Reports of Flooding in Aft Section


A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Does anyone know how far aft the water would have travelled inside the ship during the evacuation, and if there were reports from survivors who were berthed in the aft section who witnessed water coming into their cabins and passageways further aft? e.g. I recall Miss J. Yarid was in steerage (possibly F-deck in the aft section) and she decided to return to her cabin, but she could not because she found water in the passageway outside her cabin and she could not reach the door. Mr. Joughin was berthed one deck above in the aft section of E-deck and he also noticed water entering his room and in the passageway outside. He had no idea where the water was coming from, but he noticed several men attempting to close the watertight door that led to the aft section.

Owing to the increasing list to port, coupled with the strong possibility that many windows were open, and the gradual bodily sinking of the ship, is it possible that the water reached very close to the stern, and possibly poored down the aft staircases and rapidly flooded the stern section, perhaps even faster than the bow, which accelerated the buckling process as the weight around the main engine room dramatically increased as the ship listed more to port and more water rushed in through the open windows?

Are there any other reports of the cabins and corridors being flood near the stern during the evacuation?

E-deck
Direction of water and accessible staircases leading down.

Edeckflooding.png


Water flooding the port side of E-deck

Edeckflooding2.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,169
687
208
England
I can't find a Miss J Yarid listed on the ET pages either among the passengers or crew. Are you sure you have the right name?
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,169
687
208
England
Bizarre, I couldn't find it yesterday. I put it into Dr Google and drew a blank as well. How strange.

Anyhow, can't find anything about where she and her brother were berthed.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
179
41
63
Halifax, Nova Scotia
No significant flooding took place in stern until 2:18AM
If that was the case, I don't think the stern would've settled lower in the water until the ship started to twist, buckle, and break apart. Officer Boxhall said that when he left the Titanic he noticed the aft section was settling lower in the water. Violet Jessop said that the entire ship's broadside appeared to settle deeper in the ocean without a noticeable list to either side. Joughin stated that the list to port was more serious than the bow's downward trim (though I am aware that he was drinking alcohol so he may have exaggerated the port list). Miss Ryerson said that "a great many" of the Titanic's portholes were open. These accounts imply that the flooding was spread throughout the entire ship - from stem to stern - and that the stern of the Titanic wasn't sharply out of the water until the bridge began to plunge. So there probably was some flooding in the stern, as well as the bow, and it was rapidly increased by the Titanic's superstructure buckling and breaking up.
 
Last edited:

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
179
41
63
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Does anyone know how far aft the water would have travelled inside the ship during the evacuation, and if there were reports from survivors who were berthed in the aft section who witnessed water coming into their cabins and passageways further aft? e.g. I recall Miss J. Yarid was in steerage (possibly F-deck in the aft section) and she decided to return to her cabin, but she could not because she found water in the passageway outside her cabin and she could not reach the door. Mr. Joughin was berthed one deck above in the aft section of E-deck and he also noticed water entering his room and in the passageway outside. He had no idea where the water was coming from, but he noticed several men attempting to close the watertight door that led to the aft section.

Owing to the increasing list to port, coupled with the strong possibility that many windows were open, and the gradual bodily sinking of the ship, is it possible that the water reached very close to the stern, and possibly poored down the aft staircases and rapidly flooded the stern section, perhaps even faster than the bow, which accelerated the buckling process as the weight around the main engine room dramatically increased as the ship listed more to port and more water rushed in through the open windows?

Are there any other reports of the cabins and corridors being flood near the stern during the evacuation?

E-deck
Direction of water and accessible staircases leading down.

View attachment 42958

Water flooding the port side of E-deck

View attachment 42959
Perhaps that would explain why the Titanic lasted for only two-and-a-half hours in the ocean after the collision. If all of her windows and doors leading to the boilers were closed completely maybe the Titanic would've lasted longer and rescue would not have been too late. Just a thought.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,039
461
158
19
If that was the case, I don't think the stern would've settled lower in the water until the ship started to twist, buckle, and break apart. Officer Boxhall said that when he left the Titanic he noticed the aft section was settling lower in the water. Violet Jessop said that the entire ship's broadside appeared to settle deeper in the ocean without a noticeable list to either side. Joughin stated that the list to port was more serious than the bow's downward trim (though I am aware that he was drinking alcohol so he may have exaggerated the port list). Miss Ryerson said that "a great many" of the Titanic's portholes were open. These accounts imply that the flooding was spread throughout the entire ship - from stem to stern - and that the stern of the Titanic wasn't sharply out of the water until the bridge began to plunge. So there probably was some flooding in the stern, as well as the bow, and it was rapidly increased by the Titanic's superstructure buckling and breaking up.
This animation is based on the classic flooding scenario and is supported by naval studies in 2012.


Around the 50-second mark, you can see that flooding in the bow alone will bring the whole ship lower into the water. This is why many passengers said that the stern lifting in the air was so sudden and abrupt. The ship was on a relatively even keel in terms of downward trim until the last 5-10 minutes when the stern started to rise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 5, 2016
50
25
48
27
The animation is still flawed in several respects - even H&G continues to reuse the same errors in their simulations. For instance, the forward funnel falling to port (a mistake carried onward since the 1997 film), or the extreme heaving of the stern end to port which seems to rest on Joughin's scattered testimonies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,039
461
158
19
The animation is still flawed in several respects - even H&G continues to reuse the same errors in their simulations. For instance, the forward funnel falling to port (a mistake carried onward since the 1997 film), or the extreme heaving of the stern end to port which seems to rest on Joughin's scattered testimonies.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it shows how the ship settled low into the water from only foward flooding. In terms of what content Titanic: H&G puts out, many of their videos feature somewhat innacurate/developing content so they are not robbed by competition.
 
Jul 5, 2016
50
25
48
27
True, and that's understandable. But details like the funnel technically should be considered common knowledge to those who read the testimonies of some survivors who escaped from the forward boat deck.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,039
461
158
19
True, and that's understandable. But details like the funnel technically should be considered common knowledge to those who read the testimonies of some survivors who escaped from the forward boat deck.
I think the main issue with the funnels is that they might be struggling to find evidence (in terms of physics) that the ship returned from its port list. We have the testimony, but what would other flooding even the ship out?
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,039
461
158
19
I think the main issue with the funnels is that they might be struggling to find evidence (in terms of physics) that the ship returned from its port list. We have the testimony, but what would other flooding even the ship out?
Adding onto that, is there evidence from the wreck that indicates where the funnels fell?
 
Jul 5, 2016
50
25
48
27
Both port and starboard look quite crushed. Maybe the funnel rolled around a bit, smashing up the forward deckhouse and bridge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
179
41
63
Halifax, Nova Scotia
The animation is still flawed in several respects - even H&G continues to reuse the same errors in their simulations. For instance, the forward funnel falling to port (a mistake carried onward since the 1997 film), or the extreme heaving of the stern end to port which seems to rest on Joughin's scattered testimonies.
Also, at 1:12 in the 2012 animation, all the lights go out before the second funnel collapsed. Survivors said that the Titanic's lights were still on until she disappeared or until she broke up - after the #2 smokestack collapsed/disappeared. And when the second funnel detached, sparks, smoke, and steam were emitted. Even Titanic Animations made the same mistake in his old and new Titanic sinking videos when there was better information available that he could've used to correct those mistakes (this is not a personal attack on TA, btw).
 
Last edited:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,039
461
158
19
Also, at 1:12 in the 2012 animation, all the lights go out before the second funnel collapsed. Survivors said that the Titanic's lights were still on until she disappeared or until she broke up - after the #2 smokestack collapsed/disappeared. And when the second funnel detached, sparks, smoke, and steam were emitted. Even Titanic Animations made the same mistake in his old and new Titanic sinking videos when there was better information available that he could've used to correct those mistakes (this is not a personal attack on TA, btw).
I think the main focus of the 2012 animation was to show the hull's movements and not the other details like the lights.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
179
41
63
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Even so, they did get a few details wrong. They didn't include the Titanic's correction of her port list when the bridge began to plunge - an event observed and mentioned by several eyewitnesses like Jack Thayer, and the stern was way too high when she broke from the bow. And I still believe they should've extended the electrical lifespan of their Titanic model in the animation much longer.
 

Similar threads