Direction Titanic was pointing after Collision

[Michael F. Koch]

Just wondering if there was anyone out there that disputed that Titanic was pointing NE after the collision? I pretty much thought it was widely agreed on at this point in time and supported by witnesses, but I have heard of at least one that claims she was pointing west.

Thanks,

Michael Koch

 

[Anthony Charles Givelin Paine]

Dear Michael,
If she was pointing west that would really scupper the theories over the Titanic seeing the 'lights' from the Californian and lends it self open to much'profound' discussion.
Kind regards,
Anthony

 

[Michael F. Koch]

Anthony,
What is your opinion of the direction she was pointing? Have you seen anything with meat on it out there to dispute the claim she was pointing NE?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Anthony Charles Givelin Paine]

Dear Michael,
I do think this is rather a 'grey and foggy' area. My own opinion is she was pointing to the North. I think that it would have been illogical for Murdoch to order 'hard a starboard' only. The ship could have gone round in a full circle and hit the berg again.I first remember well over 25 years ago thinking which direction she was heading after reading Peter Padfield's The Titanic and the Californian.If, as most Titanic experts believe that the Murdoch after the first order put the ship 'hard a port' ( which does seem logical)I do not quite understand how one gets the heading of NE. Also what about the ship slowly swinging with the current.I suppose to some extent I have become conditioned to 'The ship that stood still'and what appear to be very logical arguments put forward albeit it is somewhat confusing.In one of the diagrams ( the rockets beyond doubt ) the Titanic appears not to be moving but the Californian is swinging round to the south. I may be wrong but in ANTR it shows the rockets beeing fired from the port side of the ship and in Camerons from starboard.Didn't Boxhall in testimony state the ship was 'heading to the west'. I have read some where that one of the bridge officers stated this.If the Californian was swinging to the south would the Tiatnic do the same. I posted on a British site ( Weather ) if any one new what the climatic situations were or what was the synoptic chart for that area ( appreciating that synoptic charts for that area might not be very accurate ) was. I didn't get one reply and i have mananged to find out anything appertaining to the synoptic situation.I suppose in a way itis just accepting what I call logical fact. If the ship was heading west that would disprove the Californian theory but I have read discussions that the ship was pointing west but can't remember where. It may have been on one of the threads.
I think you have raised a very interesting subject and I look forward to some expert opinions although as stated earlier it is foggy area.Do you know what the synoptic situation was or might have been and the relevance?
With kind regards
Anthony.

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Arthur Peuchen said that after his boat was lowered, they went straight, away from Titanic to the North. So, Titanic's hull was like this ____ and boat 6 went away from it in this direction ^, that is away from it at a 90 degree angle ... to the North. This would suggest that the ship was pointing west.

This is one of the many points Sen Molony uses in his new book about the Californian, that if Titanic stopped, and was pointing to the west, had the Californian been looking at Titanic, she should have seen her broad side, and thus should have seen the Titanic look like the picture I posted on another thread ... where in this case, there should have been no mistake in concluding that the ship was a large passenger liner. However, the general suggestion is that Titanic was pointing North, which would suggest that she pointed North throughout the whole night without swinging.

So, if when Titanic stopped she was pointing west, then throughout the night she had to swing anti-clockwise to eventually point North by the time she sank.

Daniel.

PS. Had she been near the Californian, both had to swing in the same direction ... as it appears, they were not.

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

However, QM George Rowe said this specifically about the light of the 'other vessel':

17667. When you saw this light did you notice whether the head of the ?Titanic? was altering either to port or starboard? - Yes.

17668. You did notice? - Yes.

17669. Was your vessel?s head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - I put it down that her stern was swinging.

17670. Which way was her stern swinging? - Practically dead south, I believe, then.

17671. Do you mean her head was facing south? - No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.

17672. The stern was swung to the south? - Yes.

17673. And at that time you saw this white light? - Yes.

17674. How was it bearing from you? - When I first saw it it was half a point on the port bow, and roughly about two points when I left the bridge.
Rowe is very specific about the direction Titanic was pointing. As I recall Boxhall assumed the ship was pointing west, he didn't say he necessarily check that it was.

If Titanic was pointing northward, or slightly east of north, she could be presenting the shortened image to the Californian.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

<font color="#000066">17667. When you saw this light did you notice whether the head of the "Titanic" was altering either to port or starboard? - Yes.
17668. You did notice? - Yes.
17669. Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - I put it down that her stern was swinging.
17670. Which way was her stern swinging? - Practically dead south, I believe, then.
17671. Do you mean her head was facing south? - No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.
17672. The stern was swung to the south? - Yes.

We all have our favourite witnesses to quote. This quote from QM Rowe's testimony was enough to convince me that Titanic ended up heading north...that, and the fact that the bow section of the wreck is pointing north.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Oh, what a faux pas. Bill and I wore the same dress to the party.

Parks

 

[Dave Gittins]

Daniel, Peuchen left from the port side, which you and/or Senan have overlooked. If the ship had being facing west at the time, the boat would have run smack into her side. If she faced north, or a bit east of north, Peuchen could row north without a problem.

Parks has covered other evidence. I would add Lawrence Beesley, who put the ship's heading at at least northwest.

One who thought it was west was Boxhall, but he was having a bad night. He would have been dog tired after working four-hour watches.

How Titanic got to be heading north is another story. The evidence on that is completely unsatisfactory.

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Dave,

My own post puzzled me, as I realised some time after posting it that I got my bearings mixed up! I didn't fully understand Sen's point in the book (I possibly misread it), but from what I recall, he used it as an example to show that we cannot be sure which way the Titanic faced after she stopped, as you say, "The evidence on that is completely unsatisfactory".

It seems that Titanic did steam for some time after her impact with the iceberg, and it appears that she steamed North for some time. It would be interesting to see if we can come up with anything more conclusive on exactly which way she was pointing after she stopped.

Daniel.

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

-- oops, double post!

 

[Dave Gittins]

Daniel, there's no question that she ended up heading north. It's the evidence on how she got there that's so bad. As for steaming north 'for some time' there's no evidence at all. There is evidence that by 11-46 she had stopped whatever she was doing, because that's the time Boxhall used for the CQD position. Moreover, Boxhall seems to have believed that she simply continued west for a little while.

Personally, I wonder whether in the excitement of the moment, Hichens kept his wheel over until she'd done a 270° turn. Trouble is, nobody clearly recalled the helm orders given. Sometimes we have to admit that we'll never know all the facts and leave it at that.

 

[Erik Wood]

Man, I wish Dave B would show up. I would be leary of saying there is no evidence that Titanic got back underway. Without the intelligence nor the ability currently to look it up I am pretty sure that Beesley and Gracie and a few others say the ship got back underway. I agree that there is no evidence from the crew the ship got back underway. But then again inconsistancy in testimony is the norm.

 

[Michael F. Koch]

Two things I forgot to mention were the fact that the first lifeboats to reach Carpathia (approached from the SE) were the starboard side ones and the last were the port ones. That would support the N-NE pointing Titanic as would the fact that Peuchen saw the northern lights on the port side as he was entering the lifeboat.

Michael Koch

 

[Steven Hall]

What’s interesting [to speculate on] is the position of the ships rudder on the wreck today. Further more, its possible effect on the sterns fall to the bottom.