# Talk:SS Great Britain

The caption for the 1844 photograph is wrong. I've found photographs of other ships dating back to 1839. Changing it now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.165 (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 

"Brunel himself advised that if anyone could rescue the ship then the man to do it was the naval engineer Andrew Swan of Brisbane. Bremner was engaged and the Great Britain was refloated in August 1847. 
Sorry to be a pain, but was it Swan or Bremner?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxs (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 

The current image is just a show of the stern of the ship, surely a much more full shot of the boat would be a better leading image for this article. --Lemming64 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gatoclass (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The article includes the following statement...

In the Second World War, some of her steel was scavenged to repair HMS Exeter, one of the Royal Navy ships that fought the Graf Spee and was badly damaged, in the Battle of the River Plate.
If the SS Great Britain was built of wrought iron plates, how was steel scavenged for repairs? I think this should read 'some of her iron was scavenged', but someone with more knowledge than me should change the text if required. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a discrepancy between the Introduction, where it is said the 1845 crossing in 14 days was a record, and the Service History section, where it is said that the the crossing was much slower than the existing record and the speed was "unexceptional". 
RichWA (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the table in Blue Riband and its source page here, I have removed it.  As SS Great Western had already held the record from 1843 of 12 d, 18 h, 0 m this seems contradictory.  Now, as you say, the lead mention of 14 days (with no direct citation from the sources) and without mentioning speed records corresponds to the Service History section. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Manby This page also says it was the first iron-hulled steamship to cross the channel, but it was in 1822, predating the SS Great Britain.
184.66.30.121 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the inconsistency?  Great Britain was the first screw-propelled iron steamship. The Aaron Manby was a paddle steamer. Famously Brunel first thought of Great Britain as wooden (as his Great Western had been) and it was only after studying the Rainbow (and some reductions in the price of wrought iron) that he was converted to iron. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been doing some work on this article, particularly trying to find citations to support the claims made. There are still quite a few areas which I've marked with "citation needed" - can anyone help with references for these areas? Aslo what else do people feel is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing I meant to add when expanding the article earlier was that (from memory) the paddlewheel engines had almost been completed when the decision was made to switch to screw propulsion. Also, an entire new workshop had to be constructed to build the new engines. These are important points IMO that I think ought to be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the diameter of the "primary gearwheel" in the article from 26 feet to 18 feet. The reference given for the 26 ft figure is a pamphlet written by Captain Claxton R.N. and published in New York in 1845. This contains a table of dimensions of the ship including an entry “Diameter of large driving wheel............26 ft”. However a similar but not identical pamphlet by the same author published in Bristol in the same year contains “The main drum is 18 feet diameter, and drives 4 chains, weighing 7 tons.” To further confuse the issue, in what may be the earliest publication of the dimensions of the ship, in an article in “Mechanics Magazine” of 10 September 1842 in the form of a letter from J.R.Hill there is a table which includes: “Diameter of large driving-wheel, said to be intended.........26ft”. The phrase "said to be intended" suggests that the design of the engine was still under development at this early date. The author also notes that "is highly probable that some of my dimensions may not be truly correct”! It seems possible that later writers mistakenly copied this figure when it was in fact no more than a possible maximum size (see below). The best evidence for the true diameter comes from “The Great Britain Atlantic Steam Ship of 3500 tons....” a set of engravings published by John Weale of London in 1847. This has a summary of dimensions of the ship including “The main drum is 18ft diameter” and the drawings ( e.g. plate 3 ) which are at a scale of ¼ inch to the foot, show the diameter as 4 1/2 inches. Plate 3 has a dimension of 26 feet shown as the width of the compartment in which the primary chain wheel is situated, and so this would certainly have placed an upper limit on the possible diameter. It seems possible that Captain Claxton or someone working on his behalf either misread this as the diameter of the wheel or mistakenly took the original figure from the Mechanics Magazine. The replica engine which has been installed in the ship and which was based on very extensive and detailed research of all available sources has a chain-wheel diameter of 18 ft. and this is the figure quoted in "The Iron Ship"Redcliffe maven (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a valid change and you obviously have detailed knowledge and some good sources. Can you help with the query above when the decision was made to switch from paddlewheel engines to screw propulsion and the need for a new workshop? or the bit where I have left a "citation needed" tag about the roll causing distress to passengers leading to the addition of bilge keels?— Rod talk 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The source for the bilge keels can already be found in the link for the old version of this page I posted earlier. I will check the source for the other matters. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Source for the bilge keels - Fox 2003, p. 154. Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but it is actually the claim that "The ship rolled heavily, especially in calm weather without the steadying influence of sail, causing great discomfort to passengers." which is unsourced - does Fox cover that claim?— Rod talk 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I will quote from the source:
"But the ship rolled excessively, especially in a calm, when the sails were not stiffened by wind to help stabilize her. Her bulging sides at midship, and the absence of paddle boxes acting as outriggers, probably made the rolling worse. On an ocean as stormy and choppy as the North Atlantic, it was a serious defect - in particular for the comfort of passengers fighting seasickness." - Fox, p. 153.
Thanks ref added.— Rod talk 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"To keep the ship from rolling so badly, two bilge keels - flanges of metal 110 feet long and projecting outward 2 feet - were attached to the bottom of the hull". - Fox, p. 154. Gatoclass (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't just put in a figure you think is the correct one, because it ends up contradicting the sources. You need to add the sources where the 18 ft. figure came from, so that readers can verify it for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
? I have given my sources, and also my reasons for accepting the 18 ft figure. Please read my paragraph again.Redcliffe maven (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
? Perhaps you mean "include my sources in the article itself, rather than just giving them on the talk page"? If so I will try to do this, but my lack of experience with Wikipedia may mean trouble ahead. Redcliffe maven (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There are templates to help you cite sources correctly. See, for example, Template:Cite book. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SS Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091725/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Hit-elite-sporting-stars-trip-great-iron-ship/story-11293374-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Hit-elite-sporting-stars-trip-great-iron-ship/story-11293374-detail/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126062117/http://www.thegulbenkianprize.org.uk/press/prwinner2006.htm to http://www.thegulbenkianprize.org.uk/press/prwinner2006.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this described as "two engines"?   There's only one, an inverted V with four cylinders. It operates as one engine, never any part independently. The crankshft is famously the biggest forging of its time, and it's one piece. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Being Brunel, but I'm not sure if it stands alone or should be part of this article. Also it is definitely very stubby - additional input welcome.--Verbarson (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added it to this article. I also see that there is a Brunel Institute, but I can't find any independent sources online.--Verbarson (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

360 passenger capacity is listed. There is no reference for this. I've read two sources, one being reference 107, saying the passenger capacity is 250. Now, I know there was another deck installed, so is 360 with the addition added on deck from the original?
Reference 107 https://web.archive.org/web/20150402151835/http://rpec.co.uk/rpec_new/pages/_Art-21.html
Another reference https://oceanliners.weebly.com/the-invention.html Webbiiess (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wessex Archaeology 252 passengers + 130 crew -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots:I feel suspect a displacement of 3400 t and a load volume (sorry, i do not remember the english for the italian stazza) of 3443 bm: the two numbers are too close. 151.29.133.9 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The figures look OK to me, but I've raised this at WT:SHIPS so more editors can comment. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I thought that's easy, I'll check in the guidebooks, says around 3000 tons, so no help at all! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are the paintings so inconsistent? A common mistake by land-lubber artists is to show a sailing ship in full sail, but with flags trailing out behind instead of being blown forward. But the GB was also propeller-driven. So then we see images with the flags trailing, but that seems OK ... except that the sails are bellying in the wrong direction and the smoke is going in the wrong direction. Is the wind somehow 'reflecting' off the sails? I have seen only one image of a steam/sail-driven ship in which everything was 'blowing in the right direction'! 92.14.41.137 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Artist is commissioned to paint picture of a ship. Having once got sea-sick on the Woolwich Ferry, he walks down to the docks and sketches the boat there. Returns to studio, works up sketches into painting. Client sees painting, says "No, I want it in mid-journey!". Artist paints out dock, adds waves, sails, flags and smoke to best pictorial effect. Client happy, artist paid. Actual sailors not expected to express their opinion.
There were no doubt exceptions, such as Turner (possibly). But if you asked most artists where the canvas should be going, they would say, "Under the oil paint." -- Verbarson  talkedits 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this German printer notable enough to include in service history? Really feels out of place. 47.151.210.24 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)