Michael H. Standart
Member
Who's theory is right? Good question.Exploring that is what makes it interesting.
What if the designers should have raised the bulkheads
- Thread starter Kyle Fisher
- Start date
Tomme Foster
Member
Having served aboard submarines, I understand the importance of water-tight integrity, especially regarding that of ballast tanks. I've heard that the Titanic's ballast tanks weren't sealed. If that's true, I don't believe she would have gone down had her ballast tanks been sealed.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
>>I don't believe she would have gone down had her ballast tanks been sealed.<<
The ballast tanks were so to say in the double bottom.
She was damaged above it.
Or do you mean the 16 watertight compartments?
Here is a well researched article by a fine researcher which could be of interest for you!
Titanic's Hidden Deck
The ballast tanks were so to say in the double bottom.
She was damaged above it.
Or do you mean the 16 watertight compartments?
Here is a well researched article by a fine researcher which could be of interest for you!
Titanic's Hidden Deck
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>If that's true, I don't believe she would have gone down had her ballast tanks been sealed.<<
As Ioannis pointed out, the tanks were all a part of the double bottom and they would have been very well sealed. If your talking about the watertight compartments, perhaps you're thinking of watertight decks.
If this is the case, you could very well be right. The problem here is that the watertight protection of a warship...which guys like me are used to...would have made getting around on a passenger vessel rediculously inconvenient for the passengers and it would have been a nightmare getting the crew trained to the point where they could competantly and reliably set it right.
Don't forget that warships typically have a years worth of intensive training in their workups to achieve that level of competance and the crews are reletively stable. Merchant ships don't have that going for them and the crews have very high rates of turnover which means a lot of the people with the needed skillsets go away.
As Ioannis pointed out, the tanks were all a part of the double bottom and they would have been very well sealed. If your talking about the watertight compartments, perhaps you're thinking of watertight decks.
If this is the case, you could very well be right. The problem here is that the watertight protection of a warship...which guys like me are used to...would have made getting around on a passenger vessel rediculously inconvenient for the passengers and it would have been a nightmare getting the crew trained to the point where they could competantly and reliably set it right.
Don't forget that warships typically have a years worth of intensive training in their workups to achieve that level of competance and the crews are reletively stable. Merchant ships don't have that going for them and the crews have very high rates of turnover which means a lot of the people with the needed skillsets go away.
Augusto Félix Solari
Member
Yes but after the collision and sinking of the Titanic both the Olympic and the Britannic had their watertight compartments risen. I would like to know how was adressed the issue of the passangers'mobility.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Yes but after the collision and sinking of the Titanic both the Olympic and the Britannic had their watertight compartments risen. I would like to know how was adressed the issue of the passangers'mobility.<<
Not much, but making a watertight door through a bulkhead which slides into place isn't that big a deal, and they're fairly easy to close. Setting up watertight boundries through the decks would have been easy from a technical standpoint, but would of necessity have to be very small in order to be effective, and this is a serious impediment to ease of getting around. Forget elevators and grand staircases. At most, the watertight hatches I've seen have been about the size of refrigerator doors. Not a problem for a fit sailor, but a very big problem for elderly ladies and gentlemen to deal with.
Then there's that issue of training which I raised. From a technical standpoint, any passenger liner could be built to the standards of a warship, but in order for it to be worth anything, you would need a well drilled crew who would know how to set all of the hundreds if not thousands of watertight doors, hatches, scuttles, vents, wireways and the like and do it right the first time. A merchent vessel doesn't have the time to deal with the protracted training and workups which would be required to make this happen.
Been there, done that.
Not much, but making a watertight door through a bulkhead which slides into place isn't that big a deal, and they're fairly easy to close. Setting up watertight boundries through the decks would have been easy from a technical standpoint, but would of necessity have to be very small in order to be effective, and this is a serious impediment to ease of getting around. Forget elevators and grand staircases. At most, the watertight hatches I've seen have been about the size of refrigerator doors. Not a problem for a fit sailor, but a very big problem for elderly ladies and gentlemen to deal with.
Then there's that issue of training which I raised. From a technical standpoint, any passenger liner could be built to the standards of a warship, but in order for it to be worth anything, you would need a well drilled crew who would know how to set all of the hundreds if not thousands of watertight doors, hatches, scuttles, vents, wireways and the like and do it right the first time. A merchent vessel doesn't have the time to deal with the protracted training and workups which would be required to make this happen.
Been there, done that.
Augusto Félix Solari
Member
So, in fact they could have as many watertight doors as they wanted, however without the trained crew they could only close a few of them.
But weren't the bulkheads on board designed to close automatically from the bridge?
But weren't the bulkheads on board designed to close automatically from the bridge?
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
In case of Olympic and Titanic only the doors on the Tank top level were closed from the bridge. All others had to be closed by hand.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>But weren't the bulkheads on board designed to close automatically from the bridge?<<
Mmmmmmm....let's not lose focus here. The issue which was raised appears to be watertight hatches which would be located in the deck.
From a technical standpoint, this presents some very different problems. There are literally hundreds of vertical penetrations from ladderwells, stairways, vents, wireways and do on. It's not enough to just have hatches. You have to be able to close all of these as well.
While it is within the realm of technical possibility to design such fittings to be closed by remote control, the very complexity of such a system would render it impractical and prohibitively expensive. So expensive that this isn't even attempted on warships.
Mmmmmmm....let's not lose focus here. The issue which was raised appears to be watertight hatches which would be located in the deck.
From a technical standpoint, this presents some very different problems. There are literally hundreds of vertical penetrations from ladderwells, stairways, vents, wireways and do on. It's not enough to just have hatches. You have to be able to close all of these as well.
While it is within the realm of technical possibility to design such fittings to be closed by remote control, the very complexity of such a system would render it impractical and prohibitively expensive. So expensive that this isn't even attempted on warships.
Augusto Félix Solari
Member
I agree, after all, it was the ladder design one of the main contributors of the sinking since it allowed the water to flood the decks above and after that go down again (to the boiler rooms for instance) with ease.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I agree, after all, it was the ladder design one of the main contributors of the sinking since it allowed the water to flood the decks above and after that go down again (to the boiler rooms for instance) with ease.<<
Perhaps but only to the extant that it hastened the inevitable. With five and possibly six compartments breeched, more of the ship's watertight length was in open communication with the sea then she could possibly survive. Had the bulkheads been raised all the way up, that would only have slowed the sinking down, not prevented it.
If you go back into the archived portion of this thread, you'll notice a post by David G. Brown where he explained why the "Icecube tray" scenerio is extremely misleading. You might find it to be useful reading.
Perhaps but only to the extant that it hastened the inevitable. With five and possibly six compartments breeched, more of the ship's watertight length was in open communication with the sea then she could possibly survive. Had the bulkheads been raised all the way up, that would only have slowed the sinking down, not prevented it.
If you go back into the archived portion of this thread, you'll notice a post by David G. Brown where he explained why the "Icecube tray" scenerio is extremely misleading. You might find it to be useful reading.
