Lifeboat Launch Order


Paulo Renato

Member
May 3, 2012
8
0
31
I'm planning to make a titanic sinking simulation in virtual sailor, i searched and i'm not certain of the order!

Someone can help me?

(I'II Put more topics of that simulation!)
 

Paulo Renato

Member
May 3, 2012
8
0
31
Nov 13, 2014
337
40
93
Belgium
Lifeboat launching times vandalism

Hi everyone,

As you may or may not know, I've been the administrator of the Titanic wikia for quite a while, and recently there has been an anonymous user who has changed the lifeboat launching times on all articles. I always assumed the launching times given by Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and George Behe helped by Sam Halpern and J. Kent Layton were correct, but he/she is persistent with new, completely different launching times. I want to know what his/her source is. He/she is consistent, always giving the same numbers. A vandalation block will ensue once I got the source.

These are the times he/she gives:
Lifeboatlaunching time from Wormstedtlaunching time from vandal
712:4012:15
512:4312:45
312:5512:30
81:0012:40
11:0512:50
61:1012:25
161:201:00
141:251:05
121:301:05
91:301:10
111:351:10
131:401:15
151:411:15
21:451:20
101:501:25
41:501:25
C2:001:40
D2:051:30
B2:152:05
A2:152:05
So, where are these times coming from? And is there any truth about them?
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,622
1,102
248
Germany
The times in your "launching time from vandal" list are a little to off.

I had published a series about the lifeboats in the magazine of the Swiss and British Titanic Society trying to keep the starboard and port list into account and came to a partly different order.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,299
1,587
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I think that this shows the problem with people having access to on-line encyclopedic sites that allow anyone to change anything anytime they feel like it. The truth is that nobody can prove beyond a doubt anything that is put down on a subject such as this. One can only document how they came up with a particular sequence, and that is all they can do. It doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately, many readers take whatever they find on a website and believe what they read without question.
 

Bruce Harwood

Member
Sep 2, 2008
28
1
83
Vancouver Canada
You mean I can go in and change anything I want? Ooooooooh! I gleefully twist the ends of my Edwardian mustaches while planning havoc.

Really though, there should be some way of tracing the miscreant. And surely a responsible and honest person would post a correction under their own name? NOT pukkah!
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,622
1,102
248
Germany
Actually you could build up several launching orders as you can find several accounts for them. In many cases the eyewitness accounts contradict each other. In some cases it is because the memory was wrong of those survivors and in other cases they did have the number of the boat wrong best example is Beesley who in his early version mistakenly thought that it was lifeboat No. 14 which was nearly coming on top of No. 13 but there are also crew members who had also the boat number mixed believing boat No. 7 was No. 1 and the boat closed to the bow was No. 7.

I can only talk for my research work which is a combination of eyewitness accounts and the position of the ship, especially the list to starboard and port. For me it tells a good picture of what took place. I am right with it? I do not know and I never claimed that it is 100% correct or to be the "true" one. I show both sides those accounts which fit and those who does not.
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
605
206
108
39
Tacoma, WA
Taking a very brief look at the times, what strikes me is the launch times of boat 7 and Coll. C. It appears that whoever this person is has a ship's time issue. It appears that the person believes that there was a time adjustment, or that a time adjustment can explain certain anomalies. IE: boat 7 (Rowe see's a boat rowing and calls the bridge around 12:25). Coll. C, Rowe states the time this boat left as being 1:40. This of course doesn't explain all the times, as some of the times are anywhere from a couple of minutes to a half an hour. Perhaps the person is taking literal times stated by survivors. IDK, just an observation.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
540
388
Might I suggest caution in using time of day as recalled by survivors. It would have been difficult for most people to know the exact time of anything. Pocket watches were hard to read in semi-darkness and I've seen no evidence that anyone ever checked the clock in the forward grain stairway. Rather than rely on stated times, most researchers have found more success in using a chronological method based on the order of events. This is then compared against what the witnesses described during the launching of their lifeboats. While tedious and time-consuming, this sort of effort yields far more insight. After all, the exact moment is less important than the order of launch. Just a suggestion...

-- David G. Brown
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,299
1,587
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>In many cases the eyewitness accounts contradict each other. In some cases it is because the memory was wrong of those survivors <<

Very true. Eyewitness accounts are notorious for being wrong more often than being right, especially when questioned about an events that took place many days or weeks afterward. Unfortunately, many of us forget this and point to some eyewitness account as if it were absolute, especially if it agrees with your preconceived ideas. Verification of accounts is important. And searching for that is where you will find contradictions and inconsistencies, but sometimes supporting evidence that tends to increase the reliability. Also, one must be very careful of any subjective estimate like time periods or distances.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
1,994
661
388
65
The full article about Revised Launch Times (same table as above) by Bill Wormstedt is carefully and logically analyzed, taking into account all available witness statements and trying to make sense out of them. While, as Sam points out, no one can be 100% certain, I believe that the revised Wormstedt Table comes closest to what actually happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
1,818
844
308
I'll take their word for it as they have put in the time and researched it. Plus the fact they know way more about it than me. Mr. Wormstedt and Behe both are people who I have enjoyed reading their stuff on Titanic. Mr. Fitch, not familiar with him so can't say. But when I first looked at that revised list and others before that...the exact 5 minutes between boats seem a little too neat and clean for me. Just a minor observation that stands out to me.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
1,994
661
388
65
Mr. Fitch, not familiar with him so can't say.
Tad Fitch and his colleagues Kent Leyton & Bill Wormstedt co-authored the best book so far on the disaster itself. It is called On A Sea of Glass and is a must buy book. Very well researched and written; a deliberate slow read to take in all the details, meant for a genuine Titanic enthusiast and not a shallow and 'novelized' commercially orientated work like Titanic: An Illustrated History. Ken Marschall's excellent paintings were the only really good thing about that latter book.

Fitch et al have also worked with Behe and Sam Halpern, I believe. They contributed to the best analysis of the disaster, Sam Halpern's A Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Appraisal.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
1,994
661
388
65
But when I first looked at that revised list and others before that...the exact 5 minutes between boats seem a little too neat and clean for me. Just a minor observation that stands out to me.
I know what you mean, but that's just for convenience and orientation. Most of us human beings live by the clock and if you think about it, are too "five minute orientated". If I asked 10 different people to meet me at exactly 11:45 am, not one of them would think there was anything odd about it. But if I had said 11:42 am instead, just about all of them would have raised their eyebrows at the very least.

I believe that there is a 2 minute window on either side of the given times in that table. Thus, Lifeboat #10, which the table says was launched at 01:50 am, was lowered between 01:48 and 01:52 am IMO. Also, one can ask, what exactly is 'launching time"? The time they started to lower the lifeboat or the time it reached the water?
 
Last edited:

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
1,994
661
388
65
Is there a time table how long it took to fill each boat up before launching?
I am sure there must be information somewhere about how long it took to fill Titanic type lifeboats during boat drills. But on the actual night of the sinking, would have thought it would be rather difficult quantify. There was a good deal of hesitation among passengers to board early lifeboats like #7, #5 and #8 so much so that even Murdoch was forced to lower a few only partially filled - and that after allowing willing men to board and making up numbers with crew. But after about 01:00 am the seriousness of the situation started to dawn on everyone and so loading would have been more rapid.

Other issues would have affected loading time. The increasing port list would have caused difficulties and delays in loading some port boats which would start swinging away from the side of the ship creating a gap. On the starboard side, the port list probably did not cause delays with loading the lifeboats per se but lowering them afterwards would have done. The later starboard boats would 'hug' the side of the sinking ship due to the port list and there was the risk of damage to the side and bottom of the lifeboat during lowering.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads