Aft Boiler Rooms | Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board

message board

Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board » Collision / Sinking Theories » Events during the Collision / Sinking » Aft Boiler Rooms

« Previous Next »

Author

Message

John Flood
Member
Username: j_flood

Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2004

Posted on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 6:08 pm:

Hi Folks,

Shortly after the collision the forward boiler rooms would be filling with water (although there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy with the exact time BR#6 was filling with water.)

I was wondering what was going on in the boiler rooms aft of say BR#5. Did the stokers there stay at their posts, even though they may have had nothing to do, as the ship was no longer 'under steam'?

Where they aware of how serious events were in the boiler rooms further forward at this 'earlyish' stage of the sinking?

All the Best,
John.

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 178
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:22 am:

Hi John: Steam was needed for many things after the collision including running the electric dynamos and emergency dynamo engines, as well as the the pumps and other auxiliaries engines like air pumps for the condensers, etc. From the BOT report we have this description:
"The five single-ended boilers and those in boiler rooms Nos. 2 and 4 had separate steam connections to the pipe supplying steam for working the auxiliary machinery, and the five single-ended boilers and the two port boilers in boiler room No. 2 had separate steam connections to the pipe supplying steam for working the electric light engines. A cross connection was also made between the main and auxiliary pipes in the reciprocating engine room, so that the auxiliaries could be worked from any boiler in the ship. Steam pipes also were led separately from three of the boiler rooms (Nos. 2, 3, 5) above the watertight bulkheads and along the working passage to the emergency electric light engines placed above the loadline in the turbine room. Pipes were also led from this steam supply to the pumps in the engine room, which were connected to the bilges throughout the ship."
The 5 single-ended boilers in BR#1 were not lit that night, they were primarily used while in port. (They also did not have ash ejectors that dumped the ashes overboard in a stream of water as were in the other rooms.) So only the boilers in BR#2, 3, and 4 were the main contributors the steam supply after the collision.

"There are no Unsinkable Theories"
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W

John Flood
Member
Username: j_flood

Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2004

Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:59 pm:

Hi Samuel. Thanks for the info. I should have realized that the steam power would have been needed for many other things, other than the actual power for propelling the ship. I guess it would have been busy in BR#2,3,4 for quite a while after the collision.

All the Best,
John.

P.S: Thanks to all involved in restoring the website.

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1946
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:39 am:

Would anyone get upset if I claimed that the single-ended boilers in BR#1 were in fact lit? At least 2 of the 5, at any rate.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart

Post Number: 9437
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 6:09 am:

>>Would anyone get upset if I claimed that the single-ended boilers in BR#1 were in fact lit? At least 2 of the 5, at any rate.<<

Not at all. I've seen hints in the inquiries that something was planned along the lines of a speed run the next day. The extra steam had to come from somewhere and it took awhile to get the things going. I'll look forward to seeing your reasoning for this when you're free to discuss it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon

Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400

Post Number: 336
Registered: 1-2002

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 6:29 am:

I have read several references to these boilers being fired.

David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown

Post Number: 1688
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:59 am:

Parks brought up this possibility during our Woods Hole meeting last December. I'll let him reveal his evidence, but I will say that it is strong enough to require consideration.

We have statements from firemen assigned to boiler room #1 that their boilers were not in use prior to the accident. The total amount of coal bunkered at the start of the voyage was almost exactly equal to the total bunkerage of all six boiler rooms LESS the bunkers of boiler room #1. This would indicate there was no fuel aboard for those boilers and no intention to use them.

However, once the accident took place everything changed. It became obvious that the forward boiler rooms (at least #5, and #6) were at risk from flooding and steam was dumped from them. The other events in boiler room #4 with water coming up through the tank top deck would suggest those boilers should have been taken out of service well before the ship foundered.

It cannot be forgotten that Titanic was a STEAMship. Nothing worked without steam pressure. That included the all-important electric lights and the bilge & ballast pumps. Keeping up steam pressure was akin to keeping an injured person's heart pumping.

Chief Engineer Bell faced the imperative of keeping up steam in the face of flooding in the forward boiler rooms. It would have been quite logical for him to have turned to the cold boilers in boiler room #1 to help replace those lost to flooding in boiler rooms #5 and #6.

Boilers can't be turned "on" like light bulbs. Normally, it takes all day to get one up to temperature and pressure. I'm no expert in steam generation, but it would seem he had the means to speed up this process. Hot steam and feed water could have been "pushed" into the cold boilers while firemen carried hot coals aft from the furnaces being raked out farther forward. I would think this procedure would be somewhat dangerous--but in the face of death certain risks may be justified.

Bell may well have thought he not only had the time to get boiler room #1 "on line," but also the absolute need to do so. The overwhelming evidence is that the crew and passengers expected Titanic to float much longer than the ship actually stayed above water. Evidence from the upcoming History Channel documentary strongly suggests an unexpected hasty end to Titanic did, in fact, occur.

That we have no evidence in the testimony of any attempt to fire boiler room #1 may be just a twist of fate. The men involved would have been the last to leave the engineering spaces, so would have been least likely to survive. Dead men tell no tales, so their story may simply have been drowned in the sinking.

All-in-all, Parks has shown me evidence of the possibility that some boilers in #1 were fired. The need to have done so existed. And, the means to have accomplished the task were at hand.

-- David G. Brown

Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400

Post Number: 337
Registered: 1-2002

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:41 am:

David - what's interesting is a witness statement that during the breakup coal was blown out of the 3rd funnel.
Another interesting point is the smoke witnessed after the ship sank.

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1947
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 12:32 pm:

Actually, the evidence is pretty straight forward. Two of the single-ended boilers imaged by NOAA in 2004 had fractured furnace fronts bent OUTWARD. This was never obvious in views looking down on the upturned boiler fronts, but when you point a hi-def camera at them at an angle, the damage becomes apparent. Unlike the boilers in BR#2, whose endcaps show evidence of implosion, the boilers in the debris evidently had to time to equalise before they reached crush depth. The furnaces, however, are not pressurised...they would have flooded as soon as water hit them. The fact that the heavy steel furnace front plate was shattered on some of the furnaces of at least two of these boilers suggests quite strongly that these boilers were lit when they were submerged.

What I think is this...those boilers were lit after the collision primarily to supply steam to the emergency dynamos. With that in mind, I would then direct you to re-read the testimony of Electrician (he's listed as a Light Room Greaser) Thomas Ranger. Also, Lee, Pearcy, Bright and Joughin. Very interesting stuff and food for thought.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark

Post Number: 1862
Registered: 1-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:02 pm:

Hi David,

quote:
The total amount of coal bunkered at the start of the voyage was almost exactly equal to the total bunkerage of all six boiler rooms LESS the bunkers of boiler room #1. This would indicate there was no fuel aboard for those boilers and no intention to use them.

I would love to see some of the figures related to that statement.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/

Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400

Post Number: 338
Registered: 1-2002

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:25 pm:

I cannot understand how the bunkers had not been supplied with sufficent fuel for use during the voyage. When were they going to use them ? The maiden voyage would have been a full trial - didn't Ismay want them fired for use the next day.
I don't follow the reasoning for this discussion
Dave, Parks - are you trying to promote some theory concerning the firing of these boilers ?

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 964
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:59 pm:

We know from trimmer Thomas Dillon that he was working in the reciprocating engine room helping to clean some gear at the time of the collision because the boilers in his regular section, BR #1, were not lit. However, what happened later after the accident is not fully known. As Dave Brown suggests, C/E Bell may have decided to fire up some of the single-ended boilers in case they were needed to supply steam to the emergency dynamos as well as the auxiliary pumps later on. There were steam lines to the emergency generators from 2 boilers in each of BRs 2, 3, and 5, and steam lines from two boilers in BRs 2 and 4, and from the single-ended boilers in BR 1 to the auxiliaries. However, we also know fires were pulled in the forward boiler room sections early on. With water coming up from under the plates in BR 4 it must have been clear that bad things were moving aft.

It is not clear how long Bell thought the ship would last, but between say midnight and 2 AM, the change in trim angle increased by only about 5 degrees more than what it was at midnight (based on observations). Relatively speaking, things were changing rather slowly. So lighting up some of those boilers in BR 1 would make a lot of sense, since keeping steam up to run the pumps and the emergency dynamos was the only hope they had of possibly keep things under control in my opinion.

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.

Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark

Post Number: 1864
Registered: 1-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:07 pm:

Hi Steve,

I tend to agree with the view that these boilers would have been fired up later in the voyage, and indeed there's a very detailed discussion in one of the appendices in my Olympic Class Ships book.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1948
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:08 pm:

Steve,

I haven't speculated at all on bunkerage. Dave has taken what I showed him about the boilers and applied it to his own theories that he is developing.

All I'm saying is that during my study of the wreck, I noticed that some of the furnace fronts of at least 2 of the 5 single-ended boilers (I only have hi-def images of 2 and have not been able yet to examine the other 3) are fractured and pushed outward. I don't believe that those boilers were lit prior to the collision to put on more speed, so my conclusion is that they were lit after the collision in order to provide service steam to the emergency dynamos, especially after the loss of one boiler room and the drawing of fires in another.

Then I applied what I know about these boilers to eyewitness observations concerning the break-up. I am now weighing the testimony from a few credible eyewitnesses who claim that the lights continued burning in the after end of the ship, even after the stern separated from the bow. At first this seems to be a fantastic and impossible claim, but the more I look into it, the more credibility I give it. I'm also starting to understand how it can be possible for the lights to continue burning, even after the break. More to come on this later...I'm still arguing with myself.

Don't ask me about how much coal was in the bunkers...I haven't looked into that issue. Dave can answer those kind of questions, because he's given it some thought.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 965
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:26 pm:

"I'm still arguing with myself." And I thought that I was the only one who does things like that.

It would be interesting to see what you come up with Parks to explain that. As far as I know, there were no batteries connected with the emergency lighting system. Once the steam lines are ruptured I would expect the dynamos to run down pretty quickly.

By the way, as I was re-reading Beesley's account, he mentions seeing the lights flicker once and then go out for good at the same time that the noise of the breakup came, while the stern was swinging upward. He may have been referring to the main lighting system. Was it Ranger who said something about the emergency lights continued to burn?

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1951
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:45 pm:

>Once the steam lines are ruptured I would expect the dynamos to run down pretty quickly.

Question: when did the steam service lines between BR#1 and the emergency dynamo room rupture?

>Was it Ranger who said something about the emergency lights continued to burn?

Read Ranger's account, then the others I mentioned above. Also, different people saw different things, depending on their respective vantage points.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 966
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 6:31 pm:

So we can turn the question around to ask when did the single-ended boilers fall out, and to which of the two major sections, bow or stern, were they attached to last? The answer to the latter part of the question has to be the stern section for the dynamos to continue to run. Right?

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.

Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris

Post Number: 586
Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:41 pm:

Are the boilers in BR1 connected to the dynamos with a dedicated steam pipe, or are they connected in series with the other boilers? If they are in series, and there are no back-flow prevention valves, then when the steam lines to the forward boiler rooms was ruptured in the split, the steam from the first boiler room would be able to escape through the forward ruptures. Meaning that even if BR1 stayed connected briefly with stern section, the dynamos would have lost steam immediately as the system was severed forward.

But if they were connected via a separate system of they're own, then it may have been possible for the dynamos to have continued to receive steam from the boilers in Br1. But only for a very, very short period of time as at that point the sea was entering all of the engine spaces unchecked from all sides and below. Not to mention that the electrical circuits themselves were shorting by the hundreds from cut wires, and contact with the water. The breakers must have been popping like firecrackers at that point. A main breaker may have blown and shut off the lights even though the dynamo could still generate power.

NC USA

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 968
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:48 pm:

Yuri, the description of the steam connections to the auxiliaries and dynamos from the BOT report is given above in this thread in my post from Apr 20, 2004. Maybe Scott Andrews if he sees this can provide more specifics on the various valves and cross connects to answer your question. What I'm not too sure about is the boilers in BR 1 being connected to the emergency dynamos. The BOT description, which they obviously got from H&W, talks only about the boilers in sections 2, 3, and 5 being connect to the separate pipe that went above the bulkheads to the emergency dynamos on D deck.

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.

David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown

Post Number: 1689
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 1:14 am:

Titanic had 28 coal bunkers scattered among its six boiler rooms. During construction Harland & Wolff identified by capital letters, starting with “A” in boiler room #1 to “Z” on the mezzanine of boiler room #6. The identification system then switched to lower-case letters with bunker “a” above “b” at the head end of boiler room #6. These last two, “a” and “b,” were installed against bulkhead D. Letter identifications were apparently for Harland & Wolff’s convenience and were not used by the trimmers and stokers in the ship. None of the survivors used the letter identifications in their testimonies.

In all, the bunkers in the boiler rooms were capable of holding 6,611 tons of coal. Titanic sailed with 5,892 tons of bunker coal according to the required departure papers. While this was sufficient for a one-way trip to New York, it was less than a full load of fuel for the primary bunkers located within the six boiler rooms. On the night of the accident all of the ship’s boilers were fired except those in boiler room #1 which remained cold for the entire trip--or at least until after the accident.

It is often suggested that those boilers would have been fired on Monday to provide steam for setting some sort of record speed. However, the three bunker spaces in boiler room #1 had a combined capacity of 694 tons. This represents almost exactly the difference between the actual 5,892 tons bunkered and the ship’s total capacity of 6,611 tons.

6,611 - 694 = 5,917

5,917 - 5,892 = 25 tons

25 tons = 3.6% of bunkerage in boiler room #1.
This is why I say that it is likely bunkers “A,” “B,” and “C” serving boiler room #1 were empty on the maiden voyage. This is a strong indication as to why the single-ended boilers were cold that Sunday night. There was no coal in the bunkers of boiler room #1.

Yes, it is possible that the total 719 tons of bunker ullage could have been spread throughout the six boiler rooms. However, that hardly seems an efficient way of bunkering the ship, given that the five double-ended boiler rooms were sufficient to provide full service speed. Remember, the ship was doing 22 knots or better at the time of the accident without boiler room #1 being on line.

As to the lights going out...the death of the ship was pure chaos with metal being torn apart. Frankly, I don't see how the multitude of chaotic events can be unscrambled by comparing a few random first-hand observations of light bulbs in equally random locations. We don't know which lights were being referred to, or what circuits those lights were fed by. When did any given circuit short out? When did other circuits long out? What about the steam? Nobody knows because it was chaos. Undoubtedly, however, some lights went out when their circuits went "long" by being pulled apart in the breakup. Other circuits undoubtedly shorted out in salt water or through "hot" wires grounding to the steel of the ship. And, in the end there can be no doubt that all electricity ceased when the steam lines broke and the dynamos quit turning. But which came first? Why not ask the chicken about the egg?

-- David G. Brown

Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark

Post Number: 1865
Registered: 1-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:09 am:

I'll have to strongly disagree with the view that there was not enough coal in boiler room 1. Those familiar with my published arguments will be aware of my opinion with regard to boiler room 1, and I have no intention of offering an inadequate summary of my -- IMHO persuasive -- case here. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see the rationale.

As for now, it's 3.09 a.m. and bed beckons...

Best wishes,

Mark.

Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/

David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown

Post Number: 1690
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 5:27 am:

Mark--

Sorry that you feel wounded by the numbers and what they suggest. But, the fact is the ship carried exactly the amount of coal necessary to fill bunkers in boiler rooms #2 through #6. The ullage was exactly equal to the capacity of boiler room #1 which was never used during the pre-accident portion of the voyage. The simplest explanation is that boiler room #1 remained "cold" because it did not have any coal for its bunkers. Other alternatives are possible, but require much more complex and arcane reasons for the amount and placement of coal vis-a-vis boiler room #1 being cold.

I do not claim that the bunkers in #1 were empty as a hard "fact." Rather, I say that it is the most logical conclusion to draw from the hard numbers. Nothing more.

-- David G. Brown

Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris

Post Number: 587
Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 5:42 am:

Parks, as I understand your observation of the boilers, part of the boiler structure appeared to be exploded outward from within. Indicating that at some point those particular boilers experienced an explosion from inside of them. Is that correct?

This type of explosion might result, or could result from a boiler which is very hot as when it is in full operation being suddenly submerged in cold seawater. Is that also correct?

Ok, we know these boilers weren't fired prior to the collision with the iceberg. So if they were fired, then it would have to have been done sometime after the collision. And we know the ship was only afloat for about 2 and 1/3 hours after the collision.

Therefore, these boilers must be made very hot, within 2 1/3 hours. Actually slightly less since they wouldn't have fired them immediately after the collision, but rather after some time had passed and the orders were given and communicated down to the engine room.

That leaves the question: How long would it take to fire these boilers sufficiently to get them hot enough to explode when they became suddenly submerged?

They'd have to be very hot to explode on contact with cold water, right? Was roughly 2 hours long enough time to heat them up?

And if there was steam for the emergency lights available from BR2, one bulkhead away, then why fire BR1 at all. Even if you lose BR5, 4, and 3, you still have enough steam from BR2 double sided boilers.

Might there not be enough steam to run all the ship's systems even with BR6 and BR5 shut down? Does the ship really needs more than 30 boilers operational to keep things running as long as they were just sitting still? But unless the ship was planning to go somewhere later on, then why light the ones in BR1? So long as they were done with the engines, they should have plenty of steam for all the other stuff. The only possible need to add more steam would be if they were planning on using the engines again later on.

NC USA

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1952
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 7:59 am:

>Frankly, I don't see how the multitude of chaotic events can be unscrambled by comparing a few random first-hand observations of light bulbs in equally random locations.

Dave,

You're attempting to trivialise credible eyewitness testimony and I won't have any of it. I'm taking another tack...trying to see how the clues -- no matter how fantastic they seem -- these eyewitnesses are providing factor into the manner of the break-up and sinking.

Yuri, in answer to your questions:

Yes.
Yes.
About an hour...maybe an hour and a half to get up to the pressure needed to drive the two-stroke engines driving the emergency dynamos. It would take much longer to get them up to full operating pressure, which is why I don't believe that was the intention.
I would assume so.
Yes.
Depends on how you configure the emergency dynamos.
Don't know, wasn't there.
Don't know, wasn't there.

I'm still working this issue, so I can't answer all your questions satisfactorily. The only undeniable facts are that I have examined 2 of the 5 single-sided boilers and both have fractured furnace front plates that are bent outward and neither show implosion damage, as do all of the 5 boilers in BR#2. A safe assumption can be made from this that the BR#1 boilers had time to equalise, whereas the BR#2 boilers didn't. Beyond that is pure speculation.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark

Post Number: 1866
Registered: 1-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:08 pm:

Dear David,

Thanks for your reply. I am rather bemused by your assertion that I feel ‘wounded by the numbers and what they suggest.’ I don’t feel ‘wounded’ at all – a rather strange dramatisation. Why would it wound me in any way merely to listen to a differing opinion? On the contrary, it would only do me good. Listening to other views helps to develop, strengthen and in some respects modify people’s understanding of the Titanic’s loss.

As I’ve said, it was interesting to see the rationale behind your view, as it helped me to understand why you came to the conclusions you did; nevertheless, as I’ve also said I disagree with it. There’s nothing wrong with polite disagreement.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/

Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris

Post Number: 588
Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:16 pm:

Hi Parks,

I read your replies. I didn't realize the boilers could be brought up to high temperatures in so short a time. I had thought it took several hours to work up steam in a boiler. Especially ones as big as on Titanic. That you gave the needed time as being just around and hour to an hour and a half surprises me a little. I just didn't think it could be done so quickly.

This to Sam and Dave:

If the chief engineer decided to light the boilers in BR#1, then even if there wasn't any coal in the BR1 stokehold, surely he could have some trimmers grab a shovel and a wheel barrow, or form a bucket line to transfer some coal aft to feed those 5 boilers, right?

I mean just because the stokehold may have been empty in BR1, coal was available one bulkhead away. If they wanted the last 5 lit, they could be lit.

This to Parks again:

Parks, if the last 5 boilers were lit, would there still be coal inside of their furnaces? Could some sub with a powerful manipulator arm open the furnace door and shine a light inside and scan for coal? If they have coal in them, then there's the undeniable proof they were indeed lit. Can it be done?

Yuri

NC USA

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1953
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:23 pm:

>I didn't realize the boilers could be brought up to high temperatures in so short a time.

Yuri,

I'm aware that a double-ended boiler usually needs about 8 hours to be brought up from a "cold iron" condition to full steaming pressure, at least, that's the rule of thumb given in my 1911 edition of "The Marine Steam Engine." However, that's not the situation here. The rest of the system was already on line and the single-enders would not have needed to be brought up to full pressure. I've seen this done before on other ships. However, you don't have to take my word for it.

>If they have coal in them, then there's the undeniable proof they were indeed lit.

You're a hard person to please. I was convinced when I saw the furnace fronts fractured outward. I cannot understand what else would have caused that kind of damage. You can look for coal in the furnaces if you like...they're all open. The coal-loading and ash doors were all held on by gravity and I have yet to see a single one, either in Titanic or Britannic, still in place. And what if the coal was washed out during the boiler's trip to the bottom?

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris

Post Number: 594
Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 4:43 am:

A outward fractured front is a strong indicator that the boilers were indeed lit and hot at the time of the break up. No doubts there.

But regarding the 'Why' they were lit, I can only speculate that the crew felt they had time to light them and that after lighting them, there would be enough time left to get some use out of them. Meaning, at least some of the crew may have thought the ship was going to stay afloat for a substantial amount of time. If the captain is convinced the ship will sink within an hour or so at around 12am, then why bother trying to light boilers? But if he thought the ship might be drifting/sinking for several hours, then such an order makes more sense.

What does this say about the thinking of the senior crew after the accident? Very intriguing. I'm glad Parks shared this information with us. Thanks Parks.

NC USA

James Smith
Member
Username: jds88

Post Number: 279
Registered: 12-2001

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:01 am:

Lack of communication between the deck officers and the engineering department, perhaps?

--Jim

Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 7:56 am:

Possibly lighting the rear boilers was mentioned in the mysterious note from Capt. Smith to Engineer Bell carried below by someone? (can't remember who took the note, and it's too late to dig it out!)

Bill

Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark

Post Number: 1868
Registered: 1-2001

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:19 pm:

Dear Bill,

quote:
Possibly lighting the rear boilers was mentioned in the mysterious note from Capt. Smith to Engineer Bell carried below by someone? (can't remember who took the note, and it's too late to dig it out!)

If I remember rightly, wasn't it Quartermaster Olliver [sic?]?

Best wishes,

Mark.

Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/

Denise A. Hunyadi
Member
Username: dahunyadi

Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2005

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:09 pm:

I thought the same thing, Bill, and took a look through some materials yesterday to see when that happened. It was Q/M Olliver who took the note to C/E Bell. Smith ordered him to deliver the note not long after the accident--around 11:50. Olliver delivered the note and waited a few minutes for Bell to give him a reply to take back to Captain Smith. Bell finally told Olliver to tell the Captain he would "get it done as soon as possible."

Denise

Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt

Post Number: 1162
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 3:32 pm:

Thanks, Mark & Denise. I thought it was Olliver, but on a quick scan of the testimonies, I didn't trip across the reference.

Bill

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1957
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:15 pm:

I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual. I believe that this is an assumption made by people who are trying to explain Smith's apparent absence from the Boat Deck for a good portion of the night. I believe instead that most on deck don't remember seeing him because he was down in the engineering spaces, confering with Bell, Andrews and others.

I have had over 20 years of seagoing experience and have lived daily with an at-sea chain of command. The captain is going to be where his decisions will directly impact the life of the vessel. Based on this, my assumption is that Smith delegated the manning and launching of the lifeboats to Chief Officer Wilde, with his two most senior deck officers functionally reporting to Wilde. Then Smith went below to see the situation for himself and to speak directly to Bell. When he couldn't be below, he passed notes down via runner. In fact, I think that the note that Olliver mentions is evidence of that. Can I prove this happened? No. Neither can it be proven that Smith was walking around Boat Deck in a daze. I am much more comfortable assuming that Smith was effective and active. Despite what Louden-Brown said during last night's telecast, 18 out of 20 lifeboats were launched with an inefficient system before the ship's attitude made normal launching impossible. I wonder if even Andrews would have thought that possible just after the collision.

So, why were the single-ended boilers lit? I don't know, exactly, but it's an engineering matter, something that Bell could have decided upon on his own. Smith could have suggested it, but I would imagine that Bell looked at his options and decided that it was a low-risk action he could take that might be of benefit later.

But, all this is assumption. I may not be able to prove without doubt why the single-ended boilers were lit, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that they were.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch

Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2005

Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 1:14 am:

Parks wrote:
"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."

I couldn't agree more Parks. That statement on the show last night was not correct. During our research into the lifeboat launch sequence, Bill Wormstedt, George Behe and myself found that the evidence shows that Captain Smith was quite active during the sinking, contrary to popular belief.

He was actively engaged in the loading, or at least in the supervising of the loading, of several lifeboats, and that doesn't include the other activities that the evidence shows he was involved in, such as checking in with the wireless men, conversing with Boxhall, trying to get the lifeboats to row around to the gangways to pick up more passengers, row towards the ship on the horizon, encouraging the crew during the final minutes, and any other activities that may have went unrecorded such as him checking in with the engineers, etc. If he was shocked at all, it was right after the news that the ship was sinking, which may be why Lightoller had to approach him for orders to load the lifeboats at first, but he certainly was very active from that point on, all the way until the end. There are valid criticisms that can be leveled against Captain Smith, but the claim that he was in shock and inactive during the sinking is not one of them in my opinion.

Looking forward to the Commutator articles on the breakup that are forthcoming.

Take care,
Tad

Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh

Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2004

Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 11:54 pm:

Hi, Parks and Tad

>>"I happen to be one of those people who don't think that Captain Smith was in shock after the collision and therefore ineffectual."

Erik Wood, Mike Standart and I were recently going on about this on another thread and we were
all three baffled by how the "Catatonic Smith" version seems to have become the bible. No way do the survivor accounts bear it out, but urban legends, like Dracula, die hard.

Roy

Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart

Post Number: 9456
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 1:51 am:

I don't know if I'd call myself "baffled" about that. How many urban legends have taken hold surrounding the Titanic which just aren't supported by anything resembling primary sources? I've lost count. A lot of this...I call it "The Titanic Mythos"...appears to have taken hold in any number of popular histories drawn from questionable sources and the hype and hooplah in both the media and the movies hasn't been much help.

Far from it. They've tended to be part of the problem.

If Smith was comatose, he was one active zombie!

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon

Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris

Post Number: 600
Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 6:00 pm:

I just thought about something that might have a bearing on this discussion of the boilers in BR#1. While watching a documentary about the new Queen Mary 2, I noted that the ships maiden voyage was as much a trial run/shake-down run as it was a trip for commercial profit. There were so many tests being conducted, observations of the ship's system performance, and so on. It occurred to me that since Titanic was on her maiden voyage, would it not be a similar type situation where both the builders, crew, and owners would be making close observations of the performance of all the ship's propulsion systems, all the galleys, all the electrical, water, gas, etc systems to ensure proper performance?
Yes, I think it so.

In that case, I think it very possible, in fact probable, that at some point during the voyage all the ship's boilers would need to be lit and brought up to full steam pressure as a check to verify the ship was able to perform as expected in that regard. So if you're going to light a set of boilers sometime during the voyage, then why not prepare them for lighting at a moments notice by coaling the furnaces days before they would need to be lit? I do that in my fireplace at home all the time. Anytime I have a fire, and then clean the ash out of the box, I go ahead and place the coal, kindling, and wood for the next fire into the box and arrange it so that the next time I want a fire, I don't have to spend time preparing it, I just go light it.

Does it not make sense to do that same thing with boilers on a ship at sea? If so, then the boilers in BR#1 could have already had coal in the furnaces, and additional coal bunkered nearby. All prepped and ready to go at a moments' notice.

On a slightly different topic, but using the same idea of maiden voyage system testing, can we infer anything from this regarding the ship's steering system which includes the compasses and navigation apparatus? Why were Olliver and Boxhall away from the bridge at the same time? System test on the new compass? Perhaps??

NC USA

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 972
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:06 pm:

The boilers in BR 1 were auxiliary boilers used primarily when the ship was in port. They were used to run the refrigeration plant, electric engines and other auxiliary machinery. As such they would have been used before while the ship was docked in Southampton and of course in Belfast. There were no ash ejectors in BR 1. While in port ash from the boilers were taken to and removed by hoists. While at sea these single-ended boilers were not generally needed. In all of the double-eneded boiler rooms they had ash ejectors which pumped the ash overboard. Connecting these single-ended boiler up while at sea would be done only to push the ship all out. Wilding estimated that with every boiler connected up the ship could make about 23 1/4 knots. Someone can correct me on this, but I believe they did some modifications to the plant on Brittanic and equipped ash ejectors in BR 1 there.

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.

Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh

Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2004

Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:46 pm:

Slightly Off-Topic:

Hi, Michael!

>>I don't know if I'd call myself "baffled" about that.

Sorry, I was trying to be precise and I'm afraid I ended up being general.

It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One. Neither is it a mystery that there are plenty of people gullible enough to believe them, no matter how far-fetched they might be. But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.

Roy

Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart

Post Number: 9463
Registered: 12-2000

Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 1:33 am:

>>Sorry, I was trying to be precise and I'm afraid I ended up being general.<<

Ach...not a problem there. I thought your post as a whole was right on target.

>>It's no mystery that there are Titanic urban legends. They've been rampant since Day One.<<

Yep...they were called ~~newspaper stories~~ "Thrilling Survivors Accounts." (And sometimes, from real survivors!)

>>But why has this particular one, "Catatonic," or "Zombie" Smith, become so entrenched? I've heard it endorsed from novices all the way up to the sound bites of a few historians who surely should know better.<<

A good question, and I'm not sure I can answer that. Perhaps there's a bit of romanticism involved. All I know for sure is that once these things become entrenched, they're very difficult to root out.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon

Tammy Markwick
Member
Username: edwardian_girl

Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2006

Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 3:00 am:

I thought that the "catatonic Smith" legend was started by eyewitnesses, that several people saw him in that state that night. Guess I was wrong!

Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks

Post Number: 1964
Registered: 4-2001

Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 1:11 am:

Sorry for the tardy reply, but I have been out of town the past couple of days.

We have testimony (Dillon, I believe...maybe someone else) regarding the boilers in BR#1. After the collision, those boilers were not lit. Because of this, I believed that those boilers were cold iron when the ship sank. It wasn't until I saw the fractured furnace fronts on the boilers themselves that I questioned my understanding of events. Reading carefully through the testimony again, I can find no mention of the state of the BR#1 boilers later in the sinking timeline.

Knowing that the emergency dynamos were running (Ranger's testimony) toward the end, I now assume that the BR#1 boilers were powering the dynamos.

Parks

http://marconigraph.com

Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam

Post Number: 980
Registered: 3-2003

Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 10:23 pm:

A reasonable assumption Parks, but now the question is when did the boilers in BR 1 break off, and what does that do to the time when those two newly discovered pieces separated? I guess what I'm looking for is a coherent sequence of events and their timeline.

There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.