Damage Control

[Ioannis Georgiou]

The New York Times had it wrong!

Q. The white light indicates full speed, and that was the light shown that Sunday night up to the time you got the red-light signal to stop, which was just before the collision? - A. Yes.

The testimony of Barrett was taken aboard Olympic.

Testimony of Frederick Barrett
BY SENATOR WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, ON SATURDAY, MAY 25,
IN THE FIREROOM ON BOARD S. S. "OLYMPIC," NEW YORK.

TIP | United States Senate Inquiry | Day 18 | Testimony of Frederick Barrett (Leading Fireman, SS Titanic)

 

[Aaron_2016]

I recall another report I think from the UK press which said Barrett felt two shocks. They felt the initial impact when the iceberg struck the forward most compartments which I recall made Barrett turn and ask Mr. Hesketh "what was that?" and then they received the order to stop and just as they yelled "shut the dampers" there was a second much stronger shock as the iceberg passed boiler room 6 and water rushed in. I believe that was the shock which Barrett and the examiners focused on at the Inquiry, but the reporters on the Olympic may have heard more, and possibly spoke to him after Senator Smith had left. Passengers higher up felt as many as three shocks. It is safe to assume that Barrett may have felt more than one shock but he was only asked to describe the one that caused water to enter boiler room 6 to the Inquiry.

.

 

[Rancor]

Some of us had already theorised it several years ago.
Beachamp is wrong, quite simple. What did he after taking out the fires in BR 6. He then went up on deck and helped to load boat No. 13 with which he left together with Barrett.

Sorry Ioannis, I don't doubt that all of this has been discussed already, I'm quite late to the discussion and have probably missed most of the conclusions drawn by the experts. It is a privilege to be able to join in the discussion here with such knowledgeable people, and the occasional disagreement makes it all the more interesting. : - )

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

No need to be sorry Rancor!

 

[Scott Mills]

The New York Times had it wrong!

Q. The white light indicates full speed, and that was the light shown that Sunday night up to the time you got the red-light signal to stop, which was just before the collision? - A. Yes.

The testimony of Barrett was taken aboard Olympic.

Testimony of Frederick Barrett
BY SENATOR WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, ON SATURDAY, MAY 25,
IN THE FIREROOM ON BOARD S. S. "OLYMPIC," NEW YORK.

TIP | United States Senate Inquiry | Day 18 | Testimony of Frederick Barrett (Leading Fireman, SS Titanic)

Honestly, at this point, while we can be sure that it was transcribed accurately, I do not think there is any reason to believe testimony given at one of the official hearings over testimony given either in writing, or during an interview, elsewhere.

In fact, I would argue that the testimony at the official inquiry is the most likely to be intentionally misleading or fabricated. It was here that crew members had to do their best to limit both their own culpability in the sinking and White Star's. Keep in mind, whistle blowing is still career ending today despite firm legal protections. In 1912 no such protections existed.

Which was all for naught for Titanic's officers as, outside of receiving commands from the Royal Navy during the First World War, none of them received merchant command.

 

[Rob Lawes]

Going back a little to take another look at what's been written about boiler room 6 and the testimony of Barrett and Beauchamp, I have the following observations to add.

Firstly, given that Beauchamp and Barret's testimony matches perfectly to the point where 'shut the dampers' is called I find it impossible to believe that they were anywhere else other than where they said they were. That is Beauchamp on the port side and Barrett on the starboard side of stokehold 10 in boiler room 6.

With a sudden crash and the freezing cold North Atlantic providing an unexpected wash down I don't blame Barrett for getting on his toes with Mr Hesketh.

If we look at Beauchamp's testimony he states that as soon as the red stop light came up on the stokehold clock, the watertight doors dropped immediately. This matches what we know from Barrett and other testimony relating to the general operation of the watertight doors. It is only in the follow up question when Beauchamp uses the 'less than 5 minutes' line. Well, immediately is certainly less than 5 minutes.

Beauchamp states that the water was coming over the plates as they were drawing the fires. He then adds through the bunker door. This shouldn't be a suprise given the stbd bunker in stokehold 10 contained coal. Any free volume between the coal would rapidly fill and water would start to pour through the bunker door. This would have happened almost certainly before the free space under the floor plates was full.

Note also that when Barrett talks about the bunker at the forward starboard end of boiler room 5 he states the water was only falling within the bunker not out of it into the boiler room. He clearly makes that point so to my mind Beauchamp and Barrett were looking at two different bunkers.

Next, addressing the issue of Beauchamp needing SCUBA gear. If we follow Barrett's timeline, he says he tried to re-enter boiler room 6 10 to 15 minutes after first leaving it. If we take the lower figure of 10 and use Barrett's estimated 8 foot of water, that would total 14 feet above the tank top (Barrett says the plates were 6 feet above the tank top). Granted the area below the, plates wasn't free volume but it still gives a rough flooding rate of 1.4 foot a minute. That gives around 5 minutes until "the water was coming over the plates" which is ample time to be given and attempt to complete a number of orders without needing Scuba gear. Indeed the water would only have been around knee deep almost 7 minutes after impact.

Finally, Beauchamp says "someone said that will do" which suggests to me that it definitely wasn't Barrett who gave that last order. Beauchamp knew the engineers and the leading stoker and stated they gave the dampers order and yet it was only 'someone' who said that will do.

I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Beauchamp isn't the best judge of time but that Barrett and Beauchamp were telling the truth.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Add also to it the 5° list to starboard. So if Beauchamp was on the port side, the water would rise at his part much later.

Regarding the timing of Beauchamp, there is still a time gap because after leaving BR 6 he went aft on E Deck (along Scotland Road) then went up the staircase to the boat deck and helped with the loading of lifeboat No. 13.

 

[Aaron_2016]

The ship was listing to port before the collision and immediately after. I think the water would have rushed towards Beauchamp and immediately flooded downhill against the port side and increased the list to port. Beauchamp should have been more alarmed than Barrett but we see the reverse. Beauchamp saw water coming 'out' of the bunker and spilling 'over' the plates at his feet. If he was describing the port side bunker then I think it would be impossible for water to enter the starboard side and spill out of the port side bunker unless the ship was damaged on the port side. In either case Beauchamp should have been more anxious to evacuate than Barrett.


Mr Chambers - "The ship had a list to port nearly all afternoon."

Mr. Beesley - ".....The Titanic listed to port. I had noticed this before.....It was plain she did so......The purser remarked that probably coal had been used mostly from the starboard side......The previous listing to port may be of interest."

Lookout Fleet
Q - Did it tilt the ship to any extent?
A - She listed to port right afterwards.
Q - To what extent?
A - I could not say; a slight list.
Q - Just immediately on striking the berg?
A - Just afterwards.
Q - Did it seem that the blow came beneath the surface of the water and caused her to shift?
A - Yes, sir.




.

.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

The ship was listing to port before the collision and immediately after.

No it was not! After the collision the ship had a list to starboard.

Mr. Hichens: ...The captain sent then for the carpenter to sound the ship. He also came back to the wheelhouse and looked at the commutator in front of the compass, which is a little instrument like a clock to tell you how the ship is listing. The ship had a list of 5 degrees to the starboard.
Senator Smith: How long after the impact, or collision?
Mr. Hichens: I could hardly tell you, Sir. Judging roughly, about 5 minutes; about 5 to 10 minutes. …

There are several others who mentioned the starboard list too.

 

[Aaron_2016]

That was 10 minutes after. I said immediately after. Lookout Fleet said - "She listed to port right afterwards."

Q - To what extent?
A - I could not say; a slight list.
Q - Just immediately on striking the berg?
A - Just afterwards.
Q - Did it seem that the blow came beneath the surface of the water and caused her to shift?
A - Yes, sir.

The ship would also heel over when the Titanic turned northwards after the 'hard a-port' order immediately following the collision. The port list would change to a starboard list once the forward compartments had flooded sufficiently enough to change the list, especially when the empty bunker on the starboard side filled with water.

Lookout Lee said:

"The ship seemed to heel slightly over to port as she struck the berg."
Q - You felt her strike, did you?
A - Oh, indeed, Sir.
Q - Then she heeled a little over to port?
A - Very slightly over to port, as she struck along the starboard side.


.

 

[Rob Lawes]

Beauchamp saw water coming 'out' of the bunker and spilling 'over' the plates at his feet.

Beauchamp says nothing about water at his feet. He says water was coming in on the plates and when questioned about what plates he says the plates on which the stokers were standing.

The impact was on the starboard side and Barrett says he was standing on the starboard side. He would have seen the water first hand.

The water as it rolled across the plates would have drained into the bilge spaces. We know the plates weren't watertight because water was seen coming up through them in other spaces such as boiler room 4.

Beauchamp may well have been concerned but clearly remained in boiler room 6 for a number of minutes after impact before leaving via the ladders.

 

[Aaron_2016]

I doubt Beauchamp could see water coming out of the starboard coal bunker from his position on the far port side. My understanding is, he saw water coming out of the port side bunker as he was stationed on the port side. The rise of steam as the fires were raked out would also make it hard to see anything on the starboard side.


Renderings from Honor and Glory

A rough idea of Beauchamp's view.

Beauchamp:

Q - Did you see any water?
A - Water was coming in on the plates when we were drawing the fires.
Q - What do you mean by “the plates”?
A - The plates of the stokehold where you stand.
Q - You mean where the stokers were standing?
A - Yes.
Q - What happened then?
A - 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 - Through the bunker door?
A - Yes, coming through the bunker like.

Either water was coming out of the port side bunker, or Beauchamp overheard one of the men yell out "there's water coming in the starboard bunker!", or possibly when the doors were closing a number of stokers left boiler room 6 and Beauchamp had fewer men to help him draw the fires which made him go over to the starboard side where he saw water coming out of the bunker. It is unclear as he did not specify which bunker.

.

 

[David G. Brown]

While I must say that it appears much of Barrett's testimony is based on factual events, there is one other massive detail that is always overlooked. He appeared as if by magic in the very boiler room of Olympic that he supposedly vacated when it burst open during Titanic's sinking.

Hmmmmm.....

Something smell a little fishy in the bilge? The Barrett who appeared in New York came in the nick 'o time just before the end of the U.S. Inquiry. As he had supposedly gone home, then returned to sea, we have no way of proving he was in fact the very leading stoker Barrett of Titanic. For all we know he could have been an East End actor "between engagements."

Barrett's appearance...or, rather the appearance of the man called Barrett...seems like a first class job of what politicians call "damage control" and they aren't speaking of sinking ships.

-- David G. Brown

 

[B-rad]

Damage control and preventive loss of ships r two different things. Damage control aboard titanic of the best efforts did take place. Pumps were activated and meN workplaces where needed. Titanic suffered mortal wounds. Even war ships with mortal wounds sink.

 

[Aaron_2016]

.....The Barrett who appeared in New York came in the nick 'o time just before the end of the U.S. Inquiry. As he had supposedly gone home, then returned to sea, we have no way of proving he was in fact the very leading stoker Barrett of Titanic. For all we know he could have been an East End actor "between engagements."

Barrett's appearance...or, rather the appearance of the man called Barrett...seems like a first class job of what politicians call "damage control" and they aren't speaking of sinking ships.

-- David G. Brown

The press said the meeting between Senator Smith and Barrett was held in secret.

.