Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Design secrets of troopship Olympic (1914-1918)" video.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darkmath100 The problem is that Olympic's windows on B deck were of a regular square pattern, as seen on photographs. The, much fewer, of course, photos. of the same area on Titanic show an irregular pattern of narrower, rectangular windows.
The reason for that is because, following recommendations received after Olympic's first few voyages, Titanic's starboard B-deck forward had been converted into two private verandahs and suites. Other modifications also included two additional portholes forward, added in November, 1911, a modification also later carried out on Olympic.
According to a very detailed source, the 'Encyclopaedia Titanica' Titanic had a similar pattern to Olympic when launched, but the modifications to provide the two private suites were carried out between February and March, 1912.
2
-
2
-
@darkmath100 The B Deck modifications were carried out early in 1912, or possibly at the same time as the two extra portholes port side forward were added, which was in November, 1911. Harland & Wolff's archives show that discussions about the changes began as early as June, 1911.
They were introduced after experience of Olympic's first voyages had shown that the B Deck promenade area was not popular with passengers, and the space could be better utilised by installing first class cabins and a cafe instead. If 'someone' wanted to switch the ships, why carry out modifications which would make them look different, by the way?
As to Edith Russell. If there was a cunning and devious plan to switch the ships, is it likely that the crew would be in on the plot, and would be cheerfully discussing it with passengers? Californian, by the way, was a small cargo/passenger liner with space for 47 passengers. She had sailed from Liverpool for Boston, on 5 April, with a mixed cargo., She had been operating on the same service for around ten years.
2
-
@darkmath100 You seem to either ignore things which don't please you, or invent things which do. I simply corrected you when you blamed Smith for the Hawke collision. I made no comment on his ability as a captain, although he had been a qualified Master since 1887, and Commodore of the Line since 1904, so he must have been doing something right.
The cost of Olympic's repairs, which Lloyds did not meet, was, in US dollars, $125,000. This can be verified from the accounts and archives from the time. She was out of service for two months only. The second time, in February - March, 1912, she did not miss a scheduled sailing. If you had any actual interest, you could have determined these facts for yourself.
I know what a Robber Baron is, but as Titanic & Olympic were not switched, then your odd fixation with Morgan's alleged devious plot is irrelevant, and I do not feel inclined to allow you to muddy the waters to conceal your increasingly obvious lack of actual knowledge.
In fact, I am wasting too much of my time educating you, and replying to your increasingly bizarre posts. I could recommend a book or two, if you like, but I don't propose personally to indulge your nonsense further.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@darkmath100 Except that have you any proof at all that anyone aboard Titanic knew where Californian was at the time? The only ship actually known to be making for Titanic was Carpathia. I accept that Titanic's officers probably knew about her, certainly her command staff did, but no one at all knew about Californian.
"a small cargo/passenger liner with space for 47 passengers" You mean accommodation for 47 passengers which is far different than temporarily holding 1500 passengers on her deck.' I don't mean anything at all. I simply describe what sort of ship Californian was. If, however, the rescue was part of the fantastical plot you seem fixated upon, she was hardly the right sort of ship for the task.
'If he didn't file a cargo manifest because there was no cargo then why would she be sailing across the Atlantic?' Because he was carrying a cargo, and the ship was on her regular route. The Leyland line were what was known as 'Common Carriers,' in that they would transport anything and everything that earned money.
By the way, you presumably haven't read the evidence that Ernest Gill, of Californian gave on Day 8 of the US Senate Inquiry :- "I turned in, but could not sleep. In half an hour I turned out, thinking to smoke a cigarette. Because of the cargo, I could not smoke 'tween decks, so I went on deck again."
Californian may have been carrying literally hundreds of 'parcels' of general cargo [just about everything ever traded] on hundreds of bills of lading; all collated on a 'ship's report outward/inward' otherwise known as the 'manifest'. Copies of this document would be lodged inter alia with the custom house at Liverpool or London and Boston and should be in either archive. When you say that no such manifest was lodged, I simply do not believe you, because such documents were essential in order to determine the level of duties payabler.
This, by the way, may be of interest :- A reference to Californian in a newspaper The steamer was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo and berthed at the B & A docks in East Boston." Boston Traveller, April 19, 1912, p.7. "B & A docks" stands for "Boston and Albany docks."
1
-
@darkmath100 'If the crew was in on it then of course there would be no other proof?' So now you believe the crew were involved? Was anyone alive in 1912 actually not part of the plot, in your mind?
Interestingly, I have a copy of Edith's first account of the sinking, published only a year later. What she actually writes is :- 'Just then, I spied an officer, and said to him, “Tell me, Mr. Officer. Shall I leave in a lifeboat? Is there any danger?” to which he answered, “I do not think there is any immediate danger, but this boat is damaged, and she certainly cannot proceed to New York. She may be towed into the nearest harbor. We expect the Olympic along in the next two or three hours.' Care to comment?
When Californian arrived in Boston, the following report appeared in the local newspaper :- 'The Californian was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo and berthed at the B & A docks in East Boston." Boston Traveller, April 19, 1912, p.7. "B & A docks" stands for "Boston and Albany docks." ' Does that suggest a cargo of blankets?
As has often been said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' I wonder if anyone has ever seriously looked for the manifest, given that this bizarre theory didn't come to light until the mid 1990s? There would be no reason to keep such documents indefinitely, especially once all relevant duties had been paid.
'The Olympic and Titanic were side by side in Belfast for over two weeks just to replace a broken propeller. That's an awfully long time for something so simple, no?' Actually, NO.
After Olympic lost a propeller blade on her way from New York to Southampton, she was able to complete the voyage before returning to Belfast for repairs. The blade was lost on 24 February, she arrived in Belfast on 1 March, and she left Belfast on 4 March. Two Weeks?
By the way, please don't dissemble. Your original post said 'The Olympic was hit by the HMS Hawke and was written off by some very clever "accounting".' That doesn't read like someone who doesn't have a preconceived view, does it?
1
-
@darkmath100 ' "The Californian was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo" I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying no one knows what the cargo was including the Boston Traveler in 1912.'
Indeed. So why do you simply assume that Californian was carrying nothing but blankets? Don't you think that, had a ship known to have been in the immediate vicinity of Titanic when she sank, arrived in Boston with a full load of blankets, apparently with no consignee in the States, someone might have asked a few questions? Was the press in the US at the time so unquestioning? Or was it because Californian, like every other Leyland Line ship before or after, was simply carrying a typical mixed cargo of odds and sods?
' "Was anyone alive in 1912 actually not part of the plot, in your mind?" You lose credibility when you insult your opponent.' I didn't realise you regarded me as your 'opponent.' I believed this was an exchange of opinions. Oh, well.
Charles Payne, H & W's yard manager, recorded in his journal the times taken to build various stages of both ships. He shows that work on Titanic started faster than work on Olympic, but Titanic soon fell behind and when framing was finished she was one month behind. By the time plating was finished, the gap was 2.5 months. In the time between framing and launching, Titanic lost another 1.5 months to finish four months behind.
It appears that some of the slippage may simply have been due to weather. Olympic's plating was done at the height of summer, but Titanic was plated in winter.
Slippage in construction times was not uncommon, then or now. For example, the battleship King George V, when laid down in January, 1937, was intended to be ready for sea trials by July, 1940. In fact, due to slippage, she was not ready to sail until October. As far as I know, no-one has yet suggested that she was switched, although I live in hope.
'Now, however, the delay would make perfect sense if the two ships had been swapped. Those three weeks were to build in some superficial changes so the ships didn't look alike.'
Would you suggest that the large numbers of Harland & Wolff employees who had worked on both ships then carried out small cosmetic changes on Titanic, and loyally remained silent even after their ship sank?
Moreover, they still remained silent after many had been made redundant after WW1 ended? Isn't that taking loyalty rather to extremes?
Moreover, why do you find Occam's Razor so unacceptable where this subject is concerned?
Look, it is fairly clear that you wish to believe the switch theory, as you reject every obvious reasonable answer in favour of an improbable or, at best, debatable, one.
If you wish to believe in the switch fantasy feel free, but don't pretend otherwise.
1
-
@darkmath100 What you might regard as 'snide' I would regard as sarcasm. You would have gone down a ball at the old Glasgow Empire!
I know all about J. P. Morgan. I also know, whereas you clearly do not, that Captain Smith was not found responsible for the Hawke collision. Olympic was in restricted waters at the time, and under the command of a Harbour Pilot, one George Bowyer. Bowyer had piloted Olympic into and out of Southampton previously, but on this occasion made a mistake. Or, at least, a Court determined that he had.
Smith was angry that 'his' ship had been blamed, but no responsibility was attached to him personally. Look up George Bowyer for yourself if you don't believe me. It really does pay to check the old court reports before making erroneous statements.
Smith was Commodore of the White Star Line, and had commanded the maiden voyage of every White Star Liner since 1904. Look up Baltic (1904), & Adriatic (1907), for further information. Evidently, you didn't know that either. J. P. Morgan had bigger interests than appointing ship captains, especially ships under the control of a company which had made over £1 million in profits in the financial year 1910-1911.
Smith, by the way, had informed White Star (actually, Bruce Ismay) that he wished to retire when Titanic returned to Southampton. I suppose I should assume that you didn't know that either?
1
-
1