Parisian's destination

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
When Hains gave interviews to the newspapers, he was in command of the situation, No-one could contradict him even if he did have some thing to hide.
Southerland's remark about being 50 miles further south than ever before would be about right. The course from The Corner to Halifax is 285 T. This was , I think, the vessels's first run on the new schedule of Glasgow to Halifax via Boston instead of Glasgow to Halifax , direct. He says so.

It follows that if he was 50 miles further south than ever before then that puts Parisian about 10 miles south of where 'Titanic' hit the berg at the time he was referring to. If however, he was referring to being south of the course from the corner to Boston then he would be in the latitude of about 42.15N.

If he was at the position at 2000 ship time (is that a DR?)then he was about 52 miles south of the track for Halifax - 'further south than ever before'! If he went down to 42.22N then he was in fact, as much as 80 miles further south than he had ever been before.

If he was at the 2000 hr position, and he did indeed go down to 42. 22N then at that time, he would have about 1.5 hours to run at 13 knots before altering to the westward through the ice. This means he would have cleared away on course for Halifax - not Boston as intended - possibly before midnight. So was he referring to the 50 mile southward diversion as a maximum? If he was then why did he refer to it in the same breath as 'next morning'?

As for him knowing the southern extent of the ice - he also seems to have known it's western boundaries. How else would he be able to advise 'Olympic' that 'Titanic' was in heavy ice at the erroneous CDQ longitude of 50. 20W - 19 miles further west than he had been when he turned south?

There are a number of questions which need answering.

Why was Parisian on a westerly course if she was heading for Boston. She should have been on much the same track as Californian if she turned at the corner. Did she allow a southerly diversion to avoid reported ice movements?

When did she get orders to proceed to Halifax?
When did she turn onto the course for Halifax?
How did he see for ceratain the southern limit of the ice in pitch darkness?

Curious!

Cheers,

Jim
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>I think it is best to calculate based upon the speed the Captain said the Parisian was going.<<

Thanks Paul for information about Parisian making 13 knots. It does change things a bit from what I posted yesterday. At 13 knots the Parisian would have been at the location of the 3 reported icebergs 41 minutes past 4:30 PM, or at 5:11. By 8 PM, and steaming at 13 knots, Parisian would have traveled 45.5 miles since her 4:30 position. I now would show Parisian heading due west from her 4:30 position for about 28.3 miles until about 6:40 PM when she would reach 41° 55' N, 49° 40' W. From that position I put her on a heading close to SW (actually 221°) reaching 41° 42' N, 49° 55' W at 8 PM, a distance of about 17.2 miles. My guess is still that Parisian continued down from that 8 PM position to latitude 41° 22' N before turning westward based on what Hains told Haddock on the 15th. If we assume she was on the reciprocal course heading Hains gave to Haddock for getting around the ice from that latitude, then Parisian would be close to 41° 22' N, 50° 12' W when she turned westward. The picture would now look like:
133727.gif
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Sam!

Your chart shows a position for 'Parisian' when she sent the ice message to Californian. Although no time is given - it should have been around 1710 ATS - using 13.5 kts (current helping). This would be about 1240 ATS 'Californian'- i.e. 4.5 hrs at 11.5 kts.if the separation distance of 50 miles is correct If these times are correct then the separation distance cannot be so.

Working back from 'Califronian's DR at 1830 for two hours at 11.5 knts and using your DR track places her at 42.03.5N..48.38W at 1630. 'Parisian' claims to have been at 41. 59N..49.02W at the same time therefore they would be about 32 miles apart or just under three hours at that time.
It follows that the bergs would have been a couple of miles further south when Californian saw them two hours later. This would point out to them having been almost exactly on the 42 parallel when 'Parisian' saw them but then, if she was on the DR track shown, they would have been 7 or eight miles to the NE from the position she gave at the suggested time of 1710hrs.
She would, in fact have passed them 20 minutes earlier at around 1650 hrs. when they were 5 miles to the north.
If, as I believe, Californian was at least 2miles further north then these bergs would also be further to the north.

If, as has been earlier claimed, that Californian was south of the 42nd parallel then she would have to have been south of these bergs to follow the same DR track and end-up around 15 miles NW of Titanic. In fact - much like the DR course you show for 'Parisian'.

I still think the Parisian's sparks was referring to being 50 miles south of the 285 T course from The Corner which had previously been followed by the ship before changing to the Boston schedule.

Cheers,

Jim
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>I still think the Parisian's sparks was referring to being 50 miles south of the 285 T course from The Corner which had previously been followed by the ship before changing to the Boston schedule. <<

I agree! This is the only thing that makes sense. He knew Californian was on route to Boston and that his ship had gone far south to go around the ice.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Sam,

I think you also agree that the apparent behaviour of this particular vessel is very strange. Why was he so far off course?

I know you and I differ about the value of evidence offered by the officers of 'Californian' but Steward did refer to adjusting course a few degrees as they went along. The course from The Corner to Boston is 271.5 T. Californian adjusted to this course at 0955 on the 14th. The Parisian should have been on the same course but seems to have been making a course of due west and 10 miles to the south of where he should have been on the track for Boston.

Looking closer; it would seem that Lord used 11 knots and a course of 272 T from The Corner for his 1830 DR. The D.Lat. from the turn on this course at 11 knots being 3.1 minutes north.
However, he would get a first class Noon position. This is recorded as latitude 42.05 N. If this were true then the DR at 1830 should have been 42.07.5 N. not 42.03N as given in the ice warning. Incidentally, that position was changed to 42. 05 N in Capt. Napp's submission File No.62908-2995.
It was probably 42. 05 N because Stewart's Polaris sight if true - would confirm it It would also confirm a south setting current from Noon i.e they were heading 272 T but not changing latitude therefore making nearer to 270 T.
This current would have to be setting roughly south at about 0.4 kts otherwise the Californian's DR at 2230 would be wrong in longitude as well as latitude. However it is possible his Noon position confirmed the amount of D.Long he was making hence his DR longitude of 50. 07 W. If he was, as has been suggested being set to the westward as well as south then this should have been evident in the movement of the ice and on the speed of Titanic. Consequently his DR at 2230 might place him further west and as much as 26.5 miles NW of Titanic. There is nothing to suggest an other than south to south west trending current. Lord's 273 T course would help to lessen if not neutralise the effect of the southerly element but what about the westerly effect? The movement of the ice seems to confirm there was such an element. I would suggest this could add up to half a knot to a ship's speed!


To me, the foregoing paints a clear picture of the relative positions and conditions effecting these vessels on the 14th. So far I have seen nothing that would persuade me otherwise. However it is what happened after 1830 that night which intrigues me. There are time gaps that need filling.

If, as has been claimed, 'Parisian' went as far south as 42 22N to clear the ice- this contradicts Mesaba's message that he had to go down to 41, 35N to clear the ice. Another mystery!

It has been suggested that there might be some old records of Cape Race signals sent to Parisian on the 14th/15th. If so, I wonder when 'Parisian' received orders to divert to Halifax?

Great fun!

Cheers,

Jim.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Hi Jim.

The movements of Californian on the morning of April 14 are interesting in itself. Lord was taking the GC route from Bishop Rock to the corner, and from there to Boston. Yet he never quite made it down to the corner. He certainly wasn't here at 9:40 AM as claimed in his logbook.

The first problem I have with the data written in her logbook is the distance between “the corner” at 9:40 AM and their noon position for April 14th. The distance between those two reported points turns out to be 19 miles on a heading of 285° true. Even ignoring the fact they would have set their clock back at noon by about 21 minutes of time, the speed of the ship works out to be no greater than 8 knots over ground on a heading 15° north of due west. They did not head in that direction, and were obviously north and eastward of the corner at 9:40.

Lord also wrote in his 1959 affidavit: "On 14th April, the noon position by observation was 42° 05’ N., 47° 25’ W., and the course was altered to North 61° West (magnetic) to make due West (true). I steered this course to make longitude 51° West in latitude 42° North on account of ice reports which had been received."

The 6:30 3-icebergs report sent in wireless to the Antillian was:

"To Captain, ‘Antillian,’ 6.30 p.m. apparent time, ship; latitude, 42.3 North; longitude, 49.9 West. Three large bergs five miles to southward of us. Regards. Lord."

This is just about on the line from his noon position 42.5N, 47.25W to 42.00N, 51.00W. The same position 42.03N, 49.09W shows up in a wireless ice report message to Olympic the following day. The latitude was not adjusted to match what was later written in their logbook and explained by Stewart as changed to 42.5N because of a pole star sight.

The movements of Parisian are not so mysterious. She obviously went about 5 miles south of the corner before turning due west. Probably to keep clear of reported ice paralleling lat. 42N. Later on she probably encountered more ice ahead and Hains decided to go southward to get around it. At 6:40 pm, if I'm right, she was at 49° 40' W, about 7-8 miles from the ice field that was running north-south ahead of them. It would have been seen in plain daylight.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Sam,

I think there is evidence to prove the Official Log Book entries of the 'Californian' for 14th April are fairly normal. I appreciate your information about Lord's 1959 affidavit but this was given by an 82 year old man - 58 years after the event. I know that time for him was traumatic but I also know that during traumatic times, a multitude of associated events happen almost simultaneously - over the years, things get mixed-up, times are inaccurate. I say 'I know' because at my advanced age, it is starting to happen to me - especially when trying to recall momentous historical events I took part in without the aid of the Internet!

I do not think Lord's Noon Longitude was 47. 25 W but more like 47.35 W. It was probably noted as such in the Official Log Book. My reasoning is as follows:
On Day 8 of the BOT enquiry C/O Stewart read out entries concerning course changes during the previous 24 hrs.. This was in response to questions about the difference in daily latitudes. It was recorded that course changes took place three times during the morning of the 14th. These were to 271 T at 0940, to N272 T. at 0955 and again to 270T at Noon. I have omitted half degrees as being insignificant to this argument.

Having travelled that route many times - to me this suggests the first major course change after the GC track - in this case at 0940hrs.
At 0955, it was probably decided to allow a bit more to the north to compensate for the apparent southerly setting current (Stewart remarked on this during his evidence giving) - hence the second adjustment.
At noon, they would obtain their first real evidence of where exactly they were. Previous fixes would have been obtained while still on the GC track.
At this point, I would suggest they found that they found they were too far north, were allowing too much northerly and decided to re-adjust to a westerly course - expecting to get a star fix at evening twilight. They still believed they were being influenced by the current. Hence at 1830, when giving out the ice warning, they allowed for it in their DR for that time. An hour later, Stewart got a fix and found that the current effect was negligible and they were indeed making their westerly heading. This would confirm that their initial allowance was indeed too much. It would also tend to suggest that the effect of the Labrador current in that area was being neutralized by the contrary Gulf Stream current.

As for the strange Noon latitude:
Lord always claimed his average speed was about 11 knots. The distance from 'The Corner' to his DR when stopped at 2230hrs on the 14th is 139 miles. This gives an average speed of 11.3 knots. This average speed for 2hrs 20 minutes gives a distance of 25.99 miles which on a course of N89W gives a departure of 26', a D.lat of 0.5'N and a D.long of 35'W. This would make the Noon position 42.00.5'N, 47.35'W.
However, the latitude obtained at Noon suggest Lord arrived at the 47W in the latitude of 42.04.5N.

From the foregoing, I see no reason for noting a course change for Boston at 0940 hrs other than the ship was at or near the chosen way-point.

As for the 'Parisian':
- 'Californian' arrived at Boston about 12 - 14 hours late - 0400 hrs on the 19th April. His delay is easily accounted for. Whereas the late arrival of the 'Parisian'at a nearer destination does not seem to be properly accounted for.

Still having fun,

Jim.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>I do not think Lord's Noon Longitude was 47. 25 W but more like 47.35 W. It was probably noted as such in the Official Log Book.<<

That noon location was not just given by Lord in 1959 but he gave that in sworn evidence at the inquiries in 1912, only weeks after the event.

As far as 47 years Vs. 58 years, we all know you have a problem in your old age with simple arithmetic Jim.
happy.gif
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Sam!

What's so simple about arithmetic? That doesn't add-up!

I am aware what Lord stated. But remember, he wasn't the only one who got positions wrong that night - What about Captain Smith and Mr. Boxhall to mention but a few.

Surely the most significant time and evidence relative to the movements of 'Californian' is when they turned onto the westerly course for Boston? There is nothing to suggest that they did this other than at 0940 on the morning of the 14th.
'Ah!' I hear you exclaim -'but where were they when they made that turn?'. I can well understand the importance of the correct answer to that question relative to your position.
However, consider this:
The weather between April 12th and at least 16th was fine, calm and and clear - a Navigator's gift from heaven if you'll excuse the reference.
This, as you know is probably the single most significant factor governing whether vessels kept on course to the various way-points on the GC track and finally ending at 'The Corner'. Apart from problems with steering or engine break-down, there was little to prevent the experienced navigator arriving 'right on the money' as they say. There is ample evidence to suggest that they all did just that. Indeed you have earlier suggested that the navigator of 'Parisian' had such confidence in his skills that the ship was allowed to run further south and west to avoid ice. The navigators in 'Titanic' seem to have done the same. So why, of all the vessels involved, should 'Californian' be any different?

Cheers!

Jim
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
I don't think this has been mentioned before, but one reason why the Parisian was late at her destination is because, upon receipt of the distress message, she turned around and headed towards the wrecksite, where she found only flotsam but no bodies.

Cheers

Paul
--
The ebook on the Titanic and the Californian can be ordered at http://www.paullee.com/book_details.php
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Paul!

When did they get the news? and what wreck site did they head for? If I remember rightly; they gave info as to how to get there to Olympic and the site quoted was Boxhall's. There would be no wreckage there.

Cheers!

Jim.

Hope your feeling better,

Jim
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Hi Jim,
I'm feeling much better thanks. I think they got the news at 4 am on 15th April. I don't know if this was NYT or local time, but I reckon they would have got to the wrecksite in late morning; if they did, they may have been able to see for themselves that the CQD position was in field ice, or at least the approach to the position was hampered by the ice. I think what they did was back-track their course and hope to reach the wreck by the instructions sent to the Olympic, and found the wreckage as they passed the eastern edge of the field.

My best guess, based on the layout of the field as sketched by the Birma is that the Parisien approached the ice field at about 8.00pm. It would then still be light enough to see it. The sketch from the Birma shows that the southern edge of the ice field was in an approximate ENE - WSW orientation at about 41 19 N at midday on April 15th. At 8pm, and with a 1 knot southerly current, this would be 41 35 N. I think that the Parisien may have hugged the perimeter of the field (otherwise she would not have been able to provide the Olympic with estimates of its location), before proceeding on her voyage. It would still have been light for a little time afterwards for the ice to have been seen, and its lay noted.

Cheers

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com/book_details.php
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Paul!

Back from vacation!

One point stands out. If they saw just a few bits of flotsam at the CQD it could not have been from Titanic - we know any such debris from her would be in the vicinity of the true sinking area. If Parisian did turn back and did see as she reported (although I seem to recall a wireless message that Hains decided not to do so)then she surely would have been seen by of some of the other vessels in the vicinity heading for the correct position?
It seems that Frankfurt did exactly that and was in the vicinity of Boxhall's CQD at about 1130 hrs on the 15th. (use Titanic time throughout).
The records seem to indicate that Parisian overheard a weak wireless message at around 5.40 NY time - about 7-30 ship's time - not at 0400 as you suggest. This would still have been the false CQD position. As you will see later, I have calculated where she might have been at that time. If I'm nearly right and if she then turned round and steamed back to that point, she would have to steam a distance of about 120 miles and would arrive back at the CQD at around 1600 hrs on the 15th. She would not have to follow the recommended route given to Olympic but would have a clear passage all the way to that point.
When she got there, who would re-direct her south to the proper search area? If she was so redirected, she would have arrived at her earlier through-barrier passage to possibly find it blocked- it was in continuous motion after all. She would then have to spend time trying to find a way through to the spot where she met with the flotsam. Then she would search. Finding nothing she would then have another 44.5 hour passage back toward Halifax - a total time delay of say 55.5 hours.

I am still puzzled as to why Parisian directed Olympic in the way she claimed she did. Olympic was coming from the west and knew the Boxhall's CQD early on so could easily have done as Frankfurt and Mount Temple did.

Birma's reported position of the ice is probably accurate.
If Mount Temple was stopped at the western edge of the ice opposite where Carpathia picked up the survivors and Californian had to go further south to find a way through then it would seem that the southernmost edge of the heaviest pack-ice was in about 41.28 N at 0800hrs on the 15th and would have been at 41.25N at Noon that day.
I used 0.7 knots for the current.

If, like you, I work that back to 2000hrs on the 14th- this would place the southern edge of the ice at about 41.46N.

I have plotted Parisian's progress from 1642 hrs on the 14th., making certain assumptions.

At a speed of 14 knots, she would have increased her longitude by about 19'W every hour.
With her height of eye of say 45 ft. and the ice barrier being about 10 ft. (generous); the ice would have been seen at maximum range of 11 miles.
If Californian's longitude for the eastern edge of the pack ice of 50.07W is reasonable then at best, Parisian would not have seen the eastern edge of the ice before around 1945 hrs. However, I do not think they would have clearly seen the ice at that time - certainly not clear enough to determine it's magnitude or to make a decision to alter course for an apparent southerly limit. Also; it was a bright clear sky and they were heading almost directly toward the setting sun - again not favourable conditions to detect any object low on an observer's horizon.
My guess is, they would not be absolutely positive before 2000hrs that there was an unbroken ice barrier ahead. Possibly even later if the truth be known. Therefore I don't think they would have turned south before they were within 8 or 9 miles from the ice at the earliest. This would place them in a DR longitude of 49.55W.
At that point, they would be about 14 miles NNE of the southern edge of the ice - at least an hour's sailing in ever-increasing darkness with the ever-present and increasing presence of ice; including by that time, probably bergs.
This does not paint a very encouraging picture!
However, if she did proceed as suggested, she would have to get closer to the barrier before turning south to run parallel with it's eastern side. She would probably have been getting close to her suggested passage through the ice at around 2130hrs - by then in total darkness. She would then turn west and move very slowly through the ice, clearing it around 2230 - just about the same time Californian came to rest on the eastern side.
I figure that at that time, Parisian was no more than 10 miles WSW of where Titanic hit the berg.

Talking of californian:

If, as claimed, Californian was on a bearing of NW from where Titanic struck the berg then she could not have been more than 10 miles to the north of Parisian and the same distance NW from where Titanic hit the berg - an equilateral triangle if you wish!

When Titanic did hit the berg about an hour later, Parisian should have been about 18 miles west of her and about 6 miles from Boxhall's CQD position.
Despite the fact that she was supposed to go to Boston she headed for Halifax; why?

The distance from my estimated 2230 DR on the 14th to Halifax is about 622 miles. At a speed of 14 knots this would take around 44.5 hours. Parisian should therefore have arrived at the Halifax pilot at approximately 1800 hrs LMT on the 16th.of April. If she had turned back as earlier described, her ETA would then have been 0100hrs on the 19th.April.

As you can see; throughout, I have used approximations as well as a fair dollop of 'ifs'. Here's another set:

Additionally; if Californian was where the foregoing suggests she was at 2230 hrs then she would have drifted southward for the next 7.5 hours. This would place her 5 miles NE of Boxhall's CQD, 9 miles WNW of where Titanic sank and 10 miles or even closer to where the survivors were picked up. She would also be 5 miles north of Mount Temple's mystery ship and 8 miles north of mount Temple herself. I don't think anyone believes this.
If (here I go again) Californian was bearing NW from Titanic she could not have been much more than 9 or 10 miles away. Otherwise, she would have been in the middle of or far side of the pack ice. Lord never claimed he was in such a position. If it was the later he would not have had to stop!
If what I think is correct then Californian could never have been on a NW bearing from Titanic as well as being at a greater distance from her unless the orientation of the ice barrier was improperly reported and it was in fact lying NW-SE or orientated as reported but formed as a long line of deep undulations. Additionally, her speed would have to have been greater that the reported 11 knots to place her further west than 50.07.

As I say loads and loads of ifs -'If I could have been a fly on the bulkhead'(but not one of Titanic's!).

A lot of work still to be done I think!

Cheers!

Jim.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Hi Jim,
Thats a long post, it'll take me a long time to respond, but I'll just say a few things:

Firstly, the 4am receipt was off the top of my head. I can't recall the time, except that it was a long time after the Titanic sank.

Secondly, I agree with Sam's analysis and his maps presented. I think Parisian reached the eastern edge of the ice field, and headed south or south west until she reached the southern edge of the ice field. By this time, darkness would have been upon them, and all they could see would be an ice field stretching off into the distance (like the Californian did at 10.21pm that night). To the Parisien's officers, it would have looked like the ice field headed well north, and given the eastern edge of the field they had already seen, they would have suspected that the ice extended well to the area of the Titanic's CQD position. The Birma gives a peculiar backwards L-shaped configuration to the ice field. In the darkness, and looking north from the bottom leg of the backwards "L", the ice would have seemed to extend north, extending its apparent width.

The Parisian steamed on her way, received the CQD and headed back, but her previous experience would have told her that the location was in the ice field, hence the route she informed the Olympic: a direct route was impossible, and you needed to steam around the ice. If Parisien did this (and if she didn't why tell the Olympic this bizarre route?) then she would have encountered the flotsam as she backtracked her route around the eastern side of the ice.

If Parisian saw flotsam, then it would have to have come from the Titanic, and this means the eastern side of the icefloe. I have seen absolutely no evidence that there was any wreckage to the west of the ice, from Titanic or any other vessel.

I'm going for a lie down now

Paul
 

Paul Slish

Member
Jan 18, 2006
255
0
86
Hello everyone! I've been busy with other things for a while, but will now make a few posts again.

Immediately after the accident there were a number of messages that went out that afterward proved to be just rumor.

Virginian and Parisian had survivors. Titanic was being towed to Halifax etc. Parisian had turned around and gone to the scene of the wreck.

First according to wireless operator Sutherland (interview in Halifax by Philadelphia Inquirer (April 19, 1912, p. 9)) the Parisian's scheduled course was "our route being between Glasgow and Boston, with Halifax as a port of call, and we were on our way to Halifax"

So Halifax was a planned port of call.

According to Captain Hains the Parisian did not go back toward the wreck site.

Boston Globe, April 18, 1912, pp. 1,3. "Monday morning when Capt Hains learned what had happened he instructed Mr. Sutherland to keep him fully posted as to wireless messages. Here came again the confusion of messages, is apparent, for Mr. Sutherland picked out of the air indications that succor had reached the Titanic. As he got it, both the Carpathia and Californian were standing by. At that time he got no information that would lead him to believe that his services would be required. So he kept to his course. Being west of the scene of the accident, he had no cause to change his mind. As the day wore on and additional messages were flashing along he got some idea of what had really happened. Then it was too late to put about."

So Captain Hains claimed he never went back toward the wreck site.

The newspaper also relates that Captain Hains first heard about the disaster at 4:00 a.m. Monday morning. It is not clear whether that is New York or ship's time.

I will have to try to find the source. I do recall some ships had to stay anchored in the Bay of Fundy for a whole day because of heavy fog. They could not proceed safely to St. John, NB. Whether similar conditions stranded ships outside Halifax, NS, I don't know. I offer it only as a POSSIBLE explanation for Parisian's delayed arrival in Halifax. The New York Times says she was delayed by heavy fog.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,794
557
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Paul!

Interesting article. I wonder where they got their information. As the other Paul pointed out, there was a great deal of mis-infromation going about between the 15th and 19th.
The only thing that would explain the lengthy delay as the other Paul suggests, would be fog.

It might be interesting if the weather record for Halifax at that time could be accessed.

Hope you're still well,

Cheers!

Jim.
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,059
583
143
England
Having looked at the map of ships in the vicinity of the Titanic during the disaster recently linked in another thread, it struck me that I'd not noticed the Allan liner Parisian come up in many conversations before hence a quick search lead me to this thread.

Regarding the confusion surrounding the Parisian's movements, I noted on the Marconi website this message:

MESSAGE FROM ELBIS

Which makes me wonder how the Parisian's name kept cropping up in signals that evening in relation to the rescue of passengers? There was of course the infamous message supposedly sent from Carpathia that the Titanic was safe and had been taken under tow by the SS Virginian while the SS Parisian had picked up some of the passengers.

It seems unusual that a liner that had supposedly been out of communication with nearby vessels between 11:30pm and 04:00am should crop up so many times and that a number of messages would suggest that she had picked up passengers, was standing by to help or was in the vicinity of the area at some point after the disaster. More so when the Captain of the Parisian suggests that they did not turn back.

I also wonder if the vessel sited by Captain Moore of the Mount Temple (the mysterious 'foreign vessel') may not have been the Parisian. Allan line steamers had a white band around the funnel though the colour scheme from top to bottom was black, white, red. I've looked at a number of black and white photo's of Allan line ships and the red on the funnel appears to be quite a deep shade as it is hard to distinguish from the black at the top. Most of the PR pictures show a very bright shade of red but this difference in shade is very hard to pick out on the black and white versions. That's not to say that it wasn't clearly easy to spot in real life. It's highly unlikely that a normal colour picture of an Allan line vessel exists. The only coloured pictures I could see were either paintings or had clearly been coloured by hand.

I agree very much with Jim C that this vessel and her movements need to come under greater scrutiny as there appears to be something not quite right about it.