Even if the Californian had rec'd the first SOS, would she have made it to the disaster site in time to save anybody? The was solid ice around her and the chances of damaging her hull or rudder would have been very high indeed.
Add to that, even the lifeboats that went back to retrieve passengers in the water were unable to pick up but a few survivors in the freezing water.
Jake, I've covered that on my site, mentioned above.
There's not only the matter of how fast Californian could have got to the scene. The big problem is the cutoff point imposed by hypothermia. I personally think they might have saved a few hundred but Michael Standard would probably say I'm too optimistic and he may be right. It would have been hell with the lid off.
>>I personally think they might have saved a few hundred but Michael Standard would probably say I'm too optimistic and he may be right.<<
Actually Dave, I think you've made that point in a roundabout way yourself on your own website when you said "Conclusions. By prompt action, good seamanship and good luck, Californian could have saved several hundred people, perhaps 400 or so. Certainly no more, and some experienced seamen would argue for fewer."
I would tend to think that this many could have been pulled out in ideal conditions. Unfortunately, as we know all too well, the sea has a nasty habit of throwing people a few curveballs when the excrement hits the windmill. To say that it would have been Hell with the lid off is...in my opinion...an understatement.
Jake, you may find it useful to check out Dave's website in the links above. You may also want to check out The Californian Incident, A Reality Check which was written by Tracy Smith, Captain Erik Wood and myself. We don't pretend that it's perfect, but we tried our best...as Dave has on his website...to inject a dose of reality into the debate.
In each folder, if you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see a feature which says "Start a New Thread." Click on that and fill in the blanks. It's really not difficult. However, befor starting a new thread, you may want to snoop around to see if the same topic has been covered sometime within recent memory.
(Suggestion: Please, don't start anything involving ship-switch theories, replica Titanics or that bloody mummy. They've been done to death!)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rigel and NO POPE??? Shipyeard workers entombed on the hull??? Somebody shoot me please! Quicker that way and I might come to enjoy the smell of burning gunpowder!
(Ohh...allright...bring on the cat. I rather like the little darlings!)
I am currently taking a class on Titanic at Maine Maritime Academy and had a quick question for you Titanic buffs. First, I’ve been doing some reading into the inquiry of the Californian and I have one simple question. Why were their engines all stopped?
I’ve been reading Padfields’s The Titanic and the Californian, and it states that the engines were all stop at 2230 the night that the Titanic sunk. Also in David Browns book it states that same. I would assume because of the ice. Maybe? If so why all stop?
Any help is welcome thanks!
Basically, there decided that they would not risk running through the ice in the middle of the night. In fact, they sent there infamous "Stopped in Ice message" to the Titanic earlier in the night. This was the same message that prompted the Titanics wireless operators to respond with "Shut Up, Shut Up, I am working Cape Race". Survivor testimony stated that by time dawn broke they saw numerous icebergs, "growlers", and expansive field ice. The Californian was being cautious, with good reason.
Funny how we refer to 'engines' when Californian had only one engine. Strange custom. What Captain Lord did was to stop his engine but keep steam up in case he had to move. He didn't want to be a sitting duck if another ship came along. Lord knew he was in small ice and for all he knew there might be big bergs that he couldn't see, so, as Andrew said, he did the wise thing.
It was not just the ice per se, was it? The fact that making your way through pack ice is enormously more difficult without a good light to see the channels was another reason, if you follow Walter Lord's speculation in TNLO.
>>Lord's speculation, correct me if Im wrong please, is that Capt. Lord was, more or less, afraid of his own shadow. <<
Don't confuse prudence for fear. While one may properly hold the man to account for the mistakes that occured that night...and debate endlessly ad nauseum exactly what those mistakes were...stopping for the night rather then chance a risky and dangerous transit through an icefield of unknown extent and density wasn't one of them.
Titanic gambled on the icefield.
Look what it got them.
Californian didn't even come close to having the same sort of watertight protection that the Titanic or any other liner had, and one hole anywhere would have been enough to put the ship on the bottom. Captain Lord knew this and was very wise not to take the chance.
I am not disagreeing with that statement. I am simply stating the impression I got from reading Walter Lord's TNLO. He attempts to influence the reader by pointing to the facts as though Captain Lord was afraid almost of navigating this part of the ocean. This was in response to Lee's statement concerning the same text.