Lights on Board

The only photo I've ever seen of the Titanic taken at night was a heavily retouched photo of the ship taken at anchorage in Cherbourg. The stacks are noteworthy for not being illuminated. Whether that's signifigent, I can't say, but if they weren't going to light them up at anchorage, I can't see this happening out at sea where such illumination would trash the watch team's night vision.
 
Hi Stanley,

No the Titanic's funnels were not flood lit, that came into fashion during the 1920's and it would not surprise me if it were the French that led the way.

The most light you'd seen on them at night would be the light scatter that filters up from the grand staircase domes and reciprocating engine room hatch, so we're talking mostly on the after face of the No. 3 funnel.

There are excellent inventories available for the ship's major electric users, and the wreck has been scrutinized since the 1980. Nobody's ever found any evidence for floodlights.
 
Olympic's measured minimum ambient lighting levels in the 1920s that were listed in the table appear to be anywhere from about 1/2 to 1/4 of what is commonly the recommended minimum levels of today. From 5 miles there would be no mistake as to what type of ship she was. And from 5 miles, there would be no mistaking a 4 masted tramp steamer either.

The problem was that the so called mysterious vessels that were seen that night were much more than 5 miles away despite the subjective appearance of their lights.
 
If anybody wants to get a sense of what light levels were like circa 1912, all you really need to do is go to the Biltmore Mansion in Asheville NC. The light bulbs used are the sort of low wattage and low light types which were contemporary to the time.
 
I do agree that Cameron's Titanic might be overlitt, however there is no doubt that seen from the lifeboats, the ship would have been a blaze of light, considering it was the only source of brightness in the area! Compared to the total darkness of a night without moon, the ship provided a beautiful, if terrible, view for the survivors.
Despite this, I have a question: how was the visibility that night after the lights disappeared? How far could they see? And when did the dawn break?
 
>>how was the visibility that night after the lights disappeared? How far could they see? <<

Apparently not very far.

Lawrence Beesley: "We were then in touch with three other boats: one was 15, on our starboard quarter, and the others I have always supposed were 9 and 11, but I do not know definitely. We never got into close touch with each other, but called occasionally across the darkness and saw them looming near and then drawing away again; we called to ask if any officer were aboard the other three, but did not find one....None of the other three boats near us had a light--and we missed lights badly: we could not see each other in the darkness; we could not signal to ships which might be rushing up full speed from any quarter to the Titanic's rescue; and now we had been through so much it would seem hard to have to encounter the additional danger of being in the line of a rescuing ship."

>>And when did the dawn break?<<

Nautical Twilight began about 04:39 AM,
Civil Twilight began about 05:13 AM, and sun rise was at 05:42 AM, all Titanic time.
 
>>how was the visibility that night after the lights disappeared? How far could they see?<<

Until their eyes could have adjusted, they wouldn't have been able to see very far at all. Even when their eyes were adjusted, they failed completely to see any of the pack ice and icebergs that were surrounding them. When you're out to sea, and it's dark, it's dark with an attitude! (Been there, done that!)
 
>>I find rather strange that the lifeboats were not provided with lamps though.<<

I'd have to poke around to be certain, but I think they were supposed to be. The problem here is that the people who ended up in the boats weren't all that familier with them, and that included the crew.

The Mersey Wreck Commission had this to say about the equipment:
quote:

In ordinary circumstances all these boats (with the exception of 1 and 2) were kept covered up, and contained only a portion of their equipment, such as oars, masts and sails, and water; some of the remaining portion, such as lamps, compasses and biscuits being stowed in the ship in some convenient place, ready for use when required. Much examination was directed at the hearing to show that some boats left the ship without a lamp and others without a compass and so on, but in the circumstances of confusion and excitement which existed at the time of the disaster this seems to me to be excusable.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepBoats.php​
 
>> do agree that Cameron's Titanic might be overlitt

To be fair, Cameron's set is overlit because one needed to be able to see the action clearly.

Wouldn't it be a safe assumption that lights on board the Titanic would have been around the strength of a modern 25W bulb?
 

Similar threads

B
Lights
Replies
1
Views
1K
Ioannis Georgiou
I
L
Masthead Lights
7 8
Replies
114
Views
17K
AlexP
A
A
Ship's lights
Replies
9
Views
3K
AlexP
A
Dan Kappes
Were the lights on board the Titanic less bright than the lights on today's cruise ships?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Steven Christian
Steven Christian
Y
Titanic's NavigationRunning Lights
3 4
Replies
45
Views
13K
Parks Stephenson
P
Back
Top