How many ladders and staircases on Titanic?

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Does anyone know how many stairs and ladders connected all of the decks on titanic. By this I mean the passenger staircases and crew staircases and ladders. I appreciate that there was a grand staircase and an aft staircase but what about the many other stairs. All of these would have been points where water could travel upwards between decks thereby helping to sink the ship.

Best regards,

Ajmal
 

Athlen

Member
Apr 14, 2012
158
47
58
I did some work for an article (that never happened) about all the stairways, mostly because I was interested in answering the question "How would I get to the Boat Deck from Point X on Titanic?" Here is a table of stairways I made... it corresponded to a color coded deck plan but I no longer have that graphic. This only includes stairways within the ship. Stairways on deck are not included. Some of the names are somewhat obscure, but I can probably answer any questions.

There were ladders in most of the boiler and engine room spaces that are not included on any modern deck plan and perhaps never will be. For example, escape ladders from boiler rooms and ladders within the engine rooms are not listed. However, it's fair to say that there were at least 25 stairways/companionways on Titanic.

upload_2018-1-20_14-29-59.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Dear Athlen,
Many thanks forvthis fabulous information. Together with the firemans ladders on the machinery deck going to G deck and also the 3 lift shafts, it means that vertically speaking, the Titanic was a cullinder!
Once again, thanks.
Ajmal
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The deck plans for the Titanic are available here. I use Google Chrome to view them. One thing to note however is that some staircases are behind doorways which were slightly elevated, so the water might have bypassed various staircases and taken a different direction and flooded other staircases further aft instead of those which were nearest. The direction of the flooding would also depend on which way the ship was listing.


Titanic Deckplans : E Deck


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar

Bob Golden

Member
Jun 3, 2007
2
1
73
For merchant ships (non-warships) stairwells (one deck high) and stair towers (more than one deck high) were not meant to be watertight. The decks on the TITANIC were not meant to be watertight. The watertight bulkheads on TITANIC were the fifteen transverse bulkheads that can be seen on many deck plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your reply and I understand where you are coming from. The ship, and any ship, would be impractical if it had to be vertically watertight as well. It wouldnt be able to function properly.

I am only now starting to appreciate the design of the ship as I get answers from people like yourself. Until recently I never understood whyvthe ship would flood vertically if it had watertight doors until now that is when i begi to understand that the ship had many staircases, ladders, elevators etc.

All the best,
Ajmal
 

Athlen

Member
Apr 14, 2012
158
47
58
Oh, looking over the deck plans... I didn't include the many small stairways that go from ash ejector rooms on F Deck to "ash places" on E Deck. Like I said, the objective was to figure out how one could get to the Boat Deck, and those stairways are all dead ends.

Ajmal Dar: Titanic didn't have any watertight decks, with the exception of a few spaces such as the shaft tunnels where there were more or less watertight ceilings on some deck levels. I can't find the exact testimony but one witness at one of the inquiries (I suspect Wilding at the limitation of liability hearings) testified about watertight decks. He said that such decks could be a liability because air space trapped below flooded spaces can cause serious problems with stability. That is, you have a compartment full of air trapped below the waterline, and the buoyancy of that compartment can cause the ship to capsize. The same is true when ships have a longitudinal bulkhead, as Lusitania and Mauretania did. Longitudinal bulkheads divide the ship lengthwise; if Titanic had one, then the starboard side forward compartments would have flooded but the port side would not. This may sound like a good thing, but in fact it makes the ship liable to capsize. Wilding calculated that Titanic would have capsized quickly (perhaps within a half hour) if it had had longitudinal bulkheads. As you perhaps know, when the Lusitania sank it capsized quickly, and the longitudinal bulkheads were the main reason.

As you said, the ship would have great difficulty functioning with watertight decks. To avoid the situation I just discussed it is necessary to have the option of flooding compartments that are undamaged. It is also necessary to have a lot of hatchways and watertight doors to protect stairways/ladders. On warships (in my limited experience with museum ships) you don't have stairways, only ladders with hatches on top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Besides the stairwells, ladder openings, lift shafts, what other types of openings on the deck floors would there be that would allow water to travel upwards through these floor openings and into the deck above. were there other openings like say ventilation shaftsbetc) i dont have a good knowledge of titanic design but i think there were other types of openings between the decks that allowed water to travel upwards. i can only think of stairwells, ladders and lift shafts.

(i am unable to reply to your courteous response as the moderator is warning me for sending such messages saying that they do not contain new content!).

unfortunately i cannot get the deck plans up on my tablet so i can glean information from them

regards,
Ajmal
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,109
176
223
(i am unable to reply to your courteous response as the moderator is warning me for sending such messages saying that they do not contain new content!).
Nothing's stopping you from responding to anything, Ajmal. I've just asked repeatedly that you not post messages which simply quote back an earlier one without adding anything new.