Posted by James Pepper on September 27, 1999 at 08:20:51 in 205.188.197.177 :
In Reply to: Re: Britannic's increased length and beam posted by Bruce Beveridge on September 26, 1999 at 15:37:41:
Bruce:
The plans I used were the Public Record plans, the same ones used in Engineering, The Engineer and other enginering magazines of the time. I think the Shipbuilder used these same plans. These plans are found in a lot of books on Titanic. I have overlaid the plans of the Titanic over the Olympic (400/01) and noticed this shift forward on the Olympic. The shift is noticeable on the Shelter Deck. The lengths of the ship are the same, the hull looks the same, except for the funnels. The differences in Tank Top was the reason I could not make an Olympic out of my Titanic models, I had already built the boilers and coal bunkers.
The Britannic compass platform, on the plans, (both rigging and the boat deck in Engineering and The Engineer), show it over the Bridge but the photographs show us differently. Sorry about that. I think it is interesting that they planned to have it over the bridge but changed it back to Olympic and Titanic configuration.
Britannic also has an extra compartment compared to Olympic. Both Olympic and Britannic have the bulkhead dividing the pairs of generators, while Titanic does not.
The photographic evidence is always the last word, and when in doubt I defered to them. I did this when there was a discrepancy between the photographs and the rigging plan for the port holes. And I agree with you that the rigging plan is not completely accurate.
Also, I am trying to determine the size of Britannics batteries based on their 4000 ampheres and 10 hour rate. This may clear up some Britannic questions as to how much space these batteries would use, and whether their gauss would affect the compass.
Sincerely,
James Pepper