Al, Lester's comment was intended only to be helpful. As you've found, there are websites which have the generalised early plans for the Olympic-Class ships, but the actual layout for Titanic was different in many ways and that's surely a useful thing to know when you're using deckplans to 'find your way round' a ship.
>>are you saying that the changes are not on the plans lester<<

It appears that the original posts which started this discussion has dis-appeared from this thread. I recall that there was a link to some general deck plans which were of the Olympic as completed, but wich were confused for those of Titanic. This is an all too common mistake made by a number of websites where the webmasters have the idea that the two ships were carbon copies of each other even though they weren't. Other then having the same hull and machinary, they were...internally...very different ships with the Titanic incorperating a number of changes deemed to be improvements. Quite a common practice in shipbuilding even today as there is always the pressure to do things a little bit better then befor.

I have seen copies of the actual construction plans for the Titanic which had builder's notes on them which indicated revisions, corrections and changes. Unfortunately, none of these have appeared on any websites that I'm aware of. Revised general plans...yes...but not the revised construction blueprints.

Some ambitious webmaster might want to have a go at it!
Hello Nicholas,

As noted by Michael the post to which I replied as well as the post to which Bob replied were both somehow deleted by Al [whatever his name was???] after we had posted. My post was [as suggested by Michael] in response to a set of blue-print deck-plans that Al seemed [if I recall correctly] to be saying were Titanic deck plans. I believe it may have been this web-site: http://www.abratis.de/sources/pictures/blue.html - If not a web-site with similar plans.

As you can see the plans do not represent Titanic as she was.

Michael, do you know where the copies are that you saw?
Michael,regarding "changes to be a little bit better".A lot of these changes wouldv'e been mandatory.The learning curve on the prototype is very long.The olympics were built using the single plt method, the "meccano set"mentality.When arc welding was introduced this started pre-fabrication & boats were designed to be "shipyard friendly".Consequently the erection sequence was paramount.In the 70's new dept's were formed in H&W to try & establish this.Terms that had never been heard before e.g.critical path analysis,schedule & the model were bandied about.Two 840t cranes were built to handle these large weldments,but these cranes had several flaws in their lifting arrangement.They could only move their load N,S,E or W,they couldn't slew(twist)or tilt.This was discovered when they built the complete bow section of a super tanker,from the cofferdam to the bulb & from the keel to the upp dk,about 600t all up.When this was lifted to everyone's surprise the dk was lying on the you know what of about 5 degs.The only way out was to try & counter balance with skips full of scrap,dozens of them.I wouldn't blame you for saying "that shouldn't happen in a shipyard with over 150 yrs experience",but it was the first time,had never been attempted before.There were quite a few 00PS'& other yards learned from these.For about the last 20 or so yrs you could only choose one of three varieties of boat from H&W,in any colour you liked "AS LONG AS IT WAS BLACK".
When a cadet draughtsman was recruited from uni or the belfast college of technology,he was told by the chief "forget everything you know son,down here you do it my way".As a result of this all drawings were done the same way,there was no confusion.The legend in the btm right corner explained what all the little symbols meant,e.g.the position of a manhole might not have been decided at the drawing stage,so there would be an acute in the vicinity & in the legend beside the acute "m/h in abeyance".There were dozens of these symbols & they were standard across all four H&W yards & probably in govan & southampton as well.
My point is,changes were made to accommodate ease of construction,with or without the owner's consent.
Several months ago fellow member,Scott Andrews asked me for a summary on how a frm was hot set.I have been busy building a boat with my eldest son.That is now complete & I have now got some leisure time back.
Those of us involved with boats & ships are no doubt aware of the expression,to describe someone of exceptional character,"they burned the scrieve after they made him",in other words,there is nobody else like him.Or to describe two people who are very alike,"they're off the same scrieve".
The scrieve being that piece of equipment produced by the mould loft which contains all the frm lines,bow lines,water lines,dks,flats,girders,shell butts & seams,tank top & margin.It was produced full size & the lines were cut into the board using a "scrieve"a wood cutting tool with the point turned down & sharpened.The lines were cut in to avoid them from getting rubbed out.The mould loft were expert at turning two dim lines into a three dim object.H&W employed joiners here,in S Africa & Australia it's platers(boilermakers).Why this was so I haven't a clue,but I would like to know.
In the area were the frm squad worked was the coal fired furnace,about 80'long & 10'wide.In front of this was the blocks.They were 6"thick 6'sqr,with 11/2"dia holes every 3"diagonally,2'above the ground,level with the btm of the furnace.There was 20 of these long x 4 wide,there was provision for these to be joined at two places on each side with recessed u shaped pins.At the other end of the blocks,& level with them was the scrieve.In the 50's & 60's frms were made from 4"x12"bulb angle.The bulb was on the inboard edge of the frm web & the 4"flg on the outboard to take the shell.All the holes would've been punched & the frm was then entered into the furnace on it's back.The frms either side of midships were dealt with first in pairs,port & star.Alternatively,fwd & aft.At midships the heel of the fwd frm faced fwd & the heel of the aft frm faced aft.There was a valid reason for this,the flgs had to be open set,over 90deg,or else the rivet could not enter as we approached the bow or stern.Whilst the frm was heating the plater & a helper made themselves busy lifting a set from the scrieve for the relevant frm.They used a hook,dolly & a fuller.A set was made from 1"x1/2"flatbar.Because the frm spacing was 30" there wasn't much change from one set to the next.
The set was then pinned & dogged to the blocks,leaving the edge of the set to be used clear to accept the frm from the furnace.At this point pins & dogs would be strategictly placed along the set,keeping the frm side clear.A pin was carrot shaped with one flat side,a dog was L shaped about 12"x 24".Pins were used to hold the hot frm hard up to the set & the dogs held it down on the blocks.The plater had ten helpers all well schooled on their tasks as speed was of the essence.When the frm was hot enougha long hook was inserted into one of the frm holes & the frm was dragged out using a windlass & snatch block.In titanic's day a device called a "wheese"was used to force the frm up to the set.This was half mooned shaped 11/2 plt with a long 11/2"dia bolt at it's crown & a long handle to accommodate four men who pulled on this.A hydraulic pusher was later used,much quicker with one man only.All the while the helpers where pinning & dogging,all on the bulb side as the plater & a helper was following the doggers using a different type of wheese to open the flg to it's relevant bevel every 4'water line.The loft supplied a bevel board for the plater to set his bevel gauge to.Water lines were transfered from the set to the flg & cut with a chisel.All done in one heat.
>>Michael, do you know where the copies are that you saw?<<

Roy Mengot has the set that I saw. He brought them along with him to the Topeka gathering four years ago. I had an opportunity to make copies but couldn't afford it at the time and had nothing to carry them in. Those things were easily 20+ feet long each.
Lester, you might find This Photo and This Photo of some interest as the give a sense of the scale of the builders plans. Roy had a box full of them all rolled up and stashed in his truck. If I'd known they were going to be there, I'd have brought along a *very* large suitcase or container to so I could have gone home with copies of my own.

Missed opportunities....
Bryan, at the time, the builder's plans were readily available from Harland & Wolff. This to my knowladge is no longer the case since all known surviving plans were turned over to the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum.

To reiterate a point made above, the copies I saw were owned by Roy Mengot.