Arun Vajpey
Member
The longitudinal bulkheads
- Thread starter Arun Vajpey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bulkhead
J Kent Layton
Member
Arun,
>>If she had had no longitudinal bulkheads, could the Lusitania have survived longer or even be successfully beached?<<
In short, yes. In my last book, Lusitania: An Illustrated Biography of the Ship of Splendor, I was able to do a lengthy comparison of the Lusitania's fate and that of another liner, the Statendam/Justicia, which was also torpedoed during World War One. The Justicia was not equipped with longitudinal bulkheads like those found on the Lusitania, and the difference was astounding.
>>If she had had no longitudinal bulkheads, could the Lusitania have survived longer or even be successfully beached?<<
In short, yes. In my last book, Lusitania: An Illustrated Biography of the Ship of Splendor, I was able to do a lengthy comparison of the Lusitania's fate and that of another liner, the Statendam/Justicia, which was also torpedoed during World War One. The Justicia was not equipped with longitudinal bulkheads like those found on the Lusitania, and the difference was astounding.
Jim Kalafus
Member
The big list...
Well, for the most part, there wasn't one.
Shortly we'll be putting almost 200 separate accounts, all collected May 8-May 14, 1915, online. They all pretty much agree that there was an immediate but very brief heel to starboard, followed by a recovery. The list was present, but not heavy. The second major heel came at a point where the lifeboats along the aft starboard boat deck were self-launching...that is to say, the water had come up under the boats leaving no need to actually lower them. THEN she rolled so severely that the 85 occupants of Barbara McDermott's boat had the unpleasant experience of having a funnel hovering at almost a right angle, directly over their heads. Everyone in that boat who wrote an account (over 30!) struggled to describe just how close the funnel was to them. But then there was another recovery roll to port, and so they weren't crushed.
Stories about the severe list, port boats toboganning down the deck, people being crushed to pulps, came along MUCH later. Scores of port side survivors, from all points on the deck, immediately wrote detailed accounts, and no one saw any such thing. The port side debacle...one boat, far aft, dumped its passengers from about 60 feet up, with few survivors. A boat amidship on port, in the vicinity of 10-14, overturned when almost at the waterline, and the next boat aft, fully loaded, then self-launched and landed atop the occupants of the capsized boat. At which point, someone on the port bridge ordered that the lowering of the boats be ceased and the boats offloaded. Which they were. None of this was attributable to the list. Towards the end, #14 was lowered successfully (The 'no port boats got away' detail is as myth)and one final boat was lowred to the water only to be struck, and overturned by, the sinking ship.
>If she had had no longitudinal bulkheads, could the Lusitania have survived longer or even be successfully beached?
No. I must respectfully disagree with you on that point. The fact that she had little or no list during the middle ten minutes of the sinking, would seem to indicate fairly even flooding.
Well, for the most part, there wasn't one.
Shortly we'll be putting almost 200 separate accounts, all collected May 8-May 14, 1915, online. They all pretty much agree that there was an immediate but very brief heel to starboard, followed by a recovery. The list was present, but not heavy. The second major heel came at a point where the lifeboats along the aft starboard boat deck were self-launching...that is to say, the water had come up under the boats leaving no need to actually lower them. THEN she rolled so severely that the 85 occupants of Barbara McDermott's boat had the unpleasant experience of having a funnel hovering at almost a right angle, directly over their heads. Everyone in that boat who wrote an account (over 30!) struggled to describe just how close the funnel was to them. But then there was another recovery roll to port, and so they weren't crushed.
Stories about the severe list, port boats toboganning down the deck, people being crushed to pulps, came along MUCH later. Scores of port side survivors, from all points on the deck, immediately wrote detailed accounts, and no one saw any such thing. The port side debacle...one boat, far aft, dumped its passengers from about 60 feet up, with few survivors. A boat amidship on port, in the vicinity of 10-14, overturned when almost at the waterline, and the next boat aft, fully loaded, then self-launched and landed atop the occupants of the capsized boat. At which point, someone on the port bridge ordered that the lowering of the boats be ceased and the boats offloaded. Which they were. None of this was attributable to the list. Towards the end, #14 was lowered successfully (The 'no port boats got away' detail is as myth)and one final boat was lowred to the water only to be struck, and overturned by, the sinking ship.
>If she had had no longitudinal bulkheads, could the Lusitania have survived longer or even be successfully beached?
No. I must respectfully disagree with you on that point. The fact that she had little or no list during the middle ten minutes of the sinking, would seem to indicate fairly even flooding.
J Kent Layton
Member
Jim,
Here we delve into a subject that was heavily debated by marine engineers and other maritime experts long before the Lusitania actually sank. Longitudinal bulkheads in and of themselves are not bad, but their location on the Lusitania, and the large size of the longitudinal compartments on that vessel, proved rather tragic. Even Leonard Peskett knew that if two longitudinal compartments were flooded, the ship’s list would be severe (as it was in the first minutes after the torpedo impact, before she righted herself.) Indeed, with three bunkers on one side flooded, Peskett felt it would be important to abandon the ship without delay.
The behavior of the Justicia, and the length of time she stayed afloat with numerous torpedo strikes, really tells the tale. The two ships were of very similar size and form an excellent basis for comparison. Although there were other differences between the two, the most important difference for the purpose of our discussion has to do with the longitudinal bulkheads.
>>The fact that she had little or no list during the middle ten minutes of the sinking, would seem to indicate fairly even flooding. <<
Actually, the evidence you speak of, namely that the ship’s list recovered, is not surprising. We’ve known for years that she recovered to some extent from that initial list. Such a recovery, while seeming promising to many passengers and crew, was actually grave evidence of a rapidly deteriorating situation. It meant that the flooding had expanded into a great many areas of the hull which had not seen initial damage.
However, by that point the initial list had already played a part in helping to speed her demise. Why? Because the speed with which the ship sank had everything to do with the speed with which her hull was inundated by water. We know about how much damage a torpedo impact of the period would cause on a ship's hull designed like that of the Lusitania. We also know that a simple torpedo impact could have grave consequences on the watertight integrity of hull plates in the general vicinity of the impact beyond the actual blast hole. This factor, when combined with open portholes, and the possibility of other portholes in the area being damaged/broken by the blast, was where the longitudinal bulkheads really would have come into play.
During that initial list, such extra areas of ingress would likely have been submerged, allowing many tons of water to enter into the hull which would not otherwise have been able to gain access to the ship’s innards. When it entered the ship, this water would have worked with gravity, moving forward and down whenever possible. But wherever it went after it came into the ship, it had gotten in there, contributing much to the overall flooding and thus hastening the ship’s demise. If there had been no initial list from the collection of water behind the longitudinal bulkhead, it is likely that the slight settling to the bow would have allowed much of those damaged plates and open/damaged portholes to remain above water and thus they would not have added to the rate of sinking.
Hence, the evidence certainly supports the conclusion that the longitudinal bulkheads contributed to the speed with which the ship sank — even if that early list passed and the flooding became more even, the damage was by then already done… The rest was a simple follow-through of what had already started. Once the water was in the ship (including the extra water taken on during the initial list), there was no practical way (under those circumstances) to get it back out.
By the way, I’m looking forward to seeing more on what you’ve turned up in those passenger accounts, Jim. I’m sure there will be a lot of interesting information in there on a wide variety of subjects, and I think that a lot of old cobwebs will be cleared.
Here we delve into a subject that was heavily debated by marine engineers and other maritime experts long before the Lusitania actually sank. Longitudinal bulkheads in and of themselves are not bad, but their location on the Lusitania, and the large size of the longitudinal compartments on that vessel, proved rather tragic. Even Leonard Peskett knew that if two longitudinal compartments were flooded, the ship’s list would be severe (as it was in the first minutes after the torpedo impact, before she righted herself.) Indeed, with three bunkers on one side flooded, Peskett felt it would be important to abandon the ship without delay.
The behavior of the Justicia, and the length of time she stayed afloat with numerous torpedo strikes, really tells the tale. The two ships were of very similar size and form an excellent basis for comparison. Although there were other differences between the two, the most important difference for the purpose of our discussion has to do with the longitudinal bulkheads.
>>The fact that she had little or no list during the middle ten minutes of the sinking, would seem to indicate fairly even flooding. <<
Actually, the evidence you speak of, namely that the ship’s list recovered, is not surprising. We’ve known for years that she recovered to some extent from that initial list. Such a recovery, while seeming promising to many passengers and crew, was actually grave evidence of a rapidly deteriorating situation. It meant that the flooding had expanded into a great many areas of the hull which had not seen initial damage.
However, by that point the initial list had already played a part in helping to speed her demise. Why? Because the speed with which the ship sank had everything to do with the speed with which her hull was inundated by water. We know about how much damage a torpedo impact of the period would cause on a ship's hull designed like that of the Lusitania. We also know that a simple torpedo impact could have grave consequences on the watertight integrity of hull plates in the general vicinity of the impact beyond the actual blast hole. This factor, when combined with open portholes, and the possibility of other portholes in the area being damaged/broken by the blast, was where the longitudinal bulkheads really would have come into play.
During that initial list, such extra areas of ingress would likely have been submerged, allowing many tons of water to enter into the hull which would not otherwise have been able to gain access to the ship’s innards. When it entered the ship, this water would have worked with gravity, moving forward and down whenever possible. But wherever it went after it came into the ship, it had gotten in there, contributing much to the overall flooding and thus hastening the ship’s demise. If there had been no initial list from the collection of water behind the longitudinal bulkhead, it is likely that the slight settling to the bow would have allowed much of those damaged plates and open/damaged portholes to remain above water and thus they would not have added to the rate of sinking.
Hence, the evidence certainly supports the conclusion that the longitudinal bulkheads contributed to the speed with which the ship sank — even if that early list passed and the flooding became more even, the damage was by then already done… The rest was a simple follow-through of what had already started. Once the water was in the ship (including the extra water taken on during the initial list), there was no practical way (under those circumstances) to get it back out.
By the way, I’m looking forward to seeing more on what you’ve turned up in those passenger accounts, Jim. I’m sure there will be a lot of interesting information in there on a wide variety of subjects, and I think that a lot of old cobwebs will be cleared.
Arun Vajpey
Member
That is a very comprehensive explanation Mr Layton, thanks. BTW, I have just ordered a paperback copy of your book a few days ago. Should arrive today. I tried to get hold of a hardback, but could not find one.
Did the partially submerged bow come back up when the Lusitania's list righted itself to some extent?
The only ILLUSTRATED book about the Lusitania that I have is the one by Robert Ballard and was going by the pictures therein. Obviously, your book will have more and I can't wait to see them.
Did the partially submerged bow come back up when the Lusitania's list righted itself to some extent?
The only ILLUSTRATED book about the Lusitania that I have is the one by Robert Ballard and was going by the pictures therein. Obviously, your book will have more and I can't wait to see them.
Jim Kalafus
Member
Good morning, Kent: Although I was aware that the potential for fiasco resulting from the longitudinal bulkhead was discussed before the disaster, it still strikes me as not really being a factor in what happened.
Which is why I wish that they'd get around to exploring what remains of the impact area, and not waste time forward in the cargo area looking for 'secret' contraband, the existence of which has been known since 1915.
The initial list did not last even five minutes. She was rolling out of it in the time it took passengers to walk from the dining room to the staircase. Likewise, in the time it took Ogden and Mary Hammond to walk directly from the lounge to the location of 20/22, the list had gone.
The Lusitania had taken on water fast enough that in the time it took D.C. Harris to run to his cabin and then the forward end of the superstructure, the water had come up as far as the well deck, from which he stepped overboard. Harris was an excellent witness. ALL details of the 10 page account he wrote two days later match up with other accounts, and he did not exaggerate. He witnessed the launch of boat #1, with three people in it, from in the water. It is known from other accounts that the launching of #1 came relatively early in the sequence of the disaster. My hunch...since no one survived to confirm or rebut this, and no one seems interested in exploring this area of the wreck... is that something caused damage massive enough to compromise the longitudinal bulkhead, and caused the ship to fill at a rate fast enough to have the bow awash in under 7 minutes.
The open, or broken, portholes in the vicinity of the explosion would have increased the list, by causing more water to enter the ship on the 'downhill' side, as happened in many disasters involving warm weather sinkings and an initial list. But quite the opposite seems to have happened: as more water entered thru portholes, the list decreased and the ship seemed to become steadier. As far as I know, the only accounts mentioning open portholes allowing an influx of water (and there are a small handful)were written by people who ventured to D and E decks AFTER the list abated.
The open porthole issue was discussed, rather tenaciously, at the Limitation of Liability hearings. But, I dont think any witnesses testified that they saw water entering thru them; only that many portholes on both sides of the ship, in first class, were open.
Justicia was not at all similar to the Lusitania, IF you believe in the second explosion. I do NOT believe in the second, heavier, explosion, but just to play devil's advocate on behalf of those who DO believe in a heavy detonation followed by a second, massive, detonation, the Justicia did not have two catastrophic explosions in virtually the same spot and within seconds of one another. If one truly believes in the second, massive, explosion theory, it is not hard to imagine an unusual amount of internal damage occurring in its general area.
You'd be better off using the Mt Vernon as an example. Almost the same size as the Lusitania, one torpedo, and drew water fast enough that her lower passenger deck was soon awash. In that case, only the facts that the torpedo did not compromise her watertight bulkheads and she had a well trained crew saved her, and there was no massive list. I posted the entire official account of that event on ET...it's in the archive, somewhere.
>Did the partially submerged bow come back up when the Lusitania's list righted itself to some extent?
Possibly. Something happened around minute 15, that caused a number of witnesses watching from on and around the docking bridge, aft, to claim on May 8-14, that the bow had suddenly broken off. Obviously, it hadn't, but SOMETHING took place far forward that caused people far aft to believe that the bow had detached.
Also, several dozen witnesses, both in the lifeboats and in the water, described an event amidships on the starboard side, that they invariably described as the sudden collapse of a portion of the ship's side. What did they see? Hard to say, but dozens of people, all in the same general area and writing independently of one another, used strikingly similar language in describing it. This tends to reenforce the theory that there was unusually heavy damage in the blast area...but no one ever explores there, so who knows?
Which is why I wish that they'd get around to exploring what remains of the impact area, and not waste time forward in the cargo area looking for 'secret' contraband, the existence of which has been known since 1915.
The initial list did not last even five minutes. She was rolling out of it in the time it took passengers to walk from the dining room to the staircase. Likewise, in the time it took Ogden and Mary Hammond to walk directly from the lounge to the location of 20/22, the list had gone.
The Lusitania had taken on water fast enough that in the time it took D.C. Harris to run to his cabin and then the forward end of the superstructure, the water had come up as far as the well deck, from which he stepped overboard. Harris was an excellent witness. ALL details of the 10 page account he wrote two days later match up with other accounts, and he did not exaggerate. He witnessed the launch of boat #1, with three people in it, from in the water. It is known from other accounts that the launching of #1 came relatively early in the sequence of the disaster. My hunch...since no one survived to confirm or rebut this, and no one seems interested in exploring this area of the wreck... is that something caused damage massive enough to compromise the longitudinal bulkhead, and caused the ship to fill at a rate fast enough to have the bow awash in under 7 minutes.
The open, or broken, portholes in the vicinity of the explosion would have increased the list, by causing more water to enter the ship on the 'downhill' side, as happened in many disasters involving warm weather sinkings and an initial list. But quite the opposite seems to have happened: as more water entered thru portholes, the list decreased and the ship seemed to become steadier. As far as I know, the only accounts mentioning open portholes allowing an influx of water (and there are a small handful)were written by people who ventured to D and E decks AFTER the list abated.
The open porthole issue was discussed, rather tenaciously, at the Limitation of Liability hearings. But, I dont think any witnesses testified that they saw water entering thru them; only that many portholes on both sides of the ship, in first class, were open.
Justicia was not at all similar to the Lusitania, IF you believe in the second explosion. I do NOT believe in the second, heavier, explosion, but just to play devil's advocate on behalf of those who DO believe in a heavy detonation followed by a second, massive, detonation, the Justicia did not have two catastrophic explosions in virtually the same spot and within seconds of one another. If one truly believes in the second, massive, explosion theory, it is not hard to imagine an unusual amount of internal damage occurring in its general area.
You'd be better off using the Mt Vernon as an example. Almost the same size as the Lusitania, one torpedo, and drew water fast enough that her lower passenger deck was soon awash. In that case, only the facts that the torpedo did not compromise her watertight bulkheads and she had a well trained crew saved her, and there was no massive list. I posted the entire official account of that event on ET...it's in the archive, somewhere.
>Did the partially submerged bow come back up when the Lusitania's list righted itself to some extent?
Possibly. Something happened around minute 15, that caused a number of witnesses watching from on and around the docking bridge, aft, to claim on May 8-14, that the bow had suddenly broken off. Obviously, it hadn't, but SOMETHING took place far forward that caused people far aft to believe that the bow had detached.
Also, several dozen witnesses, both in the lifeboats and in the water, described an event amidships on the starboard side, that they invariably described as the sudden collapse of a portion of the ship's side. What did they see? Hard to say, but dozens of people, all in the same general area and writing independently of one another, used strikingly similar language in describing it. This tends to reenforce the theory that there was unusually heavy damage in the blast area...but no one ever explores there, so who knows?
J Kent Layton
Member
Arun,
I'm glad you picked up a copy. Both of my books (Lusitania and the new Atlantic Liners) are available in hardcover through my site, but they are special editions not available through standard bookstores. I hope you enjoy the book when it comes in.
Jim,
I think you misunderstood my post completely. My whole point was that in the short time that the ship was listed (because of the longitudinal bulkheads), in the time directly after the torpedo impact, excess flooding helped to hasten the ship's demise. When the ship straightened up, that was evidence of water already in the ship on the starboard side evening out in areas where there were no longitudinal bulkheads. But that water was by then already in the ship... there was no practical way to get it back out once it was in. Even though she was over for a very short time, that flooding doubtless helped speed her overall demise. Things were happening very, very quickly. Even if the list lasted for only three minutes (as an example), that's 1/6th the amount of time it took the ship to sink, a significant portion of the overall chain of events.
>>Which is why I wish that they'd get around to exploring what remains of the impact area, and not waste time forward in the cargo area looking for 'secret' contraband, the existence of which has been known since 1915.<<
I agree with you on this point 100%!!!! As Jimmy said in Independence Day, "Amen, Reverend." Take care, gents.
I'm glad you picked up a copy. Both of my books (Lusitania and the new Atlantic Liners) are available in hardcover through my site, but they are special editions not available through standard bookstores. I hope you enjoy the book when it comes in.
Jim,
I think you misunderstood my post completely. My whole point was that in the short time that the ship was listed (because of the longitudinal bulkheads), in the time directly after the torpedo impact, excess flooding helped to hasten the ship's demise. When the ship straightened up, that was evidence of water already in the ship on the starboard side evening out in areas where there were no longitudinal bulkheads. But that water was by then already in the ship... there was no practical way to get it back out once it was in. Even though she was over for a very short time, that flooding doubtless helped speed her overall demise. Things were happening very, very quickly. Even if the list lasted for only three minutes (as an example), that's 1/6th the amount of time it took the ship to sink, a significant portion of the overall chain of events.
>>Which is why I wish that they'd get around to exploring what remains of the impact area, and not waste time forward in the cargo area looking for 'secret' contraband, the existence of which has been known since 1915.<<
I agree with you on this point 100%!!!! As Jimmy said in Independence Day, "Amen, Reverend." Take care, gents.
Jim Kalafus
Member
No, I understood you post. Just did not understand it as it applied to the question of the Lusitania surviving longer or being beached.
The Lusitania sank....well...just like any other massively damaged liner whose watertight doors were never closed. There was nothing specific about her behavior during her sinking that can be directly blamed on the longitudinal bulkhead. Truth is, she behaved BETTER than most damaged passenger ships which sank that quickly... in most cases ships that drew enough water to sink in under 20 minutes rolled over before going down. The Lusitania rolled and recovered, and at the end rolled almost onto her side and then, once again, recovered. And there is no reason to believe that had the bulkhead not been there she would have sank one iota slower, been more stable, or been savable.
The Lusitania sank....well...just like any other massively damaged liner whose watertight doors were never closed. There was nothing specific about her behavior during her sinking that can be directly blamed on the longitudinal bulkhead. Truth is, she behaved BETTER than most damaged passenger ships which sank that quickly... in most cases ships that drew enough water to sink in under 20 minutes rolled over before going down. The Lusitania rolled and recovered, and at the end rolled almost onto her side and then, once again, recovered. And there is no reason to believe that had the bulkhead not been there she would have sank one iota slower, been more stable, or been savable.
J Kent Layton
Member
Jim,
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm looking forward to seeing the new project, though. Take care.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm looking forward to seeing the new project, though. Take care.
Arun Vajpey
Member
>>>>>> Truth is, she behaved BETTER than most damaged passenger ships which sank that quickly <<<<<<<
I am no expert like some of the other people here, but at least some of them seem to think that the Titanic (for example) might even have survived that same torpedo attack. Is that view not slightly at odds with what you are saying?
I am no expert like some of the other people here, but at least some of them seem to think that the Titanic (for example) might even have survived that same torpedo attack. Is that view not slightly at odds with what you are saying?
Brent Holt
Member
It is difficult to compare ships of different design. Olympic and Titanic could float with any 2 sections flooded,the first 4 watertight compartments flooded & in some cases any 3 flooded. Therefore, in theory, yes they should have survived a single torpedo hit.
But so should the Lusitania!
I am also something of a skeptic on the secondary explosion. It could have been the main steam pipe rupture or the sounds of the ship moaning and "twisting" at high speed after the torpedo hit.
But so should the Lusitania!
I am also something of a skeptic on the secondary explosion. It could have been the main steam pipe rupture or the sounds of the ship moaning and "twisting" at high speed after the torpedo hit.
Martin Owen Cahill
Member
"Something happened around minute 15, that caused a number of witnesses watching from on and around the docking bridge, aft, to claim on May 8-14, that the bow had suddenly broken off. Obviously, it hadn't, but SOMETHING took place far forward that caused people far aft to believe that the bow had detached."
- J. Kalafus
How about the sudden collapse of the already damage bulkhead between the two foward boiler rooms.
Stoker Madden was unable to operate the manual override on the WTD before steam power was totally lost which suggests the doors did close. The 2nd explosion if by steam may also have weakened an already wracked structure.
The initial speed of the ship would have driven the sea in under pressure putting further strain on it.[see D.Brown, Titanic's Last Log for a discussion of this phenomena]unequal flooding of the two rooms would have done the rest.
Also, only 1 man survived #2 boiler room where there should have been many more . A sudden and catastrophic failure would have done this.The sudden flooding of #2 may have redistributed the weight further after cauing the ship to alter her trim.
"When the ship straightened up, that was evidence of water already in the ship on the starboard side evening out in areas where there were no longitudinal bulkheads." - J. Kent Layton
Maybe this happened when the port bunkers flooded sufficiently to correct the list. The flooding of the starboard bunker would be rapid and gine the list of 15. The boiler room would as you say help keep the list moderate andthe then the port bunkers help to bring her back further. Once the starboard port began admitting water then it would all change and become asymetric again.
[based on my reading here and elsewhere and my own forensic thinking]
Martin
- J. Kalafus
How about the sudden collapse of the already damage bulkhead between the two foward boiler rooms.
Stoker Madden was unable to operate the manual override on the WTD before steam power was totally lost which suggests the doors did close. The 2nd explosion if by steam may also have weakened an already wracked structure.
The initial speed of the ship would have driven the sea in under pressure putting further strain on it.[see D.Brown, Titanic's Last Log for a discussion of this phenomena]unequal flooding of the two rooms would have done the rest.
Also, only 1 man survived #2 boiler room where there should have been many more . A sudden and catastrophic failure would have done this.The sudden flooding of #2 may have redistributed the weight further after cauing the ship to alter her trim.
"When the ship straightened up, that was evidence of water already in the ship on the starboard side evening out in areas where there were no longitudinal bulkheads." - J. Kent Layton
Maybe this happened when the port bunkers flooded sufficiently to correct the list. The flooding of the starboard bunker would be rapid and gine the list of 15. The boiler room would as you say help keep the list moderate andthe then the port bunkers help to bring her back further. Once the starboard port began admitting water then it would all change and become asymetric again.
[based on my reading here and elsewhere and my own forensic thinking]
Martin
