J
John M. Feeney
Member
Maureen: Thanks for that elucidation. I understand now, and can see that in almost all cases we either meant the same thing using different words, or different things using the same words. ;^)
The Niagara's delay, of course, is understandable -- she's the ship that was holed (twice even?) by ice just a few days before Titanic's encounter, and she basically had to limp in after a patch job. (If the Carmania was also slightly late, same basic cause: she answered Niagara's call for assistance before a second message advised that the ship would be able to proceed OK under her own steam.)
But the others you've mentioned are not nearly as explicable. (There are references in the Times of the 15th to other ships that "got caught" in the ice, but how that affected their arrival is by no means made clear there.)
Actually, this does seem a very interesting study you've brought up! I can conceive of the Lines themselves submitting revisions to the "Incoming Steamships" section, based on intervening news *they* received, but those other puzzles you've brought up are quite intriguing! (Next trip to the library, I'll have to do some additional seeking, for sure.)
Interesting, that observation about the President Lincoln and Cincinatti *both* getting in a day early. It wouldn't surprise me too much to intuit a desire on the part of HAPAG to rain on White Star's parade just a little. (Hmmm.) On the other hand, is it possible that their tentative scheduling, at least for these two ships was *always* somewhat conservative? The President Lincoln, at least, had a service speed of 14 knots, so more initial "wiggle room" might be required than for a fast ship like the Titanic. (And saying you may be late, then getting in early, is always a better marketing ploy than just showing up late. But I'm just guessing at possibilities here.)
It is VERY intriguing!
David: I think Maureen has summed up my thinking here quite neatly already. We all seem to agree that there was a message from the Titanic (assuming no outright hoax was involved), and that its contents are vastly irrational based on what we now know about Titanic's likely positions at various times.
But where it turns speculative, in my mind, is in any direct attribution of this news update to Bruce Ismay, specifically, or White Star corporate. The protocol of the era, according to Franklin and Farrell (and the NY Times article quoted), was simply that the ship's *commander* would relay any change in schedule direct to the Marconi Company. All of these appear to identify the source as the captain himself, with little possibility (and certainly no necessity) for any corporate-level meddling or manipulation.
(I'm reluctant to refer to this communication as an "MSG" per se, though it certainly resembles one -- an official message from the captain himself -- only because it's not a ship-to-ship communication, and may not have been a "freebie".)
I don't think it's so much opinion vs. opinion here, but rather a question of adhering strictly to the factual launch pad versus "blasting off" with an extrapolation. As far as I can see, there's no *evidential* basis for perceiving this wireless as anything more than a fairly fractured message from Smith. (But there's plenty of evidence for that notion.)
Cheers,
John
The Niagara's delay, of course, is understandable -- she's the ship that was holed (twice even?) by ice just a few days before Titanic's encounter, and she basically had to limp in after a patch job. (If the Carmania was also slightly late, same basic cause: she answered Niagara's call for assistance before a second message advised that the ship would be able to proceed OK under her own steam.)
But the others you've mentioned are not nearly as explicable. (There are references in the Times of the 15th to other ships that "got caught" in the ice, but how that affected their arrival is by no means made clear there.)
Actually, this does seem a very interesting study you've brought up! I can conceive of the Lines themselves submitting revisions to the "Incoming Steamships" section, based on intervening news *they* received, but those other puzzles you've brought up are quite intriguing! (Next trip to the library, I'll have to do some additional seeking, for sure.)
Interesting, that observation about the President Lincoln and Cincinatti *both* getting in a day early. It wouldn't surprise me too much to intuit a desire on the part of HAPAG to rain on White Star's parade just a little. (Hmmm.) On the other hand, is it possible that their tentative scheduling, at least for these two ships was *always* somewhat conservative? The President Lincoln, at least, had a service speed of 14 knots, so more initial "wiggle room" might be required than for a fast ship like the Titanic. (And saying you may be late, then getting in early, is always a better marketing ploy than just showing up late. But I'm just guessing at possibilities here.)
It is VERY intriguing!
David: I think Maureen has summed up my thinking here quite neatly already. We all seem to agree that there was a message from the Titanic (assuming no outright hoax was involved), and that its contents are vastly irrational based on what we now know about Titanic's likely positions at various times.
But where it turns speculative, in my mind, is in any direct attribution of this news update to Bruce Ismay, specifically, or White Star corporate. The protocol of the era, according to Franklin and Farrell (and the NY Times article quoted), was simply that the ship's *commander* would relay any change in schedule direct to the Marconi Company. All of these appear to identify the source as the captain himself, with little possibility (and certainly no necessity) for any corporate-level meddling or manipulation.
(I'm reluctant to refer to this communication as an "MSG" per se, though it certainly resembles one -- an official message from the captain himself -- only because it's not a ship-to-ship communication, and may not have been a "freebie".)
I don't think it's so much opinion vs. opinion here, but rather a question of adhering strictly to the factual launch pad versus "blasting off" with an extrapolation. As far as I can see, there's no *evidential* basis for perceiving this wireless as anything more than a fairly fractured message from Smith. (But there's plenty of evidence for that notion.)
Cheers,
John