Keeping Track of a Maiden Voyage

For last time, the method that was used to calculate rhumb line distances given in the article were based on a mid-latitude calculation method for a spherical earth. All course angles that I provided in the tables were rounded to the nearest whole degree. If you want to see them to the nearest decimal point I can provide that. It should also be emphasized that the purpose of this article was to come up with approximate noontime locations based on data available to us. To that end I believe I was quite successful. I also have log card data from several of Olympic voyages over the same route of travel and was able to check that using the same tools I used to derive the Titanic positions. In these they gave the actual noon coordinates as well as distances run for each day. I am quite confident that the method I used to estimate Titanic's locations are about as good as anyone can get without having the Titanic's logbook data in hand.
 
If you want to see them to the nearest decimal point I can provide that. It should also be emphasized that the purpose of this article was to come up with approximate noontime locations based on data available to us.
With all due respect, I am not really interested in your nearest decimal points. Having many years of real practical navigation I am quite confident that your calculations, based on the purported Pitman Memorandum, are incorrect.
I am quite confident that the method I used to estimate Titanic's locations are about as good as anyone can get without having the Titanic's logbook data in hand.
Again, I professionally disagree.
 
>>Having many years of real practical navigation I am quite confident that your calculations, based on the purported Pitman Memorandum, are incorrect.
<<

If Sam is incorrect, then let's see the practical calculations to show where he went wrong.

>>Again, I professionally disagree<<

Again explain in a professional and practical manner where Sam's methodology is faulty.
 
With all due respect Capt. Collins, I am confident my calculations are correct.
I suggest you consult some marine navigator for a professional opinion.

If Sam is incorrect, then let's see the practical calculations to show where he went wrong.
N. James Wright:
If you have the nautical intelligence to comprehend, carefully peruse my previous ET posts.
 
If you have the nautical intelligence to comprehend, carefully peruse my previous ET posts.
It always comes down to words of "professional opinion" and "nautical intelligence" from the good captain. That is too bad. I've done my share of navigating on vessels that operate in three dimensions covering distances in a few hours that far exceed what a typical surface ship can do in a day. The principles of practical navigation are not limited to seafaring ice pilots with inflated egos.
 
>>If you have the nautical intelligence to comprehend,,,,<<

Captain Collins, that one is worn out and it just doesn't carry any weight. As Mr. Wright said: "If Sam is incorrect, then let's see the practical calculations to show where he went wrong."
 
I've done my share of navigating on vessels that operate in three dimensions covering distances in a few hours that far exceed what a typical surface ship can do in a day. The principles of practical navigation are not limited to seafaring ice pilots with inflated egos.

I trust you do not navigate vessels that operate in three dimensions on the same principal you suggest Titanic did from Off Old Head of Kinsale to Fastnet rock on the course for grounding. To make your point, you not only incorrectly calculated the noon positions , you fudged numbers 162 to be 126.
 
Wow, for a second I thought I had wandered into a previous thread accidentally, with the same old rhetoric about lack of nautical intelligence to comprehend and all. In my line of work, we start to be concerned when people perseverate and repeat the same phrases over and over again like that. Oh well, we can't all have respect for each other, but ice pilots apparently do have superior intellect in all areas Titanic, or so we've been led to believe...
 
I really resent the accusation, Capt. Collins, that I fudged data. What I did was identify an error in the number that was transcribed, a transposition error in the last two digits made by either the person who wrote down the number, or by Lowe himself when he testified. We absolutely know that his "162 miles to the corner" is obviously incorrect no matter how you look at it. You, Capt. Collins, on the other hand, would like to use 110.5 miles to the corner which you derived based on Pitman's 5 PM ETA testimony at the British Inquiry, something which contradicted his testimony at the American Inquiry where we have this exchange:

Senator FLETCHER. Do you know any such designation as the "corner?"
Mr. PITMAN. Yes, we were supposed to be at the corner at 5.50.
Senator FLETCHER. What do you mean by that?
Mr. PITMAN. That is 47° west and 42° north.
Senator FLETCHER. At 5.50 p. m. you turned what you call the “corner?''
Mr. PITMAN. The corner, yes.


Should I accuse you of fudging data because you rejected Lowe's "162 miles to the corner," which he gave in evidence at the American Inquiry and decided instead to use 110.5 miles based on Pitman's changed story given at the British Inquiry?

As far using 126 miles being the correct number, this can be checked two ways.

First way is to consider the difference between the total distance from the Daunt's Rock LV to the corner (42°N, 47°W) and the known total miles run from Daunt's Rock to noon on April 14 (1549 miles). For this we need some practical checks on the distance from Daunt's Rock to the corner taken over the route of travel.

1) Consider the data from Olympic's maiden voyage westbound, which is listed in the article that Mark Chirnside and I had posted recently on ET, https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/5540/. Noon 18 Jun 1911, position 43° 45'N, 43° 52'W. Distance from that location to the corner is 173 miles. Cumulative miles recorded since leaving Daunt's Rock on 15 Jun 1911, was 428+534+542 = 1504 miles. Total miles to corner would be 1504+173 = 1677.

2) Consider the data from Olympic's 2nd voyage westbound, which is also listed in that article. Noon 16 Jul 1911, position 42° 36'N, 46° 03'W (which is 8.6 miles north of the GC track from Fastnet to the corner). Distance from that location to the corner is 55.5 miles. Cumulative miles recorded since leaving Daunt's Rock on 13 Jul 1911, was 525+560+534 = 1619 miles. Total miles to corner would be 1619+55.5 = 1674.5.

3) Consider the data from Olympic's 3rd voyage westbound. Noon 13 Aug 1911, position 42° 39'N, 45° 24'W, (which is 6.6 miles south of the GC track from Fastnet to the corner). Distance from that location to the corner is 81 miles. Cumulative miles recorded since leaving Daunt's Rock on 10 Aug 1911, was 516+543+536 = 1595 miles. Total miles to corner would be 1595+81 = 1676.

These distances (1677, 1674.5, 1676) are based on data taken from Olympic's log. Three different voyages over the same route of travel that would be used by the Titanic a year later.

Now consider the data from Titanic's run to noon 14 Apr 1912. Cumulative miles run since leaving Daunt's Rock on 11 Apr 1912, was 484+519+546 = 1549 miles. Add 126 miles distance to corner to this cumulative number and you get 1675 miles, totally consistent with the data we have from three Olympic crossings that followed the same route of travel. As I said in my paper, the daily mileage runs that were listed in the Pitman memo that were used here can be verified from other independent sources. The 14 Apr 1912 noon location that I derived (43° 02'N, 44° 31'W) would be located 7.8 miles south of the of the GC track from Fastnet to the corner, also consistent with what was pointed out in the Olympic data. Course to the corner from my derived Apr 14 noon location is 126 miles at 240.6 deg true using mid latitude calculation.

The second but less direct method that points to 126 miles being the right number for the distance to the corner comes from 5/O Lowe himself.

Senator SMITH. What speed did you use in getting the 8 p. m. position?
Mr. LOWE. I used the speed for the position at 8 o'clock, and got it by dividing the distance from noon to the corner by the time that had elapsed from noon until the time we were at the corner.
...
Senator SMITH. ... I want to know whether you fixed the position of the ship at 8 o'clock Sunday night upon the speed of the ship at noon on Sunday or upon the speed of the ship at noon at the time you gave her position.
Mr. LOWE. You may be out just as much or more by the revolutions as I am by the hour - that is, by dead reckoning, the way I ascertained the position of the ship at 8 p. m..
Senator SMITH. In order to ascertain the ship's position accurately at 8 p. m. you must know her speed at 8 p. m., must you not?
Mr. LOWE. Her speed at 8 p. m.?
Senator SMITH. Yes.
Mr. LOWE. If you take the average speed from 12 to 6 - that is giving her a run of six hours - she will not jump up in two hours, from 12 to 6 o'clock, from that average speed. You have six hours in there to take a mean on.
...
Mr. LOWE. This is the only figuring that is required to get the speed [handing the chairman a paper].
Senator SMITH. And you are able to say that the speed at that time was 21 knots?
Mr. LOWE. Twenty-one knots or under; it was really 20.95, about.

In the slip of paper he handed to Senator Smith he showed a speed of 21 knots. In his example he also talked about using a run of 6 hours. So how did he get 21 knots in the paper he handed to Senator Smith? He simply divided the distance to the corner by 6 hours. He just wanted Smith off his back in that discussion about speed. Well this is a giveaway of the distance from noon to the corner. Work it backwards. Take Lowe's 21 knots and multiply it by his 6 hours and you get 126 miles.

As I said, it seems they got the course angle right, but the distance recorded in the transcript, 162, should have been 126.
*********
Finally, you are trying to make a point that the ship would not be steered on a course to ground the ship on Fastnet light. I agree. It would be steered to pass Fastnet light some distance off to the south. You like to use 3 miles south which I believe corresponds to today's lane for west bound traffic. I really don't know how close or far from the light they may have come in 1911 or 1912, the depth of water there is a good 45 meters just off the reef that the light is located on (which extends about 1 km to the NE and to the SW from the light). But using either a 1/2 mile off or 3 miles off does not make much of a difference in getting an estimate for the ship's Apr 12 noon location.

I got to the noon location for Apr 12 by taking a line from Fastnet to 49° 45'N, 23° 38'W (La Touraine message) and going out 429 miles (484 mile run - 55 miles from Daunt's Rock to Fastnet light). That got me to 50° 06'N, 20° 43'W. If I were use a departure point 3 miles south of Fastnet, then I would have to go out 484 - 56 = 428 miles (484 mile run - 56 miles from Daunt's Rock to 3 miles south of Fastnet) along the line from that point toward 49° 45'N, 23° 38'W. That would get me to 50° 05'N, 20° 42'W, only about a mile different from what I got when using the coordinates of the light itself. And this Apr 12 noon location has absolutely nothing to do with deriving the noon locations for Apr 13 or Apr 14 since the turning point I used to get to Apr 13 noon was the 49° 45'N, 23° 38'W La Touraine message location.

The Apr 13 location was obtained by going from the La Touraine message location to a point close to the great circle track such that the total mileage from Daunt's Rock LV to that point added up to 1003 miles, the cumulative distance traveled to that point. The other constraint was that the distance from that point to the Apr 14 noon location had to equal 546 miles, the run distance to noon Apr 14 that we know about. The noon Apr 14 point was obtained by going 126 miles on the reciprocal of Lowe's course line to the corner.

The bottom line here Capt. Collins is that the derived noon locations are decent approximate positions at best. We don't have the exact location data from the logbook as we have from the Olympic. As Bill West indicated, there may be other ways to estimate some of these noon locations. But what has to add up are the mileages which we do have, including the remaining mileage from noon to the corner which cannot differ very much from the 126 miles without the total distance to the corner being inconsistent with the crossing data from the Olympic. Certainly, your 110.5 miles is way out of line with this.
*********
Oh, the good thing about operating in 3 dimensions is that you can usually go over your departure point without worrying about grounding on rocks. The bad news about operating in 3 dimensions is that you must keep your vessel moving unless you can bring it down safely onto the ground, or if equipped, onto the water.
 
Save the kilobytes, Sam!

If I'd been Captain Smith. I'd have passed about one mile south of Fastnet Rock, outside the 30 fathom line. (I have a copy of a contemporary chart before me). In the conditions, that would have been quite safe.

In those days, It was important to pass lighthouses fairly closely, if practical, so the ship's identification signals could be seen and recorded.
 
Hi Dave. I understand and agree with you. When I look at Olympic's 2nd voyage westbound we find that her noon position for Jul 14 was 49° 59'N, 21° 48'N from the log card. If you take the GC distance from Fastnet light to that point you get 470.8 nautical miles. The reported distance run from Daunt's Rock LV to that noon location was written down as 525 miles. That makes the maximum distance from Daunt's Rock to Fastnet at 54.2 miles. Of course the ship was not exactly following the GC from Fastnet to that noon location so the actual distance traveled over ground would be somewhat greater making the distance run from Daunt's Rock to Fastnet somewhat under 54 miles. Now looking at the rhumb line distances from Daunt's Rock to a point 3 miles south of the Old Head of Kinsale and from there to Fastnet light, the distance works out to a little over 55 miles. To get to something closer to 54 miles, I need to reduce the dog leg distance of these three points, and there can be more than one way to do that.

Using Olympic 3rd voyage westbound numbers you get a different number for the Daunt's Rock to Fastnet dog leg run, a maximum of 56 miles. Anyway, it is hopeless to get precise positions in any of this work. As I stated in my article, the derived noon locations are approximate locations of where the ship was at local apparent noon each day out. In the recent article I wrote with Mark Chirnside, the noon positions are charted out along with the noon positions reported for Olympic's 1st and 2nd voyages westbound.

And thanks for the advice about saving kilobytes. I'll try and minimize my kilobyte usage going forward, especially when it comes to dealing with certain individuals.
 
I'll try and minimize my kilobyte usage going forward, especially when it comes to dealing with certain individuals.
Stay with your ‘ kilobyte usage going forward and from the response, ‘dealing with certain individuals’, you may learn practical navigation from the minds of those professional navigators.

1) As previous stated, the course and distance from off the Old Head of Kinsale to departure off Fastnet are inaccurate, and in fact puts Titanic on a course for a grounding on Fastnet Rock.

2) Based on the purported Pitman Memorandum and real practical navigation your positions for Noon 12th, 13th and 14th are erroneous which fudged 126.1 nm to the corner instead of 131nm

3) A further navigational check on Titanic’s speed ,on the basis of your positions ,shows that from Daunt Rk Lv to Noon 12th the speed was 21 kts and from Noon 12th -- when revs were supposedly increased ---to 7pm GMT 12th the speed was reduced to 20.5 kts. Why the ½ knot speed reduction? As a consequence of the incorrect Noon 12th position, noon 13th and 14th are erroneous.

4) The 162 miles cited is obviously the distance (7h 21m x 22 kts = 161.7 nm) to run from noon 14th to evening civil twilight, for stellar observation. The 126 miles is the distance (5h 45m x 22 knots= 126.5nm) run from noon 14th to the 5:45 p.m. alter course (S 86° W true course ) position ,which was a position 16 miles west and south of the corner 42/47
As we all know, the RMS Titanic never completed her maiden voyage. On the night of April 14th, she struck an iceberg at 11:40 PM apparent time ship (ATS), and sank just 2 hour and 40 minutes later.
The theory that Titanic collided with, or grounded on an underwater shelf of, an iceberg is a fantasy that exists only in the minds of those inexperienced in ship handling and pack-ice navigation, and has nothing to do with facts.
 
you may learn practical navigation from the minds of those professional navigators.
So which professional navigators should we "learn practical navigation" from Capt. Collins? There are two professional mariners, Master Mariner Thomas Barnett, Retired Principal Nautical Surveyor in the Department of Transport Marine Survey Service, and Capt. James De Coverly, Deputy Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, who are on record in the 1992 MAIB report which concluded that the "TITANIC was in approximate position 41°47'N, 49°55'W when she struck the iceberg at 2345 hrs 14 April, and in position 41°43.6'N, 49°56.9'W when she foundered," a report endorsed by Captain P. B. Marriott, Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents.

These three professional mariners agree that the collision occurred about 14 miles east of where you do, Boxhall's erroneous CQD location, and only 3.7 miles from the wreck site (marked by the boiler field center). The geographic distance from the "corner" at 42°N 47°W to their collision point is about 131.4 miles.

Now if you take my 126.1 miles from noon to the "corner" and add that to the 131.4 miles to the MAIB collision point you will get a run of 257.5 miles since noon. A collision at 23:45 is 11 hours and 45 minutes from noon. Multiply 22 knots by 11.75 hours and you get 258.5 miles, which checks nicely with their results.

I suggest Capt. Collins, you may indeed learn something about practical navigation from the minds of those professional navigators who really seem to understand the evidence presented.
 
Sam wrote:
"These three professional mariners agree that the collision occurred about 14 miles east of where you do, Boxhall's erroneous CQD location, and only 3.7 miles from the wreck site (marked by the boiler field center). The geographic distance from the "corner" at 42°N 47°W to their collision point is about 131.4 miles."

Sam, how silly of you, don't you realize that the Titanic sank at Boxhall's coordinates, attained neutral buoyancy underwater, then glided that number of miles underwater to the wrecksite, where an underwater earthquake flung the wreck apart, hurling the stern one direction, the bow in another, and scattering the debris in a pattern resembling that of which it would if the ship had broken up on the surface?

I say all of this in jest of course, since the good Captain believes this theory and has firmly defended it. And exactly what practical knowledge am I to buy from the mind of this navigator? Maybe next he is going to tell us that the Titanic collided with a UFO piloted by Elvis, because that is about as scientifically plausible as his above scenario.

PS: As stated ad nauseum Captain, you are not the only one who is a professional mariner, nor the only one with extensive navigational experience (even on this board), no one is buying your act.
 
Back
Top