Titanic steaming ahead at 225psi?


Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
Hi y'all.

I was reading the Inquiry Transcripts and I found this.

4383. Perhaps I might just ask you this as there is a statement about it. Did you hear, or do you know at all from your No. 4 section what was the pressure of steam you were to get to?
- 225 lbs. steam.

4384. Was that the order?
- That was not the order. That is what steam there was.

4385. 225 lbs.?
- Yes.

4386. You must explain it to me; how do you know that?
- By the gauge.

4387. Do you mean you read the gauge yourself?
- Yes.

4388. The gauge would be near the boiler?
- Alongside the boiler.

I recently fund a plan of Titanic's that show 215psi.
1633957586689.png


Examined by Mr. SCANLAN.

4397. Are you quite sure that you noticed on the gauge an indication of 225 lbs. steam?
- Yes.

4398. Do you know that those engines are only designed for a working pressure of 215 lbs.?
- No.

4399. The boilers, of course, you are referring to?
- Yes.


Why were they having the ship proceed at 10 pounds of pressure over the designed amount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
Hi y'all.

I was reading the Inquiry Transcripts and I found this.

4383. Perhaps I might just ask you this as there is a statement about it. Did you hear, or do you know at all from your No. 4 section what was the pressure of steam you were to get to?
- 225 lbs. steam.

4384. Was that the order?
- That was not the order. That is what steam there was.

4385. 225 lbs.?
- Yes.

4386. You must explain it to me; how do you know that?
- By the gauge.

4387. Do you mean you read the gauge yourself?
- Yes.

4388. The gauge would be near the boiler?
- Alongside the boiler.

I recently fund a plan of Titanic's that show 215psi.
View attachment 77826

Examined by Mr. SCANLAN.

4397. Are you quite sure that you noticed on the gauge an indication of 225 lbs. steam?
- Yes.

4398. Do you know that those engines are only designed for a working pressure of 215 lbs.?
- No.

4399. The boilers, of course, you are referring to?
- Yes.


Why were they having the ship proceed at 10 pounds of pressure over the designed amount?
Good question. They could have been over firing the boilers for various reasons. Might have been needed because some of the aux equipment could have been using more or the engines weren't as efficient as what was on paper.. 10 psi over is not that much. Around 5%. The safeties were probably set around 10% over so it wasn't a problem. Plus I' read somewhere (I think Mr. Halpern's paper) that the boilers were tested at almost double the working pressure. Sometimes we ran our system over 100 % rated. But you don't really want to do that for very long or often. It will catch up to you sooner or later. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Tim Aldrich

Member
Jan 26, 2018
145
128
88
Wisconsin
Mr. Christian pretty much said what I was in the middle of writing. The only thing I would add is to say that boiler temperature, and therefore pressure, would vary simply because they were doing it with coal fires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
Mr. Christian pretty much said what I was in the middle of writing. The only thing I would add is to say that boiler temperature, and therefore pressure, would vary simply because they were doing it with coal fires.
Yes true. Also being naturally aspirated boilers any change in air supply would cause a change. I will have to go look but I believe the fans for the spaces were either on or off. So any changing conditions like someone opening or closing a hatch could change the firing of the coal. But probably by very little. But I will have to check that as I could be wrong about that. I don't remember if the fans for the spaces had dampeners. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
Good question. They could have been over firing the boilers for various reasons. Might have been needed because some of the aux equipment could have been using more or the engines weren't as efficient as what was on paper.. 10 psi over is not that much. Around 5%. The safeties were probably set around 10% over so it wasn't a problem. Plus I' read somewhere (I think Mr. Halpern's paper) that the boilers were tested at almost double the working pressure. Sometimes we ran our system over 100 % rated. But you don't really want to do that for very long or often. It will catch up to you sooner or later. Cheers.
Ah, thank you Steven, and Mr. Aldrich!
I will have to go look but I believe the fans for the spaces were either on or off.
IIRC, they were on before the collision. The Ventilating fans, I think? I remember reading in ANTR that one of the engineers turned off all 45 (or something around that number.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
I was wrong about the on or off of the fans. Was re-reading the 1911 article of the "The Electrician" and this is what it said about the fans.

FANS.​

"An idea of the large demand for power will have been gathered from the numerous types of electrically-driven machinery already cited. A large proportion of this is taken by the fans, which number 76, and include 12 for the stokeholds from 40 in. to 55 in. diameter, and 64 for the ventilation of the accommodation, including both suction and delivery, the latter in some cases supplying warm air. The aggregate current taken for ventilating purposes amounts to 5,250 amps. The fans themselves are of Sirocco type throughout, manufactured by Messrs. Davidson & Co., and are driven by Allen motors, which latter are designed in accordance with Harland & Wolff’s specification, calling not only for hand control but also for automatic variation of speed to correspond with the particular system of trunks to which the fans they actuate are connected; this is very necessary, as, if running at a constant speed, they are liable either to be overloaded, or to fail to rise to the demands made upon them as, owing to the varying conditions, it is impracticable to determine beforehand the precise speed required for each fan.

The several stokeholds are supplied with air for boiler draught by means of the electrically-driven Allen Sirocco fans mentioned earlier."

The fans used about a half a megawatt. A good chunk of power but not quite 1.21 gigawatts. Sorry couldn't resist. If anyone is interested who hasn't already read the full article...link below.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
Awesome, thanks for the link Steven! Can't believe I somehow skipped over that the many times I've been to his website.
I was wrong about the on or off of the fans. Was re-reading the 1911 article of the "The Electrician" and this is what it said about the fans.

FANS.​

"An idea of the large demand for power will have been gathered from the numerous types of electrically-driven machinery already cited. A large proportion of this is taken by the fans, which number 76, and include 12 for the stokeholds from 40 in. to 55 in. diameter, and 64 for the ventilation of the accommodation, including both suction and delivery, the latter in some cases supplying warm air. The aggregate current taken for ventilating purposes amounts to 5,250 amps. The fans themselves are of Sirocco type throughout, manufactured by Messrs. Davidson & Co., and are driven by Allen motors, which latter are designed in accordance with Harland & Wolff’s specification, calling not only for hand control but also for automatic variation of speed to correspond with the particular system of trunks to which the fans they actuate are connected; this is very necessary, as, if running at a constant speed, they are liable either to be overloaded, or to fail to rise to the demands made upon them as, owing to the varying conditions, it is impracticable to determine beforehand the precise speed required for each fan.

The several stokeholds are supplied with air for boiler draught by means of the electrically-driven Allen Sirocco fans mentioned earlier."

The fans used about a half a megawatt. A good chunk of power but not quite 1.21 gigawatts. Sorry couldn't resist. If anyone is interested who hasn't already read the full article...link below.
 

Tim Aldrich

Member
Jan 26, 2018
145
128
88
Wisconsin
I was wrong about the on or off of the fans. Was re-reading the 1911 article of the "The Electrician" and this is what it said about the fans.

FANS.​

"An idea of the large demand for power will have been gathered from the numerous types of electrically-driven machinery already cited. A large proportion of this is taken by the fans, which number 76, and include 12 for the stokeholds from 40 in. to 55 in. diameter, and 64 for the ventilation of the accommodation, including both suction and delivery, the latter in some cases supplying warm air. The aggregate current taken for ventilating purposes amounts to 5,250 amps. The fans themselves are of Sirocco type throughout, manufactured by Messrs. Davidson & Co., and are driven by Allen motors, which latter are designed in accordance with Harland & Wolff’s specification, calling not only for hand control but also for automatic variation of speed to correspond with the particular system of trunks to which the fans they actuate are connected; this is very necessary, as, if running at a constant speed, they are liable either to be overloaded, or to fail to rise to the demands made upon them as, owing to the varying conditions, it is impracticable to determine beforehand the precise speed required for each fan.

The several stokeholds are supplied with air for boiler draught by means of the electrically-driven Allen Sirocco fans mentioned earlier."

The fans used about a half a megawatt. A good chunk of power but not quite 1.21 gigawatts. Sorry couldn't resist. If anyone is interested who hasn't already read the full article...link below.
I would like to direct attention to the lead photo in that article. Smack dab in the middle, overhead, is the shaft for the center propeller. Apologies for venturing even further from the original post.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
Awesome, thanks for the link Steven! Can't believe I somehow skipped over that the many times I've been to his website.
I should give credit to Bill Sauder who originaly posted that to the now defunct Marconigraph website. A lot of the pic links embedded have seemed to have gone away when I was there last. Too bad but that's the internet. Anyway there are some good articles archived there if anyone wants to have a look. Not sure what's going on with some of the archive sites as many of their saved pages have gone away also. I know this link has been posted many times before but might be new to someone. Cheers.