|
Post by paul on Jan 7, 2017 10:45:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 7, 2017 13:35:35 GMT
was on Channel 4 the other day.
White Star directors had a choice - delay the maiden voyage and lose all credibility, and go bankrupt, or risk everything and race across the Atlantic before the coal burnt itself out.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 7, 2017 14:52:38 GMT
Bunker fires were not that unusual in late 19th and early 20th centuries. and emptying the bunker into the boiler fires was not an unknown way of dealing with it. If a weakened bulkhead gave way after the collision it was just one more bit of bad luck to add to a very long list. Personally I reckon the Titanic sank because she had a Jonah on board (John Priest)
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 7, 2017 15:40:51 GMT
...... and there is the conspiracy theory that the damaged sister ship Olympic which may have become uninsurable (following a serious collision with a navy destroyer) was secretly rebadged as Titanic and then deliberately sunk to get the insurance money.
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on Jan 8, 2017 10:47:30 GMT
Bunker fires were not that unusual in late 19th and early 20th centuries. and emptying the bunker into the boiler fires was not an unknown way of dealing with it. If a weakened bulkhead gave way after the collision it was just one more bit of bad luck to add to a very long list. Personally I reckon the Titanic sank because she had a Jonah on board (John Priest) 8-) The outcome of the channel 4 program was that it would have still sunk but would have not sunk so quickly taking another few hours to go down and the nearby rescue ship would have been able to rescued all. As dealing with the fire was to chuck it into the boiler they wouldn't have had enough coal to make it across the Atlantic if they slowed down. What was more disturbing was what the owners of Whitestar did after the sinking to cover up the real reason why it sank, as the program didn't bring anything new up that the investigators knew at the time.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 8, 2017 11:17:25 GMT
Bunker fires were not that unusual in late 19th and early 20th centuries. and emptying the bunker into the boiler fires was not an unknown way of dealing with it. If a weakened bulkhead gave way after the collision it was just one more bit of bad luck to add to a very long list. Personally I reckon the Titanic sank because she had a Jonah on board (John Priest) The outcome of the channel 4 program was that it would have still sunk but would have not sunk so quickly taking another few hours to go down and the nearby rescue ship would have been able to rescued all. As dealing with the fire was to chuck it into the boiler they wouldn't have had enough coal to make it across the Atlantic if they slowed down. What was more disturbing was what the owners of Whitestar did after the sinking to cover up the real reason why it sank, as the program didn't bring anything new up that the investigators knew at the time. I am not totally convinced by that ...... My understanding is that Titanic had some 20 bunker spaces arranged in 10 pairs. If a bunker fire was in one compartment it could only lose 5% of it's fuel supply ..... and that is assuming you "lost" the coal. It was more a case of you were using it quicker than you would normally. Even if it involved both of a pair of bunker spaces we are still only talking of 10% of the bunkers involved about 600 tons ....... about the consumption for one day at 21 knots
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on Jan 8, 2017 11:43:09 GMT
The outcome of the channel 4 program was that it would have still sunk but would have not sunk so quickly taking another few hours to go down and the nearby rescue ship would have been able to rescued all. As dealing with the fire was to chuck it into the boiler they wouldn't have had enough coal to make it across the Atlantic if they slowed down. What was more disturbing was what the owners of Whitestar did after the sinking to cover up the real reason why it sank, as the program didn't bring anything new up that the investigators knew at the time. I am not totally convinced by that ...... My understanding is that Titanic had some 20 bunker spaces arranged in 10 pairs. If a bunker fire was in one compartment it could only lose 5% of it's fuel supply ..... and that is assuming you "lost" the coal. It was more a case of you were using it quicker than you would normally. Even if it involved both of a pair of bunker spaces we are still only talking of 10% of the bunkers involved about 600 tons ....... about the consumption for one day at 21 knots They just had enough coal when they set off to get to the other side as there was coal shortage, and the fire spread from one bunker to another. So the captain decided to keep going rather than slowing down when in the area of the icebergs as running out of coal was more of a stronger possibility. It was all to do with saving face for the star line company as it was losing competition and the titanic was already delayed which was one of the reasons they set off with a fire onboard as well.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 8, 2017 12:16:16 GMT
I am not totally convinced by that ...... My understanding is that Titanic had some 20 bunker spaces arranged in 10 pairs. If a bunker fire was in one compartment it could only lose 5% of it's fuel supply ..... and that is assuming you "lost" the coal. It was more a case of you were using it quicker than you would normally. Even if it involved both of a pair of bunker spaces we are still only talking of 10% of the bunkers involved about 600 tons ....... about the consumption for one day at 21 knots They just had enough coal when they set off to get to the other side as there was coal shortage, and the fire spread from one bunker to another. The Titanic (according to the records) had 5,892 tons of coal on board when she sailed, she burned about 650 tons a day at top speed ( just under 22 kts) 600 tons per day at normal service speed. Schedule was just under 7 days for passage. The Bunker spaces were divided along the ship between the boilers so that coal did not have to be moved far to feed the umpteen boilers (can't remember how many all told) I would have thought it not possible for a bunker fire to pass from one pair of bunkers to another as there is a physical gap between them. So as I said the fire could not have involved more than a small proportion of her bunkers, certainly not enough to have "run out". Even a very small reduction in speed would have reduced the consumption even further. Another thing I have seen bandied about was the idea that she was trying to set a record time for the crossing, this is also certainly false as she was considerably slower than the standing record at the time. The Titanic and the Olympic were built for the "Luxury" end of the market. Cunard ships held the speed record but at the expense of comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on Jan 8, 2017 12:26:12 GMT
They just had enough coal when they set off to get to the other side as there was coal shortage, and the fire spread from one bunker to another. The Titanic (according to the records) had 5,892 tons of coal on board when she sailed, she burned about 650 tons a day at top speed ( just under 22 kts) 600 tons per day at normal service speed. Schedule was just under 7 days for passage. The Bunker spaces were divided along the ship between the boilers so that coal did not have to be moved far to feed the umpteen boilers (can't remember how many all told) I would have thought it not possible for a bunker fire to pass from one pair of bunkers to another as there is a physical gap between them. So as I said the fire could not have involved more than a small proportion of her bunkers, certainly not enough to have "run out". Even a very small reduction in speed would have reduced the consumption even further. Another thing I have seen bandied about was the idea that she was trying to set a record time for the crossing, this is also certainly false as she was considerably slower than the standing record at the time. The Titanic and the Olympic were built for the "Luxury" end of the market. Cunard ships held the speed record but at the expense of comfort. The fire spread from one bunker to another as they were against the bulkhead, it was this bulkhead that failed (including eyewitnesses that confirm this) which caused it too sink so suddenly, if the bulkhead held it would have not sunk for another few hours. The program confirmed that is was false that they were not setting a record time for the reason you said.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 8, 2017 12:34:24 GMT
When the rescued crew members arrived in America the Americans wanted to investigate the sinking. White Star magicked the few surviving stokers out of the country and told the investigators that no stokers had survived. When those stokers gave evidence at the UK inquiry the matter of the bunker fire was sidelined by the judge who was, apparently, 'biased' in favour of protecting White Star's reputation.
Scary to think that a liner could consume 600 tonnes of coal in a day - all shovelled by hand.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 8, 2017 12:39:04 GMT
The Titanic (according to the records) had 5,892 tons of coal on board when she sailed, she burned about 650 tons a day at top speed ( just under 22 kts) 600 tons per day at normal service speed. Schedule was just under 7 days for passage. The Bunker spaces were divided along the ship between the boilers so that coal did not have to be moved far to feed the umpteen boilers (can't remember how many all told) I would have thought it not possible for a bunker fire to pass from one pair of bunkers to another as there is a physical gap between them. So as I said the fire could not have involved more than a small proportion of her bunkers, certainly not enough to have "run out". Even a very small reduction in speed would have reduced the consumption even further. Another thing I have seen bandied about was the idea that she was trying to set a record time for the crossing, this is also certainly false as she was considerably slower than the standing record at the time. The Titanic and the Olympic were built for the "Luxury" end of the market. Cunard ships held the speed record but at the expense of comfort. The fire spread from one bunker to another as they were against the bulkhead, it was this bulkhead that failed (including eyewitnesses that confirm this) which caused it too sink so suddenly, if the bulkhead held it would have not sunk for another few hours. The program confirmed that is was false that they were not setting a record time for the reason you said. That spread must have been from one bunker of a pair to the other. I have seen a site where there is a plan of the layout of the engine spaces, I will try and find it again and post a link. You will see what I mean then about spaces between.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 8, 2017 12:46:45 GMT
Found it !!!
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on Jan 8, 2017 12:50:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on Jan 8, 2017 17:54:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 8, 2017 19:46:47 GMT
The whole thing was a massive insurance fraud, the Titanic's nameplates were changed shortly before she set sail, this was the vessel which hit the iceberg and sank.
|
|