Watertight doors

[David F. Smith]

I was thinking of how todays liners seem to roll over and sink, vs. bow first like the Titanic. The lack of any WTDs along the port side E-deck passage would account for the list to port, yet the ship pretty much sank level. This would indicate to me good compartmentalization. (wow, long word) Seeing how todays liners are pieced together in sections, would this make them more or less likely to breakup like the Titanic? Or do they roll over and sink like the Andrea Doria and Oceanos for another design reason?

Dave Smith
Hartford, CT

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Dave: I'm not sure what you mean by "The lack of any WTDs along the port side E-deck passage would account for the list to port." There was nothing watertight on E deck between bulkhead B forward and bulkhead K amidship.

 

[Philip Bowler]

Not sure whether it will be any consolation or not to future survivors but modern passenger ships are designed to sink upright.
Cross flooding arrangements, whereby if one side fills with water the other side floods too, makes sure that this happens.
If you look at the lifesaving requirements for ships this really has to be the case.
A cargo ship has to have 100% capacity each side incase it develops a list when sinking, whereas a passenger ship only has 50% each side. It is critical therefore that the ship remains upright while sinking.

 

[David F. Smith]

Hi Samuel, I was referring to Scotland Road on E-deck. During lifeboat loading it was noted that the ship took on list to port, so I was thinking the water had risen up to E-deck and was heading aft along that passage. But as you noted, the deck itself was not watertight and would have spread into the starboard side cabins easily.

David

 

[David G. Brown]

Titanic took a list to starboard relatively quickly after impact. This either corrected itself or was corrected by shifting ballast and the ship stayed pretty level for most of the rest of the night. Toward the end, however, Titanic started to roll over to port. Had the breakup not occurred, it probably would have gone over on its port side before disappearing.

Early after the accident Captain Smith sent "word of hand" to Chief Engineer Bell. This was a handwritten note carried by Quartermaster Olliver to the engine room. Bell took the note and left Olliver waiting for a reply. After a few minutes Bell said something to the effect that he would get it done, referring to the note. IMM/White Star regulations prohibited the shifting, adding or pumping of ballast without written permission from the ship's captain. It is contained in paragraph 25 of the company rulebook:

"25. Ballast Tanks.--The ballast tanks are never to be filled or pumped out at sea or in port except by the express instructions or permission in writing of the commander..."

Earlier, Olliver had been sent to find the ship's carpenter to "sound the ship." Tht same paragraph 25 goes on to state:

"...Whilst ballast tanks are being filled, the Carpenter must take frequent soundings to avoid undue pressure or overflowing."

Whether or not any ballast was added, pumped overboard, or shifted is unknown. However, the upright stance of Titanic is unique in the annals of passenger ship sinkings. I think it is entirely possible that the long period of time during which boats could be launched from both sides of the ship was due in part to work done by the engineers to move water where it was needed.

One other thing. Andrea Doria took a profound list that eliminated its port lifeboats from service. This was due in part to the engineers pumping water out of certain ballast tanks, a seemingly logical move on a sinking ship. On board Titanic that night was Thomas Andrews, the builder. He had faced the problem of keeping Titanic's hull upright during construction when it did not have its full stability. I often wonder if he told engineers to pump water into the sinking Titanic to maintain stability so that lifeboats could be launched.

--David G. Brown

 

[Erik Wood]

In response to David's last paragraph:

I have privately spoken about this very thing several times. Pumping water into a sinking ship, seems like a very dangerous and risky operation. It is, if you don't know what you are doing you can make the ship roll faster. But some how the ship remained stable throughout the night, I would be interested to see what what if any other possibilities some folks might be researching in response to this.

 

[David G. Brown]

Amen to Captain Erik's comments about pumping water into a sinking ship..even to maintain stability. He and I have spoken privately on this matter several times. In my opinion, it is only the presence of Andrews on board that allows for such a possibility. However, it is undeniable that Titanic remained upright for an extended period of time while it sank.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Michael H. Standart]

This sounds like a job for Roy Mengot andCal Haines. If anybody knows the pumping arrangements and whether or not they would have made this possible, these are the guys!

From the looks of the Pumping Arrangements as documented in the BOT Report of the Court, I think it was. This particular quote is notable IMO:

quote:

The double bottom of the vessel was divided by 17 transverse watertight divisions, including those bounding the fore and aft peaks, and again subdivided by a centre fore and aft bulkhead, and two longitudinal bulkheads, into 46 compartments. Fourteen of these compartments had 8 in. suctions, 23 had 6 in. suctions, and three had 5 in. suctions connected to the 10 in. ballast main suction; six compartments were used exclusively for fresh water.

Looks do-able to me.​