DOCSLIB.ORG

The Misuse of RMS Titanic As a Benchmark for Ship Size

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Misuse of RMS Titanic As a Benchmark for Ship Size The misuse of RMS Titanic as a benchmark for ship size Paul Stott 6th February 2014 Benchmarks in popular reporting of Science ≡ 11 elephants Popular reporting often makes use of tangible common objects to convey size This is relatively easy with linear or square dimensions and weight Benchmarks in popular reporting of Science For ships the default is often to compare the ship to RMS Titanic to try to convey a sense of a vessel’s size: BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 16th Sept 2013: “Costa Concordia weighs twice as much as the Titanic” BBC Newsround, 16th Septeber 2013: “Costa Concordia weighs twice as much as the Titanic” ExtremeTech.com: “Costa Concordia: How a ship twice the size of Titanic is being lifted from the seabed” Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark The intent of this comparison is laudable: it is to convey the heroic nature of the salvors in man-handling something that is very large. So, where is the problem? ≡ 2x Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 1: The common misinterpretation of the meaning of Gross Tonnage as a measure of weight. BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 16th Sept 2013: “Costa Concordia weighs twice as much as the Titanic” BBC Newsround, 16th Septeber 2013: “Costa Concordia weighs twice as much as the Titanic” 114,147 Gross Tons 46,320 Gross Tons Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 1: The common misinterpretation of the meaning of Gross Tonnage as a measure of weight. In terms of tonnage, Costa Concordia is 2.5 times the size of Titanic, so the BBC’s statement appears approximately correct….. except that tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight: 1 Tun 114,147 Gross Tons 46,320 Gross Tons Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 1: The common misinterpretation of the meaning of Gross Tonnage as a measure of weight. In terms of tonnage, Costa Concordia is 2.5 times the size of Titanic, so the BBC’s statement appears approximately correct….. except that tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight: 1 Tun Tonnage was introduced as a means of taxing ships according to their earning power, determined by their carrying capacity. Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 1: The common misinterpretation of the meaning of Gross Tonnage as a measure of weight. 1 Tun 55,000 tonnese 52,310 tonnes Full load displacement When looked at correctly the two vessels weigh a remarkably similar amount: Titanic was built with much heavier scantlings, was joined by millions of rivets and was114,147 fuelled Gross by Tons coal……. 46,320 Gross Tons Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 2: does Edwardian engineering have any relevance as a benchmark in the modern context? 190 bhp 1 Tun Fiat S74 – the leading Grand Prix car of 1912, the year of Titanic’s delivery from Harland and Wolff Can this car be used as a benchmark to convey the power of a modern F1 car in any meaningful way? Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 2: does Edwardian engineering have any relevance as a benchmark in the modern context? ≡ 1 Tun Stating that the F1 car has engine power equivalent to 5 Fiat S74 gives no immediate tangible impression of how powerful a modern F1 car is. The comparison conveys how relatively weak the 1912 car was, rather than giving a sense of the power of an F1 car. Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 2: does Edwardian engineering have any relevance as a benchmark in the modern context? ≡ 1 Tun Fiat S74 – the leading Grand Prix car of 1912, the year of Titanic’s delivery from Harland and Wolff, is equivalent in engine power to a modern family car. Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 2: does Edwardian engineering have any relevance as a benchmark in the modern context? ≡ 1 Tun Stating that the F1 car has engine power equivalent to three Porsche 911s (and weighs about the same as a large paper clip) gives the reader a direct impression of how powerful the car is. The Porsche provides a tangible benchmark that can be directly related to. Use of RMS Titanic as a benchmark Problem number 2: does Edwardian engineering have any relevance as a benchmark in the modern context? 1 Tun The Edwardian products provide no tangible benchmark with which we can intuitively gauge the size of a modern product. Has the size of the Titanic any relevance in the modern context? Was it a large ship? Was Titanic a Large ship? Titanic’s legendary status is based on a combination of a number of factors: 1. The unprecedented level of opulence: a first class ticket to New York cost the equivalent of £64,000 in today’s money. 2. The irony of the label ‘unsinkable’ that was attached to the ship. 3. The extent of the tragedy: the loss of 1,517 souls remains the 6th worst peacetime loss of life at sea. 4. The catastrophic inadequacy of LSA regulations. 5. The moral bankruptcy in the correlation between wealth and chances of survival. 6. The ship’s size. 1 Tun Without factors 1 to 5, Titanic would no longer be remembered as a paragon of size. By 1936 the Titanic’s size had been exceeded by a factor of 2 (RMS Queen Mary) and the Titanic has no more relevance than the Fiat S74 in the modern era If the vessel were remembered specifically for size then the paragon would be Olympic, the first of class that preceded Titanic. Benchmarks in popular reporting of Science Stating that the Costa Concordia is 40% larger than the RMS Queen Mary or “twice” the size of the RMS Olympic or RMS Brittanic is clearly meaningless and no-one would suggest these vessels as size comparators in the modern context.. But it is the same thing as using Titanic as the comparator. ? 2x Was Titanic a Large ship? But this does not mean to say that the Titanic may not be a good benchmark for large ship size. To judge whether Titanic was a large ship in her day we could use the same benchmarking technique and compare the ship to other famous vessels. Arguably, the most famous ship prior to Titanic in public consciousness may have been Cutty Sark.. 1 Tun 1869 963 GT Was Titanic a Large ship? Size of circles is proportional to gross tonnage: 1 Comparison with Cutty Sark (1869) Titanic was 50 times larger 0.5 Perhaps not a fair1 Tuncomparison as Cutty Sark is remembered primarily for speed and good 0 looks 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 Year of delivery Was Titanic a Large ship? Rather than Cutty Sark, the prior paragon of size was probably Brunel’s nemesis, the Great Eastern Great Eastern was 1858 6 times larger than 18,915 GT any preceding ship and it would be 40 years before anyone tried to build anything that 1 Tun large again. The ship was sadly a technical failure. Was Titanic a Large ship? Size of circles is proportional to gross tonnage: 1 Comparison with Great Eastern (1858) Titanic is 2.5 times larger 0.5 1 Tun 0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 Year of delivery Was Titanic a Large ship? Other relevant ships of the Edwardian era: Typical transatlantic liner: RMS Oceanic, 1899, 17,274 GT Typical cargo liner: SS Demodocus, 1912, 6,689 GT 1 Tun Superseded record holder for size: Mauretania, 1907, 31,938 GT Was Titanic a Large ship? Titanic was: 50 45 2.5 x larger than the typical Thousands 40 transatlantic liner of the day 35 30 45% larger than the previous GT 25 record holder, built only 4 20 years previously 15 10 7 x larger than the1 typicalTun 5 cargo liner of the day 0 Demodocus Oceanic Mauretania Titanic By any measure at the time, therefore, Titanic earned the epithet “Leviathan” The magnitude of Brunel’s challenge A digression: The Titanic is remembered in popular consciousness as an epitome of a large vessel. But look at what Brunel achieved… SS Great Britain 1843, 3,270 GT 1 Tun The world’s first recognisably ‘modern’ ship: Ocean-going, screw powered, 12 knots, made of metal The magnitude of Brunel’s challenge Size of circles is proportional to gross tonnage: 1 0.5 1 Tun 0 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year of delivery No wonder it killed him! Was Titanic a Large ship? RMS Queen Mary 90 1936 80 81,237 GT Thousands 70 60 50 GT 40 30 20 1 Tun 10 0 Demodocus Oceanic Mauretania Titanic Queen Mary By any measure at the time, therefore, Titanic earned the epithet “Leviathan” But by 1936 Titanic had been succeeded by a factor of almost 2x. How does Titanic stack up against the modern fleet Having concluded that Titanic was a “leviathan” in the Edwardian era, does this have any currency as a benchmark for the modern fleet. How big is a modern large ship? Costa Concordia, 2004, 114,147 GT 1 Tun Queen Mary 2, 2003, 148,528 GT Oasis of the Seas, 2009, 222,282 GT – the largest vessel afloat in 2013 How does Titanic stack up against the modern fleet 250 The largest ship in service is Thousands 200 currently almost 5 times larger than Titanic. 150 GT Titanic is not a small ship in 100 the modern era (as Demodocus would be) but is 50 no more than mid-sized.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • S.S. GREAT BRITAIN 1843 Bristol, England Tuesday September 25Th 1984
    An International Historic Engineering Landmark S.S. GREAT BRITAIN 1843 Bristol, England Tuesday September 25th 1984 The American society of Mechanical Engineers United Engineering Center • 345E. 47th street • New York, N.Y. 10017 ristol, midway between Iceland and the GREAT BRITAIN (1843), and in 1845, B the Iberian peninsula, had by 1400 the first iron-hulled screw-propelled vessel become, and for four centuries remained to cross any ocean. The GREAT BRITAIN the second port in the kingdom because of was the pioneer screw steamer of the its face to the west. As Britain’s industrial “Atlantic ferry” service from the Old World centre shifted northward, the southwest to distant lands. New York was the earliest declined to have Bristol lose its old position focal point, but ports beyond Cape Horn of leading Atlantic port to Liverpool. Bristol and the Cape of Good Hope were added had welcomed the age of steam on the soon. Both ships were the creations of seas by building first the wooden-hulled but Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859), iron-strapped paddleship GREAT one of the most innovative engineers of the WESTERN (1837) of 750 ihp that was nineteenth century whose boldness conceived as a “western extension” of the overshadowed his business acumen: he railway line from London. Exhilarated by would also build the GREAT EASTERN, the success of this largest and most 1858. powerful ship of the world, an even greater ship was laid down in 1839. She would be Going from the idea of a ship larger and better than the GREAT WESTERN to what would debut as the GREAT BRITAIN was a I.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain Arthur Rostron
    CAPTAIN ARTHUR ROSTRON CARPATHIA Created by: Jonathon Wild Campaign Director – Maelstrom www.maelstromdesign.co.uk CONTENTS 1 CAPTAIN ARTHUR ROSTRON………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………3-6 CUNARD LINE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7-8 CAPTAIN ARTHUR ROSTRON CONT…….….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8-9 RMS CARPATHIA…………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………….9-10 SINKING OF THE RMS TITANIC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…11-17 CAPTAIN ARTHUR ROSTRON CONT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18-23 R.M.S CARPATHIA – Copyright shipwreckworld.com 2 CAPTAIN ARTHUR ROSTRON Sir Arthur Henry Rostron, KBE, RD, RND, was a seafaring officer working for the Cunard Line. Up until 1912, he was an unknown person apart from in nautical circles and was a British sailor that had served in the British Merchant Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve for many years. However, his name is now part of the grand legacy of the Titanic story. The Titanic needs no introduction, it is possibly the most known single word used that can bring up memories of the sinking of the ship for the relatives, it will reveal a story that is still known and discussed to this day. And yet, Captain Rostron had no connections with the ship, or the White Star Line before 1912. On the night of 14th/15th April 1912, because of his selfless actions, he would be best remembered as the Captain of the RMS Carpathia who rescued many hundreds of people from the sinking of the RMS Titanic, after it collided with an iceberg in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. Image Copyright 9gag.com Rostron was born in Bolton on the 14th May 1869 in the town of Bolton. His birthplace was at Bank Cottage, Sharples to parents James and Nancy Rostron.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Bristol Walking
    W H II T RR EE E D L H LL A A A N M D D II PP E TT G O S R N O V R RR EE O O W AA OO A D H RR U D BB G RR II B A LL S CC R E M ONO R E H N LL H A E H T H CC H R Y A CHERCH R TT EE RR A S O O O Y EE 4 M AD H LL E N C D II SS TT 1 RTSEY PP E L CC D R K N L 0 T TT A EE S EE O R HA S O G E CC NN 8 K A N C E N N AA E P M IIN A TT Y RD LEY RO B F H D W L II R F S P R PP M R R L RD W Y CC Y II K D A E O EE N R A A D A U R DD O O E U LLLL A AA D RD RR WAVE A H M EN A B P S P RR N O TT D M LL KK V TT A ININ T C D H H H R BB BB DD LA E O N T AD E R NN K S A A A EE A SS S N C A G RO B E AA D T VI M A L S OO A T RR D TT A OA ST RONA U M L B TT NER A OO O O C NN DD R E RR TT AAN TT M R E O B RR JJ CK T H Y EE NN OOH RONA O II N II R G R L O PP T R EE N OO H N O L AA RR A A RR II RR D T LL CH A A A A NSN C A O T RR O OO V T A R D N C SS V KK DD S D E C VV W D O R NSN H EE R R F EE L R O UU A L S IIE L N AD R A L L II N TT R IAL D K R H U OADO A O O ER A D R EE P VE OD RO O TT N AD O A T T IMPERIIM W D CC NE E D S N II A E OA N E L A D V E R F PP A S R E FR N R EY KK V D O O O TL A E UG T R R T HA RR R E ADA G R S W M N S IIN Y D G A A O P LL E AL PP R R S L L D N V Y WE H YN T II IIN DE WE S R L A LLE C A Y N O E T G N K R O F M N RORO II HA D TO R E D P A T E Y II L R L E P L Y E A A M L R E DD D U E E A R D U F MPTOM H N M R AA M AD A V A W R R R W T W L OA OA M OA S O M OO A IIL T HA R A C L O D L E L RR D A D P K D D II E E N O E AM Y D T HAM VA R R R O T T AD CO D N VE OR N O O M Y BBI D ST F COTHAMC R THA I ST A A FORD AA C T R ITIT G D T M O
    [Show full text]
  • International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969
    No. 21264 MULTILATERAL International Convention on tonnage measurement of ships, 1969 (with annexes, official translations of the Convention in the Russian and Spanish languages and Final Act of the Conference). Concluded at London on 23 June 1969 Authentic texts: English and French. Authentic texts of the Final Act: English, French, Russian and Spanish. Registered by the International Maritime Organization on 28 September 1982. MULTILAT RAL Convention internationale de 1969 sur le jaugeage des navires (avec annexes, traductions officielles de la Convention en russe et en espagnol et Acte final de la Conf rence). Conclue Londres le 23 juin 1969 Textes authentiques : anglais et fran ais. Textes authentiques de l©Acte final: anglais, fran ais, russe et espagnol. Enregistr e par l©Organisation maritime internationale le 28 septembre 1982. Vol. 1291, 1-21264 4_____ United Nations — Treaty Series Nations Unies — Recueil des TVait s 1982 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION © ON TONNAGE MEASURE MENT OF SHIPS, 1969 The Contracting Governments, Desiring to establish uniform principles and rules with respect to the determination of tonnage of ships engaged on international voyages; Considering that this end may best be achieved by the conclusion of a Convention; Have agreed as follows: Article 1. GENERAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONVENTION The Contracting Governments undertake to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and the annexes hereto which shall constitute an integral part of the present Convention. Every reference to the present Convention constitutes at the same time a reference to the annexes. Article 2. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of the present Convention, unless expressly provided otherwise: (1) "Regulations" means the Regulations annexed to the present Convention; (2) "Administration" means the Government of the State whose flag the ship is flying; (3) "International voyage" means a sea voyage from a country to which the present Convention applies to a port outside such country, or conversely.
    [Show full text]
  • International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969
    Page 1 of 47 Lloyd’s Register Rulefinder 2005 – Version 9.4 Tonnage - International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 Tonnage - International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 Copyright 2005 Lloyd's Register or International Maritime Organization. All rights reserved. Lloyd's Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the 'Lloyd's Register Group'. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract. file://C:\Documents and Settings\M.Ventura\Local Settings\Temp\~hh4CFD.htm 2009-09-22 Page 2 of 47 Lloyd’s Register Rulefinder 2005 – Version 9.4 Tonnage - International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 - Articles of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships Articles of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships Copyright 2005 Lloyd's Register or International Maritime Organization. All rights reserved. Lloyd's Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the 'Lloyd's Register Group'. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipbuilding
    Shipbuilding A promising rst half, an uncertain second one 2018 started briskly in the wake of 2017. In the rst half of the year, newbuilding orders were placed at a rate of about 10m dwt per month. However the pace dropped in the second half, as owners grappled with a rise in newbuilding prices and growing uncertainty over the IMO 2020 deadline. Regardless, newbuilding orders rose to 95.5m dwt in 2018 versus 83.1m dwt in 2017. Demand for bulkers, container carriers and specialised ships increased, while for tankers it receded, re ecting low freight rates and poor sentiment. Thanks to this additional demand, shipbuilders succeeded in raising newbuilding prices by about 10%. This enabled them to pass on some of the additional building costs resulting from higher steel prices, new regulations and increased pressure from marine suppliers, who have also been struggling since 2008. VIIKKI LNG-fuelled forest product carrier, 25,600 dwt (B.Delta 25), built in 2018 by China’s Jinling for Finland’s ESL Shipping. 5 Orders Million dwt 300 250 200 150 100 50 SHIPBUILDING SHIPBUILDING KEY POINTS OF 2018 KEY POINTS OF 2018 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Deliveries vs demolitions Fleet evolution Deliveries Demolitions Fleet KEY POINTS OF 2018 Summary 2017 2018 Million dwt Million dwt Million dwt Million dwt Ships 1,000 1,245 Orders 200 2,000 m dwt 83.1 95.5 180 The three Asian shipbuilding giants, representing almost 95% of the global 1,800 orderbook by deadweight, continued to ght ercely for market share.
    [Show full text]
  • History in Public | University of Bristol
    09/30/21 HIST20089: History in Public | University of Bristol HIST20089: History in Public View Online 1. Smith, L. Chapter One: The Discourse of Heritage. in Uses of heritage (Routledge, 2006). 2. Jordanova, L. J. History in practice. (Hodder Arnold, 2006). 3. History and Heritage (Jessica Moody). in The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research (eds. Waterton, E. & Watson, S.) (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). 4. Cubitt, G. Chapter 5 - Social Memory and the Collective Past. in History and memory (Manchester University Press, 2007). 5. Hoock, H. Introduction. The Public Historian 32, 7–24 (2010). 6. Seeing history: public history in Britain now. (Francis Boutle, 2000). 1/38 09/30/21 HIST20089: History in Public | University of Bristol 7. Samuel, R. Theatres of memory: Vol.1: Past and present in contemporary culture. (Verso, 1994). 8. Tosh, J. Why history matters. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 9. Professional Practices of Public History in Britain. The Public Historian 32, (2010). 10. King, L. & Rivett, G. Engaging People in Making History: Impact, Public Engagement and the World Beyond the Campus. History Workshop Journal 80, 218–233 (2015). 11. Tosh, J. Public History, Civic Engagement and the Historical Profession in Britain. History 99 , 191–212 (2014). 12. Yerxa, D. A. Why History Matters: An Interview with John Tosh. Historically Speaking 10, 25–27 (2009). 13. West, S. Understanding heritage in practice. (Manchester University Press, 2010). 14. Lowenthal, D. The past is a foreign country - revisited. (Cambridge University Press, 2015). 2/38 09/30/21 HIST20089: History in Public | University of Bristol 15. Yerxa, D. A. An Interview with Margaret MacMillan.
    [Show full text]
  • ROYAL NAVY LOSS LIST COMPLETE DATABASE LASTUPDATED - 16SEPTEMBER 2019 Royal Navy Loss List Complete Database Page 2 of 208
    ROYAL NAVY LOSS LIST COMPLETE DATABASE LAST UPDATED - 16 SEPTEMBER 2019 Photo: Swash Channel wreck courtesy of Bournemouth University MAST is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, number 07455580 and charity number 1140497 | www.thisismast.org | [email protected] Royal Navy Loss List complete database Page 2 of 208 The Royal Navy (RN) Loss List (LL), from 1512-1947, is compiled from the volumes MAST hopes this will be a powerful research tool, amassing for the first time all RN and websites listed below from the earliest known RN wreck. The accuracy is only as losses in one place. It realises that there will be gaps and would gratefully receive good as these sources which have been thoroughly transcribed and cross-checked. any comments. Equally if researchers have details on any RN ships that are not There will be inevitable transcription errors. The LL includes minimal detail on the listed, or further information to add to the list on any already listed, please contact loss (ie. manner of loss except on the rare occasion that a specific position is known; MAST at [email protected]. MAST also asks that if this resource is used in any also noted is manner of loss, if known ie. if burnt, scuttled, foundered etc.). In most publication and public talk, that it is acknowledged. cases it is unclear from the sources whether the ship was lost in the territorial waters of the country in question, in the EEZ or in international waters. In many cases ships Donations are lost in channels between two countries, eg.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY Thesis Submitted Towards Phd in History
    NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY Thesis submitted towards PhD in History An examination of the decline of shipbuilding on the North-East Coast of England and the West of Scotland during the interwar period, 1920–1939 W. Paxton October 2017 i CONTENTS Page Copyright, declaration, and dedication .................................................................................. v Abstract ................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. vii List of Diagrams ................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... x List of Maps ....................................................................................................................... xiii List of Photographs ............................................................................................................. xiii List of Illustrations .............................................................................................................. xiv Appendices ........................................................................................................................... xv Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Temporary (Special) Exhibitions, 1912–1983 Peter J.T
    Appendix 1: Temporary (Special) Exhibitions, 1912–1983 Peter J.T. Morris and Eduard von Fischer The year given is the year the exhibition opened; it may have continued into the following calendar year. The main source before 1939 is Appendix I of E.E.B. Mackintosh, ‘Special Exhibitions at the Science Museum’ (SMD, Z 108/4), which has been followed even when the exhibitions do not appear in the Sceince Museum Annual Reports, supplemented by the list in Follett, The Rise of the Science Museum, pp. 122–3. Otherwise the exhibitions have been taken from the Annual Reports. 1912 History of Aeronautics 1914 Gyrostatics 1914 Science in Warfare First World War 1919 Aeronautics James Watt Centenary 1923 Typewriters 1924 Geophysical and Surveying Instruments Kelvin Centenary Centenary of the Introduction of Portland Cement 1925 Stockton and Darlington Railway Centenary Centenary of Faraday’s Discovery of Benzine [sic] Wheatstone Apparatus Seismology and Seismographs 1926 Adhesives Board, DSIR Centenary of Matthew Murray Fiftieth Anniversary of the Invention of the Telephone 1927 British Woollen and Worsted Research Association British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association Solar Eclipse Phenomena Newton Bi-centenary 1928 George III Collection of Scientific Apparatus Cartography of the Empire Modern Surveying and Cartographical Instruments Weighing Photography 317 318 Peter J.T. Morris and Eduard von Fischer 1929 British Cast Iron Research Association Newcomen Bicentenary Historical Apparatus of the Royal Institution Centenary of the Locomotive Trials
    [Show full text]
  • SIMPLIFIED MEASUREMENT TONNAGE FORMULAS (46 CFR SUBPART E) Prepared by U.S
    SIMPLIFIED MEASUREMENT TONNAGE FORMULAS (46 CFR SUBPART E) Prepared by U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, Washington, DC Phone (202) 366-6441 GROSS TONNAGE NET TONNAGE SAILING HULLS D GROSS = 0.5 LBD SAILING HULLS 100 (PROPELLING MACHINERY IN HULL) NET = 0.9 GROSS SAILING HULLS (KEEL INCLUDED IN D) D GROSS = 0.375 LBD SAILING HULLS 100 (NO PROPELLING MACHINERY IN HULL) NET = GROSS SHIP-SHAPED AND SHIP-SHAPED, PONTOON AND CYLINDRICAL HULLS D D BARGE HULLS GROSS = 0.67 LBD (PROPELLING MACHINERY IN 100 HULL) NET = 0.8 GROSS BARGE-SHAPED HULLS SHIP-SHAPED, PONTOON AND D GROSS = 0.84 LBD BARGE HULLS 100 (NO PROPELLING MACHINERY IN HULL) NET = GROSS 1. DIMENSIONS. The dimensions, L, B and D, are the length, breadth and depth, respectively, of the hull measured in feet to the nearest tenth of a foot. See the conversion table on the back of this form for converting inches to tenths of a foot. LENGTH (L) is the horizontal distance between the outboard side of the foremost part of the stem and the outboard side of the aftermost part of the stern, excluding rudders, outboard motor brackets, and other similar fittings and attachments. BREADTH (B) is the horizontal distance taken at the widest part of the hull, excluding rub rails and deck caps, from the outboard side of the skin (outside planking or plating) on one side of the hull, to the outboard side of the skin on the other side of the hull. DEPTH (D) is the vertical distance taken at or near amidships from a line drawn horizontally through the uppermost edges of the skin (outside planking or plating) at the sides of the hull (excluding the cap rail, trunks, cabins, deck caps, and deckhouses) to the outboard face of the bottom skin of the hull, excluding the keel.
    [Show full text]
  • Determirjiation of the Compensated Gross Tonnage Factors for Superyachts
    International Shipbuilding Progress 57 (2010) 127-146 127 DOI 10.3233/ISP-2010-0066 lOS Press Determirjiation of the Compensated Gross Tonnage factors for superyachts Jeroen FJ. Pruyn Robert G. Helckenberg ^ and Chris M. van Hooren^ ^ Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands ^ Supeiyacht Builders Association, Delft, The Netherlands In order to provide the basis for a fair comparison, an indicator was developed to measure the amount of work that goes into the construction of a vessel. The foundation for this Compensated Gross Tonnage was laid in the 1970s by the OECD to compensate for the differences in work involved in producing a gross ton (GT) of ship in different sizes and types. Since 2007, the CGT of a vessel of a certain type as a function of its size (measured in GT) has been expressed as CGT = A x GT-®. However, no interna­ tionally accepted A and B values exist to convert superyachts from GT to CGT. The superyacht building industry believes that this omission results in an under appreciation of the importance of the sector. This paper describes the research carried out into this subject and confirms that the cuiTent assignments for su­ peryachts greatly under appreciate the value of the sector. Based on the current data, the most appropriate values for superyachts are 278 for A and 0.58 for B. The spread is quite large and more data would help confirm this finding. Keywords: CGT, superyachts, shipbuilding 1. Background: CGT factors To compare the output of shipyards and shipbuilding industries using the size of delivered vessels (e.g., in terms of Gross Tonnage) alone is insufficient: how does one compare a (very large) crude oil tanker to a (smaller but much more complex) passenger ship? In order to provide the foundation for a fair comparison, an indicator was de­ veloped to measure the amount of work that goes into the construction of a ves­ sel: Compensated Gross Tonnage.
    [Show full text]