Californian's specifications

[John M. Feeney]

OK, guys: My intention in originally pointing out what I perceived to be an error was NOT to re-kindle any Californian debate. If anything, it was actually a concession of sorts to David's prior statement.

But in discovering now that the "11 feet" freeboard is apparently quite correct, at least relative to those cutaway portions of the main deck, the bottom line question remains unanswered: How much lower would the MacKay-Bennett or Minia have been? What made *them* so much better suited than Californian? Granted, the Californian didn't have supplies readily available for the task at hand, and would have to wait for them to be brought. But she did have lots of unused space -- no passengers!

(And how is it that the physical dimensions of Californian somehow handicapped her when similar difficulties were certainly surmounted aboard Carpathia, a much larger ship?)

Keep in mind, please, that the context of the original observation was relative to Phillip Franklin's wireless of 2:55 a.m. (New York Time), April 16, requesting that the Californian *remain* in the vicinity (possibly to begin recovery operations?)

Californian was of course by then *long* gone from the locale. They had already departed around 9:45 a.m (NYT) the day before. And I certainly don't envision an earnest request to begin exhaustive searching for SURVIVORS being issued on the 16th. But then it's ludicrous to think, since they were the only ship available and *had* agreed to remain and search, that they would wait for a more suitable craft merely to pick up survivors!

The Californian's crew was certainly in a far better position -- had they remained on site -- to identify concentrations of bodies and begin the recovery effort (if that was Franklin's intent) than those other ships which were only chartered and dispatched much later. (The MacKay-Bennett only arrived 5-1/2 days after the disaster, and couldn't even begin the actual recovery until the morning of 21 April. And if the Bremen and Rhein hadn't relayed their findings, I imagine they might have been out there even longer just looking.)

Given *those* circumstances, I have to ask: Why would Californian be physically ill-suited to this task while the Cable Ships were not? How much lower would their freeboard need to be? (And we are talking about lifeboat dispatch and retrieval here, aren't we? Even the Mackay-Bennett and Minia didn't just haul people up the side, did they?)

Here's what's available at ET for those first two ships:

C. S. Mackay-Bennett, Official No. 89,965; Call Sign JRHS; built in 1884, length 259.3 ft.; breadth 40.1 ft.; draught 21.8 ft.; registered tonnage 1,731 tons.

C. S.Minia, Official No. 56,762; Call Sign HRJL; built 1860; Length 328.5 ft., Breadth 35.8 ft., Draft 25.1 ft.; Registered tonnage 2,061 tons.

Now the Lusitania and Mauretania they're not, but then neither are they just tugboats or tenders. So the question remains. Why were they so much better suited for that operation -- coming in blind, at that -- than the Californian which would have already been on site?

And Michael, keep in mind the words of John Thomas, that Leyland agent who leapt to Lord's defense in Boston after the "Carpenter" article hit the streets (Reade, p. 159):

"Captain Lord is a brave man and an able officer and to say that he would not have responded to signals of distress and gone at once to the rescue of any ship in peril is simply ridiculous."

"He was specifically equipped for such work, too, having six big lifeboats aboard his ship." (emphasis mine)

Regards,
John

 

[John M. Feeney]

So, even though the numbers say only 10 feet of freeboard, the "lift" for getting either bodies or survivors out of the water was probably 20+ feet on the morning of the 15th. That's too much for an effective rescue or recovery effort. The loading doors on the main deck might have been utilized, but do not appear well suited for the job.

David: Just a postscript. I don't follow you here at all. Those openings at the 10 foot main deck height would have been at *least* as useful as Carpathia's gangways for reducing the vertical lift required, wouldn't they?

By my reckoning, those openings are about 10 feet high and 15 feet wide! (The Caledon plan was not proportionally reduced -- it's stretched slightly vertically, so the horizontal scale is more like 1 mm. = 2.5 ft.)

Anybody got Carpathia's plans handy??

Cheers,
John

 

[Dave Gittins]

Multiple loadlines were in use in 1912. Titanic was assigned three lines. There was a line for average conditions, a winter line 9" below it and a fresh water line 8½" above it.

By the way, Lord did not have "six big lifeboats aboard his ship." He had four lifeboats, each smaller than those on Titanic and two small boats used for ship's business, like running lines in port. With the best will in the world, he had very little to bring to the aid of Titanic.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Mike - this is taken from the Official Log of the Californian's voyage in April 1912. Not sure if the Official Log for her final voyage is still extant - admittedly I haven't looked for it, but I assume it may well have gone down with her. The report we were discussing the other night on mIRC was an Admiralty document re. her loss in WWI of which I took a copy.

Dave - I did jot down the details from section 7 of the Official Log, 'Load-line and Draught of Water'.

The centre of the disc is placed at ____ feet 7 1/2 inches below the _____ deck-line marked under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894

STEAM SHIP.

Maximum load-line in fresh water ____ feet 7 inches above the centre of the disc.
Maximum load-line in Indian summer ___ feet 6 1/2 inches above the centre of the disc.
Maximum load-line in summer the centre of the disc.
Maximum load-line in winter ____ feet 6 1/2 inches below the centre of the disc.
Maximum load-line in North Atlantic winter ___ feet 6 1/2 inches below the centre of the disc.

 

[John M. Feeney]

In the hopes that I can slightly uncross some wires here, vis-a-vis the freeboard contention ...

I'm looking at photos of the MacKay-Bennett, etc., in Eaton and Haas' "Titanic:Triumph and Tragedy". On page 237 (top left) is a small shot of the ship with a man standing on the deck. This seems roughly scaleable, so I did. The man in the photo is 5 mm. tall. The distance from the water line to his head is about 24 mm.

If the man is as short as 5 feet tall, the apparent freeboard of the vessel is 19 feet. (If the man is 6 feet tall, the freeboard is more like 23 feet!) Any way you slice it, this is NOT significantly lower than the operational height cited for the Californian. Technically, Californian's freeboard is half that. In practice -- from her shelter deck, at least -- it's very likely about the same or perhaps even slightly lower!

The MacKay-Bennett appears to have *at best* 4 boats (perhaps less). Californian had 6. Now two of them may have been surf boats, but take a gander at the MacKay's boat on that page -- five guys in it, and it looks full already!

There's a picture of the MB crew assembled (page 236). I count about 26 heads. Californian's men numbered 48, didn't they? (Ok, Captain Larnder and the officers may not be in the picture, but ...)

I look at Leslie Reade's list of Californian's crew. It reveals 49 regular crew members (including Lord and Gibson). It also lists five substitutes. Now, four of the regulars failed to join. But of the five substitutes listed, only *two* of them are replacements made at Boston. So three of the four initial no-shows were replaced immediately, and Californian was at worst shy one man! Right?

So what am I missing here? How is the Californian in any way ill-equipped to do body recovery as compared to the MacKay-Bennett? (Never mind survivor rescue for the time being.) All they're apparently lacking is one man, coffins, and ice. (Then again, there was plenty of ice around where they were! So forget ice -- they had it.)

Now throw in the rescue angle. Would a ship like the MacKay-Bennett have somehow fared better at this?

Dave G: Agreed partly on the lifeboats. But then I didn't say that; John Thomas said it. I'm just providing some "equal time" for those who claimed Californian was WELL-equipped for the job. ;^)

Perplexed,
John

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Even for picking up corpses, the Californian was ill equipped for the job. No undertakers, no coffins, and forget the part about picking ice from the bergs. A ship's master wants to avoid ice, not go near it, and how much time would have been lost finding chunks small enough to handle, yet still fill up the hold as needed?

Having said that much, aside from getting all of what they needed for the job, the Mackay-Bennett and the Minia had the luxury of time. (A corpse doesn't care how long it's in the water and they rarely complain about how they're handled.)

The Californian could have stashed them in the cargo hold, but you can bet they would start to get ripe pretty quickly, and that would have been an unacceptable health hazard.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Erik Wood]

As anybody here climbed a rope ladder from a pilot boat. (With hand fully raised and screaming ooh ooh me me) I Have. While getting my Pilots license on the great lakes you are required to "scale" this "steel cliff" via rope ladder most of the time while the ship is moving. I would ask anyone who has not done this to attempt it while a ship is standing still. The normal height is usually a littel above 15 feet on foregin vessels and just about 10 feet on normal lakers.

It is a complicated task for those who are not freezing or frost bitten. The ladder constantly moves there isn't a hole lot of physical strengh involved. But when you are talking about women and some of the elderly as well as children.... I don't necessarily think that having them "scale" the side of a stationary ship is a good idea. That is why Rostrom used crude hoists.

I respectfully disagree with the mindset that passengers who are watching a ship sink in 28 degree temperatures who are hearing the cries of loved ones, and who are scared as it is in lifeboats would have the sense of mind to safely and ably "scale" a 10 feet "steel cliff". Not to mention that the ladies of that era where not exactly used to climbing rope ladders in the middle of the Atlantic. To be honest I don't think that freeboard has much to do with the Californians ability or inability to recover bodies or passengers.

The fact remains as Mike Standart pointed out that logisically Lord would have had a nightmare on his hands as would have Rostrom had he not properly prepared his ship. Not to mention that Rostrom had far more capabilities being a passenger liner then does a freighter.

Erik

 

[David G. Brown]

When I entered my comments about freeboard I was working from memory of the one photo that I can remember seeing of the Mackay-Bennet--and that was a deck view. My memory may have made in improper assumption regarding freeboard. However, I would still say that the Californian was ill-equipped for recovery work as compared to a vessel whose occupation was working in the deep.

I think the real questions should not revolve around the bodies, however. The question should focus on whether or not stories about people on icebergs are true. Those are the only Titanic passengers or crew not in lifeboats who might still have had stood a chance at survival--if they existed.

There are hints on this forum that the stories may be true. Personally, I have deep reservations because of the difficulty swimming in cold water, especially wearing a lifevest. However, the possibility is there...and if Californian deliberately ignored those people we have a whole new dimension to the story.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Colleen Collier]

Erik. I'm a bit confused about the test you had to take. Was the ship and the pilot boat moving at a certain speed and you had to get the pilot boat up next to it, and grab on to the ladder and climb it, or were both standing still and you just had to scale the ladder? I suppose failure meant you fell in the water and had to do it again all wet?

I remember that several women were so cold from just sitting in the lifeboats, that they had to be assisted into the Carpathia, so I know what you are getting at Erik.

Have a good New Years everyone!
Colleen

 

[John M. Feeney]

Hi, David:

Fair enough. And feedback greatly appreciated. The freeboard question was really the only reason I raised this under this topic. Since it would obviously contribute to a further knowledge of Californian's specifications, it seemed quite a puzzler that Reade's assertion didn't appear to fit the Caledon drawing.

But partly my error there. I didn't correctly interpret initially the arcs (doorways) drawn on the top-down view, and to be quite honest I took all the cutaways on the side view as just sectional *views* -- like the visible engines -- rather than actual openings in the hull.

But I am very glad it came up -- especially since it inspired Inger to post that data from the Californian's Official Log, which indeed gives us some very specific new information to work with. (A very big nod of appreciation to our illustrious Ms. Sheil!)

I naturally still have doubts about Captain Lord and the Californian, but those are better addressed elsewhere, I think.

Cheers,
John

 

[Erik Wood]

Colleen,

The pilot boat usually meets the speed of the ship and I climb the ladder once I am on the ladder the pilot boat pulls away. It has been awhile since I have done that. I usually do it as my normal schedule permits.

Erik