Jason D. Tiller
Staff member
Moderator
Member
It was a photo that was not appropriate for this forum, Ryan.
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Okey-dokey, Jase; I'll take your word for it.
Back to the subject...
I saw this documentary some time ago, and was a little sceptical about how the yellow model sank.
I have my own theories about how the bow hit the bottom, though I have never done a practical experiment. As soon as I start my model of the wreck, I will test my hypothesis.
As Titanic pivoted on her centre of gravity to an angle of 45* at the surface, everything that wasn't fastened to the deck (and perhaps a few heavier items that were - boilers, etc) would have plummeted to the bow.
This will have put most of the overall weight and force into the stem and forepeak; when the bow broke away, this will have caused a darting motion in the direction of the stem, and the weight of the keel & dynamics of the hull will have gently began to level the section, allowing it to land upright in the sediment, possibly with a skid-mark left in the ocean floor. I'm not sure if such a scar exists, but it would be worth checking out.
Regards, Ryan.
Back to the subject...
I saw this documentary some time ago, and was a little sceptical about how the yellow model sank.
I have my own theories about how the bow hit the bottom, though I have never done a practical experiment. As soon as I start my model of the wreck, I will test my hypothesis.
As Titanic pivoted on her centre of gravity to an angle of 45* at the surface, everything that wasn't fastened to the deck (and perhaps a few heavier items that were - boilers, etc) would have plummeted to the bow.
This will have put most of the overall weight and force into the stem and forepeak; when the bow broke away, this will have caused a darting motion in the direction of the stem, and the weight of the keel & dynamics of the hull will have gently began to level the section, allowing it to land upright in the sediment, possibly with a skid-mark left in the ocean floor. I'm not sure if such a scar exists, but it would be worth checking out.
Regards, Ryan.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Ryan, the problem with the boilers in your scenerio is that they didn't go anywhere. The boilers out in the debris field are the ones from Boiler Room One which is in the part of the hull that disintigrated. The rest, notably the boilers in BR#2 are right on their foundations where the builder left them. There's little if any really good reason to suppose the same doesn't apply alsewhere. As to the rest, for a good overview of how things happened and why, click on The Wreck of the RMS Titanic.
W
Wayne Keen
Guest
I seem to recall reading that the Britannic's boilers (at least those that have been observed in the ship) are still on their mounts - even though she has been on her side for nearly as long as the Titanic has been down.
The connection to the mounts must have been pretty strong...
Wayne
The connection to the mounts must have been pretty strong...
Wayne
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Thanks for that link, Michael. Those images will come in handy when I finally get around to building my wreck.
I've been planning it for three years, so it's about time I put some research into it; all I had to go by before was one of Ken Marschall's paintings and a few photos.
It seems that whatever the Irish used to bolt the Boilers to the orlop deck have surpassed my expectations. Still, there are plenty of other things that will have dropped forward in the duration of the sinking; smaller items soon add up, don't they?
Excuse me for still trying to back up my hypothesis (I'm a stubborn bar-steward), but I will put my theory to the test soon enough.
Regards, Ryan.
I've been planning it for three years, so it's about time I put some research into it; all I had to go by before was one of Ken Marschall's paintings and a few photos.
It seems that whatever the Irish used to bolt the Boilers to the orlop deck have surpassed my expectations. Still, there are plenty of other things that will have dropped forward in the duration of the sinking; smaller items soon add up, don't they?
Excuse me for still trying to back up my hypothesis (I'm a stubborn bar-steward), but I will put my theory to the test soon enough.
Regards, Ryan.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Still, there are plenty of other things that will have dropped forward in the duration of the sinking; smaller items soon add up, don't they?<<
To a point. They won't add up to much when the incidental loose articles get no further then the bulkhead they run into. Most all of the furniture was bolted down and cargo in the holds would have been braced and secured in some manner to prevent shifting. I'm afraid that they things most likely to plunge forward wouldn't make any really signifigant changes in the balance of the bow section.
To a point. They won't add up to much when the incidental loose articles get no further then the bulkhead they run into. Most all of the furniture was bolted down and cargo in the holds would have been braced and secured in some manner to prevent shifting. I'm afraid that they things most likely to plunge forward wouldn't make any really signifigant changes in the balance of the bow section.
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Good point; I had forgotten to put the bulkheads into consideration.
Still, some will have collapsed in the duration of the sinking; for example, I know that the scorched WTB on coal bunker six(?) did.
Regards, Ryan.
Still, some will have collapsed in the duration of the sinking; for example, I know that the scorched WTB on coal bunker six(?) did.
Regards, Ryan.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Just how do you know that Ryan?
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Courtesy of information given by Geoff Tibballs in his book, "The Titanic" - A valid source of information.
His source was the account of someone who was on the escape ladder of the boiler room at the time. He was the only one to make it out alive.
His source was the account of someone who was on the escape ladder of the boiler room at the time. He was the only one to make it out alive.
B
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Tibballs book is 'secondary' information - it did not come directly from witnesses. Did Tibballs say *where* he got the information from?
Just as Walter Lord's books, as good as they are, are secondary accounts. Unless you know where the information originally came from, you have no idea of the accuracy of the account.
Just as Walter Lord's books, as good as they are, are secondary accounts. Unless you know where the information originally came from, you have no idea of the accuracy of the account.
Ryan McKeefery
Member
I'm sure that it will be in the acknowledgements somewhere. I'll dig it out and take a look.
Samuel Halpern
Member
That must be about the account given by fireman Fred Barrett about the collapse of a bulkhead in BR 5 which caused him to up the escape. And yes he was the only one we know of to come out of BR 5 alive. However, it is not clear if it was the WT bulkhead that collapsed or the bunker bulkhead of the coal bunker that was being flooded from a gash extending about 2 ft into the bunker and about 2 ft over the plates. Barrett only observed a flood of water coming from the space between the forward bunkers in BR 5 when he made for the escape. The bunker that was filling up was not designed to be watertight.
Here is the primary source:
2058. Now, when it came through this pass between the boilers, did it come with a rush? - Yes
The Commissioner: I suppose he means by that as if something had given way.
2059. (The Solicitor-General.) Do you hear my Lord’s question? He is asking whether, when you said that, you got the impression that something had given way? - That was my idea.
2060. (The Commissioner.) Something that had been holding the water back gave way? - That is my idea, my Lord.
2061. (The Solicitor-General.) So it came with a rush? How fast did it fall? - I never stopped to look. I went up the ladder. Mr. Harvey told me to go up.
2062. (The Commissioner.) Could it have been a bunker bulkhead that gave way, do you think? - I have no idea on that, but that is the bunker that was holding the water back.
2063. It was the bunker that was holding the water back? - Yes.
2065. Was the bunker door shut? - I dropped the bunker door.
Many people jump to a conclusion that may not be correct, including some that write books. Unfortunately, on his recent expedition to the wreck, James Cameron was unable to get down into that BR to observe the condition of the bunker in question.
Cheers,
Here is the primary source:
2058. Now, when it came through this pass between the boilers, did it come with a rush? - Yes
The Commissioner: I suppose he means by that as if something had given way.
2059. (The Solicitor-General.) Do you hear my Lord’s question? He is asking whether, when you said that, you got the impression that something had given way? - That was my idea.
2060. (The Commissioner.) Something that had been holding the water back gave way? - That is my idea, my Lord.
2061. (The Solicitor-General.) So it came with a rush? How fast did it fall? - I never stopped to look. I went up the ladder. Mr. Harvey told me to go up.
2062. (The Commissioner.) Could it have been a bunker bulkhead that gave way, do you think? - I have no idea on that, but that is the bunker that was holding the water back.
2063. It was the bunker that was holding the water back? - Yes.
2065. Was the bunker door shut? - I dropped the bunker door.
Many people jump to a conclusion that may not be correct, including some that write books. Unfortunately, on his recent expedition to the wreck, James Cameron was unable to get down into that BR to observe the condition of the bunker in question.
Cheers,
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Thanks for that, Sam.
What are your sources for the Courts of Inquiries discussions?
I have a book which features a considerable amount, but the way in which it is written bores the hell out of me.
The script-like manner in which you have written is far more appealing to me.
Regards, Ryan.
What are your sources for the Courts of Inquiries discussions?
I have a book which features a considerable amount, but the way in which it is written bores the hell out of me.
The script-like manner in which you have written is far more appealing to me.
Regards, Ryan.
B
Bill Wormstedt
Member
The full text of the US and British Inquires online at:
http://titanicinquiry.org/
What Sam printed looks like an extract from the above.
http://titanicinquiry.org/
What Sam printed looks like an extract from the above.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>What are your sources for the Courts of Inquiries discussions?<<
The inquiry transcripts themselves. I've posted a link to you twice that I know of. Bill's given it to you again.
>>I have a book which features a considerable amount, but the way in which it is written bores the hell out of me.<<
I'm afraid you'll see that no matter how it's bound up and printed. Since what's going on is streight discussion recorded by some very dedicated and underappriciated stenographers, you won't see a lot of frills to that sort of thing.
>>Still, some will have collapsed in the duration of the sinking; for example, I know that the scorched WTB on coal bunker six(?) did.<<
It did? Well, maybe, but befor you get carried away with that, you might want to consider several possibilities such as a door to a flooded bunker giving way, or something as simple as an overstressed seam or joint giving up the ghost. As much water as there was in Boiler Room Six, it wouldn't take much of an opening to let a lot of water in someplace where it wasn't wanted. With the stress on the hull girder climbing with the ingress of flood waters, the bending loads would only have gone up. It's not much of a stretch to see how seams and joints would fail under that sort of strain.
In any event, it's not like the dam giving way and coming down like a house of cards. Most of that bulkhead is probably still there.
The inquiry transcripts themselves. I've posted a link to you twice that I know of. Bill's given it to you again.
>>I have a book which features a considerable amount, but the way in which it is written bores the hell out of me.<<
I'm afraid you'll see that no matter how it's bound up and printed. Since what's going on is streight discussion recorded by some very dedicated and underappriciated stenographers, you won't see a lot of frills to that sort of thing.
>>Still, some will have collapsed in the duration of the sinking; for example, I know that the scorched WTB on coal bunker six(?) did.<<
It did? Well, maybe, but befor you get carried away with that, you might want to consider several possibilities such as a door to a flooded bunker giving way, or something as simple as an overstressed seam or joint giving up the ghost. As much water as there was in Boiler Room Six, it wouldn't take much of an opening to let a lot of water in someplace where it wasn't wanted. With the stress on the hull girder climbing with the ingress of flood waters, the bending loads would only have gone up. It's not much of a stretch to see how seams and joints would fail under that sort of strain.
In any event, it's not like the dam giving way and coming down like a house of cards. Most of that bulkhead is probably still there.
