Brent Holt
Member
The average ship continued to be built to a minimum standard of 2 compartments flooded before a ship would sink. That continues today.
Boiler rooms during sinking
- Thread starter Chung Rex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boiler rooms boilers sinking
Pete Poston
Member
Mr. Halpern,
Could you please tell me where I can find the Hackett and Bedford work you speak of?
B-rad
Member
I may be missing something, but I cannot find the testimony from Barrett in which he says boiler room 5 flooded at 1:10. If someone can point it out that would be very helpful. I estimated all the other times given: 10 min -in boiler room 5 before going back to boiler room 6-, 10 min -lights are out-, 20 min -drawing fires-, 15 min -after Shepard broke leg and saw flooding-. This equals 55 minutes. Obviously stuff takes time, and there are things happening between all these events, so I know 55min is not set in concrete.
Christophe Puttemans
Member
I have been wondering about this for quite a while, and now I think is a good moment to ask this question. It might be a clue to what happened when the final BR's flooded, in the late stages of the sinking.
When suction pulled officer Lightoller against some ventilators of funnel 1 deep below the surface, a blast of hot air suddenly came out of the vents, and that blast blew him back to the surface, saving his life. That blast must have come from deep inside the ship, maybe from BR #1, 2 or 3, where the fires in the boilers weren't extinguished and now that the BR was flooding, the icy water hit the hot coal in the boiler, creating a thermal explosion?
When suction pulled officer Lightoller against some ventilators of funnel 1 deep below the surface, a blast of hot air suddenly came out of the vents, and that blast blew him back to the surface, saving his life. That blast must have come from deep inside the ship, maybe from BR #1, 2 or 3, where the fires in the boilers weren't extinguished and now that the BR was flooding, the icy water hit the hot coal in the boiler, creating a thermal explosion?
B-rad
Member
Answered my own question, via 'On the Sea of Glass'; Barrett says it in Q2349. Must have got glazy eyes reading over the testimony. lol
Puttemans: Wouldn't Lightoller's life saving blast have had to come from boiler room 6 or 5, if it had come from the boilers? If my memory serves me right, both of these room would've been almost completely flooded once the trim reach about 7 degrees. I would imagine that this would've been enough time for any extra heat, or what have you, to have been extinguished by the sea. However, Beauchamp claims that before leaving boiler room 6, they were told, "That will do." So who knows how well the fires in boiler room 6 were actually drawn. Perhaps I am not the one who should be attempting to answer your question...
My question (now that I answered my Barrett question), is could the flooding from boiler room 5 have been related to the flooding in boiler room 4?
We know that Barrett claims that boiler room 5 started flooding at 1:10 (this of course does not include the flooding in the bunker). Barrett escaped, leaving Harvey and the injured Shepard (and probably Wilson) in the flooding boiler room.
In the Daily Mail, April 29th, It reads:
Leading Stoker Threlfall states that after the collision his stokehold, No. 4, was dry. “The fires were burning as usual.” The watertight doors were closed, but they were opened to bring through an engineer with a broken leg, and were closed after him again. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 stokeholds were also dry. Up to shortly before 2 a.m. “everything was going on just as usual below; the lights were burning and all pumps were working as if nothing had happened.”
If Shepard, and who ever else was in boiler room 5, had opened the door between boiler room 5 & 4, this would allow water into boiler room 4. These doors were heavy and both Dillion and Scott make reference that it takes quite a lot of man power to open these doors. Dillion apparently did not have enough man power originally, to open the door all the way between boiler room 1 and the reciprocating engine room, which is why they only lifted it high enough to slip under, though later this door appears to have been lifted higher, as Olliver states to have seen someone walk through it.
So lets say that the door was hard to lift, then water would gradually creep into 4, as the door was being lifted. This would have taken a few minutes, which could have led to the water noticed by Dillion in boiler room 4 around 1:15 - 1:20ish. First it would appear 'damp', as water slowly came trough.
Threfall claims in all his reports, that boiler room 4 remained unflooded and dry up to the time he was ordered to leave at 1:20. Perhaps seeing the door being lifted and noticing that water was not flooding, but was being allowed into boiler room 4 temporally, to allow Shepard through, Threfall did not consider this actual 'flooding', and thus makes his statement, 'there wasn't a drop of water in our section, but I believe that some of the others were flooded.' (Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912)
Puttemans: Wouldn't Lightoller's life saving blast have had to come from boiler room 6 or 5, if it had come from the boilers? If my memory serves me right, both of these room would've been almost completely flooded once the trim reach about 7 degrees. I would imagine that this would've been enough time for any extra heat, or what have you, to have been extinguished by the sea. However, Beauchamp claims that before leaving boiler room 6, they were told, "That will do." So who knows how well the fires in boiler room 6 were actually drawn. Perhaps I am not the one who should be attempting to answer your question...
My question (now that I answered my Barrett question), is could the flooding from boiler room 5 have been related to the flooding in boiler room 4?
We know that Barrett claims that boiler room 5 started flooding at 1:10 (this of course does not include the flooding in the bunker). Barrett escaped, leaving Harvey and the injured Shepard (and probably Wilson) in the flooding boiler room.
In the Daily Mail, April 29th, It reads:
Leading Stoker Threlfall states that after the collision his stokehold, No. 4, was dry. “The fires were burning as usual.” The watertight doors were closed, but they were opened to bring through an engineer with a broken leg, and were closed after him again. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 stokeholds were also dry. Up to shortly before 2 a.m. “everything was going on just as usual below; the lights were burning and all pumps were working as if nothing had happened.”
If Shepard, and who ever else was in boiler room 5, had opened the door between boiler room 5 & 4, this would allow water into boiler room 4. These doors were heavy and both Dillion and Scott make reference that it takes quite a lot of man power to open these doors. Dillion apparently did not have enough man power originally, to open the door all the way between boiler room 1 and the reciprocating engine room, which is why they only lifted it high enough to slip under, though later this door appears to have been lifted higher, as Olliver states to have seen someone walk through it.
So lets say that the door was hard to lift, then water would gradually creep into 4, as the door was being lifted. This would have taken a few minutes, which could have led to the water noticed by Dillion in boiler room 4 around 1:15 - 1:20ish. First it would appear 'damp', as water slowly came trough.
Threfall claims in all his reports, that boiler room 4 remained unflooded and dry up to the time he was ordered to leave at 1:20. Perhaps seeing the door being lifted and noticing that water was not flooding, but was being allowed into boiler room 4 temporally, to allow Shepard through, Threfall did not consider this actual 'flooding', and thus makes his statement, 'there wasn't a drop of water in our section, but I believe that some of the others were flooded.' (Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912)
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
No, they were two separate events.
The coal bunker W in Boiler Room No. 5 was damaged by the iceberg, taking on water. Close to 1:10 a.m. it was most likely the coal bunker door which gave way. The amount of water was not enough to really "flood" the complete BR 5 deep enough.
Boiler Room No. 4 seems to have possibly received also a damage by the iceberg. The engineers were working on the pumps, while the water was under the plates. The water started to rose over the stock hold plates as mentioned by Cavell about 1:20 a.m. when the order was given to draw the fires and everyone was ordered up.
Regarding Threllfal, I am not sure if he actually was in Boiler Room No. 3 or if he was in Boiler Room No. 4. There were several conflicting accounts given by him (there are also 2 newspaper accounts of him where he claimed to have been on the ship until the end) and also the time he was ordered up changed in each one. If he really means stoke hold No. 4 this would be Boiler Room No. 3.
Boiler Room No. 1 was not used. The "air" Lightoller talked about could have not come from any of the aft boiler rooms. By the time the fires in the boilers of BR 6 would have been already out. It could have been air trapped in the fan trunk which "blow up" Lightoller (if his story is true).
David G. Brown
RIP
Lightoller's story about being sucked down and blown upward not once, but twice is quite a...well, charitably...a sea story. It may have happened, but I'm skeptical of two back-to-back miracles. Still, it's the sort of story than nobody wants to let the facts get in the way...
As I've written on various threads of this forum, the evidence is that no flooding took place in boiler room #5 until Barrett saw a "rush" of water between the boilers and exited the compartment onto Scotland Road.
The bunkers were neither air nor watertight. There had to be a flow of air upward through each bunker to carry "fire damp" (methane gas) produced by coal out through the boiler room uptake. The need for this ventilation was to prevent boiler fires from a buildup of methane. We can find proof that the bunkers were not watertight at the tank top level in the testimony of Stoker Beauchamps. He tended the after furnaces on the starboard side of boiler room #6. For nearly a half hour after impact he saw no water until it started welling up and out of the bunker behind him. For what Beauchamps said to have been true, the water could only have come upward from the space beneath his feet on the stoker plates. In other words, the bunker was not watertight below the stoker plates as would be expected if designers had included the proper ventilation for the bunker. Unless there was a major change in the design of bunkers in boiler room #5 (and one contrary to safe marine engineering practices), then water could not have been "pent up" in bunker W as is so often claimed.
There is something else to consider. Both leading stoker Barrett and stoker Beauchamps claimed to be standing in nearly the same spot when the ship struck on the iceberg -- the after starboard side of boiler room #6. One man said the side gave way and water cascaded in to such an extent that he risked being trapped beneath a closing watertight door when he ducked into the next compartment aft. The other man hear "a noise like thunder," but saw no water gushing into boiler room #6. This second man stayed at his post until his furnaces were raked out and the order was passed to climb out of the compartment. Obviously, Barrett is the one who saw the side open while Beauchamps stayed put and continued working in the dry. I find Beauchamps' testimony more believable because it matches events noted other places in the ship, particularly on deck. The venting began about 20 minutes after impact on the berg, which is just when raking the furnaces of boiler room #6 was completed. That would have been the moment a prudent engineer would have "dumped" the steam from the boilers. Of course, the roar of steam from funnel #1 confirmed this was done.
So, if Beauchamps told the truth, what about Barrett? He claims to have issued several commands to his stokers about going to their posts, closing the dampers, etc. Curiously, Barrett was the immediate superior of Beauchamps who said he heard his leading stoker issue those same commands. Both men used virtually the same words about what Barrett ordered. The problem is that if the leading stoker had gone into boiler room #5, then he would have been shouting through a steel bulkhead and closed steel watertight door. Doubtful his voice could have been heard by Beauchamps. This means that Barrett and Beauchamps must have been in the same compartment -- boiler room #6. So much for Barrett's testimony about ducking into boiler room #5. His own words prove that's not where he went. Barrett may well have ducked under a closing watertight door, but not the on between boiler rooms #6 and #5.
More proof that no water was leaking into boiler room #5 comes from the actions of Barrett and engineer Shepard. Both men were in #5 when the engineer ordered the leading stoker to open a manhole. Barrett believed this was to get at valves or plumbing for some reason (presumably to de-water the ship). Opening that manhole would have been a fool's errand if water had been entering boiler room #5. Nobody could have worked for long beneath the stoker plates in freezing water. But, if that space was still dry, then whatever work that needed doing could have been accomplished quite easily.
We know from two survivors that water did enter boiler room #4 behind #5. It must have come in at a relatively slow rate, but it did eventually come over the stoker plates before the compartment was abandoned. Thus, although we have eyewitness accounts of flooding in boiler rooms #4 and #6, there is no such account of flooding and the actions of the men working in #5 do not reflect flooding in that compartment until Barrett saw that "rush" of water. He skedaddled onto Scotland Road, but noted that no water was coming over top of the bulkhead between boiler rooms #5 and #6.
-- David G. Brown
As I've written on various threads of this forum, the evidence is that no flooding took place in boiler room #5 until Barrett saw a "rush" of water between the boilers and exited the compartment onto Scotland Road.
The bunkers were neither air nor watertight. There had to be a flow of air upward through each bunker to carry "fire damp" (methane gas) produced by coal out through the boiler room uptake. The need for this ventilation was to prevent boiler fires from a buildup of methane. We can find proof that the bunkers were not watertight at the tank top level in the testimony of Stoker Beauchamps. He tended the after furnaces on the starboard side of boiler room #6. For nearly a half hour after impact he saw no water until it started welling up and out of the bunker behind him. For what Beauchamps said to have been true, the water could only have come upward from the space beneath his feet on the stoker plates. In other words, the bunker was not watertight below the stoker plates as would be expected if designers had included the proper ventilation for the bunker. Unless there was a major change in the design of bunkers in boiler room #5 (and one contrary to safe marine engineering practices), then water could not have been "pent up" in bunker W as is so often claimed.
There is something else to consider. Both leading stoker Barrett and stoker Beauchamps claimed to be standing in nearly the same spot when the ship struck on the iceberg -- the after starboard side of boiler room #6. One man said the side gave way and water cascaded in to such an extent that he risked being trapped beneath a closing watertight door when he ducked into the next compartment aft. The other man hear "a noise like thunder," but saw no water gushing into boiler room #6. This second man stayed at his post until his furnaces were raked out and the order was passed to climb out of the compartment. Obviously, Barrett is the one who saw the side open while Beauchamps stayed put and continued working in the dry. I find Beauchamps' testimony more believable because it matches events noted other places in the ship, particularly on deck. The venting began about 20 minutes after impact on the berg, which is just when raking the furnaces of boiler room #6 was completed. That would have been the moment a prudent engineer would have "dumped" the steam from the boilers. Of course, the roar of steam from funnel #1 confirmed this was done.
So, if Beauchamps told the truth, what about Barrett? He claims to have issued several commands to his stokers about going to their posts, closing the dampers, etc. Curiously, Barrett was the immediate superior of Beauchamps who said he heard his leading stoker issue those same commands. Both men used virtually the same words about what Barrett ordered. The problem is that if the leading stoker had gone into boiler room #5, then he would have been shouting through a steel bulkhead and closed steel watertight door. Doubtful his voice could have been heard by Beauchamps. This means that Barrett and Beauchamps must have been in the same compartment -- boiler room #6. So much for Barrett's testimony about ducking into boiler room #5. His own words prove that's not where he went. Barrett may well have ducked under a closing watertight door, but not the on between boiler rooms #6 and #5.
More proof that no water was leaking into boiler room #5 comes from the actions of Barrett and engineer Shepard. Both men were in #5 when the engineer ordered the leading stoker to open a manhole. Barrett believed this was to get at valves or plumbing for some reason (presumably to de-water the ship). Opening that manhole would have been a fool's errand if water had been entering boiler room #5. Nobody could have worked for long beneath the stoker plates in freezing water. But, if that space was still dry, then whatever work that needed doing could have been accomplished quite easily.
We know from two survivors that water did enter boiler room #4 behind #5. It must have come in at a relatively slow rate, but it did eventually come over the stoker plates before the compartment was abandoned. Thus, although we have eyewitness accounts of flooding in boiler rooms #4 and #6, there is no such account of flooding and the actions of the men working in #5 do not reflect flooding in that compartment until Barrett saw that "rush" of water. He skedaddled onto Scotland Road, but noted that no water was coming over top of the bulkhead between boiler rooms #5 and #6.
-- David G. Brown
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
As I see I forget that you can choose between the facts and David G. Brown's world of fantasy regarding boiler room No. 5.
B-rad
Member
David:
I am actually reading your book, 'Titanic Myths, Titanic Truths', as we speak. (just got it in the mail) On page 100.
I am actually reading your book, 'Titanic Myths, Titanic Truths', as we speak. (just got it in the mail) On page 100.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
Here one example:
As usual, Mr. Brown did not come up with any evidence, instead he try to show with his own words what has happened according to his opinion and let it sound like a fact.
So what did Barrett (who must have been a real idiot standing behind a closed watertight door shouting commands) orders where of which Mr. Brown tell us were the same Beauchamp told?
Barrett at the British Inquiry
1860. Now just tell us what happened that you noticed? - There is like a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop; a white light for full speed, and, I think it is a blue light for slow. This red light came up. I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut all dampers."
Beauchamp at the British Inquiry
665. Did the engineer in your section give you any order? - Yes; the engineer and the leading stoker shouted together - they said, "Shut the dampers."
666. Did you shut the dampers? - Yes, immediately; "shut everything up."
667. Was anything done to the watertight doors after that time? - Yes, immediately the telegraph rang "off" and the order was given to shut up everything the watertight doors dropped.
668. The watertight doors dropped? - Yes.
Beauchamp who claimed to have remained in BR 6 while others leaving now reported about other commands. Did they came from Barrett? NO! There is no word who gave the order.
675. When you had drawn the fires what did you do next? - Waited till everything was shut down and an order was given. Someone shouted "that will do,"(...)
As we see he said someone and not as previously "leading stoker"!
And as we are about Beauchamp he too mentioned water coming from the coal bunker.
673a. (Mr. Raymond Asquith.) You mean it was coming through the floor? - Yes, coming through the bunker door and over the plates.
674. Through the bunker door? - Yes, coming through the bunker like.
In Boiler Room No. 5 there was also fireman Kemish who did confirm Barrett's version and there is no one who confirms Beauchamp surprising version of drawing the fires in Boiler Room No. 6. And yet we have also another survivor confirming what Barrett stated which is Leading Stoker Hendrickson.
About 10 - 15 Minutes after the collision, the lights in all boiler rooms went out leaving them in darkness. Several were send aft to the engine room to bring lamps. Barrett went up the escape ladder to E Deck and gave that order to some stokers there. While this is mentioned by others too it seems that Beauchamp did not took any notice and was working in a well lit Boiler Room No. 6.
Leading Stoker Hendrickson was one of them who went for a lamp and returned.
Hendrickson at the British Inquiry
4903. When you got the lamps did you go back with them?- I got all the lamps I could get that were ready. I got five, and left four or five men there to get more if they could. Then I came back by the engine room, went along and down the escape to go to No. 6 section. When I got down there I found I could not get any further, the water was up too high; so I came back by the escape again and went to No. 5 section.
So putting a few points together, Mr. Brown want to make us believe that Beauchamp is the TOP eyewitness as his evidence fit with his facts. Barrett must have been a complete fool as
1. He did not know where he was
2. He did not went there where he said
3. He said things which are not true
Barrett mentioned how he got about 10 Minutes after the collision back into No. 6 Boiler Room finding the water there too high. When he went back into No. 5 boiler room the lights went out. And surprisingly his version is confirmed by others as Hendrickson who found the water too high in Boiler Room No. 6.
As usual, Mr. Brown did not come up with any evidence, instead he try to show with his own words what has happened according to his opinion and let it sound like a fact.
So what did Barrett (who must have been a real idiot standing behind a closed watertight door shouting commands) orders where of which Mr. Brown tell us were the same Beauchamp told?
Barrett at the British Inquiry
1860. Now just tell us what happened that you noticed? - There is like a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop; a white light for full speed, and, I think it is a blue light for slow. This red light came up. I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut all dampers."
Beauchamp at the British Inquiry
665. Did the engineer in your section give you any order? - Yes; the engineer and the leading stoker shouted together - they said, "Shut the dampers."
666. Did you shut the dampers? - Yes, immediately; "shut everything up."
667. Was anything done to the watertight doors after that time? - Yes, immediately the telegraph rang "off" and the order was given to shut up everything the watertight doors dropped.
668. The watertight doors dropped? - Yes.
Beauchamp who claimed to have remained in BR 6 while others leaving now reported about other commands. Did they came from Barrett? NO! There is no word who gave the order.
675. When you had drawn the fires what did you do next? - Waited till everything was shut down and an order was given. Someone shouted "that will do,"(...)
As we see he said someone and not as previously "leading stoker"!
And as we are about Beauchamp he too mentioned water coming from the coal bunker.
673a. (Mr. Raymond Asquith.) You mean it was coming through the floor? - Yes, coming through the bunker door and over the plates.
674. Through the bunker door? - Yes, coming through the bunker like.
In Boiler Room No. 5 there was also fireman Kemish who did confirm Barrett's version and there is no one who confirms Beauchamp surprising version of drawing the fires in Boiler Room No. 6. And yet we have also another survivor confirming what Barrett stated which is Leading Stoker Hendrickson.
About 10 - 15 Minutes after the collision, the lights in all boiler rooms went out leaving them in darkness. Several were send aft to the engine room to bring lamps. Barrett went up the escape ladder to E Deck and gave that order to some stokers there. While this is mentioned by others too it seems that Beauchamp did not took any notice and was working in a well lit Boiler Room No. 6.
Leading Stoker Hendrickson was one of them who went for a lamp and returned.
Hendrickson at the British Inquiry
4903. When you got the lamps did you go back with them?- I got all the lamps I could get that were ready. I got five, and left four or five men there to get more if they could. Then I came back by the engine room, went along and down the escape to go to No. 6 section. When I got down there I found I could not get any further, the water was up too high; so I came back by the escape again and went to No. 5 section.
So putting a few points together, Mr. Brown want to make us believe that Beauchamp is the TOP eyewitness as his evidence fit with his facts. Barrett must have been a complete fool as
1. He did not know where he was
2. He did not went there where he said
3. He said things which are not true
Barrett mentioned how he got about 10 Minutes after the collision back into No. 6 Boiler Room finding the water there too high. When he went back into No. 5 boiler room the lights went out. And surprisingly his version is confirmed by others as Hendrickson who found the water too high in Boiler Room No. 6.
B-rad
Member
Ioannis:
Thanks for your astute observations as always. You noted, about threfall, that there are, " There were several conflicting accounts given by him (there are also 2 newspaper accounts of him where he claimed to have been on the ship until the end) and also the time he was ordered up changed in each one."
My only sources for him is: Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912, Bridgewater Mercury April 1912, and Daily Mail, April, 29th, 1912 (this last one may only be partial, I don't know for sure, as it's actually printed in a book, as I cannot find an original)
I was wondering if you can point out any other sources that you may know of besides these three.
Thanks for your astute observations as always. You noted, about threfall, that there are, " There were several conflicting accounts given by him (there are also 2 newspaper accounts of him where he claimed to have been on the ship until the end) and also the time he was ordered up changed in each one."
My only sources for him is: Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912, Bridgewater Mercury April 1912, and Daily Mail, April, 29th, 1912 (this last one may only be partial, I don't know for sure, as it's actually printed in a book, as I cannot find an original)
I was wondering if you can point out any other sources that you may know of besides these three.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
I think I do not have the one from the "Poverty Bay Herald".
Beside the other two you mentioned there was also one in the following;
Daily Mirror, 29 April 1912
Western Daily Mercury, 30 April 1912
Liverpool Daily Post, 2 May 1912 (only mentioned he refused to talk to the press)
Herts Advertiser & St. Albans Times, 4 May 1912
I think there was somewhere another one but would need to search, possibly it was the Daily Sketch.
B-rad
Member
Thanks for the speedy reply!!! I will include the Poverty Bay:
I was off duty at the the time, and in my bunk. When I got on deck about midnight, Second Engineer Escritt told me to get all the men I could and go below. I went below to my section, No. 4, and took on with the stoking. I had ten firemen and four trimmers under me, and we had to look after five double boilers, with thirty fires; that is fifteen fires in each stokehold. I don't mind telling you that it did not feel nice going down below, because we knew that a bad accident had happened, but every man jack of my gang went on with his work and never murmured. The engineers were running about a lot, and this made things look black, but my men just went on stoking until about 1.2 a.m. Then 'We can't do anymore now, Tommy' -that's me. ' You and your mates had better get up.' We (that's me and my men) left off and there wasn't a drop of water in our section, but I believe that some of the others were flooded.
Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912
I was off duty at the the time, and in my bunk. When I got on deck about midnight, Second Engineer Escritt told me to get all the men I could and go below. I went below to my section, No. 4, and took on with the stoking. I had ten firemen and four trimmers under me, and we had to look after five double boilers, with thirty fires; that is fifteen fires in each stokehold. I don't mind telling you that it did not feel nice going down below, because we knew that a bad accident had happened, but every man jack of my gang went on with his work and never murmured. The engineers were running about a lot, and this made things look black, but my men just went on stoking until about 1.2 a.m. Then 'We can't do anymore now, Tommy' -that's me. ' You and your mates had better get up.' We (that's me and my men) left off and there wasn't a drop of water in our section, but I believe that some of the others were flooded.
Poverty Bay Herald June 12, 1912
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
Thanks for that one from the Poverty Bay Herald!
It sounds very like the one in the Western Daily Mercury I think (not sure would need to look) only that the name of the 2nd Engineer is given there as "Everitt". Of course both names are wrong.
It sounds very like the one in the Western Daily Mercury I think (not sure would need to look) only that the name of the 2nd Engineer is given there as "Everitt". Of course both names are wrong.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I finally got to read Sam Halpern's excellent article "Where was that water coming from?" regarding flooding of BR4 as initially observed by Cavell and Dillon. Water was first seen above the forward stokehold plates around 01:10 am in BR4 at a time when BR5 had not completely flooded. Until now I was assuming by what I read 30 years ago that this might have been due to the Titanic 'riding' the berg and sustaining damage to the double bottom but can see that this would require very substantial damage involving both layers and so highly unlikely. Sam Halpern's conjecture is that BR4 could have started flooding due to a tiny seam no more than around 11 square inches in area in the side shell plating of BR4 causing a water ingress of about 3.7 cubic feet per second. Calculating the volume of space it had to fill before appearing above the stokehold plates as it did about 95 to 100 minutes after the collision, Sam's calculations seem very accurate.
Similar threads
