The Titanic and her watertight compartments

>>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:

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.

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

Five sources then.

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

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

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

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

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,

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.

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

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

>>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.

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

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."

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???