Hello Guest July 24, 2024, 12:53:34 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Titanic's fatual collision  (Read 34630 times)

Nathan|C

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #125 on: January 11, 2009, 17:20:35 »

And then, compared to what we know was wrong - from their own accounts at that time even - and compared to other ships of the era, she was a poorly designed ship, amongst better designs in her time.

Easy as that. Not a great ship, not destined for great things at all.. But sadly though, she did become a ship of 'legend'.  Which has everything to do with the loss of life, and nothing with her quality as a vessel. But Titanic 'buffs' seem to be unable to look at those things seperatly.

I agree completely. In the past on this forum i've tried to say that in an understandable way, but i couldn;t of put it better than that  ;)
Logged

RMS Gigantic

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 2601
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #126 on: January 11, 2009, 17:21:37 »

Wow... Thomas Andrews certainly knew what he was talking about!

as far as Titanic goes:

Andrews: 2
Ismay: 0

So, first the 32 lifeboat design, then the 1¼ inch hull steel... did White Star EVER listen to him? ;D
Logged

Winnetou

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 23
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #127 on: January 11, 2009, 18:02:48 »

I think you are missing my point. I am talking from a perspective from then. Titanic was back then State of the art. The steel that was used was similar to evrey vessel that floated in 1912. The rivets no diffrent. Watertight compartments where installed on other ships too, but the one's from Titanic could be closed automaticley from the bridge. Those are facts. And yes, more sips had ran into icebergs, but how many did sink costing that mutch lives?

and about the icelander; "she struck what was reported to be an iceberg that stove a large hole in her forward port quarter." Titanic had never a big hole in her, so she had more time to close the watertight doors. "within five minutes, the tremendous weight of the water filling the ship's forward compartments had forced her bow underwater and her stern, rudder and propellers completely out of the water." Titanic had a lot more time. If it was going that fast with the titanic all the passengers and crew where dead. Seems to me that story is a bit diffrent.

source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Islander

And the loss of life isn't that great. There where more incedents with even a greater loss of life. (not nessesary with icebergs)

And about those recordings.... I like to hear them And if that all was a fact, in what books and documentaries are they telling that? Becouse i have seen and read a lot but this is the first time i hear about those accusations.

And in generaly therms pretty similar?? What do you mean, run into an iceberg? Yeah, there where a lot more ships. But how many ships would survided a 5 compartment crash?? NONE.

Here a small database of collisions with iceberg. Count the ships that sank....
http://researchers.imd.nrc.ca/~hillb/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html

Olympic had the same steel as Titanic and she did her time, even survived several collisions and a world war!!

About the unsinkeble myth came before the disaster. And if you know so mutch about the Titanic you should know that. The builders, whitestar line and captain Smith called her Practicly unsinkeble. Becouse she was a state of the art ship. Captain Smith even told that he could not think of a way that the Titanic could sink. engeneering was simply beyond that point. These are facts. Evrey Titanic hystorian will confirm that. Now this prooves that the Titanic was in fact well designed and her builders said so. Now, the press left the word Practicly out soon enough and the ordenary ppl started to call her unsinkeble. That is where the "myth" starts.


« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 18:06:00 by Winnetou »
Logged

Mad_Fred

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8689
  • ✝ In Memoriam
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #128 on: January 11, 2009, 18:24:26 »

I'm sorry, I kinda dozed off after reading that every steelmill in the world back then, regardless of raw material, produces the same material all the time, so I didn't think the rest was much more factual. And I didn't really bother.

Some people  just want her to be the greatest, and in that respect, I think nothing I can add to what I said will make you look at her in any other way. State of the Art? Best of the Best? Great Design? Sure, if you like that, I'll agree with you.  ;)

I'll stop being factual, and take your word for it. It's no use discussing it further I reckon.  ;D

Kind Regards,
Fred
Logged

Winnetou

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 23
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #129 on: January 11, 2009, 19:21:43 »

I didn't say evrey steelmill made the same steel evrey time. Now they make better steel for sure. I said the steel was similar to steel used on ships in those day's. Of course there was a diffrence in qualities, but it is not treu that Titanic had mutch worse steel then other ships in those day's. You make it sound like they deliberatley made a ship that was so bad in design that it should never sail. Now, I can tell on facts that Titanic was one of the best ships afloat in april 1912. If it is not treu give me some evidence of it.

Here an article from the Titanic Historical Society about the steel.

TITANIC's "BRITTLE" STEEL?

Olympic and Titanic were built using Siemens-Martin formula steel plating throughout the shell and upper works. This type of steel was first used in the armed merchant cruisers, Teutonic and Majestic in 1889/90. This steel was high quality with good elastic properties, ideal for conventional riveting as well as the modern method (in 1912) of hydraulic riveting. Each plate was milled and rolled to exact tolerances and presented a huge material cost to both yard and ship owner. The steel was not a new type, as already stated, but shows that yard and owner only put material and equipment into these two giants that was tried and tested. Reports of Teutonic's and Majestic's hull condition 20 years after they entered service showed that both were in remarkable condition. The excellent properties of this steel and resistance to corrosion made it the natural choice for the new sisters.

Yard workers at the time referred to this steel as "battleship quality." I had several conversations with retired shipbuilders at Harland and Wolff and they confirm this. Harland and Wolff used larger sized plates to reduce the amount of butts and overlaps. The shells themselves were generally 6 feet wide and 30 feet long weighing between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 tons depending on thickness. The double bottom plating was 1 1/2 inches thick and hydraulically riveted up to the bilge. Some of the largest plates were 6 feet wide and 36 feet long and weighed 4 1/2 tons.

White Star gave Harland and Wolff complete freedom to build the very best ships they could, adding a percentage profit to the final cost of the building. The so-called "cost-plus" arrangement was used on all but one of the company's ships. From 1869 until 1919, it was said that there was never a single day that Harland and Wolff was not working on one of the White Star Line's ships. White Star was Harland and Wolff's best customer and they undertook to build Olympic and Titanic on the same basis as before, cost-plus. The ships were the largest in the world and would require numerous calculations as to the strength of hull required at this size. Much of the ships' arrangement was tried and tested basic shipbuilding design -- just larger with greater added strength. The strength was entirely provided by the ship's shell plating and rivets. Hydraulic riveting was used for much of the 3 million rivets, in some places the hull quadruply riveted.

Titanic's impact with an iceberg caused the rippling and springing of the joints between plates. Rivet heads ripped off would not cause massive flooding, rather the long leaking that is recorded to have happened in her forward compartments. Science tells us that in order for steel of this quality to fracture due to cold and impact would mean the steel being brought down to below the temperature of liquid nitrogen. As the water in Titanic's ballast tanks had not frozen on the night she struck the iceberg, it's safe to say the steel was above the freezing point of ordinary seawater.

We discovered on the Arabic (White Star liner of 1903) dive the ship's shell plating was in remarkable condition, but the rivets had "let go." That is to say, sprung -- allowing the plates to come apart. In places the ship was like a stack of playing cards not relating to any structure. I have some of these and I'm organizing a scientific study of them and will keep you apprised of the results.

I think -- and this is just a theory -- the rivets were heated so they could be riveted into place by hand or by hydraulic riveter. The steel would have to be capable of easy heating, malleable, and perhaps weaker by design. Is this the Achilles' heel of the Titanic? So much time is spent looking at the steel but I think these 3 million mild steel rivets might hold the secret.


« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 19:28:16 by Winnetou »
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #130 on: January 11, 2009, 19:26:40 »

Actually, all that I have said, and more, is documented in a book that is now, or should soon be, in stores. I’ve just received my complimentary copy from the author:

Titanic’s Last Secrets — Brad Matsen — © 2008 Titanic Partners LLC and Brad Matsen
Twelve, Hachette Book Group USA  ISBN-13: 978-0-446-58205-6
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #131 on: January 11, 2009, 20:10:59 »

Only the rivets in the middle three fifths of the hull were steel, and hydraulically set. Rivets in bow and stern were of wrought Iron and set by hand.
The rivets were heated on forges by children — some as young as thirteen. There was an acute shortage both of material and of skilled riveters. The latter were paid by the rivet and had incentive to stress quantity over quality.
The Board of Trade, in 1900, had stopped requiring that wrought iron rivet rod be tested.
Metallurgical testing of recovered rivets has shown the material to be substandard in ways that could not be caused by prolonged immersion.
Logged

Winnetou

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 23
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #132 on: January 11, 2009, 20:19:44 »

I am sorry, but this book sounds like one conspiricy theory. The Titanic's rivets failed when the Titanic scraped alongside an iceberg. They dived up one of the rivets and made exactley the same and tested it. It was the rivits that failed and not the steel plates. That is proven. The Olympic had the same steel and served her time. Brittanic's design was changed after the sinking.

Perhaps i will read it but now i am not sure. For now i stay with my opinion that the "poor design" wasn't that poor. But first i want to know what ppl have to say about this who are really Titanic experts.
Logged

Mad_Fred

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8689
  • ✝ In Memoriam
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #133 on: January 11, 2009, 20:49:08 »

Well.. that's a bit presumptious..  ::)

And conspiracy? Against what?  To undermine Titanic's popularity?  What would be in it, and for who? These are scientists... The do research and publish that, sometimes in book form.

Why not just read it. As a keen enthusiast, new material should be welcome, right?

The people begind the book áre experts as far as I know.. they even visited the wreck and conducted their own research, from what I've read... The fact that they also looked at recent studies and that there might be new 'evidence' to ruin long standing popular anecdotes would make some people set against it, but that's a different story.  ;D

Fred
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 20:51:07 by Mad_Fred »
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2009, 22:11:46 »

Britannic’s design was changed after Titanic sank because it was obvious to H&W that Titanic’s design was faulty. A case in point is the addition to Britannic of the crack stoppers on her expansion joints.

The fact that Titanic used the same steel that other ships of that time used indicates that it was used less intelligently by Titanic’s designer.

Your lengthy copying of an article on the “Brittle Steel Theory” is a poor substitute for reading it, understanding it, and then summarizing it.
It is irrelevant because that theory has been discarded years ago and plays no part in the current analysis.
There is more to research than searching the web and watching movies.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 22:19:25 by mvsmith »
Logged

TerryRussell

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2009, 22:20:23 »

The publishers of Brad Matsen's book (Hachette Book Group) were formerly known as Time Warner Books.

They have an excellent technical team who meticulously review submitted materials for accurracy before they ever get published.

Brad Matsen is of course a well-respected author who is not known to delve into fantasy, unlike some of the claims in this thread...

Oh Dear! I said I wasn't going to get interested. Well, I'm not interested in Titanic, only in facts. (or factuals)
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2009, 23:12:12 »

That the forward flooding was due to rivet failure is not in dispute here. That the flooding due to that failure should have caused Titanic to sink as quickly as she did, had she not broken up on the surface, is the issue.

The wrought iron rivets used in the bow section had very high slag content—evidence of having been puddle at too low a temperature for too short a time. Again H&W archives show a shortage of rivet rod, which required H&W to obtain rod from many different sources.

One can say either that the plate steel was substandard for the way it was stressed by the design, or one can say that the design was faulty in the way it stressed steel that met the standards of the day. The result was the same—a weak ship.
Logged

Winnetou

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 23
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #137 on: January 12, 2009, 16:59:43 »

Those things you name now came at light After the sinking of Titanic. Harland and Wolff realized that the design could be better and changed both the olympic and the Brittanic. With great costs.

What say say about the rivets is discoverd when they dived one up and researched and tested it.

The steel only buckeld under the presure of the iceberg and the rivits gave way. All to be discovered after the Titanic was found.

Titanic design was not perfect i know that, but what my problem is, is that you are saying that the design was poor and that Harland and Wolff knew about it. That way sending over 2200 ppl to danger, delibreratley.

This is something that i can't believe and i won't believe just becouse one book said so. I am not puttin the death of 1500 ppl on the shoulders of the designers of the Titanic just becouse one book sais so. I need more evidence. Perhaps i will read the book to get a better picture of what it sais. But for now i do believe that Harland and Wolff did create a great ship till the disaster happend. Then something happend they never thought would happen. A collision that couses a damage to 6 compartments. And then they knew that the design had to change a lot. They found it out the hard way.

I hope you'll understand that that is going a bit to far for me and that i think that Titanic deserves a littlebit more credit then you gave it. For now this is the last thing i will say about this subject.
Logged

TerryRussell

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #138 on: January 12, 2009, 17:48:17 »

I think it's more a case that like all modes of transport, the owners need to make a profit.

Making ships safer adds to the development and manufacturing costs. Most improvements will add weight to the ship.

Now,making a ship safer in one respect may well worsen it in another. For instance, adding thicker plates, better rivets etc will increase the weight and therefore deepen the draft. This of itself will reduce safety in some situations, and will make some major harbours unusable.

It also makes the vessel more expensive to operate. Having extra staff to handle circumstances that are deemed unlikely will add to costs. So will extra staff training.

Inevitably there is a balance to be struck. So, the designers have to balance the probabilities of any set of circumstances against ways to reduce manufacturing and operating costs while maintaining an "acceptable" level of safety. Sometimes, in aspecific set of circumstances, that level isn't enough.

But major accidents rarely happen as a result of one mishap. Usually there is a catalogue of errors that overwhelm the capabilities of craft (air or sea or land).
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2009, 01:46:54 »

After Titanic was lost, the public was surprised to learn that neither her builder nor her owner had sought classification by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping.

In fact, the assumption that she had been so registered was so widely reported that Lloyd’s Register made a public statement in The Times that, contrary to assertions that Titanic was built considerably in excess of Lloyd’s requirements, in important parts of her structure the vessel as built did not come up to the requirements of Lloyd’s Register for a vessel of her dimensions.

The full text of that disclaimer is in this information sheet from L.R.:

http://www.lr.org/NR/rdonlyres/11C0DACF-69BF-4FB7-898A-A494FFFE0B54/56319/Info18Titanic1.pd

Logged

TerryRussell

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2009, 08:21:28 »

Thanks for the link, Marty.

Regarding the list of reference books at the end of the document, there is another excellent document:

"Titanic. Nothing left".

It is a short document with very understandable conclusions.

You can read it for free from this url "http://217.45.209.217/titanicwhocares.html"
Logged

CathyH

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 9
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #141 on: January 22, 2009, 09:11:58 »

I think you are missing my point. I am talking from a perspective from then. Titanic was back then State of the art. The steel that was used was similar to evrey vessel that floated in 1912. The rivets no diffrent. Watertight compartments where installed on other ships too, but the one's from Titanic could be closed automaticley from the bridge. Those are facts. And yes, more sips had ran into icebergs, but how many did sink costing that mutch lives?

and about the icelander; "she struck what was reported to be an iceberg that stove a large hole in her forward port quarter." Titanic had never a big hole in her, so she had more time to close the watertight doors. "within five minutes, the tremendous weight of the water filling the ship's forward compartments had forced her bow underwater and her stern, rudder and propellers completely out of the water." Titanic had a lot more time. If it was going that fast with the titanic all the passengers and crew where dead. Seems to me that story is a bit diffrent.

source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Islander

And the loss of life isn't that great. There where more incedents with even a greater loss of life. (not nessesary with icebergs)

And about those recordings.... I like to hear them And if that all was a fact, in what books and documentaries are they telling that? Becouse i have seen and read a lot but this is the first time i hear about those accusations.

And in generaly therms pretty similar?? What do you mean, run into an iceberg? Yeah, there where a lot more ships. But how many ships would survided a 5 compartment crash?? NONE.

Here a small database of collisions with iceberg. Count the ships that sank....
http://researchers.imd.nrc.ca/~hillb/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html

Olympic had the same steel as Titanic and she did her time, even survived several collisions and a world war!!

About the unsinkeble myth came before the disaster. And if you know so mutch about the Titanic you should know that. The builders, whitestar line and captain Smith called her Practicly unsinkeble. Becouse she was a state of the art ship. Captain Smith even told that he could not think of a way that the Titanic could sink. engeneering was simply beyond that point. These are facts. Evrey Titanic hystorian will confirm that. Now this prooves that the Titanic was in fact well designed and her builders said so. Now, the press left the word Practicly out soon enough and the ordenary ppl started to call her unsinkeble. That is where the "myth" starts.





QUEEN MARY used the exact same steel as TITANIC. The Brittleness issue was noted in 1943 when a T3 Tanker ready for launching, but with her stern unsupported broke in half!  This was during a very cold winter on the Great lakes
Logged

Traddles

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 5934
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #142 on: January 22, 2009, 15:50:44 »

Could somebody, purely as a matter of interest that is, :P tell me is the title here meant to be:- "Titanic's FACTUAL collision" or "Titanic's FATAL collision" ???  The only word I can find in the Oxford dictionary which even resembles "fatual" is "Fatuous" which means silly or without reality. Is there any significance in that description :-\ ???
Logged
Retired, UK foreign going Masters Ticket.

Winnetou

  • Forum member
  • Posts: 23
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #143 on: January 22, 2009, 21:57:21 »

Fatal + Factual = Fatual?

Perhaps this helps :-)
Logged

mvsmith

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #144 on: January 22, 2009, 22:42:29 »

Hi CathyH,
What is your documentation that open hearth steel made in 1933 was exactly the same as open hearth steel made in 1911?
Marty

Many T3 tankers and Liberty ships broke apart at the welds. Many that had their lives extended by welding on parts of other ships that had broken killed more seamen.
Shell plates failed because of fatigue rather than low temperature brittleness.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 23:54:44 by mvsmith »
Logged

Traddles

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 5934
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2009, 00:27:48 »

My previous employers had a number of Liberty ships after 1945. The Company ships were all named after trades or professions, such as "Trader", "Interpreter", "Student" & "Specialist". There was a Master in the Company who was a good cartoonist and I remember one of his works showing a Liberty ship in the Company colours breaking in half :o. The caption below the picture said "S.S. Bisector", Ex "Sam Splitz". The joke was, of course, that a number of Liberty ships did just that.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 00:30:35 by Traddles »
Logged
Retired, UK foreign going Masters Ticket.

TerryRussell

  • Guest
Re: Titanic's fatual collision
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2009, 23:16:52 »

I remember reading a fairly lengthy set of articles about how carrying some cargoes, such as bitumous coal and others would rot the I beams. Unfortunately, this tended to be in locations that were difficult to inspect.

Now, this wouldn't have affected Titanic, I know, but it has been a cause of many vessel losses where the vessel simply snapped iwhen the wave crests roled past at a certain wavelength (about 0.75 - 1.25 ship's length) and the vessel then sank like a stone with almost no time for anyone to escape.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 
 


SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines