Indirect Steering System

[Georges Guay]

Wheel Hard-a-Starboard, Helm Hard-a-Starboard.

Captain Heinrich Paasch was among the first to recognize the complexity, the variety, the technical terminology, and the inherent need for a cohesive classification of terms in marine vocabulary. With over thirty-five years of seafaring experience as a sailor, captain, and as a Surveyor for Lloyd's Register, Paasch set out, chapter by chapter, an exhaustive explanation of all the principal parts of a ship's structure and equipment. He described the main types of steam and sailing vessels, wooden and iron hulls, propulsion machinery, anchors and related equipment, masts and spars, standing and running rigging as well as sails, blocks & tackle, and ropes. He concluded with knots, bends, hitches, splices, and finally provided a listing of standard measurements.

Paasch's stated intention to describe a ship literally “From Keel to Truck” has been worldwide applauded. Each section is accompanied by dozens of high-quality line engravings to accompany the text and illustrate the terminology and described concept. First published in 1885, and an invaluable resource ever since, Captain Paasch’s dictionary is both a full encyclopedia and an unequaled introduction for anyone interested in steam and sailing ships, life aboard a ship, engineering, or simply understanding the language. Paasch's Illustrated Marine Dictionary originally published as “From Keel to Truck”.

When you observe Paasch's illustration of the Steering Apparatus, the rigging is arrange to corroborate the common practice of that era, whereby the manoeuvring orders were intended to the Tiller or Helm movement. Onboard sailing ships, if navigators required a bow alteration to port, the helm was ordered to starboard, the helmsman was moving the helm to starboard so that finally, the bow was altering to port as requested. That system was known as an Indirect Steering System.

Sailing vessels becoming taller, the helm onboard tall ships would become too difficult to be operated by a single seaman. A Steering Apparatus was then designed to increase the force of the helmsman force via a barrel, block & tackles and wheel ropes or chains system. In theory, a new rank of seaman was created; the Quarter Master or Wheelsman. Nevertheless, the common practice of giving Helm orders remained but thereafter via a steering Wheel.

Since the action of the helm had the effect of altering the ship's head in the opposite direction, masters had to be very cautious about the direction in which to move the helm to achieve the desired head alteration. There was a real apprehension that a quarter master would interpret or confound a wheel order, by moving the helm via the wheel, in a way that would turn the bow in the opposite direction than expected. To eliminate that apprehension, quarter masters were instructed to keep the same method as of the past by simply turning the wheel in the direction ordered.

The ultimate responsibility of giving wheel orders to achieve an expected head alteration was and still ensured by the master, while the duty of the quarter master is simply to turn the wheel in the direction ordered; not to interpret the order so that the desire head alteration is achieved. If the desired head alteration was to turn the bow to port, the master was ordering hard astarboard or less, the quarter master was turning the wheel clockwise to starboard to the requested rudder angle so that finally, the bow was turning to port as expected. If we observe Captain Heinrich Paasch 1885 Steering Apparatus illustration, it is exactly the case! How could that be otherwise?

When I first saw The Movie, I was very perplexed to see Robert Hichens turning the wheel in the opposite direction than the one ordered by William McMaster Murdoch! All kinds of explanations were given while never entirely satisfied my curiosity. After making researches of my own where I discover a review on maritime technology by the Naval Historical Society of Australia questioning that movie scene , I also came to disbelief that Robert Hichens turned the wheel anticlockwise to port when he was ordered by William McMaster Murdoch; “Hard-a-Starboard”. That would have left Hichens the odiousness decision to interpret the intention of the first officer to turn the bow to port, by turning the wheel in the opposite direction than the one ordered.

I beleive that Titanic steering apparatus indirect mode was identical as Captain Heinrich Paasch illustration, except that the wheel chains were obviously replaced by a hydraulic telemotor and steam valves. If it was required to alter the bow to port via that steering apparatus, the master had to order (the wheel to) starboard, the wheel was turned (clockwise) to starboard, the rudder tiller was thus moved to starboard, and the bow was turning to port. Out at sea on a steady course, if the apparent movement of the Compass Rose (stable in reality) seemed to turn to starboard (meaning instead that the head was turning to port), the quarter master simply had to give some wheel in the opposite apparent turning direction of the Compass Rose to steady her back; Rose to starboard, Wheel to port. Simple isn’t it!

The Direct Steering System as depicted in the movie, other than giving a conflicting wheel order, was only implemented in 1931 by the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The last few nostalgic nations of the helm Indirect Steering System, had then by law to adopt the Direct Steering System and concurrent wheel orders that exist today. From then on, if it is required to alter the bow to port, the master order the wheel to port, the wheel is turned to port, the rudder tiller is mechanically moved to starboard, and the bow will turn to port. Even though, a responsible master must double check that the wheel is rotated in the proper direction and that the result is confirmed by the rudder indicator, at every single time he orders the wheel or a course change. If the quarter master is mistaken, the master is still responsible...

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Georges, I'm not so sure that most ships were rigged with the indirect system before the new steering rules came into effect in 1932. The indirect rigging, as shown in your above illustration, shows that if the wheel is turned to starboard (clockwise), the tiller would move to starboard, rudder blade to port, and ship's head would swing to port. According to the articles below, it seems that what changed in 1934 were the helm orders that were given, not the wheel rigging. Thus an order to port the helm in the new orders system meant to turn the ship's head to port. If the rigging was not changed from what you show, then under the new orders to port the helm would require the helmsman to turn the wheel clockwise, opposite to what was intended. I believe most vessels, sailing and steam powered, were rigged with the direct system, meaning wheel turning clockwise to starboard would put the tiller to port, rudder blade to starboard and consequently, the ship's head to starboard. I have seen no mention of having to re-rig all the steering gear because of the change in helm orders from indirect to direct steering orders.
See the two attached articles in my next two posts.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

 

[Samuel Halpern]

 

[Georges Guay]

Hi Samuel.

Paasch did not conceive anything. He just observed what naval architects came up with to ease the wheel handling effort by a single seaman on board tall ships, and sketched it right back into his worldwide applauded marine dictionary. Paasch's Steering Apparatus demonstrates the parallel correlation between sail ship’s Helm/Tiller and tall ship’s Indirect Steering Apparatus. It fully respects the common practice of that epoch, whereby manoeuvring orders were intended to the Helm/Tiller movements. If a master would order the helm or the wheel to starboard, the ship would turn to port. As well, crew members being transferred from sail ship to a tall ship would not have been puzzled in time of manoeuvring; helm, tiller or wheel to starboard, head to port.

In The Movie, we see Robert Hichens turning the wheel anticlockwise to port and the liner turning to port. That is a Direct Steering System. Was Titanic already in compliance with the 1931 SOLAS Direct Steering System regulations? Furthermore, since she was displayed on the screen as being provided with a Direct Steering System, why then leave Hichens the odiousness decision to interpret the intention of the first officer to turn the bow to port, by turning the wheel in the opposite direction than the one ordered? There always been a real apprehension that a quarter master would interpret an order that would cause the bow to turn in the wrong direction. To eliminate that apprehension, quarter masters were instructed to simply turn the wheel in the direction ordered. The direction in which the bow was required to turn was the master business, not in my opinion the quarter master ones.

Rear Admiral J.G. Tawresay noted down that the Indirect Steering System was in use without question up until 1874, that the system was well understood and but seldom caused any trouble. But unexpectedly, a number of serious collisions happened; Franconia vs. Strathclyde caused by a mistake in the steering order in broad daylight, Alberta vs. Mistletoe and Northfleet vs. Murillo caused by mistaken helm orders in broad daylight and fine weather, the German warship Grosser Kürfurst was sunk on her maiden voyage by her consort König Wilhelm caused by mistaken helm orders, the Indus allided with the training-ship Shaftesbury. The training-ship being on a mooring, admiralty lawyers describe such a collision as an allision, etc. The quarter masters had probably mistaken to naturally turn the upper part of the wheel in a direction opposite to the helm order!

The well understood Indirect Steering System that seldom caused any trouble lost favor to the Direct System. Rear Admiral J.G. Tawresay noted that its main advantage is when it is desired to turn the vessel to starboard; the steering order includes the term starboard, in lieu of the former practice to order the Helm. If Titanic was provided with a Direct System, why her officers did not take advantage of its straightforwardness by ordering Hard-a-Port if they wished the bow to turn to port?

If Titanic was provided with an Indirect Steering System like Paasch illustration, Murdoch would’ve shout Hard-a-Starboard, Hichens would’ve repeated the order and turned the wheel clockwise all the way to starboard without hesitation, the rudder tiller would have been thrown to starboard so that finally, the liner would have turn to port like she did.

The ultimate question remains, at least for me; Was Titanic provided with an Indirect Steering System like Paasch 1885 illustration or was already complying with the 1931 SOLAS Direct Steering System regulations?

Note: I am not a mechanic but I think that going from an Indirect to a Direct Steering System, it was just a matter of switching over the telemotor hydraulic pipes or rolling over the wheel-chain the other way around the barrel (see my modified illustration)...

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Did some further digging:

Admiralty Fleet Order dated 24 Dec 1930 (to come into force presumably during 1931):

I : 3296.— Helm Orders. (N.L. 4025/30.—24.12.1930.)
Their Lordships have had under consideration the procedure to be followed as a result of Article 41 of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, in which the contracting powers agree as from 30th of June, 1931, to employ in their merchant shipping a system of direct helm orders, i.e., a system in which the order given refers not to a real or imaginary helm, but to the movement of the wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder. This Convention has not yet been ratified.

2. Their Lordships are of opinion that this change in the Mercantile Marine would necessitate a corresponding alteration of practice in the Royal Navy. They have decided that in the event of a change, the existing orders ‘starboard’ and ‘port’ shall ultimately be used in the direct sense with opposite meanings to those at present attached to them; but that in order to guard against misunderstanding, the orders ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ shall be used in the direct sense for a transitional period, which will normally last for 12 months. This transitional period, of which notice will be given in advance, is intended to familiarise the Fleet as a whole with the new procedure, but in order to meet the needs of officers not at sea during this period, a wide discretion will be left to Flag and Commanding Officers to re-institute it whenever considered desirable. This discretion should not be exercised to such an extent as to make the transitional orders habitual.
Example:
It is desired to alter course to starboard, using 20° of tactical helm. At present the order ‘Port 20’ would be given. During the transitional period the order would be ‘Starboard right 20’. After a period of twelve months the order would be ‘Starboard 20’.
The wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder blade would all go to starboard, and, in ships fitted with helm signals, the green ball on the starboard side would rise, i.e., the higher ‘Helm Signal’ would show the side towards which the ship is turning.

3. From the commencement of the transitional period it is intended to discontinue the use of the word ‘helm’. The words ‘rudder’, ‘wheel’, or ‘steering’ will be used as necessary; i.e. ‘helm indicators’ become ‘rudder indicators’, ‘helm orders’ become ‘steering orders’ etc.

4. In vessels steered with a tiller, the terms ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ will be employed as indicating the direction in which the vessel’s head is to move. The terms ‘port’ or ‘starboard the helm’ will be discontinued.

5. In boats under sail, the terms ‘bear up’, ‘keep her away’, ‘luff’, ‘no higher’, ‘very well thus’, should continue to be used. As the term ‘lee helm’ and ‘weather helm’ describe a state of affairs, and are not an order, they will be retained.

8. Subsequent orders will deal with the date of commencement of the transitional period, the precautions to be taken, the training of officers and men in the new orders, and the changes in helm indicators, helm signals etc., which will be necessary.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The red highlighting above is what I added. Note that there is no mention of having to change the steering rigging of British vessels so that a clockwise turn of the wheel shifts the rudder to the right and the ship's head to starboard.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

"[The Captain] was thoughtful and grave – but the orders he gave
Were enough to bewilder a crew.
When he cried, “Steer to starboard, but keep her head larboard!”
What on earth was the helmsman to do?"

(Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark, 1st April, 1876.)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I found this most interesting article from The Cairns Post of Friday, Dec 23,1932 which should be most clarifying about which way the wheel had been turned in British vessels prior to change in helm orders.

 

[Georges Guay]

Thank you Samuel.

So if I understand Their Lordships well, prior 1931 SOLAS Steering Regulations, if it was hoped to alter course to port using 40° of physical wheel, the order Hard-a-Starboard would be shout loudly, (Their Lordships forgot to mentioned the wheelsman’s duty to repeat the steering order), then the wheel, the rudder blade and the ship’s head, with the exception of the rudder tiller, would all go to port. It seems that Their Lordships are talking about a Direct Steering System.

If I ever have to pilot an Olympic class on a ship’s bridge simulator, the very first thing I will do prior anything else will be to make a wheel and rudder indicator test. I will first order Hard-a-Port; then watch carefully the wheelsman’s action and the rudder indicator at the same time. If the wheel and rudder indicator agree, I am safe. If not, I will have to write that down with a marker on a large piece of cardboard and duct taped it around the center gyro compass repeater !

I am keeping your last article for later. Cheers!

 

[Georges Guay]

The impeding change!

The change is described by master mariners as a “navigational revolution”, as the intention is that the wheel, the rudder blade, and the head of the ship shall all move in the direction given in the order “port” or “starboard”.

It has taken three years to decide this knotty question, and strenuous indeed has been the struggle of the shell-backs to retain old traditions, so much so, that last year, that the change was actually indefinitely postponed.

Some of whom have painted such a gloomy picture of the dangers attending the new conditions. After three years contemplation, these captains courageous have decided to turn the wheel the other way.

Mariners were given only 21 months to ponder the turn of the wheel that way!

I mistakenly tough that this «pure’y imaginary complication» was a bonus error in The Movie. I could just not believe that Hichens was given the odiousness ability to interpret Murdoch intention to turn the bow to port, by turning the wheel in the opposite direction than the one ordered! But these articles finally raised my doubt! Thank's to Samuel ...

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I believe the following can safely put this issue to bed once and for all as to what direction the wheel was turned when helm orders were given in the days of Titanic. It came up during the Olympic/Hawke trial in November of 1911. At the time of the collision, Hawke and Olympic were nearly parallel courses heading eastward when Hawke suddenly started to swing her head to port toward Olympic. Hawke's commander, William F. Blunt, ordered Hard-aport in a frantic attempt to turn Hawke's head away from the overtaking Olympic to avoid a collision. The man at the wheel for Hawke was 1st class petty officer Ernest Hunt. Here is the relevant testimony of what then happened:

Bottom line. The scene in Cameron's film showing Hichens turning the wheel from right to the left (to port) when Murdoch ordered Hard-astarboard, was correct.

 

[Georges Guay]

We can only congratulate the filmmaker to have had at least that scene act out accurately. But If Hichens had turned the wheel to starboard head on into the berg; Titanic would have been saved, isn’t it?

The Captain was thoughtful and grave – but the orders he gave were enough to bewilder a crew. When he cried, “Steer to starboard, but keep her head larboard”, what on earth was the helmsman to do?
Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark, 1st April, 1876.

On 27th September 1874 (57 years prior the SOLAS steering regulations), France issued a decree directing that in order to lessen the number of collisions at sea, the signals port (bâbord) and starboard (tribord) on merchant ships should henceforth indicate the course to be taken, and not the movement made by the man at the helm (Lacon, Reference Lacon1874). Similar decrees were issued by Norway, Sweden and Austria to the effect that the motion of the pilot's arm, the direction of the ship's head and the word of command shall correspond. (Lacon, Reference Lacon 1878a).

Olympic/Hawke

According to that transcript, when the wheelsman was ordered Hard aport, he apparently turned it over to starboard from left to right. But Captain Blunt then shouted; «What are you doing with your helm? Port, hard aport !!!». That ‘purely imaginary complication’ might have made here another victim. Was the wheel really turned from left to right? Let me seriously doubt about it!

In The Sting of the Hawke, you concluded that the collision angle was up to 67°. If we analyze the vessel’s damages, the angle of contact seems acceptable. But the problem with that angle is that Hawke would’ve needed more than some help from her rudder to achieve such a large contact angle. I don’t think that interaction between vessels alone could have generated that kind of a tremendous force, which would cause an overtaken vessel to sheer that much, even if Olympic was on a right rudder at the time. Normally, when a collision happen during an overtaking maneuver, the vessels collide virtually parallel and the damages are usually made of long and shallow dent scratches.

Among many other catastrophic situations, I have had a special training on a certified ships bridge simulator following a similar collision in my pilotage district. Here is a synopsis of the accident report;

“A container vessel and a tanker collided during an overtaking manoeuvre in the dredged channel. In the early evening, the two vessels collided, making «parallel body contact» with the bow of the tanker coming alongside the mid-section of the container vessel. In the next few minutes, the tanker maneuvered back into the centre of the channel, disengaging from the container vessel. Thereafter, both vessels continued on their respective voyages without assistance or further incident.”

I am afraid that we won’t be able put that saga to bed once and for all...

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Georges, not only was Olympic overtaking, she was still accelerating during the time, and as you know, the depth of water was relatively shallow where the two came together. When Hunt got the order hard-aport he turned the wheel to starboard (clockwise) but it got jammed at 15° port helm. Before Blunt shouted that order, the ship's head already began to turn toward Olympic. Blunt was on the upper bridge and did not see what was happening with the wheel. He assumed that the helmsman was starboarding the helm because he saw his ship's head turning to port toward Olympic. That's why he shouted the words you quoted. Both vessels were running at a relatively high speed in those waters. Hawke was going a little over 15 knots and Olympic was accelerating to about 19 knots. I don't think you would see those kinds of speed in those waters happening today. Excessive speeds in narrow, shallow waters, and two vessels in relatively close proximity to each other spell severe trouble as we now know.

 

[Pegglesworth]

Brilliant! You have successfully totally confused us laymen. I was always under the understanding that Murdoch stated the he "ordered hard a starboard to port round the berg". Everything I have read indicates they Hitchens on receiving the hard a starboard order would have, as we say today, put his right hand down. Is this not correct?