How much of a difference would it have made?

[Julian Atkins]

I took the view that Gibson’s witness fatigue occurred with his timings at the British Inquiry when compared with his 18th April statement.

And he doesn’t mention the additional return to the bridge when looking for the taff rail log. He gets the Carpathia rockets timings completely different to his 18th April statement for no reason other than what I consider ‘witness fatigue’ as it made no difference generally.

Gibson says he never looked at the compass. He had to estimate the position of the other vessel as The Californian swung round to various degrees by sight in relation to before the ‘beam’ after the ‘beam’ etc by ‘points’ (which approximately equate to degrees).

(Whether Gibson would not at any point been able to look at the compass on the flying bridge at all during the 2 and a half hours or so of that 4 hour watch is a mute point).

I’m not sure I attach too much importance to Captain Lord saying that this other ship might have been in danger if it had moved. This was part of a real grilling of Captain Lord at the British Inquiry that lead to the “it might have been” reply.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Thanks again both of you for your analytical posts above.

Lord and everyone else on Californian assumed the steamer had stopped because of ice, same reason Californian had stopped. According to his testimony, and also Stone's testimony, he was told the ship was moving after a rocket was seen. Why did the ship move after being stopped for sometime? Why not stop if you became damaged and needed assistance? Why send up distress signals if you are able to move on?

Precisely. I have always believed that to start with at least, Groves and Lord assumed that the other steamer had stopped for the night for the same reason as their Californian was stopped - due to the surrounding ice. If Lord had retired with that belief, perhaps the more concerning reports from Stone and Gibson later did not make the same impression on him as they should have done. And since he gave gave no specific orders other than to continue to observe and signal via a Morse Lamp, Stone did not take it further either.

None of this makes sense, and that is the point of them claiming all this fabricated nonsense. Of course, all the more reason that Lord should have gone topside to see for himself and have Evans woken up. It is hard trying to apply logic to any of this.

True. Sam, you recently told me during a PM that Lord might have been very tired that night and not quite thinking clearly, something that I fully agree with. So, while he probably missed the significance of what Stone and Gibson reported to him during the night, he would have realized his error in the cold light of the morning after learning of the Titanic going down. I believe that from that point on it would have been a damage limitation exercise for Lord and his crew even though they would not have yet known how deeply they would be questioned. As it turned out, the grilling was quite intense and in trying to keep his head above the water, Captain Lord might have resorted to the sort of fabrication that you alluded to.

I’m not sure I attach too much importance to Captain Lord saying that this other ship might have been in danger if it had moved. This was part of a real grilling of Captain Lord at the British Inquiry that lead to the “it might have been” reply.

Agreed. By the time he testified at the British Inquiry, Captain Lord would have known that he did not have answers from many of the questions raised and had no option but to resort to "it might have been" kind of responses that Julian is alluding to. The query to Stone if the rockets were company signals but at the same time admitting that he (Lord) only knew of distress signals at sea is an example. Also, if Lord felt that the other ship could have been in danger if it moved, why did he not order Evans to check even after Stone/Gibson reported to him that the ship had moved, that too after having stopped for a while during which time it fired several rockets?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

According to Stone and Gibson, Lord was asking about colors in the signals and about company signals more than just once. The first time was when Stone gave him the initial report that a rocket or rockets were seen. Then again when Gibson went down at 2am. Then again when Stone called down at 2:45am. It was as if he was hoping that they were anything but what they really were. The only thing I can rationalize about Lord's behavior if that he was afraid to find out the reality, that a ship was in danger and calling for assistance in the middle of the night. If that were the case, then he would have been obligated to respond and move his own ship, which was surrounded by ice, in the dark of night. Lord said he was up from 7am Sunday morning the 14th, "on deck practically the whole of that day" until he went to lie down in the chart room around 12:15am Monday morning the 15th. He said that this was because of ice reports he received. When questioned about moving his ship at night, he said this:

7407. Could you have navigated with any degree of safety to your vessel at night through the ice that you, in fact, encountered? - It would have been most dangerous.
Of course when the Commissioner asked if he knew that it was Titanic in danger, Lord replied after Dunlop asked him this leading question, "What would you have done? No doubt you would have made an attempt?" to which Lord answered, "Most certainly I would have made every effort to go down to her."

But would he? He never before had to navigate a ship in the dark of night in the presence of ice. Would he really admit to something like he was afraid to so, and didn't want to find out?

 

[Julian Atkins]

Sam’s post 453 above does contain bits of a certain line of thinking that Captain Lord both didn’t want to move his ship during the night, and didn’t want to know of something else that might have caused him to react and respond.

Let us get 3 basic points out of the way (or stated as the blindingly obvious).

Firstly, Captain Lord had given explicit instructions to Chief Engineer Mahan to keep steam up in case they did have to move quickly during the night. He didn’t go to his cabin but was in the chart room fully dressed on the uncomfortable settee and with the lights on. So it was clearly in Captain Lord’s mind and orders that they might have to move and quickly at night. (But not for the reasons that ensued). Captain Lord had not ruled out any eventuality that The Californian would not move that night due to it being “most dangerous”.

Then secondly, we have the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and 1906 that required a ship to go to the assistance of a vessel in distress with certain caveats. And section 6 of the Maritime Convention Act. I don’t think that Harrison or Reade set out the legal position clearly, and I certainly haven’t done so either this evening or previously.

Thirdly, and by reference to Eric Clement’s biography of Captain Rostron ‘Captain of the Carpathia’ there is a lot of evidence of Captains staying on the bridge for very lengthy periods. It wasn’t unusual. I don’t think that Captain Lord was ‘tired’. He never said he was. If you analyse what he did before it became dark on the 14th April he didn’t do much at all. There is no evidence that he was constantly on the bridge during the day time. That he later claimed he was on the bridge from 7am on the 14th until 12.15am on the 15th April is clearly ‘self serving’ and a gross exaggeration and not supported by other bits of evidence. Indeed the opposite might be the case that he could be called, but certainly wasn’t on the bridge continuously if hardly at all during that day.

There is no evidence that Captain Lord from others was on the bridge the whole day of the 14th April. Clear calm weather, and nothing untoward until the Parisian reports ice bergs seen ahead of them, and then the handwritten Marconigram by Captain Lord to the Antillian. You could quite easily construct an argument that Captain Lord had lots of rest and no evidence of being on the bridge for considerable periods of time during daytime of 14th April.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Just as an addendum to the above we know from Captain Lord’s affidavit of 1959 and what Groves testified that Stone did longitude observations at 5pm and 5.30pm on the 14th, and Groves covered for Stewart’s meal break at 5.20pm. Captain Lord doesn’t appear to be alerted until the 3 ice bergs were sighted 6.30pm ships time on The Californian, and the MSG to the Antillian was sent 5.35pm NYT. That doesn’t even mean necessarily that Captain Lord was on the bridge when these 3 bergs were first sighted. I don’t think from memory that Captain Lord said he saw these 3 bergs himself particularly. I think from memory he used the phrase “we saw”… that is apt to all sorts of interpretations (but I ought to check this).

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Of course when the Commissioner asked if he knew that it was Titanic in danger, Lord replied after Dunlop asked him this leading question, "What would you have done? No doubt you would have made an attempt?" to which Lord answered, "Most certainly I would have made every effort to go down to her."

But would he? He never before had to navigate a ship in the dark of night in the presence of ice. Would he really admit to something like he was afraid to so, and didn't want to find out?

Sam, I am not convinced about this "afraid" bit, to be honest. Whatever else he might have been, Captain Lord does not come across as someone who would be afraid to stick his neck out - and if need be, his ship - in a risky situation, including the conditions that night. Like Julian has tabulated in his post, Lord's other actions after he ordered the Californian stopped for the night go against any undue uneasiness on his part.

I believe that a lot of Lord's testimony statements were designed to mitigate the official censure against his ship and himself by making it seem that he had read the situation wrongly rather than appear like a coward. His unbending martinet like personality lends itself more to the likelihood of an error of judgement than fear.

I don’t think that Captain Lord was ‘tired’. He never said he was.

In all fairness Julian, by "Lord must have been very tired" I believe Sam meant mentally jaded rather than physically tired. At 35 Lord was younger than most sea Captains of the day and as far as is known in good health and so, as you correctly pointed out above, there was no cause for him to be physically exhausted. But taking his relatively small ship through an area with icebergs towards an ice field just as night approached could easily have stressed him out, especially if he had not encountered such conditions before whilst in command of a vessel.

Sam’s post 453 above does contain bits of a certain line of thinking that Captain Lord both didn’t want to move his ship during the night, and didn’t want to know of something else that might have caused him to react and respond. Captain Lord had given explicit instructions to Chief Engineer Mahan to keep steam up in case they did have to move quickly during the night. He didn’t go to his cabin but was in the chart room fully dressed on the uncomfortable settee and with the lights on. So it was clearly in Captain Lord’s mind and orders that they might have to move and quickly at night. (But not for the reasons that ensued). Captain Lord had not ruled out any eventuality that The Californian would not move that night due to it being “most dangerous”.

Yes, that seems to be a paradox in light of Lord's actions that you've mentioned below, after stopping the Californian. But if we read it as "Captain Lord did not want to move his ship during that night unless absolutely necessary", that would perhaps explain his orders to CE Mahan to keep the steam pressure up and the crew on standby. It would also explain why Lord did not go to his cabin to retire but was just resting in full uniform in the chart room seemingly ready to be alerted, IMO an acceptable decision since the Californian was stopped for the night.
But I agree with Sam that Lord must have been mentally stressed out and after a while of reclining on the "uncomfortable settee" that you mentioned, he simply "switched off". I know that my professional field is very different from that of a marine Captain of an entirely different generation but there are a few similarities. The overriding responsibility towards others is one thing (even though there were no passengers per se on board the Californian); then there was the need to be available in a fully alert mode and be able to make quick decisions if called upon. In my 41 years of medical practice, I have been on overnight duty countless times after a 'hard days work' that was not necessarily physically exhausting but more often than not mentally stressful. If I got the opportunity to stretch my legs on an armchair while on-call, that "switching off" phenomenon came very quickly; if then I was called by an auxiliary staff member (which was often), it took a minute or so to get the body and mind to work. Of course, in the medical field that happens with every on-call session and so one sort of gets conditioned to it after a while; I am guessing that it would have been slightly different for someone in Captain Lord's position.
So, like you said (which is not all that different from what Sam opined), Lord's actions - or more precisely the lack of them - suggest to me that he had simply 'switched off' for the night and did not really comprehend the significance of what Stone and Gibson were reporting to him. Please understand that I am NOT offering an excuse for Lord's tardiness - far from it - but simply a possible explanation. It would only have been in the cold light of the morning that Captain Lord would have realized the consequence of his (lack of) action during the night and from that point onward he would have been forced to mitigate damage to his reputation. As Sam mentioned before, at that time Lord would not have known what shape or form that "damage" would take and so to some extent at least, he would have been forced to make-up things as he went along. That could explain his ambiguous, conflicting and in some cases frankly made-up testimony statements on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Lord's stated reason for keeping steam up all night was:

'The engines were ready. I gave instructions to the chief engineer and told him I had decided to stay there all night. I did not think it safe to go ahead. I said, "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it.' (AI p.728)

He couldn't mean icebergs coming along because he was stopped and was drifting in the same current that any iceberg would be drifting in. Besides, there were no icebergs reported near to where they had stopped. Just pack ice. He could only have meant another ship, that he would have to get out of the way from. Remember his instructions to Stone concerning the stopped steamer? 'At 20 minutes to 1 I whistled up the speaking tube and asked him if she was getting any nearer. He said, "No; she is not taking any notice of us." So, I said "I will go and lie down a bit."'(AI p.729)

 

[Julian Atkins]

‘We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it.'

I clearly remember on the ‘other’ thread a disagreement between myself and Jim about this bit of Captain Lord’s USA Inquiry testimony.

On a textual analysis, what Captain Lord testified doesn’t make sense. I took the view that “big fellows come crunching along” was a reference to ice bergs. The logic of Sam’s point about The Californian moving in the same current whilst stopped so icebergs would never be an issue is now clear and obvious, but I wonder if that was so obvious to Captain Lord at the time?

Then you have to consider what a “big fellow” was if it was another vessel. Why not a ‘small fellow’ that might have come too close to them? The only “big fellow” he knew of was Titanic. But equally, if Titanic had stopped (as it did an hour later after this conversation, and orders to Chief Engineer Mahan) it would have drifted like The Californian did and any icebergs according to Sam’s view.

So unless a “big fellow” ie a large ship steamed towards them, there was no danger?

Only the masthead light of one vessel had been seen, and this was after Captain Lord’s conversation and order to Chief Engineer Mahan, and after Captain Lord conversing with Evans and telling Evans to send a communication to Titanic.

What were these “big fellows” Captain Lord had in mind? How would they “come crunching along”?

If drift, surely not coming towards them?

And what of “crunching”?

If steaming towards them as a “big fellow” compared to a “small fellow” why not state either eventuality? It seems a very odd choice of words by Captain Lord. (And perhaps uncharacteristic?)

Perhaps the conversation wasn’t at all in those details, as we ought to question the lack of corroboration. Perhaps Captain Lord just said “I want The Californian ‘on standby’ during the night”?

(One point that I hope is not controversial is my opinion that Captain Lord was in conversation always ‘gruff’ and ‘brief’. Even with bridge Chief Officer Stewart).

(I’ve been very critical of Bride making statements that can not be corroborated, so I ought to apply the same strictures to Captain Lord at the USA Inquiry).

 

[Arun Vajpey]

He couldn't mean icebergs coming along because he was stopped and was drifting in the same current that any iceberg would be drifting in. Besides, there were no icebergs reported near to where they had stopped. Just pack ice. He could only have meant another ship, that he would have to get out of the way from.

Yes, that makes 100% sense and I for one fully agree.

It seems a very odd choice of words by Captain Lord. (And perhaps uncharacteristic?)

Yes, very strange and I think by then Captain Lord was beginning to realize that he had painted himself into a corner. I agree with Sam that by "Big Fellows" he meant one of the bigger ships. Look at the full exchange including the question to which Lord gave that response:

Senator FLETCHER.
But you could have gone to the Titanic?

Mr. LORD.
The engines were ready. I gave instructions to the chief engineer and told him I had decided to stay there all night. I did not think it safe to go ahead. I said, "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."

To me that clearly suggests that Captain Lord meant if a big ship came crunching along. Definitely not in reference to a big iceberg which, as Sam points out, would have been drifting with the same current as the stopped Californian and so could not have "come crunching along".

Why not a ‘small fellow’ that might have come too close to them? And what of “crunching”?

Again like Julian says, odd choice of words and IMO those of a man beginning to realize that his position was more awkward than he had hoped it would turn out. This is my opinion only, but the reference to "big fellows" came instinctively and was because of two reasons: First, Captain Lord had known about the Titanic, at the time the world's largest ship, being in the vicinity and by the time he testified at the American Inquiry, the disaster was occupying a large part of the minds of all concerned, including Lord's own. Second, Lord's own ship, the Californian, was significantly smaller and so it was natural that he should have thought of the Titanic as a 'big fellow'.

As for the refence to 'crunching', I am again using a bit of psychology here. The Californian had stopped because of the ice around and I have read that as it did so, small chunks of ice were knocking against its bow till the ship came to a complete halt. My opinion is that was the reason Captain Lord alluded to "crunching along", visualizing that a much bigger ship (like the Titanic) would have taken a lot longer to stop after orders were issued because of its greater speed and momentum, thus producing more 'crunching'.

If drift, surely not coming towards them?

Difficult to guess that part IMO. It sounds like Lord meant that the he had ordered his engine room crew to be on standby in order to get out of the way if a bigger ship was actually coming towards the Californian, but IMO it is a bit far fetched. Though stopped, the Californian still had some deck lights on and one would have thought the other ship's lookouts would have spotted it well on time to get their 'big fellow' out of the way. But I cannot think of anything else about the meaning for that phrase.

Perhaps the conversation wasn’t at all in those details, as we ought to question the lack of corroboration. Perhaps Captain Lord just said “I want The Californian ‘on standby’ during the night”?

Possible, but note that Lord testified: I said, "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."

While we are on the subject of Captain Lord's choice of words during his testimonies, here's is another example that is IMO rather suggestive:

Senator SMITH.
Captain, did you see any distress signals on Sunday night, either rockets or the Morse signals?

Mr. LORD.
No sir; I did not. The officer on watch saw some signals, but he said they were not distress signals.

As elsewhere, Lord's use of plural while referring to signals from the other ship while insisting that he was informed of only one rocket is ambiguous to say the least. Of course, one might argue that by "signals" in plural he had meant the rocket and Morse signals but somehow that does not jell. Also, which OOW was he referring to? While he stood on the bridge with Groves earlier, the 3/O had tried signalling the other ship with a Morse Lamp and Lord momentarily believed that they were responding (reference to "he's answering you"). But the question whether those were distress signals did not arise while Groves was on duty but only later, after Stone took over and had reported rocket(s) while Lord was resting in the chart room. So IMO, Lord's use of plurality must have been with reference to the rockets that Stone had reported about.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

As for the refence to 'crunching', I am again using a bit of psychology here. The Californian had stopped because of the ice around and I have read that as it did so, small chunks of ice were knocking against its bow till the ship came to a complete halt. My opinion is that was the reason Captain Lord alluded to "crunching along", visualizing that a much bigger ship (like the Titanic) would have taken a lot longer to stop after orders were issued because of its greater speed and momentum, thus producing more 'crunching'.

Agree. I believe he was referring to a ship crunching through ice. Despite carrying navigation lights, a ship crunching through ice may not have the maneuverability needed to simply get out of the way. Remember concern to Stone about reporting immediately if the stopped steamer moved toward them.

As for choice of words, singular or plural, I would try to over analyze that. Obviously, we can no longer ask for clarifications.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I clearly remember on the ‘other’ thread a disagreement between myself and Jim about this bit of Captain Lord’s USA Inquiry testimony.

I remember that too. Jim always had an agenda.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Just a thought tonight (as I’ve been catching up on another British Inquiry today!) (Covid).

If Captain Lord said to Chief Engineer Mahan something about “big fellows”, at that particular point in time Captain Lord had not yet spoken to Marconi officer Evans when Evans told him the only ship he had was Titanic. At the time Captain Lord said this unusually euphemistically and potentially vague statement to his Chief Engineer it couldn’t be Titanic he was referring to, surely?

Moreover, we know that no other “big fellows” (if ships) were steaming westwards anywhere near them. Indeed, none whatsoever.

This “big fellows come crunching along” statement is so uncharacteristic of Captain Lord that it must be questioned whether the conversation was as claimed by Captain Lord at the USA Inquiry.

So, I now attach no evidential weight to it other than that Captain Lord told his Chief Engineer to keep steam up during the night in case they had to quickly move. Which is indeed what happened around 5.15am (Californian time) the next morning, but for what reasons and in which direction are far from clear.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I believe he was referring to a ship crunching through ice. Despite carrying navigation lights, a ship crunching through ice may not have the maneuverability needed to simply get out of the way.

May I conjecture about that possibility Sam?

I was thinking about the fact that despite being separated by 11 to 12 miles, observers on the Californian could see the deck lights of the Titanic and vice versa; specifically, quite a few people including Captain Smith on board the sinking Titanic alluded to the light of another ship on the horizon. It follows therefore that on a clear night such as that fateful Sunday, the lookouts and/or OOW on the Titanic could have seen lights of another ship from at least 10 miles given the heights of the top decks and that of the Titanic's Crow's Nest. And since the slowly swinging Californian was bearing ENE by about 11:30pm, its deck lights would have been partially 'opened up' to any ship following on its wake.

Therefore, if instead of being significantly further south as it really was, the Titanic had been practically following the path of the Californian, wouldn't the lookouts and/or OOW on the bridge seen the lights of the stopped Leyland ship from quite a distance? As it was, they spotted a dark object (the iceberg) probably from close to 2500 feet away and although it was closer when Murdoch gave his first helm order, the impact was glancing blow. But if it had been the stopped Californian that was in the Titanic's path wouldn't Fleet and Lee have seen the other ship's lights considerably earlier and alerted the bridge?

My question is, even with its huge size and almost 22-knot speed, would the Titanic had so much momentum so as to make it difficult getting out of the way?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I don't think Lord put very much thought to what it really meant to be stopped for the night while surround by ice. We are thinking about it much, much more than he did. Lord was forced to stop for the night. It was around 10:30pm. Morning civil twilight would be around 5am. He knew he would be stopped for at least 6 1/2 hours. He certainly felt it was too dangerous to move with ice all about while it was dark. He told his C/E to keep steam up in case he had to move his vessel rather than not have the pressure available to move quickly in case a need should arrive for any reason.
The real point here is, he didn't keep up steam in case he had to go to the rescue of some ship in distress. He fully expected to stay where he was until it got light enough to safely move again. And in fact, that is exactly what he did despite all that he was told during the night.

 

[Julian Atkins]

observers on the Californian could see the deck lights of the Titanic

Hi Arun,

I think that is a very good point, and something I hadn’t paid enough attention to.

I do think this is important, as I consider that Captain Lord saw things in a binary perspective, and was very ‘matter of fact’. You can see this from the press report of his previous voyage that Harland found.