Murdoch's Mistake

[Inger Sheil]

According to the Arabic crew agreements I've looked at for the period - with the understanding that no precise date has been ascribed to the incident so far - Murdoch was the Arabic's Second Officer, at least for July '03 - October '03. Jones was Third Officer 18.09.1903 - 11.10.1903, so this seems a decent enough possibility for the voyage.

However, given the wide dispersal of crew agreements and the lack of a centralised record, it is possible there are gaps in Murdoch's service as it is understood. I'm open to more information on this discussion. Do you have sources that identify the date of the incident and that suggest Murdoch was second?

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

quote:

I remember one night - we had just come up on the bridge to take over the watch -when the lookout struck the bell for a light on the port bow. It was that awkward moment before you have your night vision, for we had just come up to take over from the First Officer and his junior.

The order of bridge watches for senior officers was:

6 PM to 10 PM 2nd/Officer
10 PM to 2AM 1st/Officer
2AM to 6AM Chief Officer.

If Murdoch was taking over the watch at night (10 PM) he had to be the 1st/Officer.

Note that Murdoch, Titanic 1st/Officer, took over the bridge watch from 2nd/Officer Lightoller at 10PM, April 14th.

Regards,
Collins​

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The IMM rules in effect in 1907 had those watch times established for the senior officers that Capt. Collins posted above. I am not sure those were the same rules in effect in 1903. Other companies like Cunard also had 4 hours on and 8 off for their seniors. Their watch schedule in 1912 for their seniors were 1/O 12-4, C/O 4-8, and 2/O 8-4 (am & pm). Notice that in Cunard they too had the 2/O relieving the C/O, the 1/O relieving the 2/O, and the C/O relieving the 1/O. Same sequence except for times of the senior watches.

Now if Villiers meant what he said about relieving the 1st officer, then one might assume Murdoch had to be the Chief officer. But if he meant that they relieved the Chief officer, that would make Murdoch the 2nd officer. If they were using the same schedule as Cunard, then it might make sense if they came on at 8.

Now what Capt. Collins is suggesting is that Villiers was completely mistaken, and Murdoch was at that time the 1/O who came up to relieve the 2/O. All this assumes that the order of officer rotation was as noted above. And that is the real question here.

Did they do it the same way in 1903 as they did after 1907 and after?

 

[Inger Sheil]

I'm aware of this, Collins - indeed, I discussed it with a maritime historian of the period once I found the Arabic's logs, and the positions of the individuals named in Jones' accounts (he related the story to people other than Villiers, and one of these was the historian Geoffrey Marcus). Marcus notes that Jones told him it was Fox whom Murdoch was relieving. A perusal of the agreements for the period reveals that Fox was indeed the First officer:

Hayes (Master)
Kelk (Chief)
Fox (First)
Murdoch (Second).

So Jones consistently claimed it was Fox, as First, that Murdoch was relieving.

The WSL historian (himself a merchant navy officer) I consulted on this point offered two suggestions - either the watch order had been altered, or Jones must have been thinking of Kelk when he named Fox. Given, however, that Jones correctly identified Fox as the first officer, and that Jones as an experienced WSL officer would have been as aware as anyone of the usual order of the OoW, I think the former scenario is the more likely.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Interesting post Inger. It seems to make the most sense to me, given the apparent certainty of the officers you posted, that the watch order was different on board the Arabic at that time. By the way, I made a slight typographical error in the watch time for Cunard 2nd officers in my previous post above. The sentence I wrote should have said: "Their [Cunard] watch schedule in 1912 for their seniors were 1/O 12-4, C/O 4-8, and 2/O 8-12." WSL and other IMM lines used for their seniors: 1/O 10-2, C/O 2-6, and 2/O 6-10.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Sorry Sam - our posts crossed! I didn't see yours above mine when I responded, or I would have acknowledged it.