Two quick questions about C deck porthole arrangement and WTD on tank top

[Rich Hayden]

1] The first three portholes aft of the well deck on C deck have 17'' sidelights. These gave light into staterooms C-7, C-11 and a corridor with a locker at the end. All the other C deck staterooms have the big Utley pivoting sidelights.

Was this because the framing of the ship didn't allow for the slightly larger portholes in this particular area?

2] Down on the tank top, at the aft end of the firemans' passage is watertight bulkhead 'D' complete with its watertight door. There's then what looks like an unlettered mini bulkhead with another watertight door set into it that separates this small space from boiler room 6.

Why have another watertight door at this unlettered bulkhead? Why not just have watertight bulkheads 'D' and 'E'? And if the bulkhead wasn't watertight, why have a watertight door there? And if it was watertight, then why doesn't it have a letter designation?

 

[Bob Read]

1] The first three portholes aft of the well deck on C deck have 17'' sidelights. These gave light into staterooms C-7, C-11 and a corridor with a locker at the end. All the other C deck staterooms have the big Utley pivoting sidelights.

Was this because the framing of the ship didn't allow for the slightly larger portholes in this particular area?

2] Down on the tank top, at the aft end of the firemans' passage is watertight bulkhead 'D' complete with its watertight door. There's then what looks like an unlettered mini bulkhead with another watertight door set into it that separates this small space from boiler room 6.

Why have another watertight door at this unlettered bulkhead? Why not just have watertight bulkheads 'D' and 'E'? And if the bulkhead wasn't watertight, why have a watertight door there? And if it was watertight, then why doesn't it have a letter designation?

I can answer the porthole question. The hull framing in the area of these smaller portholes was the same as in the area of the larger Utlety’s sidelights. The frame spacing was 36 inches.

 

[Rich Hayden]

I can answer the porthole question. The hull framing in the area of these smaller portholes was the same as in the area of the larger Utlety’s sidelights. The frame spacing was 36 inches.

So there was no physical reason why they couldn't have used the larger Utley sidelights instead? An issue with the framing size is the only thing I could think of as an explanation for why they didn't.

 

[kevijeps]

1] The first three portholes aft of the well deck on C deck have 17'' sidelights. These gave light into staterooms C-7, C-11 and a corridor with a locker at the end. All the other C deck staterooms have the big Utley pivoting sidelights.

Was this because the framing of the ship didn't allow for the slightly larger portholes in this particular area?

2] Down on the tank top, at the aft end of the firemans' passage is watertight bulkhead 'D' complete with its watertight door. There's then what looks like an unlettered mini bulkhead with another watertight door set into it that separates this small space from boiler room 6.

Why have another watertight door at this unlettered bulkhead? Why not just have watertight bulkheads 'D' and 'E'? And if the bulkhead wasn't watertight, why have a watertight door there? And if it was watertight, then why doesn't it have a letter designation?

WRT the "vestibule" at the end of the Fireman' passage.
The bottom of hold three on either side of the passage could be used as a reserve coal bunker so in order to be able to pass coal aft to boiler room 6 there had to be access to this bunker. H&W never put watertight doors directly in contact with coal so these doors were not watertight. From a fascinating thread here: Fireman's Passageway WTD's and other miscellany...

During the limitation of liability hearings, Harland & Wolff ship designer Edward Wilding would comment as to why there were two doors located in this area:

"We have a very strong prejudice at Harland & Wolff's to having a watertight door actually adjacent to coal, which has to be worked during the voyage. No. 3 hold was used as a. reserve bunker. In order to maintain the intactness of this D bulkhead, which is at the after end and yet enable coal to be got out of it at sea a watertight box was built over the after end of the pipe tunnel, having ordinary non-watertight doors opening into the reserve bunkers and having a watertight door on the after side opening into the stoke hole. So that, if necessary, reserve coal, when being worked out with the reserve bunker nearly full, did not come in contact directly with the watertight door."

Also from that thread here:

The interior of the vestibule is part of hold #3. The two coal passing doors were not watertight according to the symbols used on the plans. There was no reason for them to be anything but dustproof because the vestibule was part of the coal bunkers in hold #3. They are drawn on the plan using the symbols for vertically-hinged {non} watertight doors.

The forward watertight door (marked with the two triangles apex-to-apex) of the vestibule closed of bulkhead B at the tank top and orlop levels. Llikewise, after watertight door closed off bulkhead D. If hold #3 flooded, so would the vestibule. But those two watertight doors would have contained water within the vestibule and prevented it from flowing aft to boiler room #6 or forward into hold #1. The walls of the tunnel confined the water from entering hold #2. Neither watertight door in the vestibule could have been eliminated without compromising the watertight integrity of holds #3 and #1.

Ciao
KJ

 

[Innoventions]

So there was no physical reason why they couldn't have used the larger Utley sidelights instead? An issue with the framing size is the only thing I could think of as an explanation for why they didn't.

Maybe larger portholes would have made this corner weaker. This is an area also close to where cargo is handled, perhaps that may have something to do with the smaller portholes? Though on the aft wall of the well deck, only the outermost portholes were 17"