Titanic's Blueprints


T

Trent Pheifer

Guest
I need to ask some of your rivet counters a question. Where is the best place to purchase Titanic's original blueprints. I have a smaller copy of them, but the writing is so small I can barely read it. I was also looking for one that had room numbers listed on it, so that I could put into perspective where everyone was. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-Trent
 
T

Trent Pheifer

Guest
Hey James,

Thanks for the information, I checked out the site. It is amazing. I had never seen that site before. I also checked out Triumph and Tragedy, also very helpful. Thanks!

-Trent
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,016
248
333
If you really want good, detailed plans and don't mind spending money, you could go to

http://www.titanic-plan.de

These plans are meant for modellers and are the result of years of work. I don't know how well they cover the interior but they are outstanding for exterior details.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
9
223
All,

If you hold off for a while, I hear there is another set of deck plans in the making. These are CAD plans as well, but unlike the Hahn plans, these are not meant for modelers, but are detailed general arrangement plans for every deck and room aboard Titanic.

The Hahn plans have some problems with accuracy; these plans should be much better. I have no idea when they will be released; they're still in the making.

In the mean time, if you contact National Archives and Records Administration (NY, USA), they should be able to make you copies of the deck plans supplied by H&W to the Limitations of Liability case in the US in 1914. These are the plans that Eaton and Haas used. The plans are the best easily available Titanic plans that I can recommend. Be sure to ask for copies of both sheets. I just asked for plans and had to order the two sheets separately. They’re inexpensive as well; it’ll probably cost you to get both sheets with postage for a little over US$10. All the cabins are numbered from all 3 classes.

Daniel.
 
J

Jason Vertin

Guest
Daniel or anyone...

Do you know who or what organization is creating these CAD plans?? The copies that are readily available for purchase are either very small, illegible, or inaccurate. You would think that there would be better (more detailed) copies of deck plans/blueprints available for purchase. Anyone have further suggestions??
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
9
223
Jason,

I can't disclose any info at the moment, but whoever is working on the plans is actually trying to make them as accurate as possible.

Other than that, I don't know of any plans that are correct. The best ones, affordable and accuracy-wise that I have seen are the NARA plans. They're not perfect either and have their mistakes of course ... but are better than most others I've seen out there, they're fairly big and you can see enough detail (no room arrangements though).

Daniel.
 
R

Robert Hahn

Guest
Daniel,

the Hahn plans are done AND they are still in the making. Any time new information comes up it will be put in. That is scientific research. So I am sure you have not the new and most accurate version. This is a research work and has to be updated at any time new info comes up. They can not be done some day. When I would say they are done, I would have lost interest in Titanic. I don't know why you take the impudence to say my plans have "problem with accuracy". The plans are the MOST accurate plans available, not THE accurate plans. Sure for someone new, who just step on the research that has been done by others before and copy my plans it would be easy to add a few little new finds and say “mine are better”￾, but till today I haven't seen anything impressive from you or from anyone else in this area.

So next time you better be careful with comments about the work of others without having done anything similar. Usually I don't answer to people like you who don't know when to keep their opinion for themself. But I can not let this one go as you affect the hard work I have done the past 5 years. Where is yours???

BTW it’s a shame you tell people the NARA plans are the most accurate plans. That shows you have not the slightest clue about Titanic's layout.

Robert Hahn
 
N

Nathan Good

Guest
Hi all,

I'm sorry, but Mr. Hahn's above comments are most unfortunate to say the least. It seems as though he has taken shots not only at Mr. Klistorner, but every member of the board. Either way it seems inappropriate and out of place on this board. It is unfortunate when the actions of a few people lower the caliber of discussion. Obviously Mr. Hahn has not spent enough time on this sight to realize the extensive research and knowledge brought forth by its members, including Daniel Klistorner. I particularly enjoyed your research article on the location of Molly Brown's cabin. As a regular visitor to the boards, I can attest to the high level of research and discussion that often takes place. It's important never to take the opportunities afforded to us by this site for granted.

Back on track: Although not complete plans, I find copies of the First Class Accomodations to be helpful. The copy that came with "The Titanic Collection" put together by THS is a good item to have. Locations of Dining Room furniture and cabin fittings are among those items clearly labelled on these plans. If memory serves me right, a copy of the full plans can be purchased at www.oceanliner.com. Hope this helps.

Nathan
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,641
457
453
Easley South Carolina
Mr. Hahn, speaking as a moderator; Daniel's opinions are just that...his opinions. You are of course quite welcome to rebut any such you believe to be inaccurate, however, please refrain from telling people to keep their opinions to themselves. So long as he complies with the Forum's rules and doesn't break any laws, he is as free to post what he likes as you are.

For more information, please click on Rules and Nettiqutte

Now with my moderator's hat off, I would welcome the input if you could point out the errors in the NARA material and any other for that matter. Being an owner of a set of your CAD plans, I'm well aware of the research and plain hard work you've put into them, and the respect you've earned for this work.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
9
223
Robert,

I'm sorry that I offended you, such was not my intention and I devoted very little of my message to "bad-mouthing" your plans, so as not to scare away customers.

One vital difference, which I did point out in my first post to this thread, is that your plans are for modelers -- the people who show the exterior of Titanic. From my understanding of Trent's post, he was after plans that would show him locations and numbers of rooms -- a general arrangement plan of Titanic. Your plans don't have this, and as a result, the best plans for Trent's purpose that I could think of were the NARA plans. Eaton and Haas copied (physically redrew the plans themselves) and copyrighted these plans, while the NARA plans have no copyright restriction on them. These are the only plans (aside from Eaton and Haas') which show room numbers for ALL the cabins of every class.

Robert I realize how much hard work you and Bruce had put into these plans, this is why it is unfortunate that mistakes still prevail. Some of these mistakes should have been avoided at the drawing board; others are of course due to recent new information.

I'm not new to this game, and I have been researching Titanic long enough (since 1996 — this would be my 8th year) to have a basic understanding of some of the things I'm talking about. I have researched measurements etc., especially for 1st class areas, so yes I'm aware of what I'm talking about when I pointed out where you may have made mistakes.

I do have an old-er version of the plans, so it may very well be different to plans you're selling now. However, just as an example from the versions I have: your widths of the boat deck forward grand staircase house are inconsistent even within your plan. This house was 11 frames (33 feet) wide, which should be 6.985cm at the 1/144 scale. None of your drawings have it at this length. The starboard profile view (with all the portholes etc.) on the front page has this house as 7.2cm. The top view plan on the same page has it as 6.6cm and on the following page for boat and A deck, the measurement range from 6.5 to 6.6cm for this space.

Also, the arched windows on the Boat and along A deck were 30 inches wide. That should be 0.529cm at the 1/144 scale, and you have them at 0.59cm -- as a result some fall into the wrong locations. There are a few other mistakes, like the private promenade is too short, which is why Ray Lepien had trouble putting it in the right place when he originally started his model. The window placements in the promenade are also in the wrong locations. I know that you got this arrangement from some plan, but in reality it was different, and photos don't lie. The window and door arrangement for the interior of Cafe Parisien is wrong, and one can see this when comparing to photos and other images.

There are other things, but I will not go on. Of course I'm nit-picking, and someone who wants a pretty plan of Titanic but knows nothing about it won't care if windows are too wide on your plans. However my understanding is that your main audiences are people who know something about Titanic, and people like me who nit-pick every detail. A promenade that has 10.16cm of exterior windows devoted to it is drawn to be only 9.5cm. This does create problems for modelers, such as Ray Lepien.

Robert I'm backing up my argument to show that I'm not just saying that these plans have problems for no reason, and that I have devoted research to this myself. I am very proud to have my copy of your plans; it is just unfortunate that some mistakes are present on my copy. Perhaps they have been corrected for future plans.

I did e-mail you privately about the mistakes that I found, which included other inaccuracies in addition to the above, on A deck with house measurements, and window layout at the aft staircase and fore cabins etc., but if I recall correctly, you had no intention of updating this information, at least not at the time when I e-mailed you, I realize you were/are extremely busy with your doctrine. If this is still the case, you may still be selling plans that have some errors.

Daniel.
 
R

Robert Hahn

Guest
Daniel,

first of all these plans are plans for modelers correct. And they were drawn originally in the scale 1:144. So when I am a
millimeter off somewhere, excuse me. You have no idea how all the plans from H&W are different in their layout. One plan says this
and the other that. And pictures don't ly, correct, but they don't give measurements either. I mean none to fit your tolerances.
What I complain about is, that you made a general negative comment about my plans in a public forum. These plans are the best plans
available for Titanics exterior. Show me other plans that show the fireplace pipe behind the 4th funnel, that was discovered by
Bruce Beveridge, the correct Marconi arrangement, the horizontal pipe between the first and second funnel, the correct porthole
configuration for the starboard AND portside, the waterpipe configuration of the 3rd funnel, I can go on here for pages and pages.

All these thing were discovered by Bruce an myself first. You find them nowhere in any plan commercial available. Other Titanic
entusiast hide their info or have stolen plans in their celar. We brought all the information together to give it to the public for
a reasonable price. What did H&W charged for copies of their plans when they were avalable before someone stole them? They cost
US$300 and did showed nothing a modeler can use. Yes they were mostly stolen. I am just back from the Ulster Folk & Transport Musuem
in Belfast and they have literaly less plans as I have. Very sad story.


> I do have an old-er version of the plans, so it may very well be
> different to plans you're selling now. However, just as an example
> from the versions I have: your widths of the boat deck forward grand
> staircase house are inconsistent even within your plan. This house was
> 11 frames (33 feet) wide, which should be 6.985cm at the 1/144 scale.
> None of your drawings have it at this length. The starboard profile
> view (with all the portholes etc.) on the front page has this house as
> 7.2cm. The top view plan on the same page has it as 6.6cm and on the
> following page for boat and A deck, the measurement range from 6.5 to
> 6.6cm for this space.

I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't know what plan you have, It was never ordered over me. Any object on my plan
is fixed in it's dimensions, none varies. You have to be more precise. BTW there are professional modelers out there who build
models with my plans, more as only Ray Lepien. None of them ever had a problem with measurment variation.

> I did e-mail you privately about the mistakes that I found, which
> included other inaccuracies in addition to the above, on A deck with
> house measurements, and window layout at the aft staircase and fore
> cabins etc., but if I recall correctly, you had no intention of
> updating this information, at least not at the time when I e-mailed
> you, I realize you were/are extremely busy with your doctrine. If this
> is still the case, you may still be selling plans that have some
> errors.

So you think I should stop selling plans. What is with Mr. Marshall. His beautiful paintings have many many mistakes, mostly the
older ones, because he drew them in a time, that information was still uncovered. He was a pioneer in Titanic research and still is.
Should he stop selling books or send out updates for free? Are the pictures in his new book corrected? I don't know.

Again show me other plans for modelers which do hold all the information mine have and I will quit selling plans. Show me
publication by others that do cover all the finds which are in my plans and which were available to the public earlier as ours.

I received your private emails and your suggestions were reviewed and put into the plans as long as they were correct and could be
verified.

Regards
Robert Hahn
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
7
0
<font color="#000066">Show me other plans that show...the correct Marconi arrangement

Robert,

I have not seen your plans, but I am interested in your statement above. Is there any chance that I could review that detail? Darf ich ihre Marconi-Gestaltung nachpruefen?

Parks
 
N

Nathan Good

Guest
Hi all,

Since my last post on this thread, an error in one of my recommendations has been brought to my attention. Anyone wishing to purchase the Titanic plans from oceanliner.com should take note that these are 'pre-alteration' plans drawn up before the changes to B-Deck etc.. They could in fact be more correctly labelled Olympic plans and may be such. Thanks to the person who pointed this out to me. Sorry for the error.

All the best,

Nathan
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
2
171
Speaking of deck plans. I was looking through the book Titanic and her sisters, and noticed that there are several plans of the Olympic post refit. The B-deck promenade was shortened and the Cafe parisian added. The ala carte restaraunt was widened to match the titanics also.

If the Olympic was changed internally to better handle passengers much like the Titanic, then why was the Britanics B-deck add a forward promenade? Wasn't the A-deck promenade enough?

DavidinHartford
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
9
223
Robert,

You are quite correct in that your plans show a lot more detail that no other single plan does. I was going to do a follow-up post, but this is my first chance. As I said, I am very proud to have my copy, and I do like to look at them and refer to them. Your plans have everything they should, just not always in the right location or frame, such as the A deck arched windows.

I'm not saying you're lacking detail or missing things, just that some measurements etc are off in some places. You should not stop selling them, you should rather correct mistakes that have been pointed out so the next time you can sell an even more accurate plan. Last I heard Bruce too had a list of things for you to fix up.

As for the grand staircase house and 33ft etc, I was referring to the boat and A deck main area devoted to the grand staircase foyer. This was located between frames 29 and 40 forward. This makes that area 33ft long, and thus just under 7cm in the 1/144 scale. The starboard plan on the very 1st page, that shows everything, has the width of this space at 7.2cm, whilst all the other measurements on the other plans for this very same space have it either at 6.5 or 6.6cm, which is at least 6mm different from the starboard view on the 1st page, and about 4mm off what it should be.

Photos can show you measurements. In most of them you can see the ceiling beams and how things relate to that, and from there you can get the correct locations of things. If the private promenade shows you 16 frame spaces ... there's no need to draw it at 15 (which on your plan is 0.635cm too short).

As I said, I am nit-picking, but I must agree your plan has the greatest level of detail I had ever seen, and for that reason I still like to refer for your plan. If a window is in the wrong place I can figure it out for myself, but at least it is there.

Ken Marschall’s work I spoke about as well, and got a slap on the wrist for that too ... right Parks?
wink.gif


As for his latest work, I can say that he got some of the grand staircase dome incorrect, as he did in his painting and the information he supplied for the 1997, and his 3D reception room is lacking some detail on the paneling, but that could be due to complexities of making it, or perhaps they discovered that Titanic didn’t even have that?

Regards,

Daniel.
 
R

Robert Hahn

Guest
Daniel,

I guess I know what you are telling about the measurement. Do you have any H&W plans? The Iron Deck plans, the Shell Plating plan and so on? If so then you will see that not everything follows the frames of the ship.

Again to bring it back to the point. I was and am upset about that statement from you that is general and not specific and lead to think the Hahn plans are bad:

"The Hahn plans have some problems with accuracy; these plans should be much better. I have no idea when they will be released; they're still in the making."

Accuracy is more as only measurements of various parts which are sometimes given different in any source that is out there. Then I have to make a good guess about them. Accuracy is also the layout of the vents, boat davits and so on.

For me the discussion is done. I said what I thought is necessary to clearify that point.

Robert
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
7
0
<font color="#000066">It is the same Marconi configuration that is shown on the TRMA web page in an article by Bruce Beveridge

Robert,

Thank you. I offered Bruce a little advice on that configuration when he first posted it and he declined it. He was comfortable with his conclusion and didn't need me adding to or changing it. Actually, it's fairly close to the actual configuration, closer than has ever been shown in print before, and probably good enough for most modelling purposes.

Parks
 
R

Robert Hahn

Guest
Parks,

I reviewed Brucs solution with wreck pictures from Woods Hole and other material before I drew them in and he is correct.

He usually has his reasons when he does things like he do. But if you have an article about your guess of the layout, please let me know.

Best
Robert
 

Similar threads