Were the Titanic's engines efficient for their time? How

>>57885878
>Were they responsible for letting the ship hit the iceberg?
The Titanic should have survived hitting the iceberg. But the ship's hull and rivets weren't built properly. The metal used was low grade and brittle.

File: snapshot_24.44_[2016.09.27_07.07.21].png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>57885926
titanic could survive bumping with the iceberg, rather than trying avoiding it

>>57885926
Built in Belfast. Par for the course.

It's miracle anything works with the bodge-job attitude around here.

The captain was the one responsible for the ship hitting the iceberg. He ignored reports of icebergs, had never commanded a ship even a quarter the size of the titanic, and was highly disregardful of danger.

>>57885926
Not quite, the metal was fine, it's just that scraping the side of an iceberg caused the rivets to all pop off. That's just too much force for even a well-built ship.
Hitting the iceberg straight on would have busted the front of the ship but the water-tight compartments would have meant that the ship would have stayed afloat.

File: titanic-iceberg-stephen-rehorek.jpg (44KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x300px

>>57885926
>>57885984
>titanic could survive bumping with the iceberg
>The Titanic should have survived hitting the iceberg.
Would that have actually worked? The iceberg probably weighed ten times more than the Titanic. The amount of force needed for the Titanic to survive a head on collision, simply wasn't possible. The ship's keel would've split apart from a head on full speed collision.

>>57885878
First Officer Murdoch was very correct in ordering "hard to starboard" and in those days you did turn the wheel "hard to starboard" to turn the rudder to port, however Murdoch's mistake was ordering "full astern". He stopped the ships forward momentum and the water flowing past the rudder and by doing this doomed the ship, he was doing what he thought was right but it simply did not work. If he had ordered the turn and left the engines at "Full Ahead" the ship would have had enough forward motion to have turned in time and avoided the collision and we wouldn't be having this conversation, this has been proven in several experiments. He tried, the ships had just gotten too big too fast and his and the other officers knowledge hadn't kept up.

>>57886088
I didn't mean a dead on collision. I mean bumping it. They found that the rivets used on the outside of the ship had high levels of slag in it. Those rivets couldn't survive, the rivets used in the interior where made of proper steel.

Or you can just follow the theory that the company knew the ship was inferior but used it anyway. That's why they retrofitted the sister ships after the accident

>Steamship general I guess

About time for some original threads, god damn it.

File: quadruple expansion system.gif (405KB, 514x519px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 514x519px

>>57885878
>Were the Titanic's engines efficient for their time?
Yes

>>57885878
They were efficient by steam engine standards, but didn't have the space or fuel efficiency of the new Diesel designed internal combustion engines that were suddenly finding their way into ships at the time. White Star Line had the option of using them but opted for steam engines on the Titanic and her sister ships. Partially because you don't gamble such unproven tech on a flagship that big, and also because the smoke and steam vents have a majestic look to them.

WSL even fitted a fourth fake smoke stack on the Titanic to add emphasis on just how big this ship was.

They weren't responsible for the Titanic sinking other that being a very large amount of weight dragging the leaking hull down.

The titanic's main prop literally could not go in reverse.

File: historic-titanic-workers.jpg (191KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1000x600px

I used to be obsessed with learning about Titanic as a kid.
Ultimately it sank because of how it hit the Iceberg.
The ship had been slowed down significantly before it got scraped along the sides by it and a head on collision would have jolted everyone and probably killed someone but the ship wouldn't have sunk.
Ultimately the ship was well built; there were some parts of it where they cheaped out a bit but let's be honest it was what 1912?
They built sturdy stuff back then and the Titanic was no exception. Huge Steel plated with steel rivets. The best steam engines money could buy, immaculate wood work and marble.
This was White Star Lines centerpiece; they were one of a few big Fish in the sea of global transport back then.
This ship was sturdy.

In terms of efficiency of the engine to answer OP; very. We were getting close to the end of emphasis of steam engines so these would have been a very late set of engines.
The props were huge and for its size the ship hauled ass.

Damn I love old steam ships they are a wonder of man kind.