Could Titanic Still Sink With 4 Compartments Flooded?

Mark , I am disputing that the fact that H&W build many cargo ships for White Star or other shipping companies too. The fact is H&W are expanding into a new market of luxury liners and face fierce competition. When you are the new boy in the market you have to do some thing special. Like the Oceanic liner. There are financial risk and gambles here were we can see Gustav Schwabe putting the money up front. Never even take money for granted it has to be paid for to serve. The gamble did pay off and serve White Star well for years to come.
 
Mark, You are right I have messed out the word not, cheers. I have a list of all H&W ships built and the others In Belfast. By John Lynch. BELFAST BUILT SHIPS. Fascinating book full of facts a figures and covers all H&W ships built in Scotland too.
Cheers,
Mike.
 
Sam’s flooding diagrams reveal a flaw in Titanic’s bulkhead configuration – but it had nothing to do with the ship’s ultimate demise. Note that if boiler rooms #5 and #6 are flooded, the ship is very close to a sinking condition. Why is this a mistake? Because in order for Titanic to serve as “it’s own lifeboat,” it had to be able to withstand damage directly upon a watertight bulkhead. Such an impact would extremely in a “T-Bone” accident where another ship would run into Titanic at right angles. Of course, that never happened, so isn’t germane to this discussion.

What is germane is the drawing of four compartments flooded (second down on the left). This side view makes the forpeak look nearly as large as boiler room #6. Because of the shape of the bow this was not so. The peak was a fraction of the volume of the boiler room. Any importance of buoyancy in the peak comes from its distance forward of the “damaged tipping center” around which the bow is rotating downward and the stern upward. That distance would act as a lever arm increasing the effective bouyancy at the point of the bow. Unlike the drawing, the forepeak remained dry until it was downflooded when the forcastle went under, making its buoyancy a factor in the sinking.

Still, the three large forward holds did flood and water did enter boiler room #6. Even the eight feet of flooding claimed by Barrett was enough to negate the dry forepeak. Titanic had gone beyond its limit of sustainable damage and flooding. This condition obtained a considerable time prior to the “rush” of waer reported by Barrett in boiler room #5. So where the “rush” came from is really immaterial to the sinking. It was the loss of #6 that put the ship on the chopping bloc and not anything that took place in #5.

By the way, Sam’s drawing correctly shows boiler room #5 dry. It did not flood as boiler room #6 filled. We know this from leading stoker Barrett’s testimony to the BOT inquiry.

1964. And when you got back to No. T, how much water was there in No. 5?
BARRETT: None.
1984. Then you and Mr. Harvey were left alone in #5?
BARRETT: And Mr. Wilson and Mr. Shepherd.
1985. The three engineers and you. Was it still clear of water?
BARRETT: Yes.
1986. So the bulkhead of No. 5 was holding the water back?
BARRETT: Yes.

2007. When you got back to number 5 was it still clear of water, or not?
BARRETT: Still clear of water.

Looking at Sam’s drawings, it is quite obvious that once water in boiler room #6 overtopped bulkhead E it would flood boiler room #5. That would have cued the rotund sopsinger to begin warbling. She didn’t. Barrett explained why.

2056 And you say it (trim by bow) got worse. Now can you give me any idea whether the water came from over the top of the bulkhead or throught it?
BARRETT: I do not see how it could come over the top.
2057 You do not think it did come over the top?
BARRETT: No.

Something else missing from he drawings is the water entering boiler room #4. This flooding was seen by men departing the compartment toward the end of the evening. The amount of water can only be speculated. Still, it would have played a role in the loss of the ship.
I am personally aware of the meticulous care Sam used in preparing his drawings. They were done following the best practices of naval architects. The goal is to produce data for comparison to other ships and – most important – to prove a vessel’s design meets applicable industry and/or regulatory standards. As such they do not prove or disprove the “unsinkability” of a ship in the real world. For instance, free surface motion of floodwater a ship with a 20-degree heel drifting in a 30 foot seaway is likely to spread he flooding and condemn he ship even when the architects’ drawings say it should float.

Something else not in these drawings is the effectiveness of the bilge pumping system and the dedication/training of the crew. Over and again it has been demonstrated that proper application of pumps can keep a theoretically doomed ship afloat for an extended period of time. This is because as the water level rises inside the ship the amount of the flow decreases. When Titanic was first holed by the iceberg water entered with a head pressure of more than 30 feet. But, that pressure decreased directly in proportion to the decrease in distance between the inside and outside water levels. At some point a terrified man with a bucket in theory might have been able to match the flow of water into boiler room #6. As long as his arms held out, the ship could have floated.

This is why Titanic was equipped with an elaborate bilge and ballast plumbing system connected to a variety of different pumps. Nobody expected those pumps would be able to pump a compartment dry. But, used correctly they could have prolonged the life of the ship, especially as the inside and outside water levels came close to the same level. Sam’s drawings show why Titanic was effectively doomed, but why did it sink so quickly? The answer is more likely to be found in the pumps than in the actual damage. Barrett gave us some tantalizing hints that something was wrong that night.

1956. Did Mr. Shepherd come back with you to no. 5?
BARRETT: Yes.
1957. And when you got back to No. 5, you and Mr. Shepherd, who else did you find there?
BARRETT: Mr. Harvey and Mr. Wilson (engineers).

1961. And what were they doing?
BARRETT: Attending to the pumps.

2024. What was the next order?
BARRETT: He (Mr. Harvey) asked me to lift the manhole plate off.
2025. Where was the manhole plate?
BARRETT: On the starboard side of No. 5 section.
2026. When the plate was in position what was it? Closed?
BARRETT: It is someting you lift up to get at the valves. I do not know what valves it is. It is just like a hole in this table. You lift it off to get to the valves to turn on the pumps or something.

I’ve had the opportunity to crawl through the bilges of a ship or two built in Titanic’s era. All had bilge and ballast manifolds leading to dedicated pumps. All valve operating wheels were identified with stamped brass tags and many had large, hand painted signs giving instructions on how to work the system. It was obvious that even in 1906 shipbuilders knew the imporance of simple, easily worked emergency pumping systems. Nothing had to be hooked up, no hoses were needed, and manholes did not cover anything except straight piping. One man could direct suction to flooding compartments from a central operating location.

Why were Titanic’s engineers forced to dive into the dark, dank space between the tank top and stoker plates in boiler room #5? Why was a hose brought forward from the engine room? What were Barrett and Shepherd sent to do in boiler room #6?

Titanic may have been doomed by the iceberg, but was the high loss of life the result of something wrong with the bilge pump system?

– David G. Brown
 
mr.David there was evrything wrong. because bulkheads were not capped at top sow ater easily could overflow and fill next one.when three cargoholds were completly full most likely forepeak was also flooded at this time but not on first hour after collision..titanic was basically just opened jar.

they were bringing these hoses in hope to keep the boiler room 5 dryboiler room 6 was already dead waters could not be stopped there,titanic last stand was boielr room 5,even with three holds boiler room 6 flooded titanic COULD stay afloat longer,water could never be stopped but only slowed down eoungh for help to come,when boiler room 5 flooded there was only short time left for titanic to stay afloat and notthing could be done.boiler room 5 was technically titanic last chance.

did they try to use ash ejectors to pump out water aswell?
 
A bit off topic here, but everyone says that the bulkheads not being topped would allow water to flow over them into the next one, but once the water level had risen high enough above the hole in the hull, would't water pressure have caused the water level to stop rising or equalise?

Granted with Titanic it was the sheer weight of too many flooded compartments that caused the ship to tilt and allow water to flow over, but in normal circumstances, water pressure would prevent that from happening.
 
Hi Sam,
In your book SS TITANIC you show diagrams of flooding compartments.
Question were they the ones Edward Wilding was to show at the British enquire?
Or have you put them together to give a picture what Wilding was talking about?
As in some of the diagrams clearly show the water is above the bulkhead and yet bulkhead compartments are dry!
 
mr.David there was evrything wrong. because bulkheads were not capped at top sow ater easily could overflow and fill next one.when three cargoholds were completly full most likely forepeak was also flooded at this time but not on first hour after collision..titanic was basically just opened jar.

they were bringing these hoses in hope to keep the boiler room 5 dryboiler room 6 was already dead waters could not be stopped there,titanic last stand was boielr room 5,even with three holds boiler room 6 flooded titanic COULD stay afloat longer,water could never be stopped but only slowed down eoungh for help to come,when boiler room 5 flooded there was only short time left for titanic to stay afloat and notthing could be done.boiler room 5 was technically titanic last chance.

did they try to use ash ejectors to pump out water aswell?

I think you may need to learn a thing or million about floodable length curves and stability figures which is what guys like Captain Brown and Sam Halpern live with on a day to day basis. (You might also want to get your thoughts focused because much of your post is a confused jumble.)

As a sailor, I lived with all of that as well, even if I didn't know that I was living with it, as part of the damage control organization on every ship I was assigned to during my Navy career.

Since you appear to have a fixation on the bulkheads being capped, I'll just address that one. Are you ready for this?

Cool....here it is: The bulkheads WERE capped. All of them....every single one. These caps are called "decks"...those flat surfaces everybody walks on. There was NO ice cube tray effect where flood waters would rise to the top and spill to the other side.

Now, what these decks did NOT have were any sort of hatches or scuttles which could be closed to render them watertight. Water would come up....true enough....but with the bow tilting down, all that water would spill run forward. It would seem to "Go back" as the bow sank deeper and the floodwaters rose to match the new waterline. When it reached another ladderwell going down, it would them spill down that opening in the deck into the section below.

Now here's something else to think about: Most modern merchant vessels and even passenger ships STILL do not have decks with watertight hatches and scuttles. For the most part, there's no need as the bulkheads will go up high enough to meet current SOLAS standards.

What you need to understand is that in many respects, the watertight subdivision standards an Olympic class liner could meet exceed what a lot of passenger vessels do even today. The two compartment standard which is regarded as the minimum is treated as the maximum. If more than two sections are breeched, it's time to go swimming.

With Titanic, a minimum of FIVE has to be breeched to turn a bad day into a worse day. The most common accident even today is a collision in which no more than two sections are breeched. It was the kind of accident and Olympic class ship could survive with a wide margin to spare.

What nobody thought about was what happens when you use an iceberg for a can opener which leaves up to SIX compartments open to the sea. NO modern passenger vessel today is....as far as I know....capable of surviving that kind of damage.

(I'm open to hearing about any examples which are!)
 
example ship is costa concordia,shallow waters allowed to make costa concordia only to roll over 1/2 and another 1/2 was above water,power was lost pretty fast and there was no time to close watertight doors,damage was too severe and captain even tried get even shallower waters as he was aware he hit rocks.costa concordia started to list not long after impact and in fact the hole in hull was long it allowed to flood several compartments,if we take costa concordia damage into titanic hull we could clearly see titanic could stay afloat with it but also powerless and no engines,question would be if titanic had eoungh time to drop the WTD before power goes off.

and again, only britannic could survive the six compartmens damage,probably olympic aswell but in britannic case opened portholes doomed ship,titanic had very few of portholes open but also large doors were open in hope to use them for moving more people to lifeboats.were these doors on D or E deck,these doors were opened by one of stewards,but nobody knows how big role those big doors played in titanic sinking.

first we must count where water invaded. forepeak tank is first place, then three cargoholds and boiler room six. that si total 5 places coal bunker flood in br 5 that is sixth place and boiler room 4 also was taking water probably some time before or after boiler room 5 loss. that is total 7 compartments that took water. water in br 4 was not coming very quickly but eoungh fast so br 4 had to be abandoned.

what i am trying to say? that titanic had iceberg damage to six compartments total. but double bottom might been damaged aswell,water had ability to flood br4 as it was coming from under floor plates.
last question is what caused flooding to boiler room 3 at titanic final plunge

there was pobably no reports of ship flexing at all?
 
I was asking for an example of a modern passenger vessel which could meet the four compartment standard that the Olympic class could meet. Obviously and tragically, the Costa Concordia was just not one of them.
 
in this case probably modern freighters and oil tankers could survive that kind of problem but in case of oil tanker,noone want to deal with eventual oil leaks because even double hull dont make 100% safety.if titanic had double hull extended above waterline the damage would not cause any harm.

wait,would titanic survive if had traverse bulkheads? if each compartment was divided in half by another wall with WTD? half of first four compartments would flood but not the another half because compartment divided by traverse bulkhead
 
A slight list to port or starboard would also cause significant problems. It just takes one or two portholes on E-deck to be open for the ship to flood rapidly. e.g.
.
Mr. Joughin
Q - On E deck are the portholes in practice opened from time to time?
A - Very, very often we keep them open the whole of the passage.


.
 
Transverse bulkheads were deliberately avoided in the Olympic class because it was understood that they would cause severe problems with asymmetric flooding in the event of an accident. This would make it impossible to launch lifeboats from one side or the other, which was exactly what DID happen with the Lusitania when she went down.
 
Back
Top