How did the Titanic sink to the bottom

  • Thread starter Kimberley Dayle Edwards
  • Start date
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Hi Sam!
Hate to seem ancient but my experience of US ships was the USS John W. Weeks of 'Flying Enterprise' fame during NATO excercises in the early 1950's.
AS for Mr. Rowe reading the log. It would have been fitted into a brass 'shoe' located on the poop deck taffrail so he would not climb onto the docking bridge to read it. It would have had a braided line hooked into an 'eye' on the aft end of the log clock mechanism. Oh for a buck every time I streamed or recovered that particular piece of gear!
I love this site because , like the shipsnostalgia one, it brings back great memories when I was a young and callow youth!
If I remember rightly; wasn't Lightholler in bed when all, this started?
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
PS. Sam: Read your article about propeller slip - great work! I would only observe that an additional problem with slip is the variable factor; i.e. cleanliness of the ship's bottom and external influences such as wind and current.
In Titanic's case, the former was not an issue - she was a new ship but the latter must be included in the arguments of the calculations to obtain any real meaningful results.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
PPS - humble apologies! According to Rowe the log was fitted on the bridge - very strange! since the anti-kinking 'thing' must have dangled over part of the poop deck - especially if it was mounted midship. If it was mounted to the side it possibly would have fouled the poop when the ship made a sharp turn.
 
Dave Gittins

Dave Gittins

Member
They may have used a peculiar installation because the taffrail was accessible to the third class passengers. You wouldn't want them messing with the log. A photo taken at Queenstown shows passengers all round the stern.

The set-up probably worked OK in the open sea. The steady speed kept the log line taut and sharp turns were unlikely.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
More than likely Dave.
Has anyone ever asked why Rowe, as custodian of the log didn't recover the log-line? I suspect it would have been a very good indicator of what was happening regarding speed and turn direction etc. I.e., the line would have been dropping towards the vertical as the ship slowed down and would have become tangled in the port prop going astern.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>Has anyone ever asked why Rowe, as custodian of the log didn't recover the log-line?<<

I'm not aware of any such questions being asked but the inquiries have a lot of ground which I haven't covered. I suspect that by the time it occured to him that it might be worth doing, he suddenly found he had more urgent matters to attend to.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Hi Michael!

I was curious about this because it would seem that up until a certain time, most thought that it was a fairly minor incident. That being so; it would have been normal for the QM to think 'Oh s..t! - better get the log back in for re-streaming when we get underway again.'. I'm sure there are a few of us who have had exactly the same problem when breaking down at sea. I know I have on many occasions.
Letting the log line stretch out again as the ship picks up speed is an option but not a good one. Apart from it possibly being fouled in the prop or rudder - if it did come away free - there was always a good chance it would kink like fury.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
quote:

I suspect that by the time it occured to him that it might be worth doing, he suddenly found he had more urgent matters to attend to.
Not sure what those urgent matters he needed to attend to were? He saw the berg go past and could not have missed the ship coming to a stop. He never heard any scrapping alongside, and never said that he realized the ship actually struck the berg from where he was stationed. The only thing we know from him is that he looked at his watch (which read 11:40) at the time he saw the berg go by, read the log, and then waited for his relief (QM Bright) to show up which was expected about 40 minutes later. He also said his relief did not show up on time. He once wrote years later that he was supposed to be relieved at 12:22, which would be about right given the planned clock adjustment that was expected that night. It was, according to Bright, some time after he showed up that Rowe first called the bridge and spoke to Boxhall (as we later learned from Boxhall) about seeing a boat in the water, at which time Boxhall asked him to bring more detonators to the bridge.​
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>That being so; it would have been normal for the QM to think 'Oh s..t! - better get the log back in for re-streaming when we get underway again.'<<

And he may have done just that. Unfortunately, nobody appears to have thought it worth asking about and Rowe...to my knowladge...never volunteered the information.
 
Top