Encyclopedia Titanica

Maritime Terminology in 1912

Titanica!

   Join Us and Hide Ads

As with any account that deals with maritime matters, much use is made of terms and phrases that may be somewhat unfamiliar to the non-nautical minded person. Furthermore, some terms and phrases used in 1912 differed from those that are used today. In particular, angular directions and helm orders seem to be the most confusing.

Angles and Bearings

References to angular directions were usually given in compass points or degrees. In all, there are 32 points in a circle (360°), with each point precisely separated by 11¼ degrees from the next point. Included in the set of 32 points are the four cardinal points: north (N), east (E), south (S), and west (W); four intercardinal points: northeast (NE), southeast (SE), southwest (SW), and northwest (NW); and eight secondary-intercardinal points such as north-northeast (NNE), east-northeast (ENE), east-southeast (ESE), and so on. There is one secondary-intercardinal point located between each cardinal and inter-cardinal point.

On a typical compass card of the period, points were marked in the shape of triangles of various sizes and diamonds. Marks for ½ points and ¼ points were also put on the compass card as well as tick marks for degrees, the latter marked on the outermost scale of the card. In 1912, degrees were specified by quadrant such north with so many degrees east or west, or south with so many degrees east or west. As an example, a heading of 265° would be specified as S 85 W, while a heading of 305° would be specified as N 55 W. A typical compass card of the period showing a heading of N 22 E (022°) is shown in Figure 1.

Because the axis of the earth’s magnetic poles are not aligned exactly with the earth’s axis of rotation, the direction of true north typically differs from the direction of magnetic north, depending on where you are on the earth’s surface. This difference is known as magnetic variation. In the area where Titanic sank in April 1912, magnetic variation was about 24° west. What that means is that north on a magnetic compass with no other errors would actually point 24 degrees to the west of true north. However, because magnetic compasses are also affected by the distribution of iron and steel within a ship, they are also subjected to errors know as deviation errors that varied with the actual magnetic heading that the ship was on at a given time. These deviation errors were tested and somewhat compensated for when a compass was last adjusted. Typically, the remaining deviation error was only a few degrees, and was marked in a table or on a diagram that gave the deviation error in terms of degrees to be added or subtracted from the ship’s heading that was read off of the compass card.

When a ship’s heading to steer by was given it usually was specified in degrees as marked on either the ship’s standard compass or on a steering compass. The standard compass, usually mounted on the upper bridge or on raised compass platform, was used to steady a ship on a desired magnetic courseline and also used to take magnetic bearings of celestial objects and landmarks when needed. The steering compass was the compass by which the helmsman, the man at the wheel, used to steer the ship. It was located in an enclosed wheelhouse or in an enclosed part of the bridge. The difference between the ship’s standard compass heading and steering compass heading was noted and both course headings were marked on a course board in the wheelhouse or on the bridge.

Magnetic Compass
Fig. 1 – Magnetic compass showing a heading of N 22° E.

In modern times, courses are specified in 360-degree notation by three digits. For example, a ship heading due east true is said to be on a course heading of 090° T. With 24° west variation, the ship’s magnetic heading would be 114° magnetic. Since in 1912 the magnetic compass was marked in degrees by quadrant, a ship that was steadied onto a heading of 114° magnetic would be said to be heading S 66 E by standard.

Angular directions to objects were specified by bearings, either compass bearings or relative bearings. If a compass bearing was specified, it usually was given by reference to points. For example, an object sighted a half point to the west of the northwest (NW) intercardinal point on the compass would be said to be bearing NW ½ W. If sighted one full point to the west of NW, it would be said to be bearing NW by W. If sighted one and a half points to the west of NW, it would be said to be bearing NW by W ½ W. And if sighted two full points to the west of NW, it would be bearing on the secondary-intercardinal point of west-northwest (WNW). Similarly for other points of the compass.

If a relative bearing specified an angle to an object, it would be given in relation to the head of one’s own vessel. Unlike today, where relative bearings are a number of specific degrees measured clockwise from the head of the vessel to the object, relative bearings back in 1912 were almost always specified in points. For example, an object sighted exactly 22½ degrees to the right of the direction that the ship’s bow was facing would be said to be “2 points on the starboard bow.” An object sighted 45 degrees to the left of the direction that the ship’s stern was facing would be said to be “4 points on the starboard quarter” or “broad on the starboard quarter.”
The diagram below (Fig. 2) shows relative bearings in 1-point increments that were used at the time.

Relative Bearings
Fig. 2 – Relative bearings. (Taken from The Bluejackets Manual 1917.)

Helm Orders and Turning Directions

One area of great confusion to many people already familiar with most nautical terms such as “port” (left) and “starboard” (right) has to do with helm orders. In 1912 helm orders were the same as that which came down from the days of sail.

On a sailing vessel if one wanted to turn the vessel’s head to port (to the left) the tiller had to be put over to starboard (to the right). Thus the order would be given to starboard the helm. The tiller was firmly attached to the rudderpost, and putting the tiller over to starboard (to the right) would throw the rudder, which pointed aft, over to port (to the left). With the rudder over to port, the action of water running past it would create a force on the rudder that would cause the vessel’s stern to swing out in the opposite direction over to starboard (to the right). This in turn would cause the vessel’s head to turn to port (to the left), and the vessel would begin to turn in a circle to the left. Even when the steering gear of a sailing ship or a steamship was controlled by a wheel, to turn the vessel’s head to port the order would be given to put the helm, and thus the vessel’s tiller, over to starboard. To do this, the helmsman would turn the wheel to the left in a counter-clockwise direction. The opposite would apply to turn a vessel in the opposite direction.

It was not just helm orders that reflected the terminology that came down from the days of sail. When a vessel was seen turning to port (to the left), it was described as being “starboarded.” Think of it as describing the direction in which the vessel’s stern was swinging as a vessel was being turned. Similarly, if a vessel was seen turning to starboard (to the right), it would be described as being “ported.” The diagram below (Fig. 3) shows all this.

Port or Starboard Helms
Fig. 3 – Vessel under port or starboard helm.

Tonnage, Volume and Displacement

Another area of confusion is the topic of ship tonnage. Tonnage was usually expressed in gross registered tons and net registered tons. Gross registered tonnage (GRT) represented the total internal volume of a vessel, not its weight. One register ton is equal to a volume of 100 cubic feet. RMS Titanic was listed as a 46,328 GRT vessel. Her total internal volume was 4,632,800 cubic feet.

Net registered tonnage (NRT) represented the internal volume of the ship that was available for passengers and cargo expressed in register tons, where one register ton is equal to a volume of 100 cubic feet. NRT is obtained by subtracting the volume of non-revenue earning spaces (i.e., spaces not available for carrying passengers or cargo) from the ship’s GRT. RMS Titanic had an NRT of 21,831 tons.

A ship’s weight is specified by her displacement, which equals the weight in long tons of the volume of water that is displaced (i.e., pushed aside) by the vessel’s underwater volume when afloat. The weight of the displaced water equals the total weight of the vessel. RMS Titanic displaced 52,310 long tons of seawater at load draft. One long ton of seawater occupies a volume of about 35 cubic feet and weighs 2,240 pounds (lbs).

Lengths, Distances and Depth

Large distances were expressed in nautical miles (usually referred to simply as miles). Shorter distances were referred to as cables, yards or feet. One nautical mile is 6,080 feet, and one cable is 608 feet, or exactly 1/10 of a nautical mile. Since there are 3 feet in a yard, one cable is a little over 200 yards.

Depth was usually express in fathoms or feet. One fathom is equal to 6 feet. The depth of water that was marked on a chart was usually given in fathoms for some average state of tide, such as mean low tide. These length relationships are shown in Figure 4 below.

Measurement of distances at sea
Fig. 4 – Relationship between nautical miles, cables, feet, yards and fathoms.

Speed and Knots

Finally there is the concept of speed. The speed of a vessel was, and still is, expressed in terms of knots, with 1 knot equal to 1 nautical mile per hour. For a steamship, the average speed through the water was approximately proportional to the average number of revolutions per minute (rpm) carried on her engines, which in turn, were usually connected directly to the ship’s propellers by means of shafts and thrust collars. The conversion from revolutions per minute to speed in knots was a function of the pitch of the propellers (the ideal travel distance that the propellers would move in one revolution if there were no slippage through the water) and the amount of slip produced by the propellers at a given rotational speed (the difference between the ideal travel distance and the actual travel distance in one revolution of the propellers). The amount of slip depended on a number of things, including the resistance of the ship’s hull, which itself was a function of how clean the ship’s bottom was.

A table, called a slip table, showing the expected speed of the vessel as a function of revolutions per minute would be posted in the chartroom once that was worked out by measuring how long it took for the ship to advanced some known distance (for example a measured mile or other known distance) while carrying a given number of revolutions.

Derived Slip Table
Fig. 5 – Example of a derived slip table for an Olympic-class vessel.

Another measure of a ship’s speed through the water was by means of the patent log. The patent log ideally measured the distance traveled through the water over some specified time interval. On White Star Line passenger vessels, the log was usually reset at noon every day, and the ship’s quartermasters took readings of the log every two hours. The patent log used on Titanic was a Walker’s Patent Neptune Taffrail Log that was mounted on the rail of the docking bridge near the stern of the vessel.

Neptune Patent Log
Fig. 6 – A Neptune patent log.

The small dial on the left rotated once every nautical mile and was marked in tenths of a mile. The large dial in the middle rotated once every 100 nautical miles and had 100 units marked around the dial. The small dial on the right rotated once every 500 nautical miles and was marked in 100 mile increments.

Although calibrated in nautical miles, what the taffrail log actually measured was the number of revolutions of a finned rotor that was attached to the end of a long line as it was pulled through the water by the moving vessel. Its accuracy in recording nautical miles depended on how well it was calibrated at different speeds, when it was calibrated last, and its overall condition, including the attached log line and all internal parts.

It must be emphasized, that speed through the water was not necessarily the same as the actual speed-made-good of a vessel. For example, if a vessel was traveling at 15 knots through the water against a 1 knot head current, its speed-made-good would actually be 14 knots, something that would be noted by comparing the actual distance traveled relative to known landmarks or navigational fixes over a given period of time.

Today, the term “knots” has only one exclusive meaning, and that is nautical miles per hour, a measure of speed. Unfortunately, many seafarers back in 1912 erroneously used the term “knots” when referring to distances in nautical miles. Even in printed engine-room log books as late as the 1930’s you may see a column marked “Knots Run” to mean nautical miles traveled by the ship over a specified interval of time, or another column marked “Knots by Propeller” where someone would record the distance traveled in nautical miles based on the propeller’s pitch and the total number of propeller revolutions that were counted over a specified interval of time. Sometimes you may also hear sailors use the erroneous term “knots per hour” when referring to speed. Despite some of these misuses of the term “knots” by some seafarers, their true meaning can easily be obtained from the context of what they were saying.

Acknowledgements

(Reprinted from: Appendix-A, Strangers on the Horizon:  Titanic and Californian – A Forensic Approach, Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019)

Comment and discuss

  1. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    Thank you Phil for posting this article. My hope is that it clarifies some of the terms and phrases that were used back in the days, and gives further insight into the terminology used, especially to those who are new to the subject.
  2. Georges Guay Georges Guay
    HELM ORDERS given on British ships prior to 1934 were relative to tiller movement «irrespective» of whether steering was by tiller or wheel.The orders given by the Officer of the Watch (OOW) indicated the direction in which the tiller was to be moved or in which direction the wheel was to be turned; the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered.»https://www.navyhistory.org.au/helm-orders/
  3. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered.»So why were the wheel mechanisms on ships built in the 1880s and early 1900s rigged so that if they were turned counter-clockwise the tiller, which was attached via ropes and pulleys, would be thrown to starboard?
  4. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    NAVY DEPARTMENTWashington, D. C., May 5, 1913ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.1. On and after July 1, 1913, the present designations "starboard" and "port" governing movements of a ship's helm are hereby ordered discontinued in orders or directions to the steersman, and the terms "right" and "left," referring to movement of the ship's head, shall thereafter be used instead.2. The orders as to rudder angle shall be given in such terms as "Ten degrees rudder; half-rudder; standard rudder; full rudder;" etc., so that a complete order would be "Right--Half-rudder," etc.3. Commanders in chief and commanding officers acting independently may, in their discretion, institute the above changes at an earlier date.F. D. ROOSEVELT,Acting Secretary of the Navy.**************************************************************************NAVY DEPARTMENTWashington, D. C., May 18, 1914ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.1. This order supersedes General Order No. 30, of May 5, 1913, which should be marked "Canceled" across its face.2. The term "helm" shall not be used in any command or directions connected with the operation of the rudder; in lieu thereof the term "rudder" shall be used--standard rudder, half rudder, etc.3. The commands "starboard" and "port" shall not be used as governing the movement of the rudder; in lieu thereof the word "right" shall be employed when the wheel (or lever) and rudder are to be moved to the right to turn the ship's head to the right (with
  5. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    Just to point out that the steering gear in all the vessels of the navy was not changed. Only the orders given were changed.
  6. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    Another example whereby the only thing that changed was the set of orders given, not the steering gear of vessels:
    attachment
  7. Georges Guay Georges Guay
    So why were the wheel mechanisms on ships built in the 1880s and early 1900s rigged so that if they were turned counter-clockwise the tiller, which was attached via ropes and pulleys, would be thrown to starboard?What you are describing here is a Direct Wheel System; if you order the wheel counter-clockwise or to Port, the tiller is thrown to Starboard so the head will turned to Port. In a Tiller System, the Wheel-chain is rolled up the Barrel the other way around.[ATTACH type="full"]110359[/ATTACH]What this essay is suggesting is that Titanic was arranged with a Tiller System; the hydraulic piping (pressure/vacuum) being inverted, like the chain rolled up the barrel the other way around. The order Hard-a-Starboard was carried out by turning the wheel clockwise to Starboard, the tiller thrown to Starboard so the head would turn to Port. The reason for using a tiller system is that it allows preserving the Practice of the Past… while avoiding to leave the helmsman, the burden to decide which side to turn the wheel to achieve a tiller effect. The ultimate responsibility to decide in which direction the head of a vessel has to turn according to her steering system, rest in the hand of the OOW, not on the AB’s.Therefore, the most logic and trouble-free system if you wish to preserve the tiller order mode while avoiding confusion from the quartermaster, is to adopt the Tiller System. If the aim of the OOW is to turn the
    attachment
  8. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    From what I've been able to find, it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System" as you call it. A good article, with references, can be read here: A Note on Helm Orders After the Coming of Steam | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core
  9. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    See highlighted area in this report:
    attachment
  10. Georges Guay Georges Guay
    From what I've been able to find, it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System" as you call it. A good article, with references, can be read here: [URL='https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-navigation/article/note-on-helm-orders-after-the-coming-of-steam/95ADBFAF035D8BD5400D601A44E7FA66']A Note on Helm Orders After the Coming of Steam | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core[/URL]I don’t see where in your article that «it was the French who adopted the "Tiller System"». From what I can read, it is the exact opposite;«Prior to the French decree of 1874, the practice of French ships in relation to helm orders appears to have been the same as that of the English» «From Grimsby to the South Sand Head Light the English pilot had charge of the ship, and his order ‘port’ implies, according to the custom and practice of England, that the ship's head shall go to the right (starboard). From Dungeness to Le Havre the French pilot has charge and his order ‘port’ implies, according to the decree of the French Government, that the ship shall go to the left (port)» «According to the London Times 20th February 1884, the French ship Indus was navigating the Thames in the charge of a pilot. The pilot gave the order “Tribord” to which the French crew responded by turning the ship to starboard in accordance with the French usage. The pilot, of course, intended the ship to turn to port in accordance
  11. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    Sorry, the French apparently did not do that. I was thinking of the Frenchman who owned the yacht Stella who reverse the gear so that when the order came "port" they would turn the wheel to port. my mistake. Just before that it read, "He [the pamphleteer] seems to have been unaware that the French had effectively done this by decree in 1874 [changed the orders] but instead he stated that the French had corrected the anomaly in most of their ships by reversing their wheels so that they were turned in the direction of the given order – that is to say when the word “Port!” was given, the wheel was turned to port, the rudder and the ship turning to starboard."If the French had done as that pamphleteer suggested, then it would mean that the steering gear was was changed to the tiller system as you call it whereby, if the wheel was turned to port, then the tiller would go to port, the rudder over to starboard, and the ship turning to starboard. But that was not really done. It was the orders that were changed from the indirect order system to the direct order system that we have now.
  12. Samuel Halpern Samuel Halpern
    By the way, the writer of that Australian article is the one who got it wrong. What was shown in the 1997 movie was correct. In the indirect order system used back then, we see the helmsman turning the wheel hard over to his left after receiving the order 'hard-astarboard'. The opposite when he received the 'hard-aport' order. As Rear Admiral Tarwresey said, the top of the wheel moved in a direction opposite to the motion of the helm. Thus an order to put the helm to starboard meant that the wheel had to be turned to port as depicted correctly in the movie.The problem I find with articles such as the one written in that Australian naval historical society paper, is the lack of any references. He stated as fact, "the «helmsman was simply required to move the tiller or turn the wheel in the direction ordered." Move the tiller in the direction of the order, yes.; but turn the wheel in the same direction, NO.
  13. Georges Guay Georges Guay
    Who else could right? Sorry again but, if we are to believe the proof without the shadow of a doubt demonstrated in The Movie, Titanic was equipped with a Direct (reversing) System, not with a Tiller (indirect) System! A Tiller (indirect) System is what the Australian Naval Historical Society paper proposes.Again; ships were either built with a Tiller (indirect) System or a Direct (reversing) System.A vessel built with a Tiller (indirect) System is when the wheel was turned in the same direction as the order but made the vessel to alter her head in the opposite direction from the order. Graphically, the wheel or the barrel pulled the tiller in the same direction as the wheel’s turn.A ship constructed with a Direct (reversing) System, is when the wheel was turned in the direction opposite from the order but made the vessel to alter in the same direction as the wheel’s turn. Graphically, the wheel or the barrel pulled the tiller in a direction opposite (reversing) of the wheel’s turn.If she was built with a Tiller System; the builders did not endorse the International Law Association 1899 resolutions where all nations were members. If she was built with a Direct System; the Officers did not endorse the resolutions by allowing orders to be given in the opposite direction from where the ship had to head.The French adopted the Direct (reversing) System in 1874, The International Law Association resolved in 1899 that the construction of steering gear and orders to the
  14. Georges Guay Georges Guay
    [QUOTE="Samuel Halpern, post: 457834, member: 137378"]See highlighted area in this report:[QUOTE="Samuel Halpern, post: 457834, member: 137378"]See highlighted area in this report:[ATTACH type="full"]110361[/ATTACH]Here is a maritime anecdote over a Commander and Admiral of the Royal Navy Fleet.On June 26th 1959, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip officially opened the St-Lawrence Seaway on board the Royal Yacht Britannia, along with Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower and of several other dignitaries. Léon Balcer, a Progressive Conservator member of parliament for Trois-Rivières from 1949 to 1965 and several times Minister under John Diefenbaker, recounts his experience aboard during a docking maneuver of the Royal Yacht Britannia in Trois-Rivières under the conduct of Prince Phillip; «Waking up very early, I went up to the bridge where I had the honor of meeting Mr. Hamelin, senior compulsory maritime pilot of the Central St. Lawrence Corporation. We also chat amicably with the Commanding Officer of the royal yacht. The weather was fine as we approach my hometown, Trois-Rivières. The port authorities had erected a landing stage decorated with the royal coat of arms. Already, thousands of people from Trois-Rivières had gathered on the quays. At about a mile, Prince Phillip came up to the navigation bridge and announced to the master that he will dock the yacht
Open Thread Leave a Reply

Contribute

  Get in touch

Citation

Encyclopedia Titanica (2022) Maritime Terminology in 1912 (Titanica!, ref: #622, published 22 January 2022, generated 2nd December 2024 12:36:51 PM); URL : https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/maritime-terminology-in-1912.html