Titanic after the break up

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Oh, as for the stern going vertical after the bow broke away, that has been documented as having been the case.

--Mark

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>There is the suggestion that the weakened wall caused by the earlier fire in the coal bunker allowed the boilers from the following BR to fall through, and the weight of those boilers crashing into the boilers of the BR just forward caused a cascading effect of boilers tumbling forward into the bow. In short: just because the boilers in BR #2 are still intact on their bedding doesn't meant that those forward are.<<

Perhaps not, but keep in mind that the boilers weren't just standing there all alone. They were mounted in a space that was filled with piping, catwalks, and auxilary equipment, all of which made for a densely packed space. It helps to know that there is no evidence of any such having broken through the bow. The sidescan sonar images done by Polaris Imaging show any number of split seams and buckled plates, but nothing in the way of gaping holes that would have been left had the boilers crashed through the bow, and no evidence of large numbers of boilers in the debris field.

Oh, I wouldn't put too much stock in the bunker fire that some have been going on about. This was not some major conflagration, but a smouldering fire of the sort that was quite common on coal fired ships. It was handled in the usual manner of shoveling coal from the bunkers into the boilers and drowning it with water once the firemen got to it. A bear of a job, but more an annoyance then a threat.

You may want to read This Article by Cal Haines which discusses the myth and the reality.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Yeah, true, but there were even some at the time (Andrews, for one), who knew that the fire, although not a major one, did weaken the integrity of the wall. It seems that the Captain may have known that, too. It wasn't a conflagration, but it has been suggested that the fired simmered long enough to effect the molecular consistency of that wall. As for whether or not that played a part in any possible boiler stampede is forever unknown.

Oh, I never said that the boilers had broken through the bow's hull, only that the theory goes that they may have just rolled down and clumped in the bow. Also, keep in mind, when considering the tight space you mentioned, that those boilers were extremely heavy, which meant that they could reasonably tear havoc out of its surrounds, no matter how tight.

Like I've said, I don't necessarily agree with the theory of tumbling boilers, but I am presenting the reasoning behind it.

As for the article, I've already read it, a long time ago. Interesting stuff.

--Mark

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Yeah, true, but there were even some at the time (Andrews, for one), who knew that the fire, although not a major one, did weaken the integrity of the wall.<<

Do you have a primary source for that? I've never seen any such in any extant literature on the subject, but what I have seen would tend to indicate that the issue of the fire was little more then a red herring. One of many that's all pervasive in the Titanic mythos.

>>Oh, I never said that the boilers had broken through the bow's hull, only that the theory goes that they may have just rolled down and clumped in the bow.<<

Well, they problem with that is that they would have to have someplace to roll around in. I've been in many a machinary space and they're pretty cramped. Mind you, I'm not ruling out the premise in toto but at this point, it just strikes me as extremely unlikely.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

>Mind you, I'm not ruling out the premise in toto but at this point, it just strikes me as extremely unlikely.<

Yeah, and I agree with you. As I've said, I was only presenting one theory, myth or not. I tend to lean your way: extreme, far-out occurrences, as romantic or imaginative as they may be, are not likely truthful. Ah, but that's what makes such legends so intriguing, hehe.

By the way, if I remember correctly, the source for the bunker fire/weakened wall issue was in Charles Pellegrino's "Ghosts of the Titanic." I don't remember which pages, but I do remember that he went into a discussion about it. I hope that helps.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>By the way, if I remember correctly, the source for the bunker fire/weakened wall issue was in Charles Pellegrino's "Ghosts of the Titanic." <<

Uh oh! Be careful with that one. Charles Pellegrino is an engaging and readable story teller, but as a Titanic historian goes, doesn't exactly enjoy a very good reputation. We have some threads on him in the Titanic Books folder you may want to check out. In fairness, this may well be an honest mistake on his part. I seem to recall that this one has been kicked around on some documentaries as well as in print, so I don't think it started with him.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Thanks for the note, Mike. I'll take a look. As said, there is so much speculation when it comes to the Titanic that stories are going to become inevitable. No doubt there will be even more stories created as time goes on.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>No doubt there will be even more stories created as time goes on. <<

Well, if you want some whoppers above and beyond the call of whoppers, try the crud published in The Weekly World News sometime! (Hope you have a taste for space aliens!)

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

In Star Trek, yes. On the Titanic, no.