Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)

FAQ: Did the Enclosure of Titanic’s A-deck Promenade Increase her Gross Tonnage?

Format Status Published on

FAQ:  Did the Enclosure of Titanic‘s A-deck Promenade Increase Her Gross Tonnage?

 

No.

Contrary to popular belief, the enclosure of the fore part of Titanic‘s first class promenade on A-deck did not make any difference to her gross tonnage. 

Titanic’s gross tonnage (not a measure of weight but, rather, the total enclosed space) was calculated as 46,328.57 tons. By comparison, Olympic’s gross tonnage was 45,323.82 tons when she was completed in 1911. Titanic’s gross tonnage was therefore 1,004.75 tons greater than her older sister’s. It placed her as the largest ship in the world.

It is a popular myth that the enclosure of part of the A-deck promenade was largely responsible for increasing Titanic’s gross tonnage. In fact, her registration certificate (completed in March 1912) specifically stated that the ‘open space on promenade deck, abreast windows port side – 198 feet long’ was ‘not included in the cubical contents forming the ship’s register tonnage’ (the same applied for the starboard side).  (If it had been included in the gross tonnage calculation, it would have added 720.51 tons, increasing her gross tonnage to 47,049.08 tons.)

The real reason for Titanic’s increased gross tonnage was the expansion of the first class accommodation on B-deck at the expense of the original enclosed promenade, which accounted for the majority of the increase. This passenger accommodation counted as enclosed space, whereas the enclosed B-deck promenade on Olympic did not. Other changes, such as an enlarged officers’ quarters deckhouse, contributed to a much lesser extent as well.

In March 1913, Olympic’s own gross tonnage increased to 46,358.70 tons, following a major refit which included expanding the restaurant and adding a Café Parisien on the starboard side of B-deck. These modifications ensured that the remainder of the enclosed promenade space on this deck was now counted as enclosed space in the gross tonnage calculation. She emerged from the refit with a higher gross tonnage than Titanic, even though her A-deck promenade was never enclosed.

 

 

 

FAQ: Were Olympic, Titanic & Britannic Built to the Same Standard of Strength?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Were Olympic, Titanic & Britannic Built to the Same Standard of Strength?

 

A question came up a while ago in an online discussion forum concerning the construction of the three ‘Olympic’ class ships. The poster asked: ‘I mainly want to know if one was built a little stronger than the other’.  The issue of strength is a complex one. However, my answer to that is that all three ships were built to the same standard of strength. I’ll explain an example of that standard.

William David Archer, who was the Principal Ship Surveyor to the Board of Trade (since 1898), explained how a key measure of strength was calculated, to take into account the ship’s structure [scantlings], length, weight [displacement] and tendency to bend:

24323. How do you test your standard of strength – how do you arrive at your standard of strength apart from the question of scantlings?
– We do this. We get from the builders the drawings of the vessel. One of these drawings is a midship section. That midship section is a section as if you cut the ship right through the middle. It shows the thickness of all the plates, the longitudinal members of the ship – for example, the thickness and width of all the plates forming the skin of the ship and the deck of the ship.
24324. But those are the scantlings, are they not?
– Those are the scantlings of the ship. We then make an estimate of what the stress on the gunwale of that ship in tons per square inch will be, on the assumption that the vessel is subjected to a bending moment equal to the whole displacement of the ship, in this case about 52,000 tons multiplied by one -thirtieth of the vessel’s length. In that way we get at a certain figure of so many tons per square inch on the shear strake [hull plating at the side of C-deck].

In the case of Olympic and Titanic, that estimate of stress came to 9.89 tons per square inch. This is very much in line with the standard shipbuilders of the period worked to for mild steel ships, which was to work to about 10 tons or less. On this measure, they were about the same or stronger than all the other large liners of the period that I have data for, excepting Oceanic and Aquitania. The figure may have differed slightly for Britannic, because she was a little wider and had a correspondingly greater weight (displacement) of about 1.6 per cent, which would have increased her bending moment.

We know from the Olympic/Titanic and Britannic midship section plans that the fundamental structural details of all three ships (including the keel, double bottom, hull plating, hull frames, columns, pillars, deck beams, etc.) were all the same. The scantlings (dimensions and thicknesses of these key structural components) were the same. There should be nothing surprising about this. Although we hear so much about the substantially greater size of these ships measured by gross tonnage, in terms of displacement they were ‘only’ about 27 percent heavier than ships such as Adriatic. Harland & Wolff had a lot of practical experience as well as theoretical design principles to determine the structural design requirements. By way of some benchmark comparisons, it is telling that these ships’ scantlings are very similar to other large liners of the period such as Lusitania (1907), Aquitania (1914), Imperator/Berengaria (1913). They are also comparable to Queen Mary (1936).

Harland & Wolff were also familiar with the standards of Lloyd’s classification society. Naval architect Edward Wilding said that ‘about one-third to one-half’ of the ships Harland & Wolff built were classed by Lloyds. He was questioned about Lloyds requirements as well as Olympic’s construction (both as built in 1911 and following the modifications to improve her watertight subdivision in 1912-13) when he testified for the Limitation of Liability hearings in May 1915:

Q. When you have mentioned the construction of the Olympic, have you referred to the original construction of the Olympic or the construction as she is today?
– The construction is generally the same, as structurally we have made very little change.

He went on to say:

Q. Do you mean to say that from your knowledge of the customs at Lloyds the Titanic would have been passed at Lloyds without any change whatever?
– I can’t put it any higher than this: I believe if we were to offer the Olympic today to Lloyds they would class her without making any further requirement. I have no authority for it, though.

Q. That is, the Olympic in her present condition?
– Or as she was finished originally. We have made no change that would affect Lloyds classification; none of the changes made would have affected Lloyds’ views as to classing her.

Wilding stated that Harland & Wolff had to do fewer repairs to Olympic than any other large ship they had built. Their experience operating Olympic in both summer and winter conditions up to early 1912 led them to make only minor modifications, including to the foremost hatch design and its cover. The result was that, when ‘Yard Number 433’ (Britannic) was ordered in 1911, her structural design and scantlings were a duplicate of Olympic/Titanic in all major respects.

When, following the Titanic disaster, White Star specified that Olympic and Britannic needed to be modified to float with an unprecedented number of watertight compartments flooded, the only reason that some of the watertight bulkheads (and the watertight doors in them) were strengthened was because those particular watertight bulkheads were being extended so much higher. The original watertight bulkheads were already built to a very high standard of strength. The plating and stiffening were both well in excess of Lloyd’s requirements which post-dated the Titanic disaster and the Board of Trade had noted the strength of the bulkheads throughout was ‘very ample’, after doing a detailed comparison between the structural design compared to what the regulations required. Edward Wilding noted that a head of water ‘about 150 feet’ deep from the bottom of the watertight bulkheads would have been needed to break the lower part of them, which was many times higher than the head of water they would ever have been called upon to hold back.  Nonetheless, to ensure a good margin of safety the watertight bulkheads which were raised were also strengthened further.

We know Cunard changed aspects of Aquitania‘s design to bring her closer into line with Olympic after their naval architect, Leonard Peskett, examined her in 1911. In 1925, the Board of Trade’s Chief Ship Surveyor used comparative data from Olympic as a benchmark example of a strong ship, as did a professional from the consultant naval architectural firm Roscoe & Little, based in Liverpool. Roscoe & Little were doing an analysis of options for different schemes of repair to the White Star liner Majestic (originally HAPAG’s Bismarck, launched in 1914), which had suffered a significant structural failure in stormy seas during December 1924.  Those schemes ranged from a minimalist one restoring Majestic to her strength as originally completed in 1922, to a much more substantial proposal which would significantly increase her strength.  (Roscoe & Little noted that under the minimalist scheme of repair, they estimated that Majestic would be about 20 percent weaker than Olympic.)  These examples help illustrate the context in which shipbuilding professionals viewed Olympic at the time.

There seem to be many people who think Titanic was a ‘weak’ ship, given that she broke up in the final stage of sinking. In reality, her stern was lifted out of the water for an extended period, subjecting her to stresses a multiple of what she would have experienced in the worst North Atlantic storm.  Any structure will fail if it is subjected to stresses far beyond what it was designed for.  That hasn’t stopped all too many conspiracy theorists taking key details out of context in recent years.

 

 

Above: Olympic as built, 1911.  Eight of the fifteen watertight bulkheads extended up to D-deck and the remainder to E-deck.  Her watertight subdivision was designed on the basis that she needed to float with any two compartments flooded, but Harland & Wolff built in such a margin of safety that she was largely a three-compartment ship.  She would also float in a number of scenarios with four compartments flooded.  (The Shipbuilder, 1911/Bruce Beveridge collection – modified to show the outline of watertight bulkheads)

 

 

FAQ: Were Titanic’s Lifeboats Reused on Olympic?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Were Titanic‘s Lifeboats Reused on Olympic?

 

No.

While nobody has been able to confirm for definite what did happen to the Titanic lifeboats which were recovered and taken to New York, we know that they did not end up being reused on Olympic.

Olympic received a number of temporary collapsible lifeboats in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, in April 1912.  She completed her final round trip of the year between Southampton and New York in October 1912.  At that time, Titanic‘s lifeboats were still in New York.

The reason that Olympic was withdrawn from service in October 1912 was so that she could return to Harland & Wolff’s Belfast shipyard for a major refit.  This included a more permanent solution to her lifeboat apparatus, replacing the collapsibles which had only been intended as a stop-gap solution.

 

Above: Harland & Wolff blueprint reproduced in Olympic Titanic & Britannic: An Illustrated History of the ‘Olympic’ Class Ships (recommended further reading: below). 

 

In February 1913, Harland & Wolff submitted a blueprint to the British Board of Trade confirming the new lifeboat arrangements and the additional davits which had been fitted to handle them. The Board of Trade had to give approval to permit the ship to go to sea with passengers and this submission was a key part of that process.

They included a ‘Summary of Boats’:

Description No. of Persons Total No. of Persons
14 Open Lifeboats 30 x 9 x 4 64 896 Boats Originally Fitted to Comply with Old B/T Regulations
2 Wood Cutters 25 x 7 x 3 33 66
4 Decked Lifeboats 28 x 8 x 3-8″ 40 160
12 Open Lifeboats 27-5″ x 8-6″ x 3-7″ 50 600 New Boats to Comply with new Board of Trade Regulations
12 Decked Lifeboats 27-5″ x 8-6″ x 3-7″ 46 552
8 Open Lifeboats 29 x 8-6″ x 3-7″ 53 424
14 Decked Lifeboats 30 x 9 x 3-7″ 52 728
2 Decked Lifeboats 28 x 8 x 3 42 84
Total Number of Persons Boats Will Accommodate 3510 Total 68 Lifeboats
Total Number of Persons on Board 3450
Spare 65

Above: Olympic Lifeboat Configuration, February 1913.  The ‘Description’ includes the number of each type of boat and then the boat dimensions (length x breadth x depth) in feet (rounded) and -inches (“) as applicable.  Lifeboat capacities sometimes differ in different source material, depending on the method of calculation and whether capacities have been rounded up or down.  The ‘Boats Originally Fitted…’ are Olympic‘s original lifeboats, which were identical to Titanic’s.   (They illustrate this point well, because the capacities shown for the original 20 boats come to 1,122 persons whereas the usual figure is 1,178. See: Titanic: The Ship Magnificent [History Press; 2016] for further details on how lifeboat capacities could be calculated, including Stirling’s Rule.)  The ‘New Boats…’ are those fitted in 1913.

All of the new, additional lifeboats were different in size and carrying capacity to Titanic’s lifeboats.  Some of the new boats were also delivered late. On 11 March 1913 Harland & Wolff informed the Board of Trade that they would retain ten Berthon and six Henderson collapsibles on board as a temporary solution, while ‘doing all possible to expedite the delivery of the remaining sixteen decked lifeboats’ that would be ‘placed onboard at the earliest possible opportunity’. The orders placed and the delay in constructing or delivering these sixteen boats once again demonstrate that they were newly built.

 

Olympic Titanic Britannic Illustrated History book cover

 

Oceanic’s Unbuilt Sister: The Abandoned Olympic

Format Status Published on

Oceanic‘s Unbuilt Sister: The Abandoned Olympic

 

The White Star Line had plans to build a sister ship to Oceanic (1899), which would be called Olympic.  J. Bruce Ismay described her as ‘an improved Oceanic‘.  It is popularly believed that the order to build Olympic was cancelled as a direct result of Thomas Henry Ismay’s death in 1899 and that the White Star Line chose to build the ‘Big Four’ instead.  However, the company did not see these ships as an ‘either/or’ choice.  We know from correspondence between J. Bruce Ismay and William Pirrie in June 1902 that the decision not to proceed with construction came about from the ‘altered circumstances’ White Star found itself in following its acquisition by IMM. In other words, the White Star Line had still been intending to proceed three years after Thomas Henry Ismay passed away. 

After the White Star Line’s shareholders voted to approve J.P. Morgan’s offer for their shares in May 1902, the famous line was destined to become a key part of the new International Mercantile Marine (IMM) combine. There was little change immediately for White Star’s existing express service, but it did have implications for their plans for the future…J. Bruce Ismay wrote to Harland & Wolff’s William Pirrie on 4 June 1902:

Of course had we been left to ourselves there is little doubt … we should have gone [ahead] with an improved Oceanic, but under the altered circumstances we don’t know where we are.

It appears Harland & Wolff had intended to assign yard number 356 to Oceanic’s younger sister, but Pirrie wrote back the next day: ‘Under the circumstances I think it would hardly be justifiable to decide at a present to go on with the proposed Olympic.’ (The shipbuilder assigned the yard number to the Union Castle liner Kenilworth Castle, laid down early in October 1902.) Harland & Wolff were progressing steadily with Celtic’s sister ship Cedric; Baltic would be laid down two days later; and the order to proceed with construction of a fourth sister, Adriatic, would follow late in August 1902. In the middle of June 1902, the White Star Line were making payments to Harland & Wolff at a rate of £70,000 each month. Construction of a more expensive version of Oceanic would only have added to the cost at a time when there was significant uncertainty.

The reasons behind the cancellation of Oceanic‘s proposed sister ship are one of many little known or previously unpublished details contained in Oceanic: White Star’s ‘Ship of the Century’.

 

Above: Oceanic: White Star’s ‘Ship of the Century’. The History Press; 2018.

 

FAQ: Was Bismarck/Majestic ‘Given’ to the White Star Line as Compensation for Britannic?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Was Bismarck/Majestic ‘Given’ to the White Star Line as Compensation for Britannic?

No.

Contrary to popular belief that the German-built HAPAG liners Imperator/Berengaria and Bismarck/Majestic were simply ‘given’ to Cunard and White Star by the British government following Germany’s defeat in the First World War, in fact they had to be purchased.  These German ships were allocated to the United Kingdom as one of the winning Allied countries, but the British Lines then had to arrange to purchase them from the British government:

On 27 January 1921, Cunard and White Star signed an agreement with the British government. It provided for a joint purchase with a total purchase price of £1.5 million (£500,000 for Imperator/Berengaria and £1 million for Bismarck). Each ship would be bought in ten equal instalments, with interest (at a minimum of 4 per cent) charged on the cost outstanding. Each company would own their ship in its entirety, but pay the other 50 per cent of their ship’s profit. On 12 March 1921, Harland & Wolff noted that ‘White Star Line have made an offer for her to Lord Inchcape (acting on behalf of the government), which offer has been tentatively accepted.’ In April 1921, Cunard’s annual report noted that they had purchased Imperator and renamed her Berengaria. By 16 November 1921, Cunard and White Star had signed an agreement about how they would operate both ships on a joint account.

The White Star Line had already received full cash compensation from the British government for the loss of Britannic.  She was less than a year old when she was lost in November 1916 and so her value was reckoned at approximately £1,947,000.  During the war, there was significant inflation.  Harland & Wolff produced estimates for the Holland America Line which compared June 1919 shipbuilding prices with April 1916 prices.  By their estimates, the cost of building a replacement for the Holland America Line’s Statendam/Justicia (lost in 1918) had risen about 109 percent. Using the same rate of increase in a hypothetical scenario where White Star had ordered Harland & Wolff to build a new Britannic, the cost would have been over £4 million.

In this respect, the company got a very good deal by purchasing Bismarck/Majestic at approximately £1 million, because it was much cheaper than building similar new tonnage.  To make matters even better, they did not have to pay it all straight away but rather in instalments over 10 years. And, the profit-sharing agreement diversified earnings over two ships instead of one.  What this meant was that if one ship was out of service (such as Majestic in the first quarter of 1925), the White Star Line still received some earnings from Cunard from the operation of Berengaria. (The agreement on a profit sharing arrangement between Cunard and White Star ran until Cunard terminated it just over ten years later, on the grounds that their ship had earned more profit.  That meant that they were paying White Star more than they were receiving in return.)

Further details, including a detailed analysis of both ships’ financial results, are included in Appendix Four of the revised and expanded edition of RMS Majestic: The ‘Magic Stick‘ (The History Press; 2024).

 

 

FAQ: Was Leviathan More Popular than Majestic?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Was Leviathan More Popular Than Majestic?

 

How can popularity be defined? By the total number of passengers carried, or the average number of passengers carried on each crossing? The difficulty arises when trying to establish if one liner was more popular than another.

Average Passenger Lists

Taking the average passenger list for Berengaria over the 1923 to 1932 period (covering 300 crossings), she averaged 980 passengers; Leviathan averaged 1,035 passengers in the same period (over only 264 crossings), and Majestic led the way with 1,067 passengers (292 crossings). In this respect, then, when information for a comparable period is available then Majestic had the edge over both of her older sisters.

Total Passengers Carried 

Leviathan’s total of 40,539 passengers carried in 1927 eclipsed Majestic’s best showing of 37,949 passengers in 1928.  Berengaria’s best year of 1928 was slightly further behind. On the basis of the most passengers carried in any one year, Leviathan had the record.

Overall, Majestic had the edge in carrying higher numbers of passengers on average. Leviathan was not consistent in the 1920s, carrying the lowest average number of passengers of any of the three sisters in 1924 (983 passengers), and then the highest average of 1,448 passengers on each crossing in 1927.

(Further information can be found by referring to RMS Majestic: The ‘Magic Stick’).

 

 

FAQ: Which Was Olympic’s Fastest Crossing?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Which was Olympic’s Fastest Crossing?

How do we define ‘fastest crossing’?  Part of the issue is that some sources seem to take it in terms of the time elapsed whereas others use the average speed.  Average speed is the most accurate from the point of view of measuring a ship’s performance, because otherwise a slower ship could complete a ‘faster’ crossing simply because she had covered fewer miles at a slower average speed.

There is no evidence she was ever driven all-out for the full duration of any of the 514 commercial crossings she completed during her career. (What Olympic‘s schedule allowed for was a reliable, steady performance.)  This is a contrast, for example, to Mauretania (highlighting in particular her attempt to regain the Blue Riband in 1929).  However, we do have limited information from Harold Sanderson, who took over the chairmanship of the White Star Line from J. Bruce Ismay, and who confirmed that the company’s records showed she had maintained an average speed of 24.2 knots for a 24 hour period in the Atlantic.  We have no further information as to the ship’s engine revolutions, state of loading or the weather conditions, but it is assumed that this would have been accomplished during ideal weather conditions on an eastbound crossing, when the current was typically in the ship’s favour.  (Sanderson provided this information in 1915, so it is also possible that Olympic performed better than this at a later date.)

A number of older sources have referred to two crossings Olympic made in 1921. On 31 October 1921 Olympic arrived in New York, having completed 2,931 miles in 5 days 12 hours and 39 minutes, averaging 22.10 knots. However, the eastbound return crossing was even faster: she covered 2,999 miles in 5 days 12 hours and 38 minutes, averaging 22.61 knots. These appear to be her shortest westbound and eastbound crossings (for the post-war period) in terms of the time elapsed but neither was her fastest crossing in either direction in terms of average speed.

At the time of writing, I have compiled a performance record which comprises available data on about 91.5 percent of the commercial voyages Olympic completed during her career. There are still a number of voyages missing in 1913 and 1914, in particular.  The available consolidated data for the 91.5 percent of these commercial voyages indicates that Olympic recorded an average speed of about 21.5 knots (including both westbound and eastbound crossings).  This data is taken from log abstracts for each individual voyage and/or records of the North Atlantic crossing times of the major liners, which Cunard maintained a continuous record of from 1917.

Westbound:  The fastest westbound crossing Olympic ever completed seems to have been that departing 30 June 1926.  She completed 3,195 miles in 6 days 12 minutes at an average speed of 22.16 knots.  (The ‘runner up’ is a crossing departing 9 May 1928, when she completed 3,160 miles in 5 days 22 hours 52 minutes at an average speed of 22.12 knots.)

Departure Date Distance Time Taken Average Speed
30 June 1926 3195 miles 6 days 0 hours 12 minutes 22.16 knots

Eastbound:  The fastest eastbound crossing Olympic ever completed seems to have been that departing 5 July 1924.  She completed 3,241 miles in 5 days 22 hours 47 minutes at an average speed of 22.70 knots.  However, a newspaper report in the Western Daily Mercury indicated that, on the eastbound crossing departing 6 July 1912, she completed 3,248 miles in 5 days 22 hours 15 minutes at an average speed of 22.83 knots. If that is correct (it has not been possible to verify it with a primary source) then that is the fastest eastbound crossing I am aware of currently.

Departure Date Distance Time Taken Average Speed
5 July 1924 3241 miles 5 days 22 hours 47 minutes 22.70 knots

 

Olympic was not designed to be the fastest liner afloat but she was certainly not a slow ship.  

 

 

FAQ: When Were The New Suites Forward on B-deck Added to Olympic?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: When Were The New Suites Forward on B-deck Added to Olympic?

Although it is popularly believed that they were added in 1928, at the same time as changes were made to second and tourist class areas, in fact there was not a single, major refit in 1928. Instead, some changes were made over the winter of 1927-28, and some over 1928-29. The new suites were added over the winter of 1928-29. By 1929, B-deck had become A-deck, however the original deck designation from 1911 is being used because readers will be more familiar with it. (See: ‘RMS Olympic: The Mis-dated Refit’.) 

 

 

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.

 

 

FAQ: Was Titanic’s Starboard Propeller Used to Repair Olympic after the Hawke collision?

Format Status Published on

FAQ: Was Titanic’s Starboard Propeller Used to Repair Olympic after the Hawke collision?

 

No.

The available evidence indicates that Harland & Wolff used three spare blades as replacements for the three damaged blades on Olympic’s starboard propeller.

George Cuming, one of Harland & Wolff’s managing directors, was one of a number of professionals to see Olympic in drydock.  On 14 October 1911, he summarised the necessary repair work to an Engineer Commander, whose report went to the Director of Dockyards (on behalf of the Admiralty) some days later.

Olympic’s Starboard Propeller Blades

There was some good news: ‘There are no marks on the propeller blades of the centre and port shafts to show that these have been touched by anything at the time of collision’.  Unfortunately, the starboard propeller blades were all damaged:

The three blades have been removed; they are damaged towards the tips.  They are probably bent as well although this is not obvious.  Mr. Cummings’ [sic] proposal is to scrap these three blades, appropriate three spare and replace the spare blades used.  The blades are…manganese bronze.

Olympic’s Starboard Propeller Boss

The starboard propeller boss itself (the cylinder at the centre of the propeller to which the blades were attached) was ‘apparently undamaged’ but either of Titanic’s port or starboard propeller bosses were available to use as a replacement in the event that any damage to Olympic’s starboard propeller boss became apparent later.  (There is no evidence that it did.)  Harland & Wolff proposed to ‘anneal the studs for securing the blades, and if necessary, to renew them’.  (To ‘anneal’ meant to heat the material and then allow it to cool slowly, which made it easier to work.  In the event, it was necessary to renew at least some of them.)

Olympic’s Starboard Propeller Shafting

There was damage to Olympic’s propeller shafting, but Harland & Wolff did not think any bent shafting could be straightened out or repaired.  Instead, it would need to be replaced:

The tail shaft can be withdrawn into the dock and so removed to the shop, the three pieces forward of this necessitate that certain plates should be removed from the ship’s side so as to pass them out into the dock and so send into the shop.

Where the shafting passes through [watertight] bulkheads, the plating has had to be cut in order to uncouple and pass the shafting to be removed through the orifice being cut in the ship’s side.

It is not expected that these four lengths will be in the shop for another seven or eight days, and so the renewal necessary as regards them is unknown. As a precautionary measure a forging has been ordered for one length of shafting. The shafting is hollow and Messrs. Harland & Wolff do not consider that if any length is bent it can be made serviceable by straightening.

The Titanic’s shafting is available if necessary but if used would entail considerable delay in that ship’s completion, as the engines are now being put into her.

While Olympic was in dry dock, Harland & Wolff took the opportunity to increase the pitch of her port propeller blades from 33 feet to 34 feet 6 inches.  The cost was accounted for separately to the repairs of the collision damage.  The new starboard propeller blades were undoubtedly set at the same pitch. 

 

Olympic Starboard Propeller 1929
Olympic in drydock for her annual overhaul, January 1929. (‘Rivet counters’ might notice that there are five rows of rivets around the top of the centre propeller aperture.  This is one of several easy ways to identify photos of Olympic which date from after her stern frame was replaced over the winter of 1925-26.  As built, there were only four rows of rivets in this location.) (White Star Magazine, 1929/Author’s collection)

 

 

FAQ: Majestic’s ‘Record’ Passenger List

Format Status Published on

Did Majestic Carry the White Star Line’s Highest Ever Number of Passengers in September 1923?

It has sometimes been reported that Majestic set a record in September 1923, carrying the White Star Line’s ‘highest ever’ passenger list of 2,625 passengers. There are several discrepancies. The statement, or a variation of it taken from several websites, appears to be traceable to Duncan Haws’ Merchant Fleets Volume 19: White Star Line (Starling Press Ltd; 1990), page 90:

1923 Sept: Fastest then crossing 5 days 5 hours 21 minutes. Average 24.75 knots. Only Mauretania was faster. On one crossing carried 480 first, 736 second, 1,409 third = 2,625, the company’s highest ever.

The first problem is that Majestic only made one westbound departure from Southampton that month, on 12 September 1923. She carried 1,774 passengers, including 815 in first class (her highest that year, westbound). She did, however, make two eastbound departures from New York – on 1 September and 22 September 1923 – with passenger lists in all three classes totalling 607 and 657, respectively. None of these three September departures had such a record list, although they did include the best first class passenger list that year for the westbound crossing, and (eastbound) Majestic carried 853 in first class on her 23 June 1923 New York departure.

The report appears to refer to the 26 October 1923 westbound departure, when Majestic carried 475 first class, 731 second class, and 1,416 third class passengers for a total of 2,622 passengers, her highest that year in either direction.  When Majestic arrived in New York on 1 November 1923, the figures given in America by the North Atlantic Passenger Conference were:

  • 480 first class
  • 736 second class
  • 1,411 third class

That total was 2,627 passengers, which is also very close to the ‘record’.  (Any of the figures represented a record for Majestic herself.)  If Majestic did carry that many passengers, albeit the following month, was it right to claim it was the highest passenger list of a White Star Line vessel?

No. We know that Celtic carried 2,957 passengers in September 1904.  That appears to be the highest passenger list ever recorded for a White Star liner.

 

 

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)