Fire down below

[Dave Gittins]

Cal, I've found the reference I remembered. I see elsewhere that you are familiar with it but are inclined to discount it.

It's on page 102 of Marshall Everett. An un-named fireman is quoted as saying that the coal was removed from sections 1 and 2, starboard side, forward. I know that's not the proper numbering but I suggest that the fireman is merely numbering the bunkers from forward in his own way. He was possibly not aware of any official numbers. It would be sensible to remove coal from the bunker next to the fire. After all, the men in boiler room 6 had to get coal from somewhere. Take it for what it's worth.

I notice that a good deal of Ray Boston's tale is contained in Everett, beginning at page 100. The story attributed to John Dilley contains elements of it, including the proposed use of US fireboats. Dilley's story is also in Logan Marshall. I fancy that it's drawn from a newspaper, like much of Everett and Marshall.

Can any Americans sugggest why fireboats should be celebrating something connected with President Taft? At the time, Taft was fighting for the Republican nomination for the 1912 election, an odd task for an incumbent president. He didn't have much to celebrate.

 

[Erik Wood]

Unless I am mistken Major Butt (or someone else on board) was a personal friend and some kind of Military advisor to President Taft. The only other thing I can think of is that this part of a rather large fundraiser and getting or associating President Taft with the newly comission big ships of the world he could some how twist his way into saying that this is what he has brough America, could trade.

That is just opinion and not fact. Fireboats are used to celebrate alot of things.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Yes, Major Butt was President Taft's advisor as well as a close friend. He was also a friend to Teddy Roosevelt, so it's not hard to imagine the strain it placed on the man after Taft and Roosevelt had their falling out with each other. That was the big reason why Butt took that long holiday.

I can't imagine why fireboats would have been celebrating anything regarding the president, but I can see them giving the Titanic their typical welcome for any liner completing her maiden voyage.

Sadly, with Titanic, it never happened.

 

[Erik Wood]

I am a tad bit horrified that I remebered that piece of information, especially considering that it has been years since I have read it. What horrfies me is that I recalled that, something I read once years ago, but I can't remember where I put my wallet two minutes ago.

Old age is sneaking up.

 

[danny perry]

This is rather old, but a search brought up this thread.

I am rather bothered by the technical discussion above over the temperature of a coal fire. Sure, I can see why coal with a free oxygen supply will burn at a defineable temperature, because the heat produced is able to escape with the combustion products. If there is no air at all, then eventually the fire must go out, because there can be no new combustion and its heat will eventually all be lost. However, the temperature reached in an enclosed fire must depend quite a bit on the exact rate at which that heat can escape to the surroundings, compared to how fast it is being created. Anything hot enough will normally burn away, except that if deprived of oxygen something can get hotter and hotter and hotter without burning, provided there is a source of heat greater than the rate it is being lost.

Some brief research suggests that coking ovens, making coke from coal by driving off the volatile content, operate at around 1000C, 2000F, fuelled just by their own combustion products. This seems to work by having a large quantity of coal enclosed in an airtight container, and then the air flow is adjusted. Special steps are taken to maximise the heating, but what we seem to have on the titanic is a huge coking oven, ventilated at the top with a handy air supply maintained at the bottom where they were trying to unload coal, but also presumably by slow leakage even if the access doors were closed. I notice the discussion above suggest jet fuel burns hotter than coal, but the idea of the coking process is to drive out volatile oils from the coal, which presumably must included driving off fractions similar in characteristics to jet fuel.

The fire could potentially have been burning ever since the coal was loaded, which might have been weeks before. The coal was potentially of an unpredictable grade, because of the coal strike taking place and might have been more or less suitable than normal marine fuel for spontaneous combustion, or reaching a high temperature. The actual bulkhead might have been in a position where it would be relatively cool, but if it was sandwiched between two bunkers so that there was an insulating layer of coal against its other side and no air inlet or outlet against the bulkhead, then it could have been at the heart of the fire. Basic coking ovens seem to work by allowing the outer coal to burn, with the heat forcing out volatiles from the centre, where it gets hottest.

It isnt clear to me that the coal in the adjacent bunker would have been cold, might even have caught fire itself. If someone was able to inspect the bulkhead after emptying the bunker which was definitely on fire, then presumably the walls had cooled to more or less normal temperatures. But that would not necessarily preclude smouldering fire in the adjacent bunker too, which I get the impression was also being emptied?

 

[Penguin]

One thing puzzles me about the coal bunker fire. Where did the smoke go? Presumably out of the top of the coal bunker. How could the passengers be unaware of the fire if smoke was pouring out of the top of the coal bunker?

 

[danny perry]

Yes I am interested in where the smoke went too. One possible answer is up the funnel, either through fixed ventilation pipes or through the ship's general ventilation system. I dont know any details about these on Titanic, but I do know contemporary ships had forced ventilation systems.

Did the ship used forced draft on the boilers? I understand this was achieved in some ships by making the entire boiler room airtight and then having huge fans forcing in air, which had to escape through the boiler chimneys. Presumably someone must have thought about this causing a draft through the open bunkers, and done something to stop smelly boiler room air possibly leaking into the ship generally?

From my own limited knowledge, smoke must have been an issue anyway simply blowing back from the funnels. Presumably designers would have been trying to minimise all possible smoke getting to the passengers and upsetting them, but people from this era must have been accustomed to smelling coal smoke every day of their lives because it was burnt in every household. People might just have not noticed a bit of smoke from a bunker.

 

[Penguin]

I don't think Titanic had forced ventilation but relied on natural draft through the tall funnels. Can anyone confirm this? If there was forced ventilation it would have fanned the fire in the coal bunker.

 

[Penguin]

Another question. How do you transport burning coal from the bunker to the fireboxes? Put it in wheelbarrows? I'd have thought the boiler room would fill with smoke and the stokers would die of carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I don't think Titanic had forced ventilation but relied on natural draft through the tall funnels.

There was no forced ventilation of the boilers. There were stokehold fans that brought fresh air down through shafts from vents located on the boat deck.

 

[danny perry]

This is going to be a how long is a piece of string question, but how much ventilation? enough to notice a draft? I would think the effect of the fires and chimneys would be to suck air into the boiler rooms because of the hot air rising through the chimneys? Penguin is right, it must have been pretty smokey if they were shoveling around any quantity of burning coal.