Mark Chirnside
Member
Dear Bill,
If I remember rightly, wasn't it Quartermaster Olliver [sic?]?
Best wishes,
Mark.
If I remember rightly, wasn't it Quartermaster Olliver [sic?]?
Best wishes,
Mark.
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Aft Boiler Rooms
- Thread starter John Flood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boiler rooms
Denise A. Hunyadi
Member
I thought the same thing, Bill, and took a look through some materials yesterday to see when that happened. It was Q/M Olliver who took the note to C/E Bell. Smith ordered him to deliver the note not long after the accident--around 11:50. Olliver delivered the note and waited a few minutes for Bell to give him a reply to take back to Captain Smith. Bell finally told Olliver to tell the Captain he would "get it done as soon as possible."
Denise
Denise
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Thanks, Mark & Denise. I thought it was Olliver, but on a quick scan of the testimonies, I didn't trip across the reference.
Parks Stephenson
Member
I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual. I believe that this is an assumption made by people who are trying to explain Smith's apparent absence from the Boat Deck for a good portion of the night. I believe instead that most on deck don't remember seeing him because he was down in the engineering spaces, confering with Bell, Andrews and others.
I have had over 20 years of seagoing experience and have lived daily with an at-sea chain of command. The captain is going to be where his decisions will directly impact the life of the vessel. Based on this, my assumption is that Smith delegated the manning and launching of the lifeboats to Chief Officer Wilde, with his two most senior deck officers functionally reporting to Wilde. Then Smith went below to see the situation for himself and to speak directly to Bell. When he couldn't be below, he passed notes down via runner. In fact, I think that the note that Olliver mentions is evidence of that. Can I prove this happened? No. Neither can it be proven that Smith was walking around Boat Deck in a daze. I am much more comfortable assuming that Smith was effective and active. Despite what Louden-Brown said during last night's telecast, 18 out of 20 lifeboats were launched with an inefficient system before the ship's attitude made normal launching impossible. I wonder if even Andrews would have thought that possible just after the collision.
So, why were the single-ended boilers lit? I don't know, exactly, but it's an engineering matter, something that Bell could have decided upon on his own. Smith could have suggested it, but I would imagine that Bell looked at his options and decided that it was a low-risk action he could take that might be of benefit later.
But, all this is assumption. I may not be able to prove without doubt why the single-ended boilers were lit, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that they were.
Parks
I have had over 20 years of seagoing experience and have lived daily with an at-sea chain of command. The captain is going to be where his decisions will directly impact the life of the vessel. Based on this, my assumption is that Smith delegated the manning and launching of the lifeboats to Chief Officer Wilde, with his two most senior deck officers functionally reporting to Wilde. Then Smith went below to see the situation for himself and to speak directly to Bell. When he couldn't be below, he passed notes down via runner. In fact, I think that the note that Olliver mentions is evidence of that. Can I prove this happened? No. Neither can it be proven that Smith was walking around Boat Deck in a daze. I am much more comfortable assuming that Smith was effective and active. Despite what Louden-Brown said during last night's telecast, 18 out of 20 lifeboats were launched with an inefficient system before the ship's attitude made normal launching impossible. I wonder if even Andrews would have thought that possible just after the collision.
So, why were the single-ended boilers lit? I don't know, exactly, but it's an engineering matter, something that Bell could have decided upon on his own. Smith could have suggested it, but I would imagine that Bell looked at his options and decided that it was a low-risk action he could take that might be of benefit later.
But, all this is assumption. I may not be able to prove without doubt why the single-ended boilers were lit, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that they were.
Parks
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Parks wrote:
"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."
I couldn't agree more Parks. That statement on the show last night was not correct. During our research into the lifeboat launch sequence, Bill Wormstedt, George Behe and myself found that the evidence shows that Captain Smith was quite active during the sinking, contrary to popular belief.
He was actively engaged in the loading, or at least in the supervising of the loading, of several lifeboats, and that doesn't include the other activities that the evidence shows he was involved in, such as checking in with the wireless men, conversing with Boxhall, trying to get the lifeboats to row around to the gangways to pick up more passengers, row towards the ship on the horizon, encouraging the crew during the final minutes, and any other activities that may have went unrecorded such as him checking in with the engineers, etc. If he was shocked at all, it was right after the news that the ship was sinking, which may be why Lightoller had to approach him for orders to load the lifeboats at first, but he certainly was very active from that point on, all the way until the end. There are valid criticisms that can be leveled against Captain Smith, but the claim that he was in shock and inactive during the sinking is not one of them in my opinion.
Looking forward to the Commutator articles on the breakup that are forthcoming.
Take care,
Tad
"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."
I couldn't agree more Parks. That statement on the show last night was not correct. During our research into the lifeboat launch sequence, Bill Wormstedt, George Behe and myself found that the evidence shows that Captain Smith was quite active during the sinking, contrary to popular belief.
He was actively engaged in the loading, or at least in the supervising of the loading, of several lifeboats, and that doesn't include the other activities that the evidence shows he was involved in, such as checking in with the wireless men, conversing with Boxhall, trying to get the lifeboats to row around to the gangways to pick up more passengers, row towards the ship on the horizon, encouraging the crew during the final minutes, and any other activities that may have went unrecorded such as him checking in with the engineers, etc. If he was shocked at all, it was right after the news that the ship was sinking, which may be why Lightoller had to approach him for orders to load the lifeboats at first, but he certainly was very active from that point on, all the way until the end. There are valid criticisms that can be leveled against Captain Smith, but the claim that he was in shock and inactive during the sinking is not one of them in my opinion.
Looking forward to the Commutator articles on the breakup that are forthcoming.
Take care,
Tad
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Hi, Parks and Tad
>>"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."
Erik Wood, Mike Standart and I were recently going on about this on another thread and we were
all three baffled by how the "Catatonic Smith" version seems to have become the bible. No way do the survivor accounts bear it out, but urban legends, like Dracula, die hard.
Roy
>>"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."
Erik Wood, Mike Standart and I were recently going on about this on another thread and we were
all three baffled by how the "Catatonic Smith" version seems to have become the bible. No way do the survivor accounts bear it out, but urban legends, like Dracula, die hard.
Roy
Michael H. Standart
Member
I don't know if I'd call myself "baffled" about that. How many urban legends have taken hold surrounding the Titanic which just aren't supported by anything resembling primary sources? I've lost count. A lot of this...I call it "The Titanic Mythos"...appears to have taken hold in any number of popular histories drawn from questionable sources and the hype and hooplah in both the media and the movies hasn't been much help.
Far from it. They've tended to be part of the problem.
If Smith was comatose, he was one active zombie!
Far from it. They've tended to be part of the problem.
If Smith was comatose, he was one active zombie!
Yuri Singleton
Member
I just thought about something that might have a bearing on this discussion of the boilers in BR#1. While watching a documentary about the new Queen Mary 2, I noted that the ships maiden voyage was as much a trial run/shake-down run as it was a trip for commercial profit. There were so many tests being conducted, observations of the ship's system performance, and so on. It occurred to me that since Titanic was on her maiden voyage, would it not be a similar type situation where both the builders, crew, and owners would be making close observations of the performance of all the ship's propulsion systems, all the galleys, all the electrical, water, gas, etc systems to ensure proper performance?
Yes, I think it so.
In that case, I think it very possible, in fact probable, that at some point during the voyage all the ship's boilers would need to be lit and brought up to full steam pressure as a check to verify the ship was able to perform as expected in that regard. So if you're going to light a set of boilers sometime during the voyage, then why not prepare them for lighting at a moments notice by coaling the furnaces days before they would need to be lit? I do that in my fireplace at home all the time. Anytime I have a fire, and then clean the ash out of the box, I go ahead and place the coal, kindling, and wood for the next fire into the box and arrange it so that the next time I want a fire, I don't have to spend time preparing it, I just go light it.
Does it not make sense to do that same thing with boilers on a ship at sea? If so, then the boilers in BR#1 could have already had coal in the furnaces, and additional coal bunkered nearby. All prepped and ready to go at a moments' notice.
On a slightly different topic, but using the same idea of maiden voyage system testing, can we infer anything from this regarding the ship's steering system which includes the compasses and navigation apparatus? Why were Olliver and Boxhall away from the bridge at the same time? System test on the new compass? Perhaps??
Yes, I think it so.
In that case, I think it very possible, in fact probable, that at some point during the voyage all the ship's boilers would need to be lit and brought up to full steam pressure as a check to verify the ship was able to perform as expected in that regard. So if you're going to light a set of boilers sometime during the voyage, then why not prepare them for lighting at a moments notice by coaling the furnaces days before they would need to be lit? I do that in my fireplace at home all the time. Anytime I have a fire, and then clean the ash out of the box, I go ahead and place the coal, kindling, and wood for the next fire into the box and arrange it so that the next time I want a fire, I don't have to spend time preparing it, I just go light it.
Does it not make sense to do that same thing with boilers on a ship at sea? If so, then the boilers in BR#1 could have already had coal in the furnaces, and additional coal bunkered nearby. All prepped and ready to go at a moments' notice.
On a slightly different topic, but using the same idea of maiden voyage system testing, can we infer anything from this regarding the ship's steering system which includes the compasses and navigation apparatus? Why were Olliver and Boxhall away from the bridge at the same time? System test on the new compass? Perhaps??
Samuel Halpern
Member
The boilers in BR 1 were auxiliary boilers used primarily when the ship was in port. They were used to run the refrigeration plant, electric engines and other auxiliary machinery. As such they would have been used before while the ship was docked in Southampton and of course in Belfast. There were no ash ejectors in BR 1. While in port ash from the boilers were taken to and removed by hoists. While at sea these single-ended boilers were not generally needed. In all of the double-eneded boiler rooms they had ash ejectors which pumped the ash overboard. Connecting these single-ended boiler up while at sea would be done only to push the ship all out. Wilding estimated that with every boiler connected up the ship could make about 23 1/4 knots. Someone can correct me on this, but I believe they did some modifications to the plant on Brittanic and equipped ash ejectors in BR 1 there.
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Slightly Off-Topic:
Hi, Michael!
>>I don't know if I'd call myself "baffled" about that.
Sorry, I was trying to be precise and I'm afraid I ended up being general.
It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One. Neither is it a mystery that there are plenty of people gullible enough to believe them, no matter how far-fetched they might be. But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.
Roy
Hi, Michael!
>>I don't know if I'd call myself "baffled" about that.
Sorry, I was trying to be precise and I'm afraid I ended up being general.
It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One. Neither is it a mystery that there are plenty of people gullible enough to believe them, no matter how far-fetched they might be. But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.
Roy
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Sorry, I was trying to be precise and I'm afraid I ended up being general.<<
Ach...not a problem there. I thought your post as a whole was right on target.
>>It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One.<<
Yep...they were callednewspaper stories "Thrilling Survivors Accounts." (And sometimes, from real survivors!)
>>But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.<<
A good question, and I'm not sure I can answer that. Perhaps there's a bit of romanticism involved. All I know for sure is that once these things become entrenched, they're very difficult to root out.
Ach...not a problem there. I thought your post as a whole was right on target.
>>It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One.<<
Yep...they were called
>>But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.<<
A good question, and I'm not sure I can answer that. Perhaps there's a bit of romanticism involved. All I know for sure is that once these things become entrenched, they're very difficult to root out.
Tammy Markwick
Member
I thought that the "catatonic Smith" legend was started by eyewitnesses, that several people saw him in that state that night. Guess I was wrong!
Parks Stephenson
Member
Sorry for the tardy reply, but I have been out of town the past couple of days.
We have testimony (Dillon, I believe...maybe someone else) regarding the boilers in BR#1. After the collision, those boilers were not lit. Because of this, I believed that those boilers were cold iron when the ship sank. It wasn't until I saw the fractured furnace fronts on the boilers themselves that I questioned my understanding of events. Reading carefully through the testimony again, I can find no mention of the state of the BR#1 boilers later in the sinking timeline.
Knowing that the emergency dynamos were running (Ranger's testimony) toward the end, I now assume that the BR#1 boilers were powering the dynamos.
Parks
We have testimony (Dillon, I believe...maybe someone else) regarding the boilers in BR#1. After the collision, those boilers were not lit. Because of this, I believed that those boilers were cold iron when the ship sank. It wasn't until I saw the fractured furnace fronts on the boilers themselves that I questioned my understanding of events. Reading carefully through the testimony again, I can find no mention of the state of the BR#1 boilers later in the sinking timeline.
Knowing that the emergency dynamos were running (Ranger's testimony) toward the end, I now assume that the BR#1 boilers were powering the dynamos.
Parks
Samuel Halpern
Member
A reasonable assumption Parks, but now the question is when did the boilers in BR 1 break off, and what does that do to the time when those two newly discovered pieces separated? I guess what I'm looking for is a coherent sequence of events and their timeline.
Parks Stephenson
Member
Now, Sam, you're getting at the heart of the matter. We can't have that, you know....
Parks
Parks
