Good day to you Mrs. Tedder,
I read your message and I am afraid it is filled with a lot of misconceptions about the story of the Titanic that are either made up or slightly altered in movies and documentaries.
Firstly, 1496 people died during the disaster, not 1500 or more. 712 people survived the sinking, not 705.
Mr. Ismay and the White Star Line had nothing to do with the amount of lifeboats, unlike the media often claims. The Board of Trade had the following rule about ships in 1894, which became quite outdated since ships became larger and larger the following years:
"... Under this (Merchant Shipping) Act (1894), a table showing the minimum number of boats to be placed under davits and their minimum cubic contents was issued by the Board. ... This table was based on the gross tonnage of the vessels to which it was to apply, and not upon the numbers carried, and provided that the number of boats and their capacity should increase as the tonnage increased. The table, however, stopped short at the point were the gross tonnage of the vessels reached “10,000 and upwards.”
The minimum lifeboats required for a vessel larger then 10 000 tons in gross tonnage was 16 lifeboats in total. The Titanic had 4 Engelhardt collapsible lifeboats. These 20 lifeboats (14 30 feet lifeboats with a maximum registered capacity of 65 people each, 2 Emergency Cutter lifeboats with a capacity of 40 people each and those 4 Engelhardt collapsible with a capacity of 47 people each). Place for 1178 people in total.
Also, Mr. Ismay, atleast we can gather from the account of Elizabeth Lines, never ordered for more speed according to her testimony she said the following (
TIP | Limitation of Liability Hearings | Deposition of Elizabeth L. Lines):
29. Will you indicate the table at which you were sitting at the time you heard this conversation?
- I was sitting next to the outer side of the ship. (Witness indicates that the table at which she was sitting was the table next to the one used by the Captain and Mr. Ismay on the port side, but that there was a table further from the port side of the ship and somewhat between the table of the Captain and her own table).
30. Was this other table that you say was in a general way between yourself and the table and settee used by Mr. Ismay and the Captain in a direct line between you and Mr. Ismay's table?
- No.
31. How far out of a direct line would you say it would be?
- It was about four or five or six feet.
32. Did that other table stand in such a position as in any way to interfere with your view of Captain Smith and Mr. Ismay?
- No.
33. During the time that this conversation that you have referred to occurred, was there any person sitting in a position to interfere with your view?
- No.
34. Were there chairs in a direct line between you and Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith?
- Not that I recollect.
35. Would you be good enough to state when it was on Saturday April thirteenth that this conversation occurred?
- After the midday meal I went into the lounge to have my coffee - in the general reception room.
36. Were the Captain and Mr. Ismay already there?
- No, they came in after I was seated, and went to this same table which I had seen them occupy on the Friday.
37. Could you estimate about what time it was that the Captain and Mr. Ismay entered the reception room or lounge?
- Perhaps half past one.
38. Do you recall what your luncheon hour was?
- No, because it varied; it was a little later some days and a little earlier other days; but I should say that it was about one thirty when I went into the lounge.
39. About how long, within your knowledge, did Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith remain in this reception room engaged in conversation?
- At least two hours.
40. Were you there all of that time?
- I was there.
41. Are you able to state from your recollection the words that you heard spoken between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith on that occasion?
- We had had a very good run. At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed, which I already knew had been a very good one in the preceeding (sic) twenty-four hours, and I heard Mr. Ismay - it was Mr. Ismay who did the talking - I heard him give the length of the run, and I heard him say "Well, we did better to-day than we did yesterday, we made a better run to-day than we did yesterday, we will make a better run to-morrow. Things are working smoothly, the machinery is bearing the test, the boilers are working well". They went on discussing it, and then I heard him make the statement: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
42. In your last statement, Mrs. Lines, were you giving the substance of the conversation or the exact words which were used?
- I heard "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday" in those words.
43. If there were any particular words spoken that you can remember, I should be glad to hear them.
- Those words fixed themselves in my mind: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
44. Do I understand you to say that the other things that you stated were the general substance of what you heard and not the exact things or words used?
- No, I heard those statements.
45. What was said by Mr. Ismay as regards the condition of the performances, of the engines, machinery and boilers?
- He said they were doing well, they were bearing the extra pressure. The first day's run had been less, the second day's run had been a little greater. He said "You see they are standing the pressure, everything is going well, the boilers are working well, we can do better to-morrow, we will make a better run to-morrow."
46. In speaking of standing the pressure well, Mr. Ismay was referring to the boilers, was he not?
- Of the boilers, I gathered.
47. I understand that hitherto you have been stating what you heard Mr. Ismay say: is that true?
- Yes.
48. What, if anything, did you hear Captain Smith say?
- I did not hear anything.
49. Did you hear the sound of his voice?
- No.
50. Won't you describe as well as you can, the tone and gesture of Mr. Ismay in this conversation?
- It was very positive, one might almost say dictatorial. He asked no questions.
51. Mrs. Lines, if you can recall anything else sat at that conversation, either in words or in substance, please state it.
- There was a great deal of repetition. I heard them discuss other steamers, but what I paid the most attention to was the Titanic's runs, and it was simply that Mr. Ismay repeated several times "Captain, we have done so and so, we have done so and so, everything is working well." He seemed to dwell upon the fact, and it took quite a little time, and then finally I heard this very positive assertion: "We will beat the Olympic and we will get into New York on Tuesday" but he asked no questions.
52. Did you hear anything said by Mr. Ismay that directly or indirectly sought information from Captain Smith as to the performances of the vessel or as to Captain Smith's opinion of what the vessel could fairly do?
- No, I did not.
53. What would you say as to your ability to hear all that was said in an ordinary tone of voice between Captain Smith and Mr. Ismay in the positions in which they were and you were on that afternoon of Saturday?
- It was quite possible, as during the latter part of the time there were very few people left in the lounge and it was quiet.
54. You say it was possible for you to hear?
- It was possible to hear ordinary conversation.
55. Do you recall any conversation on that occasion between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith as to the performances of another vessel of the line?
- No, excepting the comparison with the runs of the Olympic.
56. And what runs of the Olympic were they using as a comparison?
- The trial trip.
57. Do you mean the maiden voyage?
- Yes, the maiden voyage.
58. And what was the substance or the words if you can give them, of the conversation as regards the Olympic?
- It was comparison, and that the Titanic was doing equally well, and they seemed to think a little more pressure could be put on the boilers and the speed increased so that the maiden trip of the Titanic would exceed the maiden trip of the Olympic in speed.
59. Mrs. Lines, won't you explain just what you mean by your words "They seemed to think"? I wish to exclude your own impressions and ask you merely what you heard said on that subject?
- They stated the run of the Titanic was equal to the run of the Olympic. Mr. Ismay did the talking, I did not hear Captain Smith's voice. I saw him nod his head a few times.
60. Did he nod his head so as to indicate assent or dissent?
- Assent.
61What was it that Mr. Ismay said from which you say you drew the impression that they seemed to think that the Titanic would beat the Olympic or that the Titanic compared well with the Olympic?
- They made comparisons in numbers which I cannot repeat, the number of miles run in various days. Mr. Ismay gave the runs made on certain days by the Olympic on its maiden voyage and compared them with the runs made y the Titanic on the first days.
62. You have stated several times, Mrs. Lines, that Mr. Ismay made assertions or statements as to what "we" would do, using the pronoun "we". Did he use any other pronoun that you know of in this conversation?
- No, Mr. Ismay said "we" and he asked no questions. He made assertions, he made statements. I did not hear him defer to Captain Smith at all.
63. Was there any part of that conversation that indicated whether or not Captain Smith deferred to Mr. Ismay?
It gives me the impression he was entirely satisfied with the performance of the Titanic on her maiden voyage and expected to arrive Tuesday Evening with Titanic her current speed instead of Wednesday morning. You must know that the Olympic-class liners were built as Wednesday ships and would depart from Southampton on a Wednesday, would arrive next week on a Wednesday in New York and would start the return voyage to Southampton the week after that on a Wednesday after being resupplied. The Olympic never managed to arrive on a Tuesday before at that time, hence why he said: “Beat the Olympic”.
Also, it was the Welin Davit company that made the plan with 64 lifeboats. The official Harland and Wolff plan with more lifeboats had 48 lifeboats in total. Also, it is a myth that Alexander Carlisle had a fuss with his brother-in-law Lord William Pirrie about the lifeboats. He retired due his health in June 1910 (see
Carlisle's Retirement – Separating fact from fiction). It is true however he wanted more lifeboats for the Olympic class liners.
Also, the key former second officer David Blair took with him was the key of the crows nest telephone. Also, trained lookouts such as the talented historian Park Stephenson say binoculars would make no difference in sighting the iceberg on that faithful night. Also a searchlight would not make a difference since it only would have destroyed the night eyes of the lookouts and officers on watch. On this matter I recommend this video:
About wireless operator John “Jack” George Philips we need to talk about why he reacted with “Shut up, shut up, shut up. You’re jamming my signal. I’m busy.”. Close to midnight on the 13th of April the Marconi wireless apparatus stopped working and he and Harold Bride worked hard to repair it, and nearly had no sleep because of that. It was fully repaired again the morning of the 14th They got a few ice warnings, which were not ignored by the bridge, which already warned them about the icefield ahead of them. Due the delay of the broke apparatus there were multiple messages which had to be send to cape Race, personal messages of the
first class passengers. Now we go to the time that Cyril Evans would have send the ice warning, he is quite close and the closer a ship is getting how hard the spark would sound on the headphones. His ears all of the sudden nearly get blown away by the sound, he has multiple messages he still needs to send, nearly no sleep and he receives information he and the bridge already knows. Hence why he reacted such harsh. The ice warning of the Californian was also much further away from Titanic her course compared to the ice warning of the Baltic, send earlier that day.
Next point will be the ice warnings, they were not ignored by Captain Smith and his officers. At an estimated 42°N 47°W the course was changed. The officers where very alerted about the ice. At approximately 9.30 p.m. Quartermaster Hichens "heard the second officer repeat to Mr. Moody, the sixth officer, to speak through the telephone, warning the lookout men in the crow's nest to keep a sharp lookout for small ice until daylight and pass the word along to the other lookout men….I heard by the second officer when he repeated it. He sent me with his compliments to the ship's carpenter to look out for the ship's water, that it was freezing, at 8 o'clock. Then I knew. I didn't know before, but I heard the second officer distinctly tell Mr. Moody, the sixth officer, to repeat through the telephone, and keep a sharp lookout for small ice until daylight, and to pass the word along for the other lookout men." Later at the British Inquiry, Hichens confirmed this conversation, "I heard Mr. Lightoller speak to Mr. Moody and tell him to speak through the telephone to the crow’s-nest to keep a sharp look-out for small ice and growlers until daylight and pass the word along to the look-out man."
Lightoller himself remembers the conversation. He first mentions it at the US Inquiry:
Senator SMITH. Did you admonish the lookout men?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Yes
Senator SMITH. What did you say to them?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. I told the sixth officer, Mr. Moody, to ring up the crow's nest and tell them to keep a sharp lookout for ice, particularly small ice and growlers. That was received and replied to - and also to pass the word along.
Senator SMITH. How do you know it was replied to?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Because I could hear it.
Senator SMITH. You heard it yourself?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Yes
Senator SMITH. Did Mr. Moody survive?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. No.
At the British Inquiry he remembers that he got Moody to repeat it again:
LIGHTOLLER: I thought it was a necessary precaution. That is a message I always send along when approaching the vicinity of ice or a derelict, as the case may be... I told Mr. Moody to ring up the crow’s-nest and tell the look-outs to keep a sharp look out for ice, particularly small ice and growlers. Mr. Moody rang them up and I could hear quite distinctly what he was saying. He said, “Keep a sharp look out for ice, particularly small ice,” or something like that, and I told him, I think, to ring up again and tell them to keep a sharp look out for ice particularly small ice and growlers. And he rang up the second time and gave the message correctly."
And now to the final point I noticed on the first sight while reading, about Thomas Andrews Jr. Just as I mentioned before, the Board of Trade rule and regulations have to do with the amount of lifeboats on-board, not Harland and Wolff and Mr. Ismay, as mentioned before, also had nothing to do with the choice behind the amount of lifeboats. Thomas Andrews Jr gave the ship a hour to a hour and a half at about 12:22/25, 43 to 45 minutes after the collision. I believe about a minute of ten before that he already reported to captain Smith that she was unable to stay afloat below decks. He only had to estimate how long she would have had at that point. Captain Smith already ordered to have swung out all the lifeboats before 12:22/25.
I have to recommend one thing, do not believe everything the media claims about the Titanic. There are documentaries and movies filled with false information and misconceptions that are claimed to be factual, which mostly isn’t the case. For example, Mr. Ismay his reputation and character was assassinated after the disaster due his rivalry with Willian Randolph Hearst who used his power and influence to ruin his life with the American Press.
I hope you understand this is not meant as an attack some sort. I just try to get to clear certain misconceptions out of the way. I hope you have a nice day.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas