Article

FAQ: How Much Did Titanic Weigh?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Titanic‘s Weight: How Much Did Titanic Weigh?

Gross tonnage is NOT a measure of weight

There is a lot of confusion about the subject of Titanic‘s weight, which is not helped by some of the terminology used.  We often see references to the ship’s ‘gross tonnage’.  However, despite what the term implies with the use of the word ‘tonnage’, it is not a measure of weight.  It actually measures the total enclosed space within the ship’s hull and superstructure. Therefore references in the media which refer to a comparison of ‘gross tonnage’ and to Titanic being approximately 1,000 tons ‘heavier’ than her sister Olympic are completely inaccurate (and all too common).

The total weight of the ship (displacement) was calculated as 52,310 tons when she was loaded to her designed draught of 34 feet 7 inches – precisely the same as her sister Olympic.  (Their larger, younger sister ship Britannic had a displacement of 53,170 tons and the same designed draught.)  This was made up of the lightweight (the weight of the ship herself, including her hull, engines, machinery and permanent fittings before she was loaded for sea) plus the deadweight (the weight of the cargo loaded onboard, including everything from her human cargo – passengers and crew – to the coal, other supplies for the voyage and commercial cargo carried in the ship’s holds).  These figures are all given in the British, Imperial measure.

This data is taken from shipbuilder Harland & Wolff’s records and summarised below.  We see that Titanic in an unloaded condition weighed 480 tons more than her older sister Olympic and that her deadweight was correspondingly smaller. However, both ships’ total weight (displacement) was the same assuming that they were loaded to their designed draught.   

 

It is important to understand that, despite all the confusion in secondary sources (such as articles, books, television programmes and so forth), the primary source evidence (original, contemporary documentation) is all very clear in regard to how much the ship weighed.  The ship’s displacement is confirmed in multiple original documents, including Harland & Wolff’s records; Olympic‘s displacement scale (which shows how much water she displaced at a given draught); and the Board of Trade.  It is benchmarked against figures Thomas Andrews provided for Olympic in 1911.

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: Majestic Specification File

Majestic was the largest ship in service from 1922 until 1935.  The new edition of RMS Majestic: The ‘Magic Stick’ will be published shortly and so it is worth taking a look at her key specifications and statistics.  This specification file was published in November 2007 and gives a good idea of the scale of the ship. It illustrates that Majestic carried up to 1,093 crew, including almost eight hundred in the victualling department, who were tasked with looking after the passengers in all three classes.  Her oil consumption per day was typically 840 tons (indeed, she burned 4,550 tons of oil during the course of her 189th westbound crossing in January 1935) and her engines developed an average of about 66,000 shaft horsepower.  Her gross tonnage (a measure of the ship’s size by the total enclosed space, not weight) was about 22 percent greater than Titanic‘s.  

Big Ships and Small Boats

Format Status Published on Leave a comment on Big Ships and Small Boats

New Article: Big Ships and Small Boats

A new article, ‘Big Ships and Small Boats’ has been uploaded.

In the years leading up to the Titanic disaster, ships were getting significantly larger.  A lot of comment at the time and up to the present day has focused on the increasing size of ships in relation to the lifeboats they needed to carry under the law.  However, this overlooks the fact that the size of a ship was not necessarily a reliable indicator of how many passengers and crew she could carry.  This article provides a snapshot comparison between Olympic and Carpathia in April 1912 and some comparative British government data looking at the largest foreign-going passenger steamers, their passenger and crew capacity and lifeboat provision.

It was first published in the Titanic International Society’s Voyage September 2022: Pages 3-4.

 

 

Format Aside Published on Leave a comment on Article from the Archives: ‘Britannic: The Length and Breadth of The Ship’

Article from the Archives: ‘Britannic: The Length and Breadth of The Ship’

Even today, precisely 107 years after Britannic‘s loss, her history is often misunderstood.  Many popular beliefs about her are demonstrably false.  Among them are two basic points about her dimensions:

 

  • The belief that she was 903 feet long (overall length), whereas she was exactly the same length as her older sisters.
  • The belief that her beam (breadth) was increased following the Titanic disaster in order to make room for the ‘inner skin’ which was fitted along the length of her boiler and engine rooms.  In reality, the decision to increase her beam had been taken already prior to the keel being laid.  

This detailed article provides an analysis of the evidence about her length and discusses the reasons her breadth was increased. It was first published in the Titanic Historical Society’s Titanic Commutator February 2020: Pages 171-76.

 

Aegean Sea 2016

Above: The sea above Britannic‘s wreck is a beautiful, deep blue (photographed in 2016).  (Author’s collection)

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Lusitania and Mauretania: Perceptions of Popularity’

One of the common problems with research into Titanic history in particular, and ocean liner history more generally, is the repetition of claims in secondary sources (such as articles, books and television programmes) which do not match up to the available evidence.  One such claim is that Cunard’s Lusitania was more popular with the travelling public than her sister Mauretania.  Perhaps her tragic loss in May 1915 has distorted perception and memory as the years passed, because the available data on the number of passengers carried by both ships in the 1907-14 period is clear that Mauretania carried more passengers in total and a higher average passenger list. 

 

My article, ‘Lusitania and Mauretania– Perceptions of Popularity‘, was published in the Titanic Historical Society’s Titanic Commutator 2008 : Volume 32 Number 184: Pages 196-200.  It examined the number of passengers carried by each ship year by year and even included selected break downs by each class (first, second and third) and direction (westbound and eastbound). Although Lusitania carried slightly higher numbers of passengers initially, they drew level by 1909 and, from that point on, Mauretania was clearly in the lead.

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Whatever Happened to Germanic/Homeric?’

It’s sometimes said that the White Star Line’s Germanic, laid down in July 1914, was intended as a replacement for Titanic on the Southampton to New York express service.  In fact, she was designed to serve their secondary service from Liverpool to New York.  The fortunes of war meant she was never completed.  My article ‘Whatever Happened to Germanic/Homeric?‘, published in the Titanic Historical Society’s Titanic Commutator 2013: Volume 38 Number 201, examined her history and I’m highlighting it for those who might have missed it when it was first published.

7 February 2023

Format Status Published on

New Article: ‘”The Old Rules…Are Entirely Obsolete”: British Lifeboat Regulation in the 1880s’

A new article, ‘”The Old Rules…Are Entirely Obsolete”: British Lifeboat Regulation in the 1880s’, explores lifeboat regulations in the 1880s. They were comparatively worse than the rules in force when Titanic foundered in 1912, but a senior official argued  ‘you can make ships perfectly safe by [watertight] subdivision’.