Why did they take the Olympic off the line? And what if it were still sailing Would it be a great ship or would it meet the fate of it's sister? Just intrested to know what some people said. Please do not let this subject wander. Please try to keep it on The Titanic and The Olympic. Thanks



You jump, I jump.
-Jack

i think that is was old. it was costing a lot of money to keep it up to the "newer technology" of the day. eventually it became outdated and was taken off the line. ppl back then weren't really concerned with what would be good in the year 2000 as far as history was concerned. they were more focused on what deeded to be done then

Quote:

It's easy 22 years at sea and she was was outdated, ineffiecient, and just ready to scrap. She was a old coal burner, efficient propeller/rudder design and owned by a financially bank strapped shipping company.
You question what if it were still sailing? Well it wouldn't be possible as the ship would be known as the "Ship of Rust" Besides as I said today's ships run much more fuel effieciently and are 1000's times safer.
http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/olympic.asp

there really was no point in keeping her. she would be sitting idle costing money to fix up and wouldn't be making any money

Yeah true the Olympic would be out dated for sea travel today, never mind the fact that she would not meet nearly 1/2 of the safety requirments we have today, but it would of been nice if she were still here as a museum style ship, the company would of been unable to do this then as she was worth more in scrap mettal & auction sales. but these days if she were a museum they would of seen a good return for the risk.

Hello,

You wrote:
*It's easy 22 years at sea*

Olympic was in service for 24 years, 1911-35, unless you're counting up the refits and subtracting the time spent there?

*she was was outdated*

Certainly she was behind the times for 1935. However, the same could be said for plenty of other ships.

*ineffiecient*

She might not have been as efficient as some newer ships, but for the ships of her generation she was among the most efficient.

*She was a old coal burner*

Olympic wasn't a coal burner after 1919-20, when she was converted to oil. So she spent more of her life as an oil burner.

*efficient propeller/rudder design*

It's good to see that some people have seen through the myth that the Olympic class's rudder design was ineffective, and was actually efficient for the task in hand.

Best wishes,

Mark.

As I said totally inefficient! Would you expext to see the sheet metal maintain any degree of integrity today? No ship has ever maintained a value of profit through numerous years of upgrading to keep a ship of nostalgia afloat. Useless you want to count some old wooden Mississippi paddleboats.

You are in the minority if you assume the propeller/rudder design was effcient. The Olympic was as hard to control as the Titanic. On 22 March 1924 it was involved in a collision with the Furness Line ship St.George whilst leaving New York. Then years later On 10 May 1934 the Olympic became part of the newly formed Cunard-White Star Company. On its first voyage for its new owners the ship rammed and sank the Nantucket Lightship in fog. The accident killed eight people. These ships were no known to turn to well even with icebergs, huh

This was a real stellar ship of control problems! Entire discussions are logged on Titanic Encyclopedia by numerous Captains of naval ship as well as resort ships of the faulty designed propulsion & sterring. The topic of unefficient propellers/rudder are well documented.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi

Harland & Wolff never had the funds to pour into the Olympic it really needed. Yes it was upgraded to oil but years after it was considered the norm. The Olympic was always playing "catch-up" from day one it got struck when it made its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York on 14 June 1911. Later that year, on 20 September, the Olympic was rammed by the cruiser HMS Hawke in the Solent which had attempted to pass astern and hit the Olympic abreast the mainmast, starboard side. The ship went to Belfast for repairs but was out of action for six weeks.

As the result of an enquiry into the collision the Olympic was found to blame as its speed and size had sucked the Hawke off course.

They were always in financial trouble. That's why years later in 1934 the Olympic became part of the newly formed Cunard-White Star Company. But as I said she struck a ship, killed several men and courts cases buried the Olympic in as little as one year when "smarter" businessmen decided to scrap the old ship in 1935.

As I said history has labelled her as a inefficient and costly ship that a conspiracy started up that she was sank on purpose to collect the insurance on her. "I hope this don't get the conspiracy fanitics stated again!"

I guess the topic subject, "What if the Olympic was Still sailing Today" is just another attempt of nostalgia such as resurfacing the Titanic that I find a little far fetched. But they sure make great debate and you did provide some good points yourself. Capt Jack loves a worthy opponent as Mark

To've kept Olympic goin' all these years would've been much more trouble than it'd ever be worth. It's old, riveted hull would be hard to maintain. Shipyards aren't tooled up to handle that sorta thing in this day and age. Its propulsion plant would be extremely archiac by todays standards. Sittin' atop fire tube-type boilers that are nearly a century old isn't a comforting thought. It's doubtful any of the machinery would've lasted to today without having to be replaced. Olympic's propulsion plant was nothing innovative even in its time. Unlike Lusitania and Mauretania, Olympic's construction costs weren't covered in any way by government subsidy, so there wasn't as big a budget for more advanced systems. Lusitania and Mauretania were all turbo-powered and more powerful, but naturally burned fuel at a greater rate.

Mauretania, even though more advanced, was still scrapped around the same as Olympic (they'd both been converted to burn fuel oil, as well), following the Cunard/White Star merger, which further shows that Olympic had definitely outlived its usefulness.

What use could Olympic possibly have if still sailing today? She could never turn a profit in today's cruise markets, which is where the potential money is. It wouldn't even begin to offer what payin' passengers are lookin' for these days.

>You are in the minority if you assume the propeller/rudder design >was effcient.

That might be true if you're talking about people who have restricted their so-called "research" to just reading books. However, Mark is definitely in the majority if you're talking about serious historians who have done in-depth, primary research on the Olympic class liners. (His two books on the subject are outstanding.)

> The topic of unefficient propellers/rudder are well documented.

Could you please share your specific documentation for that claim? Thanks very much.

Hello Captain Jack,

You wrote:
>>As I said totally inefficient! Would you expext to see the sheet metal maintain any degree of integrity today? No ship has ever maintained a value of profit through numerous years of upgrading to keep a ship of nostalgia afloat. Useless you want to count some old wooden Mississippi paddleboats.<<

I agree that the Olympic would be inefficient were she around today. However, my point was that for the older express liners still around in 1935, she was among the most efficient (for instance, in terms of fuel consumption). I did not intend it to sound like I was saying that the Olympic would remain an efficient ship if she were still around in 2005. Indeed, my post specifically states: ‘for the ships of her generation she was among the most efficient.’

>>You are in the minority if you assume the propeller/rudder design was effcient.<<

It’s interesting that your original post said it was ‘efficient.’ Since it seems that you meant ‘inefficient,’ I’ll clarify that I disagree with that position. As for minorities, I really don’t share your apparent argument that an opinion must be correct if shared by the majority. Indeed, I think that a fairly well-informed case can be made that a number of ‘majority’ beliefs as we might call them can be demonstrated to be weak in terms of the evidence available.

>>The Olympic was as hard to control as the Titanic.<<

It would make sense that as two such similar ships, they would share very similar handling characteristics. However, where is your evidence that they were ‘hard to control’ for ships of their size, as you seem to imply here?

>>On 22 March 1924 it was involved in a collision with the Furness Line ship St.George whilst leaving New York.<<

Olympic was involved in a collision. However, she was absolved from blame. Olympic’s manoeuvring was found to be ‘thoroughly justifiable’ by Chief Justice Augustus Hand. Her crew’s fast reactions were praised, and there was no mention that I recall of her rudder design being questioned. Indeed, it was considered entirely the Fort St George’s (not ‘St George’) fault for going at an excessive speed down the river; meanwhile, Olympic was backing out of her pier. Although her engines were run ahead (to stop the ship’s backward momentum), a collision was unavoidable. The Fort St George’s captain even admitted that he did not wait and see what the Olympic was doing, as his ship continued at an excessive rate of speed. If you’re trying to state that her allegedly faulty rudder design caused the collision, then why don’t you provide some evidence?

>>Then years later On 10 May 1934 the Olympic became part of the newly formed Cunard-White Star Company. On its first voyage for its new owners the ship rammed and sank the Nantucket Lightship in fog. The accident killed eight people. These ships were no known to turn to well even with icebergs, huh<<

In my view, this example is flawed. For instance, what makes you think that the Olympic’s allegedly ‘poor’ rudder design prevented her from avoiding the lightship? Again, the subsequent investigation into the collision did not find any problem with the rudder design, if my memory is correct. I seem to remember that it was seven people killed rather than eight, but that’s not really relevant to this discussion.

>>This was a real stellar ship of control problems!

Even if you accept that the rudder design was inefficient, what else do you criticise with regard to the Olympic’s design? Your statement implies (to my eyes) that you think there were more ‘problems’ with the ship.

>>Entire discussions are logged on Titanic Encyclopedia by numerous Captains of naval ship as well as resort ships of the faulty designed propulsion & sterring. The topic of unefficient propellers/rudder are well documented.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi<<

I am well aware of the ET message board. However, it would help if you could cite some specific discussions. I don’t have the time to go searching through the entire message board. In fact, I don't really have the time to conduct a lengthy debate here either.

>>Harland & Wolff never had the funds to pour into the Olympic it really needed. Yes it was upgraded to oil but years after it was considered the norm.<<

Where is your evidence that Olympic needed further work doing than was ever completed? As for the point about oil, yes it was the ‘norm’ for ships by the 1930s – my original post was simply intended to correct what you said about the Olympic being a coal burner in 1935, when she was actually an oil burner by then.

>>The Olympic was always playing "catch-up" from day one it got struck when it made its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York on 14 June 1911.<<

What do you mean by ‘catch up’?

>>Later that year, on 20 September, the Olympic was rammed by the cruiser HMS Hawke in the Solent which had attempted to pass astern and hit the Olympic abreast the mainmast, starboard side. The ship went to Belfast for repairs but was out of action for six weeks.<<

I don’t see what relevance this has to your argument. In any case, I would like to think that I have a fairly good knowledge of Olympic’s career.

>>As the result of an enquiry into the collision the Olympic was found to blame as its speed and size had sucked the Hawke off course.<<

As I am sure you realise, there was more to it than that. Indeed, the files from the 1911-14 proceedings run to thousands of pages, and several volumes. They are filled with copious arguments as to what happened.

>>They were always in financial trouble.<<

I think researchers such as Mark Baber would disagree with that.

>>That's why years later in 1934 the Olympic became part of the newly formed Cunard-White Star Company.<<

It’s true that the two companies merged and that the White Star Line was in serious financial trouble by the 1930s, but what relevance has that got to the rudder/design discussion?

>>But as I said she struck a ship, killed several men and courts cases buried the Olympic in as little as one year when "smarter" businessmen decided to scrap the old ship in 1935.<<

Your statement seems to imply that there was a direct link between the Nantucket lightship collision and the decision to scrap the Olympic which was taken over a year later. I disagree. There's no evidence for that, in my view.

>>As I said history has labelled her as a inefficient and costly ship that a conspiracy started up that she was sank on purpose to collect the insurance on her…<<

You speak about ‘history,’ yet it is very interesting to actually compare some of the contemporary sources about Olympic’s life with what has been written more recently. Simply because there is a consensus about a subject, it’s not necessarily correct. Views are always subject to change and modification as ‘new’ information comes to light and researchers unearth fresh sources. I don’t feel that the Olympic was inefficient for her time, at all – if anything, I think that the opposite was the case.

>>I guess the topic subject, "What if the Olympic was Still sailing Today" is just another attempt of nostalgia such as resurfacing the Titanic that I find a little far fetched.<<

I certainly consider it far-fetched to imagine that the Olympic might still be sailing today.

Hello LeoPlumtree,

>>Olympic's propulsion plant was nothing innovative even in its time. <<

In my view, the arrangement was the best that Harland & Wolff could have come up with at the time. Denis Griffith’s [sic?] book is an enlightening read. However, I agree it was not innovative -- such as in the sense that the Mauretania's was.

Hello TippooTib,

>>(His two books on the subject are outstanding.)<<

Thanks for your kind words, George. Spoken from someone such as yourself, who has done so much innovative research over the years, I value them very much indeed.

Best wishes to all,

Mark.