| Author |
Message |
    
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 364
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, April 11, 2009 - 5:27 pm: | 
|
Additionally: within another 5 seconds he would be on the bridge proper and see Murdoch still by the WT handle. In another 10 seconds, Smith would appear on the bridge and Olliver would hear the conversation between Smith and Murdoch.
Like this:
View Image
At just before A Olliver the feels impact then hears grinding. He looks outboard and ahead and within 5 seconds sees berg coming along. As tip passes bridge it is faintly illuminated by the starboard side-light. Its gone in 2 seconds but enough time is given to see that the extreme 'tip-top'- as Olliver described it- is clear of the boat.
He knows the boat is 3 feet high so correctly deduces the berg is a little higher than the deck itself.
He moves on to B. At this time he is aware (rather than clearly sees)of Murdoch at the WT lever. He knows Murdoch is there because Murdoch confirms it by telling Smith about it. Everyone should keep in mind how incredibly dark it is on the bridge of a ship! |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2438
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 11, 2009 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Other than the time of collision, I tend to agree with David. From Olliver's description, he was coming onto the bridge just as the ship struck, not passing alongside Smith's quarters as Boxhall claimed and where you, Jim, have him. Olliver also may have intended to report to Murdock about the completion of his errand before going into the wheelhouse. The field of view in the Olympic picture is wider than what I drew in my post above and implies the camera was ahead of the wheelhouse and slightly to the starboard side of the ship's centerline, not very far from the forward steering position. The camera field of view is about 35 deg. and if Olliver was looking in that direction from that location, the peak of the berg would have been in view about a little over 1 second. If he was closer to the starboard side than that, he would have seen it a smidge longer.
As far as when the accident took place and when his relief showed up, Hichens was very clear about both those times.
Mr. HICHENS. ... All went along very well until 20 minutes to 12, when three gongs came from the lookout, ...
Mr. HITCHENS. I left the wheel at 23 minutes past 12, sir. I was relieved by Quartermaster Perkis. He relieved me at 23 minutes past 12.
At the British inquiry we find he had essentially the same to say.
946. Did you notice the time when she struck? - Yes.
947. What was it? - Twenty minutes to twelve.
1017. How long did you remain at the wheel? - Until 23 minutes past 12.
1018. And who relieved you? - Quartermaster Perkis.
Now why would he use two different time references? The correct time of the ship striking the ice without putting the clock back was 11:40 p.m. That was made perfectly clear in other testimony, and is confirmed in a number of passenger accounts, including a few who looked at their watches.
But we've been through all that before, haven't we David?
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2439
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 11, 2009 - 8:54 pm: |
|
What model are your photos of Titanic from Jim? Nicely detailed.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 365
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi Sam! This is one of the first models ever built. you can find it here:
http://www.fineartmodels.com/pages/product.asp?content_area=6&sub_area=138&product_area=138&product_id=255.
If you go to the 'topside' file, you will find that the very first pic. is of the port side entrance to the bridge. Seen here:
View Image
If the starboard side is the same (I don't doubt it) then Olliver's line of vision from the position you and David suggest would be severely obstructed by the 'clutter' in his line of sight. This as you can see would include the Welin Davit, no less than three sets of plate bulwarks and the bow of the collapsible boat in
it's cradle.
I had already worked it out where the pic of Olympic was taken from but disregarded it because the position you gave for Olliver showed him standing in line with the port side of the wheelhouse. Using that position and the arc of visibility you showed; I worked out the amount of time the tip would be visible from there -if at all. I deducted 50% 0f your arc because it took-in the bridge cab therefore I used an angle of 8 degrees. By simple trig., I worked out that the visibility gap would be about 18 feet. Therefore at 22 knots, the tip would pass in view for about half a second - not nearly enough to make an accurate assessment of what was being seen.
This was why I took such a close look at things. I carefully read and re-read Olliver's statements as we all have done. He is quite adamant that he saw the berg. he is also precise in his description of what he claims he saw. It follows that to be so clear, he either had to have a photograph of the scene, a photographic memory or just enough time to take-in what he was seeing. I suggest that a second- or more like half a second- is not nearly enough time - even when you know what you're looking at and the exact direction in which to look. I can't say more than that.
As a Scotsman and as an aside - The first officer's name ended in 'ch' not 'ck'. I know that because I'm descended from a branch of that Clan.
Another bit of history for you - my GGG grandfather, John Murdoch made the pistol that fired the shot that was 'heard round the world' - allegedly the first shot fired in the American War of Independence. The pistol is one of a pair taken from a dead British marine. The pair are now (I think) in Lexington Museum. So you see we have always caused 'trouble'.. Just thought I'd share that with you! |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Olliver's description of the berg has only two details. One, that it appeared more blue than the white he expected. That may reveal nothing more than that he saw it under very poor lighting conditions. The other detail was that the top of the berg came up only above the boat deck. This was hardly a tape measure accurate assessment of the height, just a general impression.
Even a half second visibility would have allowed him to make both observations. I find his testimony rather the more believable because he did not elaborate beyond these very simple observations.
----------------
Regarding the time, Hichens was correct in saying that the accident happened at "twenty minutes to twelve" and that he was relieved at "23 past 12." Sam neglected to point out that I said exactly the same thing in my post. I totally agree with Hichens' testimony on both times.
While those two times are accurate to the minute, they are not in the same reference. The first was in bridge time and the second in April 14th hour. What Sam continues to overlook is that while the 11:40 p.m. time of the accident was taken by Olliver, it was Hichens who read the clock for the change of watch time. Two men, two clocks, two results.
By his own admission, Hichens was giving hearsay evidence of Olliver's clock reading when he quoted the time of the accident. However, Hichens was giving his own observation when he gave the time of change of watch.
It is quite easy to find multiple crew survivors who were in the off-duty port watch. To a man, they testified that the accident took place just before the warning bell that would have roused them out for the "midnight" change of watch. Quite obviously, 11:40 is twenty minutes before midnight, which was the midnight of the change of watch.
We know that the on-duty starboard watch had to have completed its extra 23+ minutes by change of watch. (Half of the full 47 minute clock setback that night.) If the accident took place just 20 minutes before that change, then bridge time by which the change was governed must have been set back -- and the extra minutes already worked -- prior to the accident. Otherwise, the starboard watch would have to have worked an additional 43 minute (20 to midnight + the extra 24) in the remaining 20 minutes before the change of watch. That was (and remains) an impossibility.
Simple math shows that the true midnight marking the start of April 15th time took place at 2447 hours in Titanic's April 14th time. If both watches were to work extra time, and all clocks read April 15th time at midnight (per Lightoller), then the change of watch had..and that's a military "had"..to have occurred at 12:23 a.m. -- halfway between "midnight" in April 14th hours and "midnight" marking the start of April 15th. I ask everyone to note that 12:23 is exactly when Hichens said he was relieved.
We know the accident took place 20 minutes before change of watch, or 11:40 p.m. for the crew. That would have been 12:23 a.m. - 20 minutes = 12:03 a.m. in April 14th hours.
So, Hichens spoke the absolute truth. The accident took place at "twenty minutes to twelve" in crew time. And, he served until "23 minutes after 12" in April 14th hours.
11:40 Crew = 12:03 April 14 Hrs.
Midnight Crew = 12:23 April 14 Hrs.
It's really quite simple.
-- David G. Brown |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 367
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 6:45 pm: |
|
David,
I too find Olliver's statement completely believable but you obviously have not been on a large ship's bridge under the conditions existing at that time. If you have, you will know full well that it would be almost impossible to see any thing flashing past in half a second more than 50 feet away. Indeed, I defy you to describe anything flashing past at that range - especially something you've never seen before. We are probably talking about a triangle of ice little more than a foot and a half across it's base. This was not a suitably lit hollywood film set. Incidentally, there were bulkhead lights fitted at intervals all along the boat deck. These would be lit to allows safe passage along the boat deck at night.
They are fairly low out-put lights and had screens fitted to the forward end so the actual light would not be seen by any one on the bridge looking aft. I suspect that both Boxhall and Olliver would pass these lights on the way to the bridge hence their night vision would be impaired.
The last ones before the bridge proper were on the bulkhead opposite the emergency boats starboard and port. There was one just outside and forward of the door to the officer's accommodation. You will remember Lightholler had to walk forward about 10 feet just after impact so that he could better see the bridge.
I suspect that because of these lights, Olliver would not be able to see much in the darkened wheelhouse. Boxhall also stated his night vision had been impaired.
As for the time thing: We must be using entirely different references:
Olliver could not have noted down any time of impact because he was still on his way back to his post when that occurred.
If Hitchens served his full 2 hrs 23 minutes on the wheel before being relieved then the ship's clock - if it had been set-back would show midnight. Did it? He was told the wheel was finished with at that time and the next job he got was at the boats.. what time was that?
According to the junior R/O, the first CQD was sent some time after midnight This CQD was received at 2225 New York time..on Titanic's unadjusted clock that would be about 1225 on the 15th.
If the clock had been adjusted back by 23 minutes then 1025 pm NY time would be 1202 Titanic time. Reading the evidence of the R/O, he relieved Phillips at midnight(ship's time) and had a chat with him. Phillips was getting ready for bed when Smith came in and told then to get help. |
Richard Brown
Member
Username: rickyb
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Well, I may as well throw in my 2 cents on the timings. Perkis releaved Hitchens at 12 'Perkis time'. Hitchens said he was releaved at 12:23 'Hitchens time'. Clearly Perkis time cannot be April 14th time. It has to be either April 14 - 20 mins (bridge time) or April 15 time. If Perkis time is bridge time, then Hitchens must be operating at April 14 time. However, this would indicate that there will be another adjustment in time (as Perkis 12 is bridge time, so another 20 mins has to be taken to take the time to April 15 time). That is fine. However, if Lightoller said that at midnight the clocks would all read 12 April 15 time, then it has to be that Perkis 12 is April 15 time and Hitchens second time point is bridge time (otherwise the clock would have to be put back another 20 mins, and Hitchens would have said he was releved at 12:40 April 14 time). What time was the collision given in then? Well, if Perkis is operating on April 15 time, then the time given for the collision has to be bridge time. Otherwise, Perkis would releave Htichens at 12:40 April 14 time, and so Hitchens would have worked an extra 40 mins April 14 time. The result of this is that the collison occured 11:40 bridge time, Hitchens was releaved at 12:23 bridge time or 12 April 15 time. Time until change of watch 40 mins.
If lightoller was incorrect, then this argument falls apart, but I am going with the idea that the clocks were to be set back so 12 midnight is April 15 time. |
Richard Brown
Member
Username: rickyb
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Ah, misread David. Lightoller said all clocks will read April 15 time, not will be 12 April 15 time. OK, so it is then possible for Perkis time to be bridge time and Hitchens 24:23 time to be April 14 time. Now, collision time can be either bridge time or April 14 time. If it was at bridge time, then Perkis would releve Hitchens 12 bridge time, 24:23 April 14 time. However, if the collision was at 11:40 April 14 time, it would be possible that when Perkis takes over the April 14 clock (24:23) is put back the full 40mins (so 24:23 April 14 becomes 11:40ish April 15).
So, if the collison is at bridge time, Perkis is on bridge time and Hitchens is on April 14 time (bridge time goes back 20 mins at handover). Time until change of watch, 20 mins. OR, If the collision is April 14 time, then Perkis is on bridge time and Hitchens is on April 14 time (clock goes back 40 mins (real bridge time is April 14 time) when Perkis takes over). Time until change of watch 40 mins. It may be confusing for Perkis to set his watch under the later system (were collision time is April 14 time, as no clock would read bridge time when he came on duty, all would read April 14 time).
Basically it comes down to when the clock changes were made. If the collision occurs at 11:40 bridge time, and Hitchens is releaved at 24:23 April 14 time, then Perkis 12 needs to be put back another 20 mins. OR, if the collision occurs at 11:40 April 14 time, and Hitchens is releaved 24:23 April 14 time then the clock would have to be put back a full 40 mins when Perkis took over (20 mins for his bridge time, which no clock on board will ever show, plus another 20 mins to convert April 14 to bridge time). If Hitchens is releaved at 24:23 bridge time, then Perkis 12 does not need to be turned back. In the former case there is 20 mins until the next watch OR 40 mins, in the latter there is 40 mins until the next watch.
We do know that Dillon stated the clock only went back 20 mins, so that we can probably rule out the situation where the clock is turned back 40 mins at the handover. This leaves the other to, with it being either 20 mins or 40 mins from collison until handover. do we have anyway of knowing for sure whether the clock was going back at 12 from bridge time to April 15 time? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2441
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 8:53 pm: |
|
>>The first officer's name ended in 'ch' not 'ck'<<
I know that. 99% of the time I spell it correctly. But there is that 1% where it comes out wrong. It almost like putting a 't' in Hichens. 
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2442
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 9:11 pm: |
|
None of this time stuff had to do with the note to the Bell. David and I have been debating this for years. I'll start a new thread if people want to deal with this subject, yet again.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Richard Brown
Member
Username: rickyb
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Perhaps a new thread for discussing Olliver (and Boxhall) as well would be good (as this one is drifting everywhere).
I need to give this time thing a bit more thought... |
Richard Brown
Member
Username: rickyb
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 10:54 am: |
|
I find this interesting.
Senator SMITH.
Who would give the command?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The commander would send orders down to the chief engineer to reduce her by so many revolutions.
Senator SMITH.
Through a megaphone?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir; by word of hand.
Senator SMITH.
By speaking tube?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No; by word of hand; notes.
Is this so Smith can specify the number of revolutions, rather than just set the telegraph to slow ahead? I suppose it is unlikely that he would have done this on the night (seeing as the engines were probably stopped), but it shows that other orders would be sent by hand written note. |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 368
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:17 am: |
|
Richard:
I agree very much with Sam and will post a reply to your time queries on the appropriate thread.
Sam: I knew you knew that! The 'ck' ending comes from many people's inability to pronounce the soft ending 'ch'. |
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2168
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:23 am: |
|
Richard,
Welcome to ET. I don't think we've talked before.
quote:Is this so Smith can specify the number of revolutions, rather than just set the telegraph to slow ahead?
Generally speaking, there was an understanding between the commander and the engineering staff that an order for 'slow ahead' (for example) equated to a certain number of revolutions. If I remember rightly, the situation for Olympic in 1911 was that 'slow ahead' called for thirty revolutions or a speed of about nine knots, without the turbine being engaged; similarly, 'half ahead' called for fifty revolutions with the turbine being brought in.
So we can see that there might be a need for the commander to make a specific request for a certain number of revolutions. For example, if he wanted forty revolutions then this is half way between 'slow ahead' and 'half ahead.' I do not recall the immediate context of the US Senate testimony you have quoted, but I don't see any reason why the commander might not request a specific figure.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2444
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Hi Mark.
Good hearing from you on this thread.
If I also recall correctly from the Olympic/Hawke incident, if they rang down on the telegraph for full ahead while in restricted waters it meant that they would be going at what was referred to 'reduced full ahead' speed. In other words, at a certain number of revolutions that they would carry in a channel. Only out on the open sea would they bring them up higher. And the number of revolutions for full ahead varied somewhat. They entered the revolutions in the engine room log and telephoned the bridge every two hours with the numbers, port and starboard, averaged over the two hour period. I assume if the commander wanted the engineers to carry more or less revolutions, he would write it on a note and send the standby QM down to engine room with it.
When I was on the bridge of the USS Saipan (LHA-2) in 2004, I noticed that they could dial down the number of revolutions they wanted on the engine room telegraph. See circled area in photo below. (I forgot why there were 3 dials. It was two engine ship.) They also had a brass placard on the telegraph which listed ship speed through the water for different revolutions carried. That too can be seen in the photo up by the port side handle.
View Image-Bridge of LHA-2
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Thanks for the photograph, Sam. It was an informative post.
Yes, you're quite correct with regard to 'reduced full ahead'. Although the usual order for 'full ahead' was telegraphed to the engine room, it was understood by Olympic's engineering staff that the revolutions were to be reduced slightly while in coastal waters; and then when the ship was entering the open sea the revolutions would be increased. If I remember rightly, 'reduced full ahead' would be no higher than nineteen or twenty knots.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 5:29 pm: |
|
The procedure for determining the exact revolutions for Ahead Full described by Mark and Sam is essentially correct but for one detail. The engineers had no way to know where the ship was sailing. You can't see outdoors from the engine room. It was not the engineers who decided when the ship was in "confined waters," but rather the captain. Permission to increase revolutions from the lower number to the higher used at sea would have to come down as "word of hand" from the bridge.
Which brings up the dial Sam noticed on the modern telegraph. Why send a chit of paper which takes time and can be lost? It's better to set a dial that instantly gives the same information to the engineers and bridge personnel. Of course, you can bet that the setting of that dial is logged on the bridge and down in the engineer's bell book.
-- David G. Brown |
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2171
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 5:48 pm: |
|
quote:The procedure for determining the exact revolutions for Ahead Full described by Mark and Sam is essentially correct but for one detail...It was not the engineers who decided when the ship was in "confined waters," but rather the captain...
You have misunderstood the issues at hand, David. Neither Sam nor I have argued that it was for the engineers to decide when to increase the number of revolutions. Captain Smith's practice was to increase revolutions to a speed corresponding to 22.5 knots through the water, after passing the Nab Lightship. However, while in confined or coastal waters the procedure for setting a lower number of revolutions for 'reduced full ahead' has been documented.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Richard Brown
Member
Username: rickyb
Post Number: 66
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Hi Mark!
Thank you all for that explanation. As far as the note to Smith goes, it is highly unlikely to be the order (judging by Bell's response). Could it have been to blow the rest of the steam off at once, so the noise would go away? |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 4:16 pm: |
|
My point was that Captain Smith determined when the revolutions were increased, not the engineers. The documentation of "reduced full ahead" has never been in question. I was just concerned that the impression was being given that the engineers made the decision of when to use "reduced" revolutions. In fact, this procedure used in Titanic was common on many other ships.
Word of hand was not always used. I've read of some rather creative use of telegraphs that involved sending a series of orders and responses. It was the series that conveyed the meaning more than the pointers. This would have been extremely dangerous practice, of course, leading to the wise use of word of hand in Titanic.
-- David G. Brown |
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2172
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 6:45 pm: |
|
quote:My point was that Captain Smith determined when the revolutions were increased, not the engineers.
There is no dispute about that, David.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 6:47 pm: |
|
I am glad you found my comments useful, Richard. The possibilities make for an interesting discussion, don't they?
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 374
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Richard,
I think perhaps the time Bell received the note or better still, the situation when Smith sent it would help to pin things down. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
