George,
I moved the masthead light debate over to Yuri's thread, as you suggested.
To continue....
The mere fact that a kerosene lantern would have to be moveable makes it likely that such a lantern would be lowered and refilled during the day, and then lit and hoisted to the mainmast at night in compliance with IMM regulations. (I suspect that's one reason why a lamp trimmer was retained as part of the crew.)
...Even so, that doesn't change the fact that the "IMM Ship's Rules and Uniform Regulations" specifies that "At all times one of the two mast-lights carried must be of oil." It also specifies that "...in foggy or misty weather, oil mast-head and side lights are to be used instead of electric lights." As I've mentioned in the past, there was apparently no requirement that *all* White Star vessels carry two mast lights, but the Shutes and Hyland nighttime observations lend credence to the likelihood that Titanic did so -- and that the second masthead light was an oil lamp.... Especially at night or in foggy conditions, since observations and photographs made in daylight and in clear weather cannot be regarded as conclusive.
I will allow for the fact that in earlier times, the reliability of electric lamps was such that dual purpose lamps -- both electric and oil -- were constructed, and since you haven't dated the White Star regulation that you quote, it's possible that that regulation applies to that earlier time. However, by 1912, dual-purpose lamps were seldom fitted, if ever (I haven't uncovered a single instance yet, but I'm not prepared to make a sweeping statement that covers all of shipbuilding at that time). Titanic's recovered foremast lamp is a prime example of the type of lamps fitted by Titanic's time...electric only. Matt Tulloch will describe it for you if you ask him. Dave Brown also has some insight into navigational lights of the period, so I invite him to chime in.
Also, you quote from the regulation that "...in foggy or misty weather, oil mast-head and side lights are to be used instead of electric lights." Just for the sake of argument, let's say Titanic did hoist an oil lamp on the mainmast...why then would they have hoisted an oil masthead light on a night with observed and predicted clear conditions?
To save time, I'm going to quote from my own e-mail from our previous debate (from July 2000) on this subject:
>>I have been looking into this issue for several months now and I have so
>>far come up with zero proof for a mainmast light or provisions for
>>servicing of one. There is certainly no fixed mainmast light visible in
>>either the photo of Titanic's mainmast in Walter Lord's 'The Night Lives
>>On' (page 101 in the first edition) or in the Southampton or Queenstown
>>photos. As for the theory of hoisting a masthead light...what is the
>>purpose behind that? If it is intended to display range lights, why
>>would one of the lights have to be hoisted? If hoisted, how is the light
>>secured so that it displays the proper (fixed) arc of light, as required
>>by the International Rules of the Road? With an backwards rake to the
>>mast, how is the lamp brought forward of the mast, so that the mast
>>itself doesn't mask the light from the forward aspect; again, as required
>>by the Rules? As you mentioned, the builder's plans show the halyards on
>>the mast to be used for hoisting arc lamps, which are not the type used
>>for navigation lights. With only a mean life of 60-100 burning hours,
>>the arc lamp would require too much servicing...twin-filament tantalum
>>incandescent lamps, with a max life of 3000-5000 burning hours, were used
>>for nav lights).
>>
>>The special Shipbuilder number will tell you that tantalum filaments were
>>used for the incandescent lights in Titanic. The masthead and running
>>lights were unique, in that they used two filaments in parallel, so that
>>if one filament failed, the lamp will still illuminate, albeit at half
>>normal light. Failure of one or both filaments in a navigational light
>>was indicated on the Ship's Light Indicator panel (loss of both filaments
>>resulted in both a visual and an audio (bell) signal). It would be
>>interesting to find and recover that panel from the wreck, so that we
>>could see if there is an indicator window for the mainmast.
>>
>>As far as the regulations are concerned, George Behe points out that the
>>White Star Line Circular for Deck Officers stipulates that one of the two
>>masthead lights must be oil-fired. Against that, my interpretation of
>>the International Rules is that they stipulate that while a second
>>masthead light is optional, it must be identical to the one on the
>>foremast, if utilised:
>>
>>The Requirements for Second Mate, London, Aug. 1910
>>Seamanship for Ordinary Certificate
>>The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
>>"Q. May a steam vessel under way carry an additional masthead light?
>>Ans. Yes. A second may be carried exactly similar to the first. They
>>must be placed in a line with the keel, the forward light at least 15
>>feet lower than the after one, and the horizontal distance must be
>>greater than the vertical."
>>
>>Nicholls's Seamanship and Viva Voce Guide, 6th Edition, London 1913:
>>(George discounted this because it was published after the disaster, but
>>I just checked on the earlier editions (April 1908 and August 1910) and
>>the wording is the same)
>>"The Regulations for Preventing Collisions At Sea.
>>Art. 2. A steam vessel when under way shall carry-
>>(a.) On or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without a foremast,
>>then in the fore part of the vessel, at a height above the hull of not
>>less than 20 feet, and if the breadth of the vessel exceeds 20 feet, then
>>at the height above the hull not less than such breadth, so, however,
>>that the light need not be carried at a greater height above the hull
>>than 40 feet, a bright white light, so constructed as to show an unbroken
>>light over an arc of the horizon of 20 points of the compass, so fixed as
>>to throw the light 10 points on each side of the vessel, viz., from right
>>ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on either side, and of such a character
>>as to be visible at a distance of at least 5 miles.
>>(e.) A steam vessel when under way may carry an additional white light
>>similar in construction to the light mentioned in subdivision (a). These
>>two lights shall be placed in line with the keel that one shall be at
>>least 15 feet higher than the other, and in such a position with
>>reference to each other that the lower light shall be forward of the
>>upper one. The vertical distance between these lights shall be less than
>>the horizontal distance."
>>
>>International Convention on Safety of Life At Sea, London, 1914:
>>(After the disaster, but this shows that masthead lights had become a
>>concern for the international convention)
>>"Article 14. The High Contracting Parties undertake to use all diligence
>>to obtain from the Governments which are not parties to this Convention
>>their agreement to the revision of the International Regulations for
>>Preventing Collisions at Sea as indicated below:
>>(A) The Regulations shall be completed or revised in regard to the
>>following points:
>>(1.) The second white light....
>>(B) Articles 2, 10, 14, 15, 31 of the said Regulations shall be amended
>>in accordance with the following provisions:
>>Article 2. The second white mast-head light to be compulsory..."
>>
>>Modern Seamanship, 7th Edition, New York, 1917:
>>(Quoted here to show the Rules had still not changed since 1908)
>>The Rules of the Road
>>International Rules
>>(Article 2, subdivision (a) and (e), same as quoted in Nicholls, above,
>>with the addition of the term 'Range-lights' to describe the display of
>>two masthead lights. A footnote is added, as read below)
>>"Note 2 - The range-lights, as herein described, while giving far less
>>information than they might be made to give if their position were more
>>definitely fixed by law, are nevertheless so useful that it is hoped they
>>may, before many years, be made compulsory for all steamers at all times
>>when under way...Their value would be greatly increased if we could be
>>sure of finding associated with them the *permanent* (original italics)
>>white stern light permitted by the second part of Art. 10; but as the law
>>stands, these two 'permissive' clauses have no connection with each
>>other, and we are not justified in assuming that a steamer which carries
>>range-lights will also carry a permanent stern light. It should be noted
>>that when the vessel carrying range-lights is seen end-on, these lights
>>may be confused with the lights of a vessel towing..."
>>
>>Why do I give weight to the International Rules, instead of the White
>>Star regulation that George uses to support his contention that the
>>aftermast head light was a kerosene lantern, or similar? Call it bias on
>>my part, based on 17 years of sea-going experience, the last 5 as a
>>qualified underway Officer of the Deck. I'm used to looking at ship's
>>lights at night; in fact, I had to prove my proficiency in order to get
>>my underway qualification. It is inconceiveable to me that two range
>>lights would be of different character; in this case, one electric, the
>>other oil. Some will say this is my late 20th Century experience
>>talking, and I acknowledge that. That's the reason why I turned to early
>>20th Century sources (as many pre-1911 as I could find) to find if they
>>did things differently then. I have as yet found no evidence that says
>>they did, or why they should have.
In the earlier debate, you picked out the phrase, "similar in construction" to mean that they didn't have to be exact, thus allowing for one to be electric, the other of oil. To one who is familiar with the Rules, and who had to pass a board by demonstrating a thorough and practical knowledge of them, that term does not allow for a variance of the kind you suggest. That rule, which is basically unchanged to this day, means that the lights must be of similar character...they have to appear as though they are from the same ship. Each light must be seen at the same range as the other...which may or may not happen, depending on weather conditions, with 2 dissimilar lights.
In your opinion, perhaps. The Shutes and Hyland observations were made at the crucial time, though -- at night, and these observations cannot be discounted by a truly objective researcher.
I didn't discount them, not at first. In fact, I wouldn't have spent time looking at pictures and debating the issue with you, Bill, Ken and even the director of the 'Ghosts of the Abyss' expedition if it hadn't been for those two observations. However, the simple truth is that I found during the course of my research that the evidence directly contradicts both Shutes and Hyland (in Hyland's case, the physical arrangement of Titanic also contradicts his placement of the mainmast on deck).
George, there was no navigational light on Titanic's mainmast. There is no light in the existing photos. There is no servicing ladder on the mainmast, as there is on the foremast. There is no provision for securing the lamp to the front of the mast so that it would satisfy the lighting requirements of the International Convention. No such lamp has been observed at the wreck site (a dicey proposition even if a lamp did exist, but I have asked the question as part of my research). Eyewitness testimony has given rise to the belief that Titanic carried both range lights, but survivor accounts must be corroborated with the available evidence (for purposes of this argument, I will avoid delving into what the witnesses on the Californian saw). In this case, the builder's and photographic evidence and practical seagoing practice directly contradicts Shutes and Hyland. This would not be the first time that eyewitnesses were wrong in what they think they saw, a fact that you yourself taught me during our conversations in the past.
Parks
