More Timeline Possibilites


Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Was thinking about Titanics schedule in her port of calls, and was wondering if she was behind on them. My figuring deducted that she had to have been behind, since the incident with the New Yorker had held her up some time from departure (1 hour if the accounts i have read are correct). That being true there are only 2 ways to make up time in that regard that i can figure...One would be to cut your time down in variuos ports of call and leave ahead of schedule..The other would be to race at breakneck speed, which is also a troubling thought..But im wondering if anyone knows the schedule Titanic was supposed to follow, and how far she was behind if that was the case..One has to wonder, because a few hours could have meade the difference between going through that icefield at night and in daylight, which could have made all the difference in the world..Also, i have read the estimate that says it would have taken 37 seconds between spotting of the berg and impact..I somehow cant swallow it, but wonder if anyone else knows of other tests that may have been conducted to get that same gauge, and what the results a
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
well due to the lack of repsonses on this board, i will withdraw my membership..I obviously annoy or fail to stimulate people with topics, but i wish you all the best with your endeavours..you run a fantastic site here..thank you to all that responded in the fast, and may god bless you one and all..and may we never forget Titanic or any of her members
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
19
233
A lack of responses isn't really a reason to withdraw your membership. Sometimes threads take awhile to get response. I can remember a thread I created about the true identities of some of the extras from the James Cameron movie. It didn't recieve any response for nearly three months, but once it did it soon grew to over one hundred posts!

As for your question, I'm no expert on the times for the ports of call, but the New York incident did indeed throw her behind by approximately one hour. This meant that the ship was behind schedule, and I have read accounts in which passengers talk about the ship being late for her arrival at Cherbourg that evening.

As for tests, again, I'm no expert. Thirty-seven seconds is the amount of time that I've always read there was between the first sighting and the impact. I think there might have been an article published on this site dealing with this subject.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
I'd hate to have Matthew behind me in heavy traffic!

I bet he drives one of those little red Hondas!

Chill out Matt!

John M
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
28
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
As Brandon said, the close call with the New York threw her off at least by a hour. As far as the amount of time between the sighting and the collision with the berg go, I read on here awhile ago (I forget which thread) in a post that was posted by George Behe, that a test was done and it was found to be thirty-seven seconds.

Matthew, don't quit on a lack of responses! Brandon's right, it takes time for some threads.

Best regards,

Jason
happy.gif
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
John, you have me all wrong..Traffic bothers me not in the least, thats an accepted part of life, just as is an express lane in a supermarket being anything less than express lol. I somehow call into question that 37 second theory, however, simply because even if 10 seconds elapsed as Murdoch attempted his manuever, that leaves 27 seconds for the ship to turn..Now based on how well the rudder performed, one has to think that would be at the least signifigant movement from the manuever, being it had 27 seconds to execute..As far as the other aspect of the thread which i originally posted, I was assuming that Titanic, being a new ship, for whatever reasons, new ships always had kinks to be worked out in stops of port of calls..That being said, the kinks take a bit of time..So assume that maybe each kink held her back the minimum 15 minutes in each port of call..that could easily throw the shcedule off another hour..Then a myrimid of possibilities exsist..If my very rough hypothetical calculations are correct, then the ship was going throuhg that icefield 2 hours late..It is indeed within the realm of reason to think any number of conditions 2 hours earlier could have led to the slightest of course alterations, thus having Titanic avoid that area altogether..This is why i am very interested to see Titanics pre-set timetables for scheduled stops, and how she was meeting them...As far as the original message, i apologize, but since it was well over a week with no responses, i thought the interest in the thread just wasnt there...Thank you all for responding..You all are truly kind people
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,646
827
563
Easley South Carolina
On the matter of 37 seconds, it helps to remember that this was arrived at in a timed test with the RMS Olympic, and that the 37 seconds was the time it took for the head of the ship to come around two points, once the rudder was actually put over!

This can't account for additional time lost from the three warning bells struck by the crow's nest, somebody seeing the danger ahead, assessing the danger, then making decsions and carrying them out form helm orders to working the engine room telegraphs.

Matt is quite correct in questioning the 37 seconds thing. Whatever happened from spotting the danger to actually doing something about it took longer then 37 seconds.

How long is a matter of some debate. Obviously, it was too long.

Matthew, don't let a lack of response to some questions deter you from participating in the board. Some people have other interests and may not care much about conning orders. There is also the fact that there are reletively few members here who have the technical competance in shiphandling (Or confidence!) to give you a good answer, so they hold back and hope somebody who does have such knowladge will speak up. They learn things that way. I do the same sort of lurking in the passenger threads, and for the same reasons! I want to learn from people who have the background that I lack. You just need to be patient at times. That's all.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
Hi Matthew...!

Sorry! Just having a little laugh there!

With regard to your original posting - Michael put it very succinctly. We're not all experts!

I am certainly not qualified to answer your question - although, for what it's worth, I do happen to think that Titanic was considerably behind her schedule, perhaps to a much greater degree than is commonly thought, which may have explained the speed which Smith was maintaining. There you go...that's me inviting a lot of 'flak'!

Please don't apologise for your second post, though! See what it did?

And, by the way, I totally agree with your comments about 'Express Lanes' in supermarkets......!

Kind Regards,

John M

(P.S. I can't imagine anyone having 37 seconds to avoid a 'berg - and avoiding it in a ship of that size!)
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,646
827
563
Easley South Carolina
On the matter of avoiding the berg, at least four things would have to happen and damned fast in order to do so;
1)Recognize the danger
2)Know where it is,
3)Make fast decisions as to how to avoid it and
4)Carry them out.

While doing all of this, the ship is still moving forward, the clock is ticking, and you have your own mass coupled with your speed working against you, so you have to take this into account in any action you take along with the handling characteristics of the ship. Either way, you're looking at more then 37 seconds between sighting of the danger and actually getting something done about it! If you're the deck officer and you happen to be out on the bridge wing, you lose precious seconds in getting from the bridge wing into the bridge itself, working the engine room telegraphs, giving the helm orders, having the helmsman respond to the orders, having the engine room respond to the orders given etc.

The Titanic was no hummingbird, and the officers knew it. You can be reasonably certain of two things.
a)Things got very exciting on the bridge in that amount of time and
b)Nothing happened quickly enough!

I'm sure a trained bridge officer can explain it better then I can, but that's the problem in a nutshell.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Im bringing up this thread again, because there are so many questions about that small period of time that need addressing. Let us take into account for a moment, 2 as though unproven theories, and accept them as fact for the sake of discussion. The second the lookouts spot the berg from the crows nest, im sure with the technology in place during that era of time, there was a slight delay from the time they picked up the phome, to the time the signal (aka phone ringing on the bridge) actually reached the bridge. And even though that might have only been seconds, if we accept the 37 second theory as fact, then they were valuable seconds lost. The next theory would be IF the reverse order engine was actually given. Once again, you envision a scenario where by the time the order reaches the engine room, valuable time was lost because of the equipment in place to carry the messages. Would anyone care to venture a reasonable guess as to how much time could have been lost with just those 2 elements alon
 

Dan Cherry

Member
Dec 14, 1999
775
9
263
Hello, Matthew!
If I am not mistaken, David Brown addresses the topic in his book, "The Last Log of the Titanic". I don't have the book in front of me right now, but it was quite the compelling read and he addresses many things about the Titanic's last hours, especially about the time surrounding the contact with the iceberg.
As you may know, the 37 second theory was based on a test run with the Olympic after the disaster. I cannot recall the particulars surrounding the events that occurred in the 37 time frame - was it not from the time the helm was thrown over to port to the point when her bow swung two points from center?

Regards,
Dan C.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,646
827
563
Easley South Carolina
I've seen the same information and it was arrived at during experiments conducted for the BOT Inquiry. Unfortunately, what is rarely appriciated is that there is a lag time between identifying the danger, making a decision, and actually carrying it out. Becuase of this, the 37 second figure is used way out of it's actual context and is pretty firmly entrenched in Titanic lore.

Whatever happened on the Titanic between the time the ice was sighted and the time the ship actually struck, you can be certain that it involved more then 37 seconds of time.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
But I think the actually person turning the wheel/rudder reacting took 37 seconds. You are quite right about the rest though Mike.

Erik
 

Dan Cherry

Member
Dec 14, 1999
775
9
263
I am attempting to recall what Dave said in his book (hopefully he will chime in) without the benefit of it in front of me. I think Dave gave the events from start to finish about 1 minute 15 seconds or so for the sighting to be made, called in, Moody to relay the message, Murdoch to run to the bridge from the wing, order Hichens to turn the wheel, signal all stop, and wait for the Titanic to make contact with the ice.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,646
827
563
Easley South Carolina
>>But I think the actually person turning the wheel/rudder reacting took 37 seconds. <<

Mmmmmm...that was my point, and also what the experiments found. But somehow over the years, this has been translated by commentators into 37 seconds from the time the iceberg was sighted to the time the bow swung two points.

I wonder if this mis-interpretation will ever be rooted out of the popular folklore?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Ooohhhhh,

Now I am on the same page (sometimes I need to get my glasses cleaned and my beer goggles out to view things accuratley). Agreed. I don't think there is a way we can accuratley asses how long it would take from the lookouts ringing the bell to the time the ship reacted. We don't know how long Murdoch took to give the order (although we can safely assume that the bridge perceived the berg before the lookouts did)and we don't know if Hitchens spun the wheel at a faster or slower rate then the QM on Olympic.

And although I will get nailed to the cross of this, Olympic and Titanic are two different ships. Although they have identical machinery ships usually have their own personality and don't always react the same way. I have a couple of sea stories I could tell in relation to this.

Erik
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,646
827
563
Easley South Carolina
Do tell Erik. Granting that the Olympic and Titanic had identical machinary, but the Titanic was a touch heavier and we don't know what sort of "bugs" were in the machinary that would have effected things. With a brand new ship, there had to be a couple. (Thousand!)
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Ships are very tradionally referred to as she (and this sailor still calls them she) for a good reason. You will never find a ship behave the same way even if they are twin sisters.

The Holiday is one such ship, her sister Tropicale (don't hold me to that name) are basically the same ship, same machinery and same makeup, however Holiday has a bad habit of pulling to the right in bad weather, regardless of the wind direction or current. On the other hand the Tropicale stays straight and steady. Can anybody explain this to me?? Ships will always be ships I guess.

Erik
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads