Barrett's "wall of water"?


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Look at the sinking sequence in relation to the plans.
five (5 ) compartments were flooded.
Compartments 3, 4 and 5 were causing three things - a dip by the head, bodily sinkage and a list to starboard. The list to starboard would increase until the fireman's tunnel was overtopped in compartments 3 and 4. we know from Barratt, exactly when that happened:
"I went back to No. 6 fireroom and there was 8 feet of water in there."
That was 10 minutes after impact. Thereafter, the ship would begin to come upright.
If corrective ballasting had not been employed, then Titanic would not have come upright until the water level was equal across compartments 3 and 4 and the water had gained access to the main boiler room in compartment 5. It would have been flooding evenly across compartments 1 and 2 from the start.
All things being equal, she should have been coming upright about 20 minutes to half an hour after impact. Thereafter, there was nothing to give her a port list because water evens out level.

To recap: Titanic should have sunk by the head and to starboard until the firemen's runnel was overtopped - then, come upright and thereafter, continued to sink upright and by the head at a constant head-down angle until the No. 5 BR bulkhead was overtopped. Thereafter, she would have attempted to come on an even keel while sinking bodily until the buoyance had gone.

In your plan, Sam, you show the suspension point close to, and above the ship's side. In fact, it was 4 feet out from the boat deck edge. According to the plans, the overhang of the A deck was about 3 feet. Thus, if there had been a port list when boat 13 was launched, it would have scraped down the outside of A deck, then after clearing A deck, would have swung violently inboard in the direction of B Deck. This would have been very apparent. to the occupants.. it was not. I quote Beesley: " We were spared the bumping and grinding against the side which so often accompanies the launching of boats: I do not remember that we even had to fend off our boat while we were trying to get free."
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
In your plan, Sam, you show the suspension point close to, and above the ship's side.
That's not the suspension line. It's just a line from the edge of A deck to the side of the vessel by the waterline. Perhaps this shows it better. The lifeboats had about 9 ft in beam. No. 13 was loaded from A deck.
1633973571782.png


By the way, when Barrett saw the water 8ft above the plates in BR 6, the ship still had about a 5° list to starboard. He estimated the time was about 10 minutes after the collision. The water would cover half the height of the low side boilers. Something like this (looking aft):
1633974106880.png
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,663
1,154
248
Germany
Sorry no much time. As a note boat No. 15 was hold against the ship during loading by the crew as stated by Nichols and this might have taken place at Nos. 11 and 13 too.
"From Nichols at No. 15: "One woman stepped up to the rail against which we holding the boat, looked into it and then stepped back as though she didn’t like it.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
That's not the suspension line. It's just a line from the edge of A deck to the side of the vessel by the waterline. Perhaps this shows it better. The lifeboats had about 9 ft in beam. No. 13 was loaded from A deck.
View attachment 77828


By the way, when Barrett saw the water 8ft above the plates in BR 6, the ship still had about a 5° list to starboard. He estimated the time was about 10 minutes after the collision. The water would cover half the height of the low side boilers. Something like this (looking aft):
View attachment 77829
That's better!

I suggest to you the timing might have been as follows:
1 Impact
2 Impact+ 10 min Barratt in BR 6. Stbd list
3 Impact +12 min. Barratt back in BR 5
4. Impact + 15 min firemen sent aloft. water tops the fireman's tunnel and the ship begins to return to the upright.
6. Impact + 20 Firemen return and rake out the furnaces.
7 Impact+ 40 min Firemen evacuate BR5. Titanic is now almost upright and down by the head.
8 Impact + 45 rush of water - Barratt heads for the boat deck - little or no list at all.

As Beesley noted - Lifeboat 13 did not touch the ship's sides on the way down.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Impact + 45 rush of water - Barratt heads for the boat deck - little or no list at all.
Hmm? 11:40 + 0:45 = 12:25. So how come when boat 6 was launched they had to push off from the hull as the boat was being lowered? By the way, they first started to uncover the boats around midnight and to first start loading boats at that time.

I suggest your reasoning is highly flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,622
992
388
65
8 Impact + 45 rush of water - Barratt heads for the boat deck - little or no list at all.
I was going to say that "Impact + 45 minutes" would bring us to 12:25 am at which time lifeboats were still being prepared for loading and none had yet been launched, but Sam beat me to it. If Barrett had left BR5 at that time (as Jim claims) and headed for the boat deck, he must have moved in slow-motion because according to his own testimony, it was over an hour later that he arrived at Lifeboat #13 on A Deck just as it was ready to be lowered.

In fact when Lightoller launched Lifeboat #6 a further 45 minutes later at 01:10 am, there was still a slight starboard list (as Sam said)
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hmm? 11:40 + 0:45 = 12:25. So how come when boat 6 was launched they had to push off from the hull as the boat was being lowered? By the way, they first started to uncover the boats around midnight and to first start loading boats at that time.

I suggest your reasoning is highly flawed.
Read the evidence, Sam. This from Lightoller.

"13867. Was there a list to starboard?
- Not that I am aware of, and I think I should have noticed it in lowering the boat. I may say that my notice was called to this list - I perhaps might not have noticed it; it was not very great - by Mr. Wilde calling out "All passengers over to the starboard side." That was an endeavour to give her a righting movement, and it was then I noticed that the ship had a list. It would have been far more noticeable on the starboard side than on the port"

In the above there is a clerical error. Lightoller probably said a righting "moment" - not "movement". That tells anyone with a knowledge of ship stability, that at that time - when No.6 was being lowered, Titanic was in neutral equilibrium - i.e. her center of Gravity and metacenter were in the same place. Consequently any weight above the metacenter` would cause her to lurch toward the side of the greatest concentration of that weight. Wilde's order would have brought Titanic upright or have even given her a slight starboard list.
Lightoller said he thought this was about the time he was working on boat 6. Now look at the launching sequence which you accept.

During the first part of the launching, 4 boats were loaded from the starboard side and only one from the port side. This means that the weight distribution on the boat deck had changed and the port side was getting heavier. Thus, th ship would come upright during that time and much quicker when the firemen's tunnel was covered by the sea water.
The ship would thereafter, heel to port very quickly. However note that at the time 6 was being made ready, the ship was brought upright by moving people from port to starboard. This upright position was maintained thereafter by launching the next 4 boats from the port side.
The launching sequence was not done arbitrarily - it seems to have been done in sequence in an attempt to keep Titanic upright as long as possible. Starboard side first, to help return the ship to an upright position. Thereafter, as amount of heel and direction dictated. As can be seen, the equilibrium of the ship dictated an intervention when 6 was being prepared.

As for pushing 6 off when she was being lowered? How about Titanic had a starboard list due Wilde's wild order?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I was going to say that "Impact + 45 minutes" would bring us to 12:25 am at which time lifeboats were still being prepared for loading and none had yet been launched, but Sam beat me to it. If Barrett had left BR5 at that time (as Jim claims) and headed for the boat deck, he must have moved in slow-motion because according to his own testimony, it was over an hour later that he arrived at Lifeboat #13 on A Deck just as it was ready to be lowered.

In fact when Lightoller launched Lifeboat #6 a further 45 minutes later at 01:10 am, there was still a slight starboard list (as Sam said)
You have illustrated a prime problem with the accepted timing of events.

Everything fits neatly if you factor-in a 24 minutes bridge clock set-back just before the moment of impact.

QM Rowe stated in the US:
"I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12. I looked toward the starboard side of the ship and saw a mass of ice. I then remained on the after bridge to await orders through the telephone. No orders came down, and I remained until 25 minutes after 12, when I saw a boat on the starboard beam.

Now Sam et al believe that Rowe had partly altered time on his watch, if so, then the true time of launching the first boat was close to 12-20 am and the true time of launching boat 13 was 1-16 am

Now apply this knowledge to the movements of Barratt.

You and Sam have to understand that a passenger ship in such a condition is very "tender" and prone to lurching to one side or the other depending on the shifting of minor weights at a height above her center of gravity. Consequently the use of a list to indicate a time is in no way an efficient method.

Having pointed this out, no doubt Sam will state "we have been over this before". I agree with him, but perhaps he might explain how he believes QM Rowe had partly altered time , but also agrees that the unaltered time of firing the first rocket was 12-47 am?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Read the evidence, Sam. This from Lightoller.
Jim, I strongly suggest that you should read ALL the evidence instead of just being selective about what Lightoller had to say. Unfortunately, Lightoller was inconsistent on this point. For example, at the American inquiry Lightoller had this to say about when Wilde tried to correct the list by having passengers move from one side to the other:

Senator SMITH. What do you know about that?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. When the ship was taking a heavy list - not a heavy list - but she was taking a list over to port, the order was called, I think, by the chief officer. "Everyone on the starboard side to straighten her up," which I repeated.
Senator SMITH. How long before you left the ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. I could not say, sir.
Senator SMITH. About how long?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Half an hour or three quarters of an hour.
Senator SMITH. Before you left?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Yes.


And you are quite aware that a ship in a damage condition behaves very different as far as stability is concerned than one in an intact condition. It's very complicated to predict even for a vessel that has no longitudinal bulkheads because of free surface effects, which reduces the effective metacentric height, and the distribution of large objects and materials within the hull. Most studies that I'm aware of have shown that Titanic was quite lucky in that a severe list to either side had not developed during the launching of the boats that night.
Consequently the use of a list to indicate a time is in no way an efficient method.
I agree with you because nobody was keeping any such record, nor was a record kept of lifeboat launching times. But in general, looking at all information sources, it appears that Titanic had taken on an initial list of about 5° to starboard soon after the allision event took place, and then slowly swung over to a list to port later on, which had reached about 10° to port while boat #10 was being filled. There was no indication that the port list was ever corrected despite any attempt to do so.

And by the way, I hope nobody assumes that a change in list from one side to the other occurres uniformly. It just doesn't work that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Jim, I strongly suggest that you should read ALL the evidence instead of just being selective about what Lightoller had to say. Unfortunately, Lightoller was inconsistent on this point. For example, at the American inquiry Lightoller had this to say about when Wilde tried to correct the list by having passengers move from one side to the other:

Senator SMITH. What do you know about that?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. When the ship was taking a heavy list - not a heavy list - but she was taking a list over to port, the order was called, I think, by the chief officer. "Everyone on the starboard side to straighten her up," which I repeated.
Senator SMITH. How long before you left the ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. I could not say, sir.
Senator SMITH. About how long?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Half an hour or three quarters of an hour.
Senator SMITH. Before you left?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Yes.


And you are quite aware that a ship in a damage condition behaves very different as far as stability is concerned than one in an intact condition. It's very complicated to predict even for a vessel that has no longitudinal bulkheads because of free surface effects, which reduces the effective metacentric height, and the distribution of large objects and materials within the hull. Most studies that I'm aware of have shown that Titanic was quite lucky in that a severe list to either side had not developed during the launching of the boats that night.

I agree with you because nobody was keeping any such record, nor was a record kept of lifeboat launching times. But in general, looking at all information sources, it appears that Titanic had taken on an initial list of about 5° to starboard soon after the allision event took place, and then slowly swung over to a list to port later on, which had reached about 10° to port while boat #10 was being filled. There was no indication that the port list was ever corrected despite any attempt to do so.

And by the way, I hope nobody assumes that a change in list from one side to the other occurres uniformly. It just doesn't work that way.
Do you really want to go this way, Sam?

I most certainly know about Ship Construction and Stability having been formally trained in these subjects for 10 years and actively practiced the knowledge gained for almost twice that time.
I don't know what studies you refer to, but there was no chance of Titanic developing a severe list to one side or the other for the very reason that she did not have fore and aft bulkheads. As for free surface? Her holds were full and there were no unbroken area big enough to make any meaningful difference to stability. Besides all that, it was a flat calm, motionless situation.

Selectivity is your forte, and you have just illustrated the fact by your Lightoller quote.
In that quote, Senator Smith very clearly led the witness (who did not have an answer) by suggesting an interval - range between Wilde's order and when Lightoller left the ship.
You miss the point, which is that the order was given at the time of an event and was given for a specific reason...to correct a list. The exact time of that event is a separate issue and is relevant to a sudden change in water level within BR5. which this thread is about.

Are you saying Lightoller was lying or mistaken about the order given by Wilde?
What you do not seem to wish to accept is the fact that Wilde gave that order in the first place.

If he did, and I see no reason to doubt that he did - he gave it when No.6 was being made ready and he did so knowing the effect it would have.
What you should also know (if you don't already do so) is that the Chief Officer in a British Vessel was the one who continuously updated the stability situation, and kept the ship stability positive. Of all of the Officers on board, he was the most up to date one, regarding the state of stability, so he knew exactly what he was doing. If he gave that order he knew the desired outcome. In addition, he would know the stability situation undoubtedly calculated by the Yard man on board.

When the starboard list was out of Titanic, the sea water within the hull was level with sea level outside it...there was, therefore, nothing to create a list one way or the other except the distribution of weight to port or starboard of the fore and aft line. The only way she would have listed was by subtraction of weight from one side or re-distibution of weight from one side to the other.

For your information, during a voyage, a ship's trim is altered by an exact amount on a daily basis consequently, your remark concerning changing a list can only refer to a list due to uncontrollable circumstances.

By his action, Wilde was using people as a crude method of "ballast transfer".

You say: "There was no indication that the port list was ever corrected despite any attempt to do so."... I say: nonsense! The evidence is very clear. I refer you to it.
Up until No.6 was launched, 80% of the ship's weight-loss had been from the starboard side, consequently the port side would be where the greatest concentration of boats and potential passengers were located. Hence the port list, causing problems with launching on the starboard side. You will note that serious starboard side launching was halted for 20 minutes until the ship was once again upright. Then, boats 9 and 12 were launched at about the same time. There's your evidence for list control. That was one of the principal jobs of a Chief Officer, as it was in all passenger vessels during an evacuation.

You talk about me being selective? What about the evidence of someone who was actually there, someone you ignore - Lawrence Beesley? He tells you, me and the world that boat 13 lowered to the sea clear of the ship's side...no list.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
What about the evidence of someone who was actually there, someone you ignore - Lawrence Beesley? He tells you, me and the world that boat 13 lowered to the sea clear of the ship's side...no list.
Wow! He never mentioned the word list, did he? You drew that conclusion all by yourself. Let me remind you of what Mr Beesley did say:
"How thankful we were that the sea was calm and the Titanic lay so steadily and quietly as we dropped down her side. We were spared the bumping and grinding against the side which so often accompanies the launching of boats: I do not remember that we even had to fend off our boat while we were trying to get free."
The ship could have been listing slightly to either side about 2 to 3 degrees without a boat bumping or grinding against the side. Just a minute or two later, as boat 15 was lowered, there was evidence that they had to keep the boat off the side at times as it came almost on top of 13 which was swept under 15. That clearly indicates a noticeable port list as boat 15 was being lowered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Senator Smith very clearly led the witness (who did not have an answer) by suggesting an interval - range between Wilde's order and when Lightoller left the ship.
Another example of who is playing games here. Smith didn't lead Lightoller. He asked a simple question: "How long before you left the ship?" Lightoller first said he could not say, and Smith asked "About how long?" which was telling Lightoller that he was not asking for an exact amount. Lightoller then said: "Half an hour or three-quarters of an hour" which then, seeking clarity, Smith asked, "Before you left?" to which Lightoller responded, "Yes." This time frame appears to fit what we can ascertain from other eyewitnesses as to when the ship was noticeably listing to port. Sorry if what Lightoller said in America doesn't fit your concept of what took place that night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Wow! He never mentioned the word list, did he? You drew that conclusion all by yourself. Let me remind you of what Mr Beesley did say:

The ship could have been listing slightly to either side about 2 to 3 degrees without a boat bumping or grinding against the side. Just a minute or two later, as boat 15 was lowered, there was evidence that they had to keep the boat off the side at times as it came almost on top of 13 which was swept under 15. That clearly indicates a noticeable port list as boat 15 was being lowered.
Sam, you should also look at your own post in which you show Titanic with a port list and a boat scraping down the starboard side.
Then ask yourself why, if they were so close due to a port list - they needed oars to push the bow off from the side. after the forward falls were cut, and why, the boat did not fill with water from the discharge.
I'll tell you.
When 13 was getting near the discharge, they pushed the boat off using oars so that she did not fill with discharge water.
Think how far out they would have to push a heavy boat full of people from this:
hwerq1b3ojs31.jpg


PS a list had nothing to do with 15 getting over 13 - that was the fault of jammed falls which had to be cut, combined with the ship being down by the head. You're the genius - work it out for yourself, ;)
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,546
1,835
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Sam, you should also look at your own post in which you show Titanic with a port list and a boat scraping down the starboard side.
You must be really loosing it these days Jim. If you look at my post (#62 above) the boat shown is coming down on a vertical line. The orange colored vertical line I show is a vertical line extending from the edge of A deck straight down to the water. The waterline is the orange colored horizontal line. The ship is listing over to port around 2-2.5°. (The original waterline is shown in blue.) The outlines of the ship are all in white. The purpose of the diagram was to show that a boat on the starboard side would NOT scrape along the side on the way down with the ship listing as much as 2° to port.
PS a list had nothing to do with 15 getting over 13
I agree. But again you missed the point here. The point of 15 coming down over 13 shows that the two boats were launched within minutes of each other. And as 15 was coming down they had to push that boat off the side at times, suggesting that the list was still shifting further over to port, perhaps 3° or more.
Senator SMITH.
That would be 45 minutes after the impact?
Apples and oranges Jim. You are mixing things up again. That question from Smith you just quotes was about when the order to fill the boats with women and children was given. It had nothing to do with when Wilde order people over to the starboard side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You must be really loosing it these days Jim. If you look at my post (#62 above) the boat shown is coming down on a vertical line. The orange colored vertical line I show is a vertical line extending from the edge of A deck straight down to the water. The waterline is the orange colored horizontal line. The ship is listing over to port around 2-2.5°. (The original waterline is shown in blue.) The outlines of the ship are all in white. The purpose of the diagram was to show that a boat on the starboard side would NOT scrape along the side on the way down with the ship listing as much as 2° to port.

I agree. But again you missed the point here. The point of 15 coming down over 13 shows that the two boats were launched within minutes of each other. And as 15 was coming down they had to push that boat off the side at times, suggesting that the list was still shifting further over to port, perhaps 3° or more.

Apples and oranges Jim. You are mixing things up again. That question from Smith you just quotes was about when the order to fill the boats with women and children was given. It had nothing to do with when Wilde order people over to the starboard side.
Losing nothing, Sam.

Your corrected sketch in post No. 62 shows a lifeboat with its gunwhale hard-up against the ship's side. It makes no allowance for tumble-home and ignores the fact that such a situation would result in No.13 filling with water from the overboard discharge.

Cut the waffle. This lad was actually there and left in Boat 15:
"3rd Class Steward John Hart, Examined by Mr. HOLMES.
10261. At the time your boat [No.15] was lowered, was the ship badly down by the head?
- Yes.
10262. Had she a list?
- Not that I noticed. I noticed she was badly down by the head.

10263. You did not notice any list either way?
- No."
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
As Ioannis quoted from Fireman W. H. Taylor, who left in boat 15: "I could not see, because we kept the boat off the ship, to keep from rubbing down her side."
But he's only a fireman. What does he know?
Have a nice weekend,
Ioannis also quoted in his post No.63:
"As a note boat No. 15 was hold against the ship during loading by the crew as stated by Nichols and this might have taken place at Nos. 11 and 13 too.
"From Nichols at No. 15: "One woman stepped up to the rail against which we holding the boat, looked into it and then stepped back as though she didn’t like it."

If that was true, you only hold a boat against the side if it is danger of swing out from it. If that was the case, then at that time Titanic was listed toward the boat - to starboard, not port. Remember Lightoller's coaling wire?

Forget about Brownie-points, Sam and simply answer the following questions:
What caused Titanic to list to starboard then to come upright, then to port ... then upright and finally to port?
What would cause a list at the time 13 and 15 were being launched?

Oh, and by the way, in your post No. 62, you show the waterline half way up G Deck. In fact, it was probably much lower than that since at that time, Titanic was well tipped by the head. In addition, at a 2 degree list, the port gunwale of boat 15 would have started to contact the side, much earlier than shown. But nowhere near Deck C which Taylor was talking about.
In any case, the moment the boat was suspended by one set of falls. she would rotate around the remaining set due to the wash from the overflow. Think about it. Thwe forward fall was gone the stern gets pushed out by the discharge the bow swings back toward the hull, Barratt (who this is about) used oars to push the boat off.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,684
1,406
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Not where 13 and 15 were. See post #28.
Have a nice weekend.
Nice swerve, Sam. Why not answer the questions?

By the way, this is what QM Rowe had to say about lists."She did not list, so far as I know,until the time when my boat was lowered. Then she listed to port. She listed about 5 or 6 degrees."
He obviously did not notice the initial list