Vision but no sound?

[Jim Currie]

Titanic's engines did not stop, let alone reverse, at the time of collision. Multiple witnesses can be cited to that effect. Best estimates are that they ran on from 1 to 2 minutes after the allision took place before they stopped. The rudder would have remained quite effective during that time.

Actually that Best estimate comes from Trimmer Dillon because he was there.

"3720. Was anything done to the engines? Did they stop or did they go on? A: - They stopped.

3721. Was that immediately after you felt the shock or some little time after? A: - About a minute and a half.

However, Barratt in boiler room 6 said he had the order to shut down just before the crash came. This means that just before Barratt received that order, an engine order had been given and was probably being executed.
Evidence shows that greasers working near the telegraphs acknowledged the bridge command. I read elsewhere that it took about 20 seconds to bring the main engines to a complete halt. If the engineers on duty started the process 10 seconds after the Greasers reacted then it is quite possible that the engines were already slowing down seconds after the iceberg passed the bridge. 20 seconds after that they were stopped.

In fact, if the engine order was given before impact then a minute and a half is far too long - even if the engineers were up in the mess room. Believe me when I tell you that such an order would have been obeyed within half a minute and there's no way it took a full minute for the engines to wind down and come to a standstill after that.

Define "Quite effective". To carry out the manoeuvre you have alluded to in the past, the rudder would have needed to be fully effective. Quite effective would not have been anywhere good enough, Sam. Nor would it be any use in turning Titanic's head to the North

The rudder would begin to lose effectiveness the minute the engine order was executed. Keep in mind that the turbine would have been free-wheeling at the time and the cross-wash over the rudder from the wing propellers would have been dropping rapidly. In addition, the flow over the fairings covering the wing shafts would have added to the turbulence round the rudder blade.
Besides he foregoing, you have not factored-in the possible effect of Titanic's forward momentum being interfered-with on one side by contact with the iceberg.
In addition and after all that, we are to believe that with this rapidly failing steering and forward propulsion condition, Titanic somehow managed to turn her starboard bow through a current setting at 1+ knots against it. Really?

Given what we know, I have never bought that scenario Sam.

However you are the expert in these matters. If you can demonstrate to me how it was physically possible for Titanic to have made a positive, continuous turn to the North West while these conditions prevailed and using a not effective and fully functioning but quite an effective rudder. then, as in the past, I will happily bow to your superior engineering knowledge

Jim C.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>Given what we know, I have never bought that scenario Sam. <<

No surprise here. But David Brown is correct in his observation that Hichens was only referring to helm orders received prior to impact, not afterward.

>>I believe that the foregoing proves that those on Californian did indeed see Titanic's signals. That they saw them 21.5 miles away and that because of the intervening vessel, they did not identify them as signals of distress.<<

How can you say that when the key eyewitness from Californian said: "I have remarked at different times that these rockets did not appear to go very high; they were very low lying; they were only about half the height of the steamer’s masthead light and I thought rockets would go higher than that...But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings."

 

[Jim Currie]

[QUOTE=Samuel Halpern;378193]>>Given what we know, I have never bought that scenario Sam. <<

No surprise here. But David Brown is correct in his observation that Hichens was only referring to helm orders received prior to impact, not afterward.

We are all correct. I do not dispute that Hichens said what he said and when he said it. Nor do I dispute Hichens when he emphatically stated that the hard-a-starboard order was the only one he had. Are you and David actually suggesting that Hichens had two helm orders directly related to avoiding the ice and absent mindedly forgot to mention the second one which, according to the both of you, came hot on the heals of the first one. If you are then you do not know the mind set of an old style MN Quartermaster. I most certainly do, having worked with enough of them in the distant past and sen them on the stand to be absolutely certain of how such a man as Hichens would have responded to such questions./COLOR]

>>I believe that the foregoing proves that those on Californian did indeed see Titanic's signals. That they saw them 21.5 miles away and that because of the intervening vessel, they did not identify them as signals of distress.<<

How can you say that when the key eyewitness from Californian said: "I have remarked at different times that these rockets did not appear to go very high; they were very low lying; they were only about half the height of the steamer’s masthead light and I thought rockets would go higher than that...But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings."


This thread is about visual and audible signals. Separation distance is crucial to that argument. I can say that because the claim of Captain Lord was that such a distance separated the two vessels. Work it out for yourself or better still, use the tables. If you were on the flying bridge of a ship at 55 feet above sea level, how high would a rocket appear to be above the horizon if it rose to a height of 600 feet above sea level from a point, 21.5 miles away from you?

I'm still waiting to hear how that second helm order achieved what you and David claim it did.

Jim C.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The second helm order came AFTER the impact with the berg. It was NOT part of a collision avoidance maneuver. It was to mitigate damage to the starboard side of the vessel by pulling the stern away from the berg that was passing down along the starboard side. Even QM Rowe, who was out on the poop by the docking bridge, said that he did not believe the ship was under starboard helm (left rudder) when the berg passed aft of where he was. We also have two other eyewitnesses who saw the berg off the starboard quarter and the stern pulling away when they came up from below within minutes of the impact. That was in addition to Boxhall, Smith and Murdoch who went out on the STARBOARD bridge wing within a minute after the impact took place to look for the berg off the starboard quarter as David already explained.

I'm also glad you are absolutely certain of how such a man as Hichens would have responded to all the questioning. That tells me and everyone else something about you and your approach to all of this.

>>This thread is about visual and audible signals. <<

So it is. So if these very low-lying rockets were seen from 20 miles out, or thereabouts, how was it possible that the bearing to the rockets followed this steamer, which was originally claimed to be only 5 miles away, as it steamed away from SSE to SW as 2/O Stone claimed it did?

And by the way, I did look into the question of the angular height of rockets bursting at 600 ft as seen from the upper bridge of Californian for various distances. If Stone is to be believed, those rocket bursts would have been only about 6 minutes-of-arc above the horizon coming from a ship 27 miles away. And how they could see those rockets bursting into white stars as claimed from that great a distance is more of a mystery than the so called mystery steamer itself.

 

[James Leen]

Howdy,

I find it hard to make up my mind about how close The Californian was to the sinking ship... no I've done that.

I don't think there was a second helm order, though. I'm fairly confident it was: 3 bells, hard a starboard,full speed astern, bump and closing the watertight doors.

In Boxhall's testimony we have -

The first Officer said, "An iceberg, Sir. I hard-a-starboarded and reversed the engines, and I was going to hard-a-port round it but she was too close. I could not do any more. I have closed the watertight doors." The Commander asked him if he had rung the warning bell, and he said "Yes."


As to the Californian - another thought. Could the iceberg itself have blocked any purported view of the Titanic? If the angles were just so could that be a reason for the mystery steamer's lights suddenly going out?

 

[Jim Currie]

Still avoiding my question, Sam.

"The second helm order came AFTER the impact with the berg. It was NOT part of a collision avoidance maneuver. It was to mitigate damage to the starboard side of the vessel by pulling the stern away from the berg that was passing down along the starboard side. Even QM Rowe, who was out on the poop by the docking bridge, said that he did not believe the ship was under starboard helm (left rudder) when the berg passed aft of where he was"

OK! So now we are moving ever so slowly toward fact. However, you should read the evidence yet once again.QM Rowe belived no such thing! He was, as you say, standing at the poop rail below the aft docking bridge. He told his questioner that as the iceberg passed astern "It was very close to the ship, almost touching it. Then he was asked "Was the helm over when you passed the iceberg? His answer to that question was "That I could not say." That's clear enough to me.
But the crucial part of his evidence tells me and should tell anyone else with a modicum of ship knowledge, that there is no way that Rowe could have know what helm was applied/ Here it is:

"It was so near that I thought it was going to strike the bridge.
The bridge he was talking about would be the aft docking bridge

Senator BURTON. Did it strike the bridge?...Mr. ROWE: No, sir: never.

Senator BURTON. Only 10 or 20 feet away? Mr. ROWE: Not that far, sir.

How far of the ship's F&A line was the stbd. wing of that bridge?

As for those who saw that berg. How on earth did they see is where and when they said they did if the self same berg was almost touching the stern when it passed? I suggest to you that you try and envisage what went on on the bridge in the ten minutes after impact. Boxhall was not sure of seeing it and what he did say was that he thought it was rather low in the water. Those who saw it after comoing from the forecastle accommodation did saw after emerging from the brightly lit interior.

James explains it very well when he quotes Boxhall's recollection of the conversation between Murdrdoch and Smith. I remind you "I hard-a-starboarded and reversed the engines, and I was going to hard-a-port round it but she was too close. I could not do any more. "
Don't you think Murdoch would have explained to his captain the additional action he took to limit any possible damage. Further don't you think that like you, Murdoch knew that a reverse helm order given in good time would limit damage?

I will ignore you veiled sarcasm Sam. You don not do yourself justice, stooping to that tactic.

Jim C.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Senator BURTON. You are positive you heard no rubbing?
Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. Do you not think that if the helm had been hard astarboard the stern would have been up against the berg?
Mr. ROWE. It stands to reason it would, sir, if the helm were hard astarboard.

 

[Jim Currie]

Got called away. I'll take-up where I left off. Ignore the sarcasm remark. Not my way of doing things.

"If Stone is to be believed, those rocket bursts would have been only about 6 minutes-of-arc above the horizon coming from a ship 27 miles away"

But they weren't coming from a ship 27 miles away, it was 21.5 miles away. The VSA for that would have been 8.5 degrees above the horizon. For 27 miles it would have been 6.8 degrees. In any case, how do you know for absolute certain he saw them 6 degrees of arc above the horizon? You are too precise in your math. Stone used the expression about.

"And how they could see those rockets bursting into white stars as claimed from that great a distance is more of a mystery than the so called mystery steamer itself."

Binoculars? Stone was using them we now that for sure.
I remind you of what wrote in his report to Captain Lord on April 18, long before any inquiry.

"At about 12:45, I observed a flash of light in the sky just above that steamer. I thought nothing of it as there were several shooting stars about, the night being fine and clear with light airs and calms. Shortly after I observed another distinctly over the steamer which I made out to be a white rocket though I observed no flash on the deck or any indication that it had come from that steamer, in fact, it appeared to come from a good distance beyond her."

As for how far they were seeing that night; I think you once remarked that you thought the distance between the two ships was about 16 miles. If that was true and the ship seen by Captain Lord was Titanic then he must have had remarkable eyesight or it wasn't Titanic. Whoever it was, he was seeing, Lord was also seeing lights at a very great distance.

Consider the following:

At about 9pm EST that night, Captain Lord saw a ship coming along from the eastward. At first he saw a single white masthead light. If that ship was Titanic then it had another 33 minutes (according to your time frame) and 14.24 miles to to steam before it arrived at a position 16 miles away to the south east of Californian.
That plainly is sheer nonsense. Because Titanic would then have been 27.2 miles away from the good captain. The maximum distance Titanic's white light could have been seen from the saloon deck of Californian would have been about 20.5 miles. Even with the best binoculars available at that time, I doubt very much if Lord could have seen them at that distance.
Not only that, but if Lord saw Titanic at all, she would always have been to the south and east of his ship and never would have as he said, approached from the eastward. Titanic approaching Californian from the eastward would have stopped about 2.5 miles to the south and east of the former, and that too is absurd!

All in all. given the conditions that night, everyone seeing a very great distance. Additionally, Stone's eyes were drawn to the flash of a light,. The burst of Titanic's signal at altitude was also a flash. The multitude of falling stars would be easily seen through a good set of glasses. These rockets were designed to be seen at maximum range. What use would they have been if they could only be seen when well above the horizon?

Still waiting for the answer to my question.

Jim C.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

But the most important point is: "But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings"

And that proves that the rockets could not have come from some other steamer beyond the one they were seeing and cast doubt on the height they allegedly were seen at.

 

[Jim Currie]

"Samuel Halpern
But the most important point is: "But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings"

And that proves that the rockets could not have come from some other steamer beyond the one they were seeing and cast doubt on the height they allegedly were seen at."

Are you seriously suggesting that Stone made the whole thing up and that he had some cunning plan to outwit his interrogators? That in fact, the rockets he saw did not attain a low altitude? If he did have such a plan then he was an idiot.

But that was not the only thing Stone said. Before he said that, he was perfectly clear that there was nothing to indicate that the rockets came from the nearby vessel.

"7906. That you know because your eyes told you of it, but what did you think they were being sent up for?
- Naturally, the first thought that crossed my mind was that the ship might be in trouble, but subsequent events showed that the ship steamed away from us; there was nothing to confirm that; there was nothing to confirm that the rockets came from that ship, in the direction of that ship. That is all I observed.

But Stone was not the only person on the upper bridge that night. Apprentice James Gibson also saw the last three rockets and I suggest to you, that the direction he saw them relative to Californian's bow is far more important that Stone's panic under interrogation. In fact, if you examine Gibson's evidence very carefully, you will see that his is far more important. His seems to indicate that it is highly unlikely that the other vessels started to change it's bearing from Californian before the last rocket was fired. Have a look at the following which is developed from Gibson's affidavit to Captain Lord date April 18, 1912. If nothing else, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the vessel seen from Titanic was not and could not have been Californian. However I suggest to you that it also shows that Stone was mistaken or pressed into saying what he did say and that the pyrotechnics seen by him were indeed fired from a vessel over the horizon.

I am perfectly aware that Gibson said he though he saw a flash from the nearby vessels' deck but he does not say what deck.
Gibson also reported that Stone told him that the other vessel was steaming away 10 minutes after the last rocket was fired. Correct me if I'm wrong (and you will do so with pleasure, I'm sure) but that suggests that although Stone was taking continuous bearings, he could not have known for certain that the other vessel was moving or changing her position until 10 minutes after that last rockets was fired.



Jim C.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>Gibson also reported that Stone told him that the other vessel was steaming away 10 minutes after the last rocket was fired. Correct me if I'm wrong (and you will do so with pleasure, I'm sure) but that suggests that although Stone was taking continuous bearings, he could not have known for certain that the other vessel was moving or changing her position until 10 minutes after that last rockets was fired.<<

As you say, my pleasure.

According to Gibson's written report to Lord, Stone first mentioned to him that the steamer was steaming away to SW after the red sidelight had disappeared shortly after the 7th rocket was seen. That was when the steamer was seen between 2 pts on the starboard bow and 1 pt on the starboard bow. When the steamer was 1 pt on the port bow the 8th rocket was seen, and when it was 2 pts on the port bow it "disappeared from sight and nothing was seen of her again."

Now according to what Lord told Senator Smith at the American inquiry:
Mr. LORD. ....“At a quarter past he [Stone] said, ‘I think she has fired a rocket.’ He said, ‘She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us.’ I said, ‘Call her up and let me know at once what her name is.’ So, he put the whistle back, and, apparently, he was calling. I could hear him ticking over my head. Then I went to sleep.”

That was when Stone down to him on the speaking tube about 1:15.

According C/E Stewart:

8582. When Mr. Stone told you that he had seen a ship some miles off which had been throwing up rockets, what did you suppose the rockets must have been for? - [Chief Officer Stewart] I asked him what he did. He said the moment she started firing the rockets she started to steam away.

So this steaming away thing as soon as she started to fire rockets was also told to Lord and Stewart before he told that to the wreck commission investigation.

In my opinion, something was very wrong with Mr. Stone's bearings.

 

[Jim Currie]

"As you say, my pleasure."

I remind you of a quote from the works of Scotland's bard:

"But pleasures are like poppies spread:
You seize the flower, its bloom is shed;
Or like the snow fall on the river,
A moment white - then melts forever,
Or like the Aurora Borealis rays,
That move before you can point to their place;
Or like the rainbow’s lovely form,
Vanishing amid the storm."

"According to Gibson's written report to Lord, Stone first mentioned to him that the steamer was steaming away to SW after the red sidelight had disappeared shortly after the 7th rocket was seen. That was when the steamer was seen between 2 pts on the starboard bow and 1 pt on the starboard bow. When the steamer was 1 pt on the port bow the 8th rocket was seen,"

That surely confirms that Gibson was telling it as it was; that the bearing of the other vessel did not change until after the last rocket was seen?

If, before she started to move, the nearby vessel was heading the same way as Californian and in loose ice, she would probably have turned very slowly at first and almost on the same spot. Any change in her compass bearing would be very,very slow until she picked-up speed. Even then, at the range in question, an appreciable change in bearing would only be quickly apparent if she was drawing away at a wide angle to the bearing. At a narrow angle, it would also have taken an appreciable time for a bearing change to become apparent. Add to this that Stone was using a magnetic compass which would also have been lagging the ship's head a little as the bow swung to the right. I suggest to you that it would have taken Stone almost 10 minutes after the last signal was seen to be absolutely sure that the other vessel was moving away. The greater the distance between the vessels, combined with slow speed and narrow angle, the longer it would have taken for a change of compass bearing to register. Have a good think about that, Sam.

In a round about way, Gibson also confirmed that Stone called Lord after the first or second signal

7477. Did he tell you anything else about what he had been doing while you had not been there?
A: - He told me that he had reported it to the Captain.
7478. Did he tell you what the Captain had instructed him to do? A: - Yes.
7479. What was it? A: - To call her up on the Morse light.
7480. Did he tell you whether he had tried to call her up on the Morse light? A: - Yes.
7481. Had he? A:- Yes.
7482. What had been the result? A: - She had not answered him, but fired more rockets.

Gibson was relating to an exchange between him and Stone when he, Gibson, returned to the bridge after getting the log ready. If at that time, 5 rockets in total had been seen by Stone and more had been fired after he reported to Captain Lord then Gibson was right and Stone had called Lord immediately after he saw the first flash.

As for Lord's evidence; I think his memory was playing tricks with him. He telescoped all the information he got from Stone. What would be the point in signalling to a vessel which was obviously not in trouble since it was then steaming away? Particularly when his officers had been calling that self-same vessel for more than an hour without reply.

Stewart's evidence was not specific. He said Stone told him that he had seen rockets at 1 am when in fact they were first seen 15 minutes earlier. He said that Stone told that he, Stone, had spoken about it on the phone with the captain three times. In fact, Stone only spoke to Lord on two occasions regarding the rockets. He spoke to him on three occasions between Midnight and 3 pm for sure but the first conversation took place at 00-45 am, just before he saw the first flash. Although Stone seems to have told Stewart that the other vessel started moving away the moment she started firing, his report to Captain Lord dated April 18 contradicts this as does the evidence of Apprentice Gibson.

"In my opinion, something was very wrong with Mr. Stone's bearings."

Not sure what you mean by that. However I have always thought there was something wrong with his bearing of the nearby vessel. Surely it was not pure coincidence that Stone said it was SSE by compass when if Lord's stopped position was correct, it should have been SSE True?

You have seen my little sketch of the relative bearings of the 8 signals seen from Californian between the hours of about 03-55 GMT and 04-30 GMT on the morning of April, 15. Will you now concede that if the vessel seen from Titanic was showing a white stern light at any time during that period, the vessel in question could not possibly have been Californian?


Jim C.

 

[B-rad]

Found this in the 1908 'Facts for Travelers: Atlantic Transport Line, American Line, Dominion Line, Leyland Line, Red Star Line, White Star Line', by the IMM

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>You have seen my little sketch of the relative bearings of the 8 signals seen from Californian between the hours of about 03-55 GMT and 04-30 GMT on the morning of April, 15.<<

Yes, I saw it and noticed that you have Titanic bearing SE from Californian. That I agree with. As far as your comment about a stern light, I agree that Californian's stern light would not have been shown to Titanic or the boats much before Carpathia arrived on the scene. I've maintained that all along. I don't believe anyone saw a stern light.

 

[Jim Currie]

"Yes, I saw it and noticed that you have Titanic bearing SE from Californian. That I agree with."

I know you do but you also know that I don't actually believe that the SE direction was a True bearing. Apart for the coincidence I referred to before; if you look at the plot of the route taken by the Mesaba, and other ships during the 18 hours prior to the disaster you will discover that ifTitanic was SE of Californian then the latter must have been on the western side of the ice

"I don't believe anyone saw a stern light."

On what do you base that statement? There were a number people on board Titanic who had years of experience seeing the stern lights of ships. The positions held by them depended on them being able to accurately discern the lights of all types of vessels at night on the high sea. Are you saying that all these people were mistaken and that you are right? Here's a list of a few of those who swore they saw a stern light that early morning:

J. Boxhall. 4/O... UK Q.15409.
W. Wynn QM......UK Q. 8165
QM Rowe...........US Day 7.
Lightoller..2/O... .UK Q.14138.

However you are splitting hairs. Let me re-phrase my question;

At what time during the period when Titanic was sinking, did Californian show a single white light in her direction?

Jim C.