There is a problem with boiler room #6. According to naval architect Wilding, Titanic would have floated if that comprtment had been kept from filling to the top of bulkhead D. But, Titanic did sink. That raised the question, "Why?" Barrett stepped forward with his spine-tingling story of ducking for his life into boiler room #5 as the ocean cascaded into #6. With that testimony, Titanic became the unfloatable ship. This new myth replaced the old unsinkable one.
The press of 1912 was satisfied. The two inquiries were satisfied.
Walter Lord was satisfied, James Cameron was satisfied. And the list goes on.... But, was Barrett correct in what he said during both of the inquiries? Maybe not.
Fireman Beauchamp was cast into the slack pile of history because his testimony did not line up with the myth created by Barrett. Whilst Barrett said boiler room #6 opened to the sea and flooded so rapidly he had to escape for his life, Beauchamp said things remained pretty much as the were before the accident. There was no rush to escape. Instead, his leading stoker issued commands about closing dampers and, eventually raking out fires. The two men's description of the early moments are virtually identical. They must have been in the same compartment. And, the one Beauchamp tended was boiler room #6. The one where Barrett was leading stoker was boiler room #6. Perforce, they were in #6.
Where was Barrett's flooding? It was not in #6. But, the auxiliary bunker beneath hold #3 would have received rapid flooding. We know this from a variety of survivor memories of water rising in the mail room and post office. If Barrett had been in the bunker beneath hold #3, he would have experienced a torrent of water and found himself in need of a hasty exit. The closing watertight door leading aft was his primary opportunity for survival. It led from the hold to the fifth compartment aft from the bow which we call boiler room #6.
I agree with Rob that Beauchamp probably had some time distortion in his memories. But, what he said happened in #6 matches events elsewhere in the ship, events recorded by other people who were not overcome by even the slightest fear. Consider the number of people who noticed steam blowing off from funnel #1 about 20 minutes after impact on the iceberg. That tallies very nicely with the time when Beauchamp and his fellow black gang members were trooping up the ladder to Scotland Road on E deck. Because of this second source corroboration of Beauchamp it's reasonably safe to say that the water was just over the stoker plates in boiler room #6 some 20 minutes after impact on the berg.
Dumping the steam from #6 was a wise safety move. No sense having it in the boilers of a compartment that was both abandoned and taking on water. Just who issued the order, "That will do," is hard to say. It must have come from an officer, possibly Shepherd. We know that Barrett and Beauchamp went different ways after that -- Barrett to boiler room #5 and Beauchamp to Scotland Road.
While it would have been standard practice to link boilers in #5 and #6, I never thought that would pull water out of one if the steam was dumped from the other. It's in Barrett's testimony, however. If he was correct, then it suggests a bit of confusion in operation of the steam plant in the damaged area of the ship. Hmmm... Wonder where that path might lead?
Barrett's testimony indicates the fires in #5 dampered off if not "banked." This makes sense as those boilers might have been needed if the ship ever got underway again. Or, they were also probably the main source of power for the bilge pumps in boiler room #5. But, after the blackout Barrett said the sight glass showing boiler water was dry. That's bad. If the doctor pump got a notion to send feed water into a dry boiler, the seam would expand more than 1,000 times and...well...boom! Although the situation was quickly solved, that the problem arose in the first place is another indicator of confusion in the boiler rooms.
-- David G. Brown
