| Author |
Message |
    
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:53 pm: | 
|
13746. But you felt that they had stopped? - I did.
13747. And you got up? - Yes.
13748. Did you go to the bridge? - Not exactly the bridge; I went out on deck. The bridge, you know, is on the same level.
13749. On to the boat deck? - On to the boat deck on the port side.
13750. Is your room on the port side? - My room is on the port side.
13751. What did you find was the condition of things? - Everything seemed normal.
13752. Was the ship going full speed ahead? - Oh, no, but I mean the conditions on the bridge.
13753. It was my fault. What did you find was the position of the ship? - I, first of all, looked forward to the bridge and everything seemed quiet there. I could see the First Officer ( RED BOX ) standing on the footbridge keeping the look out. I then walked across to the side, and I saw the ship had slowed down, that is to say, was proceeding slowly through the water.
13754. This is all on the port side ? - All on the port side.
13755. Did you see any iceberg? - No.
13756. Of course, if the iceberg passed the starboard side of the vessel, you were on the opposite side? - Yes.
What was Murdoch doing on the port side wing after the collision ?
What was he looking at, or for.
 |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12216
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
>>What was he looking at, or for.<<
Perhaps more ice. At some point after the accident, the Titanic started manuevering again, even if only to get clear of local ice. After a bad run in with one, it wouldn't do to have an encore performance of the same accident.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 607
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
And Capt. Smith was out on the starboard wing at the same time that Murdoch took the port wing.
13761. Just tell us what you did. - After looking over the side and seeing the bridge I went back to the quarters and crossed over to the starboard side. I looked out of the starboard door and I could see the Commander standing on the bridge in just the same manner as I had seen Mr. Murdoch, just the outline; I could not see which was which in the dark. I did not go out on the deck again on the starboard side. It was pretty cold and I went back to my bunk and turned in.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Sam has posted the most puzzling quote regarding Murdoch's location after the accident. It makes no sense if the berg was passed to starboard and, as Olliver, Scarrott and Rowe said, the ship was turning to starboard. In such a turn the bulk of the ship would have hidden the fatal berg from view off the port bridge wing.
However, Murdoch would quite rightly have gone to the port wing under one particular condition. That would have been if Titanic was not only passing the fatal berg to starboard, but also had another danger close aboard to port. The turn to starboard would have swung the stern outward to port, possibly creating concern of contact with this other object.
Given that there was only ice about that night and not other ships or fishing smacks, it would seem that Murdoch's attention to the port side was most likely related to not wanting to swing the port stern into another iceberg.
Another alternative is that Murdoch was never on the port bridge wing. Memory can play tricks.
-- David G. Brown |
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 237
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
"Given that there was only ice about that night and not other ships or fishing smacks, it would seem that Murdoch's attention to the port side was most likely related to not wanting to swing the port stern into another iceberg."
Yes. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 612
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
David, Steve:
I have no doubt that there were many icebergs in the vicinity of the accident that night. That is not the issue here. The issue is what was seen by the lookouts and when did they see it. After the collision, by Lightoller's and others accounts, it took a couple of minutes for the engines to come to a complete stop. There is quite a bit of evidence that they also ran the engines slow astern to take some of the headway off the ship (Dillon, Stengle, Rowe [in letter to THS]). It was the stopping of the engines that brought Lightoller out of his cabin, not the impact with the iceberg. By that time many things had already happened. As you know, according to Boxhall, Murdoch and Smith and he went out on the starboard bridge wing moments after the accident to see the iceberg. This only makes sense, as you pointed out, if the ship was swung to starboard following the collision, something that was confirmed by Scarrott, Shiers, Olliver, and to some extent by Rowe. By the time Lightoller went out to look, the ship was drifting to a stop making about 4 to 6 knots as Lightoller and Shiers both had noted. Meanwhile, Boxhall had dropped below to investigate and Smith had Olliver seek out the carpenter to take the draft of the ship. By this time, 3 to 4 minutes after the impact, the helm would have been already amidships and the ship was pointing more or less northward. Since they had struck ice, it makes perfect sense to look all around to see what was in their immediate vicinity, not only ahead of them, but all around. From the bridge that meant you had to have people positioned on both bridge wings, port and starboard, while waiting for the initial damage assessment to come in. And as we also know, Smith had the ship move again for some short time before coming to its final stop. This must have come sometime after Olliver returned to the bridge since he saw Smith telegraph the order down.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Darin James Miller
Member
Username: shoelesssean
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:38 am: |
|
how far behind the titanic was the iceberg when she stopped. Could someone have swam to the berg and stayed afloat on it.anythings was warmer than the water |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 15855
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:57 am: |
|
>>how far behind the titanic was the iceberg when she stopped.<<
Nobody knows. This isn't a matter of any record, and there were other concerns at the time, such as damage assessment and in due course, evacuating the ship. Since the berg was likely a couple of miles away by the time the ship stopped, it's unlikely in the extreme that anybody could have made it in the 28°F water.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 6:17 am: |
|
Darin-
George Rowe, who was the QM stationed on the aft-bridge during the collision, testified (or related his observations) that he saw the towering iceberg pass by and actually disappear aft. Although this account might have been a hyperbole (an exaggeration), the description here suggests that the iceberg fell away some considerable distance behind the Titanic even before she stopped. However, as dark as the night was, an object quite possibly could have been absorbed in the darkness while not being too far away, especially with no breaking water at the base to mark its location, hence Fleet's and Murdoch's initial observations.
In any case, I agree with Michael in that the berg was likely so far away that swimmers were unlikely to have reached it in in time while submerged in 28-degree water.
Although no specifics are given here, I hope this helps.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Darin James Miller
Member
Username: shoelesssean
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 5:55 am: |
|
Thank you for the input. |
