1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Collision / Sinking Theories' started by Tom�s Eduardo Podest�, Aug 2, 2016.

  1. I've ben told that there was a fire in coal deposit nber 5 since the moment the ship departured from Cherburg.
    Could it add some damage to the structure in contact with cold water?.
  2. Dave Gittins

    Dave Gittins Member

    The fire was out well before the accident. The bulkhead was a little distorted and somebody painted it with oil, presumably to prevent rust. When cold water hit it, no further harm was done. The distortion may have caused minor leaks around the edges but they would have been unimportant. When you are having a major heart attack, a sore finger doesn't matter.
  3. Thank you Mr. Gittins!!!
  4. Robby House

    Robby House Member

    When you say "Coal Deposit No. 5" I'm assuming you're talking about the reported coal fire that had been burning in the forward stokehold on the starboard side of Boiler Room 5 right? More specifically I think this is better described as the starboard side of Stokehold #9 right? I count 11 stokeholds in total with each boiler room containing 2 stokeholds with 5 double ended Scotch boilers that these serviced save Boiler Room #1 which had 4 single sided or ended Scotch boilers. Since each stokehold was divided by the watertight bulkhead doors that separated each Boiler Room at the Tank Top level I guess it becomes more important to state either "port" or "starboard" side when discussing a particular item or event concerning Titanic's stokeholds right?

  5. Boiler Room No. 1 had 5 single ended boilers. Boiler Room No. 6 had 4 double ended boilers as there was less space to place 5 as in the others.
    The coal bunkers had letters, the one in question was on the starboard side of boiler Room No. 5 and as you rightly said it was stokehold No. 9. The bunker itself was divided by the WTB into two parts. Coal Bunker W was the part in BR 5 and Y in BR 6. Leading Stoker Barrett count it as one (W&Y).
  6. Have you seen this from The Smithsonian Channel? It makes a very compelling case that the fire was far worse than we suspected. The program aired a couple of weeks ago and contains some great, newly-discovered photographs.

  7. Rancor and Michael H. Standart like this.
  8. ....Wow! Thanks, Mark!
  9. Tim Aldrich

    Tim Aldrich Member

    In addition to what Mark has already shared I would like to suggest adding this article, by Parks Stephenson, to your reading list.

    Titanic’s Guardian Angel

    Mark, the Radio Ulster link is saying "Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio." Would you happen know if that episode is available elsewhere?
  10. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    Here is another one:

  11. robert warren

    robert warren Member

    Wasn't the top photo "evidence" debunked as being shadows, as well as too high to be the area where the coal bunkers were ??
  12. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    I think they said it was a patch of new paint.
  13. Harland Duzen

    Harland Duzen Member

    The entire thing is a new concocted myth. As Paul Lee article shows, Molony never mentions the 3rd photograph taken immediately after the following 2 which shows nothing.

    (Go to the bottom of the page for the updated bit).
  14. robert warren

    robert warren Member

    It really ticks me off when I see people making stuff up like this.Talking about historic subjects to keep the memory alive for future generations is one thing. Pulling blatant lies and stuff out of thin air to get some notoriety and cash is another. This Molony creature just adds more junk to the pot that the rest of us have to use up time and energy explaining away to the less informed who buy into this claptrap!!!
    Tim Aldrich and Harland Duzen like this.
  15. Yes it was more a reflection that is also the reason why it is only on 2 photos and not on any other. The shadows are not only too high but also far away from any coal bunker.
  16. Mark Baber

    Mark Baber Moderator Member

    Moderator's hat on:

    Keep it civil, folks. Referring to Senan Molony (or anyone else, for that matter) as a "creature" is unacceptable.

    Moderator's hat off.
  17. Robby House

    Robby House Member

    Hello all,

    I have a quick question regarding how Titanic's firemen went about removing coal from the Starboard side of Stokehold No. 9 which I believe is also referred to as Coal Bunker W in effort to find the "seat" of the coal fire said to be burning there presumably since the day of her sea trials (April 2nd). I recently watched a sort of docudrama on YouTube that was shot from the Engineer's Perspective covering the night of the sinking and there's a scene showing Fred Barrett doing most if not all of the decoaling of Coal Bunker W in search of the coal fire we all know about. (Personally I have my doubts as to whether or not poor ole Fred Barrett was made accomplish what sounds like a tremendous pain in the ass by himself.) However I got the impression from watching the movie that the process of coal removal began at the TOP of Coal Bunker W, not from the bottom. So whether it was Fred Barrett or Molly Brown or Lady Duff-Gordon doing the coal removal does anyone know specifically how this process was carried through to completion which resolved the coal fire in question that has caused many a Titanic Conspiracy Theorists' tongues a wagging? Specifically, was coal removed from the top and if so was it simply carted over to the port side on what appears to be a metal grating-like walkway and dumped into the port side Coal Bunker of Stokehold No. 9 (I'm unsure of the Coal Bunker lettering of that particular Coal Bunker) or was it somehow sent down to rest on the stokehold plates within Boiler Room 5? Or was it decoaled through the Coal Bunker's hatch door at the Tanktop/Stokehold Plate level in Boiler Room 5? Finally, would it have been necessary to remove ALL of Coal Bunker W's coal or just enough to expose the seat of the coal fire where it would then be extinguished by some means?

    I did a fair bit of research hoping to find these specific details already discussed but had no luck. If this subject has been covered to the level of detail I'm after I apologize in advance.

    BELOW: Coal Bunker W of Stokehold No. 9 in Boiler Room 5
    CoalBunker W.png

    Thanks for your time!

    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  18. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    My understanding is that 12 men were delegated to put out the fire(s) by pumping water over the top and stoking the coal out of the bottom. Once emptied the Titanic took on a list to port, as Mr. Beesley said - "It was plain she did so," and Mr. Chambers said - "The ship had a list to port nearly all afternoon."

    When The Carpathia arrived in New York the survivors were immediately rushed by reporters and already reports of the fire were being published.





  19. Jim Currie

    Jim Currie Member

    More journalistic or mis informed journalistic nonsense, Aaron.

    Wet coal, not the dry version aggravates what is known as spontaneous combustion in a bunker. It is the oxygen in the water content of the wet coal near to the fire that helps feed the fire
    The method of extinguishing it was to keep the seat of the fire covered for as long a possible while removing coal from above it. While this was going on, surrounding bulkheads and coal would be sprayed with water to cool the steel and to exclude atmospheric oxygen.
    This kind of heat is not from a "raging fire" but is extremely localised and very dangerous.
  20. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    Thanks. What do you make of this report from 1909 when the coal bunkers on the SS Friesland caught fire.






    Last edited: May 16, 2018