Titanic's Welded Hull

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Perhaps I should re-phrase that. I was suggesting that The SSUS was in a condition that she could be made to operate again as a ship.<<

I agree, she could be. The trick would be to find somebody who would be willing to pony up the cash to pay for all the work which would have to be done.

I don't think any museum foundation could do it unless it was underwritten by somebody like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

 

[Adam Went]

The S.S. United States is a possibility as well. Nothing is going to be cheap, but surely it has to be considered worthwhile given the interest that will be generated in April 2012.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>The S.S. United States is a possibility as well. <<

I wish. I really do, Adam. The problem here is that the ship has been so thoroughly gutted, that it would take somebody with extremely deep pockets to make it happen.

Supposedly, NCL had some sort of plan but I'm skeptical about that. I'm not the only one either. Check out the SS United States discussions in the Other Ships And Shipwrecks folder.

As it stands, the conservancy which wants the ship doesn't have the money and to NCL, she's more valuable as scrap. On the plus side, the hull at least is sound and the frightening stability issues the Queen Mary has just don't exist. Gibbs and Cox were smart about that.

 

[steven p greiner]

Michael,
I realize this exact conversation exists elsewhere on the site, but I must jump in here. I am surprised that nothing has been revealed yet about the SSUS. I heard about a month ago that NCL was accepting bids, including scrappers, and nothing has transpired as of yet.
We are sure a sentimental lot, and we(and a very few others) are the only ones. The Norway came and went, and I don't think it will be much longer when we can go to youtube and watch the SSUS being dismantled at Alang And I really hate to say that.

 

[Adam Went]

Just going to throw an idea out there....any possibility that the US Navy would consider funding a restoration of either or both the Queen Mary/United States?

We should remember that such restoration schemes aren't unheard of. Look at the Nomadic, for instance, although obviously that's an entirely different kettle of fish to either of those ships. Point is, it COULD be done if some solid action was taken.

Still no word from Cunard. Must have taken the weekend off....

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Just going to throw an idea out there....any possibility that the US Navy would consider funding a restoration of either or both the Queen Mary/United States?<<

None whatever. Shucks, the Navy is having a hard enough time with the shipbuilding programs that are mission essential, and the situation looks set to become a lot worse before it gets better.

If any money is going to be forthcoming, it's going to have to come from private interests with very deep pockets.

 

[Adam Went]

Thanks Michael. I don't really know much about the situation of the US Navy, but just thought it was worth considering given the funding they gave towards discovering the Titanic, although we know now that even that had ulterior motives.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The Navy wasn't especially interested in the Titanic at the time they funded Dr. Ballard's team. I take it you've seen the "Real Story" documentary that National Geographic produced on the subject. They were far more interested in doing extensive surveys of the wrecks of both the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion.

The expedition to the Titanic was a sideshow which they were willing to indulge as long as there was money left over to do it.

That was during the Cold War and the Reagan administration when funding wasn't that hard to get in the first place and quite a bit has changed since then.

 

[Adam Went]

Michael:

Yes I did see that docco a while back and it's been repeated a couple of times since. Not sure what to make of it. I mean it's great that it gave Ballard the opportunity to find the wreck but it was a little surprising to say the least. Anyway, I suppose Ballard's allegiance was with the navy, so ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

Am beginning to consider whether to make a phone call to Cunard, they don't seem to be very quick off the mark replying to their e-mails. I bet if I wanted to book a voyage I would have had a reply long ago.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Anyway, I suppose Ballard's allegiance was with the navy, so ya gotta do what ya gotta do!<<

Since he held a reserve officers commission in the Navy and the Navy was providing the funds, this shouldn't be too surprising. In this instance, the Navy has some perfectly valid reasons for being concerned with the wrecked submarines. Both were nuclear powered and it's possible...though never officially confirmed...that the Scorpion may have had nuclear weapons aboard.

This tends to trump other concerns and interests as far as the priorities go.

 

[Steven Christian]

>>Anyway, I suppose Ballard's allegiance was with the navy, so ya gotta do what ya gotta do!<<

Since he held a reserve officers commission in the Navy and the Navy was providing the funds, this shouldn't be too surprising. In this instance, the Navy has some perfectly valid reasons for being concerned with the wrecked submarines. Both were nuclear powered and it's possible...though never officially confirmed...that the Scorpion may have had nuclear weapons aboard.

This tends to trump other concerns and interests as far as the priorities go.

Hello Michael. I ran across this old thread while looking for info if Titanic ever used any welding in her construction other than of course all the riveting and bolted equiptment. Welding was being used in construction at the turn of the century albeit on a limited scale. Anyway I saw your comment about the USS Scorpion. It is the policy of the US Navy to never confirm or denie the presence of nuclear weapons aboard their ships. But as for the Scorpion the navy did let the cat out of the bag so to speak. When they de-classified the 1968 report on the loss of her it is in the report that she had 2 MK 45 ASTOR torpedo's with MK34 nuclear warheads aboard at the time of her disapperance. Also they list the officers from the Naval Nuclear Weapons Ordnance branch that testified. Plus I've read that a "broken arrow" alert was issued to ships and aircraft during the search. That means accident possibly involving nuclear weapons. Anyway thought you might be interested even though its a 10 year old thread.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

Suppose the Titanic had been of welded construction instead of riveted? Would things have turned out differently? I seem to recall reading that the initial damage totaled about 12 square feet (less than the area of an average doorway), but it was spread out over the first 6 compartments and that a lot of the damage was rivet heads being sheared off.

 

[Steven Christian]

She probably would have survived with scraps and dents if she was welded. Providing that the welds were of good quality. I've read that a few ships (liberty/cargo vessels) broke apart and sank during WW2 because of poor welds. Quality control probably suffered during that time because they were launching ships almost everyday. Cheers.

 

[Mike Spooner]

When you compare welded versus rivet hull ships in Titanic years they are chalk and cheese apart. Welded hull ships was very slow in development to get the right quality.
Had Titanic had a welded hull it would certainly fallen to piece in no time. The first fully welded sea going ship was until the Fullager ship completed in 1920 at Cammell Laird shipyard Birkenhead near Liverpool UK. However to meet the Lloyd's resister rules had over lap plates were rivets are used. It appears was successful. Now I may be corrected here what I can see the second welded hull ship came in 1938 Arc Royal aircraft carrier built at Cammell Laird shipyard to. Why it took another 18 years is bit of a mystery I can only think the quality wasn't quite up to standard for a larger ship yet. The first welded hull ships built in very large quantity was the British/American design 2,700 Liberty ships built at 18 shipyards across USA. However there were not without there problems to as over1200 did suffered from cranks in the hull. Yet to be fair for Liberty ships they were not design to last no more than five years. What amazing job they did to the war effort for Britain and give back freedom to European Countries as well. As the order of the day was quantity and delivery ASAP and not quality. I would of thought the two remaining sea going Liberty ships of today must bit of a nightmare to beat of the rust and retain the hull strength to. As welded ships of today are of top quality standards.
Yet surprising there is still a fully going sea worthy steam ship in operation today built with a rivet hull and with a welded top deck completed in 1954 SS Shieldhall base at Southampton UK.
I can see one advantage with a rivet hull ship as the steel plates where over lapped for the rivets therefore that section is twice the thickness.

 

[Steven Christian]

Yes your right about the Liberty ships. There's a couple of them left in the U.S. that are in working condition but they are mostly museum ships. It's surprising that many of them lasted as long as they did after the war. I looked up the 2 that my dad served on. One of them lasted until the 70's before going to the breakers. A lot of the stuff built during the war was never meant to last long. I've restored a couple of old jeeps from those days. You could tell how they were built and designed that they weren't meant to last a long time. The flip side was that they were designed to be fixed easily and quickly to get back to doing there job. Like the Liberty ships defiantly no frills. Just made to get from point A to B. Cheers.