The halting of Titanic's sinking

[Aaron_2016]

When a compartment is full of water with sternway on, the water would run over the top of the bulkhead towards the bow, and therefore not continue to flood over at least the fifth bulkhead, and maybe the other bulkheads forward of it depending on when they started making sternway. That is why they should have made sternway immediately after confirming the damage. When making sternway there would be lower water depth on the aft part of the flooded bulkhead than the forward part, which would keep the water from flooding into the compartments farther aft. The more sternway speed, the lower the depth of water on the aft end of the forward flooded compartments. Why didnt they try to close the gap to safety instead of sitting and waiting for the inevitable mass death due to not enough lifeboats and freezing water, of which they knew was was the case?

The damaged plates were near the very bottom. When all of the damaged compartments had filled with water up to the waterline (several decks above) the water flooding upwards would not be influenced to move forward or aft by the ship's engines. As the bow weighed down it tipped E-deck below the water and raised the stern and propellers partially above the water. This would greatly reduce her speed. The ship also took on a list to starboard and then to port. This would raise one propeller higher up and make it much harder to steer the ship as one side would have more propulsion in the water than the other.

The flooding of E-deck would remain the same regardless of what the engines were doing further aft because the water would continue to circulate inside the rooms and decks high above the damaged zone. She also had to remain stopped because the rescue ships were heading for her reported position. The nearest port was Halifax towards the north and was a considerable distance away. The Carpathia was towards the south and would have further to travel if the Titanic attempted to move away. Also the southerly current would make it harder for the Titanic to head towards port as she would be steaming against the current, and with both propellers partially above the water, and with possibly one propeller missing a blade following the collision there would be little headway made towards port, especially as their path towards the north would be hampered by icebergs and the large ice field.

If the bow had been dragged back and resisted being pulled as the engines went full astern for a length of time it may have fractured the ship and broke her in two. However, I agree that the closure of the watertight doors may have allowed the stern to break away and become a separate ship as the stern pulled away from the bow.

When I saw the giant Orpheus ballroom and department store being demolished in Belfast it reminded me of the Titanic breaking in two as her floors became exposed in the middle.

If she were a ship I imagine that the closure of her wateright doors might have kept her afloat.

Although I doubt it could remain afloat for any significant length of time because she would become rapidly unstable and keel over to starboard or port and her flooding would be assisted by the water rushing into the open windows and the fractures across her hull that followed the break up which could have created unforeseen damage and sink the ship regardless if the watertight doors had been closed. There also might have been a partial connection to the bow which would pull the stern under as the bow went under, or create such chaos in the stern section that the engines would be damaged or unmanned and put out of action.


.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Sternway would have kept a lot of water from filling into the aft compartments for a good while at least.

Sternway would have made no difference at all. Once it was in, it was in, and since the water pressure OUTside would be greater than any air pressure INside, it would have just kept right on coming in until equilibrium was reached. The progression of flooding would have been exactly the same.

 

[Rob Lawes]

I stumbled across this recently while thumbing through a 1932 edition of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship (Volume 2).

There is a table that gives the capacity and position of the principal pumps fitted to a battleship of the era. Of note here are the Auxillary circulating pumps fitted to the engine room. There were 2 fitted to circulate water through the condensors and they were also able to draw water from the bilge if required. The two together had a total pumping capacity of 600 tons per hour.

The manual goes on to say that:

Since a single hole 1ft square in the ship's side 25ft below the water line will admit about 3,500 tons of water per hour into the ship, it is clear that even if the total pumping power could be rendered available at one place, it could not cope with the influx through more than a fairly small hole. On this account it is preferred to rely on efficient watertight subdivision rather than on pumping power to save a damaged ship; and no attempt is made to group or interconnect the pumps, as this would impair the watertight subdivision.

And keep in mind that RN warships expected to be damaged in action and yet even after the first world war, the RN was still expecting efficient watertight subdivision to be the prime method in which ships remaind afloat.

 

[coal eater]

so basically even with more strogner pumps titanic still could make final voyage to bottom. how did they keep lights after breakup then? no steam no dynamo,even if it has slowed to stop there was still emergency lights online,emergency dynamo was also dead so how did they keep lights on?

anyway wha was point on moving ship after collision

 

[Doug Criner]

What info shows you that the lights were on after breakup? But before the breakup, some residual steam pressure would still be up in the boilers.

What was the point of moving the ship after collision? In retrospect, of course, there was no point. But, without reading the minds of long-gone persons, we could only speculate. Maybe it was to get some way on to be able to maneuver? Or to be able to head for help? Or just test the propulsion? I have in the past browsed the various testimony sites - but am not all that accurately recollected. Maybe others will be able to help,

 

[David G. Brown]

A ship's pumps do not have to equal the ingress in order to keep the vessel afloat. This is particularly true when damage is low as in Titanic's case. Initially, the water entered with the force of 34 feet or so of head pressure. That pressure is the differential between the level of water outside versus inside. Eventually, the water inside reaches the level of that outside and ingress stops. There is not ingress in a ship that has fully sunk and is resting on the bottom even though the hull breach or breaches remain.

At some point before the ship founders the ingress has slowed to match the volume of water which can be removed by the pumps. At that point, assiduous pumping will keep the ship afloat even though the initial damage apparently doomed the vessel. The ship is then "floating on its pumps." One of the purposes of subdivision is to create small enough spaces where pumps can be effective in this way. Even if they cannot keep ahead of the ingress, gaining an hour or two afloat can save a lot of lives

As far as why Captain Smith rang down for forward propulsion after the accident ... you'll have to call him on your celestial cell phone and ask. He alone knows and we haven't heard him say a word for years.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Michael H. Standart]

What info shows you that the lights were on after breakup? But before the breakup, some residual steam pressure would still be up in the boilers.

What was the point of moving the ship after collision? In retrospect, of course, there was no point. But, without reading the minds of long-gone persons, we could only speculate. Maybe it was to get some way on to be able to maneuver? Or to be able to head for help? Or just test the propulsion? I have in the past browsed the various testimony sites - but am not all that accurately recollected. Maybe others will be able to help,

I expect that testing the ability of the ship to maneuver may well have been exactly the point. That or to put some measure of distance between themselves and the ice. We had this discussion years ago and all it did was go around in circles for want of any quantifiable evidence of what Captain Smith had in mind. It's like Captain David said: The one who knows took his secret with him to the bottom.

 

[Aaron_2016]

What info shows you that the lights were on after breakup? But before the breakup, some residual steam pressure would still be up in the boilers.

What was the point of moving the ship after collision? In retrospect, of course, there was no point. But, without reading the minds of long-gone persons, we could only speculate. Maybe it was to get some way on to be able to maneuver? Or to be able to head for help? Or just test the propulsion? I have in the past browsed the various testimony sites - but am not all that accurately recollected. Maybe others will be able to help,

Here are survivor accounts which mention the lights remaining on after she broke.


Mr. Bright

"She broke in two. All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted itself again and the forepart had disappeared (bow lights out)." "The lights had gone out in the forepart of the ship then.....The lights were burning in the afterpart of the ship.....It was only the after section, though, that was burning. The after part of the boat had her lights burning."

Q - After she broke in two?
A - Until she went under water; yes, sir.

"Then that righted itself again, got on an even keel again after that....It settled down in the water on an even keel."

Q - The bow lights were extinguished, were they?
A - You could not see anything of them after that.
Q - Did you see any lights on the stern after she settled?
A - Yes, sir; until she finally disappeared underneath the water.
Q - Until the stern disappeared, after the break?
A - Yes, sir.


Mr. Poingdestre
"The afterpart righted itself after the foremost part had disappeared (bow lights out)." "It uprighted itself, as if nothing had happened. (stern looked normal - lights still on)."


Mr. Ranger
"The forward end of the ship went underneath and seemed to break off, and the afterpart came back on a level keel."
Q - When she came back like that on a level keel were there any lights?
A - Right aft. The lights were right aft what were burning, on the afterend what was floating.
Q - And did they continue burning then right away aft to the taffrail?
A - Yes, right aft.


Mr. Brice
"I heard two rumbling noises."
Q - How far apart in time, probably, were the two explosions?
A - From 8 to 10 minutes.
Q - The lights were still on in the after end of the ship after the first and second explosions.


Mr. Clench
"I heard two explosions....The lights went out after the second explosion."


Major Peuchen
"We heard a sort of a rumbling sound and the lights were still on at the rumbling sound."


Mr. Brown
"With the first report of that explosion I saw the afterpart of the ship giving a tremble, and I thought by the afterpart going up, and giving a bit of a tremble that the bow had fallen off"
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.



(The broken stern settled back and then corkscrewed / turned around, and rose up again with her stern lights still blazing as she stood up with her "stern reared straight on end" almost vertical like a skyscraper, and then she slid down into the sea.)



Mrs. Collyer
"Two other explosions followed, dull and heavy, as if below the surface. The Titanic broke in two before my eyes. The fore part was already partly under the water. It wallowed over and disappeared instantly (bow lights out). The stern reared straight on end and stood poised on the ocean for many seconds. They seemed minutes to me. It was only then that the electric lights on board went out. (stern lights out)."


Mr. Thayer
"The great part of the ship, two hundred and fifty feet of it, rose into the sky, till it reached a sixty-five or seventy degree angle. Here it seemed to pause, and just hung, for what felt like minutes. Gradually she turned her deck away from us, as though to hide from our sight the awful spectacle."


Mrs. Rosenbaum
"The boat fully lighted up, suggesting one of our skyscrapers. It stood on end and then seemed to shoot or dive."


Mr. Beesley
"As we gazed awe-struck, she tilted slowly up, revolving apparently about a centre of gravity just astern of amidships, until she attained a vertically upright position; and there she remained motionless! As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether......She slid slowly forwards through the water and dived slantingly down."


.