Thank you for the reply, Mark.I haven't seen it yet Gemma. However, an article in the Independent stated:
"Presenting his research in a Channel 4 documentary, Titanic: The New Evidence, broadcast on New Year’s Day, Mr Maloney also claims the ship was reversed into its berth in Southampton to prevent passengers from seeing damage made to the side of the ship by the ongoing fire."
This is incorrect.
After Olympic was berthed with her starboard side to the quay at Southampton on her maiden voyage, Thomas Andrews recommended that she be berthed with her port side to the quay on all subsequent occasions; undoubtedly the practices that worked well with Olympic were followed by Titanic. I think this explains why she was docked with her port side to the quay.
Thank you for your reply.Haven't seen it. There is nothing visible in the photographs. There are dark marks alongside the hull but far away from the spot where that so called "fire" was.
However it was coal smouldering and not a fire. The coal bunker had been emptied on April 13th.
The newspaper's assertion about the coal supporting the watertight bulkhead had me amused!New York Tribune, April 20th 1912]
Many people have made similar claims. The persistent issue is that there isn't any evidence to support it. The whole basis under which these ships were built was 'cost plus': taking the final cost of the ship, the builder added a fixed percentage commission. The more they spent, the more profit they made. (One official at Cunard, White Star's competitor, indicated such an arrangement would not work for them because it would simply incentivise shipbuilders to lavish expenditure on a ship to boost their profits at the expense of the customer: Cunard.)The bulkheads were also made from brittle 'average' steel due to cost cutting which may have also been critical to the failure.
The policy of docking Olympic or Titanic with their port side to the quay at Southampton was instituted after Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. As I explained above:Was the Titanic deliberately turned around in Southampton for her departure to hide her starboard side damage?.
Why would that be? I am not aware this image was used in any publicity. I don't think it was even made public until the last year or so, when the Kempster album was discovered. There would be no reason to enhance it.Has the below photo been doctored to smudge out and remove the damage for publicity?
Why would that be? I am not aware this image was used in any publicity. I don't think it was even made public until the last year or so, when the Kempster album was discovered. There would be no reason to enhance it.