It's going to be disputed

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,956
206
193
Matthew, I think my e-book will only run on a Mac that's set up to emulate Windows and run Internet Explorer. Such things can be done, but they may cost a lot. I'm no expert, so ask a Mac enthusiast.

Paul, I suppose Almerian could have gone up the US coast, picking up a bit more cargo. Maybe her captain worked out a course that was a compromise between a great circle to England and keeping out of ice. Who knows?

On the other hand, the Leyland Line said only its Antillian and Californian were in the area. Only Lord claimed to see another Leyland ship. Thirdly, there are the navigational details you found, which have the appearance of being cooked to suit the CQD position, which they do. They don't fit with the wreck position.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,956
206
193
Paul, have a look at Almerian's reported course to the north. She sails along the 50.24W meridian. She passes close enough to Mount Temple to read her name. She sees Carpathia picking up boats about 6 - 6½ miles off. All this was possible if Titanic's CQD longitude of 50.14W was correct. It's not possible, given the known wreck site.

I won't swear on Norie's Tables that Almerian was not there, but the tale looks concocted to me.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
I always assumed that the Almerian's co-ordinates were somehow relative to the assumed wreck location, in much the same way as the Carpathia's 17 knot rush was calculated using the 41 46/50 14 position. But you may be right.