Boat deck resurfacing


Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
734
208
England
Unfortunately, we have to rely on crew testimony regarding the internal flooding levels as these are the only sources we have for the later internal flooding once the passengers had evacuated from the forward areas.

I've seen David G Brown's ideas and corresponded with him in the past regarding them.

I think occam's razor applies particularly in this situation whereby in order for an explanataion to be given for a hypothesis to be true there is a requirement to make the fewest possible assumptions.

Anyhow, it's all intersting food for thought.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
We therefore know that at some point after this the port list begins to become more pronounced since we know that there was a strong port list by the time boats 13 and 15 were being launched.

Actually there was no port list when No. 13 was lowered. Barrett mentioned even a starboard list and several survivors who got into Nos. 11 & 13 mentioned a previous starboard list. The port list is first mentioned during the loading of No. 15. If my memory is right it was only one person who stated it. However when the lowering of No. 15 started the there was definitely a port list.

Looks like Aaron is back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
630
188
20
I think that is why the officers were not permitted to say the ship had broken while the survivors (some in their lifeboats) said she did break before she sank.

Lightoller was not in a good position to see the break. He would have been looking aft from around where the first funnel had been. The best view for a break would be either directly from the starboard or port side of the ship - not from the front or back. And as you mentioned, smoke and sparks did not help his view. He mentioned the stern achieving an angle “of about 60°” and he then heard ‘a rumbling roar’ which was when the lights went out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
734
208
England
Hi Ioannis, thanks for the correction, I thought it was both 13 and 15 but know you've looked into this in great detail.

When not linked to lifeboat launching sequences, I have the order of testimony for the flooding on E Deck as:

Wheat - Water on the starboard side first class passageway running down on to F deck at the foot of the grand staircase. Dry on Scotland Road indicating a starboard list.

Barrett - Escaping from Boiler Room 5 - Some water sited forward on E Deck Scotland Road.

Steward Johnson - Water on Scotland Road almost level with the first class companion way.

Steward Ray - Forward end of e-deck underwater both sides and water level with the emergency door on Scotland road and on the first class passageway both sides. Thus indicating the ship is on an even keel but trimmed downwards at the head.

Would this be a reasonable assumption to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
When not linked to lifeboat launching sequences, I have the order of testimony for the flooding on E Deck as:

Wheat - Water on the starboard side first class passageway running down on to F deck at the foot of the grand staircase. Dry on Scotland Road indicating a starboard list.

Barrett - Escaping from Boiler Room 5 - Some water sited forward on E Deck Scotland Road.

Steward Johnson - Water on Scotland Road almost level with the first class companion way.

Steward Ray - Forward end of e-deck underwater both sides and water level with the emergency door on Scotland road and on the first class passageway both sides. Thus indicating the ship is on an even keel but trimmed downwards at the head.

Would this be a reasonable assumption to you?

Yes. I would need to look to my notes but in general I agree.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
I think it was Beauchamp who mentioned that he tried to get forward on E Deck towards the quarters of fireman but could not get far as it was already flooded and then went up on deck (he then helped to load No. 13). He did not gave any details only that E Deck was flooded.
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
734
208
England
Interesting, I need to look at Beauchamp again because I've missed that. I've been trying to build up a picture in my own mind, of the internal flooding and have tried to contact Paul Lee and am currently waiting a response to clarify a few details in his "below decks" article on his website. I've purchased a copy of his new book hoping for a few new scraps of information.

I know a lot of ground has already been covered in this area but it's something I've always found interesting.

Thanks.

Rob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
J

Jaden Maxwell

Guest
Actually there was no port list when No. 13 was lowered. Barrett mentioned even a starboard list and several survivors who got into Nos. 11 & 13 mentioned a previous starboard list. The port list is first mentioned during the loading of No. 15. If my memory is right it was only one person who stated it. However when the lowering of No. 15 started the there was definitely a port list.

Looks like Aaron is back.

If you think I am Aaron2016 because I agree with his posts then you are wrong unless you are just making a joke of some kind because I agree with him.
 
J

Jaden Maxwell

Guest
Lightoller was not in a good position to see the break. He would have been looking aft from around where the first funnel had been. The best view for a break would be either directly from the starboard or port side of the ship - not from the front or back. And as you mentioned, smoke and sparks did not help his view. He mentioned the stern achieving an angle “of about 60°” and he then heard ‘a rumbling roar’ which was when the lights went out.

I was thinking of the other officers who said the Titanic did not break but the passengers or crew in the lifeboats they shared with said the Titanic did break. Either the officers were not looking or they were keeping quiet about it because of orders given to them by a higher official. Frederick Fleet spoke at the Inquiry and was very clear that he rang the telephone and received a reply from the officer on the bridge, but he told Major Peuchen whilst in a lifeboat that he did not receive any reply. Fleet should have been cross-examined about that when he was later questioned at the British Inquiry. I think they chose not to cross-examine him about that important detail because that would just damage the company's reputation. Officers who do not answer phones doesn't sound reassuring in the press. I speculate that there were other cover ups that were made to hide all the blunders that were made during the voyage and the evacuation.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
48
Halifax, Nova Scotia
There were people on the boat deck on the starboard side who felt the deck rising up at the same time the people in the lifeboats on the port side saw the bow rising up. Two sides of the bow rising up. One of the survivors that seems to be largely ignored is Cecil Fitzpatrick. I found his account on this message board. He paints an image in my mind of the bow breaking and lurching down and then righting itself and tipping back up again and as he held onto the lifeboat davit he looked down at the mass of struggling people in the water who were washed forward. I presume the 2nd funnel fell when the ship broke and the wave swept those people forwards and over the bridge as it dipped down for a second and scooped those people onto the forecastle as the bow tipped back up.



Cecil Fitzpatrick's account
View attachment 49042

Perhaps. But the resurfacing of the bow was probably the bow violently listing on her sides after she twisted and broke free from the stern (as I have shown previously). Jack Thayer said that the Titanic corrected her port list before plunging down to an angle of 30 degrees and broke in two. Maybe the passengers confused the timing of events and thought both had happened when in fact one thing happened before the other. It's very possible.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
48
Halifax, Nova Scotia
There was so much steam and sparks flying about the place that I question if the boilers really were cold.

I agree. If my memory serves me correctly, smoke was still emitted from the #3 funnel when the Titanic broke. This implies that some of the boilers in boiler room #2 were still lit when she sank (and probably imploded after the ship disappeared).
 

Thomas C.

Member
Sep 6, 2017
90
29
48
I want to mention here one thing. I discovered it about a year ago, and I knew it is something important. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Lightoller testimony confirms v break or rather strange ship movements.

If I remember correctly, Lightoller walked into the water on the roof of the bridge. Just in front of the 1st funnel. Then he was sucked into the vent. After he freed himself from it, he saw a crowsn nest still above the water.

The thing is, there is no way that crows nest was still above the water with the ship at the angle of 15 or even 10 degrees.

Situation with 10 degress tilt by the bow:
10degrees.png


If the vent was under water and the crows nest was still visible above it, then the ship tilt couldn't be greater than 4 degrees.

Situation with 3 degress tilt by the bow:
3degrees.png


For now the only explanation for me is that the ship broke a few moment earlier, when Lightoller was under water. I don't know exactly for what break theory this scenerio fits the best, but I was thinking about v break theory. What do you think about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
48
Halifax, Nova Scotia
I want to mention here one thing. I discovered it about a year ago, and I knew it is something important. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Lightoller testimony confirms v break or rather strange ship movements.

If I remember correctly, Lightoller walked into the water on the roof of the bridge. Just in front of the 1st funnel. Then he was sucked into the vent. After he freed himself from it, he saw a crowsn nest still above the water.

The thing is, there is no way that crows nest was still above the water with the ship at the angle of 15 or even 10 degrees.

Situation with 10 degress tilt by the bow:
View attachment 49065

If the vent was under water and the crows nest was still visible above it, then the ship tilt couldn't be greater than 4 degrees.

Situation with 3 degress tilt by the bow:
View attachment 49066

For now the only explanation for me is that the ship broke a few moment earlier, when Lightoller was under water. I don't know exactly for what break theory this scenerio fits the best, but I was thinking about v break theory. What do you think about that?

Seems plausible. I believe once the bow detached from the stern (when the bridge was still mostly above water) the bow would lurch forward and the sea would quickly flood the back part of the bow section (amidships) and pull the back down with the rest of the superstructure submerged under the sea... That is assuming the front part of the bow wasn't completely filled with water at this point.
 
Last edited:
J

Jaden Maxwell

Guest
I want to mention here one thing. I discovered it about a year ago, and I knew it is something important. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Lightoller testimony confirms v break or rather strange ship movements.

If I remember correctly, Lightoller walked into the water on the roof of the bridge. Just in front of the 1st funnel. Then he was sucked into the vent. After he freed himself from it, he saw a crowsn nest still above the water.

The thing is, there is no way that crows nest was still above the water with the ship at the angle of 15 or even 10 degrees.

Situation with 10 degress tilt by the bow:
View attachment 49065

If the vent was under water and the crows nest was still visible above it, then the ship tilt couldn't be greater than 4 degrees.

Situation with 3 degress tilt by the bow:
View attachment 49066

For now the only explanation for me is that the ship broke a few moment earlier, when Lightoller was under water. I don't know exactly for what break theory this scenerio fits the best, but I was thinking about v break theory. What do you think about that?


You need to show the bow listing heavily to port or starboard. That would lower the crows nest much closer to the water I think it was Colonel Gracie who wrote in his book about the ship rolling on its side to such a degree that he thought the ship was going to capsize. That would make the crows nest very close to the water with a small trim down at the bow.



crowsnest.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
48
Halifax, Nova Scotia
You need to show the bow listing heavily to port or starboard. That would lower the crows nest much closer to the water I think it was Colonel Gracie who wrote in his book about the ship rolling on its side to such a degree that he thought the ship was going to capsize. That would make the crows nest very close to the water with a small trim down at the bow.



View attachment 49067

Makes perfect sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Jack Thayer also mentioned that the port list was so great that it seems that she would turn over. But then "she straightened up on an even keel".

Not sure why always the part about the port list is used but the latter part left out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Thomas C.

Member
Sep 6, 2017
90
29
48
Your trim looks more close to 15° or above it. You might want to have a look here for a trim of 10°.

It is 10° trim. I just raise the waterline a little higher to cover the vent. But I can edit it so it will be in agreement with Sam's article.

trimdefference.png


The blue line is 10° trim angle from Sam's article. The red line is the waterline that I meant in # 93.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads