The Titanic and her watertight compartments

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I have not seen it mentioned that Titanic moved "slow ahead" for a good 15 minutes or so after she had glided to a near stop after the impact. <<

As Samuel said, the 15 minutes part is highly debatable and some of our past and present members have questioned whether or not the ship was moved at all. I know of at least four primary sources which attest to the ship being moved. Beasley spoke to that and so did Colonel Gracie. In terms of sworn testimony, I'll point to Dillon and Scott who said the following.

Dillon:

quote:

3714. What were you doing there? What were your duties there? - I belonged to the upper section, but the upper section of boilers was not lit up, and they sent us to the engine room to assist in cleaning the gear.

3715. Did you feel the shock when the ship struck? - Slightly.

3716. And shortly before that had the telegraph rung? - Yes.

3717. Can you say at all how long before she struck that was? - Two seconds.

3718. What was the order given by the telegraph? - I could not tell you.

3719. You just heard it ring. Then a few seconds after that you felt a slight shock? - Yes.

3720. Was anything done to the engines? Did they stop or did they go on? - They stopped.

3721. Was that immediately after you felt the shock or some little time after? - About a minute and a half.

3722. Did they continue stopped or did they go on again after that? - They went slow astern.

3723. How long were they stopped for before they began to go slow astern? - About half a minute.

3724. For how long did they go slow astern? - About two minutes.

3725. Two or three did you say? - Two minutes.

3726. And then did they stop again? - Yes.

3727. And did they go on again after that? - They went ahead again.

3728. For how long? - For about two minutes.

3729. Then did they stop the boat after that? - Yes.

Scott:

quote:

5609. Yes, I want you to tell my Lord what it was? - They rang down "Stop," and two greasers on the bottom rang the telegraph back to answer it. Then they rang down "Slow ahead." For ten minutes she was going ahead. Then they rang down "Stop," and she went astern for five minutes.

5610. (The Commissioner.) The orders were "Stop," "Slow ahead," and then "Astern"? - No, it was "Stop," and then "Astern." She went astern for five minutes. Then they rang down "Stop."

5611. "Stop," "Slow ahead" - 10 minutes, you say? - Yes, about 10 minutes.

5612. Then "Stop" again? - Yes, "Stop"; then she went astern for about five minutes.

5613. (The Attorney-General.) Did you hear the order about "Astern"? - Well, it was on the telegraph.

5614. What was the order? - "Go astern" - "Slow astern." Then they rang down "Stop," and I do not think the telegraph went after that.

5615. A telegram came "Stop"? - Yes, and I do not think the telegraphs went after that.

5616. (The Attorney-General.) The first order you heard was "Stop"? - Yes.

5617. Did the engines stop before the order came "Slow ahead"? - Oh, yes.

5618. They did stop? - Yes.

5619. Then when the engines had stopped the order came "Slow ahead"? - Yes.

5620. Can you tell us at all what time passed between the order "Stop" and "Slow ahead"? - I should say about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour.

5621. "Stop," of course, comes at once? - It comes at once. They cannot stop the engines at once.

5622. That is what I want. They cannot stop them at once? - No; they are bound to let the steam get out of the cylinder first, otherwise they would blow the cylinder covers off if they tried to stop them at once.

5623. You would not know how long it would take to stop the engines? - No, I do not.

5624. I think you said ten minutes to a quarter of an hour "stop," then ten minutes "slow ahead" and then again "stop"? - Yes.

5625. Then how long between "stop" and "slow astern"? - I suppose that was a matter of about four or five minutes.

5626. That is between "stop" and "slow astern." And how long between "slow astern" and "stop" for the last time? - Five minutes.

5627. Did you hear those orders given before you went to the aftermost tunnel? - Yes.

If you take Scott seriously, (Some don't, and perhaps with good reason) he would point to the ship being moved for about 15 minutes if his math is correct. Not all of this was forward either.

One of the problems I have with Scott's testimony is that it's a liitle too precise. When an emergency is in progress, people seldom stand back to time things with a stopwatch. They tend to have more immidiate concerns...like doing what it takes to keep on breathing.

>>This must have caused additional damage that sped up the flooding process and may have sealed the ship's fate; or at least made her sink much sooner. <<

I don't know about that. It may have. Moving a ship with a busted nose after taking damage when one can't possibly be aware of the nature and extant of the damage is hardly one of the brightest moves in the book. It tends to aggravate damage and speed up flooding, and I'm sure Captain Smith knew that. If he moved the ship at all, and I'm inclined to think that he did, he must have had one overwhelmingly good reason to do so. Unfortunately, that information followed Captain Smith to the bottom.​

 

[Samuel Halpern]

You can add QM Olliver to the list. He testified seeing Capt. Smith ring down half ahead some time after the collision. Olliver did not remain on deck to see when stop was again ordered, and it is not clear exactly when he saw the ahead order given, only it was some time after the collision.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>You can add QM Olliver to the list.<<

Five sources then.

quote:

Senator BURTON. Were the engines reversed; was she backed?

Mr. OLLIVER. Not whilst I was on the bridge; but whilst on the bridge she went ahead, after she struck; she went half speed ahead.

Senator BURTON. The engines went half speed ahead, or the ship?

Mr. OLLIVER. Half speed ahead, after she hit the ice.

Senator BURTON. Who gave the order?
Mr. OLLIVER. The captain telegraphed half speed ahead.

Senator BURTON. Had the engines been backing before he did that?

Mr. OLLIVER. That I could not say, sir.

Senator BURTON. Did she have much way on?

Mr. OLLIVER. When?

Senator BURTON. When he put the engines half speed ahead?

Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir. I reckon the ship was almost stopped.

 

[Brent Holt]

I am partial to the book "The Last Log of the Titanic" and have used it for some info. Some of the books conclusions may be debatable, but I think it is important to question the whole collision and sinking scenario that has been accepted by historians since the ship sank. There is so much that contradicts that it is difficult to get a good picture of what actually occurred during some key moments that night:
1. Were the engines run full astern?
2. Just how was Titanic damaged? Was it a sideswipe, grounding, or a combination?
3. If the ship did go slow ahead for at least a few minutes after the disaster, did this cause much more extensive damage to the hull?
4. Was the ship in a marginal floating condition with the pumps after the impact and the "slow ahead" order is what delivered the coup de grace?
5. If the Titanic restarted her engines-where was she heading?

I just joined this conversation recently, so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been discussed.

Brent

 

[David G. Brown]

Brent-- First, a million "thanks" for reading my book, "Last Log." If you are ever in the Toledo area, I'll sign it for you.

Second, your questions are well-found. Right now I have 650 manuscript pages of a new book in progress answering those questions--or at least some of them. I believe most aspects of the accident and sinking (two separate events) must be looked at without the bias of Lord Mersey and Senator Smith.

As to the engineS (emphasis intentional), why plural?

Sideswipe--a physical impossibility unless Titanic were fitted with a bow rudder like a cross-river ferry boat.

Moving damage? Moving a damaged ship always makes things worse. Sometimes, however, it may be necessary.

The coup de grace, as you call it, may have been delivered long before April 14th. That said, I'll have to keep quiet until I have the freedom to speak more about this subject.

Heading? The obvious. Titanic was going exactly where the newspapers said she was going. And where the train was going. Neither made their mutual destination.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Brent Holt]

I look forward to the book!
I am disappointed that most new books and TV programs made on Titanic continue to use the original interpretation of the collision. I feel your book was a turning point in the discussion of the whole disaster-at least it was for me!

Can you say anything about why the bilge keels did not appear to be damaged in the recent History Channel's "Titanic: Final Moments"?

>As to the engineS (emphasis intentional), why plural?

Not sure I understand totally. Bad grammar on my part?

Brent

 

[David G. Brown]

Brent--

Bilge keels weren't found damaged because they weren't damaged by either ice impact or the breakup or the sinking. That's obvious. Why weren't they damaged? That's up to debate. One thing which appears certain is that the area represented by the two pieces did not receive any sort of damage from the accident. From there on, opinions are like...er, noses...everybody has one.

Not bad grammar, but a pre-supposition is impeding clear analysis.

--David G. Brown

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Brent: The location of where the missing pieces came from were way aft of where contact with the berg took place. Known contact was reported extending from the peak tank as far aft as the forward end of BR 5. There is the possibility of some other contact even as far back as BR 4, but the damage there may have resulted more from induced stresses than direct iceberg contact. Some ice was reported to have entered some open portholes and got others wet as far back as the Cafe Parisian where the 4th funnel was located above the turbine engine room. Under-bottom contact may have ended well forward but the berg was very close to the side of the vessel all the way back to the poop deck where it seen less than 10-20 feet from the side as it passed by. Maybe the following diagrams might help with this.

The fist shows where known contact took place and also shows where the those missing pieces came from. The next one shows further back why the bilge keels would not be damaged even id the berg was alongside the ship.

Cheers,

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Samuel, I love those drawings of yours. They do a wonderful job of illustrating at a glance what would take hundreds of words to describe otherwise.

For what it's worth, I don't think the engines were ever run full astern while the accident itself was in progress. It may have been attempted or desired, but if the testimony of the survivors from the engine room are reliable on any level, they just don't corroberate it.

 

[Denise A. Hunyadi]

Absolutely right about Sam's illustrations, Mike--I love 'em, too! Visualization is almost always the better method (if available) to get a point across. The illustration above is a perfect example of that.

Denise

 

[Peter Spielvogel]

Just out of curiosity, why is there no Bulkhead I?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Just out of curiosity, why is there no Bulkhead I?<<

I don't know that there's any particular reason for that at all. Harland and Wolff just never used it.

 

[Bill West]

There are several letters and numbers which can be confused in hand written or lettered papers and drawings. So it's common in Engineering to leave some of them out of naming series. I-1 O-0 O-Q j-i just to name a few, I and O are rarely used.

Bill

 

[Peter Spielvogel]

Thanks, Bill. I suppose it makes good sense. I dread to think how many more mishaps there would be if we still used the word "larboard."

 

[Erik Wood]

I am curious to find out if anybody has found a primary source for a catastrophic amount of flooding in hold 2?? I am not suggesting that it did not flood. I am suggesting that it may have not flooded as quickly as we have all thought in the past.

This goes back of course to Maine and Topeka. I believe it was either Fleet or Lee who upon being relieved in the crows nest commented on flooding in hold 2. But it was somewhat.....clouded.

We do have evidence that holds 1 and 3 flooded fairly quickly, and I use the term quickly in comparison with hold 2.

If I am correct that hold 2 flooded at a slower rate then the two on either side of it then we have an entire different set of circumstances at bulkhead D and eventually E. This is of course a rehash of previous discussion.

But I think that it is worth noting here that the traditional theory (the one believed by 96% of the Titanic community) is as Dave said a physical impossibility in relation to contact. But it is also a physical impossibility as far as the reach of damage.

In Sam's drawings above (which I agree with Mike are outstanding) we have "known" damage across the first 6 compartments (if you count the forepeak as a compartment). In addition you have a possible 7th compartment with damage of some kind.

If we assume in accordance with the traditional theory, that all three holds, and boiler room 6 flooded at a catastrophic rate, meaning more then 8 feet (by Barrett) within the first 20 minutes give or take 15, then you have a serious time problem on your hands.

If you add in a much slower flooding of boiler room 5 you run into a even more serious time problem. 2 hours and 20 minutes from the time of impact is a lot of time for s ship to survive with that kind of damage.

At this point we haven't even discussed the damage done to the structure by impact with the ice, and the added "strain" caused by water intake.

Now before anybody jumps me, yes I full well realize that flooding will somewhat slow after the intial water intake and I have taken that into account.

Just some thoughts.....
--------------
On Smith restarting after the impact....

Assuming he did so, he had to have a reason for it. In the past I and several others suggested that it was to move closer to the known shipping routes, where help may be found. One must ask if the risk would be worth the reward.

What are the risks to getting underway in wounded condition?? Did Smith have all of the information to make a solid command decision about getting back underway?? What is his goal for getting underway??

All questions that I am sure he asked himself before making any decision.

But perhaps the more appropriate question is this:

Was there another reason for Smith to get underway for a short amount of time OTHER then to move the ship to a different location???