Bow section under the mud


J

Jonathan Payette

Guest
Hello,

is anybody knows what is the state of preservation of the bow that is hidden under the mud ? I don't think they'd be rusticles on this part and maybe some paint is well-preserved, although the interior of the ship must be like the rest, covered with rusticles.

Also, did this under-mud section looks 'intact' or was it damaged by the collision with the ocean floor ?

Thanks for your replies,

Jonathan
 
R

Ryan Sullivan

Guest
Jonathan

A couple years ago a survey team used soner to probe under the mud to find the size of the ice berg damage. I only heard of the results of the iceberg damage though, and they said nothing about the rest of the hull. Lets remember though, the ship plowed at 35mph+ bow first into the mud, and with steel that has already been proven to be below 1912 quality standards, Im sure it crumpled like tin foil. And whos to know what can happen to the covered part of a hull 2 miles down after almost 90 years.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
On the myth of inferior steel, go click on The Cunard-White Star Research Forum. Click on the FAQS section and go to page three. Parks deals with this one very thoroughly.

A quick and dirty little synopsis though. The steel was manufactured by Dalzell and D. Colvilles & Co. and was produced in acid lined open hearth furnaces which allowed certain impurities to get in leading to low fracture resistance as well as low ductility in cold water. Still, in that day and age, it was about as good as you could get anywhere and served well in a number of other ships. The Queen Mary was made of the same quality steel and she still survived a long career as a liner and later as a museum/hotel in retirement.

Remember that metallurgy was not as advanced a science as it is today, and also that welded hulls made of the best steel today still could not survive the sort of damage Titanic suffered.

Jonathan, the hull below the mud has probably weathered quite well over the decades if only because mud tends to preserve steel much better then the water ever will.
 
M

Matt Garrett

Guest
Then again, the Queen Mary didn't hit an iceberg in freezing temperatures either! But the QM is also designed quite differently and utilzing the lessons learned from Titanic as well.

And it's a great place to stay the night at!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
Uhhhhh...what the Queen Mary didn't do was collide with an iceberg at 21+ knots. Matt, you may find it useful to follow the link and directions I gave to the article in Parks Stephensons website which goes into this in some detail. The freezing conditions may have been a factor, but compared to just about anything else, it qualifies as a bit player in the game.
 
J

Joshua McCracken

Guest
I would imagine that the bow section that is still buried under the mud is probably more well-preserved than the rest of the ship, however only by a margin. As Jonathan pointed out,it is still possible for rusticles to have latched onto the interior of that section of the ship, and considering the minor opening in the hull on the starboard side just past the ending of the mud, I'd say that the ship may be more preserved in that section, or maybe the decay has just been slowed down because it's harder to get at.
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
2
161
If the part of the bow that is buried under the mud has been "crumpled like tin foil" as Ryan Sullivan has put it in the above post, then there would be little to see about the state of preservation differs from what is exposed above.
But it is quite unlikely as if the bow section that has been buried is crumpled or smashed up, then there would be no way that the iceberg damage can be seen. (Remember it was six small silts, not a 300ft. gash, so if the bow has been smashed up, it would not be possible to see such a minor damage)
 

Tim Foecke

Member
Jul 16, 2003
134
0
111
Based on the metal samples I've studied, the mud (and by extension, the rusticle floc) is a remarkable preservative against corrosion.
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
1
221
Hello:

Recalling Dr. Ballard's..."One centimeter sediment accumulation per 1000 yrs (That proximity of NA sea bottom) and when you also consider the '92 (IMAX) attempt of retrieving a *core* sample...

...I am personally quite certain major *bow* damage was inflicted upon the 60' imbedding of TITANIC's fore section in the sea bottom...

...albeit the *knife-like* prow.

If only a gentleman the stature of Pierre Valldy (the "grabber") were to invent an excavation method capable of operating in the hostile abyss we know today as TITANIC'S resting place.

Michael A. Cundiff
USA
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
7
0
Dr. Foecke,

Maybe you can help me. I have seen documentated evidence on recovered artefacts from the wreck that display significant corrosion where the artefact was buried in the mud. So much so that there are instances where the exposed portion of the artefact would be intact and could be made to look like new again, while the buried portion of the same object was too wasted to restore. Granted, most of these artefacts were either made from copper and brass, or had a copper core with either gold or nickel plating. However, I remember at least one iron spanner that suffered severe corrosion in the buried half, while the exposed half was relatively intact, by comparison. The dividing line between the two halves was quite distinct, and the difference in condition dramatic. Would you please explain why that would be, in light of your previous comment?

Parks
 
Feb 6, 2003
61
1
146
The Queen Mary did collide with the light cruiser Curacoa in world war 2. She survived with very little damage only a crumpled forepeak.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
This is a old topic but I thought I would give my lil opinion on this. If you take a metal bodied diecast car and sit it in a sand box outside with a cover over it where humidity can still get to it but rain cant flood it, in a week the paint peels off. Also in another week it would start to rust.

I am fairly sure Titanic`s hull under the mud is rusting just like the hull that is above the mud. Only thing is its not rusticles.
 

PRR5406

Member
Jun 9, 2016
172
44
73
70
Maine
Uncertain if this can be done, but I would advocate high-pressure water jets be used to wash away sediment along those regions we believe to have been impacted. Whether "Titanic" was popped open or gouged remains uncertain. It should be determined factually. Somebody like Steve Bezos would have the money to throw at such a project and never miss it.
 

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
184
60
73
In regards to faulty steel,this theory has been put to rest by several tests conducted in the last 10 years.One test actually used a piece of Titanic steel and subjected it to the extreme pressure when the ship bent and broke.Conclusion - the steel was very good quality.Also keep in mind Titanics sister ,Olympic was built using the same materials and she had a 25 year long career.She even ran into and sank a German U boat-guess what she didn't break apart and fall to the bottom of the ocean.Harland and Wolff also built ships for other companies and these liners had distinguished careers.The thing that people who believe this rot don't get is that when a 46000 ship hits an several hundred thousand ton iceberg at almost full speed,the ship is not going to come out ahead on that one.Its a little silly to think that kind of impact isn't going to pop out some rivets and damage some plating.Also the freezing water adding to the damage and making the steel " brittle" well I read an scientific account of this.The water would have to be like that carbon solution (name escapes me at this moment) that freeze dries stuff and then it breaks apart.Think about all the ships that have traversed the ocean in freezing water that didn't meet with disaster including the ships in the North Atlantic that night..For sources confirming the tests and quality of the steel, see Titanic 100 Mystery Solved,and Titanic Mysteru From The Abyss.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Also the rivets and hull of the SS Nomadic (currently here in Belfast) which was built beside the Titanic using the same materials is still in great shape more than a century later.



Nomadic001.jpg


Nomadic1.JPG



Nomadic sailing passed the Titanic

Nomadic01a.jpg




The huge door that was built for Titanic and Olympic's dry dock was also made with the same material and has managed to hold back the sea for a century.

drydock1.PNG


drydock1a.jpg





.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
184
60
73
Those are fantastic shots of the Nomadic!They really give an impression of how beautiful the Titanic and Olympic must have looked in person.I thought the Nomadic was in Paris.Is Belfast her new home???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Yes. Glad to say the Nomadic was moved to Belfast and restored to her former glory in time for the centenary in 2012. I was aboard her before her restoration. Hope to go aboard again next month to see how she looks inside as she is now a floating museum.


.
 
May 3, 2005
2,508
222
258
Those are fantastic shots of the Nomadic!They really give an impression of how beautiful the Titanic and Olympic must have looked in person.I thought the Nomadic was in Paris.Is Belfast her new home???
And certainly how beautiful the Nomadic DOES look !
Except for the stack, Nomadic looks sleek and almost ultra-modern in design.......IMHO, that is.
Also my thanks for the fantastic shots of the Nomadic !
 
Last edited:

Similar threads