Californian's specifications

[Adam Leet]

All right. Going with the 115 foot measurement for the bridge deck, it fits with the plans Scott Reigel sent me...but her length O.A. turns out to be 448 feet, which also brings her width down to 50 feet. If I use her 54 foot width as reference, the O.A. length is 474 feet, but the bridge deck turns out to be around 120 feet long, and that's including the forward curve of the superstructure. Right now I have two sets of designs; one for a 448 O.A. and one for 474 O.A. Talk about a conundrum.

Adam

 

[Tracy Smith]

I got my copy of Padfield's The Titanic and the Californian for one dollar. That's right, ONE DOLLAR! Of course it was in 1968 when I was ten years old......

 

[Adam Leet]

I think I'm going with the 465 foot length. Since there's little information on her, and without the wreck for reference at the moment, I'll have to make an educated guess on this one. Who knows? I may have it right.

 

[John M. Feeney]

FYI: In re-reading portions of "The Ship that Stood Still" (First American Edition 1993; W. W. Norton) lately, I came upon the surprising contention that the Californian's freeboard was "only 11 feet" (p. 311; Source: "Official Log")!

Now, from an examination of that "Plan of the Californian (Courtesy: Rob Caledon Ltd., Scottish Record Office)" also included in the work (Plates), I strongly suspect that's a typographical error, and should have been printed as "21 feet". This would agree with the relative, vertically-oriented dimensions on that plate for the ship's breadth of 53.6 ft. (The printed scale is of course meaningless, as the image is obviously reduced.)

Is this indeed an error, as I suspect, and is it present in the Patrick Stephens edition as well? Is 21 feet the reasonable alternative?

Also, the Caledon plan for "S.S. Californian, No. 159" varies slightly in its stated "Dimensions: 447.6 B.P. · 53.6 · 34.8 moulded" from other numbers cited here. Mind you, I'm not saying I doubt those previous numbers, from Haws: "Dimensions 447 ft 7 in (136.42 m) x 53 ft 9 in (16.38 m) x 30 ft 6 in (9.3 m)." (Reade's verbal description on page 17 of the "First American Edition" simply *truncates* those values to whole numbers -- "447 feet long, 53 feet beam and a hull 30 feet deep" -- but they otherwise agree.)

But I'm curious: Is something slightly different implied by "moulded" that would account for that 4+ foot difference between it and the hull depth? For example, is the double bottom included in "moulded", but excluded from "hull depth"?? (Sort of like O.D.'s and I.D.'s -- Outside Dimensions and Inside Dimensions -- for pipes and tubing?)

Cheers,
John Feeney

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Moulded depth refers to the vertical distance from the baseline to the moulded line of the main deck at side measured at the midship section.

As to the 11 foot freeboard, I agree. This one must have been a typo...unless somebody can convince me that the ship drew 20 feet when fully loaded. Rather a stretch there, and an 11 foot freeboard seems decidedly low for a freighter designed for the brutal environment of the North Atlantic...or any stretch of open ocean for that matter.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[John M. Feeney]

As to the 11 foot freeboard, I agree. This one must have been a typo...unless somebody can convince me that the ship drew 20 feet when fully loaded.

Hi, Michael:

Well now, that observation would almost seem to put the shoe entirely on the *other* foot! Based on the Caledon Plans, the design draught of Californian was approximately *28* feet. (Admittedly, she appears to be riding slightly higher in the photos taken from Carpathia -- 24 feet draught, perhaps?)

I derived this from re-scaling the vertical aspects of that drawing via the 53.6 foot beam (21 mm. on the reduction) ---> Scale: 1 mm. = 2.5524 ft. That scale does jibe with Captain Lord's "40 feet" assertion (BI 6997) if it was honestly intended to signify the Californian's bridge (deck) height under actual load conditions on April 15, 1912. (I get a bridge height of just shy of *36* feet above water line from the rigging plan -- 64 feet keel-to-bridge, minus the 28-foot draught illustrated. The flying bridge scales to about 18 feet above the shelter deck below.)

But those moulded and hull depth figures make little sense either way -- relative to the design drawings -- unless the "baseline" you referred to is something other than the keel! Keel (bottom) to shelter deck height looks to be about 46 feet. Water line to shelter deck height -- "freeboard" -- would be 18 feet at design draught, by subtraction (thus about 22 feet under actual load conditions April 15?).

Dimensions 447 ft 7 in (136.42 m) x 53 ft 9 in (16.38 m) x 30 ft 6 in (9.3 m) (courtesy Fiona; from Haws)
Dimensions: 447.6 B.P. · 53.6 · 34.8 moulded (Caledon Plan)

So what do the "30 ft 6 in" and "34.8 ft.moulded" (34 ft 10 in moulded) actually signify on the Californian?

Confused,
John Feeney

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Confused? Well, me too. I just had a discussion with a couple of chums on this, and the deeper draft may well be the correct one. Apparently, Leyland had a habit of overloading their ships. Rather a dangerous passtime if true as overloaded ships = overstressed ships...which have an unfortunate habit of disappearing mysteriously.

Agreed that the photo taken from the Carpathia looks like the ship is riding light. I'm still wondering what sort of cargo she was carrying. (Gill's affidavit hints that it was dangerous enough that he had to go topside for his smoke. Textiles perhaps? Oil? As the ship was a general cargo type of vessel, just about anything is possible)

As to moulded depth, I believe...but could be wrong...that the keel is the baseline for the measurement. I'll have to check my naval architecture books when I have the chance.

That 30ft 6in could refer to the tank top as the baseline with 34ft 8in using the keel. The only other possibility I could think of would be the sheer.

Is there a naval architect in the house?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[David G. Brown]

Somewhere I came across information that Californian was in ballast on the trip in question. If so, the ship would have been showing a lot of freeboard, as it seems to be doing in the photos taken at the wreck scene. There may be a story here--why would Leyland waste precious fuel (don't forget the coal strike) shipping ballast to North America?

Even in 1912 ship loading was limited by law and insurance regulations. No ship could legally be loaded beyond its Plimsol line. If it were loaded deeper, then the insurance coverage would have been nullified. However, the Leyland Line was probably well aware that there was little profit in loading to less than the legal limit.

Today, ship load lines vary with the season of year and the location. More cargo can be loaded for voyages in tropical waters than in the North Atlantic. I'm not sure if this multiple load line scheme had made an appearance in 1912 yet or not.

--David G. Brown

 

[Erik Wood]

Load line!!! I'll tell you what the Coast Guard can do with their Load Line Certs.

Erik

 

[David G. Brown]

Erik-- does it require a "light coat of oil?"

--David G. Brown

 

[Inger Sheil]

Don't know if it's of any use, but the following was taken from the Official Log:

Draught of water in salt water at time of proceeding to sea (from London):
Forward 24'8"
Aft 25' 6"
(From Boston, these read forward 26'5" and aft 27'10")

Freeboard amidships corresponding to foregoing draught:
Port 10'2"
Starboard 10'2"
(From Boston, these read Port 8'1 1/2" Starboard 8'1 1/2")

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Inger, was this from the April 1912 voyage or that last voyage? The reason I'm wondering is because the Californian looks like she's riding high in the photo taken from the Carpathia.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[John M. Feeney]

Inger: Thanks very much for those delicious stats. The draught in both directions looks to be slightly less than the design maximum indicated on the Caledon plan, and jibes pretty well with what I got from re-scaling the drawing and eyeballing those Carpathia photos.

Anyway, it looks like I should withdraw my prior suggestion of a "typographical error". For "moulded depth" at least, I located another source which stipulates that it's measured from the keel baseline to the mould line of the highest CONTINUOUS deck (amidhips). So though it's difficult to make out from the cutaway nature of the Caledon rigging plan, it must be that the topmost deck illustrated there is *not* continuous at all, but instead has cut-outs along the way. That being the case, the "moulded", "freeboard", and "draught" would all fit together numerically. (And the roughly 4-foot difference between hull depth and moulded could indeed be attributed to an I.D. / O.D. difference in the measurement approaches, with hull depth omitting the double bottom.)

Michael: The trip before would have been from New Orleans, I believe. This was the Californian's *first* passage to Boston, according to Reade. Typically, she was a cotton cargo-liner in those prior voyages, but all I've run across in Reade's text for the Boston passage is "mixed cargo".

Anyway, though I'm grateful to get this resolved, I'm also in a bit of a quandary. David Brown had pointed out elsewhere that Californian was fairly ill-equipped to serve as a rescue or recovery vessel due to her high freeboard, but the 10' 2" Inger cited doesn't seem extreme at all. How much lower could the freeboard of the cable ships MacKay-Bennett and Minia have been and still allowed those ships to consistently stay afloat in the chaotic conditions of the North Atlantic?

Cheers,
John

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Well, the kicker in this case is only six boats and a crew that was a few men short, and not all of them seamen. Somebody would have had to stay on board to work the davits and also attend to anybody picked up out of the Titanic's boats already in the water. She had no medical facilities to speak of, and living space for only 45 people plus a nearly equal number of passengers. I suspect the ones who needed it most would have been stuffed...literally...into the living area and passenger accommadation. The rest would have had to make do with being on deck or in the cargo holds.

In short, she was undermanned for the job and inadaquately equipped. She could have rigged nets over the side and any swimmers could have had a go at that, but how many could have made it? 10 or 11 feet can seem like 11 miles to the unluckly sould exposed to 28 degree water and anyone who made it up would have needed help to get over the side and onto the deck. As half the crew would have been needed to man up even four boats, It would have been up to the remaining 25 or so to help out on deck. Some would have been stuck on the bridge too and unable to get away. All that against 1400 to 1500 people who would have been in the water.

Some of the Titanic passengers taken up from her lifeboats could have added their strength to this, but how long would it take to get them aboard and how many of them would have been able bodied enough to handle the job?

When you get right down to it, the biggest single enemy was time itself. (Dave Gittins discusses thios problem at length on his website.) In 28 degree water, none but the hardiest souls would have lasted long, and those few who did survive for any length of time would have been in no condition to help themselves. In the best possible case, I believe the Californain could have saved a couple hundred swimmers if they worked fast, (A questionable proposition insofar as the boats would have to have been manned with scratch crews!) but no more then that.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[David G. Brown]

My comments about freeboard even encompass a ship with a 10 foot deck height. That's a steel cliff to be scaled by anyone being rescued. How do you get living people up that wall? Worse, how do you hoist bodies?

I am looking at the lines drawing of Californian and comparing them to Inger's numbers and the photos of the ship taken from Carpathia on the morning of April 15. From the photo, I would gauge the shelter deck (from which rescue work would have been undertaken) was a good 20 feet off the waterline.

There may be good reason for this apparent discrepancy between the photo and Inger's numbers...the shelter deck was not the highest continuous fore-and-aft deck. Hatches #2 and #6 cut across the full beam of the vessel, effectively dividing the shelter deck into three sections.

The uppermost continuous deck would have been one level down, which conveniently appears to be about 10 feet lower. This continuous deck was probably the ship's "main deck." Side loading doors in way of hatches #2 and #6 apparently allowed cargo to come aboard on the main deck for stowage beneath the shelter deck.

My guess is that on Californian the freeboard was measured from this continuous lower deck.

So, even though the numbers say only 10 feet of freeboard, the "lift" for getting either bodies or survivors out of the water was probably 20+ feet on the morning of the 15th. That's too much for an effective rescue or recovery effort. The loading doors on the main deck might have been utilized, but do not appear well suited for the job.

Michael Standard also makes a good point about the number of hands available to do the work.

--David G. Brown