Boiler Room 6 - "It was coming through the floor?"

[Aaron_2016]

George Beauchamp said he was in "No. 6 boiler". He shut the dampers and drew the fires after the collision. He said: "Water was coming in on the plates when we were drawing the fires.....The water was just coming above the plates then."

Q - You mean it was coming through the floor?
A - Yes, coming through the bunker door and over the plates.

Q - Can you say how long it took to draw the fires?
A - I could not say how long it took, just the usual time; I could not say for certain.

Q - Can you say whether it took a few minutes or half an hour?
A - It took about a quarter of an hour, I suppose.

There seems to have been no great sense of urgency to get out and no rush of water. He continued and said he "waited till everything was shut down and an order was given. Someone shouted “that will do,” when everything was safe, when everything was shut down.....and so I went to the escape ladder."

Q - But I asked you did you notice any more water coming through as time went on; did it come through in greater quantities?
A - I was going up the ladder.

Q - Your answer is you do not know, is that what you mean?
A - I do not know.


Does his evidence suggest Boiler room 6 was not rapidly flooding because up to 15 minutes after the collision he was still there drawing the fires and apparently did not notice the water rising higher above the plates.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

According to what Beauchamp told Walter Lord, the water was up to his waste when he went for the ladder as someone called out "That will do."

 

[Aaron_2016]

According to what Beauchamp told Walter Lord, the water was up to his waste when he went for the ladder as someone called out "That will do."

Wonder where Walter Lord got his evidence from?

According to Paul Lee's website - 'Walter Lord's initial letters to survivors were always charming - and loaded with questions. Many were delighted to respond, but Beauchamp was an exception. He replied on a small piece of flimsy card, little bigger than a postcard with the following helpful information: "In stokhold [sic] when ship was struck."'


.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Apparently, that was the only document from Beauchamp that was saved in the Lord-MacQuitty collection.

 

[B-rad]

As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the young (a mere 28) Barrett had a flare for the dramatic. He escaped into boiler room 5, making it sound that the flooding in 6 was dramatic enough to call for immediate escape, while Beauchamp stayed behind and drew fires. Barrett also makes it sound like it was only him and the engineers that were left in 5 when Shepard broke his leg, however in a account by Kemish, he too states that he saw this, & I don't see a reason as to why he would embellish such a trvial fact. Then there is other evidence by Threlfell saying that Shepard and Harvey made it into boiler room 4, which would suggest that boiler room 5 did not flood as dramatically as he makes it sound. ("I saw a wave of green foam come tearing through between the boilers..." [US] " A rush of water came through the pass..." [BI2038] though yes Harvey told him to go up, He never looked back.] Of course there are always contradictions and various interpretation of all the evidence presented to support my theory.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

The testimony of leading stoker Hendrickson confirms Barrett version of No. 6. When he returned from the main engine room (he was send aft by Heseth to bring some lamps after the lights in all boiler rooms went out) Hendrickson then first wanted to go to BR 6 but find too much water in it.
Beauchamp is mistaken, not only about the time he spend in No. 6 BR but possibly that he was then also in BR 5 later to help draw the fires.

Kemish told a lot of made up stuff years later, I do not believe he was in BR 5 with Barrett.

The collapse of the coal bunker door would lead all the water which was kept back spread into the BR.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I agree with Ioannis, but not just from evidence provided by others such as Hendrickson. If the only significant flooding happened in the first 4 compartment only, the ship would have settled at a trim angle of about 1.5° down by the head and taken in about 6600 tons of sea water. It would not sink. However, Stewardess Annie Robinson reported seeing water within 6 steps of E deck by the stairs to the mailroom about 30 minutes after collision, and AB Poingdestre reported 3 ft of water on E deck in crew's quarters when a wooden bulkhead collapsed about 45 minutes after collision. From this we can show that the ship had settled to 1.8° trim in 30 minutes and 2.7° trim by 45 minutes. The only way that could happen is significant flooding in BR6. In fact, the quantity of water in BR6 would have to have reached close to 4700 tons in 45 minutes, or up to about 90% of the outside waterline at that time. The average rise of water in BR6 by analysis comes out to 9.6 ft above the tank top, or 7 ft above the stokehold plates, in the first 10 minutes. On the starboard side, with a 5° list, the water would have reached halfway up the height of the double-ended boiler there. By the way, the hull damage in BR6 calculates to about 1.5 sq. ft. of opening.

 

[Rob Lawes]

If I was Barrett and I'd gone from looking forward to going off watch, chatting to an engineering officer to a completely unexpected stop order, what must have then sounded like thunder followed by the unwelcome sight of the Atlantic ocean where it shouldn't be, warning bells and watertight doors closing, I think I may have had the urge to step outside for a few moments to'assess the situation'.

While we have no idea where anyone was standing, I'd guess that Beauchamp didn't have as quite a good view of the damage.

 

[David G. Brown]

If anyone was confused, it was leading stoker Barrett and not ordinary stoker Beauchamp. Both men testified they started out in the same place, the after stokehold of boiler room #6. Stokeholds were counted forward from boiler room #1 which contained only stokhold #1. Boiler room #6 had two, stokehold #10 at the after end, and #11 at the forward end of the compartment. During his British testimony Beauchamp explained the numbering system

Q 656: Were you down below in the stokehold?
BEAUCHAMP: Yes.

Q 657: Which stokehold was it?
BEAUCHAMP: Number 10.

Q 658: Can you see the plan from where you were?
BEAUCHAMP: The second one from the forward end.

Q 659: The second one from the bow?
BEAUCHAMP: yes.


Both Beauchamp and Barret said they were in virtually the same location during the moments before impact. We’ve seen Beauchamp’s testimony about being in Number 10 stokehold, the second one from the bow. Barrett described his whereabouts in the same way:

BARRETT: I was in Number 10 stokehold. The starboard side.

Both men described events around the accident. Beauchamp described a shock and then a sound, “like thunder, the roar of thunder,” as Titanic rolled over the iceberg. Not too much can be made of his use of the word “thunder.” He also said the ship made a similar sound when it foundered. . Stoker Beauchamp worked under the leading stoker, Barrett, of his section. Just before impact they were within earshot of each other. The level of sound in a boiler room serves to confirm they must have been relatively close to one another.

BEAUCHAMP: The telegraph went "stop." The engineer and the leading stoker shouted together -- they said, "Shut the dampers."

BARRETT: There is a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop... . The red light came up, I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut the dampers."

Until this point the accounts of the two men are in lock step. Both claimed to be in stokehold #10 at the after end of boiler room #6. And, Barrett’s claim that he shouted to “close the dampers” was heard and confirmed in sworn testimony by Beauchamp. Even so, for some reason the stories told by these men differ greatly after that. One man said he had to escape for his life by ducking under a closing watertight door. The other said he stayed put and kept working. One man said the side of the boiler room opened up, the other saw only gradual flooding that seemed more of a nuisance than a catastrophe.

At his U.S. appearance, Barrett famously said he escaped rapid flooding of that compartment, "I was standing talking to the second engineer. The bell rang, the red light showed. We sang out shut the doors and there was a crash just as we sung out. The water came through the ship’s side. The engineer and I jumped to the next section. The next section to the forward section is Number 5.” Barrett went on to say, “A large volume of water came through about two feet above the floor plates, starboard side.”

According to Beauchamp boiler room #6 did flood, though not with the Hollywood drama described by Barrett. “Water was coming in on the (stoker) plates when we were drawing the fires. ...coming through the bunker door and over the plates. I was going up the ladder,” he said. The amount of water he saw is somewhat nebulous, but it was definitely not a catastrophic flooding of the compartment.

Two men standing in the same place yet they have such different stories to tell. The only obvious explanation is that they were not in the same compartment when Titanic struck the iceberg. One had to be confused, but which one?

-- David G. Brown

 

[Rob Lawes]

David, saying they were standing in the same place is a bit like saying two football fans were standing in the same stadium.

For all we know Beauchamp could have been in front of the port most boiler while Barrett could have been next to the Starboard most. They could have been 30 feet apart or more.

They were both in Stokehold 10 but there is no way we could know if they were standing 'in the same place'

Regards

Rob

 

[Rob Lawes]

On further reading, Barrett states he was standing on the starboard side. We have no idea where Beauchamp was standing.

Also, Beauchamp states he heard Barrett and the Second Engineer call out 'shut the dampers' but does not state who gave the order to draw fires or evacuate the boiler room.

He goes as far as saying 'someone said that will do'. I would imagine if that someone had been Barrett or Shepherd then Beauchamp would have said so.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

If the flooding in BR6 was as slow as David believes Beauchamp's account makes it out to be, then the pumps could have kept the vessel afloat for quite a number of hours, and what was seen by Robinson and Poingdestre just 30 and 45 minutes after impact would never have taken place. Nor would Andrews be able to say that ship had from 1 to 1.5 hours left.

I'd put my money on the observed water level seen within the ship. The independent analysis seems to agree with what Barrett saw in the time frame that he saw it in.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Perhaps Beauchamp and Barrett were both right.

Hichens said the Captain looked at the commutator "about 5 to 10 minutes" after the collision and found "the ship had a list of 5 degrees to the starboard." Maybe Barrett was on the starboard side (water waist high) and Beauchamp was on the port side (water up to his feet).


5 degree list to starboard - 11:50pm.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Close Aaron. But the picture would be for BR6 with had only four boilers in it.

 

[Rob Lawes]

And Barrett wasn't standing in Boiler Room 6 between 5 and 10 minutes after impact. He got out of the boiler room and into BR5 with Shepard. Word then came down for all crew to standby their stations. He made to return to BR6 via the escape ladders. On going down into 6 he determined there was already too much water in there and went back to boiler room 5.