| Author |
Message |
    
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 10:31 pm: | 
|
The difficulty- and in the end inability- to lower the collapsables from the (port& starboard side) roof of the officers quarters beckons the question- How did the designers expect these boats to be launched? There didnt seem to be any crane or apparatus to help the boats drop to the boat deck- Was it a severly flawed design, or did they launch them the wrong way? Lightoller's boat landed upsidedown, so its clear to me that the way those 2 boats were set up were abject failures...What do you think?
regards
Tarn Stephanos |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 190
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Hi Tarn, how are you? Good I hope. The ship was equipped with apparatus to lower them from the officer's quarters. I do not know the exact details of the process (I am certain one of the more technically oriented researchers here will have a better explanation), but Collapsible A and B were intended to be hooked up to the wire stays running up to the funnel, and lowered to the deck using a block and tackle. I believe it was designed so that the third and fourth stays running up to the forward funnel could be separated using a "bullseye." Given the extremely small amount of time that was left by the time the officers and crew got to these boats, it was probably judged that there wasn't time to lower them properly. The whole design was extremely awkward.
Hope this helps and that this letter finds you doing well.
Kind regards,
Tad Fitch |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11344
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 5:11 am: |
|
>>How did the designers expect these boats to be launched?<<
Well, if you really want to split hairs, Tad got the technical part right, but I don't think they expected it to ever become an issue. More then anything else, they were there for show. TRMA has an excellant article on these boats at http://titanic-model.com/db/db-01/db_02.html
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 5:27 am: |
|
Thanks for the detailed info Tad, and thanks for the link Michael.Good point Tad- lowering the boats to the boat deck was a time consuming, awkward thing- and they didnt have time- hence Lightoller just flipping his boat down on to the deck...
Its probrolly true, there was never an expectation that the boats adjacent to funnel # 1 would ever be used.....
regards
tarn Stephanos |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11349
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 5:48 am: |
|
For whatever it may be worth, if there had been a serious expectation that they might be needed, I think all four collapsibles would have been stored under the davits beneath the boats as they were designed to be instead of just two.
As it was, the optimism in the context of past history was jusitified. There hadn't been a really serious liner casualty since the Atlantic came to grief and in the Republic foundering, there had been plenty of time to get the people off to rescue ships. Shipping lines rarely act on events that don't happen and which aren't expected. Why make changes when the system in place works?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3087
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
The whole business of the collapsibles A and B is most unsatisfactory. Here's Lightoller in Mersey's court.
"14793. Now I will take you to the collapsible boat. Is it not the fact when you unship one of those collapsible boats you have blocks and tackle fastened on the stays from the funnel? - No.
14794. Did you see no block and tackle on that stay from the funnel for the purpose of unshipping the collapsible boat? - Which are you speaking of?
14795. I am talking about the forward funnel on the port side; are not there small blocks and tackle on it? - No.
14796. How do you unship one of those Englehardt boats? - We never have unshipped one, but I see what you are getting at. There is a link in the funnel guy for the purpose of hooking on tackle and so getting the Englehardt from the top of the quarters down to the deck.
14797. I am right that you could put the block and tackle on to that link? - Yes, that is right.
14798. Was there any there that night? - Not that I am aware of.
14799. If you had had a block and tackle there you would have found it rather easy to unship it? - No, I should not have used it."
Lightoller was not asked to explain further. Maybe somebody would have had to climb the funnel guys to attach the tackles. An old sailing ship man might have managed it, but Titanic's men were not old sailing ship hands.
Michael is right. There was only lip service to emergency procedures and the debacle of the collapsibles is an example. In collapsible D, seaman William Lucas didn't know how to steer, because he was never taught that the boat was steered with a steering oar.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11353
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 6:16 pm: |
|
>>Lightoller was not asked to explain further.<<
Since the Board of Trade signed off on the arrangement, it's not hard to see why. They had enough egg on their face as it was. They couldn't have been all that eager to explore their shortsightedness in a public forum.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 2072
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 1:52 pm: |
|
I wonder if when Olympic went through her post Titanic refit, if there was a design change in how the boats atop her officers quarters were expected to be lowered to the boat deck... |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 2:50 pm: |
|
What boats atop her officers quarters after the refit?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Olympic didn't have boats atop her officers quarters? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 3:04 pm: |
|
You are talking about post Titanic refit I assume? I'll let Mark Chirnside comment on the lifeboat arrangement following the Titanic disaster.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 13245
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 8, 2007 - 3:29 am: |
|
>>Olympic didn't have boats atop her officers quarters?<<
Not as far as I could see, though I'll be the first to admit that I may be as blind as a bat. The post-Titanic refit included adding a full fit of davits along the entire usable length of the boat deck with the additional boats under the davits and the regular boats being the collapsibles. With that much all stored under davits, there was no good reason to keep a couple more on the deckhouse.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Bruce Harwood
Member
Username: bruce_harwood
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2008
| | Posted on Monday, April 6, 2009 - 11:16 pm: |
|
We know how difficult it was to lower collapsibles C and D from the roof of the officers' quarters, and that there wasn't enough time to prepare them for launch. Would it have been possible to prepare them while they were still up top and allow them to float free? Were the officers in charge locked into the idea that if it's a boat, it has to be lowered by davits like all the rest? I guess a third question is, did the people involved not realize how very little time they had left when they tried to get these boats down to the Boat Deck? Blatant second guessing here, I'm afraid. |
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 3762
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 1:43 am: |
|
It was A and B that were stored on the roof, Bruce. I'm afraid we don't really know what the thought processes were with the officers involved, as they didn't survive. Loading on top of the roof would have been difficult...firstly to get the passengers up there, and then to hope that the dynamics of the sinking didn't swamp or damage the boats with a load of passengers as water reached their level. Floating them free from the roof without passengers would have posed potential issues as well.
It may be that the crew did at some point intend to float them free - when Hemming attempted to pass Moody the block while the Sixth Officer was on top of the officers quarters, Moody responded "we don't want the block, we will leave the boat on deck." What, precisely, Moody meant is unclear. It may be that from his vantage point on the roof, he realised that there would not be time to hook Collapsible A up to the falls, load and lower it...which leads to the possibility that they may have intended to float the lifeboat free (as work seems to have continued at A until the last minute, it does not seem that efforts at the boat were ever abandoned - or, if they were, they were swiftly resumed). Moody might have meant that they did not want the block at that moment, as they were still trying to clear the collapsible. There are several interpretations that could be placed on the comment. Hemming, surveying the situation, thought that there was "no chance" of clearing collapsible A, so he made good his escape on the port side. |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 443
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 5:17 pm: |
|
perhaps this might help?
View Image |
