Thanks for your informative update, Parks. Let’s hope the weather improves next time.
Carl Spencer's exploration of the Marconi rooms was thwarted by a solid steel bulkhead that runs the width of the Officers' Quarters deckhouse around the aft gantry davit well, effectively cutting the deckhouse into two separate halves…The port-side door leads into the fore part of the OQ deckhouse...in order to access the Marconi rooms, Carl will have to try again using the starboard-side door, which is aft of the bulkhead.
This seems very interesting, in light of the exploration of 2003. As a matter of clarification, is this bulkhead *directly* located at the after gantry davit well (around frame 55 forward)? I ask because the H&W builder’s plans appear to show an exterior door outline (if a little faint) on the port side almost directly under the after davit, next to the pilot’s cabin; then, moving aft, there’s the fifth officer’s cabin and a more distinct exterior door. On the starboard side, I can see an exterior door forward of the third officer’s cabin which leads into the corridor and then you would come to the bedroom/wireless room/silent room suite.
To confuse matters, the Engineering plans show some differences in this area (for instance, showing two two-berth first class staterooms in the aft starboard corner of the officer’s quarters). However, what I do find particularly interesting is that none of the plans I recall seeing even show a door dividing the corridors at this point — nothing even remotely matching this bulkhead. I realise I shouldn’t bombard you with questions…these were just a few observations that came to mind, for whatever they might be worth. I’m sure they have been considered in any case.
The bulkhead itself is a mystery...it does not show on the set of original H&W plans that Simon brought with him (nor does the observed location of the port-side door) and doesn't make apparent sense, since it divides the officer accommodation. Maybe doors were intended to be cut into the bulkhead at a later date? We don't know.
It seems valuable that you are uncovering this sort of information, even if it does add to the ship’s mysteries. The Engineering plans don’t show a port side exterior door at all. The speculation about cutting doors into the bulkhead is interesting, in light of the fact that Britannic had been out of service in summer 1916 and there may have been chance to do it then. Maybe some modifications were made then based on in-service experience? Just something to throw into the mix.
The name Gigantic may have been considered early on (and that point can be argued endlessly), but Simon Mills has enough evidence to prove that by the time the keel to Hull 433 was laid, the name was officially Britannic. Since Britannic's keel was laid months before Titanic sank, then the assumption that Gigantic's name was changed in the wake of the Titanic disaster just doesn't hold water.
I would certainly argue that the name Gigantic was considered (at a bare minimum); and yes, I tend to agree that the view that the name was changed just after the Titanic disaster appears discredited. However, the topic did come up in private discussion about eighteen months ago and I did not find some of Simon’s arguments entirely convincing. I am aware that he has done a great deal of research in this area, and it may be that he has since found something that was not available at the time of this discussion, but I think I am right in saying that I was not alone in viewing the information differently to Simon. It was a respectful disagreement on both sides, yet I am not sure it can be said so definitely unless further details have come to light.
the Britannic wreck has not lost much (if any) of her atwartships rigidity even after lying on her side for 90 years. The Andrea Doria, only half as old as Britannic, is already collapsing upon herself. I mention this as a counter-point to those who speculate about the relative fragility of the hull structure of the Olympics.
Aside from the strain imposed by lying on her side, when Britannic was designed to float upright, what I find particularly interesting is not merely the hull structure proper, but the condition of the superstructure. I believe there were some features of the deckhouse construction (in terms of strengthening) which were unusual for the time, and would have helped ensure that the superstructure did not disintegrate (as seen on Lusitania, for instance).
Best wishes,
Mark.
