Old photographs
April 16, 2016 3:45 AM Subscribe
Babbitt
(I had never heard of the stuff, and the descriptions don't explain it)
posted by Thorzdad at 5:07 AM on April 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
(I had never heard of the stuff, and the descriptions don't explain it)
posted by Thorzdad at 5:07 AM on April 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Indeed, such a poignant thought, I_Love_Bananas. All that engineering, planning, blood, sweat and tears... sent unceremoniously to Davy Jone's Locker.
Great post... never seen these photos before. I'm very much interested in large ship engines and these photos are every bit about that.
posted by rmmcclay at 5:26 AM on April 16, 2016
Great post... never seen these photos before. I'm very much interested in large ship engines and these photos are every bit about that.
posted by rmmcclay at 5:26 AM on April 16, 2016
Perfectly timed, as my five-year-old son has recently become obsessed with the Titanic and will love this. I, um, might also be just a little excited by such large-scaled engineering...Good grief, look the size of that crankshaft! Thanks, infini.
posted by Lesser Spotted Potoroo at 5:42 AM on April 16, 2016
posted by Lesser Spotted Potoroo at 5:42 AM on April 16, 2016
how efficient was the design? without (fluid flow) simulations, how close were they to optimal? did they purposefully choose technologies (low pressure?) that were less critical of design details that had to be largely guessed?
posted by andrewcooke at 5:48 AM on April 16, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 5:48 AM on April 16, 2016
Triple screw engines were needed to propel a 46,000 ton ship. The engines of the Olympic Class liners stood four decks high housed in six compartments. In all there were 29 boilers supplied by 159 furnaces generating pressures up to 215 lbs per square inch.
The shipbuilders were faced with another problem. Since 1853 Harland and Wolff had employed 14,000 workers to build a staggering nine ships at any one time BUT the even keels of the layer ships were small compared to the giants they were about to build. No slipways in the world could yet accommodate the Titanic and her sisters. Construction began on a giant slipway named the "Great Gantry."
It cost £100,000. Its crane was specially imported from the German Benrather Company to handle the large loads necessary to fit out the ships following their launch. The crane cost £30,000.
The ships would be 882.75 feet in length, 92.5 feet wide and each have a gross tonnage of 45,000. They would be the biggest ships afloat.
As construction of the Titanic and Olympic continued it was evident that the ships with an overall length of 882 feet, were too big for the River Test in Southampton. As a result, the "White Star Dock" was designed specially to berth the new ships. Its construction was completed before the launch of the Olympic. It covered 16 acres and was 40 foot deep at low tide, meaning that the ships could be berthed at either low or high tide.
Some authors have suggested that the designers of such ships had no or little experience to compare after all, a disaster like the Titanic had never happened before. The size of such ships had grown 400% in 12 years and the shipping experts had no way of foreseeing what circumstances could give rise to a sinking.
The writer on the other hand does not support this line of argument. Experts must have seen a short-fall in boats in relation to passengers in crew. After all, they were the Board of Trade. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The Titanic enquiry will be dealt with later.
Eight months had passed since the launch and her fitting had been completed. The Titanic was ready for her trials. The officers had been notified to board her to familise themsleves with her facilities.
The trials commenced on the 2nd April 1912. Andrews was on board making notes of minor adjustments and overseeing the trials. The Titanic was towed down the Belfast Lough by the tugs Hercules, Herculaneum, Huskisson, Hornby and Herald. Very long read
posted by infini at 6:02 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The shipbuilders were faced with another problem. Since 1853 Harland and Wolff had employed 14,000 workers to build a staggering nine ships at any one time BUT the even keels of the layer ships were small compared to the giants they were about to build. No slipways in the world could yet accommodate the Titanic and her sisters. Construction began on a giant slipway named the "Great Gantry."
It cost £100,000. Its crane was specially imported from the German Benrather Company to handle the large loads necessary to fit out the ships following their launch. The crane cost £30,000.
The ships would be 882.75 feet in length, 92.5 feet wide and each have a gross tonnage of 45,000. They would be the biggest ships afloat.
As construction of the Titanic and Olympic continued it was evident that the ships with an overall length of 882 feet, were too big for the River Test in Southampton. As a result, the "White Star Dock" was designed specially to berth the new ships. Its construction was completed before the launch of the Olympic. It covered 16 acres and was 40 foot deep at low tide, meaning that the ships could be berthed at either low or high tide.
Some authors have suggested that the designers of such ships had no or little experience to compare after all, a disaster like the Titanic had never happened before. The size of such ships had grown 400% in 12 years and the shipping experts had no way of foreseeing what circumstances could give rise to a sinking.
The writer on the other hand does not support this line of argument. Experts must have seen a short-fall in boats in relation to passengers in crew. After all, they were the Board of Trade. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The Titanic enquiry will be dealt with later.
Eight months had passed since the launch and her fitting had been completed. The Titanic was ready for her trials. The officers had been notified to board her to familise themsleves with her facilities.
The trials commenced on the 2nd April 1912. Andrews was on board making notes of minor adjustments and overseeing the trials. The Titanic was towed down the Belfast Lough by the tugs Hercules, Herculaneum, Huskisson, Hornby and Herald. Very long read
posted by infini at 6:02 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I imagine their sorrow to be no less than those who lost their loved ones. And to me, no less valid.
You consider the death of an irreplaceable human being to be no more of a loss than the destruction of a beautiful, but replicable machine? YMMV, but I.. don't think I've heard that point of view before. Ever.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 6:29 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
You consider the death of an irreplaceable human being to be no more of a loss than the destruction of a beautiful, but replicable machine? YMMV, but I.. don't think I've heard that point of view before. Ever.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 6:29 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
You consider the death of an irreplaceable human being to be no more of a loss than the destruction of a beautiful, but replicable machine? YMMV, but I.. don't think I've heard that point of view before. Ever.
Oh for heaven's sake. You don't think people feel legitimate grief at the destruction of something they worked really hard to build? Grief doesn't come in pre-set levels of so many Grief Units depending on the loss.
posted by hoyland at 6:37 AM on April 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
Oh for heaven's sake. You don't think people feel legitimate grief at the destruction of something they worked really hard to build? Grief doesn't come in pre-set levels of so many Grief Units depending on the loss.
posted by hoyland at 6:37 AM on April 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
For sure, people feel grief at the loss of all kinds of things. Jobs, ways of life, and ships. But while I've heard people say they value the lives of animals no less than humans, I repeat, I've never heard inanimate matter valued in the same way before, as amounting to what you call the same number of what you call Grief Units. That's a new one on me, even as hyperbole.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 7:27 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by GeorgeBickham at 7:27 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Human life has always had a finite economic value, whether in a slave market in 1850 or in the actuary's estimate of life insurance premiums or tort compensation in 2016. And in all but the rarest cases the value of a single human life is a lot less than that of a ship.
Of course, the value of a particular human life may seem incalculable to another particular human, but that is only because of a large investment of emotional energy into the relationship between those humans; humans are in a generic sense very easily replaceable, which is why the minimum wage is still so low and CEO's usually don't go to jail for creating lethal work conditions.
What I_Love_Bananas is saying is that for the humans who have made the ship their life's project, who have spent countless hours poring over drawings and inspecting castings and all the other millions of hours of work needed to turn iron ore into a ship, the loss is of the same scale to those people as the loss of a beloved human companion. The reason is not so much that the human is more or less valuable than a ship -- in almost every absolute sense the ship is more valuable -- but that those builders and engineers have a personal relationship with their creation that forges the same kind of emotional attachment we might feel to another person.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:44 AM on April 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Of course, the value of a particular human life may seem incalculable to another particular human, but that is only because of a large investment of emotional energy into the relationship between those humans; humans are in a generic sense very easily replaceable, which is why the minimum wage is still so low and CEO's usually don't go to jail for creating lethal work conditions.
What I_Love_Bananas is saying is that for the humans who have made the ship their life's project, who have spent countless hours poring over drawings and inspecting castings and all the other millions of hours of work needed to turn iron ore into a ship, the loss is of the same scale to those people as the loss of a beloved human companion. The reason is not so much that the human is more or less valuable than a ship -- in almost every absolute sense the ship is more valuable -- but that those builders and engineers have a personal relationship with their creation that forges the same kind of emotional attachment we might feel to another person.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:44 AM on April 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
People value money, which is mostly an abstraction, over the lives of human beings.
posted by rdr at 7:46 AM on April 16, 2016
posted by rdr at 7:46 AM on April 16, 2016
And if you didn't know any of the irreplaceable human beings who perished in the disaster (or anybody who was bereaved by their loss), it'd be just another disaster in the news, like an earthquake in a distant country (give or take the perceived similarity or lack of of the victims to people one knows). If an engineer who designed the engine didn't know anybody affected by the disaster, one can imagine the loss of his beautiful machine being more of a personal blow to him than the generalised weltschmerz of another tragedy in the news. (I can also imagine that engineer not admitting this publicly.)
posted by acb at 7:49 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 7:49 AM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think where we may not agree is not about the capacity to feel grief, but in the meaning of the word "valid", which I take to involve some process of imaginative effort, or empathy, or reflection. I feel all sorts of things, but how I value those feelings, once I've tried to put them in some sort of perspective, is not absolute.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 7:52 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by GeorgeBickham at 7:52 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The scale of that is just stunning. Amazing how it's not really any difference than a smaller steam engine, just scaled up but I can't get my head around how you'd actually do the scaling up. Building the machines to build these machines seems crazy to me.
I was also surprised by the part that talked about the small steam engine used to shove the rudder around. It makes complete sense, but I guess I just never stopped to think about how the rudder was moved.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 7:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was also surprised by the part that talked about the small steam engine used to shove the rudder around. It makes complete sense, but I guess I just never stopped to think about how the rudder was moved.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 7:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
You consider the death of an irreplaceable human being to be no more of a loss than the destruction of a beautiful, but replicable machine? YMMV, but I.. don't think I've heard that point of view before. Ever.
I am truly sorry that you have never created something so beautiful that you genuinely felt grief at its loss.
posted by xedrik at 7:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am truly sorry that you have never created something so beautiful that you genuinely felt grief at its loss.
posted by xedrik at 7:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Steam engines were understood to a very high degree in the years before internal combustion engines began to replace them. Unlike IC engines rapid combustion isn't an issue so designs tend to scale cleanly. The thermodynamics were well understood by the late 19th century, which is why the triple expansion design became so common as opposed to dual (notably less efficient) or quad (past the point of diminishing returns).
If you are ever in San Diego at the maritime museum they have cut open the (much smaller) triple-expansion engine of the Berkeley so that you can observe its moving parts as it turns. These are elegant and well thought-out machines, and it is kind of amazing to consider this kind of work being done in an era when computers didn't exist and all the drafting was done pencil-on-paper and all the mathematical calculations by hand.
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:11 AM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you are ever in San Diego at the maritime museum they have cut open the (much smaller) triple-expansion engine of the Berkeley so that you can observe its moving parts as it turns. These are elegant and well thought-out machines, and it is kind of amazing to consider this kind of work being done in an era when computers didn't exist and all the drafting was done pencil-on-paper and all the mathematical calculations by hand.
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:11 AM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Building the machines to build these machines seems crazy to me.
This is what my grandfather was doing for the year or two around the time my parents got married.
posted by infini at 8:55 AM on April 16, 2016
This is what my grandfather was doing for the year or two around the time my parents got married.
posted by infini at 8:55 AM on April 16, 2016
I am truly sorry that you have never created something so beautiful that you genuinely felt grief at its loss.
I didn't say that. I've certainly felt grief when something I have made breaks, is lost or replaced. What I do say is that I have never, nor have I come across a point of view before that considered how that felt to be on the same level as grief at the loss of a loved one. Maybe I've felt that, momentarily? But then I think about what loss of a loved one feels like... I've felt that, of course, as we all have. Again, the issue is not about feelings, but how you feel about your feelings, and those of others. We aren't that closed-off, you know: it is possible to imagine someone else's grief, to learn from it, and to move on. We ought to at least try, rather than thinking what anyone feels to be sovereign and beyond empathy in the true sense of the word.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 8:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't say that. I've certainly felt grief when something I have made breaks, is lost or replaced. What I do say is that I have never, nor have I come across a point of view before that considered how that felt to be on the same level as grief at the loss of a loved one. Maybe I've felt that, momentarily? But then I think about what loss of a loved one feels like... I've felt that, of course, as we all have. Again, the issue is not about feelings, but how you feel about your feelings, and those of others. We aren't that closed-off, you know: it is possible to imagine someone else's grief, to learn from it, and to move on. We ought to at least try, rather than thinking what anyone feels to be sovereign and beyond empathy in the true sense of the word.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 8:58 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well that explains the two large and one small screw; I always wondered.
posted by Mitheral at 9:14 AM on April 16, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 9:14 AM on April 16, 2016
If you like this sort of thing and find yourself in the area of Detroit, Michigan, take the trouble to visit the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn. It is overflowing with steam engines, enormous factory components, and cars and planes and trains and tractors. Ford spent his piles of money on amazing artifacts: the Rosa Parks bus, the car JFK was shot in, Abe Lincoln's desk. It's a great place to spend a day.
posted by Bee'sWing at 11:05 AM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 11:05 AM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also of note in the Ford Museum in Dearbourn; a surviving Ford Trimotor, and one of the only two Dymaxion Houses to be built (thank you, Buckminster Fuller). It's not just Ford cars!
posted by cstross at 12:09 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by cstross at 12:09 PM on April 16, 2016
You consider the death of an irreplaceable human being to be no more of a loss than the destruction of a beautiful, but replicable machine?
I come from a long line of engineers who live by what my mother calls "Yankee Shinto" and we grieve the best-made things, and evolved things, and complicated places. They're also irreplaceable. The labor that went into the first huge ship, the sustained collaboration in never slacking, in doing everything right, in widening one's understanding to almost, almost become the ship-to-be instead of oneself, so that flawed design becomes obvious like a noise or an itch -- that's irreplaceable too. Not every person, and fewer organizations, have *two* of those experiences in them at all. When I grieve a human being I am partly grieving the loss of their memory of those experiences, or their opportunity to have one. And the made things are all that work and attention and love reified. How could we not grieve for them?
posted by clew at 12:35 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I come from a long line of engineers who live by what my mother calls "Yankee Shinto" and we grieve the best-made things, and evolved things, and complicated places. They're also irreplaceable. The labor that went into the first huge ship, the sustained collaboration in never slacking, in doing everything right, in widening one's understanding to almost, almost become the ship-to-be instead of oneself, so that flawed design becomes obvious like a noise or an itch -- that's irreplaceable too. Not every person, and fewer organizations, have *two* of those experiences in them at all. When I grieve a human being I am partly grieving the loss of their memory of those experiences, or their opportunity to have one. And the made things are all that work and attention and love reified. How could we not grieve for them?
posted by clew at 12:35 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
"I imagine their sorrow to be no less than those who lost their loved ones. And to me, no less valid." posted by I_Love_Bananas
Needed banana for scale. Nailed it.
posted by Molesome at 12:49 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Needed banana for scale. Nailed it.
posted by Molesome at 12:49 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I enjoyed seeing these pictures very much, thank you. So many tiny people standing on the metalwork!
posted by bigbigdog at 12:59 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by bigbigdog at 12:59 PM on April 16, 2016
Speaking of diminishing returns, it's surprising to me that the returned energy from the 12psi waste steam from the piston engines was deemed useful enough to install a separate turbine. Why not multi-stage turbine mains?
posted by a halcyon day at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by a halcyon day at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2016
i was reading around a bit earlier and from what i remember (which may be muddled): (1) that turbine (from the combined output) actually produced more power (albeit at higher rpm) than either of the 4 cylinder engines alone; (2) later designs were multi-turbine; (3) the turbine had maintenance issues (seemed like they didn't have great materials for the blades). so my guess is that these particular engines were made just as turbines were catching on, but before they really had the materials science to produce durable blades at high temps / pressures.
posted by andrewcooke at 2:13 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 2:13 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Another issue is that unlike the piston engines, the turbine is not easily reversible.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:46 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:46 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes the piston steam engines would have been direct-reversing with no reverse gear. Stop the engine and start it up again in the opposite direction. It may be that direct reversing engines are not the best arrangement for slowing the ship to avoid collisions with icebergs...
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 3:55 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 3:55 PM on April 16, 2016
It's a fascinating set of pictures; I never knew the Titanic had a turbine before seeing this.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 3:57 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 3:57 PM on April 16, 2016
It's not the engines so much as the screws/propellers. They are most efficient one direction which naturally is forward.
posted by Mitheral at 4:42 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 4:42 PM on April 16, 2016
There's also the problem of inertia when it comes to icebergs... no matter how much propulsion you've got, you're going to need a mile or so to stop, turn, etc.
posted by MikeWarot at 4:45 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by MikeWarot at 4:45 PM on April 16, 2016
What Bringer Tom said.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 5:11 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 5:11 PM on April 16, 2016
actually, the lack of reverse doesn't seem to have been much of an issue. i guess they used tugs.
it seems that early turbines were problematic because people couldn't build reliable gearing, so they had to be direct drive, which limited the rpm (because propellers need to be relatively slow) and so made them less efficient. for long distance, efficient cruising reciprocating (cylinder) engines made more sense. so early turbines were mainly for high-speed use.
then "cruising turbines" (additional stages) came in, then electric motors, and finally gearing. see wikipedia.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:25 PM on April 16, 2016
it seems that early turbines were problematic because people couldn't build reliable gearing, so they had to be direct drive, which limited the rpm (because propellers need to be relatively slow) and so made them less efficient. for long distance, efficient cruising reciprocating (cylinder) engines made more sense. so early turbines were mainly for high-speed use.
then "cruising turbines" (additional stages) came in, then electric motors, and finally gearing. see wikipedia.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:25 PM on April 16, 2016
The problem with the iceberg was that Titanic did almost exactly the worst possible thing. Had the ship simply rammed the iceberg the first compartment or two would have flooded, but the ship would have stayed afloat. But by attempting to divert the ship sideswiped the berg, and due to previously unknown weaknesses in the metal the rivets popped out all along the contact line. The resulting leaks would not have been obvious on view if the ship had made it to port but they admitted far more water than the bilge pumps could deal with and with five compartments flooding down she went.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:16 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:16 PM on April 16, 2016
Most people don't know this but there is a ship engine iron works, that started (before it built engines) in the 1850s, that still exists, and is smack in the middle of Silicon Valley, called the Joshua Hendy Iron Works. They built engines for WWII Liberty ships similar to the Jeremiah O'Brien, which still operates and is a tourist stop in San Francisco. (I don't think the O'Brien's engine was built there though). You can take a tour of its engine room, which was used to stage shots of the Titanic engines for the movie Titanic.
You can supposedly take tours of the Joshua Hendly Iron Works, but every time I've tried, there was some issue ("we can't do it today", "the tour guide is on vacation", etc), so I'm wondering if they really do tours--it is like buying cheese in a Monty Python cheese shop. I wonder what the heck they are building there now.
posted by eye of newt at 6:43 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
You can supposedly take tours of the Joshua Hendly Iron Works, but every time I've tried, there was some issue ("we can't do it today", "the tour guide is on vacation", etc), so I'm wondering if they really do tours--it is like buying cheese in a Monty Python cheese shop. I wonder what the heck they are building there now.
posted by eye of newt at 6:43 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you ever tried to book for a group? some of these places only want to hold a tour if it's "worth it" Maybe arrange it for a high school class or something. My local facebook group would fall all over themselves for that kind of tour and they'd be will to pay for insurance.
posted by Mitheral at 9:50 PM on April 16, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 9:50 PM on April 16, 2016
Related, from Retronaut:
Titanic survivors
And the relatives who waited in suspense
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 AM on April 17, 2016
Titanic survivors
And the relatives who waited in suspense
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 AM on April 17, 2016
> People, without the assistance of any of our modern technology, accomplished this.
But you have to remember, lots of people. Woe betide anyone caught in the streets by Harland and Wolff's at lousing time: when the gates opened and a wall of workers poured out.
posted by scruss at 7:13 AM on April 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But you have to remember, lots of people. Woe betide anyone caught in the streets by Harland and Wolff's at lousing time: when the gates opened and a wall of workers poured out.
posted by scruss at 7:13 AM on April 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only reason Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Heavy Engineering Corporation et al are still alive in India is because they were the original PPPs - the PSUs or public sector undertaking. It is it's own kind of new deal. They are selectively deaf to appeals to the altar of efficiency and productivity but they offer a dignity to the old guard of Indian engineering who used log tables within the past 15 years.
posted by infini at 8:17 AM on April 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by infini at 8:17 AM on April 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? | Britain might leave the EU. Here's why Americans... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Yes, Titanic sinking was a catastrophic loss of life. But can you imagine how those who built her must have mourned the ship itself? After seeing these pictures, how could they not? How those who participated in the design, construction and assembly of these mighty vessels must have felt? I imagine their sorrow to be no less than those who lost their loved ones. And to me, no less valid.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:40 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]