| Author |
Message |
    
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 191
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:02 am: | 
|
The results from the computer simulation that we ran at the Marine Maritime Academy in Castine, Maine, referred to earlier in this thread is hereby presented. First and foremost, this was NOT meant to be an accurate simulation of the Titanic. It was setup to given us a feel for how a ship might react if certain actions were taken to avoid an obstacle in its path. Though we ran a few different scenarios, there were only two plots that we took back with us. As I said in a previous post in this thread, the ship we used was a single screw vessel set up to run at 22 knots in a direction of 265T. We decided to use 1912 helm orders, and our Mr. Hichens (Michael Standart) did a fantastic job at the helm. As Dave Brown said, the backroom guys gave us a 3 ding warning when collision with the target was a certain number seconds away. Time to collision was measured in 10ths of a minute (6 second increments). We also had a digital readout of the heading so can see to the nearest degree how she turned.
I will refer to the two plots that we took home as RUN01 and RUN02. They were plotted using two different scales. In RUN01 the tick marks show position every 60 seconds, while in RUN02 positions are shown every 20 seconds.
RUN01 was a simple avoidance scenario where we waited to see the target and then try to avoid it. It was to give us a feel for the simulator. When the target was seen (it was a bit off to port) and a hard-aport was ordered. This is shown in the diagram below along with scale information as shown.
RUN02 was run as a porting maneuver. It was a bit more controlled and used the following procedure: Ship heading 265T at 22 knots (as before). Three-ding warning given at 0.8 min to collision followed by "hard-astarboard" order about 6 seconds later to simulate some reaction time. Stop watch ON at receiving immediate response from helmsman with "hard-astarboard aye." When the ship veered off to a heading of 243T, a "hard-aport" order was given followed immediately by "hard-aport aye" response from helmsman and stop watch OFF. The stop watch showed 37.8 seconds (if my memory serves me correctly) for this simulated ship. This RUN02 is shown in the diagram below. Approximate location of ship when orders were given is also shown.
To get a feel for what this would look like if there were a mass of ice as the target and ship with the dimensions of an Olympic class liner but the turning characteristics of our simulation ship, I constructed an overlay to the diagram for RUN02. The size of the ice mass was arbitrarily taken at 100 meters in diameter which would be in the ball park for berg that was about 20-25 meters in height. This is shown in the diagram below.
Observations:
1) The turning radius of the simulation ship appears to be about 530 meters as measured in the left side of the RUN02 diagrams. This would make it a little tighter than the reported turning radius of Olympic/Titanic which was about 588 meters (Eaton and Haas Ch. 4).
2) The time to turn 2 points (22.5 deg) off the initial heading measured from the time of the helm order was about the same, the famous 37 seconds reported by Wilding.
3) The simulation ship has a large angular momentum which allows the heading to fall off about 45 degrees from the initial course before the ship starts to turn in the opposite direction. Well after the rudder was reversed. This is somewhat more than what I used in my turn analysis, which was a 30 deg peak falloff based on the Navy's Postgraduate School lecture series 11 model shown below.
4) If the ice mass was as large as shown, the port-around would have resulted in "a close shave" as Fleet or Lee had said. The bow of our simulated ship would not have contacted the above water part of the ice, but the stern would have come very close, within a few feet if not some contact.
If there were an underwater ice shelf present, the ship may very well have run aground on it. But unless there were a break off in contact, it would have continued way up the stern.
5) No interaction effects with underwater contact were simulated. Just the turning abilities of the simulated ship on a free open sea.
Lastly, it was a fun run.
"There are no Unsinkable Theories"
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8510
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:42 am: |
|
>>But unless there were a break off in contact,<<
Which at some point I suspect, is what may well have happened in the real accident
>> it would have continued way up the stern.
<<
And if the hypothetical shelf didn't break off, but was simply abraded away by interaction with the hull while still remaining in contact, I wonder what that would speak to in terms of underside damage? It may not have meant sufficient through hull damage to sink the ship, but the damage to the keel would not have been pretty.
Thoughts anyone?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 204
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:39 pm: |
|
quote:Lastly, it was a fun run.
I agree with that comment!
Lookout Fleet struck three bells indicating "Object Right Ahead". He telephoned the bridge "Iceberg Right Ahead"
Any thoughts on why Murdoch first ordered the helm HARD a-STARBOARD, instead of helm HARD a-PORT?
Edwin Jones said: "There was never a better officer [Murdoch]. Cool, capable, on his toes always - and smart toes they were."
(Alan Villiers Of Ships and Men, Newnes, London, 1962, pp. 124-24}
Collins
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Perhaps he was left-handed?
May to avoid a head-on collision in the UK, you would turn to the left away from the approaching traffic. Maybe just instinct.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 355
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:01 pm: |
|
There was a documentary made during the making of James Cameron's Titanic. In one section, he is discussing the reasons for the Titanic's manoeuvre with the acting playing Murdoch. JC says something to the effect "Maybe there was more ice on one side that the other. Something made him decide to go left."
I also recall in one book (Wyn Craig Wade?) that manoeuvering was perhaps more efficient turning to the left because of the direction that the screw turned. Or something.
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Good question Duke. I cannot answer for Murdoch, but from I know about the turning capabilities of ships and airplanes I too would have called for a a turn to port (helm hard-astarboard) assuming that the object was dead ahead. The reason is that the Titanic would have turned a bit sharper going to port. The reason for this has to do with the corkscrew or spiraling rotation of the slip stream coming off a rotating propeller. The Titanic had triple screws as we all know. Looking forward from astern,
we can see looking forward that the two reciprocating engine screws rotated in opposite directions, the one on the port side rotating counterclockwise, while the starboard one rotating clockwise. The effect of slip stream spiral rotation off the two reciprocation engine screws would cancel each other when then strike the rudder. On the other hand, the spiraling slip stream off the center turbine screw would have a non symmetric effect when it struck the rudder. The center screw rotated in a clockwise direction. The resulting rotating slip stream on the port side would have greater rudder area to strike while that on the starboard side would have less rudder area to strike. This can be seen in the attached figure with slip stream shown by the thin red arrows on both sides of the rudder.
In effect, the net result is a port turning tendency caused by this effect. (On airplanes, pilots of single engine propeller aircraft must compensate for this especially during takeoff by applying a little opposite rudder pressure.) So in the case of turn to avoid an object dead ahead, a turn to port would be assisted by the net rotation of the slip stream off the center prop and would be the action of choice. If, and I say if, Murdich did order a hard-astarboard turn, he CERTAINLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. And I don't buy Boxhall's version of ordering full astern for reasons already cited on this forum.
"There are no Unsinkable Theories"
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 205
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Inger:
quote:Perhaps you could direct me to the texts that support your view of Murdoch's actions during the collision?
For the most technical information on ship handling I recommend you contact:
http://www.warsashcentre.co.uk/c-ship.shtml
Regards,
Collins |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 133
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:03 am: |
|
Okay, I can see how the leftward force exerted on the rudder is greater above the screw than the rightward force below. But wouldn't such a left-turning tendency cause the ship to wander off course with rudder amidships? Or did the man at the wheel have to compensate for it (to varying degrees at different speeds, presumably)? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8522
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:13 am: |
|
The short answer is that I had to do my best to compensate for it. Even in a simulator, steering a ship is as much art as science and you have to constantly make some judgement calls based on what you can see the ship doing. If it's drifting off to port (Which it tended to do), I had to put in a little right rudder to bring it back to where it was supposed to be, then centre up.
When we got to the point of trying to duplicate the accident, once I got "hard a starboard" (Using 1912 conventions BTW) I put it over and kept it there unitil ordered to port the helm, just as I would have done in the real world. I kept it there until told to centre up, or to settle on a new course.
Alicia, I hope you can get to the next symposium. I think you would have a lot of valuable insights to offer.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 842
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:44 am: |
|
>I put it over and kept it there >unitil ordered >to port the helm, just as I would >have done in >the real world. I kept it there until >told to >centre up, or to settle on a new course.
Hi, Michael!
You mean to tell me that First Officer Murdoch didn't barge in, push you out of the way, ignore the officer's orders and do what *he* thought was best? :-)
All my best,
George |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8525
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:28 am: |
|
Nope.
The all ersatz Will Murdoch's had their eyes glued to the plot or the stopwatch while the one playing the part for the particular run had his eyes looking forward.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Alicia -- yes, the stern of a single-screw vessel will "walk" to one side constantly. This is less noticeable in forward due to the length of the vessel and the position of the rudder. "Propwalk" in reverse is much greater and can be used to advantage when docking. Some rudder angle is necessary to account for the sideways pressure of a single screw.
Titanic's arrangement would have counteracted this tendency to some extent by the placement of the counter-rotating wing propellers. Still, there would have been some tendency to turn faster to port than to starboard. I first published this concept in "Last Log," five years ago but it took until now for it to become a subject of discussion.
There is, however, a greater reason for Murdoch's turning the ship to the left of track, or to the south. This matches the fact that the ship was already left of the published steamer routes. Going left (starboard helm in 1912) would have taken the ship south of the ice called "haze" visible ahead of the ship.
Finally, what we don't know is how the berg appeared to Murdoch. He would not have made an initial right turn (port helm) for an object on his starboard side.
--David G. Brown |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Samuel:
quote:The reason is that the Titanic would have turned a bit sharper going to port.
The theorical analysis you present is for a single screw Right-handed Propeller going Ahead with rudder AMIDSHIPS, and no other external forces, eg wind and/or current. Titanic's wing propellers would cancel each other's Transverse Thrust only if they were both going ahead at the same speed (RPM's)
The theoretical steering effect is not the same as that experienced in practice.
It is highly improbable that Murdcoh gave any analytical consideration to his manoeuvre, considering the seconds of time he had available before ice impact, and the fact he did not maintain FULL AHEAD ENGINE SPEED.
Alicia:
quote:Okay, I can see how the leftward force exerted on the rudder is greater above the screw than the rightward force below
There is a double transverse effect acting simultaneously on opposite sides of the rudder, a flow of water acting on its starboard side low down and another flow acting on its port side high up; but the deeper flow acting on the starboard lower half predominates and urges the ship's stern top port.
George Behe:
quote:You mean to tell me that First Officer Murdoch didn't barge in, push you out of the way, ignore the officer's orders and do what *he* thought was best? :-)
Maybe, there was a lesson in seamanship from the Arabic incident :-)
Collins
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Collins said
quote:...the deeper flow acting on the starboard lower half predominates...
Why would that be true? There is more surface above the screw. What you said is counterintuitive.
http://www.titanic.com/images/titplan.gif |
Nathan Robison
Member
Username: naterobison
Post Number: 92
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 9:32 pm: |
|
Since this is the only thread that I have followed with any interest in some time, I feel obligated to add an additional thought.
If Murdoch had been guilty of poor seamanship, then surely the US Senate and/or BOT inquiries would have harshly censured him. Judgment was not passed on Murdoch's seamanship at either inquiry.
The most logical location for evidence of Murdoch's "mistake" would be in the Limitation of Liability hearings. If any suspicion of Murdoch's seamanship existed, it would have been brought to light in the civil case. There is no evidence in the Limitation of Liability documents, and I inspected nearly 95% of them, that Murdoch's seamanship was questioned. His seamanship decisions may have been brought up during the trial, but those transcripts do not exist.
However, lack of evidence is not definitive proof. I would consider Inger's citation of Murdoch's success in passing certification tests as highly indicative of the man's ability.
And, as a personal opinion, I would posit that Robert Hichens is responsible for any "mistake" that occurred during the collision.
The question is not "Did Murdoch make a mistake?"
Instead, the correct question is counter-factual: "What if Robert Hichens made a mistake?"
--Robison |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8542
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 1:33 am: |
|
>>"What if Robert Hichens made a mistake?"<<
There's an unexplored and potential can of worms there. If my read on his bio is correct, his large ship experience didn't include anything as large as an Olympic class liner. Out on the open ocean, it wouldn't matter a whole lot, but when going into ice infested waters, something like that could bite. Especially if caught flatfooted by the unexpected.
BTW, Nathen, good to see you back with us. Hope you stay awhile.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Michael,
I'm surprised that you didn't jump on this:
quote:Mr. OLLIVER. I know the orders I heard when I was on the bridge was after we had struck the iceberg. I heard hard aport, and there was the man at the wheel and the officer. The officer was seeing it was carried out right.
Senator BURTON. And that order was immediately executed, was it?
Mr. OLLIVER. Immediately executed, and the sixth officer saw that it was carried out.
I've been on the Eastern Shore the past 10 days and am flying home later today. Looks like I have a lot of catching up to do.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8551
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Parks, thanks for pointing that one out. Have to admit that I missed that one. (Sometimes I tend to skim through transcripts when I'm looking for something else, and miss things like that.) I wish you could have joined us in Maine last week. I hope you can make the next one.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Nathan Robison
Member
Username: naterobison
Post Number: 93
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:17 pm: |
|
"...The Officer was seeing it was carried out right."
I included this portion of Olliver's testimony in my senior thesis, and I emphasized "right."
I recall that this particular citation sparked a semantical debate between the three faculty readers and myself. I interpreted "right" to mean "correctly or properly." However, "right" could also mean "immediately."
Burton's question, " And that order was immediately executed, was it?" may be clarification, or it could be a language difference. To decide one would need to know more about Olliver's background. Nonetheless, it is difficult to say just what "right" means in Olliver's testimony. I would argue that if Olliver meant "right" to refer to time, he would have said, "The officer was seeing it was carried [right] out."
As it appears in the US Senate Hearings testimony, I interpret "right" to mean "correctly."
--Robison |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 6:23 pm: |
|
quote:
Mr. OLLIVER. I know the orders I heard when I was on the bridge was after we had struck the iceberg. I heard hard aport, and there was the man at the wheel and the officer. The officer was seeing it was carried out right.
Senator BURTON. And that order was immediately executed, was it?
Mr. OLLIVER. Immediately executed, and the sixth officer saw that it was carried out.
--------------------------------------------------
Michael:
The evidence should not be taken out of context.
quote:Senator BURTON. Where was the iceberg, do
you think, when the helm was shifted?
Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was away up stern.
Senator BURTON. That is when the order "hard aport" was given?
Mr. OLLIVER. That is when the order "hard aport" was given; yes, sir.
Collins
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 6:50 pm: |
|
I'm finally back home from a long trip to find my grass burned to a crisp in the latest California heat wave and one of our cars wrecked. I've got a lot to sort out and I haven't even unpacked yet.
You guys are scrutinising the testimony in much greater detail than I would. I think that the sense of the excerpt tells us that there's little chance that Hichens failed to carry out Murdoch's rudder order correctly, which would answer the earlier question, "Did Hichens make a mistake?"
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 9:06 pm: |
|
I'm confused.
Captain Collins writes an entire book to prove that Titanic didn't hit an iceberg - then he cites the testimony of Alfred Olliver to make a point about when a helm order was issued.
Olliver is the same man who said he saw an iceberg that came up to the boat deck. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 196
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Why should anyone be confused? If there were an iceberg "away up stern" then why call for a hard-aport? How far is away up stern? Does that mean it has past the stern, or has moved beyond Oliver's field of view as it went astern? Oliver said he saw the "tip top" of the berg as it was going abaft the bridge, after the grinding noise ended. Olliver also said he did not know whether the helm was put hard astarboard first or not. He only could speak about what happened after the encounter with the ice, not before. He also said the ship was put half speed ahead, after she hit the ice, but did not say how long afterward. He did say that the engines were NOT backed while he was on the bridge, and he was just entering the bridge as the ship struck.
"There are no Unsinkable Theories"
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 11:44 pm: |
|
That one went right past you. My confusion is a literary contrivance known as "irony."
Collins uses the iceberg whose existence he vehemently denies to make a point on another topic. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 214
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 4:02 pm: |
|
quote:He did say that the engines were NOT backed while he was on the bridge, and he was just entering the bridge as the ship struck.
He said he DID NOT KNOW if the engines were backed
Mr. OLLIVER. The captain telegraphed half speed ahead.
Senator BURTON. Had the engines been backing before he did that?
Mr. OLLIVER. That I could not say, sir.
Senator BURTON. Did she have much way on?
Mr. OLLIVER. When?
Senator BURTON. When he put the engines half speed ahead?
Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir. I reckon the ship was almost stopped.
Senator BURTON. He must have backed the engines, then.
Mr. OLLIVER. He must have done so, unless it was hitting the iceberg stopped the
way of the ship. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 215
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 4:05 pm: |
|
quote:He did say that the engines were NOT backed while he was on the bridge, and he was just entering the bridge as the ship struck.
He said he DID NOT KNOW if the engines were backed
Mr. OLLIVER. The captain telegraphed half speed ahead.
Senator BURTON. Had the engines been backing before he did that?
Mr. OLLIVER. That I could not say, sir.
Senator BURTON. Did she have much way on?
Mr. OLLIVER. When?
Senator BURTON. When he put the engines half speed ahead?
Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir. I reckon the ship was almost stopped.
Senator BURTON. He must have backed the engines, then.
Mr. OLLIVER. He must have done so, unless it was hitting the iceberg stopped the
way of the ship. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 203
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 6:17 pm: |
|
I will let Olliver speak for himself as to what HE SAW while he was on the bridge:
Senator BURTON. Were the engines reversed; was she backed?
Mr. OLLIVER. Not whilst I was on the bridge; but whilst on the bridge she went ahead, after she struck; she went half speed ahead.
If the engines were reversed at any time, he didn't see it. He was careful not to say much about what happened before or after he was on the bridge. All of that was speculation on the part of Burton and Olliver.
"There are no Unsinkable Theories"
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W
|
Keith R E Hall
Member
Username: krhall
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 12:43 pm: |
|
O.k. what if we say that William Mcmasters Murdoch decided that this was an unavoidable collision and decided to ram the iceberg head on is it at all possible that the ship could have stayed afloat bearing in mind that the keel plates would sustain heavy damage.
Regards Keith |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8897
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Keith, it's possible...Edward Wilding certainly believed that and said as much in sworn testimony. It may have even been attempted at some point. The problem here is that the proposition is a bit on the hypothetical side and we don't know all the variables at work that may have made it non-survivable.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 174
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Wilding also said, following question 20261 at the British Enquiry
quote:The Witness: It might perhaps interest my Lord to know the rough calculation I was able to make as to the probable stress arising when the ship foundered as she got her stern out of the water. I can only do it very roughly, of course. It showed the stress in the ship was probably not greater than she would encounter in a severe Atlantic storm. The ship was made to go through an Atlantic storm, and therefore would be capable of meeting that stress.
So Wilding's back-of-the-envelope calculations on the strength of the bow in a head-on encounter should be tempered by this fact. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 234
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 6:48 am: |
|
From a floodable length curve analysis, the ship should have been able to stay afloat with the first 4 compartments flooded, or any 3 out of the first five compartments. This assumes flooding damage only. If there is structural damage to the inner bottom and transverse bulkheads, then stresses imposed by the flooded compartments could result in progressive damage and addition flooding.
There are no Unsinkable Theories
Sam Halpern
40o24' N 74o14' W
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 2:52 am: |
|
The mass of the flooded bow section was approximately 50,000 tons. The mass of the intact ship was approximately 50,000 tons.
Titanic's speed when she hit the seabed was about 22 knots. Her speed when she hit the iceberg was about 22 knots.
The impact of the bow hitting bottom loosened and bent shell plates all the way back to the bridge. It does not seem altogether beyond the realm of possibility that the same scale of damage would have pertained in a head-on collision. |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2443
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 3:13 am: |
|
Sam, Captain Collins, Captain Brown, Michael Standart and Nate Robison all add some good insights.
Sam did a bang up job presenting what we did in Maine here. I am staying out of the Murdoch debate. What I will enter is the damage debate and the estimates on flooding.
Sam's numbers show that the ship should have been able to stay afloat with the first 4 compartments flooded or any three out of the first five. What Sam didn't tell you, is that estimate is based off what the Coast Guard calls, the "Garden Hose" effect. Meaning, that if I took a hose and filled four of Titanic's compartments full of water, she should stay afloat. But in a collision/allision type of situation you don't have that effect. Damage to steel plates at bulkhead connections will weaken the structure. Which means that in theory filling those four compartments will cause others to fail, because the weight is being distrubted along a unstable platform. This means bad things in the world of flooding. The basic understanding is that the weight of those four flooded compartments are effecting the weakened structure tasked with containing that damage.
Ships of the 1912 vintage and even up to the late 60's for the most part where built to with stand blunt trama at a defined point of entry. Meaning the water came in the big hole in the side. That isn't the case in Titanic. We don't have this huge gaping hole. We have small damage spread throughout a large area. Flooding was not consistant, adding unplanned or designed for strain in the worst possible places. Causing flooding to progress to unaffected compartments. Allowing secondary flooding.
The floodable length curve is only as good as the numbers used to achieve it and the definitions used to obtain it. In Maine and here I have said "Water didn't sink Titanic, Stress did" or some variation there of.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Keith R E Hall
Member
Username: krhall
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 12:03 pm: |
|
erik that is the best explanation iv'e seen yet and that definatly sounds like what the titanic went through. When she hit a report came from one of the firemen that the first five compartments flooded almost instantly from the forward chain locker and two feet into boiler room six according to the plans the multiple tears in her hull would be 274 feet and the breakoff point would have occured at that point as mentioned before. In my opinion when 1st officer murdoch turned the ship he was exposing those compartments to take the full force of the impact but sadly the hull plates were not designed to deal with that force. Also in the latest film TITANIC there are a lot of things that are questionable that may or may not have really happened. You notice when the stern section is raised out of the water the rudder is strait i don't remember seeing anyone straighten the helm after she was turned hard over to port. And the ship broke about 10 - 20 feet after the second funnel. It did not break from the top down the stern rolled to port before it broke. And as for the "dull booms" in lightoller's testimony he was asked what happens when freezing water spills onto hot boilers his reply was "They would explode" but seeing the boilers on the sea bed there is no evidence to support this because the boilers appear to be intact. Well i hope this helps.
P.S if anyone has any recent images of the wreck site please send them to hdollygrey@aol.com
Many thanks.
Keith |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8953
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Mmmmmmmmm...uhhhhhhh...Keith, I wouldn't take the film very seriously as evidence of much of anything beyond what the scriptwriter wrote.
>>When she hit a report came from one of the firemen that the first five compartments flooded almost instantly from the forward chain locker and two feet into boiler room six<<
Uhhhh...nope. It didn't.
Reports came from several witnesses as to the nature of the flooding, some of which was quite contradictory. Compare for example the testimonies of Fireman Bauchamp and Fireman Barrett at The Inquiries held both in the United States and in Great Britain.
You may also wish to download Captain Weeks Powerpoint presentation on the flooding pattern and the Microsoft Word transcript of Erik Wood's presentation which are on The Titanic Symposium 2004 Webpage.
The pages where the presentations can be found are HERE and HERE
Caveat: Nobody makes any pretense that any of this is the final word on the subject, but it is the end result of a lot of painstaking research into the problems of the forensic aspects of the casualty.
Regarding the dull booms, it is extremely unlikely that this was due to a boiler explosion. Most had the fires drawn, and as you noted, the boilers that can be seen are intact. In all likelihood, the booms...all of them noted after the ship was gone...were likely the result of any airfilled sections imploding as the stern went deeper.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Charles Lightoller summed up the flooding caused by the iceberg for the U.S. Senate inquiry.
"Mr. LIGHTOLLER: I can only express it as I have expressed it before. She was ripped open.
Sen. FLETCHER: To what extent was the ripping as far as you could judge?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER: Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the forepeak."
Lightoller's testimony is supported by the actions and testimonies of other members of the crew. In particular, QM Olliver stated the sound of the ship in the ice stopped before he could see the berg slide past the end of the starboard bridge wing. This would place the damage forward of Bulkhead D, which was corroborated by fireman Beauchamp who spent about 20 minutes making the boilers safe it boiler room #6 after the accident.
The only contradiction came from leading fireman Barrett who said that boiler room #6 flooded immediately upon impact. His story has internal contradictions. That is, he claimed that Engineer Hesketh ducked beneath the door from boiler room #6 into #5 with him. Yet, a few minutes later this same Hesketh ordered Barrett and Shepherd back into #6, which was Shepherd's direct responsibility. What Barrett has us believe is that a senior engineer who saw the side of boiler room #6 cave in and the space flood had forgotten this some 10 minutes later. Otherwise, why would Hesketh have sent Barrett and Shepherd into a flooded compartment?
Barrett also would have us believe that Shepherd was either equally forgetful as he complied with Hesketh's instructions without mentioning that boiler room #6 was flooded. In reality, to Shepherd's knowledge it was still dry, as it had been for the 20 minutes after the accident while the fires were raked down.
Barrett does not say the two men expected to find water swirling in boiler room #6. And, that was because seeing water there came as a surprise to him as well.
So, the preponderance of evidence is that only the first four compartments were open to the sea with uncontrollable flooding by the iceberg. Boiler room #6 and the firemen's tunnel do not seem to have flooded for at least 20 minutes or longer after impact.
The damage listed by Lightoller and corroborated by the crew should not have been fatal. Captain Erik is the only one to date who has come up with a plausible theory as to why Titanic sank as the result of apprently non-fatal wounds.
-- David G. Brown |
Jonathan Granato
Member
Username: jake_angus
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 1:58 am: |
|
What if the ship had managed to swing around the berg, thereby missing it? Would Murdoch have ordered a slow-down or would he have just kept her at Full Speed Ahead until another one was sighted? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8961
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:48 am: |
|
I don't think the answer to this question is entirely knowable, but I think they would have done much the same thing as the Californian did. They would have stopped, taken stock of the situation, made a decision as to whether or not it was safe to get underway, then either work their way out slowly or stop for the night.
Either way, I don't think we'ed be having this discussion.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:04 pm: |
|
In April 2004, Inger Sheil and I exchanged opinions on ET Thread Murdoch’s Mistake, based on the erroneous information of the Alan Villiers quote:
Posted on Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 7:12 am:
quote:There was never a better officer. Cool, capable, on his toes always - and smart toes they
were. I remember one night - we had just come up on the bridge to take over the watch -when the lookout struck the bell for a light on the port bow. It was that awkward moment before you have your night vision, for we had just come up to take over from the First Officer and his junior. Murdoch went at once to the wing of the bridge. I didn't see anything, for a while. I don't think I ever did see that light until it was almost on top of us.
The inference, in the quote, is that Murdoch was the second officer of the SS Arabic. The point discussed was Murdoch countermanding the helm officer of the first officer. This, in my professional opinion, constituted insubordination by Murdoch. I now realize that Murdoch was in fact the first officer, senior to the officer he was relieving. Therefore, there was no insubordination.
Regards,
Collins |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Capt. Collins. You say the information was erroneous from Alan Villiers. Have you found some other source that indicates that Murdoch was indeed the 1st offer at that time? He is mentioned as being the 2nd officer while on the Arabic in 1903 and was first promoted to 1st officer after serving 11 voyages on the Oceanic just before his assignment to the Cedric in Feb 1906. He came on the Cedric as 2nd officer and became its 1st officer in Jul that year. Ref.: http://www.dalbeattie.com/titanic/wmmlifea.htm.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2930
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 2:00 am: |
|
According to the Arabic crew agreements I've looked at for the period - with the understanding that no precise date has been ascribed to the incident so far - Murdoch was the Arabic's Second Officer, at least for July '03 - October '03. Jones was Third Officer 18.09.1903 - 11.10.1903, so this seems a decent enough possibility for the voyage.
However, given the wide dispersal of crew agreements and the lack of a centralised record, it is possible there are gaps in Murdoch's service as it is understood. I'm open to more information on this discussion. Do you have sources that identify the date of the incident and that suggest Murdoch was second? |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
quote:I remember one night - we had just come up on the bridge to take over the watch -when the lookout struck the bell for a light on the port bow. It was that awkward moment before you have your night vision, for we had just come up to take over from the First Officer and his junior.
The order of bridge watches for senior officers was:
6 PM to 10 PM 2nd/Officer
10 PM to 2AM 1st/Officer
2AM to 6AM Chief Officer.
If Murdoch was taking over the watch at night (10 PM) he had to be the 1st/Officer.
Note that Murdoch, Titanic 1st/Officer, took over the bridge watch from 2nd/Officer Lightoller at 10PM, April 14th.
Regards,
Collins |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:33 pm: |
|
The IMM rules in effect in 1907 had those watch times established for the senior officers that Capt. Collins posted above. I am not sure those were the same rules in effect in 1903. Other companies like Cunard also had 4 hours on and 8 off for their seniors. Their watch schedule in 1912 for their seniors were 1/O 12-4, C/O 4-8, and 2/O 8-4 (am & pm). Notice that in Cunard they too had the 2/O relieving the C/O, the 1/O relieving the 2/O, and the C/O relieving the 1/O. Same sequence except for times of the senior watches.
Now if Villiers meant what he said about relieving the 1st officer, then one might assume Murdoch had to be the Chief officer. But if he meant that they relieved the Chief officer, that would make Murdoch the 2nd officer. If they were using the same schedule as Cunard, then it might make sense if they came on at 8.
Now what Capt. Collins is suggesting is that Villiers was completely mistaken, and Murdoch was at that time the 1/O who came up to relieve the 2/O. All this assumes that the order of officer rotation was as noted above. And that is the real question here.
Did they do it the same way in 1903 as they did after 1907 and after?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2933
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:37 pm: |
|
I'm aware of this, Collins - indeed, I discussed it with a maritime historian of the period once I found the Arabic's logs, and the positions of the individuals named in Jones' accounts (he related the story to people other than Villiers, and one of these was the historian Geoffrey Marcus). Marcus notes that Jones told him it was Fox whom Murdoch was relieving. A perusal of the agreements for the period reveals that Fox was indeed the First officer:
Hayes (Master)
Kelk (Chief)
Fox (First)
Murdoch (Second).
So Jones consistently claimed it was Fox, as First, that Murdoch was relieving.
The WSL historian (himself a merchant navy officer) I consulted on this point offered two suggestions - either the watch order had been altered, or Jones must have been thinking of Kelk when he named Fox. Given, however, that Jones correctly identified Fox as the first officer, and that Jones as an experienced WSL officer would have been as aware as anyone of the usual order of the OoW, I think the former scenario is the more likely. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 2:45 am: |
|
Interesting post Inger. It seems to make the most sense to me, given the apparent certainty of the officers you posted, that the watch order was different on board the Arabic at that time. By the way, I made a slight typographical error in the watch time for Cunard 2nd officers in my previous post above. The sentence I wrote should have said: "Their [Cunard] watch schedule in 1912 for their seniors were 1/O 12-4, C/O 4-8, and 2/O 8-12." WSL and other IMM lines used for their seniors: 1/O 10-2, C/O 2-6, and 2/O 6-10.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2938
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:22 am: |
|
Sorry Sam - our posts crossed! I didn't see yours above mine when I responded, or I would have acknowledged it. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
