Most passenger and crew researchers place
the numbers at:
2208 total aboard
Over the many decades, the numbers have
been incorrectly calculated by persons making
the error of counting the cross-channel pass-
engers, the nearly dozen Irish passengers
listed whose names are crossed out, and so
Hope this helps,
While your answer has helped Laura it has confused me. I have never seen any figures that indicate any suggestion that cross-channel passengers, or the Irish passengers listed on 27/776 but whose names are crossed out have ever been included. All 3rd Class figures stand at close to the actual figure of 709. 2nd Class generally agrees at 284/285, with 1st Class generally at 324/325. Only the US Senate seems to have a higher figure - 329.
There seems to be a problem with the Crew in that the Postal Workers seem generally to be omitted. - Neither the British Inquiry or US Senate figures include them.
A problem with the US Senate counting the bandsmen both in 2nd Class and as a separate figure within the Crew.
The figures that I find impossible are those of Eaton & Hass, who reduce 2nd Class to 271. - That is both less the bandsmen and the Harland & Wolff employees who were travelling 2nd Class [?] - They then give a very highly inflated figure of 337 for 1st Class. For the Crew they note that the US Senate figure includes 4 American Line employees, who were ticketed as 3rd Class passengers. Allowing for that and with the band already in the US Crew figure of 899; even after allowing for the 5 Postal Workers I have to wonder who Eaton & Hass are adding to arrive at 908 Crew. - Seems they may have re-added the Bandsmen for a 2nd time [?]. - But where are the 6 H&W employees who were travelling 2nd Class? - Are they now in 1st Class? - Even E&H's 3rd Class figure is 2 above that of the US Senate. - Have they taken 2 names off and then re-added the 4 American Line employees who were already included?
None of the above indicates to me that any figures include cross-channel passengers, or the Irish passengers whose names are crossed off 27/776.
No not really. At the risk of repeating some of what I have just posted; I understand that your causality figure of 1523 come from Eaton & Haas. Since the bandsmen were travelling on a 2nd Class ticket they should be regarded as Passengers, so while E&H's overall Passenger figures are too high by 3, it is their Crew figure which is greatly inflated. - By 17. - As noted in what I said to Brian; perhaps by the bandsmen being counted twice as Crew, when they were in fact Passengers. - With an inflated total for the number on board and because E&H accept that there were only 705 survivors they have 27 too many causalities.
1517 comes from the US Senate. I cannot explain their extra 5 1st Class passengers, unless it has something to do with an added list of survivors, which does not in fact greatly effect the overall number of 1st Class survivors. But again largely the US Senate List is in error because the number of Crew is over stated by the bandsmen and 4 [of the 6] American Line employees who have to be taken off the Crew total; with however the Postal Workers to be re-added. - The survivor count is off largely because several 3rd Class passengers where wrong categorized as lost/saved. - So effectively 15 too many for the total onboard and 6 too few survivors.
1490 is the British Inquiry total, with its main error being the non-inclusion of the Postal Workers; both in the total onboard and lost.
Thank you for your summation and inclusion
of the BT document numbers. I meant only to
point out to Laura that there was a great deal
of mystery around why some of these numbers
are consistently reported incorrectly. You have
touched on the Eaton and Haas numbers which I
and several other active passenger and crew
researchers find irreconcileable to known in-
formation. I have worked diligently with the
likes of Phil Gowan, Peter Engberg-Klarstrom,
and others to refine the passenger list to what
we believe is the correct number. The E&H
numbers beg for an accounting, but none seems
forthcoming. Therefore, I meant to point out
that until the explanation for the 1523 figure
is presented, it remains an incorrect and much
As with the reported numbers in each
lifeboats, there is much speculation and
debate. The facts are, as I am sure you agree,
that certain people paid passage, accounts
by the survivors, and extensive passenger and
crew research has revealed who lived and
who died. It remains for the others to prove
Thank you for that. My main concern was that the two possible errors which you specifically mentioned do not seem to be a factor in relationship to the erroneous figures. In each of the set of figures Laura mentions [the 1516 figure eludes me] the main cause for the error seems to be with the Crew being incorrectly counted.
As I tried to demonstrate with the E&H figures they have clearly removed the 6 H&W employees and the 8 bandsmen from 2nd Class. In adding 8 to the US Senate figure of 329 [a figure which I cannot explain] for 1st Class it is a mystery whether that might represent the 6 H&W employees who were in 2nd Class or ??? [but hopefully not the bandsmen]. With 3rd Class it seems that they have added the 4 American Line employees. But they were already in 3rd Class. The extra 9 Crew [over and about the US Senate figure] seems to reflect the deletion of the 4 American Line employees; the adding of the 5 Postal Workers and the adding of the 8 bandsmen, who are however already incorrectly in the US Senate Crew figures; unless their comments about the 8 Chinese seamen - ["...The figure also includes eight Chinese seamen, who were also travelling as Third Class passengers ..."] - has led E&H to add them to Titanic's Crew. - But I agree E&H need to explain their figures. In the meantime I hope that I have given some clues as to where they may have erred.
As you hopefully know I have also calculated and accept 712 survivors and 1496 causalities.
The lifeboat numbers are indeed highly speculative.
I have always admired the split-second
ability you possess of the numbers of lost
and saved. It has been many years since I
have attempted to sort out the inaccuracies,
so I am not so adept as you. I have chosen
to focus on my own list and have left the
errors to speak for themselves.
I wonder if you have considered that the
5 extra First Class you speak of to be
indicative of the maids of the passengers
that were counted lost initially by the
Senate Report, which were later discovered
to be among the saved?
Thank you muchly.
Yes I have. That is what I was referring to in my post of the 7th: 6.09 am when I said:
"I cannot explain their extra 5 1st Class passengers, unless it has something to do with an added list of survivors, which does not in fact greatly effect the overall number of 1st Class survivors."