Talk:RMS Empress of Ireland (1906)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |  |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Design Changes
"The disaster led to a change in thinking among naval architects with regard to the design of ships bows. The backward slanting bow design of the day (see picture above) caused, in the event of a collision, immediate massive fatal damage below the waterline. The effect of the Storstad's bows on the Empress of Ireland's has been likened to that of a "chisel being forced into an aluminium can" Designers began to employ the raked bows that we are familiar with today, ensuring that much of the energy of a collision is absorbed by the point of the bow impacting above the waterline of the other ship ensuring less damage under the surface."
This sounds suspicious to me, firstly because the bow does not "slope backward" -- it's vertical (this is obvious on the plans of many ships) -- and secondly, ships were built right up until the thirties with vertical stems (the Empress of Britain being an example). I've always thought raked stems were sea-handling feature. John.Conway 11:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree and question this without a source cited. I beleive there are some relatively modern ships with vertical bows, and those tend to be vessels with described ice handling capabilities. I will cal it the fore foot- where bottom of bow meets the the keel. Near all morenr ships have there being bulbous- alters how/where the bow wake is formed and reduces drag/friction power needs. Some modern warships have ;arge bulbous soanr domes there, too big to proerly reduce power requirements. the Size of the sonar dome dictatates a large forward rake to the box so the anchor can be dropped without hitting the sonar dome. The backward slanting bow will return in the US Navy DD(X). I wonder if the origin of the backward slope is basically from the anchient ram forward and underwater. Like the torpedo on the CSS_Hunley. Wfoj2 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number lost source?
See note at Talk:1914#Empress of Ireland where a different number of dead is quoted. KenWalker | Talk 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, there is a discrepancy between Storstad and this page. The Storstad page says there were 473 survivors, this page says 465. seeing as I had never heard of the ship, I dunno which is right.Motor.on 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relative movements of the ships
I was part of a team that recently reviewed the sinking for a Canadian film company. The dynamics of the collision do not support the 'Empress' view that they were stationary and had been for some time. Evidence to the Inquiry from a number of sources spoke of the Storstad coming in at an angle on the starboard bow of the Empress, penetrating and then pivoting around the impact point so that she ended up drifting aft with her bow pointing towards the Empress. I would suggest this is only possible if there is a moment applied to the Storstad by movement of the Empress. There was also some technical evidence given to the Inquiry that showed that Storstad's bow below the waterline had been wrenched to starboard - the bow above the waterline had been crushed to port. The conclusion was that Empress was moving when Storstad hit and that the above water movement of the bow was caused by the Storstad's anchor bolster hitting the Empress's hull. -- Subsea 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of Children?
From:
http://www.shmp.qc.ca/main.aspx?lang=en&page=empress
they cite 134 children dead, not 314 as cited here. Simple transpo?
68.35.71.6 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) John C. Mosher
[edit] Nationality British or Canadian?
This edit changed the nationality from Canadian to British. No source is provided. I was tempted to change it back for that reason, but instead I raise it here. Unless there is some source for the change provided, I will revert the change sometime soon. --KenWalker | Talk 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Superfluous external links?
I wonder about this link:
- Pursuit of Grace: Aboard the Empress of Ireland: historical fiction novel -- Steven Pavey's novel, Pursuit of Grace: Aboard the Empress of Ireland, is based on research in Salvation Army archives. Pavey is a Salvation Army Staff Band member, from the same band whose predecessors were lost in the sinking of the Empress.
If there is any dispute, the link can be restored easily enough. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
