Speed Coal etc

Hi Parks

i am not sure whether there is missunderstanding.
I do not argue for the Tuesday-afternoon. It was impossible.

My question is whether it was for any reason important to reach NY as fast as possible.

I am searching for a sensible reason for Ismay to prohibit Smith to take one of these precautions:

a) slow down between 49 and 51 long. west, 90 seamiles,

b) continue course 240° degrees at the corner until altitude 41°30', which is the revised south route from 1913.

Delay for a) 90 sm / 22 knots = 4 hours; 90 sm / 15 sm = 6 hours; -> delay 2 hours.

Delay for b), deviation 30 miles to south: because of the flat crack at the corner the total distance from Corner to Ambrose increases from 1214 sm to
1225 sm. Delay with 22 knots for ridiculous additional 11 miles: half an hour.

IMO it is a matter of entirely indifference
whether the Titanic reached Ambrose half an hour later than 10 or 11 of 12 pm.


So it was not Ismays decision to steam through the ice field.
But it was Smith's decision to think it was not necessary to steam around.

So far my arguement.

All my best

Markus
 
Markus,

The reason for Titanic's track has always been a subject of controversy and with the lack of comprehensive evidence, one can only speculate.

I agree with you in your speculation that Ismay did not order Titanic through a known ice field. I also agree with your speculation that Smith felt he had a navigable passage through the ice barrier.

I do believe that Smith was determined to better the Olympic's maiden voyage crossing time, because it makes good business sense in the context of the industry at that time. It also appeared achieveable, as long as the weather remained clear.

I also feel that I know the reason why Smith decided to delay turning the "corner," but I prefer to save that for another time.

Parks
 
Hello Parks, - about Olympics mayden voyage

Thanks for your remarks.

You say Titanic intended to beat the time of Olympics mayden voyage. OK. But i wished i knew
what she as going to beat then. What i found until now about Olympics mayden voyage looks a little
bit queer.

I refer to Simon Mills "Olympic - The Old Reliable". He writes:

"... the performance of the engines was the most pleasing aspect of the voyage, with daily runs
of 428, 534, 542, 525 and 548 miles. By the time the Olympic tied up at pear 59 in New York, the
statistics of the voyage added up to a journey time of 5 days, 16 hours and 42 minutes and an
average speeds of 21.7 knots...."

So far.
Two years reading books about Titanic tought me not to believe anything before i calculated
it for myself. The total mileage from Queenstown/Daunt Rock to New York Ambrose i calculated
several times and found always 2889 miles.

After several books about the Blue Riband my understanding about the passage time was that
these times are taken between two points where the ships can steam at full speed, e.g.
Plymouth/Eddystone to New York/Sandy Hook or Queenstown/Daunt Rock to New York/Ambrose.
The Ambrose lightship was established 1909, as far as i can see from Blue Riband statistics.

Now back to Olympic. 5 days 16 hours 42 minutes are 136 hours 42 minutes = 136.7 hours.
Average speed: 2889 miles / 136.7 hours = 21.1 knots ! This does not equal 21.7 knots.

On the other hand, after i understood the priciples how that bloody Titanic clock was changed,
1 h 50 min in the first night and 46..50 minutes in the subsequent nights, i can calculate
the speed for the 2nd to the fifth day by dividing the daily mileage by 24.8 hours.
The speed varies from 21.2 til 22.1 knots. The average is indeed 21.7 knots, as stated by
Simon Mills.

The first days run is as far as i can see the mileage from Fastnet Rock to next day noon.
So i have to add 55 miles to get the distance from Queenstown/Daunt Rock to next day noon
and get 483 miles. If i did not, the Olympic would reach the corner not at 5.15 pm Sunday,
but much rather at 8 pm. Some officers on the Titanic were wondering because the Titanic
rounded the Corner at 5.50 pm instead of 5 or 5.15 pm. Obviously the Olympic used to round
the Corner earlier than 5.50 pm.

Now the total average speed of the journey is 21.1 knots, but the average speed of the
four noon-to-noon-days is 21.7 knots, which is perfectly believable for me.

The four noon-to-noon days cover (534 + 542 + 525 + 548) = 2149 miles.
The total time interval of these four days consists of four 24-hour days and
3 times 48 minutes because of clock retarding in the night.
Result: 4 * 24 h + 3 * 48 min = 96 hours 144 min = 98 hours 24 min, lets say 98.5 hours.

What was her speed before and after the four high speed days ?

.......remaining mileage = 2889 - 2149 miles = 740 miles

.......remaining time = 136.7 h - 98.5 h = 38.2 hours

.......speed: 740 miles / 38.2 h = 19.3 knots!

When the numbers of Simon Mills are correct, the Olympic did not intend to be as fast as possible,
she just was in time and slowed down after the fifth day was finished.

Estimated arrival time:

I don't know when she "departed" (...hello Tracy!...) in Queenstown.
Lets say Thursday 2 pm G.M.T. or 9 am E.S.T.
( Titanic started at 2.40 pm at Daunt Rock, as i can follow from a statement of the
general attorney in the British enquiry.)

Olympics journey lasted 5 days 16 hours 42 minutes, lets say 5 days 17 hours.

So the Olympic arrived at 2 am Wednesday morning somewhere, i think at Ambrose.


Now i found a queer remark in the book "The Titanic Conspiracy" of Robin Gardener and
Dan van der Vat, which troubles me a lot:
They said, that Olympic arrived early on her mayden voyage. It was for some reasons
painful when ships arrived early. Therefore Olympic masked her early arrival by wasting a lot
of time between Ambrose and Ellis Island.

Again I am troubled:
I thought these passage times were counted til Ambrose, not til Ellis Island ?

On the one hand it is painful for the Olympic to arrive early, on the other hand
Titanic can not afford to steam 30 miles south, which would her make half an hour late ?

I don't understand anything about anything anymore!

Dear Parks, George, Dave, Bill,

you are nearer to the sources than i am.
Is there any reliable evidence where and at which time that lazy-crazy Olympic arrived ?

a) at Ambrose
or b) at Sandy Hook
or c) at Ellis Island
or d) at Pier 59

all my best

Markus
 
Markus,

I am in the same place as you. I have been hazy with my figures because I don't know all of the times needed to perform the calculations exactly. All I have to go on at the moment are rough estimates and a sense that for business purposes, Titanic was required to beat Olympic's previous time to New York. I believe that the official time was measured from Fastnet Rock to the Ambrose Lightship; at least, it was for at least one other shipping Line.

Because of this conversation, though, I have have begun digging and asking questions to see if this information can be determined. I'll let you know if I have any luck. Hopefully, someone else on this list will chime in with their research.

Parks
 
Dear David,
get your calculater at hand, and follow my research. Here we go:
A railroad steam engine, like to one which I had stokes this summer, needs about 1 ton (1000 kilo gramms) coals at one hour.
with some load at its hook and a driving speed of 100 kilometers per hour this can easily reach coal amounts of 2 tons per hour.
If we go on tour, we consider one and a half ton per 100 kilometers.
But at full power and with full load our engine can need up to 3,5 tons per hour. Reports are alos present, which mention that some boilers exceed 3 tones quite well, which leads in USA to mechanical stokers, because humans will not stand a load of 4 tons per hour in 4 hour stoking shift.
So now we consider 3 Tons per hour for each funance on Titanic per hour. I think this is not much and I guess they will have to shouvel much more into the boilers.
so Titanic has 29 boilers, 24 with two ends.
so we get 24 x 2 = 48 + 5 = 53 funaces. ( I have reports of more than 150 funances, but I considered only 50 funances)
Well, as Titanic was running full power, I guess only three funances were not used, as reserve if other had to be closed or were under maintainance.
So we will calculate with 50 firing places, each with approximately 3 tons per hour:
50 x 3 tons coal = 150 tons for one hour.
The day has 24 hours, so 150 x 24 hours is 3600 Tons of coal for a single day. Now you can consider how much coal Titanic needed, if we consider 100 funances, and each only 2 tons.
If Titanic was 5 days at sea, with engines at this power levels, we can consider 3600 tons x 5 days = 18000 tons for this travel.
So I cannot agree with Bill Saunders. But I can easily agree with the over 5000 tons in a bunker as amount for one day steaming.
So just for you: This a real facts and they were considered more carefully, as you can see. Because I found and based it onto self experience with a steam engine boiler, and with that you see how much coal the boilers will need for full power. And I found only 3600 tons per day, mentioned was nearly double for a single day...
 
According to British Board of Trade inspector Clarke, as of April 10, 1912, "The coal on board (Titanic) is certified to amount to 5,892 tons, which is sufficient to take the ship to her next coaling port."

I believe this is the maximum number of tons you should be using in any of your calculations.

-- David G. Brown
 
Hi Steffen

A big 2-C-1 engine as it was used on german railways had a power of 2000 PS. Typical efficiency of 2-cylinder machines was 8%. Four cylinder maschines with 2 HP and 2 LP cylinders had about 10%. The best engines were built in France with efficiency of 12%.

The caloric energy of 1 ton coal is about 8000 kWh. Now we have to find how much coal the engine will eat every hour.

2000 PS = 2000 * 0.735 kW/PS = 1470 kW

Because the efficiency is just 8% the input of caloric energy amounts to
1470 kW / 0.08 = 18.375 kW.

With 8000 kWh per ton we need in one hour 18375 kWh / 8000 kWh tons = 2.3 tons coal.
This meets quite well the numbers you came up with.

2.3 tons coal every hour will provide a power of 2000 PS.

At 21 knots Titanic engines generate 50000 PS.
Assumed the same efficiency is the same the ship with 25fold the power of the loco needs 2.3 tons * 25 = 57.5 tons coal every hour.

But the machinery of the ship is more efficient. With HP and LP cylinders and the low pressure turbine as third step the efficency was about 15...16%.
So the ship needs 57.5 tons * 8/15 = 30.7 tons every hour
or 30.7 tons * 24 = 736 tons in 24 hours.

Lets look to the boilers:
The boiler of the loco provides steam for 2000 PS.
24 double ended boilers of titanic are sufficient for 50000 PS. One double boiler creates 2083 PS, which is quite near to the loco boiler.

Because the Titanic machinery is twice efficient as the loco, one Titanic boiler with 6 furnaces eats up half that coal of what the loco does with one furnace.

P.S.

What loco are you stoking ?
Was it a Big Boy ? I think American locos are much more powerful than the german ones.

Markus
 
I stoke a 2-C-1 express machine, type 01. It is a single expansion two cylinder steamer, and is 130 km/h fast.
I agree, that titanics engines are more effective, there is no word, but someone must generate the power and amount of steam, so 30 tons per hour seems somewhat less.
And you must look about how much coal the engine realy needs by amout of steam is required.
You cannot depend only on effecetifity.
Because Electic powered locos generate efficienciey of of 60% and more.
But the steam powerplant in their background operate without thermical use of the steam for heating units only effectifities of 18-20%, so the electric loco operates with, we calculate best loco, 80% of 20%. This is ony 16%, now we are very close to common steam engines. And okay, the less percent we find in common steam in the missing condensator and in the missing low pressure steam compound engines.
So this is the effeiciency of the whole power plant and engine, not the boiler itself.
I depend my consideration onto the tables, about how many steam the engines needs per poweroutput, per amount of steam needed and how many coal is need per kilogramm steam.
And this is for 2000 PS more than 3 tons per hour for a loco series 01 (express trains) or type 44 (1-E freight loco). Both have the same boiler, but type 44 has a triple cylinder engine, so needs a little bit more coal, but is compareable, because of the same boiler.
So if you consider like you do, you break it down to a simple mathmatic consideration, which will lead into failure.
Stoking a boiler is making it bring enough water to steam wich is required to have more power output than the engines need!
So evaluate first, how many steam the triple expansion steam engines had, before we consider how many coal the boiler need. Because if the boiler realy have the same power output as the loco boiler, it will need nearly the same coal as the loco boiler.
So if the stokers had to shouvel lessthan two tons per hour, I would like to be one of the black gang, because than you had less work. You often can lean back, till the trimmer brings you a new bulk of coals, and you can spend the time with him to put the coal into a fine structured pyramid in front of your funance.
A loco Bioler proviedes more Steam as 2000 PS, because it hold back reserve steam energy, as well as it must provide steam for the by-engines, like water pumps, air pumps, and all the by enginies wghich need steam to propell and maintain the whole ship or loco.
So a 2-C-1 steamer boiler is designed to power nearly 2500 PS, 500 more than you expect.
But, without the calculation of how many steam is needed and how many steam a boiler does provide per hour, this discussion is worth not two cents.
Because bolier steam output depends on coal in, and how many coal is feed, and with that we can consider how hard the boiler had to be stoked, to make the sufficient steam amount needed by the engines.
So I would stay at 2 tons per hour for a single boiler at Titanic, if it realy has the same poweroutput as the loco boiler.
2 tons x 24 boilers = 48 tons per hour x 24 hours per day = 1124 tons per day....
This is the need to of coal to bring 24 boilers to 2083 PS power output each boiler. If you can do it with less, hm, maybe this is a perpetuum mobile.
Okay, you can do with less: Take another fuel, like anthrazit (english?) or oil! Oil has about triple the calories compares with locomitive used coal, anthrazit has about douple.
As you see: The two tons are worth to think about, and depend not onto the efficiency of the whole power plant.... The base more onto the boilers, and how many steam the boiler will create with each ton of coal.

Well, a BigBoy was 2-D-D-2 steam engine with four cylinders (no compound!). It was designed to have a tractife effort of more than 8000 PS.

Well, US Locos were fuel eaters, but giant. German locomotive designed did never had the need for such large types, because we had less distances and less freight to pull, but from Germany the plans for most effective locos came, like the Red Devils in africa, which runed with efficiencies fo around 18%.

Enough off-topic. lets get back to Titanic!
 
First: You were right: Film crews haven't even a glance how the work of a fireman realy is. It just must look good: Musculous men in front of the near blasting boiler, just lighted by the red light of the open funance door in with nearly a fire like hell needs allways to be feed through the iron mouth.... No, thats so far from reality, as Andromeda Galaxie is next to the moon.
I agree, but it realy sound unreal for my experience.
consider: If Titanic was not 'speeding', more floating with half-ahead, she would only need half the coal.
This means only 400 Kilogramms. Well, 400 Kilogramms needs for a railroad steamer fireman only a couple of minutes to feed into the boilers.
So what do they with the rest of time? Having a walk along the timmers walkway, struggle their loveliest engineer??
I must agree, but it sounds for a pretty nice job, compared with the job of a railroad steamer fireman.
 
Steffen, a stokers job was anything but nice. They worked in conditions of extreme heat, and humidity in an atmousphere filled with coal dust and when they weren't tending to one furnace, there was always another to deal with. It was back breaking work in appalling conditions where wimps just didn't last long. The blokes who made a career out of this were some of the toughest members of the crew. They had to be.

For more detailed information, read Chapter Six of Maxtone-Graham's The Only Way To Cross, pages 145-150.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Hi Steffen,
Thanks for your detailed post. I wonder whether we disagree as much as it looks like. The percentage numbers i used in my calculations where related to the whole machinery including boilers and engine. Lets assume the boilers are equal. The efficiency depends on the type of the engine only. When the engine is less efficient i need more steam and therewith more coal to get the same mechanical power.

I need 2000 PS ( 1470 kW ) mechanical power at the hook or at the propeller shaft.
With single expansion engines i have to shouvel 2.3 tons coal ( 18400 kWh caloric input) every hour.
With triple expansion engines i have to shouvel just 1.2 tons coal ( 9800 kWh caloric input) every hour.

The reference loco i used for my calculations was a stupid one with single steam expansion.

Thanks for the link to Big Boy. I am fascinated by locos as well as by ships. Don't know what to study now, Titanic or Locos.

Markus
 
Dear Markus: Study both. Then Titanic will appear an another light, and locos are much easier to find, than Titanic is.
The myth Titanic is within our hearts and for my believe, there are stiil unresting souls around, whispering in our ears, searching for someone who will help them to find eternal sleep.
So all we can do, is realy find out, what happend on Titanic, and to live somewhat the life of the men abord, to feel and find the truth of the ship and its fate. Then the souls will find the rest, and the myth of the Titanic will fade away.
The Bismark was sunk, the Britannic was sunk, Estonia was a tragical sink, but nothing made us come along for over 75 years, as Titanic. there must be still a riddle to solve, to bring those restless soal into the harbour of eternety. Thats why I said: Lift it, find the logs, save a propeller, sink it with a memorial celebration and put the propeller to NewYork, as sign of Memory of the lifes lost at sea and at Titanic. Then Titanic will finds is grave and restimng in peace. But still we are working out.
Stoking a stem engine means also to have the boiler and the heat, it is compareable to Titanic, you can believe. Many boiler rooms I visited were not as hot, as the railroad steamers drivers cab.
So if they realy did only have to shouvel less than 2 tons per hour, than: Come here to the railroaders and do it... Should we carry you from the loco at evening?
Dear Marcus, you got right: Triple compound expansion engines (Do not forget the word compound, because without compound triple expansion engine could also mean you got three single expansion cylinders together as one engine.) are fuel saving, but if you need less steam, you have low power boilers. Low power boilers have less coal need.
If you have a boiler with 2000 PS power output, and you wanted to force it for 2000 PS power output, you will need to fire it with 2 tons of coal, if you do not use a special fuel or special fire methode. If you have a boiler for 5000 PS power output, and you want it to force 2000 PS power output, maybe you need less coal, but usually you will nearly need the same amount.

So the boilers must have another methode to deal with the heat, more fficient, so the must to be smaller, less water. Because less water means lower reserve of steam in the hot water, and less water to hold at heat. Alltogether this means, less coal. Because if I need less steam, but I use a boiler build to put out to much steam, well the boiler will need to coal to hold its pressure. But a somewhat smaller water table, and a more 'smaller' boiler (Compare water-heat-touching-area with the grid iron area of the funance for both boilers!) will contain less water, so more steam in less time will be available, as more pressure with little reserves is made. Also this boiler will put out same pressure, but less steam, so it will also have the same 'power output' which is measured in pressure, than in Kilogramms steam per hour! So Titanics engines have a low steam consumption, so we can use smaller boilers, containing less water, because we do not need high water tables and large reserves, because the boilers can easily follow the engines steam consumption, but they might have a low steam production ability, because containing less water!
No if you compare thi power plant with the loco power plant, you will find, that the locos boiler have high steam output levels, if compared to often low pressure and less steam power output boilers at ships, but the engine is more efficient, so power at the shaft is compareable if the whole powerplant is considered.
But locos engines were often driven with less power, so the stoker must hold pressure and if the engineer will 'open' the throttle to give maximum power to the engines and will give also the gear somewhat more steam consuption to generate more power, well then this single boiler must have reserves to produce engough steam without making the pressure clock turning its pointed quickly to left (low pressure). This is fatal for a steamer on railroads, were different pressures and differend steam consumptions of the engines were common. This is completely different to a ship, were the throttle is opened, after engine romms get attention signal. Now, full pressure of all boilers is set to the engine gear, and after getting signal to move on, the engineer just moves the gear of the engine, to make it roll on. But since this point, the pressure onto the engines will, or better should not change. The ships engine will operate allways at constant pressure, and none will close the throttle to get less pressure to the engine: This will all be donme with the steam engines gear.
So the boilers do not have the need for large reserves, just for making the steam, and if engine needs less power, well than you just close a boiler. But if you need more, well open another boiler. but this is impossible for a railroad steamer. Here one boiler must fit for all conditions. At Titanic, we can use 'smaller' boilers, even if they will have a good steam per hour productivity level and containing compared to locos, less water.
Do you agree now, if we compare? The the percent numbers do not give any good data about how good the whole power plant realy is.

If we compare a atomic power plant, we will find that their 'boiler' has much less water, then the boilers in a common coal powerplant. but the engines of the atmic power plant give out more electic power, than the coal one, also having a better effectivity and need less calories.
Sure, because the need less water 'boil' to steam, and with the very good tndency to follow quickly the power consumption demands of the engine, if will not have a need for reserves, which means more steam in the 'boiler'. In coal power plant, there is a reserve hold back, because if the engines need more power, it will take a couple of time till the boiler will produce the steam output. So quick changes are impossible, and are buffered with steam reserves in the hot under pressure water. If the fuel used to fire and the boiler technologie make it possible to change quickly if a power output demand change will appear, you can use boilers with less water, because you boiler will follow the engines without any delay, and as final result: You need less fuel compared to 'larger' boilers with many reserves, but the have the advantage to adapt quickly to often appearing engine power changes, in pressure and steam consumpion.
Do you understand what I tried to explain with my worse english???
 
All,

Just a brief tidbit... I am not sure it has been mentioned, but Olympic averaged 620 tons of coal per day on her maiden voyage, less than the 720 tons expected, while she also averaged 21.7 knots for the full days of steaming.

Best regards.

Mark.
 
Oh dear... I have realised that yet more of my response is missing:

Olympic arrived at 2.24 a.m. at the Ambrose light vessel.

Olympic entered New York harbour at 7.45 a.m.

Olympic was safely docked by 10 a.m.
 

Similar threads

Jonathan Granato
Speed After Collision
6 7
Replies
93
Views
16K
Tina A.
Tina A.
Mark Chirnside
George Kemish & Speed Sources
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mark Chirnside
Mark Chirnside
K
Was speed to blame?
5 6
Replies
86
Views
13K
Mike Spooner
Mike Spooner
B
Coal Fire onboard Titanic
Replies
3
Views
3K
Bill DeSena
B
D
The fires in Titanics Coal Bunkers
2 3
Replies
31
Views
3K
Paul Lee
P
Back
Top