Fires on Titanic?
Steve Buckley
I saw a documentary on TV at christmas which was speculating that the
reason titanic was travelling so fast was that she had a fire in one of
her coal bunkers and to overcome this, the coal from it had to be removed
as fast as possible, i.e. by burning it in the furnaces to form a
fire-break. Apparrently fires of this type were fairly common on steam
ships.
Does anyone know anything about this or know of any evidence?
Steve
Piglet5568
There was a fire located in bunker #10 on the aft starboard side of the ship.
It had been smoldering ever since the ship left from Belfast. It was
questioned whether or not the heat could have done any damage to the bulkhead
and the hull. Chief Engineer Bell asssured the captain that the fire was under
control and he doubted that any damage had been done.
As to whether or not they were going faster to burn off the coal, I haven't
ever read anything about that.
Paulus von P
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:34:07 +0100, Steve Buckley <95...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
I've heard this theory as well. There *was* a fire burning in one of
the coal bunkers, but it had already started several days before
Titanic was due to depart. If it was so serious they had to steam at
top speed to New York, they wouldn't have left Southampton in the
first place.
PvP.
Tony
I have a copy of a book "STORY OF THE WRECK OF THE TITANIC" THE OCEANS
GREATEST DISASTER "Memorial Edition" which was written by Everett
Mustraled and published by L.H. Walter in 1912.
The book has many photo's of passengers and is in very good condition.
If anyone is seriously interested or knows what this book may be worth,
please respond.
Tim Foecke
> A large pile could not be kept damp all the way through, it would have
> to be dampened in layers, have another layer added, dampened,
> repeat... the sheer weight and size of such a pile would eventually
> dry out the bottom layers of the pile, allowing for smouldering of the
> bottom layers.
Somewhat counter-intuitive. As the pile is stacked and soaked, the bottom
is the wettest. The fire was located in the back in the center, against
the bulkhead.
And how does weight dry coal?
>
> The fire had absolutely no bearing on T's speed, or her sinking.
Quite a dramatic statement considering you have cited no direct evidence.
We have done simulations of the effect of thermal strains induced in the
bulkhead clamped on all four sides by a point-source fire in the center
along the floor. Those strains were sufficient to cause the bulkhead to
warp between 4 and 6 inches in the center. Variability comes from
uncertainty in determining the temperature of the steel, which was
reported to be "cherry red" hot.
Pyrometry of steel at that temperature places it at the edge of the
austenitizing regime, so the bulkhead could have experienced a very long
time high temperature anneal, which would coarsen the grains and drive
impurities to grain boundaries, both of which would decrease the toughness
of the steel and make it less able to hold a load.
And a failure of that bulkhead, given the rest of the damage, would have
decreased the sinking time.
The next expedition will hopefully involve some imaging of the bulkhead in
question.
>
> Eric Seright-Payne
> Livermore, CA
Tim Foecke
> Except pressure dries, squeezing out excess moisture. Try it
> yourself... get aload of laundry out of the washer... put a few pieces
> under a couple tons of some material, in an area with a much higher
> than average room temperature in the first place... then go check on
> it... really think it won't be drying?
Laundry has a somewhat lower density, and is more compressible, than
coal. Several tons is nothing to a bit of coal.
> Why cite a reference? The fire was fully extinguised Saturday evening
> at 10 pm. The Titanic sank Monday morning at 2:20 am, having struck
> ice at 11:40 pm, Sunday... in other words, over 25 hours after the
> fire had been extinguished.
>
I won't bother trying . .
> BTW: Are you the same people who determined the Titanic actually sank
> because of faulty steel... applying 1990s standards to 1912... then
> having to backtrack when it was pointed out the steel quality used in
> Titanic was no different than that of every other ship built of that
> era?
>
No. I am not Canadian. Read my report, especially the final conclusion.
> Ah. Engineerin' words. Guess this is supposed to prove something...
> when in doubt, attempt to obfuscate through selective vocabulary... is
> this a suitable translation:
>
> "The length of time the fire burned, and the temperature achieved,
> could have weakened the actual structure of the steel used in the
> bulkhead"?
No, but relatively close. BTW, do you ever ask a question without a snide tone?
> Just like the last one revealed the "new" information that the Titanic
> sank, not from a 300 foot gash, but from a series of "pokes" and
> "holes", huh? Yep. That was new information, alright... and that new
> information - including the square footage of damage inflicted upon
> the ship - was FIRST revealed in May, 1912.
>
I really don't care about your personal war with Tulloch. And if you get
all your information about the results of the last expedition from the
Discovery Channel rather than the official report of the panel, I submit
you are not doing your job as an author. In the report, we CONFIRM what
was put forward in 1912. I cannot help what the popular press will
include or exclude in coverage of the event. If you had read the paper,
you would not make such statements. Then again . . .
Tim Foecke
In case you are following this thread, the conversation between myself and
Mr. Seright has ended. If you are interested in more information on the
activities of the Forensics Panel, please email me and I will do my best
to accomodate your requests. If you want to simply write pages of
wasteful bandwidth defending your turf in this newsgroup without
considering any information I am offering resulting from our research, go
ahead. Doesn't bother my T3.
Jake Boltz
> On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:34:07 +0100, Steve Buckley <95...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I saw a documentary on TV at christmas which was speculating that the
> >reason titanic was travelling so fast was that she had a fire in one of
> >her coal bunkers and to overcome this, the coal from it had to be removed
> >as fast as possible, i.e. by burning it in the furnaces to form a
> >fire-break. Apparrently fires of this type were fairly common on steam
> >ships.
> >
> >Does anyone know anything about this or know of any evidence?
According to the book sources I have and the testimony of the officers in the
two post-sinking inquiries, the fire in the forward starboard coal storage
room was out at least one day prior to the sinking. Also, the ship had plenty
of coal to power the steam engines for the trip over and back. The reason for
the excessive speed, again, according to my sources, was a desire on the part
of White Star Management to be early in arriving at New York.
Jake
--
___________________________________________________
I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder.
I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel.
Modern ship building has gone beyond that.
-- Captain Edward J. Smith of the Adriatic, 1906 (Titanic in 1912)