Una Reilly

Apr 18, 08 - 2:57 PM

Titanic Rivets

I would be most interested to hear your views on the latest controversy re Titanic's rivets.Has anyone actually read this new book?
Una

Mervyn Pritchard

Apr 25th, 2008 - 2:42 AM

Re: Titanic Rivets

There is little to support this theory, R.M.S. Olympic... and indeed our own beloved Nomadic are testament to this. The lynch pin seems to be a little known H&W report detailing the sourcing of "inferior" rivets due to time constraints and shortage of materials... the evidence however is tenuous.

Besides, the point is moot, these shps were not designed to sideswipe icebergs in excess of 22 knots!

Nevertheless, theories like these are lucrative money spinners... the titanic gravy train steams onward.

Mervyn Pritchard
Committee member
Nomadic Preservation society.

Una

Apr 26th, 2008 - 2:52 PM

Re: Titanic Rivets

I quite agree. No matter what they throw at the ship I always use Olympic & Nomadic to counterbalance the argument. All three were built at the same time,with the same materials ,by the same men. Olympic was retired after twenty odd years of service & Nomadic is still with us. Titanic sank because she hit an iceberg! The important thing is where did the 'tested'rivets come from, which part of the ship? I really want to get my hands on this book.

Paul Lee

Apr 30th, 2008 - 11:27 PM

Re: Titanic Rivets

The problem is not one of inferior rivets, but of context. Yes, by today's standards, the rivets may have too many sulphur inclusions which may lead to weakness. Likewise, Olympic and Nomadic were made with these same rivets which functioned adequately. But the context is of being immersed in freezing cold water and meeting an iceberg with a mass perhaps ten times that of the ship containing the rivet. In this context, the rivets may have been weak. Similar experiments have been done on hull fragments retrieved since the IMAX Titanica expedition; a Charpy test showed that the hull steel, when immersed in cold water, is extremely prone to brittle fracture.

Of course, bad reporting here is partially to blame for the state of confusion here; I recall one duo of writers saying a few years back that Harland and Wolff had no reason to produce sub-standard materials in 1912. That is true, but 100 years, that is all they had!

Paul Lee

Apr 30th, 2008 - 11:29 PM

Re: Titanic Rivets

Another point: using Olympic and Nomadic as arguments that the rivets are sound is a red-herring, as neither of these vessels contacted an object in freezing cold water.

Mervyn Pritchard

May 2nd, 2008 - 10:27 AM

Re: Titanic Rivets

I don't think that you could posibly get better examples of Olympic and Nomadic. Olympic was torpedoed, collided with the Hawk, struck the Nantucket light vessel, the peir at New York and rammed and sunk a German U-boat! Nomadic also had a number of severe collisions.

In normal operational conditions as envisaged and accomodated for in their design criteria they were wonderful vessels and Titanic was just the same. If you take such an unusual wildcard as the conditions experienced on the night of 14th April 1912 then nothing was going to save Titanic whether she was held together with Titanium rivets or old string.

An egg is a wonderful piece of engineering by nature which is the result of millions of years of evolutionary refinement. If however it is dropped onto a concrete surface from 100 feet it could be described as weak... but it is not designed for that, that is the point.

Bad visibility, over confidence, excessive speed, a freak sideswipe contact which damaged an enormous distance along the ship's flanks and breeched too many of her watertight compartments, exacerbated by the lowering of ductile strength caused by the water temperature. The mismanagement of the lifeboats and the inadequate BOT regulations... all these factors resultd in the sinking and gret loss of life which has catapulted the disaster so forcefully into the public psychy.

The materials issue is null and void, they were widespread throughout the industry without any controversy then or today, Served thousands of other ships and as you say, were pretty much all they had at the time.

Titanic, and all ships can always be made stronger... but like the egg, she was not a battle cruiser.

- Merv.

Paul Lee

May 2nd, 2008 - 1:39 PM

Re: Titanic Rivets

But that doesn't remove the fact that scientific testing has proven that the rivets were substandard (by today's standards). The whole context must be taken into account; temperature, strength of collision etc. This can lead to a more catastrophic failure of materials than would normally have been the case. Just stating that the book's conclusions are false doesn't negate the science.

Mervyn Pritchard

May 2nd, 2008 - 7:28 PM

Re: Titanic Rivets

I think we are saying the same thing, everything built in 1912 was substandard in many ways to things built today, just as the things built today will be substandard to those built another 100 years from now.

At that time Titanic was a leading edge product, it is foolish to compare a gramaphone with the latest in digital HiFi.

The science explains why Titanic sunk, not that it was in any way inferior. The technology then was limited, as it will always be to some extent. These limitations were known to engineers of the time however the circumstances of that night were somewhat uncommon and this was not accounted for by those in command.

- Mervyn Pritchard.

Jim Carlisle

May 13th, 2008 - 9:19 AM

Re: Titanic Rivets

Hi just back from the USA and have read the book. It is full of "assumes". That word means that it makes an ass of u and me!

However, he has tested 48 rivets, yes som had a higher content of slag, these are not sub standard, but a lower specification and this is used in all parts of engineering today. There is no point in installing a steel rivet into an area where there is very little strength required. Mind you some of the rivets he tested were steel rivets which were installed midships and iron rivets were installed for and aft of the ship as they were required to have the same strength.

The books authors really irritate me when they describe the Riveters as "Bashers", and also they made it sound like Harland & Wolff took these bashers right off the street to do this work! When we all know that Riveters had to do a five year apprenticeship to become a highly skilled tradesman.

They produce a document showing the Board of Trade Inspector where he found a badly installed rivet! What about the other 3,085,000 rivets!!

Best regards

Jim Carlisle

Author	Comment
Una Reilly Apr 18, 08 - 2:57 PM	Titanic Rivets I would be most interested to hear your views on the latest controversy re Titanic's rivets.Has anyone actually read this new book? Una Chairman@belfast-titanic.com
Mervyn Pritchard Apr 25th, 2008 - 2:42 AM	Re: Titanic Rivets There is little to support this theory, R.M.S. Olympic... and indeed our own beloved Nomadic are testament to this. The lynch pin seems to be a little known H&W report detailing the sourcing of "inferior" rivets due to time constraints and shortage of materials... the evidence however is tenuous. Besides, the point is moot, these shps were not designed to sideswipe icebergs in excess of 22 knots! Nevertheless, theories like these are lucrative money spinners... the titanic gravy train steams onward. Mervyn Pritchard Committee member Nomadic Preservation society.
Una Apr 26th, 2008 - 2:52 PM	Re: Titanic Rivets I quite agree. No matter what they throw at the ship I always use Olympic & Nomadic to counterbalance the argument. All three were built at the same time,with the same materials ,by the same men. Olympic was retired after twenty odd years of service & Nomadic is still with us. Titanic sank because she hit an iceberg! The important thing is where did the 'tested'rivets come from, which part of the ship? I really want to get my hands on this book.
Paul Lee Apr 30th, 2008 - 11:27 PM	Re: Titanic Rivets The problem is not one of inferior rivets, but of context. Yes, by today's standards, the rivets may have too many sulphur inclusions which may lead to weakness. Likewise, Olympic and Nomadic were made with these same rivets which functioned adequately. But the context is of being immersed in freezing cold water and meeting an iceberg with a mass perhaps ten times that of the ship containing the rivet. In this context, the rivets may have been weak. Similar experiments have been done on hull fragments retrieved since the IMAX Titanica expedition; a Charpy test showed that the hull steel, when immersed in cold water, is extremely prone to brittle fracture. Of course, bad reporting here is partially to blame for the state of confusion here; I recall one duo of writers saying a few years back that Harland and Wolff had no reason to produce sub-standard materials in 1912. That is true, but 100 years, that is all they had!
Paul Lee Apr 30th, 2008 - 11:29 PM	Re: Titanic Rivets Another point: using Olympic and Nomadic as arguments that the rivets are sound is a red-herring, as neither of these vessels contacted an object in freezing cold water.
Mervyn Pritchard May 2nd, 2008 - 10:27 AM	Re: Titanic Rivets I don't think that you could posibly get better examples of Olympic and Nomadic. Olympic was torpedoed, collided with the Hawk, struck the Nantucket light vessel, the peir at New York and rammed and sunk a German U-boat! Nomadic also had a number of severe collisions. In normal operational conditions as envisaged and accomodated for in their design criteria they were wonderful vessels and Titanic was just the same. If you take such an unusual wildcard as the conditions experienced on the night of 14th April 1912 then nothing was going to save Titanic whether she was held together with Titanium rivets or old string. An egg is a wonderful piece of engineering by nature which is the result of millions of years of evolutionary refinement. If however it is dropped onto a concrete surface from 100 feet it could be described as weak... but it is not designed for that, that is the point. Bad visibility, over confidence, excessive speed, a freak sideswipe contact which damaged an enormous distance along the ship's flanks and breeched too many of her watertight compartments, exacerbated by the lowering of ductile strength caused by the water temperature. The mismanagement of the lifeboats and the inadequate BOT regulations... all these factors resultd in the sinking and gret loss of life which has catapulted the disaster so forcefully into the public psychy. The materials issue is null and void, they were widespread throughout the industry without any controversy then or today, Served thousands of other ships and as you say, were pretty much all they had at the time. Titanic, and all ships can always be made stronger... but like the egg, she was not a battle cruiser. - Merv.
Paul Lee May 2nd, 2008 - 1:39 PM	Re: Titanic Rivets But that doesn't remove the fact that scientific testing has proven that the rivets were substandard (by today's standards). The whole context must be taken into account; temperature, strength of collision etc. This can lead to a more catastrophic failure of materials than would normally have been the case. Just stating that the book's conclusions are false doesn't negate the science.
Mervyn Pritchard May 2nd, 2008 - 7:28 PM	Re: Titanic Rivets I think we are saying the same thing, everything built in 1912 was substandard in many ways to things built today, just as the things built today will be substandard to those built another 100 years from now. At that time Titanic was a leading edge product, it is foolish to compare a gramaphone with the latest in digital HiFi. The science explains why Titanic sunk, not that it was in any way inferior. The technology then was limited, as it will always be to some extent. These limitations were known to engineers of the time however the circumstances of that night were somewhat uncommon and this was not accounted for by those in command. - Mervyn Pritchard.
Jim Carlisle May 13th, 2008 - 9:19 AM	Re: Titanic Rivets Hi just back from the USA and have read the book. It is full of "assumes". That word means that it makes an ass of u and me! However, he has tested 48 rivets, yes som had a higher content of slag, these are not sub standard, but a lower specification and this is used in all parts of engineering today. There is no point in installing a steel rivet into an area where there is very little strength required. Mind you some of the rivets he tested were steel rivets which were installed midships and iron rivets were installed for and aft of the ship as they were required to have the same strength. The books authors really irritate me when they describe the Riveters as "Bashers", and also they made it sound like Harland & Wolff took these bashers right off the street to do this work! When we all know that Riveters had to do a five year apprenticeship to become a highly skilled tradesman. They produce a document showing the Board of Trade Inspector where he found a badly installed rivet! What about the other 3,085,000 rivets!! Best regards Jim Carlisle