The propellers being exposed

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Charles Lightoller
14054. You had better just tell us what your own experiences were. What happened to you? - Well, I was swimming out towards the head of the ship, the crow's-nest. I could see the crow's-nest. The water was intensely cold, and one's natural instinct was to try to get out of the water. I do not know whether I swam to the foremast with that idea, but of course I soon realised it was rather foolish, so I turned to swim across clear of the ship to starboard. The next thing I knew I was up against that blower on the fore part of the funnel. There is a grating.

14058. Did it drag you against it? - It held me against the blower.

14061. Had you been dragged below the surface? - Yes.
14063. Then you came up to the surface? - Yes.
14068. (The Solicitor-General.) When you came up where did you find yourself? - I found myself alongside of the collapsible boat, which I had previously launched on the port side, the one I had thrown on to the boat deck.
14070. Were you able to make use of it to clamber on to it?- Not at that time. I just held on to something, a piece of rope or something, and was there for a little while, and then the forward funnel fell down. It fell within 3 or 4 inches of the boat. It lifted the boat bodily and threw her about 20 feet clear of the ship as near as I could judge.

14076. (The Commissioner.) If you saw it - if you saw what happened, tell us what it was? - After the funnel fell there was some little time elapsed. I do not know exactly what came or went, but the next thing I remember I was alongside this collapsible boat again, and there were about half a dozen standing on it. I climbed on it, and then turned my attention to the ship. The third if not the second funnel was still visible, certainly the third funnel was still visible. The stern was then clear of the water.
14077. Which do you call the second and third? - Numbering them from forward, My Lord.
14078. The second was visible? - The third was visible - I am not sure if the second was visible, but I am certain the third was visible, and she was gradually raising her stern out of the water. Even at that time I think the propellers were clear of the water. That I will not be certain of.
14079. Had the funnel broken away? - Only the forward one.
14080. But you are not sure about the second one? - I am not sure whether that was below water or not, that I cannot say.
14081. That is what I mean. I want to know from you. Was it below water in the sense that the ship had sunk so as to immerse it in the water, or had it broken adrift? - No, the second funnel was immersed.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi, Ioannis Georgiou
I just thought there was something I said that was incorrect in my reply to the OP, and that I read the the the link you posted to see the error I made. Sorry if I misunderstood.

No problem!

I always found it odd that most depictions, besides Cameron, show the propellors and stern out of the water long before the bridge is even submerged.

There are descriptions about the propellers out of the water before the bridge submerged but it was only part of it, not the complete ones.
Steward Walter Nichols mentioned that he saw half of the starboard propeller out of the water after his boat No. 15 had rowed some distance from the ship (most likely a result of the trim and port list). The sketch done by Steward Leo Hyland also indicates it was over the water.

 

[Kyle Naber]

the two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife...." Mr. Brown said he was just forward

Couldn’t this account be interpreted as the two foward funnels collapsing, followed by the break? She didn’t specifically say they leaned in unison.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Couldn’t this account be interpreted as the two foward funnels collapsing, followed by the break? She didn’t specifically say they leaned in unison.

I think if she had seen the two forward funnels falling before she broke she would not have described them as falling, as funnels would not lean and remain suspended in a leaned position before falling. I believe she was describing the break by using the funnels as her basis to believe the ship was breaking. i.e. the bow buckling and lurching downward with the two forward funnels leaning forward with the bow. I believe Ruth Becker described the same thing.as the bow lurched down as it broke away from the stern. Edward Brown was on the forward boat deck when it suddenly lurched. He was asked:


Q - Did you hear any noise from the ship as she went down under you? Any explosions?
A - What I took to be an explosion, sir. A great noise, a great report.
Q - Did you notice whether the bow broke off?
A - With the first report of that explosion I saw the afterpart of the ship giving a tremble like this (showing), and I thought by the afterpart going up like this (showing), and giving a bit of a tremble that the bow had fallen off. I might be wrong.
Q - But that was your conclusion from it?
A - Yes.

* He was undoubtedly describing the ship breaking and the stern canting high upwards into the air. This is when survivors saw the stern almost vertical, standing on end with her side lights still showing as the stern was buckling and rising sharply upwards.

Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.
Q - Could you see that?
A - Yes.

The forward funnel fell which according to Lightoller created a wave which pushed him and the collapsible boat way from the scene. If the funnel had already fallen I think Edward Brown would have mentioned it mean he said he was "right before the forward funnel" when he witnessed the ship break and the stern cant upwards. This is why the survivors saw the side lights illuminated at the same time they saw the stern almost vertical, as the ship had to have been buckled to achieve this.


.

 

[LukeW17]

Couldn’t this account be interpreted as the two foward funnels collapsing, followed by the break? She didn’t specifically say they leaned in unison.

That seems possible but I suppose every angle could make what happened look different

 

[Aaron_2016]

My edit timed out. Meant to say: If she had seen the two forward funnels falling before she broke she would not have described them as leaning, because once the support wires failed the funnels would simply fall. I believe she turned and looked at the ship when she broke because the explosive sounds got her attention and the bow broke and lurched down which appeared to her as the two forward funnels seeming to lean forward and then she broke completely as if cut with a knife down her decks and the stern quickly rose high into the air and then settled back.


.

 

[Aaron_2016]

I am influenced by the survivors accounts. They take priority over all other analysis.

.

 

[Kyle Naber]

While the lights were burning, I saw her bow pointing down and the stern up; not in a perpendicular position, but considerable...I should think an angle of not as much as 45°...It was intact at that time.
— First-class Passenger Arthur Godfrey Peuchen

 

[Chris cameron]

Hmm, interesting survivor account.

 

[David G. Brown]

Perhpas more important than the words in an alleged quotation is knowing where the quoted person, to whom he or she was speaking , and on what date as it.

A newspaper quotation in 1912 has no special standing. Many times the famous quote was created out of whole cloth by some rewrite man "punching" up the story.

Memories a fleeting and tend to conform to the accepted story as time passes.

Even in 1912 most people enjoyed being famous if only for a movent or two.

Quotes taken from transcripts of the two inquiries are probably the most accurate sources. Even so, there are obvious mistakes -- wrong words or words out of context for instance) -- in them.

Another frequent mistake is to quote statements by the questioners as if they were statements of what took place when, in truth, they were just attempts to put a "spin" on the evidence.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Aaron_2016]

While the lights were burning, I saw her bow pointing down and the stern up; not in a perpendicular position, but considerable...I should think an angle of not as much as 45°...It was intact at that time.
— First-class Passenger Arthur Godfrey Peuchen

It is believed that his lifeboat was rowing north westerly direction towards the lights of the other ship. This would mean his view of the Titanic sinking was limited. Survivors heard the first explosive sound before the bridge submerged and testified that the stern broke off and canted upwards with its lights still on. Major Peuchen I believe would have turned and looked at the ship's stern pointing up in the air after she buckled and her bow lights would have extinguished as the bow broke away and submerged. There was a second much stronger explosive sound and the stern settled back. I believe some had turned and looked at the Titanic when they heard the rumble and her bow lights disappeared. The stern rose high in the air and they assumed the ship was still intact and then there was a much larger rumble and the stern settled back. To some, this was the moment the ship appeared to break in two, and for others who were closer with a better vantage point it was simply the second stage of the break up as they had witnessed the bow break off and the stern cant upwards first, and then the bow lights went out and all that remained was the stern sticking up with her lights still blazing and then detaching completely and settling back. It's very easy for different survivors to see something very different depending on their distance, position, and when they turned and looked i.e. before the rumble, during, or after the rumble. Every second was valuable and I believe every position held importance, and possibly unique importance if they could see the ship from an angle others could not, and to see how the Titanic really broke apart and sank, which is why I leave no stone unturned when reading every available account, primarily from the official Inquiries.


.

 

[Daniel A. Soto]

What I find interesting about some of the testimony of the break up, is when some survivors said certain things happened. For example, we have a few passengers who mention the falling, or leaning of funnels around the same time as the break up, or the mention of the port and starboard lights under the bridge. This has always struck me as odd because the higher angle break (at least 30 degrees) would have the funnels already broken off and well under water.

 

[Kyle Naber]

For example, we have a few passengers who mention the falling, or leaning of funnels around the same time as the break up

Interpreted as, anyway.

 

[Daniel A. Soto]

Its true, we don't exactly know what they meant at the time.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

>>Survivors heard the first explosive sound before the bridge submerged and testified that the stern broke off and canted upwards with its lights still on. Major Peuchen I believe would have turned and looked at the ship's stern pointing up in the air after she buckled and her bow lights would have extinguished as the bow broke away and submerged. There was a second much stronger explosive sound and the stern settled back. I believe some had turned and looked at the Titanic when they heard the rumble and her bow lights disappeared. The stern rose high in the air and they assumed the ship was still intact and then there was a much larger rumble and the stern settled back. To some, this was the moment the ship appeared to break in two, and for others who were closer with a better vantage point it was simply the second stage of the break up as they had witnessed the bow break off and the stern cant upwards first, and then the bow lights went out and all that remained was the stern sticking up with her lights still blazing and then detaching completely and settling back.<<

Which survivors?
People who were in the same lifeboat mentioned that the ship broke while others not, a perfect example was lifeboat No. 13. While Ruth Becker and several others saw and talked about the break, Beesley did not saw it.

What about these:

Senator BOURNE. Did you see the ship sink?
Mr. CROWE. I did, sir.
Senator BOURNE. Would you explain in your own way how it appeared to you?
Mr. CROWE. When we left the ship her head was down in the water probably several feet; I could not say the distance, or any angle.... After getting clear of the ship the lights were still burning very bright, but as we got away she seemed to go lower and lower, and she almost stood up perpendicular, and her lights went dim, and presently she broke clean in two, probably two-thirds of the length of the ship.
Senator BOURNE. That is, two-thirds out of the water or two-thirds in the water?
Mr. CROWE. Two-thirds in the water, one-third of the aft funnel sticking up.
Senator BOURNE. How long did that third stick up?
Mr. CROWE. After she floated back again.
Senator BOURNE. She floated back?
Mr. CROWE. She broke, and the after part floated back.
Senator BOURNE. And the bow part, two-thirds of the ship, sank.
Mr. CROWE. Yes, sir; then there was an explosion, and the aft part turned on end and sank.
Senator BOURNE. Then you attribute the sinking to the explosion. You believe it would have floated, had it not been for the explosion?
Mr. CROWE. That I can not say, sir.

OSMAN: …After she got to a certain angle she exploded, broke in halves, and it seemed to me as if all the engines and everything that was in the after part slid out into the forward part, and the after part came up right again, and as soon as it came up right down it went again.
SENATOR BURTON. What do you think those explosions were?

BOURNE: When you came up from the water and got on this collapsible boat, did you see any evidence of the ship as she sunk, then?
Collins: I did, sir; I saw her stern end.
BOURNE: [Where were] you on the boat at the time that you were washed off the ship?
Collins: Amidships, sir.
BOURNE: You say you saw the stern end after you got on the collapsible boat?
Collins: Yes, sir.
BOURNE: Did you see the bow?
Collins: No, sir.
BOURNE: How far were you from the stern end of the ship when you came up and got into the collapsible boat, would you judge?
Collins: We were about - I could not exactly state how far I was from the Titanic when I come up to the surface. I was not far, because her lights went out then. Her lights went out until the water almost got to amidships on her.
BOURNE: As I understand, you were amidships on the bow as the ship sank?
Collins: Yes, sir.
BOURNE: You were washed off by a wave. You were under water, as you think, for two or three minutes (sic), and then swam 5 or 6 yards to the collapsible boat and got aboard - and got into the boat. The stern of the ship was still afloat?
Collins: The stern of the ship was still afloat.
BOURNE: The lights were burning?
Collins. I came to the surface, sir, and I happened to look around and I just saw the lights and nothing more, and I looked in front of me and I saw the collapsible boat and I made for it.
BOURNE: After you got in the boat, did you see any lights on the Titanic?
Collins: No, sir.
BOURNE: When you were in the water, after you came up above the surface of the water, you saw the lights on the Titanic?
Collins: Just as I came up to the surface, sir. Her bow was in the water. She had not exploded then. Her bow was in the water, and I just looked around and saw the lights.
BOURNE: Had she broken in two?
Collins: Her bow was in the water and her stern was up y
BOURNE: But you did not see any break? You did not think she had parted and broken in two?
Collins: Her bow was in the water. She exploded in the water. She exploded once in the water, and her stern end was up out of the water; and with the explosion out of the water it blew her stern up.
BOURNE: You saw it while it was up?
Collins: Yes, sir; saw her stern up.
BOURNE: How long?
Collins: I am sure it floated for at least a minute.
BOURNE: The lights were still burning?
Collins: No, sir; the lights was out.
BOURNE: How could you see it?
Collins: I was on the collapsible boat at the time.
BOURNE: If it was dark, how could you see?
Collins: We were not too far off. I saw the white of the funnel. Then she turned over again, and down she went.
Collins: I got on to the raft. I could see when I got on to the raft. I saw the stern of the boat, and I saw a mass of people and wreckage, and heard cries

Senator SMITH. Did you see her go down?
Mr. FLEET. No, sir.
Senator SMITH. Why not?
Mr. FLEET. The lights were out, and we were too far away.

Maj. PEUCHEN. We commenced to hear signs of the breaking up of the boat.
Senator SMITH. Of the Titanic?
Maj. PEUCHEN. Of the Titanic. At first I kept my eyes watching the lights, as long as possible.
Senator SMITH. From your position in the boat, did you face it?
Maj. PEUCHEN. I was facing it at this time. I was rowing this way [indicating], and afterwards I changed to the other way. We heard a sort
of a rumbling sound and the lights were still on at the rumbling sound,as far as my memory serves me; then a sort of an explosion, then another. It seemed to be one, two, or three rumbling sounds, then the lights went out.

Senator SMITH. Could you see the Titanic?
Mr. HITCHENS. I could not see her; not after the lights went out; no, sir.
Senator SMITH. You could see the lights?
Mr. HITCHENS. We could see the lights go out; yes, sir

Senator BURTON. Did you see the boat sink?
Mr. OLLIVER. I can not say that I saw it right plain; but to my imagination I did, because the lights went out before she went down.
Senator BURTON. How did she sink?
Mr. OLLIVER. She was well down at the head at first, when we got away from her at first, and to my idea she broke forward, and the afterpart
righted itself and made another plunge and went right down. I fancied I saw her black form. It was dark, and I fancied I saw her black form going that way.