The bulkhead between boiler rooms #5 and #4


Arun Vajpey

Member
I understand that there are some informative interior photographs of the relatively intact bow section of the Titanic wreck. Is there one showing the watertight bulkhead between boiler rooms #5 and #4? If so, what shape is it in and can they tell whether it 'failed' just after 02:15 am leading to sudden flooding of rest of boiler room #4?
 
I understand that there are some informative interior photographs of the relatively intact bow section of the Titanic wreck. Is there one showing the watertight bulkhead between boiler rooms #5 and #4? If so, what shape is it in and can they tell whether it 'failed' just after 02:15 am leading to sudden flooding of rest of boiler room #4?

No wreck pictures. And not failure of the bulkhead. From what I understand that was a theory set out by Charles Pellegrino.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Thank you. I am assuming that the above replies indicate that the said bulkhead did not fail. In that case, was there any sort of "catastrophic event" at around 02:18 that led to the sudden acceleration of sinking and break-up of the ship or was it just that the progressive flooding within the Titanic reached a point where the ship "lost its longitudinal stability and started to tip over" as so well described in Sam Halpern's book?
 

B-rad

Member
From what I understand, the increased sinking rate, happened for no special reason. Once water found its way to the top most of Titanic's structure, the water had unlimited access to the ship; where before the water would have to continue rising inside the hull to reach the top, now it could flood upwards, while also flood downwards.

The water inside the hull would be at level with the water inside the hull, therefore, until the hull is submerged, the hull still has some buoyancy. Once the water reaches over the structure, air is more rapidly displaced, and buoyancy is more rapidly lost.

To pull a Jim (with all do respect btw), you can try this at home with a shallow pan (or tupperware) in a sink or tube, full of water(at least a depth where pan can sink). Slowly fill pan with water, and the pan will sink lower, until the lip of the pan goes below the waterline, and then the pan sinks rapidly.

The break up did not have anything to do with the initial rapid flooding. In fact, the break up seems to have had the opposite effect on the stern section, as it righted itself, when otherwise it would have probably tipped over and sank with the rest of the hull. The break up was caused by the ship sinking to an angle the structure could not handle. This angle was achieved by the more rapid flooding. Where most ships tip over before such angle Titanic did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
The break up did not have anything to do with the initial rapid flooding. In fact, the break up seems to have had the opposite effect on the stern section, as it righted itself, when otherwise it would have probably tipped over and sank with the rest of the hull. The break up was caused by the ship sinking to an angle the structure could not handle. This angle was achieved by the more rapid flooding. Where most ships tip over before such angle Titanic did not.
That's right. From what I understood from Sam Halpern's account, the sequence of flooding had nothing to do with the break-up. The break was caused by the excessive "bending movement" strain on the hull as the stern rose out of the water and sharply lost its buoyancy. With the latter event, the bending strain on the hull would have increased sharply and reached its maximum somewhere between a trim angle of 11 and 14 degrees as depicted by the graph in page 119 of Halpern's book. It was at this point - starting about a minute or so after the ship had lost its longitudinal stability and had started to take the final plunge - that the break-up occurred. If the Titanic had not broken-up when it did, it might not have done so at all because at trim angles over 15 degrees the bending strain starts to decline and drops sharply after 20 degrees to reach zero at 90 degrees (or if the ship had become vertical), again as depicted in that graph.

The fact that the stern then settled back and took a further 90 to 120 seconds to flood and sink itself makes room for an interesting speculation. If the Titanic had lost its longitudinal stability (and so started its final plunge) exactly when it did but had not broken-up, it might have disappeared a minute or more sooner than it did.
 

Rusty_S

Member
The only failure for that area would not be the bulkhead itself but the actual coal bunker door. From all the research I have crossed over the years there is good evidence that the bunker was closed to slow the water ingress enough that the pumps could stay ahead of it. Once the bunker filled up with enough water the heat damage to said bunker from the coal bunker fire and the pressure of the water caused the door to eventually fail which from the perspective of those in the boiler room would have seemed like a bulkhead collapsed and not just a closed coal bunker door failing.
 
The only failure for that area would not be the bulkhead itself but the actual coal bunker door. From all the research I have crossed over the years there is good evidence that the bunker was closed to slow the water ingress enough that the pumps could stay ahead of it.

It is the wrong boiler room, this topic is about the WTB F between BR. 5 & BR 4. The one you are referring to is WTB E between BR 6 & BR 5.

Once the bunker filled up with enough water the heat damage to said bunker from the coal bunker fire and the pressure of the water caused the door to eventually fail which from the perspective of those in the boiler room would have seemed like a bulkhead collapsed and not just a closed coal bunker door failing.

No one described a bulkhead collapse and it is very unlikely anyone would have survived such an event to report it.
 

Rusty_S

Member
It is the wrong boiler room, this topic is about the WTB F between BR. 5 & BR 4. The one you are referring to is WTB E between BR 6 & BR 5.



No one described a bulkhead collapse and it is very unlikely anyone would have survived such an event to report it.
As far as the boiler room goes, maybe its wrong, been a good 5 or 10 years since I really read or researched Titanic due to lack of new information.

I have to disagree, been years but when I read the inquiry transcripts Stoker Barret was in the boiler room when a wall of water came in and he escaped up an escape ladder. I cant recall from the transcripts but in the history channel episode from the mid 90s they talked about this but said that a stoker stepped in a open manhole and broke his leg and Stoker Barret left him when the water came in. I don't recall that in the transcripts but I do recall him saying that a wall of water came in and he left when that happened.
 
It was Engineer Shepherd who broke his leg and Barrett helped to bring him into the pump room.
Some time later Barrett saw water coming though the pass between the boilers and was called to go up. He did not say that the bulkhead collapsed.
 

Rusty_S

Member
I did not say that he claimed the bulkhead collapsed but that he saw a lot of water coming through all at once. This is where the bulkhead collapse came in from is cause it was never stated but the only thing people could comprehend as causing a huge torrent of water coming in all at once is if something like a bulkhead failed.
 
It was Engineer Shepherd who broke his leg and Barrett helped to bring him into the pump room.
Some time later Barrett saw water coming though the pass between the boilers and was called to go up. He did not say that the bulkhead collapsed.

I found a newspaper report somewhere (either that or from the inquiry) that said Shepherd was moved into boiler room 4. is it possible Barrett didn't know this happened and that Shepherd didn't drown when the bulkhead gave way?
 

B-rad

Member
I found a newspaper report somewhere (either that or from the inquiry) that said Shepherd was moved into boiler room 4. is it possible Barrett didn't know this happened and that Shepherd didn't drown when the bulkhead gave way?

Your probably thinking of fireman's Threlfall's account:

Leading Stoker Threlfall states that after the collision his stokehold, No. 4, was dry. “The fires were burning as usual.” The watertight doors were closed, but they were opened to bring through an engineer with a broken leg, and were closed after him again. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 stokeholds were also dry. Up to shortly before 2 a.m. “everything was going on just as usual below; the lights were burning and all pumps were working as if nothing had happened.”

This link may help. Me and Ioannis have had a discussion about this.

Time for flooding of Boiler room #3, 2, 1 and engine room
 
Yes it was Threlfall's newspaper account. Interestingly in his newspaper interview (as in The Sphere) Barrett mentioned that preparations were done to bring Shepherd on deck.
(That Shepherd died in BR 5 is the interpretation in A Night to Remember. Barrett did now saw anything, he was ordered on deck.)
 

Aaron_2016

Former Member
Reading Charlotte Collyer's account about 2nd class. Does anyone know how this stoker injured his hand? She said:


"There was a commotion near one of the gangways, and we saw a stoker come climbing up from below. He stopped a few feet away from us. All the fingers of one hand had been cut off. Blood was running from the stumps and blood was splattered over his face and over his clothes. The red marks showed very clearly against the coal dust with which he was covered..........I saw First Officer Murdoch place guards by the gangways to prevent others like the wounded stoker from coming on deck. How many unhappy men were shut off in that way from their one chance of safety I do not know; but Mr. Murdoch was probably right. He was a masterful man, astoundingly brave and cool. I had met him the day before, when he was inspecting the second-cabin quarters, and thought him a bulldog of a man who would not be afraid of anything. This proved to be true; he kept order to the last, and died at his post. They say he shot himself. I do not know."


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top