Mattie Canada
Member
Just got back from a Vegas trip and stayed in the Luxor where they have a Titanic Exhibit including the "Big Piece" of the hull. Had a happy hour at a Luxor's restaurant where some bargoers had visited the Exhibit and lots of Titanic conversations erupted with the fire being a popular topic
One theory someone mentioned which we've all heard from time to time was that the coal bunker fire weakened the (E) bulkhead which made it collapse and had the bulkhead remained intact, the ship would have remained afloat until the Carpathia arrived. Let's deep dive into this...
According to Fireman Barrett's testimony, he stated it was the coal bunker wall between Boiler Rooms 6 (BR6) and 5 (BR5) that was holding BR6's seawater back from entering BR5 and that bunker wall collapsed, not the (E) bulkhead; so a different "wall", same overall theory. We know the ship was already doomed as 6 compartments were breached including the aft-most breached compartment, BR5 so seawater was entering into BR5 regardless if the bunker wall remains intact.
It's believed at the time the bunker wall collapsed, BR6 was nearly full of seawater, had the walls remained intact, the weight of BR6's seawater would have been SLIGHTLY more forward which would have had a chain reaction of pulling her down SLIGHTLY faster. The center of gravity would have SLIGHTLY moved more aft which would SLIGHTLY increase the steepness of the angle the bow was sinking which would SLIGHTLY increase the amount of seawater spilling over the bulkheads. Maybe if the bunker wall remained intact, it would increase the rate of sinking by only a few seconds, but if it did reduce the sinking by 5 minutes, that could have meant that collapsible A and B would have been washed off before they were even touched
The overall point here is, that the next time hear someone say the fire INCREASED the rate of sinking, you can state it probably DECREASED the rate of thinking. Would love to hear your thoughts
One theory someone mentioned which we've all heard from time to time was that the coal bunker fire weakened the (E) bulkhead which made it collapse and had the bulkhead remained intact, the ship would have remained afloat until the Carpathia arrived. Let's deep dive into this...
According to Fireman Barrett's testimony, he stated it was the coal bunker wall between Boiler Rooms 6 (BR6) and 5 (BR5) that was holding BR6's seawater back from entering BR5 and that bunker wall collapsed, not the (E) bulkhead; so a different "wall", same overall theory. We know the ship was already doomed as 6 compartments were breached including the aft-most breached compartment, BR5 so seawater was entering into BR5 regardless if the bunker wall remains intact.
It's believed at the time the bunker wall collapsed, BR6 was nearly full of seawater, had the walls remained intact, the weight of BR6's seawater would have been SLIGHTLY more forward which would have had a chain reaction of pulling her down SLIGHTLY faster. The center of gravity would have SLIGHTLY moved more aft which would SLIGHTLY increase the steepness of the angle the bow was sinking which would SLIGHTLY increase the amount of seawater spilling over the bulkheads. Maybe if the bunker wall remained intact, it would increase the rate of sinking by only a few seconds, but if it did reduce the sinking by 5 minutes, that could have meant that collapsible A and B would have been washed off before they were even touched
The overall point here is, that the next time hear someone say the fire INCREASED the rate of sinking, you can state it probably DECREASED the rate of thinking. Would love to hear your thoughts