|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 27, 2013 15:44:55 GMT -8
Exactly zero. My interest in the Titanic goes back to its discovery in 1985 and was piqued when the 1997 movie came out. Every book I've read refers to the Titanic's funnels as exactly that - funnels. Even White Star Line ads called the Titanic a "Four-funneled liner". Perhaps the biggest page on the subject: titanic-model.com/articles/paints/WEBPAGE_Photographic%20Records%20of%20White%20Star%20Buff/White_Star_Buff_Weighing_the_Evidence.htmWhite Star Line and Titanic historians refer to them as 'funnels'... never have referred to them as 'stacks.' That includes noted Titanic artist Ken Marschall, Titanic historian and discoverer Bob Ballard, and noted Titanic historians Water Lord, James Cameron and Don Lynch. In fact, Walter Lord, author of the Titanic book "A Night to Remember" is quoted in 1926 describing a trip on Titanic's sister ship R.M.S. Olympic:
smoke·stack [smohk-stak] Show IPA noun 1. Also called stack. a pipe for the escape of the smoke or gases of combustion, as on a steamboat, locomotive, or building. (Courtesy of Dictionary.com) Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't interchangeable. If you Google "Titanic Smokestack" you get 181,000 results. From Mark Chirnside's Olympic, Titanic, Britannic, An Illustrated History of the Olympic Class Ships: "Journalist George Horne told a story some years later, after a German liner had taken Olympic's place as the largest liner in the world. He explained that 'the dark, flowering smoke above the deck meant power, speed and comfort; the more stacks, the more smoke and power. This belief, strongly held then among foreign-born travellers, was recognized by an old time agent who had difficulty closing an excursion booking for some American bent on a visit to their native land. Horne Continued: On the agent's walls were two large pictures, one showing the Imperator (later to become the Berengaria) with the Statue of Liberty in the background beyond the three stacks. The other picture showed the Olympic at sea...flaunting four stacks. The leader of the excursion party, with two hundred round trip tickets at stake, gazed with admiration and surprise at the four stacks. He wanted everyone to transfer to the Olympic. he would not accept the explanation that it was really a slightly smaller ship, although one of the Atlantic queens. Finally the crafty agent played his ace. "I'll let you in on a secret," he explained. "The port of New York taxes ships according to the number of stacks, but just before coming into New York, the lower two of them. They'll be put up again as soon as you pass the Statue of Liberty." The traveler was delighted. Five stacks! And the deal was closed. It may be apocryphal, but it is an interesting story." (page 8) The word "funnel" is certainly used in ship plans, etc, but I doubt you'd come across a single fan of steamships that wouldn't know exactly what you were talking about when saying "smokestack" or "stack." I think it is more of a case of those who are familiar with the technical aspects of shipbuilding who refer to them as "funnels" but to suggest that one term is correct over the other is just not the case.(Particularly given the dictionary entery above.) One is perhaps more technically correct, but they are both referring to exactly the same thing, and either term is acceptable. Were I writing on the subject, I'd probably default to "funnel" but I wouldn't bust anyone's chops for using "smokestack"--particularly if writing for kids, where "funnel" means something entirely different. And yet if you Google "Titanic funnel", you get over 705,000 results. Likewise with the Merriam-Webster definition of "Funnel." The second description of the word in fact makes mention to the structure on ships used to ventilate exhaust gases or for ventilation, and the context of the word for the purpose of ship exhaust came from " ..smoke funneled up the chimney."It also comes from the fact that many boiler exhaust flues, including those of Titanic, were shaped like inverted funnels, and thus funneled the exhaust combustion gases up and out the vessel. This can be seen by actually looking at a diagram of Titanic's boiler room and exhaust flue design. The following diagram of Titanic/Olympic/Brittanic's boiler rooms No. 5 and 6 illustrates this principle. With that being said, in the Titanic enthusiast community, and especially those who are members of the Titanic Research and Modeling Association (as I myself am), you're likely to get corrected if you use the term 'stack' over the term 'funnel." As far as journalist George Horne and his quotation in Mark Chirnside's book (for which I have a copy of)... I am inclined not to take his writings very seriously about the matter as opposed to how I would take more seriously the writings of reputable Titanic historians Walter Lord, Don Lynch, Ken Marschall (the latter two of which were consultants to James Cameron's Titanic), as well as James Cameron himself.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 27, 2013 16:01:08 GMT -8
This is a forum for discussing shipping, and nautical terminology is a part of that. if you're not interested in the discussion, there are lots of other threads for you to look at. I wasn't going to weigh in but... I think there is both a common and technical langauge when it comes to something with its own language such a ships. There is likely also some regional variations in languages (both common and technical). Using a non-nautical example, while a "CCPC" probably means something to me and some other members of the forum. To most others, (especially our american friends) this is a foreign concept. My preferred term is "funnel", most "technically descriptive" or "professionally prepared" literature I have seen uses "funnel". However, I understood what was meant when "smokestack" was used, and it appears to be an accurate description of this part of this ship. I don't think anyone misunderstood what part of the ship was being discussed, so the english langauge worked. If this was a comparative summary or drawing of a ship [ed: as in a labelled drawing, not a question about a drawing], I would suggest that the correct "technical name" be used, but for a question of curiosity, I don't see what the fuss is about smokestack vs. funnel. Is there a technical name for "pickle forks" too? Yes there are, and it is indeed "pickle fork" according to the plans drawn up for the Olympic Class ferries. As evidenced by the General Arrangement drawings seen here: www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E3DD8882-F513-4F98-B4C4-B07925FC4397/0/709800103RevCGeneralArrangement.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 27, 2013 18:46:19 GMT -8
With that being said, in the Titanic enthusiast community, and especially those who are members of the Titanic Research and Modeling Association (as I myself am), you're likely to get corrected if you use the term 'stack' over the term 'funnel." As far as journalist George Horne and his quotation in Mark Chirnside's book (for which I have a copy of)... I am inclined not to take his writings very seriously about the matter as opposed to how I would take more seriously the writings of reputable Titanic historians Walter Lord, Don Lynch, Ken Marschall (the latter two of which were consultants to James Cameron's Titanic), as well as James Cameron himself. ...or you could just be a bit more easy-going about it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 27, 2013 19:02:53 GMT -8
With that being said, in the Titanic enthusiast community, and especially those who are members of the Titanic Research and Modeling Association (as I myself am), you're likely to get corrected if you use the term 'stack' over the term 'funnel." As far as journalist George Horne and his quotation in Mark Chirnside's book (for which I have a copy of)... I am inclined not to take his writings very seriously about the matter as opposed to how I would take more seriously the writings of reputable Titanic historians Walter Lord, Don Lynch, Ken Marschall (the latter two of which were consultants to James Cameron's Titanic), as well as James Cameron himself. ...or you could just be a bit more easy-going about it. My apologies, but it is a big pet peeve of mine to have the terminology of ship structural elements be skewed. I didn't mean any offense in my original post, just pointing out a simple fact.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 28, 2013 6:06:23 GMT -8
...or you could just be a bit more easy-going about it. My apologies, but it is a big pet peeve of mine to have the terminology of ship structural elements be skewed. I didn't mean any offense in my original post, just pointing out a simple fact. ...which is that the terms, though one may be in more common usage, are interchangeable.
|
|
gnaz
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 18
|
Post by gnaz on May 27, 2015 12:59:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 9, 2015 12:12:05 GMT -8
I came across this article (complete with pictures) from the Portland Tribune. Much of the roof on one side has collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 5, 2015 9:07:56 GMT -8
Okay, I realize this is a bit of a tease, but a friend has loaned us some family archives for scanning. Included in this lot of truly fascinating stuff are photos, brochures, and a ton of ephemera. One of the most interesting bits is the 1951 state blueprints for the San Mateo's conversion to diesel, which, as we know, never happened. The big surprise was that the state had planned to cut her in two and add a 60 foot section to the boat--making her, at that time, the largest boat in the fleet, eclipsing the Kalakala by 14 feet. As soon as I get the table space, I'll get some photos of it and post them. Oh, also in the box are the blue prints for changing the Enetai and Willapa into single-enders. I'll get those posted later as well.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 16, 2015 6:37:34 GMT -8
Well, here it is, the blueprint and rendered into a nice profile for me by Mr. Iversen, who also did a version with portholes that really makes her look like a "Super Steel Electric." What's pretty clear is it would have likely stripped everything unique about the San Mateo. The clerestory windows have been removed, and who knows what WSF would have done to her interior. Despite her ultimate fate, I'm happy this never happened, and she served out her career with her steam engines.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 16, 2015 8:23:23 GMT -8
It's interesting to contemplate, purely as an academic exercise, what effect this would've had on the San Mateo's career. I didn't see any evidence of lifting the passenger cabin on the prints, thus leaving her at 11'4"-ish. Would she have been lifted with the Steel-Electrics in 1958? Or would they have skipped her?
Would she have survived the purge of the late 1960s?
Would she have displaced the Vashon instead?
Certainly the conversion would've destroyed her charm, even as it enhanced her usefulness.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 3, 2017 13:02:41 GMT -8
Coast Guard to clean up river site after battle with tenantsThe Coast Guard Thursday started a major cleanup and restoration of a Columbia River site near Goble that had become a mooring area for more than two dozen derelict vessels over the last several years. Among the vessels is the River Queen, a rusting 240-foot former ferry that had been a floating restaurant in Portland that a pair of developers had wanted to restore since at least 2005. The Coast Guard will spend the next two weeks containing hazardous substances such as bunker oil, other fuels, asbestos, lead paint and household wastes from the vessels, according to Petty Officer First Class Levi Read. The Oregon Department of State Lands then will take over the cleanup, remove any remaining vessels and restore the site. State Lands terminated an aquatics lands lease for the site effective May 1. Goble is located just south of the old Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. Clay Jonak and Roger Ison initially leased the site on the Columbia River in August 2012 to restore the River Queen. Over the next three years, however, the leaseholders brought an estimated 27 vessels to the site to restore or scrap for parts. Three of them sank within a 12-month period, and two required emergency Coast Guard cleanups, according to the Coast Guard. Jonak and Ison had until May 31 to remove all their vessels from the area. The state took full possession of the lease and the site on June 1, bringing to an end a two-year effort to get the state’s pollution concerns addressed. More here
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 5, 2017 17:32:58 GMT -8
How sad. I always hoped to somehow get hold of one of those stained glass windows from either of the sisters.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 29, 2018 5:46:46 GMT -8
I haven't been by Goble in a while, and given these photos from Google Earth, it may already be too late. On the left, the Shasta taken in June, 2018, still basically intact. On the right, Shasta taken in July 2018, where it appears she's been stripped right down to the hull, or pretty close to it. The next update on Google Earth may reveal that she's gone entirely.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Sept 7, 2019 16:32:11 GMT -8
Video of the scrapping of the Shasta last summer.
|
|
|
Post by trainguru on Mar 18, 2020 0:53:54 GMT -8
|
|