Break Up

>>Does anyone have the stats on how many voyages between Britain and the US Smith had made between, say, mid-December, 1911 and April 10, 1912? How about the various officers?<<

There's an interesting question. I don't know that anybody has ever attempted that although it shouldn't be too hard to figure out if you know what ships they were on and when. From my own read of the testimony, they didn't have a lot of experience with ice.
 
I've never calculated it, Roy - interesting question. I'd have to dig out my notebooks and copies of crew manifests to answer precisely, but the following is from memory.

The answer for Lowe is easy (nil). Lightoller had been on leave since December - I'd have to check the dates, but he may have made one late December crossing. Moody had made all the Oceanic voyages up to the coal strike...I'd need to check how many that was. Pitman and Boxhall had both been on leave - Pitman had been on the Oceanic, but I can't recall off hand if he'd missed a voyage before the coal strike. Boxhall I'm not sure about - I think I do have a record of his Arabic voyages somewhere. Wilde and Murdoch had made the Olympic crossings for that period- again I'm working on memory, but I the last one I can recall either missing was Wilde, who did not return with the Olympic when she left H&W after her repairs.
 
quote:

From my own read of the testimony, they didn't have a lot of experience with ice.

Mike, I read a while back that the down-flow of ice in the Labrador Current was unusual for 1912. Ice drifting downward had usually melted way before entering the shipping lanes in previous years, so it wouldn't be surprising why many mariners weren't experienced with ice. This particular year--1912--the ice unexpectedly moved farther south without melting (perhaps due to atypically higher temperatures in the northern atmosphere). This alone could likely have caused even the most experienced officer to underestimate the possibilities that lay ahead, in my opinion.

Just my two cents.​
 
I think the matter of the officer's experience with ice is important and might repay study, if the necessary old logs could be found.

There are many hints in the evidence that both officers and lookouts had little experience in ice. Even some experience they had was not relevant. Those who had seen ice when bound for Cape Horn under sail had seen it in high latitudes in summer, when it's never really dark in 56S.

Some examples that I recall.

Pitman had never seen a berg at night.
Boxhall couldn't recall ice south of 42N. (Actually ice came south of 42N in 1911)
Fleet had never seen a berg in 4½ years as a lookout.
At the civil claims court, Captain Pritchard of Mauretania testified that in 30 years he had hardly ever seen a berg.
Captain Lord first met field ice on 14 April 1912.
Even Bruce Ismay had never seen a berg, though he'd crossed the Atlantic as a passenger often enough.

Going over ice records for many years before 1912, it's plain that it was possible to make many crossings without meeting ice. Sometimes the bergs didn't even get past 48N, let alone 42N.

Roy mentioned Captain Smith having charts. Smith indeed signed a conventional statement that Titanic was in all respects ready for sea, including having up-to-date charts. He would also have had the pilot book for the North Atlantic and Ocean Passages for the World. These books give a general account of ice and other hazards.
 
>>so it wouldn't be surprising why many mariners weren't experienced with ice.<<

I suppose that would depend on where they spent most of their careers. By 1912 at least, the trend was to avoid such ares where ice was a problem, though if your destination was Canada, this might well be something of a problem.

Be that as it may, those who had a lot of experience have little real value if you don't have them aboard your ship when you need them and Titanic didn't.
 
quote:

Be that as it may, those who had a lot of experience have little real value if you don't have them aboard your ship when you need them and Titanic didn't.

No, and that's my point: Because ice wasn't expected to drift down as far as it had, officers having experience with ice weren't believed to be needed on Titanic, so why have them aboard? It seemed like a case of miscalculation due to rare and/or unexpected circumstances for which, obviously, no one was prepared. Had the Titanic at least one officer experienced with ice aboard that night, chances are the outcome would have likely been different.​
 
>>officers having experience with ice weren't believed to be needed on Titanic, so why have them aboard?<<

I don't think that consideration was even on the radar screen one way or another. Merchant ship crews tended to be a bit unstable in that who was on the personnel roster changed all the time. People signed on for specific voyages...even the officers...meaning that the guys here for this one could be gone for the next.

The impression I have is that unless a ship was going on an expedition to the polar regions, ice navigation experience was rarely if ever even asked about, even if the "Line" was to Canada and back where for at least part of the season, ice was to be expected.

>>Had the Titanic at least one officer experienced with ice aboard that night, chances are the outcome would have likely been different.<<

(Ponders a moment) Mmmmmmmmmmm...Maybe it would have been but I'm a bit skeptical about that. The reason is that over 40 years of passenger operations with no casualties resulting in a signifigant loss of life, a certain inertia had set in. The "system" worked, so why shouldn't it continue to do so.

Canadian Pacific at least was prudent enough to instruct their vessels to steer clear of ice but some of the competition wasn't that forward thinking. I can't say that it wouldn't made a difference as it might have, but complacancy is astonishingly difficult to overcome.
 
quote:

The "system" worked, so why shouldn't it continue to do so.

Because there just may just come a time when a ship might, say, hit and iceberg and sink, with tremendous loss of life. Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't. As you've said, many lines weren't that forward-thinking. Unfortunately, it takes such a travesty to occur to initiate forward-thinking. I guess that goes with everything, though. That's how we all learn.


quote:

complacency is astonishingly difficult to overcome.

You can't teach old dogs new tricks, as the saying goes. Well . . . I guess it's possible, but the seasoned become so set in their ways that they sometimes find it hard to foresee changes ahead. This seems the irony of being experienced. Many times it takes a pot upside the head with the proverbial "Heeello!" to get many people to start thinking in different ways. When things have worked so long, people tend to take on the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" attitude, until a breakage makes them realize that change is quite often preferable and necessary.​
 
>>Because there just may just come a time when a ship might, say, hit and iceberg and sink, with tremendous loss of life. Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't.<<

I don't think you're going to find that this by itself was much of an issue. Icebergs have been killing ships for centuries and they still do from time to time. They knew and understood that much.

For Titanic, the first concern was seeing and avoiding the danger, which they thought they could do. (They were wrong.)

There was also the belief that a ship could act as her own lifeboat long enough for rescue to arrive. An assumption that also proved to be tragically mistaken.

The list goes on.
 
This is like saying let's make sure that all civil aircraft today have at least one experienced officer on board that has flow a plane through a thunderstorm and lived to tell about it just in case the onboard radar gives out and the plane inadvertently flies into one of them imbedded ones at night. Better yet, how about having experience with a wheels up landing in rough terrain just in case something should go wrong. Or experience ditching a plane on the open ocean if they fly international routes across the sea? Or how many pilots flying the friendly skies have real experience with inflight collision avoidance procedures?

(Sorry for very long sentence above.)
 
quote:

I don't think you're going to find that this by itself was much of an issue. Icebergs have been killing ships for centuries and they still do from time to time. They knew and understood that much.

No argument from me, Mike. Many probably don't think such an accident will befall them until they are faced with it. It's ironic that such lasting circumstances can still serve as an 'unknown' because of their sometimes seemingly unpredictable nature.

Sam - All I was saying was that there's nothing wrong with being prepared for the worst, not that every single contingency could ever be accounted for in ever single trip. I was speaking hypothetically--had someone who had been experienced with ice had been on board, the outcome could have been different. Just considering if the result was due [at least in part] by the particular personnel the ship had on board her. I am attempting to confirm nothing.​
 
Hi, Mark!

>>This particular year--1912--the ice unexpectedly moved farther south without melting (perhaps due to atypically higher temperatures in the northern atmosphere) [emphasis added]. This alone could likely have caused even the most experienced officer to underestimate the possibilities that lay ahead, in my opinion.

In Lightoller's book he wrote that it had been a mild winter up north. I don't know where he got that information, but the winter of 1911-12 was anything but mild. Apparently, Lightoller's claim has been accepted as fact for lo, all these years, and no one has checked the newspapers re: what the weather was really like, or what effect it had been having on North Atlantic shipping and sealing since about the middle of December '11. About the only thing missing that separated those conditions from the conditions shown in "The Day After Tomorrow" was the presence of those giant supercells and tornadoes. Some months ago, I posted a collection of 1912 newspaper weather headlines and articles, but today I'll just put up a bit of it. Please don't accept Lights's claim as Gospel.

THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
January, 1912:

January 3:

“Cold Snap Stiffens Local Market”;
“…celery beds in some portions of California have been frozen”

(Great Bend, KS) “Four Frozen to Death”
“Snowbound Brakemen Live on Jackrabbits”

(Walla Walla, WA) “Snow Pleases Farmers”
“Four-Inch Blanket Expected to Help Wheat Crop”

(Cordova, AK) “…blinding snow storm…”

January 4:

“Nome Coal Runs Short”

January 6:

“Cold Weather Forecast Today”
“Records Broken”
“Temperature of 35 Below Zero in Duluth Expected to Be Lowered”
“Suffering Is Intense”
“Wave Extends From Great Lakes to the Rockies, South to Kansas and North to
Montana”
“People Living on Short Rations Appeal for Help”

January 7:

“Cold Wave Causes 12 Deaths and Suffering Throughout Country”
“Eleven Are Dead in New York City--38 Below, Record”
“Country Is Swept By Wave of Intense Frigidity--No Relief in Sight”
“One Dead in Chicago”
“Amarillo, Texas, Reports 10 Below--Lodging Houses and Shelters Crowded--Street
Car Traffic Demoralized and Trains Are Late”

January 11:

“Cold Wave Again Grips Northwest”
“Train Schedules Are Demoralized”
“23 Below in Minneapolis”
“Butte remains today an oasis of warmth in a desert of frigidity. The temperature
there was 33 degrees above zero.”


THE SEATTLE DAILY TIMES
May 7, 1912, p. 10:

MARINE LOSSES OF 1912 BREAK RECORD
Present Year Will Go Down in History as Most Disastrous Ever Known to Ocean Going Vessels.

TITANIC WRECKS [sic] ADDS CLIMAX TO LONG LIST
Thirteen Ships Lost in January, Twelve in February and Twenty-Two in March -- Five Now Overdue.

NEW YORK, Tuesday, May 7.--The year 1912 will go down in history as the greatest in point of marine losses. For the first quarter of the year these aggregated about $10,253,500, and on top of these comes the Titanic's loss, ship and cargo being estimated at $12,500,000. In these figures no reckoning is made of passengers' baggage, estimated to be $1,600,000.

Underwriters are hard hit, particularly those in Liverpool and London. The German transport companies los[t] about $375,000, through reinsurance of the Titanic. The White Star line retained $750,000 of the risk on the vessel. Underwriters are readily agreed that the loss by the sinking of the Titanic is the largest on record in connection with one vessel.

In the month of March, twenty-two vessels were lost totally, and the value of ships and cargoes was $3,633,500. February's losses were $1,910,000 and those of January $3,000,000. Thus, excluding any other losses for April other than the Titanic, the total for the first 105 days of the year reaches the amazing sum of $21,043,500. To this must be added also $1,710,000, the value of five large steamships overdue and uninsurable, making a grand total of $22,753,500. ...

Roy

P.S.--Per the Inflation Calculator, $22,753,500.00 in 1912 would equal $474,943,965.75 in 2006.
 
Back
Top