| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 1:14 am: | 
|
Does anyone know about what time E-deck was flooded? I've looked at a ship simulator, but it wasn't much help. Basically, what I need to know is whether or not it was flooded before Collapsible "D" was lowered. Anyone have any insightful information in this regard?
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Vitezslav Ivicic
Member
Username: gilderoy
Post Number: 314
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 2:19 am: |
|
I would say it was already flooded when collapsible D was lowered. When it was being lowered, the water spilled over the A-Deck railing and flooded the promenade, and soon, the lounge and the other interiors in the A-Deck were flooded too. |
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 3:05 am: |
|
But with the bulkheads in place on Deck E, is there a possibility that is was still not flooded when it was beginning to flood A deck? It doesn't seem likely, but could it be possible?
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 4:02 am: |
|
Ben,
Like any other deck, E-Deck extended from prow to stern, so when you ask if E-Deck was flood by a certain time, what do you mean? By the time 'D' went down, the forward end of E-Deck was, in fact, flooded, just at were F-Deck, G-Deck, the Orlop and Tanktop. As to how far back . . . I don't think it is known for sure. A guess would place the water probably flooding the centrally located 1st Class suites on E-Deck about that time. More specifically, perhaps between the first and second funnel casings, even with, say, the lower landing of the grand staircase (which ended on E-Deck), with suites E-27 through E-29 and pantry on the starboard side and the victual crew's quarters right off Scotland Road on the port side.
Please keep in mine that the ship was at a slant, so internal flooding is not easy to discern with exactness.
If you keep checking back, I could have a more detailed answer for you within the next couple of days.
Take care
Mark
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Vitezslav Ivicic
Member
Username: gilderoy
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 9:08 am: |
|
Did not you listen carefully to Mr. Andrews?  He said in the movie, that when one bulkhead floods,the water spill over the top of the bulkheads, and so on...
And there is a record of passengers seeing the flooded E-Deck landing of the Grand staircase and it was far more sooner... |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 9:43 am: |
|
Vitezslav,
I don't go by the movie, as it isn't a reliable source to follow. The 'icecube tray' effect is pretty much a myth, according to Sam Halpern, so I don't put my complete faith in that either, although I do believe that some spilling over did occur,just not only that.
as for E-Deck, I'm sure that the GSC landing was probably awash or underwater by that time, but by how much, I am not certain yet. I will look into it and get back soon.
By the way, maybe someone else out there might know the answer. I invite others to contribute.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 17294
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 4:20 pm: |
|
>>Did not you listen carefully to Mr. Andrews? He said in the movie,<<
As Mark pointed out, movies are not reality and there is very little in evidence which indicates what the real world Thomas Andrews said that night. He certainly crunched the numbers and knew where things were going by midnight, but there was no stenographer following him around to write down a transcript. What that means is that while we know there was a conversation, we don't know exactly what it was.
The movie as a source? Fergedaboudit!
>>that when one bulkhead floods,the water spill over the top of the bulkheads, and so on...<<
A technically inaccurate description of what happened. Useful for laymen perhaps but still misleading. The water did not go pouring over the top like it would over the spillway of a dam. Since the bulkhead would have been fastened to the overhead (Ceiling to all you landlubbers) it couldn't.
What happened was that it came up through ladderwells, vents, and wireways and from there would have flowed forward as the bow was trimmed down. As the bow settled, the water would have moved back aft until it found it's way to more ladders, vents, and wireways leading down.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 4:42 pm: |
|
quote:The movie as a source? Fergedaboudit!
Michael, did you come from the Bronx too?
To the question at hand. Water was seen on E deck about 45 minutes after the collision forward of No. 2 hatch in the seaman's quarters by AB Poingdestre. Wooden bulkhead separating 3rd class permanent space from crew space collapsed at that time. That was in the 3rd watertight compartment from the bow. There were no watertight bulkhead aft of that point on E deck until way back where the reciprocating engine room casing was located. Nothing to stop the water from going aft once it came onto E deck as the ship slowly went down by the head.
Cheers,
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 17302
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 5:13 pm: |
|
>>Michael, did you come from the Bronx too?<<
Pennsylvania actually.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 5:27 pm: |
|
quote:Pennsylvania actually.
Ah, the Pennsylvania Dutch? I've curiously wondered from which ancestry 'Standart' came, hehe.
As for the water pouring through ladderwells, vents and wireways . . . That pretty much sums up what I meant when I said that I believe some water spilling had occurred. Not much in terms of "over the top," for the obvious reason you mentioned regarding the overhead (er, um, ceiling, sorry). If you can't get in through the door, crawl through the window. ;)
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 17304
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 5:31 pm: |
|
>>Ah, the Pennsylvania Dutch?<<
Naaaaahhhhhh...hardly ever saw them where I lived.
>>If you can't get in through the door, crawl through the window. ;)<<
Or a breezeway or an opening in the deck. Lots of ways for water to get from where you don't want it in the first place to where you really don't want it.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Ok, so here's another question about E-deck. From the schematics that Cathy Akers-Jordan provided in her powerpoint, it seems that 2nd class was stuffed near the stern. Was it only 1st class people that would have been able to own a stateroom around the bow? (i.e. E1-E5, that general area)
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Ben,
In a word: Yes! That was 1st class.
A correction, though: The E-deck bow primarily contained the quarters for seamen, firemen and trimmers. I presume you mean the forward end of the main superstructure (midsection). The suites located in this area were 1st class.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Where, then, would the passengers from 2nd class have their cabins? Were there any toward the bow of the ship?
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Hello Ben,
For E-deck, deck plans look here: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/plans.php?angle=E+Deck |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 7:33 pm: |
|
No, 2nd class cabins were situated toward the stern of the ship on D-deck, E-deck, and, I think, some on F-deck aft, especially around the aft cargo hatches, basically beginning just behind the 1st class galley on D-deck. This is where 2nd class is primarily located.
The link that Lester has provided should help. Be careful of the deck plans on this site, though. They are not entirely accurate. I am in the middle of updating them now.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 8:13 pm: |
|
I think that I found something of particular interest when I was looking at the Titanic Inquiry Project. It describes the starboard bow area, where the plans say there were staterooms/cabins. There may have been some second-class cabins near the bow. Here's what it says:
----------------------------------------------------
"The passage on the starboard side ran through the first and then the second class accommodation, and the forward main first class stairway and elevators extended to this deck, whilst both the second class main stairways were also in communication with this starboard passage. There were four first class, eight first or second alternatively, and 19 second class rooms leading off this starboard passage."
--------------------------------------------------
So, if you go by what they say, we could assume that E3-E6 were reserved by first-class passengers exclusively. That would mean that E7-E19 could be either first- or second-class rooms. As you go down the passage, they progressively turn into second class cabins. So, if someone wanted to use this aspect in a story, would it be safe to assume that E7 or E18 could have very well been second class cabins, as well as first class? I know the plans don't say so, but you yourself said that you were in the process of updating them, didn't you Mark?
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Hello Ben,
19 [rooms E-89 to E-107] is correct. 4 will refer to rooms E-200-203, while 8 should read "87". Forward of the 19 2nd Class rooms were a block of 12 rooms [E-77 to E-88] that could be either 1st or 2nd Class. Forward again another 8 rooms [E-69 to E-76] that could also be 1st or 2nd Class. Forward of that were a group of 26 rooms [E-43 to E-68] generally, regarded as 1st Class but which had initially [Shipbuilder/Olympic deck plans been counted as 2nd Class, as had the two groups of rooms already mentioned]. Rooms E-1 to E-42 could also be let to 2nd Class if required, leaving only the 4 large inside rooms E-200-203 as 1st Class.
A 1st Class Fare Rate booklet lists rooms E-1 to E-88 plus E-200-203. |
Ben Lemmon
Member
Username: megacheetah
Post Number: 22
Registered: 1-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 8:58 pm: |
|
So could second class passengers have been in E1 to E44 or were there not enough passengers in second class to do so??
Benjamin D. Lemmon
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Hello Ben,
It would have depended on the number of passengers booked in each Class as to how those rooms were assigned. For Titanic's maiden voyage 1st Class passengers had rooms as far aft as E-68. - None are known to have had rooms in the E-69 to E-88 blocks.
Counting only the 19 rooms, plus the 2nd Class rooms on D and F-decks [but not the 40 rooms on G-deck which could be 2nd Class or 3rd Class] 2nd Class would have had over 100 empty berths, so while rooms E-69 to E-88 may have been used for 2nd Class there would have been no need to even use those rooms let alone any further forward.
As amended above the figures 4 and 8 should be understood to be 4 = E-200-203 and 8 read as "87".
Lester |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Ben,
No confusion intended on my part. When I said that forward (or mid) E-Deck was 1st class, I was referring to what was actually allotted for the maiden voyage, not what was possible, as Lester pointed out.
Simply put, everything from the forward edge of the superstructure (E-200 through 203; E-1 through 4) to the end of the 3rd funnel casing was allotted 1st class. Aft of the 3rd funnel casing became reserved for 2nd class, if necessary. That's the basic layout.
Again, sorry for any confusion that might have occurred.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 10:11 pm: |
|
>>I was referring to what was actually allotted for the maiden voyage, not what was possible, as Lester pointed out.<<
Fare Rate booklets have rooms E-69 to E-88 as 1st Class. A 2nd Class Rates booklet only has E-89 to E-107.
The NARA/H&W Limitation plans count from E-43 aft as 2nd Class. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 5:59 am: |
|
Thanks for the specifics on that, Les. I thought for certain that the full stretch on E-deck was 1st class, as per what you said above:
quote:For Titanic's maiden voyage 1st Class passengers had rooms as far aft as E-68. - None are known to have had rooms in the E-69 to E-88 blocks.
Or did I misunderstand this?
By the way, I remember once when you did the calculation on the total number of deaths as being 1,496. Do you remember? I don't remember where that thread is, as it has been quite a few years. Can you provide me any updates on that tally?
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 6:23 am: |
|
Mar
1,496 remains unchanged. Try Keyword search, under Searching while in the Message Board.
Lester |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 6:30 am: |
|
Thanks, Les. I thought about that, but I wasn't sure which keywords to enter. I guess I could try "death tally" or "number of deaths" to start.
I appreciate it.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 7:20 am: |
|
Mar
Use 1496 as the Keyword [and/or 712 being the number of survivors].
Lester |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 7:44 am: |
|
I will. Thanks again!
Mark
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
