My dads theory on how the sinking could have been delayed

[Oliver K]

Hello, my dad recently came up with a theory on how the sinking could have slowed down long enough for rescue, i'm skeptical of it myself but he believes it would have worked if it was possible.

The theory is that the sinking could have been delayed if the inflow of water was balanced by allowing it into the stern, he believes this would have slowed the sinking down and reduced the stresses on the ships structure, therefore preventing the break up, he says that by letting water into the stern compartment it would have equalised it, acting as a counterbalance.

Personally i don't believe it would have worked, the ship would have lost electrical sooner, as the dynamo and engine rooms would have been likely been flooded out sooner, and balancing the stern and bow would have been a big job, like changing the C.O.G of concorde on the fly but the forward ballast being uncontrollable.

What are your thoughts on this? would it have slowed down the sinking? or would it have been not possible

 

[Rose F.]

I doubt it'd do much. Would she have stayed intact? Yes. However, the opening of the compartments wouldn't change the initial rate of water. It might be a bit slower towards the end because the portholes and the openings in the well deck would take a bit longer to go under, but the general rate of buoyancy lost would be the same regardless of compartment arrangement.

 

[Seumas]

Hello, my dad recently came up with a theory on how the sinking could have slowed down long enough for rescue, i'm skeptical of it myself but he believes it would have worked if it was possible.

The theory is that the sinking could have been delayed if the inflow of water was balanced by allowing it into the stern, he believes this would have slowed the sinking down and reduced the stresses on the ships structure, therefore preventing the break up, he says that by letting water into the stern compartment it would have equalised it, acting as a counterbalance.

Personally i don't believe it would have worked, the ship would have lost electrical sooner, as the dynamo and engine rooms would have been likely been flooded out sooner, and balancing the stern and bow would have been a big job, like changing the C.O.G of concorde on the fly but the forward ballast being uncontrollable.

What are your thoughts on this? would it have slowed down the sinking? or would it have been not possible

That idea has been around for decades.

In the mid nineties some marine engineers and architects in the USA did an experiment to see if it would have worked.

They used a scale model of the ship, did the calculations and flooded the model at the appropriate rate to that which the ship suffered.

The result was that the model spectacularly capsized to starboard about fifty or sixty minutes before the ship sank in reality.

It was a no go.

 

[Cam Houseman]

interesting things!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Personally i don't believe it would have worked,<<

It wouldn't have. The original idea was that the watertight doors be opened to allow for more even flooding and this was actually tested using properly weighted and balanced engineers models. Admittedly this is not perfect but it worked well enough to show that the ship lost power, then lost stability, rolled over and sank something like an hour earlier than what actually happened in the real world.

The break up happening at best stole only a few minutes from them. By the time it happened, the final plunge was already well in progress. Once that express elevator was on the way down, there was no stopping it.

 

[Seumas]

Here is the footage of the actual experiment that was done to determine if the "watertight doors open" scenario would have worked.

(This is from a truly terrible documentary called "Titanic: Secrets Revealed" made in the late nineties - the experiment is probably the only redeeming feature of it.)

Watch from 1:23:00 onwards for the footage of the experiment.

 

[James B]

Hello, my dad recently came up with a theory on how the sinking could have slowed down long enough for rescue, i'm skeptical of it myself but he believes it would have worked if it was possible.

The theory is that the sinking could have been delayed if the inflow of water was balanced by allowing it into the stern, he believes this would have slowed the sinking down and reduced the stresses on the ships structure, therefore preventing the break up, he says that by letting water into the stern compartment it would have equalised it, acting as a counterbalance.

Personally i don't believe it would have worked, the ship would have lost electrical sooner, as the dynamo and engine rooms would have been likely been flooded out sooner, and balancing the stern and bow would have been a big job, like changing the C.O.G of concorde on the fly but the forward ballast being uncontrollable.

What are your thoughts on this? would it have slowed down the sinking? or would it have been not possible

There are 2 issues with the theory, the engine crew was working their ass off to cool down the boilers fearing it will explode so the closed watertight doors allowed alittle time to do it, second thing is that the ship would have listed and capsized faster.

 

[Steven Christian]

Here is the footage of the actual experiment that was done to determine if the "watertight doors open" scenario would have worked.

(This is from a truly terrible documentary called "Titanic: Secrets Revealed" made in the late nineties - the experiment is probably the only redeeming feature of it.)

Watch from 1:23:00 onwards for the footage of the experiment.

I have this in my files. Not as bad as some of the later ones that were produced. When the Titanic craze was at its full peak after the 97 movie came out they were cranking out a lot of docu's. Some pretty bad just like some that have come out in the last few years. I've gotten to where I call them a bow/bathtub video. Show a picture of the bow then Smith's bathtub then talk about crazy theories as to why she sank. Cheers.

 

[Cam Houseman]

Here is the footage of the actual experiment that was done to determine if the "watertight doors open" scenario would have worked.

(This is from a truly terrible documentary called "Titanic: Secrets Revealed" made in the late nineties - the experiment is probably the only redeeming feature of it.)

Watch from 1:23:00 onwards for the footage of the experiment.

So that's what the documentary had in it. Think I'll give it a watch now. Thanks Seumas!

 

[Cam Houseman]

I've gotten to where I call them a bow/bathtub video. Show a picture of the bow then Smith's bathtub then talk about crazy theories as to why she sank. Cheers.

At least the recent documentary from 2021 showed a fair bit of good stuff. the 2019 documentary "Back to the Titanic" was a little disappointing

 

[Seumas]

I have this in my files. Not as bad as some of the later ones that were produced. When the Titanic craze was at its full peak after the 97 movie came out they were cranking out a lot of docu's. Some pretty bad just like some that have come out in the last few years. I've gotten to where I call them a bow/bathtub video. Show a picture of the bow then Smith's bathtub then talk about crazy theories as to why she sank. Cheers.

Aye, there are some head in hands staggeringly awful Titanic documentaries out there particularly during the nineties.

The Discovery Channel ones such as "Titanic: The Investigation Begins", "Anatomy of a Disaster", "Untold Stories", "Last Mysteries of the Titanic" and "Deep Inside the Titanic" were notable exceptions.

All are still a pleasure to watch. Many hauntingly beautiful shots of the wreck. All are well written and produced. There was material there for both someone with a casual interest in the Titanic and someone with a serious interest. Charles Haas and the late John P. Eaton were heavily involved with them so you were always on safe ground with regard to the facts.

"Titanic: Birth of a Legend" was fairly decent. They did well considering the size of the budget they had available.

They did though repeat the tired myth of Alexander Carlyle's resigning over not getting sixty four lifeboats installed. They also got mixed up about William Pirrie's politics. In the film, Pirrie is portrayed as an Irish nationalist but he was not. In fact he was a moderate, liberal minded unionist who was open to compromise with the pro-home rulers and who disavowed anti-Catholicism unlike many of the unionists at the time.

"Saving Titanic" was not awful but at the same time a missed opportunity.

A lot of us for years had been crying out for something that would focus solely on the ship's crew for a change and with this one we got it.

Unfortunately, although "Saving Titanic", while clearly well intentioned, still had a number of errors in it. Elementary stuff like not having telephones in the engine room, engineers not wearing boiler suits, Fred Barrett, Paddy Dillon and Alfred White all speak with the wrong accents etc. And just why on earth is the entire ship still high and dry at 02:20AM

Don't get me started on "Titanic: The New Evidence". Utter garbage and extremely dishonest. Unfortunately, a lot of people (particularly in the UK and Ireland) saw it and now believe the rubbish that was presented in it.

I don't know if this has been shown in the USA yet but over here in 2019 we had "Ten Mistakes That Sank the Titanic" which repeated a lot of old myths that have long been debunked. Ignore it if it comes up on your TV schedule, it's awful.