Michael H. Standart
Member
I would think no later then the fall of 1911, but that's just a best guess on my own part. Perhaps Bruce Beveridge or Steve Hall may know the answer to that one.
Steven Hall
Member
Michael H. Standart
Member
Summer of 1911 then. Can't say as I'm really surprised. That's for those photos, Steve.
Steven Hall
Member
Clearly they started on the staboard side first.
Either way, the work started in late June 1911.
(additional reference was obtained from Harland & Wolf Tech Services 1998)
It is also interesting that they changed the ships port side anchor in August 1911.
Michael, happy to assist.
Steven Hall
Member
Work on B deck (exterior) can be gauged by studying the photographs.
As can be seen, work had started by late June. The first of the ships funnels had been lifted into position by mid-July. (a good reference is UFTM — MS503)
As you can see, there was no funnels in place when they started work on B deck.
As you commented Paul, Olympic left Southampton with Ismay onboard on June 14th.
So how could Ismay have noted and recommended the B deck changes, and how (thereby) could work have started so quickly.
I have always believed those changes in B deck had been on the drawing board weeks prior to Titanic’s launch. The White Star senior management (Ismay & Sanderson) likely realized the waste of revenue producing space when inspecting Olympic in the weeks prior to her departure form Belfast.
Blind-Freddie could have seen that it would have been a commercially sound decision to redesigned B deck to provide additional revenue producing berths.
So why not change them prior to launch ? Not enough time obviously — and Titanic would not have looked to flash being launched with all the (exterior) B deck window framing ripped out.
Ismay likely noted the sea spray issue (or been told of), and the need for the enclosure of the forward section of A deck.
An insight into what he noticed for change (or addition) was the need for cigar holders above the urinals. It is a huge leap to think he identified the need to alter B deck on the Olympic’s maiden crossing of the Atlantic (and within days seen the B deck window framing completely removed from Titanic). Things move fast — but not that fast.
People tell porkie-pies (sometimes be it myth or exaggeration), photographs don’t.
Like I mentioned earlier — the photographic material appears to support the suggestion that the alteration to B deck had been made earlier than June 1911.
Either way — food for thought.
As can be seen, work had started by late June. The first of the ships funnels had been lifted into position by mid-July. (a good reference is UFTM — MS503)
As you can see, there was no funnels in place when they started work on B deck.
As you commented Paul, Olympic left Southampton with Ismay onboard on June 14th.
So how could Ismay have noted and recommended the B deck changes, and how (thereby) could work have started so quickly.
I have always believed those changes in B deck had been on the drawing board weeks prior to Titanic’s launch. The White Star senior management (Ismay & Sanderson) likely realized the waste of revenue producing space when inspecting Olympic in the weeks prior to her departure form Belfast.
Blind-Freddie could have seen that it would have been a commercially sound decision to redesigned B deck to provide additional revenue producing berths.
So why not change them prior to launch ? Not enough time obviously — and Titanic would not have looked to flash being launched with all the (exterior) B deck window framing ripped out.
Ismay likely noted the sea spray issue (or been told of), and the need for the enclosure of the forward section of A deck.
An insight into what he noticed for change (or addition) was the need for cigar holders above the urinals. It is a huge leap to think he identified the need to alter B deck on the Olympic’s maiden crossing of the Atlantic (and within days seen the B deck window framing completely removed from Titanic). Things move fast — but not that fast.
People tell porkie-pies (sometimes be it myth or exaggeration), photographs don’t.
Like I mentioned earlier — the photographic material appears to support the suggestion that the alteration to B deck had been made earlier than June 1911.
Either way — food for thought.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I have always believed those changes in B deck had been on the drawing board weeks prior to Titanic’s launch.<<
I would reckon that the planning part would have been completed by then. They would have needed some lead time in order to order/produce the materials and componants and get them to the shipyard. Conversion at this point wouldn't have been difficult as all that was going into the water was an empty shell. Later on, when things like non-structural bulkheads seperating cabins as well as ventilation, wiring, and plumbing had been fitted in, this would have been a lot more difficult.
I would reckon that the planning part would have been completed by then. They would have needed some lead time in order to order/produce the materials and componants and get them to the shipyard. Conversion at this point wouldn't have been difficult as all that was going into the water was an empty shell. Later on, when things like non-structural bulkheads seperating cabins as well as ventilation, wiring, and plumbing had been fitted in, this would have been a lot more difficult.
Nigel Bryant
Member
Interesting discussion here! Nice photographs Steve! I agree with what you guys are saying. It's interesting though in the Ismay letter sent to White Star Office's after Olympic's maiden voyage he mentions also about this conversion also.
"The deck space with the number of passengers onboard going out, was certainly excessive, and i think in another ship we might carry out the rooms on 'B' deck the same as those on "C" deck."
As you said this idea must of been in his mind before Ismay even boarded Olympic for the maiden trip.
I was wondering are those rare photgraphs you posted above in your recent published book?
All the best,
Nigel
"The deck space with the number of passengers onboard going out, was certainly excessive, and i think in another ship we might carry out the rooms on 'B' deck the same as those on "C" deck."
As you said this idea must of been in his mind before Ismay even boarded Olympic for the maiden trip.
I was wondering are those rare photgraphs you posted above in your recent published book?
All the best,
Nigel
Steven Hall
Member
Nigel,
The 1st image is as familiar as pop-corn. Recently a period postcard of this image was sold on Ebay. Has been published in many books)
The 2nd image is held in a private collection. I cannot say anymore.
The 3rd is held be Ray Lepien. Published in our book.
The 4th is H-1712 UFTM held photograph. It had also been published as a postcard. We used a small version of this in the book.
The 5th, published. Also held within a private collection. To my knowledge, a few collectors have a copy of it.
Re the thread — yes very interesting. Looking (researching and or) material like this attracts little attention. It’s a real shame somewhat.
Look at what the (possible) significance this information could have on Titanic’s history. People love reading material like this - that’s why books containing research (paths) like this are such a popular mover on the bookshelf.
This is why books like; ‘Olympic & Titanic — The Truth Behind The Conspiracy’ and ‘The Last Log Of The Titanic’ are such excellent sellers.
As you can see (with regard The Truth Behind The Conspiracy), what the (on mass) Titanic book buyers purchase is not always reflective of what is universally discussed here.
I mean no disrespect to ET (or its members) — it simply means book buyers see a title and purchase based on their wants.
The 1st image is as familiar as pop-corn. Recently a period postcard of this image was sold on Ebay. Has been published in many books)
The 2nd image is held in a private collection. I cannot say anymore.
The 3rd is held be Ray Lepien. Published in our book.
The 4th is H-1712 UFTM held photograph. It had also been published as a postcard. We used a small version of this in the book.
The 5th, published. Also held within a private collection. To my knowledge, a few collectors have a copy of it.
Re the thread — yes very interesting. Looking (researching and or) material like this attracts little attention. It’s a real shame somewhat.
Look at what the (possible) significance this information could have on Titanic’s history. People love reading material like this - that’s why books containing research (paths) like this are such a popular mover on the bookshelf.
This is why books like; ‘Olympic & Titanic — The Truth Behind The Conspiracy’ and ‘The Last Log Of The Titanic’ are such excellent sellers.
As you can see (with regard The Truth Behind The Conspiracy), what the (on mass) Titanic book buyers purchase is not always reflective of what is universally discussed here.
I mean no disrespect to ET (or its members) — it simply means book buyers see a title and purchase based on their wants.
Quite true, Steve.
The reason why I posted this question in the first place was to get some data that could be presented to the pro-conspiracy believers that the ship switch theory is just not tenable.
It supposes the following:
Work on the Titanic's B deck conversion was underway by late June.
Olympic collides with Hawke in last September. By this time, the majority of the conversion seems to have been done.
All of Titanic's B deck conversion is ripped out and replaced on the Olympic.
"Olympic" resumes her voyage schedule in November 1911 (I think?)
That gives the conspirators 2 months to switch the two ships fittings, which obviously isn't long enough.
Phoney Baloney!
Paul
The reason why I posted this question in the first place was to get some data that could be presented to the pro-conspiracy believers that the ship switch theory is just not tenable.
It supposes the following:
Work on the Titanic's B deck conversion was underway by late June.
Olympic collides with Hawke in last September. By this time, the majority of the conversion seems to have been done.
All of Titanic's B deck conversion is ripped out and replaced on the Olympic.
"Olympic" resumes her voyage schedule in November 1911 (I think?)
That gives the conspirators 2 months to switch the two ships fittings, which obviously isn't long enough.
Phoney Baloney!
Paul
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Not to mention the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved to actually do the conversion itself. And none of them talked? Ever?
Impossible.
Impossible.
