Fire on the Titanic

[Ben]

This was interesting to me, because I had no idea that the Titanic had an uncontrolled fire going in a coal bunker before hitting the iceberg. Apparently, based on the article, a fire had started in a coal bunker long before the collision. I guess this was a not uncommon occurrence with ships of the time, or one deemed not immediately dangerous? They were speeding to New York to deal with the fire there rather than turning around.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/01/02/titanic-doomed-by-ice-and-fire.html

[Hawkmoon]

I've never heard anything about this theory before. Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w

[mtnbkr]

I was aware of the fire, though I can't recall from where (Maybe my Haynes manual on the Titanic...yes, really, a Haynes manual).  I also recall reading that it wasn't an unusual occurrence.

Chris

[K Frame]

Nope, fires in coal bunkers were VERY common at the time, primarily caused by spontaneous combustion.

They could be very hard to fight, too.

Some steps that were taken to fight bunker fires included sealing the bunker completely to smother the fire, flooding it with salt water, or, in drastic cases, opening the bunker and pulling the coal and raking the fire out.

Bunker fires still happen today, primarily at coal fired power plants but also at storage facilities.

As a kid I remember seeing firefighters tackling a fire in a hopper car at the railroad.

Here's a neat picture of a power plant coal fire in the pulverized coal feed silo...

[Ben]

Huh. Knowing nothing about the subject, Mike's picture is not what I pictured the fire looking like. Learn something new every day. :)

[K Frame]

Huh. Knowing nothing about the subject, Mike's picture is not what I pictured the fire looking like. Learn something new every day. :)

Fires like this generally aren't open flame fires. They're smoldering fires, drawing just enough oxygen to sustain them, but they're so enclosed they generally can't break into open flame.

It's not unlike what happens when you bank coals under a layer of wood ash. Gets just enough oxygen to keep going, but not enough to burn out any time soon.

That pipe is probably 3/8" cold rolled steel, so you know there's a lot of heat in there to make it glow like that.

[K Frame]

FINALLY got the article to come up for me.

Holy hell, how many times can the guy say massive or massively in the first two paragraphs?

MORE than one would think...

[K Frame]

Just found this page: http://titanic-model.com/db/db-03/CoalBunkerFire.htm

It seems to contradict some of what Fox is claiming, and further says that the coal fire/sinking connection has been speculated about for years.

[TommyGunn]

I've been a Titanic buff since I was a kid and saw A Night to Remember on tv late night movie.  I then had to read every book ever written about the ship.
Yes there was a coal fire on the ship as it left for America.  It is believed it was pretty much dealt with, or just died of asphyxia, a couple or three days out.
No, it had nothing to do with why the ship hit the iceberg, or how/why it foundered and sank afterword.
As previously stated these were not uncommon.  They were largely smoldering fires not like what is seen in Irwin  Allen disaster movies.  But coal dust is readily flammable and is pretty explosive, in fact.  Ever drop iron filings over a Bunsen Burner?   That's oxidation, but since the filings are so tiny it is pretty spectacular, atleast compared to the slow rusting of a wrought iron railing on a porch, but it's the same chemical reaction  in both.

[mtnbkr]

TG, have you seen this: https://www.amazon.com/RMS-Titanic-Manual-1909-1912-Hardcover/dp/076034079X

I got my copy while in London a few years ago.  Mine has a different color cover, but should have the same content.  It's a really neat book.

Chris

[TommyGunn]

TG, have you seen this: https://www.amazon.com/RMS-Titanic-Manual-1909-1912-Hardcover/dp/076034079X

I got my copy while in London a few years ago.  Mine has a different color cover, but should have the same content.  It's a really neat book.

Chris

I just ordered it -- thanks for the link.
I've seen books like it.    Over my desk I have a neat momento;  a frame of a 3-D Titanic.   Multiple layers of wood cut to represent the ship as a sort of 3-D  cutaway.  It shows all the  cabins, boilers, and whatnot as a sort of profile.....very neat.

[K Frame]

TG, have you seen this: https://www.amazon.com/RMS-Titanic-Manual-1909-1912-Hardcover/dp/076034079X

I got my copy while in London a few years ago.  Mine has a different color cover, but should have the same content.  It's a really neat book.

Chris

You SURE you have a copy?



I've been meaning to bring it back to you for some time, but keep forgetting.

What I need to do now, though, is to scour it to see if there's any mention of the bunker fire.


It is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read.

[Fly320s]

If coal bunker fires were common, how often did they lead to ships sinking?

[Ben]

If coal bunker fires were common, how often did they lead to ships sinking?

From what the guys here are saying, this may not, as reported, have been the case, but the thesis of the researcher is that the coal fire caused the ship's owner to demand a speed too fast for conditions in order to get the ship to New York faster.  Speed, coupled with lousy lookout protocol is what they claim contributed to the crash. They didn't seem to be implying that the fire would contribute physically to sinking the ship.

[TommyGunn]

From what the guys here are saying, this may not, as reported, have been the case, but the thesis of the researcher is that the coal fire caused the ship's owner to demand a speed too fast for conditions in order to get the ship to New York faster.  Speed, coupled with lousy lookout protocol is what they claim contributed to the crash. They didn't seem to be implying that the fire would contribute physically to sinking the ship.

And yet, it remains a fact that the Titanic was moving ahead at 22½ knots at the time it commited seppuku on the 'berg, which was not its maximum speed ....    

The R.M.S. Titanic was the largest ship afloat at the time.  It was NOT the fastest.   Ship's captains tended to be reluctant to truly push a new ship up to flank speeds for prolonged periods back then as they feared the engines hadn't "settled in" and running them too hard may cause gnarly problems.
One real problem was that some iceberg warnings had not been transmitted to the bridge, a boat drill scheduled to happen earlier that Sunday had been cancelled (causing organizational confusion amongst the officers, crew & passnegers as they tried to do the real thing) and that, simply, the lookout crew had not been provided binoculars which .... "might" have helped them spot the berg a few seconds earlier.
Oh..... and the ship wasn't unsinkable.    Really.    

[Scout26]

If coal bunker fires were common, how often did they lead to ships sinking?

USS Maine

[never_retreat]

[TommyGunn]

 .....    Yuck yuck yuck.

[K Frame]

If coal bunker fires were common, how often did they lead to ships sinking?

Happened sometimes when the fire got out of control, spread between bunkers, or caused a build up of combustible gas that caused an explosion.

In the case of the Maine it didn't actually cause the sinking, but it most likely caused the magazine explosion that did cause the sinking.

[K Frame]

From what the guys here are saying, this may not, as reported, have been the case, but the thesis of the researcher is that the coal fire caused the ship's owner to demand a speed too fast for conditions in order to get the ship to New York faster.  Speed, coupled with lousy lookout protocol is what they claim contributed to the crash. They didn't seem to be implying that the fire would contribute physically to sinking the ship.

That's apparently what the researchers ARE claiming, because they say that the fire weakened the infrastructure of the ship. You need to watch the video associated with the article; the article itself doesn't say that.


Ah, here we go, a quote from the researcher from The Independent's article: " “We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast”.

And, further on in the article: "Subsequently, when the Titanic struck ice, the steel hull was weak enough for the ship’s lining to be torn open."

[Ben]

That's apparently what the researchers ARE claiming, because they say that the fire weakened the infrastructure of the ship. You need to watch the video associated with the article; the article itself doesn't say that.


Ah, here we go, a quote from the researcher from The Independent's article: " “We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast”.

And, further on in the article: "Subsequently, when the Titanic struck ice, the steel hull was weak enough for the ship’s lining to be torn open."

Ah, okay. I need to quit only reading the synopsis to the articles I post.