A New Theory in Topeka

Jason D. Tiller

Jason D. Tiller

Staff member
Moderator
Member
I also agree. I've learned a lot just reading this one thread.

Best regards,

Jason
Happy
 
C

Cal Haines

Member
Yuri,

I agree that Beauchamp would not have lied out of loyalty, but WSL may have provided other incentives. George Behe, in his book "Speed, Safety & Sacrifice", argues that WSL bribed Hichens. I certainly see plenty of motive for WSL (and to a certain extend the BOT) for wanting to touch up what could have been seen as an act of cowardice. As I've said, I don't think Barrett and Hesketh
were cowards, but there were some very exaggerated expectations about duty and all that back then. That WSL would have had a motive to convince Beauchamp to lie is just my opinion and certainly not one that I can prove. But for the record, WSL was not all that interested in fully cooperating with the US investigation: witness Ismay's attempt to have the crew shipped back as soon as they arrived in New York.

Beauchamp aside, I can't think of a single reason for Barrett to lie about the key issues here, for reasons I have already listed. But no matter how you slice it, one of them is wrong! And since Hendrickson backs up Barrett, I'll go with Barrett being correct.

As you say, and as I have previously said, Beauchamp MAY have been mistaken. I think he probably did help draw fires in BR#5 (but NOT in BR#6). However, his testimony sure makes it sound like he drew fires in #6. It's interesting that they never get around to asking him specifically if he was in BR#6 when he drew fires; there seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room built into his testimony. Assuming that it could have been proved that he did not draw fires in #6, I doubt he could have been successfully prosecuted for perjury since he could always just claim he was mistaken and actually referring to what he did in BR#5. (The plot thickens.)

Would anyone care to take me up on a 6-beer wager as to what they will find if and when they get a submersible into BR#6? I bet they find coal in all the furnaces!

Cal
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>But for the record, WSL was not all that interested in fully cooperating with the US investigation: witness Ismay's attempt to have the crew shipped back as soon as they arrived in New York. <<

Cal, I wouldn't read too much into that one. For one thing, there was no precedent for the Senate conducting such an investigation, and for another Ismay was trying to arrange transportation home for the crew while still aboard the Carpathia, which is to say befor he had any way of knowing such an investigation was even on. (Senator Smith wasn't exactly sending daily personal despatches to Ismay advising him of what he had in mind!)

He did know, or could reasonably count on the Board of Trade conducting an investigtion, so what would sneaking the crew away accomplish beyond trading one group of inquisitors for another?

>>Would anyone care to take me up on a 6-beer wager as to what they will find if and when they get a submersible into BR#6? I bet they find coal in all the furnaces! <<

I'll take that bet...provided you can find somebody willing to bet the coal isn't there. As fast as things happened, I don't think they had a chance to even think of drawing the fires there. Hell, if I saw a wall of water coming up from the deckplates and crashing in from the side, I would be outta there!

Which lable do you prefer? Guinness, Harp, Newcastle Brown Ale?
 
Y

Yuri Singleton

Member
I'm having trouble discounting Beauchamp's story that he and others stayed and drew the fires in BR 6. Because I really think that BR 6 didn't flood to 8 feet within 10 minutes after impact.

I know the sound and movement of the collision would have been thunderous, and that the sight of water suddenly spraying in through the hull would have been alarming, but ... neither Barrett nor Beauchamp said anything about a rush of people trying to escape from the compartment. Barrett only mentions himself and one engineer, not everyone. And Barrett never says he fled the compartment out of fear. He only says he that he and the engineer jumped back into the next section.
________________________________________________
US Inquiry:

Q. Where? - A. In 6 section.

Q. Were you there when the accident occurred? - A. Yes. I was standing talking to the second engineer. The bell rang, the red light showed. We sang out shut the doors [indicating the ash doors to the furnaces] and there was a crash just as we sung out. The water came through the ship's side. The engineer and I jumped to the next section. The next section to the forward section is No. 5.

British Inquiry:

1904. Did it come in fast enough to begin to flood the place? - Yes.

1905. Then what was it that you did? - Me and Mr. Hesketh jumped into this section, and the watertight compartment closed up.

1906. You and Mr. Hesketh both jumped into the next section? - Yes.

1907. There were stokers working there still; firemen in No. 6? - Yes.

1908. What happened to them? - There was one of them saved.

1909. One of them was saved? - Yes.

1910. Did he get through the watertight compartment with you? - I could not tell you where he got to.

1911. What was his name? - Beauchamp, I think it was.

*Later*

1940. Now just think. Was there much length of time after you got into No. 5 and before Mr. Hesketh gave that order? - I should say about ten minutes.

_________________________________________________

Per Barrett:
-still firemen in BR6 including Beauchamp.(Beauchamp is not in BR 5)
-doesn't know what happened to them.
-10 minutes from jumping to BR5 until trying to get back into BR6.
-10 minutes to climb out of 5 and down into 6.

That's about 20 minutes. So around 12:00am is when Barrett finally sees the water in BR 6 is about 8 feet above the plates and he sees no one in the compartment.

20 minutes? That is a lot closer to jiving with what Beauchamp said about staying and drawing fires for a few minutes before leaving.

Yuri
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
Mike said:
quote:

Cal, I wouldn't read too much into that one. For one thing, there was no precedent for the Senate conducting such an investigation, and for another Ismay was trying to arrange transportation home for the crew while still aboard the Carpathia, which is to say befor he had any way of knowing such an investigation was even on.

I would have to agree with what you said there Mike. Initially I don't think Ismay had any idea of what was to happen in the U.S. but I think he had a good suspicion that something was around the corner. I think he was partially trying to get his crew back to the UK before they had a chance to say anything. For his, and their sake.

I would further that most of the things that Yuri says are pretty accurate to my line of thinking. Which has been known to be flawed sometimes. This is one of things I want to hash out in Topeka. Rob Ottmers who is a transcript genius will be there to help out.​
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
My take on the U.S. Senate inquiry is that it was laid on pretty quickly. I think it came as a surprise to Ismay to be hit with a summons as soon as the Carpathia docked. As to getting the crew back to England, I think Occam's Razor applies here. Ismay knew that official questions were inevitable, but not from the United States. That the Board of Trade would take an interest was a given.

The idea was to get them back mostly so the surviving crew could sign on to other ships and thus continue to make a living. A not insignifigent factor when one realizes that their pay stopped as soon as the Titanic's stern disappeared beneath the surface of the ocean.
 
C

Cal Haines

Member
I see some difficulties with Yuri's interpretation, but I don't have time to respond at length. I'll have to defer it until this weekend.

Cap'n Erik, any chance you could arrange to have me on the speaker phone for your panel discussion of the boiler room stuff?

Cal
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
Hmm,

Conference call, I will have to look into it. Sounds like a good idea. Let me do some digging and see what I can come up with. I will post here when I get some info.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
It has been far to long since I have written in this thread so I am going to start now.

The reason I am posting in this thread is because of the talk of boiler room 6. I want, if I can to concentrate on the exact location of the damage in that space ONLY and really I am wondering how high from the deck plates it was and where.

I ask because Dave Brown and I's theory of allision just bit the dust in some of my research and because I don't believe (sometimes) in my own research I would like a second opinion before I go into more detail.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Well, time to hit the transcripts again. As an offhand thought, I wonder if it's even possible to know exactly where the damage was. That space flooded pretty quickly which did a thorough job of covering the evidence.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
My goal is to get a general concenus of how fast it flooded and where the water came from in, I am more interested in direction. Was it more aft then forward?? Things like that.

My research this morning in the transcripts yielded nothing but more questions (imagine that in a Titanic debate). Boiler Room 6 has always been a matter of debate. Looks like it will continue to be that way.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Nothing but questions! LOL! Does that sound familier or what? Too bad nobody's ever been able to get an ROV in there.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
In earlier debates on the subject Cal Haines through a interesting tid bit out there. He said that although Beachamp says he drew the fires in BR 6 the time frame he allotted isn't nearly enough time to accomplish the job. This could mean one of two things, he was in there longer and didn't realize it, or did it half way until he was told to get out.

I can't help but ponder the thought that boiler room 6 flooded as fast as Barrett says it did.
 
C

Cal Haines

Member
Hi Guys,

I'm still here but very busy. I'll try to chime in if I have time.

Cal
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
When reading the testimony and reviewing it last night Mike and I have figured (to the best we can) that Barrett is talking about water ingress about 2 feet above the plates towards the after end of the compartment. I would interested to see what anyone else has to say.
 
Top