Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: a Centennial reaprisal


Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
My book arrived today. Just thumbed through it. Looks like this will keep me busy for a few weeks. Looks like it was done with great care and precision. I hope it won't be a complicated read.

Hope all the authors who are also members of this site are able to get to this new board soon. It'll be great to discuss the literature.

also a note to the admin and mods: you can merge this topic with the books when that thread get imported to the new board :)
 
Mar 16, 2012
19
0
31
Amston, CT, USA
Well, I do think it is somewhat of a complicated read. But it is the level of detail the book goes into regarding so many facets of the story that makes it so good. But if you make the investment of time in carefully going through these complications, I think you will find yourself amply rewarded. I found the sections on damage during the collision and the actions/inactions of the Californian and Mt. Temple especially valuable.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Thanks! Looking forward to the read. the saga of the Californian has always fascinated me, and I also have taken note of the other ships that were in the region, especially the Mt. Temple. While having never read anything about her on the night of the sinking, from what I hear, I have found it suspicious that the Mt. Temple didn't attempt to cross the ice field in order to save people, after spending the effort to race to their rescue.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,661
871
563
Easley South Carolina
>>from what I hear, I have found it suspicious that the Mt. Temple didn't attempt to cross the ice field in order to save people, after spending the effort to race to their rescue. <<

It's not really so odd when you think about it. The Mount Temple arrived at the Titanic's stated position and found nothing. In light of that and the fact that their line expressly forbade going into an icefield for any reason, they couldn't justify going through it to get to the other side.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Well, I'll be starting my book in a few days here, since I have a couple of other I'm finishing up. Almost finished with Jennifer Hooper-McCarthy's book "What sank the Titanic?". That was good read as well. Also am reading the book "Raise the Titanic." Never read it before, although I had seen the movie a few years ago.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,661
871
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Almost finished with Jennifer Hooper-McCarthy's book "What sank the Titanic?". That was good read as well.<<

I agree, it is, and it's an essential guide to the metallurgy on the Titanic by the people who actually did the forensics work. I can't say as I agree with some of the conclusions but it's based on the science by the people doing the science.
 

JollyJack

Member
Mar 30, 2012
4
0
31
There are only two definitive books you need about the Titanic, "A Night To Remember" by Walter Lord and "Unsinkable" by Dan Butler. All the rest are mashups and variations on these two.

Incidentally, it's well worth looking up Parks Stephenson's "White Paper" on grounding vs colliding with an iceberg. The link is here: http://marconigraph.com/titanic/grounding/mgy_grounding.html

It actually makes more sense than the accepted drivel about striking an iceberg. If the ship's speed was 22.5 knots (45 miles in 2 hours, according to the log), why didn't anyone fall over when she struck? Why didn't the brandy glasses in the 1st Class lounge fall off the table?

Why did Mrs. Stuart White just report "I was just sitting on the bed, just ready to turn the lights out. It did not seem to me that there was any very great impact at all. It was just as though we went over a thousand marbles. There was nothing terrifying about it..."
Mrs. J. Stuart White, Passenger, Cabin C-32

"What awakened me was a grinding sound on her bottom. I thought at first she had lost her anchor and chain, and it was running along her bottom."
Lookout George Symons, Crew’s Quarters ("up forward")

Sliding across the underwater ice ram could have lifted the starboard side of Titanic to some small extent. This lifting might have been virtually unnoticeable inside the hull on the lower passenger decks. On the other hand, the 90-foot height of the crow’s nest was the best place to detect a slight roll of the ship:

"...The ship seemed to heel slightly over to port as she struck the berg...very slightly to port as she struck along the starboard side."
Lookout Reginald Lee, Crow’s Nest


When a ship strikes anything at 22.5 knots, EVERYONE knows it! Edward Smith's "nearly 40 years at sea...can best be described as uneventful", but in my 45 years at sea, I've been in many engine rooms when the Old Man has hit the dock too hard coming alongside, at a very slow speed, and, believe me, you KNOW you've hit the dock!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,661
871
563
Easley South Carolina
>>When a ship strikes anything at 22.5 knots, EVERYONE knows it!<<

The odd thing was that on the Titanic, a lot of people didn't know it. The grounding/allsion event was so slight that a lot of the passengers slept right through it.

Of course, the people down below were all too aware of it.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
>>>>>Of course, the people down below were all too aware of it.<<<<<<<

Which is one of the reasons why I'm surprised more 2nd/3rdclass didn't survive. They were in a part of the ship that felt the impact the hardest, and saw the flooding first hand. Sure, they rushed back to the stern of the ship to keep the women from hysterics, but I'm just wondering why they didn't immediately make their way to the boat deck....which makes me wonder how soon the gates were locked, or how long before they thought it was serious enough to head on up.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Just got through the first chapter, and a little of the second. It's so delicately sourced! I think this is one of the most sourced books I've read so far.

questions:

Length between perpendiculars: is this the length between watertight doors?
It stated the Titanic was launched at 12:13. I thought it was 12:14 to 12:15:02-62 seconds?
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Well, it's slow going, but it's a good read, although I feel as if it's one of those books I'll want to read a few more times to full take in everything it has to offer.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Just got done with the chapter called "Description of the ship". 32 pages. Some of the descriptions were more hard to follow then others. Only criticism I have is that I wish there were more pictures along with the descriptions, although I did look up some on via Google at some points.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Thanks! It's a good book. More detailed then what I'm used to reading, but it's going. I just started on the chapter detailing the ship's journey across the Atlantic.

When traveling across the Atlantic, are ships' clocks supposed to be reset every night at 12 midnight? I got the impression that the time skips around a lot.

Edit: I'm averaging about 4-6 pages per day, so I should be done in 3 months. LOL
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,661
871
563
Easley South Carolina
>>When traveling across the Atlantic, are ships' clocks supposed to be reset every night at 12 midnight?<<

They were supposed to be, but this is a matter which I've noticed to be somewhat controversial among some modern researchers who are convinced that it happened while others are equally convinced it did not. My impression from the evidence is that they never had a chance to do it. As one of the officers put it, they had more important concerns.

For those who differ on this, I'll leave it to their good offices to discuss whether or not they agree with this and why.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
5
83
Iowa, USA
Thanks!

It gave a chart with Titanic starting at -00:00 and New York Time starting at +05:00, and by the time the Titanic was purported to reach New York, its time would be +05:00, and New York would be -00:00, with each day being set back by additional hours.

I guess the idea, of course would mean that it would be the same time as both England and New York's time on arrival and departure, but I'm wondering why each day would increase the hours? Are those the hours they are losing being added up?

Yes, I'm familiar with the +/- of traveling across the globe, but I was confused if this was the Titanic losing time, or if it was supposed to be 500 and 1500 hours?
 

Similar threads

Similar threads