Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1912. STEAMSHIP BUILDING.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVII, Issue XLVII, 6 August 1912, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1912. STEAMSHIP BUILDING.

A RECENT cable .brought the news that a committee, . with Professor Biles as chairman, has been s~t up "to advise the Board of Trade as to the most effie'ent arrangements for stowing boats, etc. . . and any other recommendations concsrning the safety of life «.t sea." When giving evidence before the Titanic inquiry, <Mr Edward Wilding, naval architect of the White Star Co.. and Mr L,. Reskett, naval architect of the Cunard Co.. indicated that, on the essential points relating to the construction of hulls of the large vessels themselves, they were by; no means in agreement. In view of the radical alterations suggested in regard to the building of mammoth

steamers it- is instructive to observe closely the main points in tine evidence.

Transverse and iongitudinal subdivision are favoured by Mr Peskett; Mr Wilding prefers transverse bulkheads only. Mr Peskett considers that watertight decks above the water-level contribute to safety, whilst Mr Wilding thinks that they may constitute an element of danger. Mr Wilding stated that the Titanic was designed to float when any two compartments were flooded. From the first evidence tendered; Mr Wilding said that Nos. 1, 3, and 6 boiler-rooms appeared to have been invaded. As the ship was not fully laden, however, the water would not have reached above the level of the bulkheads: He therefore concluded that No. 2 boiler-rooms must have been flooded as well. With all four compartments flooded' the water would have topped the bulkhead levels ; and the ship could not have remained afloat for more than one hour and a quarter.

Mr Wilding, said that the Bulkhead Committee of 1891" had rather discouraged the use of longitudinal bulkheads, seeing that they reported that Compartments thus subdivided should be treated <ns single compartments —unless the owners were able to assure the Board of Trade that no dangerous list would result from the subdivision in one eide aloiie being flooded. The list duo to the filling of the compartments that would be sufficient to imperil a ship would depend upon the lenprth of the longitudinal bulkheads. Where the longitudinal subdivisions extended in a ship of the size of the Titanic as much .as 400 feet, their flooding would certainly, involve a dangerous list. The Lusitania and Mauretania, he said had longitudinal watertight bulkheads, .but the • objection to such bulkheads was that coal had to be worked through watertight doors, and it was difficult to keep these doors in good condition. Nor did Mr Wilding approve of a, double skin being carried up the sides of the ship. The double skin occupied much useful space, and, as the space between the two skins was difficult to examine,, serious "corrosion might therefore ensue. Against small wounds the double skin would, he .admitted, offer a safeguard, but in the case of the Titanic it would not have done so, as'the wound had demonstrably penetrated more than three feet. His firm had always been strongly opposed to the double skin in tins mercantile marine for the reasons stated. The same objection did not apply to double bottoms, for here the 6paces between the two skins were larger (in the Titanic they varied from 52 inches to 78 inches), and t' ey were of a more convenient shape, and there was no difficulty, consequently, about examining them. The question of watertight decks was dealt with at considerable length. There 'were arguments Poland against these decks, said .Mr Wilding. In this case a watertight deck, a little below the water-line would have saved the ship. But if the skin were pierced above the level of this proposed deck, so that water would come in on the top of it, there would he a danger of a capsize. * i * * *,

On nearly every point Mr Poskitt took an opposite view to that of Mr Wilding. Mr Peskitt preferred the combined longitudinal and transverse subdivision for very large vessels. He said that . i n the- case of the Lusitania and. Maurotma he had provided thirteen transverse bulkheads with longitudinal subclivi sions. Watertight decks'wei-e provided, above the trimming tanks and above No. 1 hold. Mr iPeskitt, unlike Mr Wilding, held that the-re would no difficulty about counteracting a list by flooding the oposite compartment, nor did he consider that there was any ..objection to working, coal, through wateri tight 'doors. The danger where there \Xero water-tight decks of capsizing could be provided against by suitable subdivisions. The great iCunarder Aquifcania, Mr Peskitt explained, had a water-tight deck extending from end to end, and the engines and boiler hatchways were carried through, this as coffer dams right un to the j:op deck. The same system of subdivision was being adopted in the new German liner's. He did not approve, however, of a high level watertight deck, as this would make the ship very difficult to work. In the Lusitania and Mauritania, which were built as naval auxiliaries, the height of the bulkheads above the water-lini- varied from 17ft to 23ft., but so far as lie knew these a re the only passenger steamers so subdivided. Mr Alexander Carlisle, formerly managing director of Messrs Harland and Wolff, said that he had >a strong- preference for transverse bulkheads. He thought, "however-, -that •theio should be carried up higher— ■ though it would be no use carrying them above the weather, deck. He believed in having very few doors, and he thought that these sliomd always be.kept closed at night. Thus it is not oiUy doctors who differ, and it would seem that there will be many arguments before the next preat steamship is finally decided upon.