The Steering Question, Helms orders -- references given
Serenleono
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu scripsit:
>The question of how the Titanic's steering wheel worked has been raging
>for a long time. [. . .]
>Meanwhile, to answer *again* with the best info I have now: All ships
>wheels worked like a car's, and always did from the earliest days that
>ships were steered with wheels. I know Walter Lord says differently, but
>he doesn't say where he got this info.
>
>I may be eating these words next week!
I'll gladly supply some references you can check. Walter Lord was
mistaken in a number of his 'facts' about TITANIC, but this was not
one of them.
From SEAMANSHIP IN THE AGE OF SAIL by John Harland [1984 Conway
Maritime Press Ltd, UK and Naval Institute Press, US & Canada]
(Pages 175-6)
"Rudder and Helm. Orders to the helmsman were traditionally
given in terms of 'helm', that is to say, the position of the tiller
rather than the rudder. 'Hard a-starboard!' meant 'Put the tiller
(helm) to starboard, so that the ship may go to port!' It will be
realised that not only the bow turned to port, but also the rudder,
the top of the wheel, and prior to the advent of the steering-wheel,
the upper end of the whipstaff. Cogent reasons existed, therefore,
for giving the order in what one might call the 'common sense'
fashion. The transition to 'rudder' orders was made in many European
countries about a century ago [. . . .] In the United Kingdom, the
changeover did not occur until 1933, at which time the new regulations
were applied to naval and merchant vessels alike. [. . .] Although
the United States Navy made the switch from 'Port helm!' to 'Right
rudder!' in 1914, practice in American merchant vessels did not change
until 1935."
From THE OXFORD COMPANION TO SHIPS & THE SEA, edited by Peter Kemp
[Oxford University Press, 1976.]
(Under definition for HELM:)
"For some three centuries all helm orders given in ships remained
applicable to the tiller, and an order from the navigator of a ship to
a helmsman of, for example, 'port 20' meant that the helmsman put the
wheel over 20 degrees to starboard, the equivalent direction of moving
the tiller 20 degrees to port, and the rudder and the ship's head
moved to starboard.
"This practice was universal until after the First World War
(1914-18), when some nations began to adopt the practice of relating
helm orders to the rudder and no longer to the tiller [. . . .] By
the mid-1930s all maritime nations had adopted this practice, which
removed the anomaly of a navigator giving the order 'port' when he
wanted to turn the ship to starboard, and vice-versa."
From A SEA OF WORDS, 2d edition by Dean King, with John B. Hattendorf
& J. Worth Estes [Owl Books, Henry Holt & Co., 1995, 1997]
(Under definition for HELM:)
"Orders to the helmsman were traditionally given in terms of the
position of the TILLER, not the position of the RUDDER. Putting the
tiller to STARBOARD made the vessel go to LARBOARD [earlier term for
PORT --Seren]."
Seren
Bob Hermann
Thank you for this wonderfully detailed response. You'll probably have to
post this once a week or so for awhile--the question keeps coming up.
Serenleono <ve...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<34e0d547....@news.mindspring.com>...
Serenleono
Pardon the typo in the subject line
Should be:
'The Steering Question, Helm orders -- references given'
Frederick N. Petillo
Everything in this seems to suggest that the ship's wheel works like a
car's wheel in so far as turning the top of the wheel to the left turns
the boat to port. Regardless of what the helm orders are. So if Lord
said that the wheel was turned clockwise, he must have been wrong. Or
what am I missing here?
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Well, this may look like an argument to some, but we're really talking
about two different things here. You address the *orders given the
helmsman* excellently.
Thanks for the references.
What I said in my earlier post was that the wheel itself turned
conventionally (ie like a car, turn right to turn right, or however you
want to say it).
The orders given to the helmsmen were, as you so excellently showed,
were given as though the ship steered with a tiller. Remember, a lot of
the world's trade was carried on small boats and such steering orders
would have to be standardized to minimize confusion when the vessel may
be under the comand of a new deck officer, or a harbor pilot.
BTW I believe whipstaffs were on the way out in the days of the Armada.
To sum it all up, back in 1912, when the man in charge of a vessel
wanted her to turn to starboard (ie the bow would swing that way,
followed shortly thereafter by the whole ship) he would order "helm
a-port." The man actually doing the steering would then turn the wheel
to the right (starboard).
From what I've read, this wasn't considered confusing at all in those
days. The world may have been a more mysterious and complicated place
without computers....
Cheerio- Doug King
Serenleono
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu scripsit:
[some quoted text snipped]
>Well, this may look like an argument to some
Argument -- no. I don't recall saying that we were in disagreement at
all. I was simply trying to help provide some references that would
show that Walter Lord had not imagined or fudged when saying that the
"hard a-starboard" order was appropriate when ordering TITANIC's bow
to port.
>What I said in my earlier post was that the wheel itself turned
>conventionally (ie like a car, turn right to turn right, or however you
>want to say it).
All of my references supported this.
I don't know the particulars of TITANIC's steering system, but I do
know that helm orders in 1912 were still being given by the same
convention which had existed for hundreds of years. I know this
because they weren't changed until after World War I. [see my earlier
post giving some of the years when this changed in various countries.]
>The orders given to the helmsmen were, as you so excellently showed,
>were given as though the ship steered with a tiller. Remember, a lot of
>the world's trade was carried on small boats and such steering orders
>would have to be standardized to minimize confusion when the vessel may
>be under the comand of a new deck officer, or a harbor pilot.
That's right. In fact, that's how the whole confusing convention
became standardised in the first place. Helmsmen were used to
handling tillers and hearing orders given for the tiller. Many
vessels, especially smaller ones, continued to be steered directly by
tiller even after the steering wheel was being fitted into newer,
larger ships. A man might go from a vessel with a wheel to another
without one and become hopelessly confused if orders were given
differently for each. So "giving orders for the tiller" remained the
standard.
For anyone still confused by any of this, I've posted a simple diagram
to alt.binaries.pictures.vehicles which compares steering a ship with
a tiller and with a wheel. Look for 'Helm diagram -- tiller v.
wheel'.
>BTW I believe whipstaffs were on the way out in the days of the Armada.
Well, that's not entirely true.
The whipstaff (or kolder-stok) *is* still in use in some small boats
even today, though rare -- but that's another matter and not related
to the topic at hand.
>From what I've read, this wasn't considered confusing at all in those
>days.
For most able helmsmen it was second-nature; sometimes, however, it
was disastrously confusing. More than one accident was caused by
misunderstood helm orders before the convention was changed. TITANIC
was not among them, of course.
Seren
Serenleono
"Frederick N. Petillo" <fr...@mail.execpc.com> scripsit:
>Everything in this seems to suggest that the ship's wheel works like a
>car's wheel in so far as turning the top of the wheel to the left turns
>the boat to port.
In most cases this was just so. I thought my references would support
that fact; that's why I posted them. It came as a surprise that
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu seemed to think I was contradicting him.
(Much of the following not specifically directed at Frederick, just
general discussion on the same topic.)
I know we're really talking about the steering mechanism aboard a 20th
century emigrant ship, but I'm sure that most of the confusion over
this whole issue would instantly disappear were everyone able to
actually *see* how an old-style sailing ship's helm, tiller, and
rudder were rigged together and how they worked. Every time someone
in this group writes that turning the wheel to port turns the tiller
to starboard, it's obvious that half a dozen people misinterpret this
to mean the *rudder* turns to starboard (whereas it actually turns to
port, the same direction as the steering wheel).
The confusion is entirely understandable. You don't *see* the tiller
in the 'Bounty' movies (unless you know where to look) or in the
Hornblower film (but it's there), so most people assume the steering
wheel is directly attached to the rudder. It's not. The tiller is
'between' them and integral to the steering method. After the
steering wheel was applied to ships back in 1704, it wasn't unusual
in many vessels fitted with a wheel for the tiller to be completely
out of sight below decks. Orders were still given, however, as though
the helmsman (or men) were steering directly by manipulation of the
tiller, as in older or smaller vessels. Giving orders applicable to
the tiller had been the norm for centuries and remained the standard
convention until about a quarter way through the 20th century.
(For anyone interested, I've posted a simple diagram of the helm
mechanisms for a ship steered by tiller and a ship steered by wheel.
Look for 'Helm diagram -- tiller v. wheel' in
alt.binaries.pictures.vehicles. N.B.: This is not a diagram of
TITANIC's mechanism, but that of sailing ships of an earlier time.
Still, it should help those perpetually confused by the "starboard v.
helm" question. Obviously Frederick *does* understand the concept
clearly, as several of his posts have proved.)
>Regardless of what the helm orders are. So if Lord
>said that the wheel was turned clockwise, he must have been
>wrong. Or what am I missing here?
This is the part which I don't understand in the debate.
At what point did Walter Lord indicate the wheel was turned clockwise?
If you're referring to a passage from chapter one of ANTR (see below),
I think this was just a case of ambiguous phraseology on the author's
part, but not an actual error.
"Murdoch was in charge of the bridge this watch,
and it was his problem, once Fleet phoned the
warning. A tense minute had passed since then --
orders to Quartermaster Hitchens to turn the wheel
hard a-starboard . . ."
I personally never interpreted this to mean Hitchens actually turned
the ship's wheel clockwise (though I certainly can see how it might be
misread that way). Lord's choice of phrasing could have been better,
there's no question; however, he certainly knew that the order given
was "Hard a-starboard" and that this would mean the wheel was turned
anti-clockwise.
Seren
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Well, right. I said "this might look like an argument" to show that I
did NOT think it was one (an argument, I mean). Basically our references
have produced the same answer. I think this ought to satisfy most
everyone who didn't come here looking for an argument...
And the statement "all ships" was a bit strong. Heck, some have their
steering wheel mounted sideways! What's the convention for this??
Still, there are more references to come, including Harland and Wolf and
the Mystic Seaport research librarian (thanks very much to both!).
I don't expect this "controversy" to die this easily...
Cheerio- Doug King
Frederick N. Petillo
We're in agreement on everything you wrote. "Seamanship in the Age of
Sail" is a wonderful reference. Re. the Lord misunderstanding, I was
responding to someone (God knows who now), who thought that Lord had
screwed up. I don't think he did.
Serenleono
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu scripsit:
>Well, right. I said "this might look like an argument" to show that I
>did NOT think it was one (an argument, I mean).
You're right, of course. Tempest in a teapot. Mea culpa.
>And the statement "all ships" was a bit strong. Heck, some have their
>steering wheel mounted sideways! What's the convention for this??
I checked. According to C. DeWitt's excellent translation of Glühwein
Katzenjammer's ICH BRAUCHE MAGENTABLETTEN, that style mount was often
reported by quartermasters who'd had a bit too much of the spirits and
mistakenly reported for duty at the capstan. ;-)
>Still, there are more references to come, including Harland and Wolf and
>the Mystic Seaport research librarian (thanks very much to both!).
I'm as interested in reading your results as anyone -- since, as I've
admitted more than once, I know sailing vessels, not steamships.
>I don't expect this "controversy" to die this easily...
As the keeper of a John Milton study site, I'm used to receiving the
same questions over and over again. I have to remind myself from time
to time of the obvious -- that it's not, after all, the same person
asking the same question interminably, but *many* inquisitive minds
discovering the same question (just as I did many years ago) and
thirsting for a better understanding.
Anyway, I think you're right. This question isn't going away. It was
to be expected that, as the film opened in succession across the globe
and more and more cinema-goers succumbed to the irresistible draw of
TITANIC, then as new herds of intrigued individuals (newly touched by
what many have termed "the Titanic effect") found their ways to these
newsgroups, the same questions should pop up time and time again. And
the "starboard v. port" question wasn't likely to escape the notice of
the sharper audience members.
Frankly, I've believe it's a litmus test for newsgroups. The best,
friendliest groups respond with helpful answers every time. The worst
respond with flames and sarcasm. This is a very helpful group,
inhabited (on the whole) by very good souls.
Seren