| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Tennaro
| | Posted on Sunday, November 5, 2000 - 10:13 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
in a another thread Parks recently wrote:
I maintain this is proof that Smith knew the ship was doomed to sink before he could reach his destination and that he needed to bring the ship to a stop so that lifeboats could be lowered. He had to make that decision quickly, because of the time he knew it would take to launch the boats. As it was, he waited a bit too long...Titanic sank before all her boats could be launched.
My question is:
I have read this statement more than once: that Titanic sank before all her lifeboats could be launched, and therein lies my confusion.
the only two lifeboats that were not launched were the two collapsibles on top of the officer's quarters. it is my understanding that the reason these two were not launched was not because the crew ran out of time, but rather because these two lifeboats were stored in such a way that there was no way to get them to the davits.
these two collapsibles were stored upside down, and lashed to the deck. there was no equipment to cut loose the lashings. I seem to recall that one of the crew even had to borrow a knife from (I think it was) Bride. once loose, there was no machinery to move them from where they were stored over to the davits.
I realize we are not talking about a great deal of time at this late stage in the sinking, but wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that if these two collapsibles had been stored next to the davits, like the others, there would have been enough time to launch them?
to my mind there is a significant difference between the crew not having enough time, versus the crew not having any way to launch them. or do I not have my facts correct here???
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T. |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Monday, November 6, 2000 - 12:38 am: |
|
Mike, sounds like you have it pretty much streight. Storing those two collapsibles lashed to the deckhouse upside down was a costly mistake, one made even worse by the fact that there was no way to move them short of Swiss Steam...which is to say, brute musclepower.
I think it would have been enormously helpful if the ship had not gotten underway again as seems to have been the case. Nearly an hour of precious time was lost as a consequence of this.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Parks Stephenson
| | Posted on Monday, November 6, 2000 - 3:50 pm: |
|
The collapsibles on the roof of the Officer Quarters were expected to be lowered by rigging them to cables provided for that purpose. However, this was an manpower-intensive, timely operation....clearly, not a practical design when the ship is settling beneath one's feet. Michael, you are correct in your assertion that the collapsibles would have been of more use if they had been stowed on the Boat Deck, next to a davit.
But this is obscuring the point I was trying to make...at around 0010, Smith only had a general idea of how long it would take for the boats to be cleared, manned and lowered. He also had only Thomas Andrews' estimate of how long it would take for the ship to sink. Witnesses disagree on Andrews' estimate, but the greatest reported was 1.5 hours, which would be about 0130. At the time he had the make the decision, Smith did not know that ship would stay afloat until 0220...we can only argue that figure today with the benefit of hindsight. As it was, the last lifeboat (not collapsible) was lowered around 0155, 25 minutes after the estimated time Andrews provided Smith. In fact, at 0130, 6 of the standard lifeboats (I'm including the Emergency #2) were either in the process of being lowered or had yet to be lowered. My point is, Smith knew he did not have the luxury of time to chase after a light or steam to Halifax...he had to stop and commence loading and lowering the boats before the ship sank.
I am aware that this is covered in Dave Brown's book, but I haven't read that portion yet. The assumption I am making for this argument is that Andrews reported that the ship had an hour and a half to live, this based on BOT testimony. If he reported that the ship could float until morning, then the argument changes.
Parks |
Parks Stephenson
| | Posted on Monday, November 6, 2000 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Addendum to my last...I realise that 0130 is not a time on which to base a serious argument. Not only was Andrews' estimate related secondhand (the Bos'n told Hemmings that Andrews was putting out the word that the ship had only a half-an-hour to live), but we don't know if the "hour to an hour-and-a-half" clock started ticking during Smith's conversation with Andrews or Boxhall. We also don't know exactly when Smith and Boxhall had their conversation. I explain this in anticipation of the point being brought up...I did not overlook the margin of error in the time estimates...I used the 0130 time only to illustrate my point. I still maintain that when Smith had to make the decision to prepare the boats for lowering, he was faced with the possibility that he might not have enough time to launch the boats. As it happened, the ship stayed afloat longer than anticipated.
I wonder, out of curiosity, how long Smith thought initially that it would take to get the boats away. Did he under- or over-estimate the actual time?
Parks |
Dan Cherry
| | Posted on Monday, November 6, 2000 - 8:48 pm: |
|
The Titanic was supposed to have a block and pulley system installed in the eyehooks of the funnel stays on either side of the boat to launch these collapsibles. Photos of this pulley system can be seen on Olympic (see book 'Titanic and her Sisters') and other White Star ships (see E.E. O'Donnell's Last Days of Titanic') around this time. The blocks and pulleys were probably not on Titanic, or stored elsewhere onboard (I would tend to think they weren't onboard, since the only place to store them would be hooked up). All photos of Titanic show the eyehooks empty.
The collapsibles were not stored upside-down. How they are portrayed in Cameron's film is correct. They were stored right-side up in chocks, canvas sides collapsed, and covered.
It appears that Olympic did not have a collapsible boat set on top of the officer's quarters originally. A std. photo from March 1912 appears to show collapsibles A and C stacked on top of one another, with B and D on the port side likely in the same fashion.
The officers on Titanic did the best they could with what little time they had. It probably would have made a difference if the collapsibles were stacked as on Olympic - lift the first up, load and drop, then repeat. Having it right there and not needing to rig oars and ropes to pull them down wasted precious minutes.
My .02 |
James Eldridge
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 12:38 am: |
|
I wonder if Thomas Andrews estimate of an hour came before or after the engines were restarted and Titanic tried to make Halifax? If after his estimate is pretty dead on!
James |
David G. Brown
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 2:06 am: |
|
No book is long enough. The numbers that follow were developed for my book, Last Log Of The Titanic, but were eliminated due to the limited number of pages available.
Based on the capacity of a standard Titanic lifeboat (65 people), it would have taken at least 34 boats to carry all of the passengers and crew aboard that night.
The new Welin davits made launching the boats relatively quick and easy (According to Lowe's testimony). Simple math shows that the crew launched a boat every 4 minutes and 45 seconds once they began lowering.
There are four possible o'clock times when it would have been logical to launch boats. In round numbers they are:
11:50 pm after the ship first came to a stop. In retrospect, this was the time to begin as Titanic was mortally wounded. Based on the actual performance of the crew, there would have been time to launch 32 boats, 2 fewer than needed to rescue everyone.
00:15 am after Captain Smiths tour of damage and flooding. In fact, it would not have been possible at this time because the ship was still "shooting" forward as it coasted to a stop. However, if launching had been attempted, there was only time to put 26 boats in the water.
00:30 am when the ship would have lost way and it would have been safe to launch lifeboats. If they had started now, they could have launched up to 23 lifeboats in the time available.
00:45 am the actual time when the first boats were lowered. There was only enough time to launch 20 boats before the ship sank.
The implication of all of this is a very sobering thought. Even if Titanic had carried two boats in each of its Welin davits, there was not enough time after the accident to launch all of 32 of those boats. Based on the math, it appears that even if the ship had carried enough lifeboats for everyone...there wasn't enough time to use all of them properly.
One problem on Titanic was the number of crew trained in handling the davits. It appears groups of men launched a boat and then moved to another. That explains the long period of time between the first and last boats. Today, each lifeboat is required to have its own crew trained in launching procedures. In theory, this means that all of the boats could be launched at the same time. While this sounds good, a lot of the so-called "trained lifeboatmen" have never actually launched a lifeboat from a real ship. Many lifeboatmen on merchant ships have obtained their certification by launching a scale model located in the classroom of a training facility.
-- David G. Brown |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Ouch! David, I take it this simulator doesn't take into account things like a marginal to heavy list and rough seas or equipment damaged in whatever accident makes evacuation of the ship an imperative in the first place.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
David G. Brown
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 10:47 pm: |
|
In the aftermath of Titanic, the public decided that lifeboats were they key to everyone's survival. I don't believe that sailors have ever put much trust in lifeboats to save everyone under all circumstances. One of my merchant marine acquaintenances was pleased earlier this summer when his evacuation station was changed from an old-fashioned lifeboat to an inflatable raft. He thinks he has a much better chance of surviving in rough weather.
However, Titanic sank under classroom conditions: calm seas, little if any wind, and a relatively upright vessel. As a result, that's the image most people have of a major ship disaster.
-- David G. Brown |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 11:54 pm: |
|
A reletively upright vessel(Snort) Somebody ought to show the public some photos of the Andrea Doria. How about the Prinsendum for calm seas?( Or maybe a cruise off of Cape Hattaras or through the North Sea in the dead of winter.) The Morro Castle was a nice study in how useful lifeboats for all can be when the gear is rusty or painted over.
And wasn't there a ship or two which sank off of South Africa in conditions so stormy that it was the helicopter or swim call?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Erik Wood
| | Posted on Thursday, November 9, 2000 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Good Morning All,
I do most sincerly apologize for my late entry. But as a Captain he did need to stop the ship before launching of the boats could begin. However this was already done by the time they were ready to do so. I have contested in another board whose name presently escapes me that with more lifeboats not all that many more would have been saved. The types of davits that Titanic had would have required filling the first group of boats from the Promenade deck which as we know Lightoller had a couple problems with. This would have caused a delay and may have in the end cost more lives and time.
Just my opinon I have been known to be wrong from time to time |
Daniel Dieter Abt
Member
Username: halifax
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
How long would it have taken to bring the boats back up and re-loaded if the ship had remained afloat until help arrived? (assuming, of course, that the Titanic had not moved for the 20 minutes Mr. Brown asserts she did in an attempt to make for Halifax) If Titanic had been found barely afloat when other ships arrived; would life boats from either the Mount Temple or the Virginian been able to be brought up by Titanics davits? If all the same boats had been returned for reloading-at roughly the time that the Virginian and the Mount Temple arrived, or shortly there after, how long might it have taken to remove the remaining passengers and non-essential crew in advance of any attempted tow?
How far would a tow have been under way before the bulkhead would have either started to warn of danger or just failed?
I did not just want for the Titanic to be only loacted. I wanted science to tell us the true facts of the disaster because I never believed that the ship had to sink in the manner that she did. From the first time I was exposed to the story in 1967 by being made to watch the 20th Century Fox version, I was convinced that something was amiss in the retelling of events.
The Titanic was |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11165
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Daniel, you might want to post some of these questions in threads that are either active or at least of more recent vintage as a lot of opinions have changed in light of research done since then. 
Nobody knows for certain how long Titanic moved post collision and it's been debated that she even moved at all. The evidence from testimony and first hand accounts such as Lawrence Beesley and Col. Gracie's would tend to indicate that she did, but not for 20 minutes.
On the matter of how long it would have taken to recover the boats, with only four electric winches for all the davits, I would think it would have taken the better part of an hour at the very least just to recover the boats and that would be if nothing went wrong. Since the Titanic did *not* remain afloat long enough for this to become an issue, it's really a moot point.
If what you want to know is how long it would have taken to tranfer everybody, if past history is any indication...such as the transfer of passengers and crew off the RMS Republic...it would have been a day long evolution.
>>How far would a tow have been under way before the bulkhead would have either started to warn of danger or just failed?<<
Not knowable if the bulkhead would have failed at all or when had the Titanic survived long for a tow to be attempted. This sort of thing doesn't operate according to a time schedule. It would all depend on how much damage had been done to the structure of the ship in the first place and how much additional damage would have been done by the flooding. Bulkheads *do* show some signs when they're about to go. Obvious bulging, and distortion for example, along with the noises overstressed metal tends to make when that strsss is increasing.
Or you might not have any warning at all. The people in Boiler Room Five for example. It may have been a seam splitting open somewhere at the base or a door on a bunker giving way, but the only warning they had was a wall of water appearing out of nowhere rushing at them between the boiler casings.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Daniel-- As I have often said, "history does not reveal its alternatives." So, we cannot say with certainty the effect of steaming after the accident. It may have been the reason the ship foundered, or it may have played only an incidental role.
What we can do is estimate how long an orderly evacuation would have taken. To do so, we have to assume the loading time on Titanic, the transit time to the rescue ship, the unloading at the rescue ship, and the transit time back to Titanic plus the recovery of the boat to the boat deck for reloading with passengers.
The most difficult operation is removing passengers from lifeboats at the rescue ship. So, that would probably consume as much or more time as rowing from one ship to the other. Rowing would be slow in a lifeboat, perhaps a mile an hour with a full load going to the rescue ship and maybe twice that returning. Remember, there would only be a few oars working at any time because there were few skilled oarsmen in the crew. Here's a possible timetable:
Loading on Titanic 15 min
Lowering 5 min
Rowing to rescue ship 20 min
Unloading at rescue ship 30 min
Rowing back to Titanic 15 min
Recovery of boat to Boat Deck 15 min
TOTAL Rescue Cycle 1:40
Assuming that each boat carried 60 people (excluding boat crew) and that there were 2,200 to be rescued, it becomes possible to compute the number of rescue cycles needed. 2200/60 = 36 cycles.
Assuming a crew of 45 seamen and 5 officers available to operate the lifeboats, and that at least one coxwain and four oars are needed, it quickly becomes obvious that all 16 lifeboats cannot be used in the evacuation effort. The 50 competent boat crew can only man a maximum of 10 lifeboats. And, because we want 100% success, it is necessary that the boats be handled by competent seamen. This is an evacuation, not a panic.
However, the physical exhertion of rowing is enormous. We would have to allow each boat crew a rest period of 15 minutes every two hours. So, that time must be added into the time needed.
36 rescue cycles of 1:40 each = 60 hours of labor. Using 10 boats, that would mean the operation would take 6 hours plus rest two 15 minute rest periods, or 6 hours 30 minutes.
So, figure a minimum of 7 hours with "slop" to move 2,200 people with 10 boats in perfect weather. However, such speed could only be obtained in daylight. Everything done by hand slows down in the dark. So, the operation would have had to have been postponed until after say 6 a.m. when there was sufficient light for safety.
This means Titanic would have had to float for another 3 hours 20 minutes just to find daylight. After that, the rescue operation would have taken another 7 hours in calm water. That's 10:20 of extra floating. And, it did not remain calm on the morning of April 15th. The wind came up and so did the sea. This would have slowed both the rowing and the unloading of boats, perhaps by a factor of 50%. So, add another 3 hours 30 minutes and the extra time Titanic had to stay afloat grows to nearly 14 hours.
History cannot tell us whether or not the ship would have floated longer had it remained stopped after the accident. However, even the best case scenario I have ever seen does not give the ship the additional hours needed.
-- David G. Brown |
Thomas Balle
Member
Username: thomas_b
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Did they really try to make it to Halifax? i've never heard this before |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11268
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:43 am: |
|
>>Did they really try to make it to Halifax? i've never heard this before<<
Nope. There was never a realistic chance of that and the Titanic's officers knew it. The Titanic Being Towed To Halifax thing came about as a result of garbled communications that made it into a newspaper.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
|
