| Author |
Message |
    
Gloria Lyons
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 10:32 pm: | 
|
I have always wondered how the electric lights remained on during the sinking of the Titanic. I understand that crewmen kept the electric generators running as the ship sank. My question concerns the dangerous mix of electricity and salt water. In every film or artist's renditions of the sinking, the lights remained on until the ship finally sank. I would have assumed that as soon as the water level filled the bottom of the ship from one end to the other, that every electrical circuit in the ship would have shorted out. Even if that did not happen, then the water would have extinguished the generator boilers and there would have been no electricity at all.
Any insight or answers would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Gloria Lyons |
Paul Rogers
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 12:08 am: |
|
Hello Gloria.
I believe that the answers to your questions lie in the fact that Titanic sank slowly by the bow. Until she broke up, the stern of the ship was watertight. In fact, boiler room 4 didn't flood until about 2.00am, when the end was very near.
Therefore, you had boiler rooms 1, 2 and 3, and all compartments further astern, all watertight and free of flooding until the ship broke up. Thus, there was power available to keep the lights burning.
When the ship broke, the keel collapsed around the bulkheads either side of boiler room 1. This would have destroyed the watertight integrity of the stern, as well as severing the electrical cables and steam piping. So, at that point, the lights went out!
Hope this helps!
However, one thing I've always wondered about is how long the lightbulbs remained alight underwater. I've read in many books stories of how the bulbs continued to glow, even in the flooded compartments. I wonder:
(1) How deep would the compartments have to have been, before hydrostatic pressure imploded the bulbs?
(2) Why didn't leakage simply short-out the light fittings?
(3) If some bulbs did short-out, why didn't this take out the whole of the ship's lighting system, (like a blown bulb could also burn out a domestic main house fuse)?
Any electricians out there who can help?
Regards,
Paul. |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Paul is right about the area needed for power generation not flooding till the very end. The boilers in stokehold 2 supplied steam and the engines that drove the generators were right aft. There were also emergency generators on a higher deck. One of those was used also.
I think the lights that were seen underwater were simply in cabins that had not yet flooded. The weight of water tipped the bow down and cabins with closed portholes stayed above the waterlevel for a time.
We need a real electrician here, but I would think that everything was wired in parallel, with plenty of fuses or circuit breakers. You notice that when your toaster burns out, you might blow a fuse in your house but you don't black out the neighbourhood. Failed light globes don't even do that, because they don't cause excessive power to flow. Titanic was very well designed in this respect. They knew the value of what we now call redundant systems and used them wisely. There was even a complete emergency lighting system which could only be accessed by authorised crew. |
Gloria Lyons
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Thanks Paul and Dave. I didn't know that there was an upper deck emergency generator that was actually put into service. Paul actually posed three questions that have always been in the back of my mind. I also wonder if the rather primitive electrical engineering of the early 1900s didn't contribute by accident rather than by design to the lights remaining on. I believe that modern day electrical circuits would blow instantaneously at the first moment of water contamination in an effort to prevent accidental electrocution.
For some reason or another I have always found the subject of the lights remaining on very fascinating. Yet...I have never read or heard much discussion on this subject.
Thanks for your previous responses.
Gloria Lyons |
Martin Pirrie
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2000 - 1:23 pm: |
|
As an electrical engineer, the electrical and the radio equipment are my speciality - here goes!
The Titanic had 4 main electric generators each rated at 400kW: 100 volts DC. Each generator had its own steam engine. There were also 2 auxiliary generators. These were rated at 30kW each and were fitted on a raised platform some 20 ft above the water line in the turbine engine room. The auxiliary generators were to be used in an emergency or when the main genarators were out of action. The auxiliary generators were switched in and out of circuit manually.
The auxiliary generators were connected to, amongst others, 500 lamps fitted throughout all passenger, crew and machinery compartments: cargo & gangway lights: lights on the bridge: navigation lights, wireless equipment and 4 boat winches on the boat deck. The wireless room had a 5kW motor generator and a further independent battery supply.
If someone switched on the auxiliary generators, then there would have been power for a few minutes longer as the ship sank. |
Martin Pirrie
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2000 - 3:54 pm: |
|
I have found some more information. From The Daily Mail newspaper dated 20 April 1912: "Oiler A. Whyte states that shortly after the accident the emergency dynamos were started..."
Second officer Lightoller stated that when he was in the water he watched as the ship began to sink. When the second funnel aft reached the water the ship was perpendicular. "There were no lights burning then, though they kept alight practically to the last." |
Gloria Lyons
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2000 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Thank you Martin. I always suspected the ship was on DC power rather than AC. I have never read of any reported electrocutions, and the DC power would account for this. I would tend to think that if the ship had AC power, several of the passengers or crew would have been electrocuted when coming in contact with standing salt water.
Many thanks,
Gloria Lyons |
Martin Pirrie
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2000 - 8:05 am: |
|
Dear Gloria,
Please don’t think that you can’t be electrocuted by DC! I speak as one who was thrown off his feet by trying to disconnect a DC motor whilst it was still switched on! However, the steelwork of the ship wouldn't become "live". But I suppose one could get a shock from a piece of electrical equipment not properly grounded.
Much of the T’s switchgear was provided by a company named, then, Dorman & Smith Ltd from Manchester, England. The company still exists. They’ve dropped the ampersand and call themselves Dorman Smith Ltd. now.
The protective devices, be they wire fuses or circuit breakers would have operated when the sea water came in contact with the cabin switches, lampholders etc.and each deck would be switched off as T went down. There could have been some sparking and spluttering at the device before the fuse blew as the water splashed about. I have no record that any one mentioned this.I can imagine that the lights could have remained illuminated for a short time after the water covered them (short time means a few seconds) before the fuses blew. A DC supply is more difficult to switch off than AC and the DC current would flow for a little longer time than AC under the same conditions. |
Josh Geurin
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 6:59 pm: |
|
hi im also very interested in the lighting on the ship. Im sure since the system was dc and not ac the lights where able to burn longer. take a boat trailer for example, when I dunk my trailer into the water at night i leave the lights on so it is easy to so it in the water. And they burn just fine, even for up to half an hour. I know that the fixtures I have arnt sealed so the are geting wet. I have a '99 ford f150 and the breakers have never triped when doin this.
I do understand that the wireing on my car and the wireing on the Titanic is very differant. But i have done many experiments with dc circuits underwater, and most work fine. One note though they will carode after time. But this time is much longer than the time for the ship to sink, so we know that carrosion didnt effect the ships lighting while sinking.
In the movie (97 Titanic) there is a part where crew men are in a room with circuit breakers. In the movie one of the men yells "shut all of the breakers, shut them" I guess they where turning them back ON as soon as they turned off (triped) from the circuits geting wet. Just wondering if that really hapend the night of the sinking. |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2000 - 1:45 am: |
|
Josh, since none of the people from the electrical switchboard spaces survived, we'll never know exactly what they said or did...beyond keeping the power going until the very last.
BTW, I think you may have crossed a wire or two on the quote. I remember a stoker crying "Shut all the dampers! Shut them!" in the boiler room scene portrayed at the time of the collision with a certain overgrown icecube. I'll have to reveiw my copy of the movie to get the lines spoken in the switchroom. It's not high on my list of priorities as two books I ordered from Amazon.com on the Titanic are on the way! I expect them to arrive in the next day or two.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Martin Pirrie
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Josh, I'm a bit late on this one. Many of the light fittings seen illuminated on T would have been deck fittings and would have been waterproof. These could well have been lit underwater for a short time. I believe that we have all seen modern cars under water after a flood with the headlights on. Same sort of thing, but with sealed headlights. As long as the external water pressure is not great enough to force water through the various weak places, cable entries are the most likely, the lamp will remain iluminated.
The generators on T would have been big with,large empty spaces in the frames to get the air in to cool the windings. Modern electrical machines, are often totally enclosed because of better isulants and although not sold as being waterproof, will survive an underwater trip from time to time! In fact the difference between a modern waterproof electrical machine and a totally enclosed one is often only an extra gasket or two on the jointing surfaces. |
Stephen Hinkle
Member
Username: stp_hinkle
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 9:27 am: |
|
I know some other data from a physics experiment I did in a science lab at San Diego State University.
Basically, in my lab experiment, we measured water tempature by putting a resistor inside the cup filled with water, and saw how long it took to rise the temp. We used a DC Power supply for this. How does it relate to the situation here, you wonder?
Well, I found out that water is a conductor of electricity, but not a very good one. Well, the light bulbs (before they broke) provide some RESISTANCE, so the bulbs were NOT in a dead short, until the bulbs and cables broke. In addition, water provides resistance too.
So this resistance probably lowered the current and the shock risk to passengers. Resistance lowers the amperage of the current being sent through the line. It is CURRENT that kills, not voltage.
In addition to the backup generators, it is possible that there were some lights that ran on batteries, so they would stay on, while engines are starting, or in case they stop for some reason. |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 536
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 11:08 am: |
|
On page 123 of The Birth of the Titanic you can see the very open windings Martin is talking about.
Providing power was not a great problem right to the end. All the generators were well out of harm's way in the stern of the ship and the Scotch marine boilers have the property of maintaining a supply of steam long after the stokers quit. Those in boiler room two would have been going to the end.
I mentioned elsewhere that Chief Electrician Peter Sloan seems to be among the unsung heroes of the night. He and his men must have done wonders as the various circuits failed. Also, give some credit to those who designed the wiring.
Stephen, try repeating your experiment with seawater. Pure water is indeed a poor conductor, but salt greatly increases conductivity. |
Stephen Hinkle
Member
Username: stp_hinkle
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 5:05 am: |
|
Dave,
I know salt increases connectivity, but the bulb still being on, decreases the current nontheless, because it is a parallel circuit. |
Raymond Leggs
Member
Username: raymond_leggs
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 2:27 am: |
|
Well if you plug a bulb into a wall socket adaptor it
let it burn until it gets hot
pour water on it it
the bulb will blow open and it
will catch on fire and go out
why does it blow up
Did you know that some of the titanics light bulbs are intact and untouched by corrosion? |
Manuel Reiprich
Member
Username: manuel
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 12:45 pm: |
|
I sometimes wonder about the descriptions and paintings showing the ship brightly illuminated when it sinks.
For example the cabins: I mean, if I would leave my cabin, I would switch off the light.
Are there any accounts about the "mass of lights" on the ships hull and why they weren´t switched off? |
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 16
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
|
I've read in several places where it mentions that before the ship broke in two that the lights blinked once or twice and then went out for good. Is it possible that when the lights blinked out the first time it was the primary generators failing and the second blink being the alternate (emergency) generators trying to activate? I've heard it mentioned though that these had to be turned on manually by specific people. I wonder if maybe after the ship broke in two if it would have been possible for the aft end to stay lit for a few more seconds before the whole system inside the ship was ruined. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9210
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:37 am: |
|
Nope. Secondary generators wouldn't have just automatically kicked on. Getting all this on line was something that as far as know, was done manually.
Far more likely what happened was the sort of erratic performance you would expect to see as steam supply lines and electrical cabling is randomly broken as the midsection of the hull collapsed. It may well have been possible for the aft section to stay lit for a few more seconds as that was where the generators were in the first place. Whether or not it actually did is something we can only speculate on.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 22
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Very true, Michael. If such a thing were to happen though, I can't imagine what it would have been like to witness that from the lifeboats. I think it would have been eerie enough to see the ship split, but to see it split and go under still lit would have been all the more eerie.
Referring to the movie scripts that were mentioned earlier, in the scene right before the ship broke in two, a man was electrocuted in the room that held the generators/breakers. The chief guy (I'm assuming he was chief because he was in a uniform unlike the other workers) and several of the workers were holding on to machinery and he kept yelling "Keep the breakers in." As the one guy went to flip the breaker back on, a steam pipe behind him began to crack and as the steam hit the breakers, it electrocuted him and shorted out the system.
Btw, what I just said (to my knowledge) isn't factual, and was only done in James Cameron's "Titanic." |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 9:00 pm: |
|
According to Thomas Ranger, whose job included maintenance of the electric fans on board, the emergency generator was already running when he passed it about an hour before the ship broke up. Because he was an electrician of sorts and was also as close as anybody could have been when the stern finally went down, Ranger was questioned at length at the British Inquiry about how long the lights had remained burning. These answers may be of interest here:
When you say the forward end seemed to break off, and the afterpart came back on a level keel, and then you say the lights were going out. When she came back like that on a level keel were there any lights?
Right aft. The lights were right aft what were burning, on the afterend what was floating.
How long did you see them burning?
The lights gradually went out as the aft end of the ship went under.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Very interesting. Ship breaks in two. All steam lines from boilers now cutoff to all generators, which were aft of the turbine room, or up on D deck on the aft end of the turbine casing. Yet some lights continue to burn. The only thing I could thing of is that the generators had some angular momentum still going to keep those lights burning. The lights should have dimmed with a dull glow soon afterward before going out as the dynamos wore down.
There are no Unsinkable Theories
Sam Halpern
40o24' N 74o14' W
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 26
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:56 am: |
|
You're right, that is rather interesting. I can't imagine what that must have been like, although to me it'd be like seeing a dying person take their last breaths. Very disturbing. |
Tracy Smith
Member
Username: tracy
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 2:17 am: |
|
I seem to remember Walter Lord in ANTR mentioning the lights dimming to a dull glow just before they went out for good.
"Swift, vigilant, and bold"
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 601
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 11:58 am: |
|
I recall Lightoller saying that the lights on the boat deck were dim - whether he referred to deck lights or electric lights, I don't know. Another passenger, I think it was Wennestrom, related that the lights on A deck were burning a "devlish red" before he jumped into a boat.
Cheers
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 59
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Hi peeps,
Here are a few answers to some of your questions.
Certainly water is conductive especially salt water. But as Stephen said, “water is not a very good conductor.”
To prove this, you can do an experiment: Fill up a cup of water. Get an ohm meter or a multi meter and stick the probes into the water about half an inch to an inch apart. The meter should indicate roughly 30 Kilo Ohms in pure water, and at minimum 10 to 15 Kilo Ohms in sea water depending on how much salt the water contains. If you use something bigger, like the kitchen sink, or a bath, you will notice that as you increase the distance between the probes, the resistance will increase, and it will decrease as you move them closer together. I have done this experiment myself and proved it.
Now, the point I am making is, no matter weather there is 30 Kilo Ohms or even 10 Kilo Ohms resistance in the water, it is hardly enough to cause a short let alone blow fuses or trip circuit breakers. Light bulbs/stoves/heaters/motors, you name it, normally have only a couple of hundred Ohms across their circuits, if not less than 100 ohms, so the water wouldn’t have done much in causing a short on the Titanic.
My professional opinion, in my capacity as electronics engineer, is that in Cameron’s version of the Titanic where he portrayed lights dimming and sparks flying as shorts happen is doubtable due to the reasons I have given above. Certainly, as Michael stated, the lights might have flickered as wires were shorted while they were being ripped apart while the ship broke up
I think the chances are that the lights may have started dimming due to lack of steam powering the engines driving the emergency dynamos. The boiler fires had not been fed for a good hour and a half since striking the iceberg before the lights went out. Another thing to consider is how much water did the boilers have in them just before the sinking. Off the top of my head, I remember somebody testifying during the inquiries that the boilers were empty, and ordered to be refilled. Were the boilers ever re filled? I don’t remember any positive testimony that they were refilled.
As far as light bulbs bursting is concerned, I think that is quite possible. Light bulbs are made mostly of glass, and glass hates sudden temperature changes. When a light bulb is burning the glass will get very hot. Depending on how fast it touched the water it will break as it suddenly contracts due to the sudden temperature change caused by the freezing Atlantic water as the light bulb sinks into it. (That could have caused a few sparks)
This brings me to think of another experiment you can do: Take a glass and put it into the freezer for an hour or 2. Then take it out and fill it with boiling water. I guarantee you, you will be picking up that class in peaces very shortly.
Certainly light bulbs might have might have survived the sinking, but the question is, were they on during the time of the sinking? I am under the impression that the emergency dynamos would have been running the emergency lights only, and therefore the main lights would have been off. I might stand under correction on this point.
Anyway let me shut up now up before I either bore you all to death or get you electrocuted with other experiments.
Regards,
Paul
|
Raymond Leggs
Member
Username: raymond_leggs
Post Number: 82
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone
The Best way to do this is by actually Plugging a lightbulb into a wall socket adapter and leaving on until it gets very hot then pour a little water on the bulb It will explode and catch fire
momentarily and finnally burn out
unplug the bulb and unscrew it and throw the Bulb not the wall socket adapter away... (I did this before)
Remember your talking to me A Dumb 15 year old!
Regards
Raymond leggs  |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 3:44 pm: |
|
But first make sure that you and the house are well insured. |
Jeremy Lee
Member
Username: achynes
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
LOL! Let's use the classroom wall socket!  |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9299
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 5, 2004 - 2:33 am: |
|
Thanks Raymond, but as a test like that would surely be a "re-VOLTing experience for anyone who tries it, I think I'll pass on that. Hope you make 16 years. 
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 52
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 12:10 am: |
|
I wonder which is worse (painfully speaking), doing that or sticking your finger in a lightbright socket when you were a baby. *looks around innocently* |
Tracy Smith
Member
Username: tracy
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 1:12 am: |
|
Ramming a fork into a light socket rates for nomination for the Darwin Award in my book. 
"Swift, vigilant, and bold"
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 53
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 4:16 am: |
|
LOL :D |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9318
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 4:56 am: |
|
>>Ramming a fork into a light socket rates for nomination for the Darwin Award in my book.<<
Do it enough, and one might even have a...er..."winner." Once is often enough! 
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 54
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 11:07 am: |
|
Yeah I think my finger thought once was enough after I got through being tossed against the wall behind me. Left a nice reddish/pink ring around my finger. |
Martin Pirrie
Member
Username: pirrie
Post Number: 72
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
The outside electric light fittings would have been watertight with big flanges and bolts to keep the sea water out if a wave broke over them. It would not be surprising therefore that the deck lights at least would continue to operate under water for some time until the generators stopped. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 266
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 7:13 pm: |
|
I discovered electricity by sticking my finger in a lightbulb socket when I was 5 or 6 years old. My dad was an electrician and answered the best he can when I asked what electricity was. He said it was something that moved through the wires to make the light go on, but you can't see it. Well, I waited for him to leave the room to get a new light bulb, and (you guessed it) I wanted to feel it move. And boy, not only does it move, but you do too! Somehow I learned to take his word on things after that.
There are no Unsinkable Theories
Sam Halpern
40o24' N 74o14' W
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9334
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 7:19 pm: |
|
>>And boy, not only does it move, but you do too! Somehow I learned to take his word on things after that.<<
Well, I think Robert Anson Heinlein said it best: "You live and you learn, or you don't live long!"
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 60
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Electricity is very shocking and it burns the hell out of you. A buddy of mine was doing some contract work recently and wanted to hit a spike into the ground. Little did he know, he was hitting it into an 11000 volt AC cable. He sent me some pictures of himself taken at the hospital after he was electrocuted. They are too many and way too big to post here on the forum, so with his kind permission, I have posted them on my server instead if you are interested in seeing them. http://www.gandalf.za.org/~gandalf/shocking/
The pictures speak for them selves what electricity can do to you. He spent approximately 2 weeks in hospital. He couldn’t walk. His arms and legs were badly burned. Talk about a narrow escape ey???
Regards,
Paul
|
Tripp Carter
Member
Username: scboi03
Post Number: 55
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 3:46 am: |
|
I'd love to hang one of my friends up with some electricity right about now. :\ |
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
There is one way to figure out if the lights were turned out by an electrical worker or by fault of the water or splitting ship.
it would be dangerous but exciting to visit the electrical rooms in the wreck today. if the light switches were still there then we could see if they are turned on or off. This I think would answer some of are questions about Titanic's lighting during the sinking. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 889
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 2:15 am: |
|
Matt, here is a link to a site where you can get information on the condition of the electrical rooms. The stern is on poor shape, but the electrical rooms seem to still be in fair condition, although cramped due to compressed and shifted decks. It will probably not provide all the information you're looking for, and the site needs to be updated, but it should get you started.
The Stern.
--Mark
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11454
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
I don't know if any switches would be all that revealing. With the intent being to keep power going as long as possible, and with everybody's mind most likely on escape when things were too far gone, I doubt anyone would have bothered to stay long enough to turn out the lights. They would be making tracks outta there if they could.
More likely then not...in my opinion of course...the breakers were tripped at about the time the midsection of the ship gave up the ghost. What wasn't killed by that died when the cables carrying power were broken.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Simons
Member
Username: jbeboatman
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Michael and Mark,
That is a good point, I knew the stern was badly damaged by preassure and collapsing decks and that rust would most likley be covering the switches.
Also since the ship was DC, the lights probably went out as water got in them. This is what I tend to believe more then the theory of a worker pulling the switch.
"Music to die by, now I now know First Class" Tommy Ryan, Titanic 1997
|
