Venting of coal fire aboard the Titanic

[Jason D. Tiller]

So there is evidence to suggest that a serious coal fire actually weakened one of the bulkheads that caused it buckle is there not?

No, there is not a shred of evidence. Quite the opposite actually, as it may have strengthened the bulkhead.

The bulkhead collapse theory is sensationalism peddled by the questionable Seanan Molony in his tacky documentary about this subject a couple or so years ago.

As I have pointed out above, it is Senan Molony. You may not agree with the man or his so called theory (the majority of us don't), but at least get his name correct, instead of butchering it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I’m surprised it wasn’t that bad. A recent theory as to the rate of speed and the ice field was that the bunker fire was worsening and there was an attempt to make New York sooner.

Ever see a coal fire? If you haven't, check out a blacksmiths forge some time, or even the charcoal on a grill. Even in the open air, it's not a raging fire. At best, it's glowing coals which takes some forced draft to get it going.

The "recent theory" BTW, is not so recent and has long since been debunked. Smouldering coal bunker fires were not unknown, but they were seen more as an irritant than a threat unless it was next to an ammunition magazine on a warship. Titanic was not a warship, so ammunition was not an issue. The fire was handled in the usual fashion, with the coal being shoveled into the furnaces as needed and drenched with water when the smouldering bed was reached. By Saturday, it was out.

The so-called theory posits that the Titanic was responding to an emergency which in fact did not exist, and by Saturday, could not have existed. The extra speed was no more than the ship being run up to her expected service speed. They were making excellent time, but not because of anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Ajmal Dar]

Dear Stephen,

The bulkhead collapse theory is sensationalism peddled by the questionable Seanan Molony in his tacky documentary about this subject a couple or so years ago. Its amazing what some people will claim to make money. I think the documentary appeared on Channel 4.

His claims are laughable (that White Star was negligent in letting the Titanic go to sea and likewise the Board of Trade inspector, I think his name was George Carruthers) and offensive to the families today whose relatives died on the Titanic.

The compartment where the bunker smoulder, not a fire, took place was holed and so were several compartments to the stern of this compartment.

Therefore, compartments to the stern of the compartment where the bunker fire occurred were filling up with water anyway, so what does it matter of part of the bulkhead cracked. The ship was doomed anyway. If it did cleave, I doubt there would be a wholesale collapse of the bulkhead as it had strenthening pillars across it's whole length, so in reality, only a small part of the bulkhead would have cleaved, so I think.

Check the layout of Titanic's compartments and you will see this. I can't remember their numberings off the top of my head.

Maybe more learned people can correct me if I am wrong.

All the best,

Ajmal

Hi Arun,

Hope that you are well.
Thanks for liking my comments regarding the potential cause of a collapsing Bulkhead. I can never see how a bulkhead will collapse when it has strenthening posts running right across its length. Don't make any sense at all, the most that could have happened is a crack I think.

Do you have Titanic - Ship Magnificent? You probably have it but if not, get it. It is MINDBLOWING!!

I love your analytical comments, they are clever and well worth posting.

Good luck to India in its continuing development, FANTASTIC to see that India is now in Space.

All the best,

Ajmal

 

[Steven Christian]

Hi Arun,

Hope that you are well.
Thanks for liking my comments regarding the potential cause of a collapsing Bulkhead. I can never see how a bulkhead will collapse when it has strenthening posts running right across its length. Don't make any sense at all, the most that could have happened is a crack I think.

Do you have Titanic - Ship Magnificent? You probably have it but if not, get it. It is MINDBLOWING!!

I love your analytical comments, they are clever and well worth posting.

Good luck to India in its continuing development, FANTASTIC to see that India is now in Space.

All the best,

Ajmal

From my experience that would most likely be the outcome. I've seen more than once a hot spot on the boiler casing (sort of a bulkhead) hit with a fire hose and it would split open like opening a can of sardines.

 

[Ajmal Dar]

From my experience that would most likely be the outcome. I've seen more than once a hot spot on the boiler casing (sort of a bulkhead) hit with a fire hose and it would split open like opening a can of sardines.

Thanks for correcting me, I don't have such valuable experience.

 

[Steven Christian]

Thanks for correcting me, I don't have such valuable experience.

I wasn't correcting you. Agreeing with your assessment more actually. By open I mean the plates would split open. I've seen a lot deformed and split (crack) but never saw one collapse. Cheers.

 

[Mike Spooner]

When reading fireman Charles Hendrickson evidence in the B.I. inquiry, there is damaged to the coal bunker.

Charles Hendrickson gave evidence on the British Inquiry’s fifth day, Thursday May 9, 1912. Boyle, by contrast, entered the box on Tuesday June 18.

The red-marked or boxed-off section of Hendickson’s evidence is as follows:

5236. When did you last see a fire in a coal bunker?
Hendrickson — I never saw one before.
5237. It has been suggested that fires in coal bunkers are quite a common occurrence, but you have been five years in the White Star line and have not seen a fire in a coal bunker? — No.
5238. Did you help to get the coal out? — Yes.
5239. Did you hear when the fire commenced? — Yes, I heard it commenced at Belfast.
5240. When did you start getting the coal out? — The first watch we did from Southampton we started to get it out.
5241. How many days would that be after you left Belfast?
— I do not know when she left Belfast to the day.
5242. It would be two or three days, I suppose? — I should say so.
5243. Did it take much time to get the fire down? — It took us right up to the Saturday to get it out.
5244. How long did it take to put the fire itself out? — The fire was not out much before all the coal was out.
5245. The fire was not extinguished until you got the whole of the coal out? — No. I finished the bunker out myself, me and three or four men that were there. We worked everything out.
5246. The bulkhead forms part of the bunker - the side
— Yes, you could see where the bulkhead had been red hot.
5247. You looked at the side after the coal had been taken out?
— Yes.
5248. What condition was it in? — You could see where it had been red hot; all the paint and everything was off. It was dented a bit.
5249. It was damaged, at any rate? — Yes, warped.
5250. Was much notice taken of it. Was any attempt made to do anything with it? — I just brushed it off and got some black oil and rubbed over it.
5251. To give it its ordinary appearance? — Yes.
5252. You are not a professional expert and would not be able to express an opinion as to whether that had any effect on the collision? - I could not say that.
There is no doubt damage has occur here, however must one consider what type of steel has been used here. Now if original mild steel has been used there all chance that no serious damage has occur in a short time. If been red hot for months yes serious will of occurred . If been made from high-tensile steel, yes serious damage would of occurred as the heat will upset the tensile within the steel.
I cannot see any reason why coal bunkers are made from high- tensile steel in the first place. In fact it must of be a blessing in disguise that they were made from mild steel. One wander if the designer had that in mind in the first place should a smouldering fire breakout.