Article

Designing a White Star Liner: A Creative Miracle

Format Status Published on

Designing a White Star Liner: A Creative Miracle

 

Above: Olympic‘s iconic four funnels were displayed proudly on the front cover.  This issue is from September 1933, shortly before the merger between Cunard and White Star. (Author’s collection)

 

Note:  This article is reproduced verbatim from the inaugural issue of White Star Magazine, published in September 1923.  It gives a good generic insight into the various ship design considerations when the White Star Line were planning new tonnage.  It was intended to be reproduced as an appendix in Olympic & Titanic: Triumph and Disaster (History Press; April 2026), however it was cut to save space.  The book itself contains extensive details about the process specific to the ‘Olympic‘ class ships.

 

The actual beginning of a ship! How does she really start? In this article it is proposed to remove, as far as possible, the veil which hides from most people the very beginnings of large passenger steamers like those for which the White Star Line has acquired so high a reputation.

Assume that a moment arrives when the managers of the line, in considering their various ocean services, reach a decision that further tonnage is necessary for the requirements of the present, or of the near future. Having become clear in their own minds as to the class of ship likely to form the most valuable asset to the working of their business, the managers approach the directors in order to gain their consent for such a vessel to be built. ‘We need a ship generally similar to the ____, but with modifications to meet the growing demands of the trade. In our opinion, she should be a little longer and a little faster’, may perhaps be the gist of their views, and they may add for the consideration of the directors suggestions as to improvements considered desirable to embody. The whole matter is discussed, often at great length. Eventually an instruction is given by the board to Messrs. Harland & Wolff, asking them to prepare a design for the vessel on the basis which has been discussed, and embodying all information gained from previous tonnage for that particular trade.

Almost the most important feature (and certainly the most troublesome) in any design is the speed. This is stated, and a general idea given on the question of size, together with any special requirements which have been decided upon in the course of discussion.

At this stage, then, the Belfast headquarters of Messrs. Harland & Wolff begin to take a hand. The firm concentrates all designing work at Belfast, and here exist unique records of the requirements of the different services of the White Star Line so far as matters of construction are concerned.

The designing now becomes a question of approximate calculation; experts embark upon a series of calculations relating to weights, displacements, and speeds in order that it may be certain that the requirements put forward by the White Star Line can be satisfactorily embodied within the limits of a ship suitable for the trade. Such practical points as the depth of water in the St. Lawrence or in the approaches to Southampton or at Melborne have to be borne in mind. When a ship of the large size required by the White Star Line is in contemplation, the question of the size of the available dry docks may be a determining factor.

Approximate calculations having been settled, the question of the size of the necessary machinery to obtain the desired speed is investigated, and a preliminary arrangement of its parts and distribution of its weights is made to fit within the dimensions of the hull on the one hand, and, on the other hand, not to interfere with such matters as the arrangement of dining saloons, lounges, and galleys and pantries. At this stage it is at length possible to place on paper, in concrete form, the ideas which have been shaping themselves regarding the fashioning of the ship.

Now that the drawing office starts its labours, other points arise. For example, there must be investigation as to the safety of the vessel so far as floatation and stability are concerned (this enquiry will as yet be of a provisional character), and the arrangement of machinery to be fitted into the hull must be considered.

No small amount of ingenuity has to be expended in alternative variations in the manner in which the various requirements can be satisfactorily incorporated within a ship-shape form at the same time complying with the innumerable regulations applying to all ships. At this period the meeting of such requirements is not the least pressing of the problems with which the designer has to deal. The nature of them often brings about a clashing with some of the proposals of the owners whose desire is to make the new vessel attractive from the passenger viewpoint, and usually a balance has to be struck across a number of more or less conflicting legal and technical requirements.

At first sight it may appear puzzling to state that the larger the ship, the more difficult it is to find room in her for any given requirement! This mainly arises because the arrangement to be carried out on one deck affects what it is possible to do on the deck above and on that below. Hence from the among the schemes which have been discussed and weighed, one or two which seem the most promising are selected for development, and these are next worked out in detail embodying the various legal requirements, for example, of the United Kingdom and the United States; and with rough sketch designs so prepared, a detailed examination is made of the various technical particulars and qualities of the ship.

Additionally, one or two alternative schemes dealing with some individual feature will be made out, and, when this stage has been accomplished, a complete, small ‘General Arrangement’ plan, on a scale of about 1/200th of the full size of the vessel is prepared and sent forward for the consideration of the directors and managers of the White Star Line. An effort is made to show what the general layout of the ship will be, and calculations and enumerations are made from which the cost of the ship and possible expenses and profits can be studied in detail.

The ‘General Arrangement’ plans referred to include a rigging plan indicating the general external appearance, together with plans of each of the decks and such sections of the ship as may be necessary to illustrate the various points where difficulty in working or building may arise.

It may frankly be said that it is never possible to get everything that is desirable into any one ship, so that the management have now to consider and criticise the effect on each other of their various proposals, and when they have done this, a conference with the builders can be held and more definitive instructions given as to the final form the design is to take. ‘This we like’, say the directors of the White Star Line, ‘and that we like. We are of the opinion that such-and-such a feature is undesirable. We would wish you to consider if the result we seek cannot be secured in some other way’. At this stage instructions to the builders may cover a hundred or more items, and back to the plans to Belfast for another design embodying the outcome of the discussion.

How often this process will repeat itself depends on many and varying circumstances, but eventually there comes a time when the needs of the owners have been reduced to a form which the builders believe will give a satisfactory ship capable of meeting the restrictions, and fulfilling the requirements which have been put to them.

Now at this stage records are turned up to see if there is on file any detailed requirement noted from previous tonnage upon which special care is to be taken in view of the particular service involved, and the preliminary plans to determine the distribution of the steel fabric of the ship are put in hand. These have to be carefully gone into and compared with other ships and the requirements of various regulations to ensure an ample margin of strength for the size of the ship as well as for the service involved.

A model to give the shape of the vessel is prepared and critically studied so as to make certain that the appearance of the hull will accord with the traditions and requirements of the White Star Line. This, together with the final revision of the small ‘General Arrangement’ plan will be discussed with the owners. Then, and not till then does it become possible for the owners to instruct the builders that they are in order in going ahead with the work for the ship, and working plans can be started from which the ship will actually be built, and the first material ordered from the steel manufacturer.

All these various matters involve considerable time and necessitate the closest relationship between owner and builder if the project, involving as it does, very great expenditure, is to be successful.

The fitting-together of the various requirements of the owners for passengers, cargo, and crew, complicated by the regulations both for passengers and crew of the various departments of the different governments concerned, resembles in many ways the piercing-together of a jigsaw puzzle. Moreover, this piercing-together is additionally involved because the puzzle is in quite a number of layers and no one layer can proceed independently of another!

The details of the whole process for any two ships are rarely the same. Nevertheless this sketch should give enlightenment to the lay reader, and it undoubtedly reveals the methods usually followed, and makes it abundantly evident that enormous care is inexorably put forth in the preliminary stages, as later, of the making of a White Star liner.

 

 

 

 

 

Mauretania Revenue & Profit Analysis 1910

Format Status Published on

Mauretania Revenue & Profit Analysis 1910

 

A new article of mine, ‘Mauretania Revenue & Profit Analysis 1910′ (external link) has been published on Encyclopedia Titanica.

It seems to be a common claim that the large transatlantic express liners such as Cunard’s Mauretania or White Star’s Olympic made the bulk of their profit from third class passengers. The available evidence does not support this conclusion.

This detailed analysis of Mauretania‘s financial data in 1910 demonstrates that first class revenues accounted for 59 percent of the total.  Even allowing for the fact that a first class passenger enjoyed a higher standard of service and cost more to look after – the average *profit* per first class passenger was more than the average *revenue* of a third class passenger, even on the most cautious assumptions.

The number of third class passengers was 89 percent higher than the number of first class passengers, but it is not mathematically possible for them to have contributed more profit than first class, because the cost of the average third class ticket was simply not high enough.

It was first published in the Titanic International Society’s Voyage March 2026: Pages 78-79. 

 

Above: Cunard’s formidable Mauretania.  (Author’s collection)

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Titanic: “She Sailed Only Half Full”?’

Many people seem to assume that the number of passengers Titanic carried on her maiden voyage was relatively low.  It is not uncommon for people to express surprise when they learn that she was not fully booked.  In fact, there is no reason to assume she should have been.  My article ‘Titanic: ‘She Sailed Only Half Full?‘, published in the Titanic Historical Society’s Titanic Commutator 2019: Volume 43 Number 224, offered some data around passenger traffic. It is important to understand the context that large express liners in 1912 rarely sailed fully booked outside the peak of the season.

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Thomas Andrews’ Olympic Maiden Voyage Notes’

This article represents an expanded version of material published by Mark Chirnside’s Reception Room in July 2005. It is published with revisions (up to July 2025).

 

There were reportedly three sets of copies of Andrews’ notes taken on Olympic’s maiden voyage – a copy for the White Star Line, a copy for Harland & Wolff, and his personal copy. Some of the notes he took have been summarised before (see: Lepien, Ray. ‘Olympic The Maiden Voyage’. Titanic Commutator 2003; Volume 27 Number 162; and: Marre, Jean-Philippe. Thomas Andrews: Architecte du Titanic. Lulu; 2015.) I was fortunate to purchase some of Andrews’ notes in summer 2004. I then published extracts online in July 2005 and again as an appendix in the revised and expanded edition of The ‘Olympic’ Class Ships: Olympic, Titanic & Britannic (History Press; May 2011), however many of Andrews’ recommendations were missing. At that time, I did not realise quite how many were unavailable but, over the years, a number of researchers have kindly shared material and helped to fill in the gaps.

 

We know that the set is still not complete because Andrews numbered his notes consecutively, from 1 to 56. Work is ongoing to try and reassemble the entirety of what he wrote, however notes 28 to 39 and 47 to 55 inclusive are still missing (as of July 2025). This revised article adds to the notes published previously.

 

I am grateful to researchers including Scott Andrews, Bruce Beveridge, Robin Beuting, Gunter Babler, Mark Evans, Joao Goncalves, Ray Lepien and Bill Sauder, for sharing information and supporting with my interpretation of either the handwriting or a particular detail. Any errors are mine alone.

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Olympic, Titanic & Britannic: An Issue of Finance’

It’s widely believed that construction of the three ‘Olympic‘ class ships was made possible by the use of American money – resources from either J. P. Morgan or IMM. The truth is the opposite: White Star was not supported by IMM’s resources.  IMM was supported by White Star.   Construction was financed through capital raised in the United Kingdom. This article (external link) explains in detail how:

 

  • White Star financed the ‘Olympic’ class ships and others by borrowing the money from largely United Kingdom-based investors, mortgaging its own fleet;
  • White Star borrowed the money, rather than IMM, to take advantage of its stronger financial position and lower borrowing costs;
  • The new ships provided additional security underlying IMM’s own debt, without increasing the money IMM itself borrowed;
  • Dividends paid by White Star from 1908 to 1912 helped IMM meet its debt interest payments.

It was first published in the Titanic International Society’s Voyage July 2020: Pages 135-39.

The subject of how the construction of the ‘Olympic‘ class ships was financed is a good case study showing the necessity of using primary sources (original documentation) rather than secondary sources (such as books or television programmes).  We have the prospectus which was issued to investors in 1908, in which the White Star Line explicitly stated why they were borrowing the money; we have the IMM annual report from the same year, which carried a statement on behalf of President J. Bruce Ismay and the Board of Directors, explaining that the White Star Line was borrowing the money and giving their reasoning for doing so; and we have records from both the financial press and the London Stock Exchange Daily Official Lists (SEDOL) confirming that the bonds were issued and the prices they traded at when they changed hands on the market.  In contrast to this, many modern books or television programmes have simply claimed that J. P. Morgan or IMM’s capital resources were made available to finance construction: this inaccurate assumption is simply false.

Above: ‘Movements in Shipping Securities’ reported on 18 June 1914.  They were listed in alphabetical order by the name of the shipping line, so the many rows after ‘Cunard’ and up to ‘O’ have been deleted; ‘Oceanic Steam. Nav.’ is an abbreviation for the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, which was the legal name of the White Star Line.  ‘Deb’ denotes that the security being traded was a debenture bond rather than a stock. (Shipbuilding & Shipping Record, 1914/Author’s collection)

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Titanic‘s Centre Propeller Dossier

For decades, it was simply assumed that Titanic‘s propeller configuration was the same as her sister Olympic‘s. This assumption became accepted as fact.  All too often, photos of Olympic‘s propellers were used to stand in for Titanic without the descriptions making clear that they were photos of her older sister ship. (There are no known photos of Titanic in dry dock with her propellers fitted and visible.)

 

However, in 2007 I was researching the Harland & Wolff records (supported by a local researcher, Jennifer Irwin).  This material had been deposited with Public Record Office Northern Ireland (PRONI) between 1972 and 1994.  It included documentation colloquially referred to as the ‘Harland & Wolff order book’, which kept a record of the key dates for each ship such as the contract date, when the shipyard and engine works were ordered to proceed, when the keel was laid, when the double bottom was completed, when the hull was fully framed, when the ship was launched and delivered.  The ship’s basic dimensions and propelling machinery details were also recorded.

 

Of particular interest to ‘rivet counters’ or technical researchers was a series of five volumes of engineering notebooks, which focused on the technical aspects of the hundreds of ships they completed, as built: these included each ship’s size, displacement and propelling machinery particulars in great detail (such as the size of engine components, the boiler specifications and propeller specifications).  The details were recorded  meticulously. It is not clear exactly when they were transferred from Harland & Wolff, but the best guess is that this was probably the early 1970s.  These records were also classified as closed, subject to researchers making a specific application to review them, which stands in contrast to other archival records that are classified as open (without such access restrictions).  

 

The entries for Titanic state that her propeller configuration had an increased pitch of the port and starboard propeller blades (compared with the 1911 Olympic configurations) and a slightly larger centre propeller which had three blades instead of four.  In other words, contrary to the assumption that Titanic‘s propeller configuration was closest to Olympic as she was in 1911, it was closer visually to Olympic‘s configuration after her 1912-13 refit.  In hindsight, there should be nothing surprising about this.  Shipbuilders of the period were constantly tweaking and experimenting with the optimum propeller designs and we know from J. Bruce Ismay’s testimony that Harland & Wolff had advised him they expected Titanic to be slightly faster than Olympic.   

 

This material from Harland & Wolff is a primary source, which is far superior to secondary source material.  As explained in the Harvard Library’s Research Guide for the History of Science:  

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented.

 

Secondary sources were created by someone who did not experience first-hand or participate in the events or conditions you’re researching.

The key distinction here is that, whereas many secondary sources simply repeated an assumption about Titanic‘s propellers that was made by people who were not there in 1912, the primary source material was produced first hand by personnel at Harland & Wolff who were tasked with keeping a record of each completed ship’s technical particulars.  It is the contemporary record which was kept by the shipbuilding firm who completed Titanic in 1912.  

 

This dossier groups together the primary source evidence and analysis of that material, including the Harland & Wolff evidence published in 2008 and other  supporting evidence discovered by other researchers in the years since.

 

Sadly, Titanic’s propeller configuration has been the subject of ill-tempered and vitriolic arguments online.  What was simply an interesting discovery of a previously unknown difference between her and her older sister ship has become the topic of frequent hysteria. Nonetheless, despite all these arguments, there is no debate as far as the primary source evidence is concerned.  From the historian’s perspective, what counts is that our interpretation is based on the best available evidence. The best information we have about Titanic’s propeller configuration (to date) is Harland & Wolff’s own records.

 

An illustration showing how Titanic's three-blade centre propeller likely appeared.

Above: A stunning illustration of how Titanic‘s propellers most likely appeared, based on the propeller specifications recorded by Harland & Wolff. (Courtesy Vasilije Ristovic, 2019)

 

 

Format Aside Published on

Article from the Archives: ‘Olympic & Titanic: Refining a Design’

 

Mark Chirnside’s Reception Room first came online back on 1 April 2005!  Since then, it has expanded substantially and been redesigned twice (2007 and 2022) to keep it fit for purpose.  The nature of the internet and online content means that so many websites which were available then are no longer with us.  One of those websites was the Titanic Research & Modelling Association (TRMA) which was pioneering in its day. (Fortunately, much of it is archived and preserved as a static site.)

 

My article ‘Olympic & Titanic: Refining a Design‘, is a revised and expanded version of a short article of mine published by TRMA in 2005.  It was published in the British Titanic Society’s Atlantic Daily Bulletin 2019: Pages 18-22.     

Author’s Note: Back in 2005, I published information about some previously unknown refinements to Titanic based on experience Harland & Wolff gained from observing Olympic during a particularly severe North Atlantic storm in January 1912. The article was published on the Titanic Research & Modelling Association (TRMA) website. It discussed some modifications to some of her rivetted joints fore and aft: Olympic’s great length meant that the stresses at these points – from about a quarter of her length ahead of the stern and a quarter of her length abaft the bow – required some additional reinforcement, beyond what previous experience had suggested was necessary, to prevent rivets in these areas becoming gradually slack in severe weather conditions.

It goes to show how much we are still learning about the ‘Olympic’ class ships all these years later, but the demise of the TRMA website offered an opportunity to publish this new article. It contains the original article’s information about the changes to Titanic, supplemented by additional material, including new diagrams of both Titanic and Britannic, and contextual information about other large liners of the period.

When I published this information for the first time all those years ago, my view was that these refinements demonstrated the fundamental strength of Olympic. Harland & Wolff were following their usual practice, as Edward Harland had explained back in 1873, of using their experience from operating new ships over their early voyages to proactively make improvements to them and their sister ships.  She experienced a storm in January 1912 which was one of the worst of her entire career and which Captain Smith reportedly said was the worst he had ever seen in all his decades of North Atlantic service.  The North Atlantic in winter storm conditions is an extremely hostile environment but she came through it: the modifications were not intended to remedy any serious defect which had occurred but to prevent future maintenance requirements.  Ships such as Olympic were built as fast passenger and mail steamers, designed to run through these hostile conditions even at relatively high speed.   

 

Nonetheless, I was contacted shortly after the original article’s publication by an American conspiracy theorist who was trying to argue that Titanic was a weak ship that sank because she broke up, rather than the reality that she was a strong ship which broke up in the final stages of sinking. (The cause of the breakup is that she was exposed to stresses over a prolonged period that were far greater than what she would have experienced in the worst possible storm conditions that she was designed for. No comparable passenger liner was designed to have her stern raised clear of the water for an extended period, unsupported.)  He sought to use the information I had published (which he mischaracterised and deliberately took out of context) to support his claims and, unfortunately, all too many others followed suit:  It is a very common problem with Titanic that many people look at her in isolation without looking at the broader context or doing an objective analysis.  That context includes her sister ships as well as other large liners of the period.

 

Sensationalism is often what draws attention in the mass media and one example of this was a headline in a United Kingdom newspaper, which echoed his claims:

‘Titanic faced disaster from the moment it set sail, experts now believe…Even if the ocean liner had not struck an iceberg during its maiden voyage, structural weaknesses made it vulnerable to any stormy sea’. (Copping, Jasper. ‘Revealed: Titanic Was Doomed Before it Set Sail’, Daily Telegraph 10 June 2007)

This headline stands in stark contrast to the assessments of experienced professionals at the time, summarised by two short quotes from a number of examples.  Edward Wilding, Harland & Wolff naval architect, 1915:

We have had less repairs to the Olympic than to any large ship we have ever built, due to external causes, of course’

Principal Ship Surveyor to the Board of Trade, 1925:

Olympic…has, I think, proved to be a successful ship in the matter of strength’.

On the positive side, the design changes outlined in my article have also been analysed and cited by serious researchers.  (For an analysis of these changes and their potential impact on Titanic, see Parks Stephenson’s article ‘What Caused Titanic to Sink?’ in the Titanic Historical Society’s Titanic Commutator 2014: Volume 39 Number 206. Pages 92- 100. See, also: Rudi Newman’s ‘A “Riveting” Article – an Historical Rejoinder to Metallurgical Studies of the Titanic Disaster’ in the British Titanic Society’s Atlantic Daily Bulletin 2012: Pages 18-30.)  Following on from my 2005 article, when The ‘Olympic’ Class Ships: Olympic, Titanic & Britannic was published (History Press; revised and expanded edition, 2011) I included this information on page 226.

 

 

 

A Voyage on Olympic: Willem Frederik Piek

Format Status Published on

A Voyage on Olympic: Willem Frederik Piek Jr.’s Notes for the Holland America Line, December 1911

A new article of mine, ‘A Voyage on Olympic: Willem Frederik Piek Jr.’s Notes for the Holland America Line, December 1911′ (external link) has been published on Encyclopedia Titanica.

Born in Amsterdam on 16 March 1874, Willem Frederik Piek Jr. became the head agent of the Holland America Line in New York, in 1912; four years later, he became a director of the company, serving in that position until 1935. In December 1911, he boarded Olympic at New York for an eastbound crossing (the passenger list also included ‘Mrs Piek’). Travelling first class, his objective was to check out what life was like onboard. How comfortable was her passenger accommodation? How was the White Star service? How might they lure away her passengers?

His meticulous notes, handwritten in Dutch, provide fascinating details of what it was like to sail on Olympic. They contain the sort of observations that cannot be found in period journals such as The Shipbuilder, or in chatty, casual letters home from passengers. It all adds to the social history of Olympic and provides a glimpse of what life might have been like onboard Titanic, such as first class passengers stealing spoons from adjacent tables, or maids and valets hanging around the companionways because they only had a dining saloon on C-deck.

One common factor when observers acting for one shipping line wrote about competitors’ vessels is that they often seemed very critical about particular aspects of a ship. This can also be seen in reports Cunard’s naval architect, Leonard Peskett, wrote about Olympic in August 1911 and Imperator in June 1913. If advertisements of the period extolled a ship’s virtues, then competitors’ criticisms provide a counterweight. The reality lies in between. Indeed, we also see positives such as the lack of items which rattled in first class staterooms.

This is believed to be the first time that his notes have been published. They illustrate the importance of diversifying beyond English language sources. His observations and a vast array of other hitherto unpublished material will be included in Mark Chirnside’s next book, from which much of this article is drawn from.

This article was first published in the Titanic International Society’s Voyage 128 July 2024: Pages 158-62. (A German language version was published in the Swiss Titanic Society’s Titanic Post 129 September 2024: Pages 125-30.)

A number of the locations that Piek referred to in his notes, such as the maids’ and valets’ dining saloon, can be seen recreated as they were on Titanic through Titanic: Honor & Glory’s DEMO 401 Update 2.0 Release Day Tour. 

Above: The Holland America liner Rotterdam (1908) was built by Harland & Wolff.  She introduced many innovations and set a number of new standards in passenger accommodation.  (Author’s collection)

 

 

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.

 

 

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

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’.