| Author |
Message |
    
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2377
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:59 pm: | 
|
Jim, movement at the start of a turn, of the ship's stern toward the side opposite the direction of the turn is exactly correct. If the turn is to port, the stern will kick out to starboard. So to will the amidships point which is the path being traced in all those turning diagrams.
The diagram I showed above does show that movement, but it is not as apparent as shown in the generic turning circle diagram. The choice of 37.5 sec was simply based on how long it took for the ship's head to turn about 2 points, which is what Hichens also said happened before she struck.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 320
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Sam,
I was taught that the pivot point in fact followed the ship's track. The position of Titanic's pivot point would be around a third length from the stem.
I too have plotted the unaffected path of the pivot point at 5 degree intervals. Disregarding 'kick', it shows a smooth, very shallow curve to the left as it should do. It also shows that when the ice clears the stern, the ship's head would have turned about 2 points to port. I do not regard that as 'gospel' as we do not know the initial heading rate of change - particularly because of the diminishing speed and much reduced prop wash action on the rudder plate.
However, the 'kick has also a residual side-ways (kick) direction, tending to try and keep the ship going in the original direction. This leads me to suspect that Murdoch's decision was probably based on his perception that- rather than being exactly 'dead ahead'- the berg's peak was very fine on the starboard bow when he clearly saw it. This would initiate the emergency hard-a-starboard helm. Unfortunately for him, the crab-like action caused by 'kick' initially brought him closer to the danger. I suspect it was the reaction of the 2 thirds length of ship abaft the pivot point to this motion that caused Titanic to break off contact when she did.
Clearly the profile of the ice in contact with the ship's side was that of a point or narrow spur otherwise she most probably would have been sucked-in and contact would have been maintained along the full length of the starboard side. Additionally; the reaction of the stern to crab motion may have given the impression of a hard -right counter measure.
As for the hard-a- port order:
In the foregoing scenario - that order - to be effective, would take a minimum of 16 seconds from the moment it was applied to begin to turn the ship's head in the opposite direction. By my reckoning: hard over left to hard over right would take 10 seconds. Then, to check the swing to port and begin the turn to starboard would take an additional 6 seconds. Hence; a total of 16 seconds.
In that time, the ship would have travelled a further 600 feet
Such and order would only give the desired effect - swing the stern away from the ice when the pivot point was at or had passed the ice. In other words; when the ice was about 580 feet from the stern. Obviously too late to be of any use.
Put another way; the reverse order would need to have been given at the earliest 16 seconds before the ice was abeam of the pivot point for it to have been effective but then that would have been before impact when the ice would have been about 300 feet ahead of the ship - 2 seconds before before the initial hard-a-staboard
order was given!
Regardless of when the hard-a-starboard order was given; the hard-a-port one had to be given in a much shorter time scale than what I have described. Otherwise it could never have been effective at the speed Titanic was travelling.
What do you think? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 8:47 pm: |
|
>>I suspect it was the reaction of the 2 thirds length of ship abaft the pivot point to this motion that caused Titanic to break off contact when she did. <<
I don't follow that at all? How could the ship break off contact?
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 322
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Do you agree with the other bits? |
Jeff Brebner
Member
Username: wheeds
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Just curious - would the order to reverse engines have actually hampered the ability to turn? Not just the old theory of confused or interrupted water flow over the rudder, but to be more precise, the rudder has turned, and thus the vessel is pivoting to a new heading. The mass will tend to continue in the original direction and the ship will to some degree plow through the water sideways. Would it have turned faster had there still been thrust from the screws to propel it's mass in the new direction? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 6:36 pm: |
|
>>Do you agree with the other bits?<<
Which ones? the time when the helm should have been shifted? Nobody is calculating seconds during an emergency encounter. I believe Murdoch was hoping that the ship would not make contact, but when it did he waited for the berg to pass aft of the bridge and gave the order hard-aport. All before Smith came out on deck. That is what I've saying all along, and see nothing that would change my opinion about that. When the berg was passing the stern, the rudder was already hard right and would have started to pull the stern away except that there was suction between the berg and the hull of the vessel until the berg cleared aft. Then it would swing away as the animation in this ARTICLE shows.
Jeff, a ship turns just fine without prop wash across a rudder. A sailboat proves that, and it continues to turn without thrust, a tacking sailboat proves that too. But hydrodynamic drag does go up in a turn, and without thrust the ship will tend to slow down faster than it would if thrust remain applied. On Titanic, with full thrust applied and kept unchanged, the ship would have slowed down to about 17 knots from 22 knots. This is all academic anyway since the ship struck well before the engines stopped.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 323
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Sam: I'll answer sequentially - You ask:
"Which ones? The time when the helm should have been shifted"?
No!- the times of start and finish - the elapsed time as indicated by four incidents:
1: Helm order given....Start time.
2: Number of seconds to apply the order..Duration.
3: Helm order completed.
4: Time of impact-finish time.
At 1, the actual time on the clock does not matter. I believe we are fairly 'in tune' as to the time it would take to apply full left rudder. I have deduced this was about 6 seconds at the most.
If we both agree that (4) coincided with or nearly coincided with (3) and we also agree that the ship was travelling at 38 ft./sec. at time of impact; then the ship would have travelled 228 feet between (1) and (4).
As for missing the berg: That's what Murdoch told his boss he was hoping to do. However the berg had apparently broken contact before it came abeam. We have already discussed this.
I use the term 'aparently' because Murdoch would only have sound and his eyes to go by at that time. If he looked over the side and saw clear water between the ship's side and the ice and the latter moving rapidly astern - the only thing that would make him desperately try a hard-a-port manoeuvre would be the sight of the gap between ship's side and ice clearly and positively closing. You are suggesting he made an arbitrary or desperate decision.
As I've said before; this man new his 'stuff'. He had more than one direction to consider. He was also perfectly aware of how a fast ship behaved under particular conditions of helm. This was not a hollywood ice mountain gliding serenely past the ship - it was an ice mountain 'charging' past very rapidly at almost 26 land miles per hour!
'Nobody is calculating seconds during an emergency encounter'. No, this is only done retrospectively by researchers trying to prove a point!
Consider:
How far would Titanic have travelled before a hard-a-starboard order would come into effect i.e. as you suggest to break contact with the ice?
You refer me to your article - this only confirms what I suggest. Correct me if I'm wrong but the animation of the turn shows that the ship's head does not alter to port until the forward progress is about 500 -550 feet.
At 38ft./sec this means the interval between application and commencement of positive bow movement would be about 14 seconds? It follows that to apply full rudder from midship the opposite way would take the same time. However in this case - to this time must be added the time it took to centre the helm and thereafter to check the turn to port - a total of say
4 +3 = 7 seconds? Adding the 14 second for the bow to start moving the opposite way gives a total of about 21 seconds. However the reverse 'kick' would come earlier - according to your animation around 5 seconds earlier which means the stern would start its 'kick' away from the ice about 16 seconds after it had passed the pivot point. By this time, the ice would be about 590 to 600 feet past the pivot point and something like 10 feet past the stern. You write; 'there was suction between the berg and the hull of the vessel'. You do not know this you are merely speculating. I know what you're getting at but to state this categorically, you have to know quite a bit about the size and profile of the berg in relation to the ship's side. The berg was never positively identified.
In your animation, the distance between first order and impact is close to 950 feet.
At 38 ft./sec. this would take close to 25 seconds - not the 6 seconds indicated by the evidence given by Hitchins.
You also state in your article 'We also know from standby QM Arthur Olliver that an order for the helm to be put hard-a-port was given as the berg was seen passing down the starboard side of the ship'. and later:
'We also know from QM Rowe stationed on the poop that as the berg passed his location the ship was not under starboard helm'
If I remember rightly Olliver merely states the helm was put hard-a-port when he was on the bridge -full stop! His reference to 'way down stern' comes in a separate part of his evidence. Also; we've been down this route before - how on earth did Rowe know 'the helm was not under starboard helm'? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Hi Jim.
This never seems to end, does it?
Thanks for explaining what you meant.
>>If we both agree that (4) coincided with or nearly coincided with (3) ...<<
No, we do not both agree. You put lots of emphasis on Hichens saying that the ship struck just as he got the helm over hard or close to it. You are allowing 6 sec from the order to when it struck. The problem I have is that it does fit what Hichens himself had said, or with what Fleet said. Hichens, as we all know, said the ship struck after turning 2 points. Fleet said it looked like it turned between 1 and 2 points. Looking over the spreadsheet data I produced from turning model, when the rudder went to 40 deg over (I assumed 7.5 sec from helm order to rudder full over) the ship's head would have turned only 0.8° degree. At 22.5 sec it would have veered 10.2° (~1 point), and at 37.5 sec I have it at 23.1° (~2 points). The turning circle by the way came out with a tactical diameter of 3865 ft, I used an initial speed of 22.5 knots, a steady state turning speed of 17.4 knots, and steady state drift angle of 8.2°.
>>You are suggesting he [Murdoch] made an arbitrary or desperate decision. <<
No, that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that he deliberately wanted to shift helm after seeing the berg pass aft of the bridge to clear the ship's stern. Sound had nothing to do with it. He knew the ship struck (he felt it and heard it) and saw the berg passing along the starboard side. But I doubt he would take the time to see if the berg was still close to the side as it passed aft of the bridge knowing he had left full rudder still applied which would only tend to keep the berg in contact with the ship. To me, it is almost obvious what he would do once the berg passed aft of where he was standing. It was not arbitrary or desperate. I still would like to hear from others on this point.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong but the animation of the turn shows that the ship's head does not alter to port until the forward progress is about 500-550 feet. <<
The grid was 250 ft per division. Looking at the spreadsheet values, by 15 sec the head had veered about 5° to port, the forward travel was 560 ft, and the speed went down to 21.5 knots due to increased drag.
>>You do not know this you are merely speculating. I know what you're getting at but to state this categorically, you have to know quite a bit about the size and profile of the berg in relation to the ship's side. <<
Well we know peak of the berg was close to the side that ship struck and was a little higher than the boat deck, and that the underwater depth had to be much, much greater than its height. I agree that we don't know the profile along the side that ship struck, but there would have been a suction created in whatever space there was. What we cannot get to is a quantified value that can be attributed to that effect without making a bunch of assumptions.
In developing the animation, I actually put in several runs for a zig zag maneuver and plotted heading Vs. time for each. In the animation shown, actual initial contact with the berg was when the head had veered about 1 point to port and the order to shift the rudder came about 5 seconds after that when the berg was abeam the forward funnel. The time I have for the rudder getting over to full right was 15 seconds after the order when the berg was abeam the aft well deck. The maximum the ship's head in the animation veered to port was about 23° (about 2 points) before it would start to swing the other way, which is what I think Hichens probably remembered seeing on the compass.
What I think we tend to agree on is that contact was made in less than the famous 37 seconds from when the first helm order was given. We have different views on exactly how much earlier that was.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 324
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hi Sam,
It really doesn't seem to end. Just a great pity that it ever should - having great fun with this.
Practically everything you point -out regarding the rate of turn in the time it took to get the wheel hard-over fits exactly with my calculations - even to the 23 or so degrees after 37 minutes.
I really think the crux of the matter lies with whether we believe that impact occurred (as Hitchins stated) when the helm was fully over to the 'stops'. Obviously, with what we have separately deduced; this would never, in a month of Sundays, have taken more than 7.5 seconds. so we're left with the 2 point turn.
As for Fleet and co.:
I know that initially, they would have seen the bow change direction. They would use the target (ice) ahead as a reference point. However, unless they had initially chosen a star or planet as a reference point directly ahead of the ship instead of the ice, before the turn started, they would never have been able to determine how far the ship had turned.
For your information; a lookout perceives a a moving target as seemingly moving outward from the side of the ship as it passes- it's an optical illusion. I have seen this on many an occasion.
As for Hitchins: he had the best instrument to determine how far the ship's head had moved and he most certainly referred to a 2 point turn. However I think we both agree that he contradicted himself or was confused by the grandeur of the occasion.
We both know the ship's head could not have turned 2 points in the time it took to get the helm fully hard-over so when did it achieve the full 2 points? We have answered that ourselves-
about 37 seconds after the lookouts struck three bells. I'm speculating now and you have referred to it earlier: is it possible that Hitchins remembered specific values (achieving 2 points because he had a compass to refer to)but did not have a clear memory of the chronology?
The one problem about the 2 point turn is that all historians assume it was a casual observance by Hitchins. However, any watch-keeping officer will tell you there is an expression used by all of us; 'How's your head now?'. This is not an enquiry as to the QM's health by the way!
I suggest to you; if Hitchins remembered achieving a 2 point turn it was because that very question was asked - it was not, as is suggested by the evidence, the time of impact.
As for the suction bit: surely there would be no suction if there had been an under water shelf which had initially contacted the side of Titanic and had subsequently been broken-off? Suction would only occur if there was a 'wall' parallel to the side of the ship (bank effect). That's why I referred to the existing knowledge about the size and shape of the berg. |
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 921
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 10:31 pm: |
|
GENTLEMEN: And yes, that is what precisely keeps *OUR* Titanic interest afloat, our undaunted desire to know & understand. Before his passing, my favorite news reporter, at the closing of his 6:00 P.T. broadcast, Mr. Peter Jennings spoke in regards to the sounding of TITANIC's whistle in St. Paul, MN, to the best of my recollection..."A night to remember, a night that seems to never end". And GOD forbid that it should. IMHO, along with the recovered artifacts from the TITANIC wreck, *we* (Titanic enthusiasts) are all they (participants of said event) have. AMEN.
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2385
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 12:10 am: |
|
Well Jim, if you were ask me, "How's your head now?" I would probably respond, "Still attached, Sir." 
It seems that we both agree on a few things here. Unfortunately, we cannot conduct our own little inquiry of those who were there to fill in the kind of details that we are looking for. But we are having great fun with it as you say.
The question I have is when exactly did Murdoch give hard-astarboard order? If you believe Hichens, it came right after Moody reported what Fleet had said on the phone. It's also interesting that Hichens estimated it was about 1/2 a minute from bells to the order, and Fleet said about 1/2 minute till he came from the phone. I can only assume Murdoch was trying to assess what he was seeing before giving that order.
I agree Michael, a desire to know and understand. There are of course some things we will never really know, but the fun is trying.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 325
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Sam! seems to me there is still quite a bit of 'meat' on the bone!
I agree Murdoch would be assessing what exactly he was seeing and based on his assessment, would give what he thought to be the appropriate order to get the ship clear of the danger. He obviously thought going to the left was the best bet. Unfortunately, it seems he was given the warning too late. As you know; I think the berg was fairly small - little more than a large growler but big enough to resist the collision with Titanic. This would further aggravate the situation since being small (about the size of two small tables when first seen) there might have been an illusion of it being further away than it really was. Incidentally, some growlers can be as big as a small semi-detached house.
I consider the time between initiation of the hard left order until impact as being the more important relative to when the hard right rudder order was given. Principally because there is no evidence to suggest any other order was given during that time. What might be revealing would be the amount of left turn achieved before positive right turn began. you mentioned a zig-zag turn but we are not considering that. I would suggest it's more like part of a reverse turning circle at ever-reducing speed
I've been digging further into Olliver's testimony. Contrary to my earlier thoughts on what this man stated; I now think that he might just have been a valuable witness because of his observations. I still think he 'milked' his moment of glory for all it was worth and I don't blame him.
Where the problems lie is with the questioners! You will note they never seem to pursue a line of questioning but jump from subject to subject.
Perhaps in the US they did so because of a lack of expert advice. On the other hand, the UK Commissioner had heaps of 'experts' on hand and did the same thing. I am very curious as to why they did not call Olliver as a witness.
I've started a detailed examination of what he stated relative to the statements of others. If I make an 'earth shattering' discovery, I'll let you know. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2388
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 9:10 pm: |
|
>>As you know; I think the berg was fairly small - little more than a large growler but big enough to resist the collision with Titanic.<<
I cannot agree with that. I know you don't give too much to what Scarrott said, but Rowe who had a first hand close up view of the berg thought it was 100 ft high. Also Lee, at the Ryan trial said the berg was higher than the boat deck but lower than the crow's nest. That description tends to agree with Olliver who said he saw just peak pass by when he entered to bridge. Those observations would categorize the berg as medium sized by IIP classification.
>>You will note they never seem to pursue a line of questioning but jump from subject to subject.
<<
Yes, it hard not to notice that, which is frustrating to the researcher. But I thing it is a deliberate style of some lawyers, which is also what many of the senators were before getting into politics, who do that to see if they can trip up a witness by changing the subject only to get back to it again a little later on. Then they could say, "but before you told us ..." and then wait for the explanation to be given in oder to pursue an issue further.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 326
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 2:02 pm: |
|
The problem with those who conducted these fiascos was that they were unable to differentiate between a Trial and a Hearing.
Too many of them were anxious to apportion blame rather than to find out what went wrong in order that measures might be put in place to either limit the effects of future accidents or even prevent such a thing happening again. I spent many years gathering such information on behalf of Lloyds and US Underwriters. The greatest problem when interviewing individuals was to convince them I was not there to apportion blame - rather; I was there to determine cause.
However, having pilloried the questioners; I did detect a serious effort on the part of the Senators - particularly with regard to the theme of searchlights.
As for the size of the berg:
Actually, I give credit to some of what Scarrot described seeing- in particular his reference - not just to Gibraltar but to a specific part of The Rock; 'Like Gibraltar from Europa Point ' or as interpreted by a BOT questioner; like a lion couchant'. You also know that I am very familiar with The Rock. Obviously, Murdoch had a reference profile when he saw it at first and made his helm order accordingly. However, unlike the lookouts who described it as not being very big - he saw it with the aid of binoculars. I am absolutely sure, if it had been medium size according to modern classification, the Lookouts would have seen it sooner (giving them the benefit of doubt) as most certainly would Murdoch and we might not be having this scintillating exchange. Evidence points to initial helm order and impact being separated by 6 seconds. Unless this 100 ft. pinnacle arose from a very low profile platform of ice - surely it would have filled Murdoch's view through his glasses at such an apparently short range?
You know I am doubtful about the presence of much if any current that night. Even if there had been one - the efforts of life-boat rowers would have been puny compared to the suggested 1 to 1.25 knot flow. (Even a skilled rower would have problems with that. It follows that current or no current; rowers, icebergs and debris would all remain within visible range when daylight came. The wind rose after dawn but dawn is the time when all the components would still be within a couple of miles or so of each other. Surely a very large berg would have been within a mile or so of the boats that did not row very far from where Titanic went down?
Lee actually said it was a little higher higher than the forecastle head that makes it a little higher than 55 feet. The Boat deck was about 70 feet above the water line. Olliver saw it pass between the bridge and emergency boat and described it as a peak. Since he saw it between these points and it was a peak - would this indicate that the mass was well below boat deck level - closer n fact to a position somewhere between the main and forecastle deck levels?
When it was less than a ship's length away it still looked small to the lookouts. The Crows nest was about 95 feet above sea-level so I guess 75 feet for the extreme height would be about right. If it had been as Rowe described it it would have been level with the crows nest and we know it was not. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2390
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Transcribed from Prècis Law Report of: Thomas Ryan Vs. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company. (June 1913)
quote:REGINALD ROBINSON LEE said he was an A.B. He was not now in the
employment of the defendants. He was in April of last year. He had often been
employed as a look-out man. He was on the look-out in the Titanic on this night.
He went into the crow's nest at 10pm. The sky was clear;
the sea was not. There was a haze, as seen when one looked for the horizon.
As they struck the ship was veering over to port. That was how it was she was
wrecked on the starboard side.
He thought he might have seen it some minutes earlier if it had presented the
ordinary appearance of ice. It was higher than the fo'c'sle. It was as high as the
boat deck. He had known the North Atlantic without a swell before this occasion.
The sea was quite smooth. It was most unusual; it was an oily sea.
And another eyewitness account, steward Crawford:
Senator SMITH. Where were you when this collision occurred?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I was right forward in B deck.
Senator SMITH. Where is that?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Two decks underneath the boat deck.
Senator SMITH. Tell what you experienced.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I was on watch until 12 o'clock, and I was waiting for my relief to come up. I was to be relieved at 12 o'clock. I heard the crash, and I went out on the outer deck and saw the iceberg floating alongside. I went back, and there were a lot of passengers coming out.
Senator FLETCHER. You testified regarding that iceberg. You said, as I recall, that you saw an iceberg passing on the starboard side?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes; after the collision.
Senator FLETCHER. Where were you?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I was on B deck. I went out from B deck, out to the promenade there.
Senator FLETCHER. That was aft?
Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir; forward.
Senator FLETCHER. You were forward?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.
Senator FLETCHER. On B deck?
Mr. CRAWFORD. On B deck.
Senator FLETCHER. And you saw the iceberg, the iceberg that struck the ship?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I saw the iceberg going along the starboard side, sir.
Senator FLETCHER. Just describe that iceberg, please.
Mr. CRAWFORD. It looked like a large black object going alongside the ship.
Senator FLETCHER. Could you tell us about the size?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I could not see the top because there was a deck above us.
Senator FLETCHER. It was higher than B deck?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Oh, yes; much higher.
Senator FLETCHER. And how close was the side of the ship to it?
Mr. CRAWFORD. It did not seem very far away.
Senator FLETCHER. Could you tell anything about the dimensions of it, as to the length or the width?
Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir; I could not. I just saw the object scrape alongside the ship.
Senator FLETCHER. Did it come in contact with the side of the ship?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I do not think so.
Senator FLETCHER. That is all.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 327
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 6:31 pm: |
|
So we agree the berg was as high as the boat deck - 70 ft.- but not a 100 feet as Rowe suggested - just as Olliver described it "about the height of the boat deck; if anything, a little higher". He only saw the "tip-top" of the peak above it.
Crawford was at the forward end of B deck - two decks below the boat deck. If the peak was just above the boat deck it might have been about 16 feet above his head. I'm not surprised he had no idea how high the berg was since he was outside in darkness and had little or no light to illuminate any part of the berg. Understandably he describes the colour as black while Olliver described the tip as dark blue.
I'm still curious as to what light enabled Olliver to see the top of the ice as dark blue!
Lee's excuse for not seeing the berg earlier was that it did not have the "ordinary appearance of ice".
I suppose a flat, low profile, elongated growler with a high peak at one end and the same end coming to a point in the horizontal plane might qualify for the 'not ordinary' description of an ice berg. Perhaps Murdoch too was expecting the standard berg profile?
Rostron and co. were seeing standard bergs at up to a mile away and more as they approached the rescue area.
I think it significant that all the actual bergs Rostron reported seeing at daylight when in the vicinity of the wreck - with the exception of the very last one- were between 150 and 200 feet in height. Certainly not the one that got Titanic. There should have been a small, non- standard shaped berg no higher than 75 feet in plain sight - current or no current. The smallest seen by Rostron in the area was twice that height.
Hard-a-port? |
Will C. White
Member
Username: seastorywriter
Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Jim-Just a wild idea about the berg. Perhaps between the time the Titanic foundered and Carpathia arrived, the berg rotated onto some other axis, as they are known to do. The collision could've even been the trigger and sometime before dawn she flipped. Since there is no continual observation of the offending ice, there is no way to know if this did or did not occur. I know this sounds like treason, but it cannot be assumed that the berg's orientation remained constant. As to color, maybe there was enough light from the deck lights to permit that observation. It would also explain why initial observation of it was delayed until it was too late to take positive corrective action. WILL |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Not so wild Will. That may very well have happened. Icebergs are not the most stable things afloat as you know. I also agree about the deck lights as the berg went past the bridge.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 328
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 12:23 pm: |
|
As Sam wrote Will :- 'not so wild indeed'.
I don't think you are committing any kind of 'treason' at all.
The ice was far further south than normal. A lot of it would already have melted,particularly from the underside which would be getting into warmer surface water as the effect of the cold Labrador current fell-away. There is a sort of median line where the Labrador Current meets the Gulf stream. The line shifts north and south with the seasons. At that line there are eddy currents and areas of still water. I believe the large collection of pack ice and bergs confined to that one area for so long points to it having been such a still water area.
The greatest effect on the movement of ice in a still water area is weather.
Since it was flat calm when Titanic went down, everything would stay in much the same place until the northerly wind caused it to drift further south and into the influence of the east trending Gulf Stream. This is basically why I think there was no current and the offending berg would stay in the locality.
Your ideas also fit with mine. Fleet stated in
FRF 108: " it did not appear very large at all". He was seeing it, as you suggest; " when it was too late to take positive action". Perhaps, if it had been a regular sized berg, he would have seen it earlier as did Captain Rostron of Carpathia.
Your triggering action at time of impact also fits with a 'not very large' berg.
If the energy of Titanic charging through the water at 22+ knots had impacted with anything solid everyone on board would have been very much aware of it. She did not. The popular view is that she merely brushed against it (some 'brush!). How about, as I and Fleet have suggested; the berg was fairly small but had an underwater spur jutting out into the path of Titanic? The ship would hit the spur and - because the spur acted like a lever - the berg began to rotate toward the west - in the direction Titanic was travelling in, and also be displaced away from the ship's side. (perhaps this is where it became 'un-stuck', Sam?).
If, as you suggest, the berg was unstable it would be so because it's centre of gravity was too high due to loss of ice melting from the submerged part on the journey south.
It would start to move away from the ship's side at impact. There is even a possibility that it 'turned-turtle' shortly after clearing Titanic's stern. I recall that Boxhall, although unsure of having seen it, stated is seemed dark and very low to him - about 20 to 30 feet high. Captain Rostron also recalls seeing such a 'growler' close to the wreck site at daybreak.
as for the deck lights illuminating the side of the berg: I must admit to cheating a little.
I did consider that but since some one elsewhere on the site claimed there was no light because the stewards put out the deck lights late at Night; I was pre-empting such a comment.
it is quite possible QM Olliver saw the tip of the berg illuminated from deck lights below. In fact, depending on how far aft of the bridge it had reached - it may have been illuminated by the glow of the starboard side light. Just a thought! |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 4:29 pm: |
|
I'll put my money on it being a medium sized iceberg, not an oversized growler.
The other thing to consider is that some more distance was put between the berg and the ship after T came to a stop when they went ahead again for a short time. Some people report a relatively large berg not too far from where their boats were in the morning that they described having the same shape that Scarrott said. I just don't trust their judgment of distances or heights.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 937
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Samuel: I agree with you, and since I reside in NV...how much money should we bet?
All kidding aside, I will then have to cut my handmade iceberg down, before I display my Titanic collection at our local public library next in April '2010. (Iceberg is displayed w/Titanic REVELL diorama). And, as soon as we win the bet, I am going to go for double or nothing that the iceberg which wounded the Titanic is the one pictured in ANTR!
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 2:28 pm: |
|
You wouldn't be betting on what I'm describing Michael. The problem is that many historians attempt to apply modern standards to old problems. They should really use what was available at the time and how those they are researching viewed the world around them to try and come to a satisfactory answer.
There is a great deal difference between the IIP definition of a Growler and what it was commonly thought of by seamen well up into the 1960's. This is evident from the fact that Lightholler particularly cautioned the look-outs to watch for them.
The IIP def. of a growler is a piece of ice less than 3 feet high. What chance -if any would a lookout see such a low profile object in a calm sea on a pitch-dark night on a ship travelling at 22+ knots?
Well into the 60's, the UK Met. Office did not have a code for ice-berg description. My ship was an auxiliary weather vessel on the NY run and we had to send encoded messages to the UK Met. Office every 4 hours. The code used was an International one (Washington 1947) codes for ice were: C2,K, d1,r and e. However it did not include and ice-berg classification even then. Berg description was sent in plain language.
I was taught that a Growler could be as big as a detached house (probably semi-detached). I suspect Lightholler and Co. viewed them much the same- hence his specific warning.
However, you and Sam are still correct regarding the IIP def. Captain Lord of Californian was turning over IIP 'growlers' on his way down to the rescue area. I think Titanic would have turned one of these over as well!
Perhaps the following selection might clear things up - which one would you choose? I must add a caution: Keep in mind how the lookouts saw it also how late it apparently was before Murdoch had enough knowledge to decide his immediate action!
View Image
View Image
View Image
Image 2 and 3 are shown as approximately the broad-on shape of Gibraltar. 2 is about 75 feet high and 3 is nearer 100 feet high. However the mass and therefore the visibility of these two would mean they would have been seen much earlier than 1. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 26236
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 2:51 pm: |
|
>>What chance -if any would a lookout see such a low profile object in a calm sea on a pitch-dark night on a ship travelling at 22+ knots?<<
Unless one had incredible visual acuity, or some moonlight to work with, I would say almost none. On any watch I ever stood, the ocean looked like black ink and anything in it looked very much the same.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2398
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Jim, even Boxhall said when he came onto bridge he was told they struck an iceberg, not a growler, or an oversized growler. Boxhall, Hichens and Olliver all said that Murdoch told Smith they struck an iceberg. Given the three choices you showed, I'd pick #2 as the closest to what was described with the peak nearest the ship just a little higher than what you showed.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 942
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Jim C., many thanks for your paintshop drawings. Considering your knowledge of the International Ice Patrol's identification methods for icebergs, also considering there are no landmarks (ships, growlers, etc.) to perhaps attempt to gauge the approximate size of the iceberg photograph as seen in ANTR, in your opinion...might this berg have been the culprit? Many yrs. ago, here on ET, we delved into the subject. I understand there exist other images of the same berg taken from different angles...
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 330
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Sam,
They were using the generic term. I doubt very much that even today, the exact text book description would be used. Anyway, how would anyone know what it looked like in the pitch darkness unless they had profile view - like Scarrot. He was the only one to give a specific description. Those in lifeboats the next day - like us- never saw the culprit but I don't doubt they saw a large berg shaped like Gibralter as seen from Algeciras on the Spanish mainland. I'm sure they would see others that, like cloud formations, reminded them of familiar shapes. However Scarrot was the only one who referred to one specific view of Gibralter.
Michael,
I answer you as I did Sam. Scarrot was ex RN and would have served in the mediterranean Fleet. he was very familiar with Gibraltar. He specifically stated that the berg was like Gibraltar from Europa Point. This is very significant because that is not the classic view shared by non-seafarers. Have a look at the following selection:
View Image
View Image |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Jim, we discussed this before. I said all I have to say. Believe what you want about the berg or whatever you want to call it.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 332
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 8:30 pm: |
|
OK! Sam, I'll do that.
I'm perfectly happy in my analysis. Happy that it is based on first hand knowledge and eyewitness accounts.
I'm sure you'll agree that any description based on what was seen from the lifeboats at dawn on the 15th., or based on some newspaper interpretation cannot be taken seriously.
One thing I'm completely sure of is that the newspaper sketch alleged to have come from Scarrot is a blatant bit of sensationalism. Scarrot would never have honestly agreed that such a sketch remotely resembled Gibraltar as seen from Europa Point. Nor would anyone else who had first hand knowledge of such a view of The Rock. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
