Titanic The Ship Magnificent


D

David Bubb

Guest
Ok, I don't mean to beat a dead horse with the whole prop issue, however, the one photo above shows what appears to be the entire center assembly. Would any cargo hatch on TITANIC been large enough to allow these to be placed on board or did it too, like the wing props, come apart? Also, is there any other indication, besides the above mentioned postcard that Daniel mentioned, to suggest what day the ship was dressed? I realize in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, however, it does make me curious. Thanks again for any insight in advance.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Unfortunately I can not remember where I read it too that the ship was "dressed" earlier (4. April 1912). But there is another "indication". You can find them in the letters of Steward Beedem in which he mentions that on Good Friday no one worked on the ship. You can find them in the book "Titanic Voices" Chapter 5.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
The centre prop was a single casting so I don't think you would see them come apart by deliberate design. The cargo hatch may well have been wide enough to take it but why assume that it did? No propellor pieces or units have been found in the cargo hold, none are on the manifest, and to my knowladge, no cargo was shipped from Belfast to Southampton on the Titanic.

The photo proves that they were present on the waterfront but that doesn't speak to how they got there or why they were there.
 

Kevin Keating

Member
Apr 1, 2007
44
1
98
Love both books, but have a question (that I forget if I've asked before):

In Vol. 1, in the plans located at the top of pgs. 32-33, I see annotations that even with a magnifying glass I can't make out but they might hold some promise (there are small areas that look like text arranged along some of the curves, but they have been scaled down so much that they just appear as a series of dots). Will these plans get the same treatment perhaps as the rigging plan, or could someone help me as to what these notations say?

Thanks!
 

Dieter Klimow

Member
Sep 24, 2006
68
1
98
Kevin,
on the 'real' plan it looks like this:

hw400401hbpwl.jpg

hw400401bpdecks.jpg


The writing identifies water line heights, buttock planes, deck sheer lines and so on. Even if you can not read it, it explains itself when you work with the lines plan. Almost every curved line in one view of the plan appears as a straight line in another, and you can derive the coordinates from that.

I think I can read above the profile plan:
SHEER AFT (AT A.P.) 4'-0"
SHEER FORWARD (AT STEM) 11'-10"
 
Mar 30, 2006
8
0
71
Hi guys,

I've got a couple questions, but first let me compliment the authors on these two awesome books! For a young Titanic enthusiast such as myself (I'm almost obsessed), these two books are the equivalent of the Holy Grail!

Okay, now to my questions:

Forgive me if it's already been asked or said in the books themselves, but I was wondering; what is the scale of the deck plans used throughout Vol. 2?

Also, this may go with the question I just asked, what is the numbered line running down the middle of these plans. I noticed that they start at the extreme ends and count down until they meet in the middle. Does this have something to do with the scale?

I'm trying to build a 3D model, inside and out, of the Titanic and these deck plans are the best ones I have available to me. Obviously knowing the scale would help out a great deal.

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer!

P.S. For an example of the type of plans I'm asking about; see pages 186-187 of Vol. 2.
 

Nick Howes

Member
Aug 13, 2009
5
0
71
The History Press have confirmed to me today that the updated 3rd edition will be out (in the uk at least) week commencing 5th October 2009

regards

nick
 
Jan 17, 2002
58
7
158
Hi, Nick,
Most of the Titanic plans are quarter inch scale. A quarter inch is one foot. Bruce has other plans as well that draw the ship at various compressed scales. So do I. Bruce Beverage and I go back to 1996. I use a slide rule to convert drawing scales to real numbers. That's just part of this business. A circular slide rule is faster than an electronic calculator in converting dimensions from one scale to another. You need to be old to understand that.

Nick, I think you wrote me about getting blueprints to the Titanic. I answered and got a note back saying I didn't do something right. Try again.

Regards
Roy Mengot
 

Dieter Klimow

Member
Sep 24, 2006
68
1
98
Count me in. I was born in '69, but I have one and know how to use it, although I never had to. From what I have heard, those who used them regularly could do everything with them in no time at all.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,487
1,758
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Hi Michael.

Thanks for that link. I owe you one the next time we get to see one another. It's been almost 3 years now since Toledo.

As you may know, the 'Banjo' was used to set up the firing angle for the torpedoes. The 'Is/Was' was used in solving the approach phase of the attach. Both became backup devices after the TDC came into use at the beginning of WW-II.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Thanks for that link. <<

I kind of figured you'd appriciate it. The Historical Naval Ships Vistors Guide is an absolute gold mine of information on historical documents and tools. See http://www.hnsa.org/index.htm

>>I owe you one the next time we get to see one another. It's been almost 3 years now since Toledo.<<

With luck, the Great Lakes Historical Society will make it's ambitions to move to Toledo and take over the Willis B. Boyer happen. I don't know when our group will be able to get together again. Soon I hope. Even when the subject matter is controversial (As some of it can't help being) there's more real research and discussion going on there then just about anywhere else.

Besides, I miss Tony Packos!
grin.gif


>>As you may know, the 'Banjo' was used to set up the firing angle for the torpedoes.<<

Heard a few things about it. Mighty useful to have when the hardware didn't work.
 
Oct 31, 2012
6
1
33
I got this book as a Christmas present. It is without question one of the best Titanic books I've ever read. It's information about the intricate details of the ship, particularly the cabin styles, is certainly unparalleled.

However, one minor criticism I have about the book is that the authors say that J.J. Astor was in one of the unremarkable forward C-Deck cabins, and not C-62/64, without offering any proof to backup that assertion. I think that saying they weren't in one of the parlor suites because they wanted to "avoid attention" is extremely weak reasoning. I'm guessing that most of the other first class passengers didn't know or care that C-62/64 was a luxurious parlor suite. From the corridor, its doors would have looked the same as any of the other cabins in that area of C-Deck. The people who sailed on Titanic weren't like those of us who have studied it, meaning that they didn't know the ship like the back of their hand. The moment they boarded the ship was probably the first time that most paid any serious attention to her, and I have trouble believing that your average first class passenger would have known that C-62/64 was a luxurious suite. Whereas we can walk the decks in our sleep, the ship would have been a brand new and unfamiliar place for virtually everyone on it. Also, I doubt your average person would hang around in the corridor so that they could get a glimpse of who was going into a particular room. That would be very bizarre and socially unacceptable behavior. Implying that reporters and passengers would have looked for them in "more obvious places" like a special stateroom or parlor suite just doesn't fly to me because I just don't think that most passengers would have had any idea that C-62/64 was one of the four most luxurious cabins on the ship. It looked no different from the hall than any other cabin when its door was closed.

I think that the reason that many believe that Astor stayed in C-62/64 is because the price he paid for his ticket was almost identical to what the Straus party paid for the other C-Deck parlor suite. According to this website, the Astors paid £247 10s 6d for whatever cabin they occupied. By comparison, the Straus party paid £221 15s 7d for the starboard C-deck parlor suite of C-55/57. Aren't those prices fairly close? The Astors had one more person in their party (a nurse, in addition to a maid and manservant), so it makes sense that theirs was slightly higher. Regardless, both parties paid fares that were much much higher than what most first class people paid.

If Astor was in one of the unremarkable forward C-Deck cabins, then why was his fare so high?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads