hear of Titanic and not the Olympic. Let me ask some questions. What ship do you hear of more? Lusitania or Mauritania? Empress of Ireland or Empress of Britain? Andrea Doria or Cristoforo Columbo? And Imporator was the biggest ship after Titanic, have you ever heard of that? Titanic sank with a great loss of life and disappeared for 73 years so that captured the public's imagination.
As for Nomadic, I dont see how it can be left to be scrapped or something. I mean, that ship once floated side by side with the Titanic. 220 feet long, yeah thats big but can be repaired witha little time and effort. It can be an honorary tender when Titanic 2 comes out.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Scott, you make some interesting points. There is something about disaster that grabs everybody's attention. Not in every case though. How many people have heard of the Morro Castle? We have, but outside of those with an affection for liners, the list of those who have heard of this one is mighty slender.

As to the Nomadic, I can see all too easily how she can be scrapped. The Enterprise of WWII fame should have been a sure thing for preservation. Instead, she was scrapped.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Robert D. Lackey]

After the Titanic sank, the Olympic was withdrawn from service and a double hull was added. This feature was also added to the Britannic.

It's my understanding this modification to Olympic actually made it heavier than the Titanic.

The Titanic was slightly heavier than Olympic when it left for it's maiden voyage due to some changes made during the fitting out process.

It is true the Olympic got the most publicity during the building phase of the two ship. Some of the eary White Star publicity releases promote the Olympic alone. Later the Olympic and Titanic are promoted together.

The Olympic and Titanic were built side by side and the Olympic hull was painted differently than the Titanic at launch.

There is no chance the two ships could have been confused.

But it is interesting that Captain Smith did forget about the enclose part of A deck and some sources claim he said something to the effect "I'm no longer on the Olympic". But this can be explained and understood without discrediting Smith's ability to know which ship he was running.

He was under tremendous stress and shock at the time of the oversight due to the knowledge that according to Andrews the ship would sink and he and Andrews and few others realised that and how terrible the lost of life would be.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Stuart wrote: The Titanic left Southampton with hardly any fuss at all as compared to Olympic's maiden voyage in June 1911 which left with a great deal of publicity and full complement of passengers.

I said: Slight correction to Olympic's 'full complement' of passengers. According to the list there were somewhere around 1,300, which I have thought was respectable considering the times.

There were 1,313 passengers - 489 first, 263 second and 561 third, from memory.

Returning, there were 2,301 passengers: nearly full. So you could say 'Olympic was fully booked on her return maiden trip.' Sorry for the confusion.

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[kevin johnson]

so was Britannic as big as her two sisters

 

[Adam Leet]

As far as length, yes. Width? She was two feet wider than her sisters (someone with more knowledge can answer why.) As far as tonnage, though, she was the heaviest of the three, with over 48,000 tons. This was because of the added changes, such as double skin, extra w/t bulkheads, shade deck on the stern, enclosed well deck, gantry davits, etc.


Adam

 

[Mark Baber]

As far as tonnage, though, she was the heaviest of the three, with over 48,000 tons.

As used to measure merchant ships, tonnage doesn't refer to weight, it refers to volume, with one ton equaling 100 cubic feet. Britannic's 48,000 tons means that her volume was 4,800,000 cubic feet, it says nothing about her weight. The weight of a ship, the measure most commonly used for naval vessels, is called "displacement".

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Britannic's displacement at a draft of 34 feet 7 inches was given as 'over 53,000 tons' rather than the roughly 52,000 tons of Olympic or Titanic.

Her projected gross tonnage was 50,000 gross tons, but her final tonnage was 48,157.9 gross tons. It has been speculated that the projected gross tonnage might have been met had she been properly completed, as there were apparently some features of the ship regarding the deckhouses that were not essential, but would have been added had the ship entered passenger service. Myself and Remco Hillen and Michail Michailakis had a debate about this a long time ago.

Out of interest, Britannic's net tonnage was 24,592 tons. So by net tonnage she was the largest of the 'Olympic' class, by gross tonnage she was the largest and by her normal displacement she was the heaviest.

As to Britannic's width, her hull's extreme width as I understand it (from memory) was 94 feet. Britannic's metacentric height needed to be checked, because of additional weight in her superstructure; her width had been decided in 1911, to make sure the ship was as steady as Olympic. Titanic's metacentric height was a little less.

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Well, I am glad that apparently helped.

Regards,

Mark.

 

[ADeblois]

Her projected gross tonnage was 50,000 gross tons, but her final tonnage was 48,157.9 gross tons

According to a very reliable source (Britannic's actual registry document) her gross tonnage was not 48,157.9 gross tons but actually 48,197.9 tons, so nearly 48,200 tons. If you have a copy of Mark Chirnside's book The "Olympic" Class Ships: Olympic, Titanic, Britannic, the registry document for Britannic is in the color section.

Here is a picture of the registry document itself from the book (I will upload a close up of the registered gross tonnage figure soon)

Here is what the registry document shows: all measurements in tons

Under tonnage deck = 18,176.35
Space or spaces between decks
- upper = 6,866.08
- middle = 5,619.34
- lower = 5,145.35
Forecastle = 218.86
Bridge space = 3,679.67
Upper deck = 3,480.29
Promenade deck = 2,664.48
Poop = 333.46
Deck Houses = 799.21
Spaces for machinery, and light, and air, under Section 78 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 = 1,214.78

Adding all the tonnage figures above gives you the gross tonnage figure below:
Britannic's Gross Tonnage = 48,197.90

 

[Mark Chirnside]

According to a very reliable source (Britannic's actual registry document) her gross tonnage was not 48,157.9 gross tons but actually 48,197.9 tons, so nearly 48,200 tons. If you have a copy of Mark Chirnside's book The "Olympic" Class Ships: Olympic, Titanic, Britannic, the registry document for Britannic is in the color section.

Thanks for the reference - much appreciated. The extract shown in the book was chosen because it is the page with the interesting notation in red ink that Britannic's registry was now closed because she had foundered. You'll see the dark red stamp 'For Change of Tonnage see next page'. On the next page (not reproduced in the book), the deck house figure has been amended to 759.21 tons, not 799.21 tons. So the final GRT came in at 48,157.9. The final registered tonnage or NRT also came in at 24,592.24 rather than the original 24,632.24.

Best wishes,

Mark.

 

[ADeblois]

Thanks, Mark. I absolutely LOVE your book on the "Olympic" class ships. I love pouring over it for technical data on the Olympic, Titanic, or Britannic (the latter which is my favorite of the three sisters). I am currently working on a scale-up Britannic, the Regalic. She will be over 50,000 GRT, and over 900 feet long. She will incorporate the best features of Britannic as well as some pointers from Cunard's Aquitania (Ship Beautiful). Oh...by the way...would you happen to know Britannic's under deck tonnage figure (just the hull)...I read on Norway Heritage's website that Olympic's and Titanic's was 35,043 tons, but I haven't been able to find Britannic's.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Thanks for your kind comments. As regards her under deck tonnage, I am rather exhausted from a tiring day at work and the gym. However, a quick calculation later and I made it 35,807.15 tons. That includes the 'under tonnage deck', 'space or spaces between decks', 'turret or trunk' (specified as 'upper, middle and lower' decks in Britannic's case); and excludes the forecastle, bridge space, promenade deck, poop and deckhouses. I may be mistaken in my adding up - I would have assumed it would be a bit higher than that vs Olympic. But even 800 tons or so makes up a significant chunk of the 1,800 GRT or so difference between Olympic (1913) and Britannic (as completed).

Best wishes,

Mark.

Thanks, Mark. I absolutely LOVE your book on the "Olympic" class ships. I love pouring over it for technical data on the Olympic, Titanic, or Britannic (the latter which is my favorite of the three sisters). I am currently working on a scale-up Britannic, the Regalic. She will be over 50,000 GRT, and over 900 feet long. She will incorporate the best features of Britannic as well as some pointers from Cunard's Aquitania (Ship Beautiful). Oh...by the way...would you happen to know Britannic's under deck tonnage figure (just the hull)...I read on Norway Heritage's website that Olympic's and Titanic's was 35,043 tons, but I haven't been able to find Britannic's.