Titanic's NavigationRunning Lights

[Teri Lynn Milch]

George & Parks,

<<George, our pleas for assistance may be in vain...I have the sneaking suspicion that you and I are the only ones who care about this.>>

I do care about this topic very much, but probably you three guys know more about ship lighting than anyone else here.

Myself, I wanted to read more on Carlise's testimony (before posting anything) to see if any lights were in use on the foremast the night of the sinking.

Also I am wondering if a copy of the blueprint from H&W would help in finding out if navigational lamps (either oil or electric) were originally designed for the mainmast?

That's all that's running through my mind. Otherwise, I like to read and learn from you guys.

Teri

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Teri,

There is no controversy about an electric masthead lamp on the foremast. It shows up in H&W plans, photographs of Titanic, and is now physically in the possession of RMST, who took it off the mast at the wreck site.

The plans from H&W do not show any lamp affixed to the mainmast, or provision for one.

Parks

 

[Teri Lynn Milch]

Parks,

Okay but why isn't there a controversy about whether or not this electric masthead lamp on the foremast was in use that night? Wouldn't having a brightly lit lamp/light be a surefire way of preventing a collision? I would think that important enough to have its own thread. Okay go ahead and point me to one if there is an exact thread on this topic already in existence.

Teri

P.S. Why did RMST take the electric masthead lamp off from the foremast? I do not mind parts of the Titanic being raised provided that these parts have fallen off or are among the debris field, but to start taking the ship apart? THAT I do not like, and totally disagree with.

 

[Dan Cherry]

Hello, all,
I am a little confused by the lengthy posts as far as what is known and what isn't, but...

Here is what I know about the lights:
there are two (docking?) lamps (oil?) on the main mast about half-way up, one on the port side and one on starboard (there are photos to support this). According to a photo I have from the Olympic, there is a ladder running up the fore part of the mast to these lights. On the Titanic, it *appears* the ladder starts at a point intersected by a white-painted support running from the baseboard of the aft boat deck to the main mast.

Photo sources showing these main mast lights on Titanic:

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~dlaw/picpalace/supstrct/TPP9.jpg

the two lamp housings are seen clearly here:
http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~dlaw/picpalace/supstrct/TPP5.jpg

and here:
http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~dlaw/picpalace/supstrct/Tpp6.jpg

Ken Marschall told the TRMA people a few years ago:
"Bizarrely, there was no electric lamp permanently mounted to the mainmast as there was forward, but maritime law demanded a light up there. It must have been the oil lamp hoisted aloft and described by a few survivors to be the only light still burning at the end, after the ship’s lights went out. "

If the lamp seen was an oil lamp, hence, by my understanding from the above thread, a DOCKING lamp, my only question would be,

Why would 'docking lamps' be burning in mid-ocean?

Thoughts?

Dan

 

[Dan Cherry]

Parks,
you wrote:

There is no servicing ladder on the mainmast, as there is on the foremast.

As stated above by myself, there is some sort of ladder going from near A-deck level up the main mast from bow side. See here in this picture taken of Titanic in March 1912:

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~dlaw/picpalace/poop/aftwellT4.jpg

I have no reason to believe that this ladder went anywhere but to the two lamps on either side of the main mast as shown in the photo links I provided in the previous post. The ratline ladders go well above the lamp position, hence the reason for the ladder I am seeing in the picture?

Again, thoughts?

Dan

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Teri,

Why did RMST take the electric masthead lamp off from the foremast?

Because it was there. And it was bright and shiny. I'm not kidding. It's currently one of the centrepieces of their exhibition.

I do not mind parts of the Titanic being raised provided that these parts have fallen off or are among the debris field, but to start taking the ship apart? THAT I do not like, and totally disagree with.

You might want to take your gripe up with RMST, but be aware that you won't be the first. The issue of RMST removing the masthead light from the mast has been a sore spot with some people for years.

Wouldn't having a brightly lit lamp/light be a surefire way of preventing a collision? I would think that important enough to have its own thread.

To my knowledge, there's never been a thread devoted to that question.

Dan,

If the lamp seen was an oil lamp, hence, by my understanding from the above thread, a DOCKING lamp, my only question would be, Why would 'docking lamps' be burning in mid-ocean?

The docking lamps were installed on the mainmast in order to provide illumination of the cargo loading areas at night. They were electric and consisted of 2 housings (one on each side of the mast), each containing a cluster of 4 bulbs. I have a more thorough description and a manufacturer-supplied photo of one at home, but I'm at work at the moment. I can provide them later, if you'd like. I had written a short monograph about Titanic's lights (not just her nav lights), but I seem to have accidentally erased it off my hard drive. The ladder you see does in fact allow for servicing of the lamps.

The docking lamps are not the issue…we've been talking about navigational lights. As you'll notice, the docking lamps are too low to even be considered as navigation lights…a range light is required by regulation to be at least 15 feet higher than the foremast light and seen from a forward aspect. Titanic's funnels would completely block the docking lamps from being seen from a forward aspect. Not to mention the fact that the lamps themselves are of a completely different character than those used for navigation.

I have been concerned with Elizabeth Shutes' eyewitness account ever since I read ANTR. I really don't know what she saw, if in fact she saw what she claims. I have tried to allow for a range light on the mainmast by way of explaining her observation, but the physical evidence overwhelmingly contradicts its existence. Maybe she saw the docking lamps? I considered that, too, but you really have to stretch the imagination. First of all, why would docking lamps be lit in mid-ocean? The only reason I can think of is that one of the deck officers had the presence of mind to turn them on after the collision to a) provide more illumination to help in the loading of the boats and b) increase the overall luminosity of the ship to increase the chances of being spotted by a passing non-wireless-equipped steamer. They would not have had the docking lamps illuminated as a matter of normal routine. And secondly, why would they flicker like an oil lamp, it they were electric? I talked with Bill Sauder about output from the ship's lighting circuit (and specifically, the branch that ran up the mast) after the lights went out…is it possible that stray voltage in the lines caused the 8 filaments in the two lamps to unevenly illuminate a few seconds after the disruption in power, giving the appearance of a flickering lamp? We concluded that there's no way to know, and I found myself really going out on a limb to try and explain one uncorroborated eyewitness account.

Ken Marschall told the TRMA people a few years ago:

I have explained my rationale on this subject to Ken and believe that we are in agreement. I doubt that Ken would answer you the same if you asked him the same question today, but I'm not going to speak definitively for him.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Addendum to my last:

The ladder you see does in fact allow for servicing of the lamps.

Let me explain that more, so that it doesn't appear that I'm contradicting my earlier statement about no ladder to service a mainmast light. The ladder that Dan shows in his pictures does not go high enough to allow for servicing of a masthead light much farther up the mast. I think Dave covered that well in his post above. The ladder in the photos is for servicing the docking lamps only. I apologise if I didn't mention it earlier, but I didn't think it was germane.

Parks

 

[David G. Brown]

Dan -- There is a ladder on the forward side of the mainmast, and some sort of fittings at its top. However, that height is insufficient for a masthead light. So whatever their purpose, these are not under way navigation lights. Perhaps they are after anchor lights placed on either side of the mast to be visible through the required 360 degree arc. The ladder would be to service the bulbs.

As I have read back through this string, I see a bit of a misunderstanding about the brightness of oil lamps. It seems a lot of people think they are interchangeable with electric. Even in 1912 this was hardly the case. Oil makes a pittful light by comparison to an electric lamp. That's why oil-burning lighthouses required those huge multi-order Fresnel lenses. So little light was created by the oil flame that all of it had to be caught and focused into the beam.

As to Terri's question about a bright white light showing forward illuminating the iceberg -- no, this would not happen to any great extent. The design of the lamps and their Fresnel lenses was intended to prevent light from shining down on the ship and blinding the lookouts. Because of their lenses, navigation lights actually appear brighter at a distance from the ship where the viewer can see the full effect of the concentrated beam of light.

Spotlights were mandated on U.S. ships after Titanic with some pretty comical appearing results. Nobody used the damned things because they raised the danger of accidents. While it is true that an observer can better see objects in the beam of a spotlight, everything outside the beam is effectively cloaked from view. This is primarily the result of the reduction of night vision in the eyes of the observer. So, using a spotlight usually results in not seeing more than it does in seeing dangers.

Radar, by the way, is nothing more than a spotlight that human beings can't see. So, it does not blind lookouts. In operation, however, it is just a beam of energy that sweeps the horizon to "illuminate" targets around the ship.

--David G. Brown

 

[Dan Cherry]

Parks and Dave,
thanks for your insight on the matter. Now that I know the difference between what you're saying about the lamps I see and an actual navigational lamp which would be located farther up the mast, I agree 100% that no, there is no navigational lamp on the main mast, neither in plans nor pictures.

Just sign me,
The landlubber

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Teri asked;"If the lamp seen was an oil lamp, hence, by my understanding from the above thread, a DOCKING lamp, my only question would be, Why would 'docking lamps' be burning in mid-ocean?"

Teri, I think you might find that the people on the Andrea Doria and the Stockholm might have a thing or dozen to say about that. They had functioning navigation lights and radar, but still managed to collide. The sequence of events leading up to a collision can be quite complicated, but what it boils down to is that collisions happen because people make mistakes.

Regretably, technology has never been able to get around that although it has tried!

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Teri Lynn Milch]

Parks,

I WILL take the issue up with RMST and I will also tell them that Captain Smith sent me! (or rather you know who I'll tell them sent me) Just because the light was there doesn't mean anyone can take it. That is really quite preposterous of them! Please be kind enough to send me their writing address and which person to contact.

Michael,

I believe that was Dan's statement above, not mine.

Dave,

<<As to Teri's question about a bright white light showing forward illuminating the iceberg -- no, this would not happen to any great extent. The design of the lamps and their Fresnel lenses was intended to prevent light from shining down on the ship and blinding the lookouts. Because of their lenses, navigation lights actually appear brighter at a distance from the ship where the viewer can see the full effect of the concentrated beam of light.>>

My comment on this is that common sense would have the lights/lenses shining outwards and away from the ship, not downwards and onwards towards the lookouts. I am assuming, of course, that the lights/lenses are ABOVE the lookouts. Thus if the lights/lenses were to illuminate forwards as proposed, anything in a certain number of feet ahead would be seen by the lookouts. It would all work out quite well if my thinking cap is on correctly.

Dan,

NICE photos!

Teri

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi Teri, I'm afraid at sea, what some take as "common sense" is very common but never sensible.

When I was on the USS Constock, we were tasked to search for the wreckage of a CH-53 which had crashed in the Persian Gulf and as it was night time, we used every light we could get our hands on to try and see...well...something. This included the powerful searchlights on the signal bridge, seal beams for the damage control lockers and even the Maglite I carried with me all the time.

The result was that we could see whatever the beams of light were aimed at and nothing (As in zip, zilch, nix, nada) nothing outside of that beam of light. In fact, the light tended to dazzle whoever was looking at it, even if it was not directly. We had to use them for this particular mission, but for ordinary lookout practice, they do way more harm then good.

(P.S,; We never found the missing helicoptor, but when it was found, we were sent along with a salvage ship to raise it from where it sank. The crew was still inside.

)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Teri Lynn Milch]

Michael,

>>The result was that we could see whatever the beams of light were aimed at and nothing (As in zip, zilch, nix, nada) nothing outside of that beam of light.>>

Yes this is what I am aiming at ~ that the light/lenses would act much like a flashlight. The beam would shine on something therefore lending the person to see ahead. Gosh it's really all quite simple. Didn't the Titanic have a large "flashlight" for the lookouts to use?

And please don't tell me Titanic had these great lights/lenses but they were not in use. I don't think I'm quite up for that.

Teri

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Didn't the Titanic have a large "flashlight" for the lookouts to use?<<

Nope.

>>The beam would shine on something therefore lending the person to see ahead. Gosh it's really all quite simple.<<

Not so simple. Yes, you would see what the light was reflected off of, but you wouldn't see whatever was slightly off to the side. A something that would be just as dangerous. Other craft for example, ice, etc. Any of those could ruin your day. There is little more irritating to an experienced lookout then white light which dazzles them and in so doing, blinds them to whatever is going on all around them. Believe me, I know this from personal experience.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[David G. Brown]

Teri -- quite simply, a spotlight blinds you more than it helps you when it comes to finding unknown dangers at sea. This is because of the way the human eye works. Light striking the retina causes a "discharge" of the surface. It takes some time for the retina to recover its ability to see dim objects after exposure to bright light. This condition is called "night blindness."

Anyone who has had a deer jump in front of their car at night knows that spotlighs (called headlights on a car) aren't always effective. The driver cannot see the animal outside the headlight beams because of night blindness. It is not until the deer enters the light that it becomes visible, which is usually too late.

We install headlights on cars because the vast majority of dangers are not deer, but things on the road in front of the vehicle. In this situation, spotlighting the road makes perfect sense. Alas, the same is not true at sea where dangers can come from any direction and there is no such thing as a paved road. On the water there is no "best place" to aim the spotlight.

Hunters and sailors know that some nights are brighter than others, but it is never absolutely dark. Moonlight and starshine are considerably brighter than most people know. A properly dark-adapted lookout who is trained how to see under dim conditions is suprisingly effective. You won't find anyone with sea time who considers spotlights a proper aid for lookouts under in a normal situation--such as Titanic on April 14.

Those big spotlights on U.S. ships following Titanic were monuments to ignorance of the reality of life at sea. My suspicion is that the spotlights were meant to make the passengers feel good and that's about all. Just today, I see the U.S. Congress is playing the same game, only this time with airport security.

Please don't take me as being condescending, but in this case I think you must trust those with experience at sea. A spotlight would not have been "the answer."

--David G. Brown