Swimming pool and boiler rooms

  • Thread starter João Carlos Pereira Martins
  • Start date

J

João Carlos Pereira Martins

Guest
I suppose somebody has already done this question, but is it true that the swimming pool was emptied during the sinking? I think you'll help me people.

Regards, João
 

Richard Brown

Member
Apr 3, 2009
71
0
96
Just a wild idea but I was thinking. The swimming pool is located directly above boiler room 5 (on the starboard side). Is there any possibility that the water which poured into boiler room 5 came from there? At that time is it possible that the water was coming over the bulkhead and working its way down into the swimming baths. Being a two story room (perhaps already half full of water) is it possible that under the weight of water the forward part of the deck gave way and deposited that water into the boiler room? Anyway, just trying to think 'out of the box'
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Is there any possibility that the water which poured into boiler room 5 came from there?<<

Initially, I would think not. The observed damage seen was in a coal bunker and was ingressing through the skin of the ship. I doubt very much that the overhead gave way either. For obvious reasons, this part of the structure had to be built quite ruggedly, and it was in no way compromised by the damage done to the side.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,294
1,582
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
If the space on F deck was flooding from water overtopping bulkhead E, it is possible that the bunker space may have filled more rapidly because of that. From what was described in way of flooding from the ship's side down at the tank top, the pumps should have been adequate to control the direct intake from the sea unless the small drains in the bunker were blocked thereby not allowing the water to drain out of the bunker space into the bilge system under the stokehold plates.
 

Richard Brown

Member
Apr 3, 2009
71
0
96
I was only thinking that the bulkheads were designed to be strong enough to resist the water. The decks on the titanic may not have been, esp when there was no water underneath to support the deck (as far as I know, the designers did not think that the ice-cube effect (I know thats not accurate but anyway) would happen, and if it did it would be too late anyway). Would it be 'easy' for water to get from F deck into the coal bunker? How 'watertight' were the decks?

The only reason I though of the swimming pool is because it is looks as if it is suspended above boiler room 5. If there was a lot of water in that room, it could cause the deck to give (although that is purely a guess on my part).
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>How 'watertight' were the decks?<<

So long as the water didn't get near any openings, it was reasonably watertight enough. The ship's watertight boundries were defined by the bulkheads. The decks themselves would still have drains, cableways, ventilation ducting and the like, none of which was designed to be sealed off.

I doubt very much that the structure upon which the swimming pool was built would have simply given way, and I'm not aware of any evidence that it did. This doesn't mean that it ultimately didn't happen, but any witnesses to the effect never lived to tell about it.
 

Will C. White

Member
Apr 18, 2007
267
2
123
Just a thought. As she went down by the head, what about water from the pool simply flowing over the edge and seeking a low spot via one of those non-watertight entry points. A little water can look like a lot when you're already stressed and you know your ship is flooding. WILL
 

Richard Brown

Member
Apr 3, 2009
71
0
96
Hi Will,

I did think about that to, but I thought that the amount of water would be far to small to cause a wave of water in a room as big as BR5.
 

Steven Hall

Member
Aug 8, 2001
648
23
183
I wouldn't discount 'where' the water went !

One day they'll realize breaking a few porthole windows to gain interior access with small cameras may pay huge research results.

How many (juicey locations) were actually left open ? Ask the chaps that have the footage.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>A little water can look like a lot when you're already stressed and you know your ship is flooding.<<

This wasn't a trickle that flooded out Boiler Room Five. It was a deluge so overwhelming and so sudden that the men who got out barely managed to escape with their lives. They were overwhelmed so quickly in fact that they were unable to pull out one of their mates who had broken his leg in an accident. Likely as not, this was the door to the coal bunker giving up the ghost. Unlike the heavy doors of the watertight boundries, these weren't designed to hold back a lot of pressure.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,294
1,582
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The one think I love is a problem that can be tested. The claim above was,
quote:

It was a deluge so overwhelming and so sudden that the men who got out barely managed to escape with their lives. They were overwhelmed so quickly in fact that they were unable to pull out one of their mates who had broken his leg in an accident.
Let's ask, is there a way to verify this if it were the water in the bunker at the forward end of BR 5 that flooded the compartment? The answer is YES WE CAN.

Under the absolutely worst case scenario, assume the entire bunker was emptied, and assume that the water reached the very top under F deck before a bunker door burst. Clearly the worst case possible for water held back by the bunker bulkhead. The total volume of that bunker space (W+V for anyone interested) is 20,592 cu ft. We also know the dimensions of that boiler room, 57 ft long by about 91 ft wide (it tapered down a bit at the forward end). We also know the ship was down by the bow about 3 degrees around 1 a.m., and can take that into consideration as well.

Well I will not bore people with the mathematic detail, which I'm happy to provide upon request, but if all the water that could possibly have been held back by that bunker suddenly burst through into the open boiler room proper, the height of the water flooding that space at the forward end would reach a height of about 5 1/2 ft over the tank top, and at the aft end about 2 1/2 ft over the tank top. The stokehold plates were 2 ft 7.5 in above the tank top. By the way, Assistant 2nd Engineer Shepherd, the one with the broken leg, was carried to the pump room at the aft end of that boiler room. The absolutely worst case shows that water would at most have reached only to the height of the stokehold plates there.

So it could not have been an overwhelming deluge as many people have been led to believe if it was a burst bunker door that gave way. And remember, I assumed that water had reached as high as F deck, which is highly unlikely to have happened, before one of those bunker doors would have given way.

If you go to the primary source, what was described was no deluge of water. What was described was: "I saw a wave of green foam come tearing through between the boilers and I jumped for the escape ladder." And a few weeks later, "A rush of water came through the pass - the forward end...I never stopped to look. I went up the ladder. Mr. Harvey told me to go up."

Sounds to me like Harvey and Shepherd were not in immediate danger of drowning at the time that rush of water was seen. Things like this always seem to get blown way out of proportion.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,193
1,123
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sam,

Perhaps the 'deluge' described was in fact a fast-moving, initially high wave caused by restriction and the water pressure behind it? The wave would get it's height from being confined to the easiest route aft.
When the pressure dropped the water would then of course find still water levels as you have described. Such an event would not necessary require a massive volume of water.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,294
1,582
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I fully agree with you Jim. My only reaction is when one uses words like 'deluge' and 'overwhelming' and what they tend to imply. It was not the words used by the only surviving witness who saw what actually happened down there. A wave of green foam or a rush of water does not convey the same meaning to me as some of the more dramatic accounts written to describe what happened down there by those who not there to see it themselves.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,193
1,123
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I get your 'drift' Sam - I've told these people a million times -"don't exaggerate!"

I know I'm giving things away but 'a wave of green foam' reminds me my wife told me to wash the bath out tonight!

Actually, when a ship is rolling in a sea-way, a flooded compartment can be quite a scary place - even with a foot of water in there,
ask anyone who's misfortune it has been to be part of a tank-cleaning crew after a Butterworth operation!
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,620
1,102
248
Germany
>>When was it flooded?<<

Could have been somehow around 12:30 - 12:40 a.m.
I don't think you will get an exact time.

>>What happend to the swimming pool during the sinking?<<

What do you mean? I don't understand the question. It filled with water.
 

Haowei Shi

Member
Aug 25, 2010
105
0
121
Avon,Indiana
Hey guys!The room the swimming pool was in flooded around 0020-0030.I think the swimming pool is emptied when not in use.So there aren' any water in the pool during the sinking

Haowei
FULL SPEED AHEAD

[Moderator's Note: This message and the three above it, originally posted to two different threads in a different topic, have been moved to this pre-existing thread addressing the same subject. MAB]
 

Haowei Shi

Member
Aug 25, 2010
105
0
121
Avon,Indiana
When is The Titanic's turkish bath flooded,anyway?
happy.gif





Haowei
FULL SPEED AHEAD!!
 

Similar threads

Similar threads