Hi Christine, the watertight bulkheads had tops. They're called decks. The problem was that they weren't watertight.
On the crew quarters, I think that you'll find that they were very spartan. Really little more then overglorified bunkroom/dormatories, and little has changed since that time. On every ship on which I served, the crew berthings had bunks three deep and on older warships, they were as many as five deep. About all the sailors had was a place to sleep and some small personal space to keep their kit. The berthings I'm used to slept the men three deep in bunks with the bunks being used as lockers. Other then the tile on the decks and the paint on the bulkheads, there is very little in the way of adornment.
In regards the quality of the steel, we have to remember that the science of metallurgy wasn't as advanced then as it is now. What they used on the Titanic was used everywhere and for many years afterwards in both the merchent marine and the navy.
On the barriers, Eric Sauder posted something on this a few days ago on Mark Taylors listserv. There were no barriers to getting above decks. All any of the steerage passangers would have had to do would be to go up the general stairways. The barriers that existed were below decks and seperated class areas. The problem was that the ship's interior was an unfamilier maze to those below decks. One that would be all too easy to get lost in, and a lot of them did.
On the issue of money, for Harland & Wolff, this wasn't that much of a problem. They were given the requirements by White Star and told to make it happen. The nuts and bolts details were left to the builders.
Any ship is a study in tradeoffs, and economics is always a factor. A business has an absolute obligation to turn a profit for it's stockholders, and there is no advantage to playing Russian Roulette with safety concerns. Losing ships is an expensive as well as an embarassing passtime. They could have built the ship to military standards, but this would have been rediculously difficult for passangers to get around in and enormously unappealing to same. A safe ship is of little value if nobody will book passage on her.
I think it would help to remember that the Olympic class liners were built well in excess of existing safety standards with plenty of room for growth. A good thing too as the two survivors had some pretty extensive modifications put in. The Olympic had them incorperated in a six month yard period, and the Britannic was altered while still on the building slip. The problem was that the standards then were badly outdated.Ramming accidents were what was designed for, but nobody thought about the consequences of using an iceberg for a can opener.
One has to wonder if what is done today is much of an improvement. As Captain Erik Wood pointed out, todays minimum standards tend to be treated as the maximum.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart