Direction Titanic was pointing after Collision

[Parks Stephenson]

<font color="#000066">I agree that there is no evidence from the crew the ship got back underway.

I don't agree, but it may depend on how people interpret the phrase, "getting underway." There is evidence from crewmembers to the effect that the engines were run again after having been stopped just prior to or during the collision. I don't know that this necessarily adds to the topic of this thread, though.

Parks

 

[Erik Wood]

Hmmm,

(Erik digs through testimony and scratches his head) Parks might have caught me. I may have not done all of my homework. I don't know that it can show it for sure but its a lead.

Thanks

 

[Dave Gittins]

Captain Wood, by 'for some time', I meant for more than five minutes or so. There certainly is some evidence that the ship briefly went ahead for a short time after the collision. I keep getting back to Boxhall's 11-46. That sets a limit. Why they would go ahead is a mystery. Was Captain Smith checking the propellers?

 

[David G. Brown]

My opinion...repeat, opinion...is that Titanic was facing North by East, or North by East 1/4 East. My goal is someday to have the time to be more specific--or prove myself wrong. Right now, I'm convinced the ship turned more than 90 degrees on port helm after the accident, but I'm not sure how many degrees. It may not be "know-able."

In reading the testimonies of the two quartermasters, I noted one curious point. Hichens was only asked about what he did prior to impact on the iceberg. At no time was Hichens asked about any helm commands after impact. Olliver, on the other hand, spoke only about the "hard a-port" command which came after impact. Thus, there was no conflict between their testimonies. Hichens was correct in saying that starboard helm was used prior to the accident; and Olliver was correct about port helm after.

Turning only on starboard helm, to the left, would have created a different accident from the one which took place. Port helm was needed to clear the stern, although I am now of the opinion that luck had more to do with keeping the stern from being damaged than did the rudder. Even so, the last helm command that we have record of was "hard a-port" which would turn the head to the right and eventually to face north.

Titanic appears to have been as near to "on course" as any ship could have been using 1912 navigation technology. If the planned course change at "the corner" was delayed as Rowe testified, then Smith would have expected his ship to be about five miles (plus or minus) south of the westbound steamer track. Parks suggested some time ago that if the ship resumed steaming it was to get within visual range of that track, an idea to which I subscribe.

Here's a curiosity: If Titanic made 8.5 knots at bare steerageway, then it would have taken 35 1/2 minutes to make the roughly 5 miles that Smith would have thought Titanic was south of the steamer track. From the testimonies, it seems the ship was making way from about 11:50 p.m. to midnight. However, which midnight? If it was midnight, April 15, then the ship was not making way for 10 minutes, but that amount plus the 23 minute time change--which conveniently equals 33 minutes. Smoking gun? or, blowing smoke?

Parks makes an interesting point in his message above about Titanic's making way. From a practical standpoint just operating its engines does not mean that Titanic made any useful way after the accident. It may have moved, but effectively gone nowhere.

For the sea lawyers, Titanic did not stop being "under way" at any time during the foundering until all pieces came to rest on the bottom. A ship is defined as "under way" when it is not tied to shore, at anchor, or aground.

A ship that is still in the water and moving only under the influence of wind or current is still "under way." It is "not making way," however.

The real question is whether it was "making way" or "not making way." While it was shooting forward with engines stopped, Titanic was most assuredly still making way.

And, if it were stopped, but did turn over its engines without moving any appreciable distance, that would also have been making way under the rules. But, that nit-picking goes nowhere from a practical standpoint. The only important question is whether or not the ship made appreciable distance after the iceberg, or did it sit still?

When I wrote "Last Log" I came to the conclusion that the ship moved north for at least ten minutes. Now, I have found reason to consider that it was longer by perhaps treble that amount. I'm hoping to find the time to do some more work on the chart and in the testimony on this subject. Until then, I stick by what I published in "Last Log."

--David G. Brown

 

[Erik Wood]

Very interesting stuff. We have discussed more then once that had Smith moved his ship he had good reason to do so. But the 33 minutes seems excessive, unless Smith didn't know what was going on.

Where is George Behe and that testimony about Andrews???

 

[Yuri Singleton]

Here's a thought. What if Smith was cruising north after the 'near-miss' with the iceberg in order to get around the pack ice blocking his westerly progress? I mean, by following the theory of Ismay causing Smith to resume forward motion to it's logical conclusion, then if Smith & Ismay didn't realize Titanic was seriously damaged for some time, what would they most likely have wanted to do? Get back underway and find a path around the pack ice to resume course to New York, is the answer I say.

So if that was the motivation for keeping the ship moving after the iceberg, then wouldn't Smith logically steer Northward? To clear the ice pack?

Yuri

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

I suspect Smith would be more likely to swing southward to get around the icepack, than northward. Northward would be more prone for conditions to get worse than better, southward would be vice-versa.

If his plan was actually to get around the ice.

 

[Dave Gittins]

This business of trying to steam somewhere is a boat that won't float. Smith knew very early on that he was in serious trouble and wisely asked for damage reports. Let's give him credit for sense.

Boxhall's track put the ship some 4 miles off the exact track. On the open sea, that's as good as on it. Titanic was lit up like a Christmas tree and could fire socket signals visible for a least 20 miles. There's no sense in risking more damage by steaming a mere four miles.

We should be wary of trying to build theories on such inadequate evidence. Witnesses contradict each other at every turn and time estimates are hopeless. A point I'd draw attention to is that Hichens was quite definite that he did not receive a helm order other than hard-a-starboard. He was asked in Britain at questions 1315-16. Joseph Scarrott had said that the ship appeared to be under port helm after the collision, suggesting that Hichens had been ordered to turn again, but Hichens denied it. At some stage, the rudder was centred, because that's how it is today. I understand that some think this would happen when the wheel was left. Is there an engineer in the lifeboat?

 

[Steven Hall]

Dave,
what you have gone into detail about is what I should have taken the time to do myself. My post failed to explain the reasons behind my comments regarding the position of the rubber on the wreck today. I should really have read all the posts to this thread before opening my North & South.

Someone corrected the helm. Hitchens denied doing it. So who, and / or under who's direction was it adjusted accordingly?

 

[Erik Wood]

Hitchens was also not asked about what was done after the incident. The questions where very pointed. Steaming north only makes sense to me in the context of heading for the steamer tracks. Otherwise, as David G. said why would you move a wounded ship?

Did Smith no the full extent of what was going on?? End of September I will be publishing a paper here and then you will see my opinions.

 

[Dan Cherry]

Capt. Erik asked,
Did Captain Smith know the full extent of what was going on?
I eagerly await your paper and view your opinions on the matter.
I do not believe Smith was in an incompetent stupor the last few hours the ship was afloat. I do think Smith did the best he could with the circumstances being as they were.
No, it wouldn't make sense to knowingly move a wounded ship around, but we've the benefit of hindsight, something that the crew and captain of Titanic did not have at 11:40 p.m. on April 14, 1912. Smith had the ship examined, notified the Marconi operators to 'stand by' and be prepared to send a call for assistance.
It is also difficult to predict the thoughts and human condition of the reasoning behind a person's actions who did not survive to testify. I've talked to people who have had their cars damaged in one way or another while driving. Some will immediately stop and check for potential damage, while others will proceed slowly to the nearest safe place to stop, such as a parking lot, and then examine the vehicle.
Was Smith KNOWINGLY moving the ship toward the steamer tracks? He was facing a northerly direction, the same direction as the traditional steamer tracks. The bow today points just slightly east of north, and recent tests on a model showed that once the bow left the surface, it really didn't divert from the way it was pointing from surface to bottom.
Why was he moving the ship? To reassure the passengers the ship was moving and keep them blissful and in their cabins and therefore from being 'underfoot'? Might as well keep moving until damage is confirmed? Or, tiptoe toward the traditional steamer track, where if the ship was in serious trouble, potential rescue would be more probable at hand, esp. if Titanic's power failed?
Educated speculation can only give us a most probable scenario, and having read Capt. Dave's book, I find his opinion to be well thought out. However, I do not believe we will ever know Smith's intentions, without doubt, of moving the Titanic after the collision, just like we'll probably never know how far away from Titanic the Californian was. The only way we would ever find that out is to find an ambitious person with lots of money to finance a trip to search for Californian's taffrail log that broke off the log line when she stopped for the night. Only if that proverbial needle in a haystack is located could it ever be reasonably ascertained (and a rought ballpark figure at that) how far the two ships might have been that night.

My rambling .02

 

[Erik Wood]

"I do not believe Smith was in an incompetent stupor the last few hours the ship was afloat."

I agree. I am not saying that he is was in a stupor by not knowing the condition of the ship, I am saying that the condition of the ship was beyond the understanding of someone who conducted a rushed and brief tour.

I think the damage was more serious then Smith knew, not because he was incompetent but because the type of damage had exceeded the knowledge of those inspecting the ship. Remeber that the officers of yesterday where not taught about the types of damage that officers of today are. It wasn't a matter of stupidity but a matter of technology out growing knowledge of those who used the technology.

 

[Yuri Singleton]

I agree with the idea that neither Smith, nor Ismay, nor anyone on the bridge knew just how serious the ship was damaged after the collision. And likely didn't for up to 20 minutes after impact, if then.

Communication is everything here! The time it took to get information from deep below, inside the ship, up to the command center is critical. The ship needed telephones! The crew needed 2 way radios! The bridge needed live video feeds from the various compartments!!

But no, all they had was feet, stairs, and word of mouth. Oh, and a little thing called a wireless. (That single piece of technology proved to be their only lifeline that night, and all the survivors owe their lives to the Marconi men, and that transmitter.)

In my mind, it was the ship's carpenter, first encountering Boxhall outside the bridge on the stairs, who brought the first real report of 'serious' damage to the captain's attention.
That was some 15 plus minutes after collision, at the earliest.

Up until then, all Smith knew was that his ship was still floating, and had only taken on a slight list to starboard. He had a first hand report from his Fourth Officer of no damage. He may have had a communication with his engine room which was still dry and operational. In fact the engineers were asking to re-open the water tight doors all the way to BR 5. So everything Smith sees and hears tells him that it was a narrow shave and perhaps will require a trip to Belfast to patch some dents and re-paint the hull. There's no panic, no rush of people fleeing the forward sections out across the well deck. No screaming. No explosions. No reason to stop yet.

But then ...

He finally gets word that things aren't OK.

Only later did the carpenter reach the bridge with his report which went totally against what Boxhall had just reported, and against everything that Smith had assumed about his ship.
Not to mention that its exactly what no one wants to hear.

I'm not surprised Smith wanted to see the damage himself. He probably couldn't believe it at first. Especially after the rosey report from Boxhall.

OOPS!
Its no doubt that Boxhall immediatly went back down below decks to check again for damage instead of following the carpenter back into the bridge. Because if the carpenter's report was true, then Boxhall must have felt like an idiot for telling his Captain that the ship was fine, when in reality it was far from fine. Talk about time to start playing "CYA". (Cover Your A--).

Communication was everything. Titanic was too big for such outdated lines of communication as feet and stairs. The technology had outpaced the capability of the crew to control it. Erik is right on target with that idea. The most precious and critical minutes passed by while Smith was waiting for the needed information to reach him. Minutes that could have changed everything if only Smith had known the severity of his situation sooner.

Yuri

 

[Erik Wood]

A 5 degree list immediatly following a side on impact with another object is far from minor. In fact it is one of many indicators that something is very wrong. That list didn't tell Smith the crucial thing. Was the list due to water, or something else?

Boxhall wasn't really sent to look specifically for damage I think. He toured third class living areas. Didn't inspect any holds or any boiler rooms the exact places where his "bluff of the bow" statements in his testimony would place damage. He avoided those areas. Most likely because he was told to check "on things" in a passenger ship meaning the passengers, had it been a freight ship "things" would have been freight.

Smith seeing the damage for himself was more of a formality then anything. By this time Smith had been told the needed information. Smith's tour was more so that he could actually understand what was happening to his ship.

By Smith not knowing directly after the accident what situation his ship was in plays a role in his decision to handle passengers and the call for help. But even if he had known 30 seconds after the ship hit what the situation was there isn't much he could have done. Technology of World War 1 had not reached 1912.

 

[Dave Gittins]

I find it hard to believe that somebody from the engineroom didn't ring the bridge pretty soon after the collision to say that boiler room 6 was filling quickly. It wouldn't all have been done by people running around.