Line of sight etc

[Samuel Halpern]

Unless I'm mistaken, the gangways doors opened outward. At the time boat #6 was launched, the ship still had a list to starboard, enough for QM Hichens, who was put in charge of #6, to say that they had to push the boat off from the ship's side as it was being lowered. So how can those large gangway doors down on E deck on the port side be opened against a perhaps 5° starboard side list at that time?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Good point. IF Lightoller had really given that order, then it would have been another skip-up on his part. Perhaps Nichols and his crew-mates discovered that they could not open the door easily and so simply gave-up? That would also account for Hichens and the rest on #6 not seeing an open gangway door as they went past as well as Nichols and Lightoller not seeing each other when the former returned to the boat deck. By then Lightoller had moved down to A-deck.

What I want to know is why many writers assumed that Nichols and his men were washed away while trying to open that gangway door. Was it based only on the fact that Lightoller told the British Inquiry about that order while he (Lightoller) was working on #6 and did not see Nichols again after they parted company at 01:05 am? What I am trying to do is assume that reports from Johnstone and Barrett were correct, in which case Nichols was alive and in the vicinity of Lifeboat #13 by around 01:40 am.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Arun,

Many thanks for your reply which I have read with great interest. I've always been intrigued by the Boatswain's activities, not least because of that peculiarity between spelling and pronunciation!

What I want to know is why many writers assumed that Nichols and his men were washed away while trying to open that gangway door

I've never seen this in any of the books I've read; though I admittedly haven't read that many on Titanic itself; principally Sam et al on the 'Centennial Reappraisal'; the rest of my stuff is in respect of 'The Californian Incident' and Marconi stuff.

Lots of awful things can happen at sea, especially in wartime. Last week was the 80th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Lancastria.

Do you really think that gangway doors were opened on this sinking ship? And how would you get to an open gangway door to a lifeboat?

I agree the paucity of evidence over Boatswain Nichols is surprising - or is it?

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Bob Read]

Hi Julian: To board a lifeboat from a gangway door would not have been without its perils. The aft E deck gangway doors had accommodation ladders which could be rigged but the rigging process would have taken numerous trained hands who were needed with the lifeboats. These could be used like normal stairs but they were designed to be used for a ship with its normal trim so they might have been useless by the time they were rigged. The only other practical option would have been to hang Jacob’s ladders from the gangway doors. These ladders were really meant for experienced seamen. The potential for accidents with the average passenger would have been high. An example of one of these ladders is shown here. The gangway loading is really ony a practical solution if the boats were loaded with about 4 crew and lowered to the water. Accommodation ladders would have to be designed to be quickly rigged. Then all the passenger loading could be done at the doors. If the ship is listing badly or there are rough seas, then all bets are off.

Moderator's note: Edited to change position of the photograph. MAB

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Do you really think that gangway doors were opened on this sinking ship? And how would you get to an open gangway door to a lifeboat?

To be honest, the answer to the above question is that I do NOT believe that any gangway doors were opened. I was merely speculating based on Lightoller's statements at the British Inquiry about giving Nichols that order at around 01:05; this had been mentioned in a few books, presumably based on the same testimony. But previous discussions with Ionnis G and last night's impression by Sam (about the gangway doors opening outwards etc) more or less convinced me that they had not been opened at all. And I agree with Bob_Read's post above about the practical difficulties involved.

BUT, my main interest here is the fate of Alfred Nichols and the related interesting article by Brad Payne. In order to discuss that, we need a starting point somewhere and I was using Lightoller's 01:05 order to Nichols for that purpose because at least some leading books make the assumption that Nichols and his men died trying to carry out that order. I cannot quote offhand as I still don't have access to my books (they're packed in a warehouse) but I seem to recall that Lord's ANTR and Lynch's Titanic: An Iluustrated History mention it.

But in quoting that conversation between Lightoller and Nichols, I always use the prefix IF. As I said, I am far more interested in Nichols movements and his eventual fate after 01:05 am.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Thank you Arun and Bob.

I did a bit of searching on here this morning and have now read Brad Payne's paper on all this plus Arun's posts on all this going back a few years.

I agree with Arun that Lightoller's account over Nichols and the 6 never being seen again is conjecture on Lightoller's part.

Brad's paper is interesting.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I agree with Arun that Lightoller's account over Nichols and the 6 never being seen again is conjecture on Lightoller's part.

Lightoller in all likelihood did not see Nichols again after they parted company at 01:05 am. Irrespective of whether Nichols and his 6 men tried to open the gangway door or not (and I agree with Sam that they could not have succeeded), by the time they returned to the boat deck, Lightoller had moved to A-Deck and Lifeboat #4. From that point onwards, Lightoller more or less remained in that general area with #4, Collapsible D and then Collapsible B.

Nichols probably reported to Wilde instead; I think this because Wilde was involved with loading and later launching of Lifeboat #2; while upon his return to the boat deck, Nichols did briefly stop near #2 to give Johnstone that 'star tip', although I believe it was around 01:30 am (when Boxhall had not yet arrived) rather than later. Nichols must have left the forward port area soon afterwards because Barrett met him just as Lifeboat #13 was lowered and was told by the boatswain to 'pull an oar'.

Lightoller or any other surviving officer did not know the identities of the men that Nichols had taken below with him and so no one could have thrown light on that. We have to assume all of them perished, albeit later and in different parts of the sinking Titanic.

Excerpts from Lightoller's testimony in the British Inquiry:

13900. Now let us pursue the two things you have mentioned. You say you gave those orders to the boatswain to go down with some men and open the gangway doors?
- Yes.

13906. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes. (To the witness.) Can you help us when it was that you gave this order to the boatswain? I mean, can you give it us by reference to boats. Was it before you had lowered No. 4 to the a deck or after?
- I think it was after and whilst I was working at No. 6 boat.

13910. Did the boatswain execute those orders?
- That I could not say. He merely said "Aye, aye, sir," and went off.

13911. Did not you see him again?
- Never.

13912. And did not you ever have any report as to whether he had executed the order?
- No.

13914. You say you gave that order, as far as you recollect, when you were dealing with that boat No. 6?
- Yes, boat No. 6.

Since Lightoller confirmed twice that he gave that order to Nichols while working on Lifeboat #6, it must be true. This must have been around 01:05 am because when the lifeboat was starting to be lowered some 5 minutes later, they called out that the boat was a man short and Peuchen got his chance. I am assuming that Nichols must have left the vicinity of #6 by then; otherwise, he might have been ordered to go instead of Peuchen.

Therefore, ANTR and other books assumed that Nichols and his men died below while trying to open the gangway door based entirely on Lightoller's statement that he did not see the boatswain again that night. But Johnstone near #2 and Barrett near #13 reported not only seeing Nichols but receiving advice. So, I feel that Brad Payne's conjecture that Nichols died much later is likely to be correct.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Arun,

I don't disagree with any of your above post except the proviso...

I think it was after and whilst I was working at No. 6 boat

This is classic Lightoller, and as he doesn't get 'picked up' on this, he then asserts this without the proviso.

The timelines are interesting, and I know you are hampered by not having available a lot of your reference material currently.

You have to face the fact that Nichols, personally, wasn't considered that important by either Inquiry, and his name only cropped up incidentally. Neither did what Wilde do either. Neither was the subject of cross examination of witnesses; so far as I can tell; neither were on the 'raydar' of learned Counsel; they weren't interested in either.

Had it been on learned Counsels' 'raydar' then presumably the 'wreck commisioners' statements of crew could have been explored, and more witnesses called; but it was outside the remit of the British Inquiry, and Lord Mersey was tetchy and wanted get on with it. You can see this all too apparently by not calling the further witnesses from 'The Californian'.

It was not part of the remit of the questions to explore what happened to Nichols and his 6 at the British Inquiry. No one ever stated they saw gangway doors open at the time, and it played no part in Wilding's evidence, as to open gangway doors accelerating the sinking.

Nichols was no fool; he had years of experience at sea; if he wasn't sure what he could see from the gangway door windows he could have gone down to the next level to look out through portholes to see the sea; logic and common sense allows us to speculate he considered Lightoller's order completely 'nuts'. Having in effect disobeyed Lightoller's order (and we might also doubt whether Lightoller had the capacity/authority to order this without Captain Smith agreeing first) it is hardly surprising Nichols and his 6 then avoided Lightoller and kept a low profile?

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Thanks Julian.

As for Lightoller's ambiguity with timelines (and most other things), it was part of his nature - look after number one. Look at this excerpt:

13924. Very well. Now that is No. 6. I think that fairly gives us what you know about No. 6. There is nothing you want to add to it?
- No, I do not think there is anything further to add.

13925. What is the next one that you dealt with?
- Well, it was a boat further aft on the port side; its actual number I really could not say with accuracy. I am under the impression it was No. 8.

Research by Bill Wormstedt and others indicate that Lifeboat #8 was lowered at around 01:00 hours, the first on the port side. Although Lightoller might have been briefly involved with it, it was Wilde mainly supervising work on #8. It was lowered some 10 minutes before #6 and yet Lightoller suggested otherwise at the British Inquiry.

If you read Lightoller's testimony at the British Inquiry, particularly the second of the 3 days, you can see the number of vague and ambiguous statements he made. There were also several 'lapses of memory' of crucial timelines or other events. For example:

13967. Now I want to ask you this question. I think you have been asked it already. Did you give any directions (I think you said you did not remember.) to the boats to remain about the gangway door?
- No, My Lord.

13968. You did not?
- Not that I remember.

13969. You do not remember?
- Not that I remember.

As for Nichols, I can understand that the Inquiry Committee did not give him or his men any special importance, but given the scale of the tragedy, that is understandable from their perspective. But WE - Titanic enthusiasts - tend to pick-up on such individual or collective issues to look further - and so some of us, the fate of Nichols and his men is important.

The fact that by 01:05 am, the waterline was very close to the threshold of the E-deck gangway door on the port side. That and the fact that the Titanic still had a slight starboard list at that stage would have made Nichols decide that carrying out Lightoller's order was simply not practical. But I did speculate whether Nichols decided to open the D-deck gangway door instead? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that door not only a deck level higher but also further aft, thus much higher than the water level as the ship sank at the head?

As for Nichols virtually "disobeying" Lightoller's order, I don't think failure to carry out an impractical and dangerous order would have been considered as disobeying. And Nichols was a dinkum Aussie and I doubt whether he would have purposefully avoided Lightoller afterwards. By 01:20 most people on board would have known that the Titanic was sinking and it was getting busier and more crowded around the lifeboats still left. My guess is that their paths simply did not cross again. They might have been fleetingly in each other's lines of sight but noticing that amid the ongoing activity would be very unlikely.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Arun,

Thank you for your further reply, none of which I disagree with.

I have not the slightest doubt Nichols and the 6 did not die in some awful calamity inside Titanic. I cannot question Barrett's newspaper account, as you know I rely on newspaper accounts relating to Captain Lord, but you ought to check the timings of the newspaper reports...

You ought to explore that Barrett gave testimony to the USA Inquiry on Saturday 25th May 1912 to Senator Smith onboard Olympic, and the timing of the Ulster Echo article of 30th April 1912 quoted by Brad Payne in his paper.

As I said, the timelines are interesting. And in many ways. You ought to check out the 30th April Ulster Echo account using the same methods Harland has used so productively of late due to the newspaper archive pretty much being online (with some notable exceptions that hampered us re Groves' obituary re 'The Californian incident').

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Thanks Julian.
Since this thread is about lines of sight, there is another issue about which I want your (or anyone else interested) opinion.

During the (American?) Inquiry, Harold Lowe said something about 'casually glancing across' while he was working on Lifeboat #1 and seeing lights of another ship across the Titanic's port bow. I am having some difficulty in picturing this mentally - especially of Lowe would have been able to do that. This issue had been discussed before briefly on another thread but I am not entirely satisfied with the answer that I received. Tell me what you think.

Here are the points related to Lowe's statement that I am considering:

- We know that Lifeboat #1, the starboard emergency boat, was launched at around 01:05 am. This would mean that Lowe and others were 'working on it' when the former saw the lights of another ship, it mist have been around 01:00 am.
- At 01:00 am, the Titanic still had a starboard list. (Note that QM Hichens, in charge of Lifeboat #6 on the port side when it was launched at 01:10 am, said that they had to use their oars to push the boat away from the side of the ship as it was lowered). Therefore, the port bow would have been higher than than starboard.
- At 01:00 am, the Titanic was between 5 and 6 degrees down by the head and so anyone standing near Lifeboat #1 would also be correspondingly 'down' in relation to the surface of the sea.
- From BB's diagrams of the Titanic's boat deck etc, it seems like the bridge, wheelhouse and probably parts of other structures wound intervene in the line of sight of someone near Lifeboat #1 and looking towards the ship's port bow.

Bearing those points in mind, would it still have been possible for Lowe to 'glance casually' from his vantage point near #1 and see distant lights across the Titanic's port bow?

 

[Jim Currie]

Yes, Arun.
Emergency boat 1 was deployed over the side and ready for launching at all times when at sea. her gunwale was level with the top of the deck side bulwark... about 4 feet above the deck level. anyone working in that boat, getting her ready to load...clearing out unnecessary equipment etc, would be standing on a thwart with a height of eye about 7 or 8 feet above the deck- high enough to see clearly over the bridge wing dodger. The line of sight would be in the direction of the foremast. What you must also keep in mid is that to every experienced seaman who saw thee lights, they were no farther away than 5 to 7 miles. You should ask why so many such men could be so wrong in their distance estimation.
I found the following hardly accurate impression which gives you and idea of what Lowe might have seen in daylight..

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Arun,

As you have to hand your copy of Sam's new book on all this you might want to turn to pages 151/152, and footnote 28 on pages 171/172.

I have a copy of Lowe's additional statement of May 1912, but I can't find it on my computer this evening.

Sadly, I cannot help you with Lowe's 'glancing' at the lights he saw as to the superstructure and layout of Titanic. Others who are experts on all this will have to comment. My comments on the 'Stanley Lord Guilty as Charged ' thread were that he only 'glanced' at what he saw; and the interpretation of all that should be on that thread, especially in the light of Sam's new book evaluating all this.

We didn't have the feedback then (as I recall) from those other experts on Titanic's layout and superstructure on that thread, though knowing Sam, if he didn't think Lowe had a clear view of these lights, Sam would have stated this, as Sam himself I regard as very thorough on all matters Titanic and an expert of same in his own right.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Hi Julian

Yes, it is a difficult one. Yes, I have seen those pages in Sam's book and in fact asked Sam precisely the same question last month on a PM (I used PM because we were getting heated-up elsewhere ). Sam sent me a sketch about Lowe's line of sight under the circumstances but perhaps I did not understand it completely.

Here it is:

When I saw the above, I was not certain about the vantage point marked since it seemed nowhere near Lifeboat #1.

But reading an excerpt from Jim's post yesterday (quoted here) along with the picture

>>>>>>>>>Emergency boat 1 was deployed over the side and ready for launching at all times when at sea. her gunwale was level with the top of the deck side bulwark... about 4 feet above the deck level. anyone working in that boat, getting her ready to load...clearing out unnecessary equipment etc, would be standing on a thwart with a height of eye about 7 or 8 feet above the deck- high enough to see clearly over the bridge wing dodger. The line of sight would be in the direction of the foremast.<<<<<<<

It looks like Lowe might have been able to see those lights if he was standing on a thwart 7 feet above the level of the boat deck (that is something I did not know) despite the (still) starboard list and the fact that the Titanic was about 5 degrees down by the head.