Ice field

>>I can't see a ship with over a couple minutes of notice not be able to throttle down to a stop forward motion.<<

Two things to keep in mind one of them being sheer inertia. (An object in motion tends to stay in motion and all that) In the case of the Titanic, you have close to 50,000 tonnes of mass moving through the water at close to her best speed and that's just not going to stop on a dime.

The other thing is that they didn't have direct control of the engines from the bridge. This particular development wouldn't be seen for at least half a century into to future. Engine orders had to be sent to the engine room by way of the engine room telegraph and then whoever was on watch had to work all of the controls to stop the flow of steam to the engines, engage the reversing gears, then start the flow of steam to the engines all over again. If you didn't have everyone on station ready to act in an instant (And out in the middle of the Atlantic, there was no reason to.) this is going to take some time.
 

quote:

Engine orders had to be sent to the engine room by way of the engine room telegraph and then whoever was on watch had to work all of the controls to stop the flow of steam to the engines, engage the reversing gears, then start the flow of steam to the engines all over again. If you didn't have everyone on station ready to act in an instant (And out in the middle of the Atlantic, there was no reason to.) this is going to take some time.
Click to expand...

With the engines stopped (which they weren't in Titanic's case), in order to go full ahead (as opposed to full astern — maybe someone knowledgeable on the topic will let us know if there was any difference from a 'change-over' perspective), the engineer on duty needed to 'reverse the reversing engine from stop, he has to throw her over into ahead gear and open the stop valve' which would not take more than 15 seconds (once the valve was in the ahead position). This is from data according to an Olympic engineer.

On the Olympic, the link motion was Aspinall's ('an ordinary slide valve quadrant') and a link quadrant had to be thrown back and forward depending on whether the engines were to go astern or ahead. With the engines stopped, the quadrant was directly amidships under the valve stem, with a steam and hydraulic engine utilised to move the quadrant. This engine was started by using the available levers, and in turn this threw the link into the ahead or astern position as required. Once that was done, you had the stop valve. (Olympic was equipped with a throttle valve, but that was always kept open.) Once the stop valve had been opened, the engines began moving ahead (or astern), and the more the valve was opened the more power the engines could develop. It didn’t actually take that long to get the revolutions up, but if the ship was stopped the revolutions could soon be increased to — say — 70 and it would take time for the ship’s speed to increase in a corresponding manner because the engines’ potential would not be realised until the Olympic was going at some pace through the water.

Perhaps an expert could describe it more plainly (and accurately) than me using the information I’ve provided, but the procedure I’ve tried to describe above (and failed to) might add to the discussion if we bear in mind the qualifiers as to going from stop to full ahead (as in this specific instance on Olympic) rather than full ahead to full astern (or ‘stop’ as on Titanic).

Best wishes,

Mark.​
 
Please forgive my stupidity...I always forget something in my scatter-brained muddle.

I thought it might be instructive to confirm that on the Olympic the engineer in charge tended to be situated (coming in or out of port, for instance) ready to see to the telegraph which appears to have been fixed near (or on) the forward low-pressure column of the engines. I don't know anything about how the Titanic's engine room telegraph arrangement may have differed from Olympic's...my limited knowledge of Olympic is fuzzy enough in that regard.

Best wishes,

Mark.
 
There is little doubt that the stopping and reversing of Olympic Class engines was possible in short order--provided that the manpower was standing by and alerted to the task.

The real problem at sea is the distribution of engineers was not the same as when maneuvering in harbor. Generally, fewer men were on duty and they are not stationed directly at the engine controls. The tasks associated with long open-water hauls at a constant speed more involved maintaining the rotating equipment than controlling its speed or direction.

So, at 11:40 p.m. on any particular night it is doubtful that anyone was standing by the controls ready to spring into action. Where were the men with knowledge to stop and reverse the engine? Well a few were scattered in the engine room. Most were asleep in their bunks. So, the reaction time of the available on-duty manpower was probably a more critical factor in the reversing of any engine or engines than the actual turning of valves or operating of levers.

-- David G. Brown
 
Hi David,

quote:

There is little doubt that the stopping and reversing of Olympic Class engines was possible in short order--provided that the manpower was standing by and alerted to the task.
Click to expand...

Quite. I take that as a given, and it's a key point. One wonders what, if any, allowance was made during subsequent (and prior) trial tests.

Best wishes,

Mark.​
 
Does anyone know why the crew did not see the huge ice field ahead? What puzzles me is that Captain Lord of the Californian did not see it until they were too close and he had to reverse the engines.

Q - You were telling us that you stopped and reversed engines because of ice. What sort of ice was it?
A - Field ice.
Q - Where was it?
A - Right ahead of me.
Q - Did it stretch far?
A - As far as I could see to the northward and southward.
Q - You could see it although it was night?
A - Oh, yes.

Why did he take so long to act if he could see it a great distance to the north and south? Is it possible that Murdoch saw the ice field and did the same as Captain Lord i.e. wait until the ship was close and then decide what to do? Did the Mount Temple see the huge ice field before they encountered it? I would imagine that the first sign of something on the horizon would make them turn about and reduce speed. Is it true that Titanic's crows nest was much higher and therefore it was possible for the lookouts to see the ice field, but they mistook it for a haze on the horizon?

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then maybe moderators could remove the article? IMO articles published on the Titanica should be supported by some reliable sources.
 
There have been photos posted supposedly taken of the ice field from rescue ships. I'm unsure of their authenticity. But, I have some brief experience with sea ice that may be helpful to others here. 20 years ago, or so, I sailed on a ship, well north of the Arctic Circle, north of Spitzbergen - to 80+ deg north. We sailed right up to the northern pack ice. I saw no icebergs, but some bergy bits and the smaller growlers. When we turned around back south, we reduced speed and maneuvered to avoid the larger floating ice. When darkness descended, search lights were used to see larger ice. It raises a question in my mind. Theoretically, could Titanic have used its search lights to help detect icebergs? I can think of a couple of possible reasons why not. Search lights could have ruined the lookouts' night vision? Also, I know nothing about any searchlights aboard Titanic.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about that earlier...if any ships had powerful search lights in those days. Will have to look into it more. I've never read that any of the big liners had them but don't know. Ran across this post doing a quick search.
www.answers.com

Did the Titanic have a searchlight in the front of the ship to see at night if not why was one not installed? - Answers

The Titanic did not have a searchlight in the front of the ship, (although some military ships did have them in 1912), because the ship's owners were not convinced it was worth the money to spend on such device. Since the owner's were not required by law to have one, they did not spend the money...
www.answers.com www.answers.com

Nautical antique authentic old ship searchlights wholesaler

Most of the Interior & exterior designer are settling on reclaimed ship searchlights do so because of their luxurious appeal.
www.marinesalvageantiques.com www.marinesalvageantiques.com
 
I know this would have been an impossiblity back in 1912.
But if a ship had a spotlight, radar and sonar would it be practically impossible for a ship to collide with an iceberg ?
Have there been any instances of ships colliding with icebergs ......say in the last 50 to 75 years ?
 
There's always the possibility of technical failure. Or intentional malfeasance.

Radar does no good to low-lying ice. It might not bounce back, and sea waves might interfere. I'm not sure about sonar, but I imagine that has a lot of similar problems bouncing off the top of the sea in anything but perfectly calm weather.

I think the easiest fix is just not sail in water that might have icebergs.
 

Similar threads

M
Icebergs and Field Ice
4 5
Replies
61
Views
8K
AlexP
A
Y
Rudder Ice
2
Replies
16
Views
2K
Dave Gittins
Dave Gittins
J
Ice Bound Theory
15 16
Replies
228
Views
16K
James Tennant
J
T
All That Ice
Replies
3
Views
1K
Teri Lynn Milch
T
C
Ice Bergs Float RIGHT
2
Replies
18
Views
2K
Adam Went
A
Back
Top