Stanley Lord guilty as charged


Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,102
621
143
England
A very, very back of the cigarette packet calculation gives a radio horizon range of approximately 20 miles for Titanic's aerial height.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Your faulty interpretation of my sketch leads to faulty conclusions. The light seen ahead came before the amended CQD was worked out. Boxhall was engaged in uncovering the boats soon after calling upon the off duty officers. When someone reported a light ahead, the crew had already started to swing out the after port-side boats according to Boxhall, so many of the boats had already had their covers removed by time this light was reported. It was the reporting of that light which led Boxhall to go to the bridge to have a closer look. It was at that time when he encountered Smith who asked him how things were progressing, and Boxhall asked Smith if he thought it was serious. Smith then told him what Andrews had said, and Boxhall asked if a distress message was sent. That is when Boxhall told Smith about the ship being ahead of the DR and was told to go and work it up from the 7:30 fix, which he then did.
The only thing faulty was your original sketch which I showed. And I am sure that you now know that to be true, since the article it first appeared in ( and perhaps part due to the observation I made to you at the time) has since been amended and added to.

What is faulty, is your preferable interpretation of Boxhall's evidence regarding what he did after he called the officers which, had to have been before Midnight ... any midnight.
Boxhall could not have initially, as he claim "engaged in uncovering the boats",. He first simply loosened the laces on the boat covers on one side. Then went to bridge and worked the distress position. Since lifeboat lacings were purposefully secured by slip knots,. that would take him about as long as it took to walk around the boat deck On the way, he heard someone report a light ahead. But before he saw this light for himself, he went to the chart room and worked out the ship's position. He then submitted the position to the Captain who old him to take it to the marconi room....- It was after that, when he returned from onto the bridge that he personally saw the light. In his estimate, that was between 20 and 30 minutes after impact. That is the only time that matters.
All of which means that the amended distress position was sent before 12-10 am at the very latest. or in your terms...between 10-18 pm EST and 10-28 pm EST New York. However, you claim it was in fact seven (7) minutes after that, 10-35 am EST. If so, then Boxhall personally saw that light ahead almost an hour after the first helm order.
As for the light itself? This is what he said:
"I could see the light with the naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then.
Between the time of sending the rockets off and watching the steamer approach us she was approaching us; and then I saw her sidelights. I saw her green light and the red. She was end-on to us. and then she got close enough, and I Morsed to her - used our Morse lamp. I do not see how it was possible for the "Titanic" to be swinging after the engines were stopped. I forget when it was I noticed the engines were stopped, but I did notice it; and there was absolutely nothing to cause the "Titanic" to swing.
I saw the masthead lights first, the two steaming lights; and then, as she drew up closer, I saw her side lights through my glasses, and eventually I saw the red light. I had seen the green, but I
saw the red most of the time. I saw the red light with my naked eye.

How on earth can the above description relate to a stopped ship...a ship which for most of the time was showing a green light in the direction of the sinking Titanic.
The engine movements took place over a period of 6 minutes. The steam pressure to the engines began dropping immediately at the moment of the first engine order which was immediately before impact. You're the expert work it out yourself.
The engines stopped turning ahead 90 seconds after that. Long before then, the rudder would have been useless.

If you believe that during those 90 seconds, the helmsman had time to put the helm hard over the other way...stop the left hand swing... then start the bow moving the other way, then you have no idea what you are suggesting.
Even if what you suggest was remotely possible, the right hand swing could not have commenced any earlier than 40 seconds or so after impact. By then, the engines would have been rapidly slowing down and the Turbine wash ...the principal rudder activator... would have been gone. If so, we are now at about a time of around 9-39 pm EST.
No matter what way you try to spin the evidence, it took from about 40 seconds after impact..say. 9-39 pm EST New York until 30 minutes later, when Boxhall physically saw the light for the first time 3 degrees on the port bow. This means that it took at least half an hour for Titanic's bow to swing 6 points.
In fact, if we use your amended distress signal time of 10-35 pm EST, it took the bow 3 minutes short of an hour to swing those 6 points.

By the way, Boxhall was sent to call the other officers when he reported to the bridge for a second time... However when he reported to the Captain for the second time, the latter left the bridge...where do you think Captain Smith went?
"15585. Not having been away very long, I suppose? A: - No, I had not been down in the mail room very long. I spent a little more time there than when I went down the first time.
15586. And then you came up and reported to the Commander? A: - Yes.
15587. What did he say? A: - He walked away and left me. He went off the bridge, as far as I remember."
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
That was Californian time. Time on Titanic was 12 minutes ahead, or about 12:27.
Hi Sam,

Yes, that is an omission from my post 3097 above, and I am grateful to you for adding this important fundamental detail.

As a bit of an aside, I have a sheet of card inserted into 'Titanic Calling' by Michael Hughes, with all your time differences on it for Titanic versus Mount Temple and The Californian. I often refer to this card as an 'aide memoire'.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
Just for completeness on Durrant of the Mount Temple, Durrant also gave a newspaper interview reported in the New York Times and Boston Post on 26th April 1912, as quoted by Paul Lee on p. 233 of his book. I have referenced this previously, and it is too late tonight to type out again.

At the British Inquiry, Durrant is quite clear at 9591 that in his 5.11am messages with The Californian he told Evans that Titanic had sunk, though this is not detailed explicitly in his PV.

But his testimony on this is quite clear and unequivocal.

The idea that at 5.15am onwards on The Californian, Evans, and Stewart and Captain Lord were unaware of Titanic having 'sunk' is debunked by Durrant's testimony after Evans and Stewart had given evidence the same day on Wednesday 15th April.

Evans' USA testimony, from what we know subsequently, appears to be somewhat contrived as getting the Virginian after the Frankfurt, and no mention of the Mount Temple and hence Durrant - exactly the same as Captain Lord also not mentioning the Mount Temple in the USA Inquiry.

At the British Inquiry, the idiot Evans realises he ought to partially tell the truth and admit now (9072 onwards) that he first heard from Durrant of the Mount Temple. There is then a clash of the evidence between Durrant and Evans in that Evans maintains Durrant told him Titanic was 'sinking' as compared with Durrant's 'had sunk' the same day later on at the British Inquiry!

Cheers,

Julian
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

There is a lot to debate here, and all highly relevant.

John Durrant explained at the British Inquiry how he kept a 'running' PV ie contemporaneous at the time, due to the exceptional circumstances. Captain Moore's USA testimony corroborates this.

As to why The Californian's lights were not seen for awhile from Titanic, proving a negative is quite a hard starting point to argue from!

I approach this somewhat differently from Sam's analysis in his new book which is eminently 'clinical'. Sam argues (and I apologise to Sam if I misquote him in his new book) that The Californian was heading away from Titanic initially when Titanic stopped, and so The Californian's stern light would have been quite indistinct and low down, and her starboard light (green) hidden as would be her masthead lights. (pages 218-219).

Later, The Californian had swung round to starboard and opened up her masthead lights and green starboard light (though the latter was pretty much 'hull down' at around 13 miles distance).

Sam proposes that at around 12.15am on the 15th April, there were 3 corroborating eye witnesses on The Californian (Groves, Stone, and Gibson) who confirm the ship showing her lights to them was on a course from them of SE true (this is from memory, so apologies again to Sam if I am misquoting him). I don't think I have done so, as it is on pages 178 and 179 of Sam's new book. This proposition of Sam's is very compelling. Corroborating evidence of such magnitude is rare in 'The Californian Incident'!

The implication of all this is that at around 12.15am, The Californian was 'broadside' to the ship under observation, as at that time it was seen in the direction of the starboard beam on The Californian ie at 90 degrees from the way The Californian was then heading ie NE true.

Ergo, at 12.15am one might suppose that The Californian's starboard side light might just have been seen, and certainly the masthead light, and not the stern light which would have been closed.

I will leave you, Jim, to pick through all this.

For myself, I approach the matter somewhat differently. The Californian witnesses were on a stationary ship with not much to do, apart from Stone and Gibson drink their coffee that Gibson had brought up, and Groves had not a lot to do before the change of Watch and stayed awhile to let Stone get his eyes accustomed to the dark, before going below to wake up Evans on the way to his cabin.

However, on Titanic high drama was taking place, and those that survived were subjected to considerable trauma over the next few hours.

Boxhall claims Titanic was heading westwards when it stopped, and implicated The Californian as the source of the ship's lights he saw off the port bow. Either he was very very stupid, as what he claimed he saw would place The Californian in an ice field or beyond an ice field (that he saw for himself at daylight and afterwards on the 15th April), and could not possibly be on the same or similar latitude as Titanic, or he was deluded, mistaken, or ill!

(Incidentally, if Boxhall wasn't ill, which I think he was, then he ought to have heard about The Californian coming down the western side of the ice field, then crossing across it to meet the Carpathia, and so the whole notion of him implicating The Californian with Titanic heading westwards some 4 hours earlier ought to have occurred to him as nonsense, and he had made yet another mistake in his recollection).

Be very careful about quoting Boxhall! He was the first "Anti Lordite"!

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.
I presume the "Negative" you refer to is the lack of evidence to show that the lights seen a head were not seen until after the collision with the iceberg.

To start with: we have numerous independent witnesses who stated that they saw ship's lights at a distance. These were on the Mount Temple, the Californian and the Carpathia to name the principal three. All had good night vision .
On the other hand, despite being in and emerging from, lit areas and subsequently having impaired night vision, many Titanic witnesses reported clearly seeing lights in the distance. Despite this, the Lookouts who had unimpaired night vision did not see any lights ahead of the ship before or for at least 20 minutes after the
impact with the iceberg. This is so because Fleet and Lee did not see them and they were relieved in the lookout nest 20 minutes after impact with the ice

I have not read Sam's book. Nor has he read Rule 10. Because if he had done so, he would know that a ship's stern light must be carried at or near the same height above the sea as her red and green side light. The biggest problem in seeing a stern light is when the ship carrying it has externally lit midship and or stern decks. because a stern light very often gets mixed in with these when seen at a distance.

As for the sighting of Titanic's lights at a distance? If Captain Lord saw these when he came off the bridge at 10-35 pm, then he was seeing them at a distance of over 30 miles which is absurd.
If Groves saw them half an hour before Titanic stopped 13 miles to the SE, then he was seeing them at 22 miles away which is nearer but equally absurd.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I have not read Sam's book. Nor has he read Rule 10.
I suggest that you shouldn't assume what you don't know about me.

>>Art. 10. A vessel which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last-mentioned vessel a white light or a flare-up light. The white light required to be shown by this Article may be fixed and carried in a lantern, but in such case the lantern shall be so constructed, fitted, and screened that it shall throw an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 12 points [135°] of the compass, viz., for 6 points [67.5°] from right aft on each side of the vessel, so as to be visible at a distance of at least 1 mile. Such light shall be carried as nearly as practicable on the same level as the side lights.<<

The requirements concerning sidelights were covered in Art. 2 (b), (c), and (d). The sidelights were required to show a least 2 miles, twice the minimum distance that a stern light had to show. The "as nearly as practical" on Californian meant that the her stern light was 12 feet lower in height than her sidelights. The heights of Californian's navigation lights relative to her waterline, and other details, are covered in the book in App. J - Particulars of Californian and Titanic.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

I think you have your answer there from Sam!

As to Captain Lord saying he saw a Titanic at 10.30pm on the 14th, this is what he had to say at the USA Inquiry:-

"Mr. LORD.
When I came off the bridge, at half-past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more."

The 10.30pm sighting of some sort of light was dismissed at the time, as well it should have been. To throw in this bogey... is well... what can I say?

Unfortunately, If you consider Captain Lord's initial British Inquiry testimony and questioning, Stone's ship seen in the South West, that Captain Lord described, rather fell into a convenient (and subsequently many years later proved false) position on some table chart at the British inquiry as to where Titanic sank.

Stone, therefore by his own incompetence, condemned his own Captain, which by any assessment of the evidence was the opposite of what Stone intended.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
The "as nearly as practical" on Californian meant that the her stern light was 12 feet lower in height than her sidelights.
It seems that it was also the case for Titanic; her stern light being 12 feet lower in height than her sidelights.

When you read Article 4 a) and c); a vessel Not Under Command «shall» display two red lights in lieu of the masthead light and when she is not making way through the water, she «shall not» display her sidelights.

It seems that Lord wasn’t alone of not knowing the 1910 Rules of the Road at Sea!
 

Attachments

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
Even if what you suggest was remotely possible, the right hand swing could not have commenced any earlier than 40 seconds or so after impact. By then, the engines would have been rapidly slowing down and the Turbine wash ...the principal rudder activator... would have been gone.
40 seconds means;
  • 1,520 feet of advance
  • that the berg would’ve grinded all the way back aft
  • the docking bridge extension tear apart
  • that the berg would’ve finally land on the port side

Facing an iceberg at close range and at such speed, any shiphandler holding basic shiphandling knowledge would order the elm Hard-a-Starboard virtually at the same time as the berg was located, wait for a few seconds for a noticeable change of heading and slight starboard list and then, order immediately the elm Hard-a-Port; wishing the heading to overshoot to about 1 point (glancing blow) at the most. The vessel would stabilize and soon start to veer to starboard to avoid more damage at the stern. That means an elm Hard-a-Port at about impact, a pivoting point sticking to the location where the hull was in contact with the berg and finally means, a peripatetic pivoting point way forward magnifying the starboard turning force.

The avoiding manoeuver has been simulated over and over again by certified shiphandlers. Even with the starboard propeller order full astern at the same moment as the elm Hard-a-Port, nobody ever succeeded to avoid that close by berg at such an outrageous speed. If someone’s attempt had succeeded, don’t worry you would have heard about it. However at half head, the maneuver succeeds.

Jim, how would you maneuver a triple propeller single rudder inside a narrow channel intersperse by curves, knowing that you would have to proceed at half ahead 15½ knots to get the turbine engaged as the «principal rudder activator»?

At 15½ knots and a draft of 35 feet or so, the vessel would squat and interact with the outer channel banks to the point of losing control. Titanic like many other vessels of that configuration were designed to be maneuver and controlled at low speed. The knife stern body shape draw and drives the water flow straight into the rudder, just like some tall ship without any propeller at all. A center propeller stop would certainly generate cavitations against the rudder, but in what proportion; in a ratio that would be practically imperceptible particularly at speed such as 22½ knots!

I just read that the Engine Order Telegraphs were answered by the greasers down the engine room. That gives you an idea of the level of alertness down there. Stopping the center propeller within 30 seconds would therefore be a wishful thinking at the very best!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
When you read Article 4 a) and c); a vessel Not Under Command «shall» display two red lights in lieu of the masthead light and when she is not making way through the water, she «shall not» display her sidelights.
Hi Georges,
I'm not sure that Art 4 would have applied to either Titanic or Californian. Titanic was a vessel in distress, and Californian was a vessel under command with steam having been kept up, but she was just was not making way. In the explanatory notes for Art 4, the 1910 rules said:

>> Under this Article no distinction is made between a sailing ship and a steamship not under command. It is therefore very necessary when a vessel is sighted showing these signals that she should be studiously avoided. She is not a vessel in distress or wanting assistance, but is a vessel that may not be entirely under the control of her navigators.(2)

(2) For the signals to be shown by a vessel in distress, and wanting assistance, see Article 31, post, p. 88. <<

Do have have a different read on this?
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
Do have have a different read on this?
Hi Samuel,

I am turning dyslexic but you seem to see double! :)

I have studied by heart the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea from cover to cover, been evaluated through written and oral examinations by a Maritime Academy and by the DOT all the way up to the Master Mariner license. After being in command of a tanker vessel, I have been recruited as an Apprentice Pilot into a compulsory pilotage district. Once again, I have had a seminar on the Rules of the Road specifically linked to pilotage, followed by another written exam on the matter. Part of the program was particularly addressed to Rule 2, Responsibility;

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.


Rule (a) states that; «Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules» and (b) stipulates that if you wish to play smart by reading between the lines of the Rules, you better know what you’re talking about, cause if you ever get challenged by a maritime lawyer in an admiralty court, your license can be revoke and be sent directly to jail, not passing go and not collecting your 200 squids!

What all does it means and always meant in plain words; «Comply with the Rules as written and don’t interpret». As an example, you’re the pilot of a vessel proceeding in a snow storm during winter nighttime. The VTS confirm that there is no traffic whatsoever and evidently, no pleasure craft. Do you blow the fog horn?

In our case, there is a gradation; the vessel first became Not Under Command and afterward, in Distress. Thence;

  • Was Titanic Not Under Command from that accident? Yes…
  • Did Titanic showed the two all around red lights in lieu of the masthead light? No…
  • Was Titanic making way through the water? No…
  • Did Titanic showed the side lights? Yes…
  • Was Titanic at fault according to the 1910 Rules of the Road? Yes…
  • Then...
  • Did Titanic at fault according to the Rules of the Road in other circumstances?
  • Were the Rules of the Road even ever mentioned in the Inquiries?
  • Should these Rules been addressed?
  • If not, why weren’t they?

Just think about it Samuel; Stone freezing on the upper deck during the middle night watch, observe a distant white masthead light and perceive a twinkling red sidelight. Then, the white masthead light is replaced by two all around red lights and the sidelight is shut off. Soon after, the vessel starts to fire white rockets at intervals. Stone whistle down Lord through the tube and report what he just seen. If by then Lord doesn’t wake up, he would have better chance to survive by jumping over the side on top of a growler than to face an inquiry!

Do whatever possible to save the adventure and much more!
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
I suggest that you shouldn't assume what you don't know about me.

>>Art. 10. A vessel which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last-mentioned vessel a white light or a flare-up light. The white light required to be shown by this Article may be fixed and carried in a lantern, but in such case the lantern shall be so constructed, fitted, and screened that it shall throw an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 12 points [135°] of the compass, viz., for 6 points [67.5°] from right aft on each side of the vessel, so as to be visible at a distance of at least 1 mile. Such light shall be carried as nearly as practicable on the same level as the side lights.<<

The requirements concerning sidelights were covered in Art. 2 (b), (c), and (d). The sidelights were required to show a least 2 miles, twice the minimum distance that a stern light had to show. The "as nearly as practical" on Californian meant that the her stern light was 12 feet lower in height than her sidelights. The heights of Californian's navigation lights relative to her waterline, and other details, are covered in the book in App. J - Particulars of Californian and Titanic.
Hi Jim,

I think you have your answer there from Sam!

As to Captain Lord saying he saw a Titanic at 10.30pm on the 14th, this is what he had to say at the USA Inquiry:-

"Mr. LORD.
When I came off the bridge, at half-past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more."

The 10.30pm sighting of some sort of light was dismissed at the time, as well it should have been. To throw in this bogey... is well... what can I say?

Unfortunately, If you consider Captain Lord's initial British Inquiry testimony and questioning, Stone's ship seen in the South West, that Captain Lord described, rather fell into a convenient (and subsequently many years later proved false) position on some table chart at the British inquiry as to where Titanic sank.

Stone, therefore by his own incompetence, condemned his own Captain, which by any assessment of the evidence was the opposite of what Stone intended.

Cheers,

Julian
Yes I have an answer from Sam and it confirms the fact that reading something does not immediately confer understanding. It also illustrates a reason why so many young Candidates for 2M(FG) were given sea time

Perhaps a consideration of the thought processes of those who developed The Rules might help to show how ridiculous the suggestion of a concealed stern light might be with regard to a steamship like the Californian... or any other steamship of her time. (or since then).

When the originators of Rule 10 first wrote it, the seas were populated by sailing ships. How many pictures of sailing ships of the 19th century have you ever seen which had multiple decks above the main deck? Where do you think the guide "as near as practical" came from?
I'll answer these questions for you....because stern lights were carried before a ship had an elevated bridge and before ships had brightly lit internal and external accommodation lights. Thus, when seen from astern, they were ostensibly at the same height as the side lights and therefore helped to maintain the horizontal continuity of expected course direction when the coloured lights became shut out.

However, at the advent of multi decks above the main deck at, and forward o,f the stern light... decks which were illuminated by external bulkhead lights and lanterns and accommodation portholes which were often also illuminated. it became almost impossible to discern a stern light from any other light. However, more to the point, extra stern lights were in most cases at or above the level of the regulation stern light, so its mounting height relative to the height of the sidelights became above the main deck became more or less unimportant. It follows that even if the stern light of the Californian was below the horizon, the bulkhead lights on her accommodation would have been visible above it and most certainly just below the level of her coloured sidelights
Which light in this picture is the stern light?
Which one.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
40 seconds means;
  • 1,520 feet of advance
  • that the berg would’ve grinded all the way back aft
  • the docking bridge extension tear apart
  • that the berg would’ve finally land on the port side

Facing an iceberg at close range and at such speed, any shiphandler holding basic shiphandling knowledge would order the elm Hard-a-Starboard virtually at the same time as the berg was located, wait for a few seconds for a noticeable change of heading and slight starboard list and then, order immediately the elm Hard-a-Port; wishing the heading to overshoot to about 1 point (glancing blow) at the most. The vessel would stabilize and soon start to veer to starboard to avoid more damage at the stern. That means an elm Hard-a-Port at about impact, a pivoting point sticking to the location where the hull was in contact with the berg and finally means, a peripatetic pivoting point way forward magnifying the starboard turning force.

The avoiding manoeuver has been simulated over and over again by certified shiphandlers. Even with the starboard propeller order full astern at the same moment as the elm Hard-a-Port, nobody ever succeeded to avoid that close by berg at such an outrageous speed. If someone’s attempt had succeeded, don’t worry you would have heard about it. However at half head, the maneuver succeeds.

Jim, how would you maneuver a triple propeller single rudder inside a narrow channel intersperse by curves, knowing that you would have to proceed at half ahead 15½ knots to get the turbine engaged as the «principal rudder activator»?

At 15½ knots and a draft of 35 feet or so, the vessel would squat and interact with the outer channel banks to the point of losing control. Titanic like many other vessels of that configuration were designed to be maneuver and controlled at low speed. The knife stern body shape draw and drives the water flow straight into the rudder, just like some tall ship without any propeller at all. A center propeller stop would certainly generate cavitations against the rudder, but in what proportion; in a ratio that would be practically imperceptible particularly at speed such as 22½ knots!

I just read that the Engine Order Telegraphs were answered by the greasers down the engine room. That gives you an idea of the level of alertness down there. Stopping the center propeller within 30 seconds would therefore be a wishful thinking at the very best!
"You show me yours and I''ll show you mine"

.I have numerous times taken win screw passenger vessels (built before WW2 and designed like Titanic) through the Suez Canal. As we;; as numerous cargo ships and VLCC s. For many years, I also took self propelled , self-elevating Drill Barges, very large Semi-submersible Drill Barges up an down rivers, Fjiords, canals and all kinds of waterways by themselves and tug assissted.... all on behalf of Underwriters. So I do have a little experience.


Here is the 40 seconds itemised.

1. OOW looks through the glasses sees what he thinks is clear water to the left but also see that the berg is no more than 200 feet ahead of the stem bar. He orders hard left rudder and STOP on the engines
2.. (+ 5 seconds). The duty Greasers, whose job among other things was to acknowledge any engine orders by replying to the telegraph and warning the boiler rooms, respond with a STOP and at the same time advise the boiler rooms to stop firing and shut in the dampers. Steam pressure immediately begins to fall as it is uses up a the revs which also start to fall.
3. (+6 seconds) Helm hard left (40, not 35 degrees)... Impact. Starboard bow in way of fore peak tank is breached.... Ship's head has moved off original course by about 7 degrees at most. Pivot point transferred forward to about 50 feet from the bow and moving aft. Bow tending to counteract the left turn.
4. (+12 seconds) ice disengages from the hull at frame number +59.just aft of WTB "E". The evidence for this comes from QM Olliver who saw the tip of the berg and heard the sound of contact stop at or near the stern of Emergency boat 1.
5. (+18 seconds) Passenger Harder sees icebeg passing port hole, but out from the ship's side.
6. ( +33 sec). QM Rowe at the poop, reports seeing the berg pass so close as to almost touch the aft docking bridge... not 10 feet from it.
7 Hard right rudder...+45 seconds to hard over. Bow being checked.
8. + 48 seconds bow starts to move right
9 + 90- seconds... engines come to a complete standstill.

Now you tell me: If the Engines started loosing steam at the same time the helm order was given and they were only turning at 75 rpm, to start with...how long do you think it would take for the rpm to fall 25 to 50?
We are told by a witness that it took 90 seconds from engines running maximum revs to stop... at an even pace that's a rev every 1.2 seconds. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the engines slowed down at a graduated pace during an emergency stop. If they did, then the turbine would have stopped just as the iceberg was passing Rowe at the stern

Here's one for an experienced seaman

The witness to the second helm order ...Quarter Master Alfred Olliver...said that second order was given when the icebergs was "way down stern" (When did you ever hear a Royal Navy Seaman (which Olliver was) , ever use the expression "way down stern"?

Of course the bow would initially swing back toward the point of contact. But in doing so, it caused the side to move away thus disengaging and the evidence shows that very clearly. As more and more ship passed the berg, the hard left rudder action together with transfer, took over again. I assumed you would know that.

Ask yourself this question, Georges:

If you commanded a liner (not a cruise ship) on a scheduled run and you had to stop your ship for a few moments to check something... what would you do while awaiting the expected result of report from "Chippy" and the Mate that all was well?
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
.I have numerous times taken win screw passenger vessels (built before WW2 and designed like Titanic) through the Suez Canal.
Jim, what type of propulsion is a «win screw»? Never heard about that one!

I do not believe that you personally «taken» a vessel through the Suez Canal. I whether believe that you were taken across the canal by a vessel under the conduct of a compulsory pilot and the command of a master. More than anything else, you probably spent your time serving tea to the pilot, filling up the weather in the log book and doing a little bit of sightseeing.

I did not dream of taking a twin screw single rudder; I did pilot and dock the Saga Ruby. I did not look at the pilot playing as much as needed with the engine and the rudder; I did it myself. And do you know what; I never ever experienced any problem whatsoever. After piloting for 6½ hours through treacherous narrow channel, meeting other vessels at 150 feet off and crossing a 5½ knots traverse current at the very end of the road, I docked her like a baby without tug(s) assistance. Finally, the master invited me for lunch at is favorite table. Never got any Victoria Cross like yours, but quite a pay check.

Jim, your maneuver makes me think of one of pilots jokes; «See the Harbour Pilot standing by the forward mooring station, trying to impress the crew by judging the docking maneuver while he never really done any himself» :)
 

Attachments

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
Which light in this picture is the stern light?
Jim, you’re in fire!!! Your sketch is an indisputable hyper-realistic work of art! :)

But please allow me to address a few remarks;

  • A stern light is white,
  • The light had to have a minimum visibility of 1 nautical mile, probably through some Fresnel lens concentrating the beam of light,
  • In that era, it seems that the stern light was attached to the railing, whether at mid height on a traverse or on top of the hand rail,
  • Nobody was sharing a cabin with the mooring ropes in the raised quarter deck, neither with the steering gear,
  • After working and mooring areas were not designated for passenger’s promenade,
  • During the night, nearly everyone was asleep; therefore most of the cabin lights that could shine through portholes curtain would be shut off,
  • Passageways lighting on bulkheads are fixed high up and their range of visibility is much less than a BOT stern light,
  • Etc.,
As a consequence, the stern light is the white one, the lowest one and located in the center! I have seen thousands of stern lights and they never mistaken me.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

I think you have your answer there from Sam!

As to Captain Lord saying he saw a Titanic at 10.30pm on the 14th, this is what he had to say at the USA Inquiry:-

"Mr. LORD.
When I came off the bridge, at half-past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more."

The 10.30pm sighting of some sort of light was dismissed at the time, as well it should have been. To throw in this bogey... is well... what can I say?

Unfortunately, If you consider Captain Lord's initial British Inquiry testimony and questioning, Stone's ship seen in the South West, that Captain Lord described, rather fell into a convenient (and subsequently many years later proved false) position on some table chart at the British inquiry as to where Titanic sank.

Stone, therefore by his own incompetence, condemned his own Captain, which by any assessment of the evidence was the opposite of what Stone intended.

Cheers,

Julian
Julian you declare that Lord's sighting of a ship should be dismissed...why?
You also dismiss the sighting of lights by 3rd Officer Groves

You have an ally in the form of Sam who also dismisses the implications of such evidence, and who, I understand, believes that 13 or 14 miles of water separated the two vessels.
What he knows, and you should too, is, that if a vessel was seen 13.5 miles SE of the stopped Californian at a moment in time, and we know the True Course and speed of Titanic, then we can actually plot the position of Titanic at any moment in time before the latter stopped. This also means that we can accurately determine how far off that vessel was when first seen In the following plot to scale, I show the timings of 3rd Officer Groves. The plot reveals the absurd notion that young Groves saw Titanic when she was almost 23 miles away.
Groves Take.jpg


However, Groves, like all the Deck Officers, including the Captain, were incompetent fools. For instance, Groves could not determine the difference of a ship 13 miles away from one which was a mere 6 miles away

I respectively suggest to you that you are not qualified to judge the competence of any of these witnesses. As Georges points out, all of them were regularly required to satisfy the Examining Boards to a standard which is not required at University Level. For instance: you might be interested to know that an ordinary Bsc Nautical Sciences did not preclude a holder from any part of the BoT Examination of Competency ... 2M(FG) (the lowest) MN Deck Officer qualification.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,205
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Oh! And of all the Ks of stern lights, how might this one have looked on a dark moonless night from 13 miles away?
I am surprised that any experienced mariner would encourage this nonsense.
NO001-2.jpg

Jim, what type of propulsion is a «win screw»? Never heard about that one!

I do not believe that you personally «taken» a vessel through the Suez Canal. I whether believe that you were taken across the canal by a vessel under the conduct of a compulsory pilot and the command of a master. More than anything else, you probably spent your time serving tea to the pilot, filling up the weather in the log book and doing a little bit of sightseeing.

I did not dream of taking a twin screw single rudder; I did pilot and dock the Saga Ruby. I did not look at the pilot playing as much as needed with the engine and the rudder; I did it myself. And do you know what; I never ever experienced any problem whatsoever. After piloting for 6½ hours through treacherous narrow channel, meeting other vessels at 150 feet off and crossing a 5½ knots traverse current at the very end of the road, I docked her like a baby without tug(s) assistance. Finally, the master invited me for lunch at is favorite table. Never got any Victoria Cross like yours, but quite a pay check.

Jim, your maneuver makes me think of one of pilots jokes; «See the Harbour Pilot standing by the forward mooring station, trying to impress the crew by judging the docking maneuver while he never really done any himself» :)
I do not care what you believe or don't believe, Georges However, since you are keen to promote yourself, explain the following, written by
Alexandre Gonçalves da Rocha. a Brazilian who has been working as a maritime pilot since 1998. and who is currently one of the members of the Brazilian Maritime Pilots’ Association Board of Directors and a certified pilot trainer who wrote:

MARITIME NEWS: ‘Pilot error’ costs P&I clubs US$ 50 million per year
Pilot error is costing the protection-and-indemnity (P&I) clubs $50m per year with the claims bill appearing to be increasing.

Perhaps that's why you asked "what type of propulsion is a «win screw»? Never heard about that one!" Here is a wee reminder:
"
Twin Screws 2020-02-18 001.jpg

As for Suez passages... how many have you made? Do a bit of research before you blow off steam...I suggest, RMS, Caledonia, RMS Cilicia, RMs Circassia to start with. Oh and while you are at it...try the MV Broompark... the only time she ever ran aground in the Seaway was when she had a Pilot on Board.



To finish off... I live half way up a mountain overlooking the bay of Funchal, on the island of Madeira. Almost every day and night, we have at least two mega cruise ship's berthing and leaving. I can't even count the number of these I have seen approach and depart to and from the southern horizon which is 32 miles away.

I rest my case.

However, instead of destructive offerings, why don't you, offer something constructive based on your practical knowledge and explain to everyone how it was that those on the SS Californian were able to see the masthead light of the Titanic 23 miles away.

My Chief tells me that we have raised enough steam to proceed. No sign of a Pilot, bur fear not, I am a graduate of The Robert Gordon Institute Marine Courses:D.
 

Attachments

Similar threads