The Titanic and her watertight compartments

>>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???<<

If there was, I can't think of it. That doesn't mean that Captain Smith couldn't but I can't. Beesley and Gracie's observations support the premise that the ship was moved but I don't think they remained topside long enough to see everything that was being done. They had no reason to and the cold gave them both a reason to get back down to someplace warm.

From the testimony of Scott and Dillon, it sounds more like the engines were being tried at various settings, perhaps to see if they were operating properly then a serious attempt to move the ship from Point A to Point B. However, it seems to me a really odd thing for a smart skipper to do before confirming whether or not there was damage and determining it's extant. Captain Smith wasn't brain dead so if this really happened, I have to wonder: what he was thinking and why?

I'm inclined to think that Smith may have seen ice close to the ship and decided that the wiser course was to move away from it. We've discussed that much before. Unfortunately, that much is pure speculation on my part.
 
quote:

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.
Click to expand...
See BI 2842-2874 (Poingdestre). Water flooding E deck in hold 2 by 45 minutes after collision. E deck in hold 2 would have dropped below waterline by this time.​
 
Water intake:

The testimony to which you refer, refers to 45 minutes after the accident. I am talking about with in the first 15 to 35 minutes. This testimony was discussed on Topeka, Toledo and again in Maine and prior to all three.

Given this testimony:

quote:

Mr. Butler Aspinall: Has your Lordship got deck E? Deck E, 44 seamen on the port side?

2868. (The Commissioner.) Was it a fore and aft bulkhead that gave way? - Yes, a fore and aft bulkhead.

2869. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Did the water come from the starboard side? - Yes.

2870. Now, did you remain below? - No, a matter of half a minute.

2871. You cleared out? - Yes, as fast as I could.

The Attorney-General: Has your Lordship got it now where it is on the plan?

(The Attorney-General pointed out the position on the plan to his Lordship.)

2872. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) It is difficult to measure time on these occasions, but how long do you think it was after the ship struck the iceberg that this fore and aft bulkhead carried away? - About half-an-hour.

The Commissioner: He first said he went to this place to get his boots three-quarters of an hour after the collision, and that when he got his boots and was coming out then the wooden bulkhead gave way. That must have been, if anything, longer than three-quarters of an hour.

Mr. Butler Aspinall: It is very difficult, my Lord.

The Witness: Well, about three-quarters of an hour, my Lord.
Click to expand...

To me it says we are discussing here 45 minutes after the accident that this "bulkhead" gives way.

While this is most obviously note worthy, it is not what I am looking for. I am looking for evidence of a large volume of water around the water line in the first 15 to 35 minutes. I have not found it....yet.

Getting Underway Again:

My question was speculative. Some are arguing that Smith's reason was not to move closer to the shipping lane, but rather navigate his way out of the ice to safer location to lower boats and hopefully effect a shipboard rescue from another ship. This has nothing to do with the above, other then the act of getting back underway could have had a bad effect on the ship itself.​
 
There is no direct evidence as far as I'm aware of that had water up to the waterline in hold 2 in 15 minutes. From what evidence was given, water had reached or would have reached about the waterline in the forepeak, holds 1, 2, and 3 and BR 6 by 40 minutes after the collision. The water in the forepeak above the peak tank would be the result of water coming over the top of WTB A from hold 1. That bulkhead was watertight only to D deck. This was the waterline for the ship timed down by the head about 3 degrees at that time. If this is an accurate description, then water would have been up to about the level of E deck in vicinity of bulkhead E at the time they began loading the boats.
 
Actually Peter, Bulkhead A went up to C deck but was watertight only to D deck. Up forward it was bulkheads A and B watertight to D deck. Then the next seven, C through J (there was no I), went to E deck, and then the last six, K through P, to D deck.
 
So again....to be difficult we do not have any evidence of a large amount of water entering hold two just after contact.

We do have evidence of large amounts of water in the other two holds and boiler room 6. Do we agree on this???
 
>>We do have evidence of large amounts of water in the other two holds and boiler room 6. Do we agree on this???<<

I don't think there's much room to dispute that and the survivor testimony backs it up.
 
Erik & Mike and anyone else:
I did a presentation on this subject at the 2004 symposium in Castine. I think it is too large to post here, but if you e-mail me I'll be happy to send you a copy. It is a powerpoint presentation that shows what each witness testified to seeing regarding the flooding. e-mail [email protected].
Regards,
Charlie Weeks
 
Fortunately, I have Powerpoint. I just so happens that I have Charlie's presentation on my rig as well. If any of you don't. I'd make the effort to get it. It's well worth it.
 
Not sure if this is the best place to post this but it seems as good as any without opening up a new thread.

I recently finished putting together a short technical paper describing how Edward Wilding's famous 12 square feet of aggregate damage came about. In it I was able to show that the same result can be obtained by studying the flooding of a simple milk container. The resulting value of 12 square feet depended on the assumptions that were made and the information available at the time. Using the same inputs that Wilding used but applied to the flooding of a simple container, I was able to come up with same result.

Beyond the 12 square feet, the paper also addresses the issue of forward movement of the ship after the collision on increased flooding rate. It also addresses briefly the work of Hackett and Bedford in their derivation of the aggregate area of damage. All the math is in an appendix at the end, so unless you are interested in those details, you can read through and follow the arguments and diagrams without having to deal with a bunch of equations.

The paper has been posted on the Titanic Research & Modeling Association (TRMA) website. The paper is called "Somewhere About 12 Square Feet."

I would like to publicly thank Scott Andrews, Roy Mengot, and Bruce Beveridge for making this happen so quickly.
 

Attachments

  • Somewhere_About_12_Square_Feet.pdf
    170.4 KB · Views: 29

Similar threads

T
Close the watertight doors!
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mark Baber
M
Max Puente Piró
Stokers and watertight doors
Replies
10
Views
1K
B-rad
B-rad
H
Could Titanic Still Sink With 4 Compartments Flooded?
2 3
Replies
35
Views
15K
Aaron_2016
A
Lex Aldrace
Would the Titanic be able to close its watertight doors in a head-on collision?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Jim Currie
Jim Currie
S
Watertight Doors
2
Replies
15
Views
6K
B-rad
B-rad
Back
Top