Titanic's Port List


Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,576
630
188
They did take coal from 3 other vessels in the White Star Dock from RMS Majestic (1889), St louis (1894) and Philadelphia (1888) which were all still laid off due to the coal strike.

The controversial show ''Titanic: The New Evidence'' gave the SUGGESTION that they made Titanic go faster to New York since they were having to use more coal due to the fire.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Mr. Ismay could answer that one.


Q - What is the object of continuing at full speed through the night if you expect to meet ice? Why do you do it?
A - What is the use of doing it?
Q - Yes?
A - I presume that the man would be anxious to get through the ice region. He would not want to slow down upon the chance of a fog coming on.
Q - So that, of course, the object of it would be to get through it as fast as you could?
A - I presume that if a man on a perfectly clear night could see far enough to clear an iceberg he would be perfectly justified in getting through the ice region as quickly as he possibly could.


There were wireless reports of heavy fog further west. Perhaps they thought it best to steam at full speed and cover as much distance as they could while it was still clear. That way if they did encounter a fog further ahead and had to slow down they would not lose too much time if they later had to reduce speed.


.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,868
1,142
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
As Ioannis stated above, Titanic had enough coal on board for about 2 or 3 days of additional steaming. Even Ismay finally admitted to that:

Senator PERKINS. She had about 6,000 tons of coal?
Mr. ISMAY. She had about 6,000 tons of coal leaving Southampton.
Senator PERKINS. Sufficient to make the voyage to New York and return to Southampton?
Mr. ISMAY. No; but sufficient coal to enable her to reach New York, with about two days spare consumption.

Up to the day of the collision, Titanic would have burned about 650 tons/day average, or 2600 tons by midday Sunday. At 75 rpm, she would burn about 700 tons/day, thus perhaps another 1750 tons, or a total of about 4350 tons by the end of the voyage, leaving about 1600 tons left in her bunkers.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,868
1,142
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The list to port was noticed by at least two people, Beesley and Chambers. Beesley even made an attempt to measure it. Could the emptying of two bunkers on the starboard side by stokeholds 9 and 10 have caused that list? The bunker capacities of the two spaces involved, from the tank top to G deck above, were 365 and 307 tons of coal, respectively. Assuming that all the coal from the starboard side of those bunkers was pulled out to feed the fires of all the boilers faces in both those stokeholds, by midday Sunday there could have been about 330 tons of coal remaining over on the port side unless some more was redistributed. Assuming 330 tons was over on the port side, and taking the midpoint of the coal there to be about 22 feet to port of the ship's centerline, there would be a healing moment of 7260 foot-tons created there. The displacement of the vessel by midday Sunday is estimated to be about 49,000 tons. From the work of Hackett & Bedford, the ship's GM was about 2.625 feet. Thus we can get an approximate estimate for the list carried assuming no corrective action was taken to correct it.

The list in degrees equals approximately 57.3 multiplied by the healing moment, divided by the GM, then divided by the displacement. Or, 57.3x7260/(2.625x49000) = 3.2° to port.
The above is only as good as the assumptions that were made, as is true of any analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mar 18, 2008
2,400
740
248
Germany
The list in degrees equals approximately 57.3 multiplied by the healing moment, divided by the GM, then divided by the displacement. Or, 57.3x7260/(2.625x49000) = 3.2° to port.
The above is only as good as the assumptions that were made, as is true of any analysis.
That is really a lot, I even find the 2,5° a little to much.
What is more interesting is the statement of Chambers who mentioned that she had the list all afternoon. Sounds for me that this might have been not the case any more in the evening.
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
446
53
93
The coal strike was over when she sailed on April 10th.
Also, it was an English coal strike. I don't know what the effect would be on the American coal market. Also, any officer would have been concerned about the amount of coal: that was their motive power. Just like if you get in a car to drive 100 miles, the first question you'll ask is: Do I have enough gas?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,868
1,142
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
What is more interesting is the statement of Chambers who mentioned that she had the list all afternoon. Sounds for me that this might have been not the case any more in the evening.
Unfortunately, the absence of evidence is not evidence. We just don't know. As I speculated earlier, the apparent list to port in the afternoon may have been caused by the moderate to fresh wind coming off the starboard quarter. They may have redistributed the coal below as they emptied out those bunker spaces. We just don't really know.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,576
630
188
Either way, the Port List definitely affected the sinking with the ship heeling over to Port and nearly capsizing.
Titanic sinking_1461077983148_8159791_ver1.0_640_360.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Lightoller was not aware the ship was sinking and ordered the forward gangway door on the port side to be open.


"I told the Bosun's mate to take 6 hands and open the port lower-deck gangway door, which was abreast of number 2 hatch. He took his men and proceeded to carry out the order, but neither he or the men were seen again. One can only suppose that they gave their lives endeavouring to carry out this order...."


Q - If the boat was down by the head, the opening of those doors on E deck in the forward part of the ship would open her very close to the water, would it not?
A - Yes.
Q - When you gave the order, had you got in mind that the ship was tending to go down by the head, or had not you yet noticed it?
A - I cannot say that I had noticed it particularly.
Q - Of course, you know now the water was rising up to E deck?
A - Yes, of course it was.
Q - It appears to me that you would be very unlikely (aka foolish) to order the forward gangway door to be opened. You might get the head so deep in the water that she might ship water through that gangway door?
A - Of course, my Lord, I did not take that into consideration at that time; there was not time to take all these particulars into mind. In the first place, at this time I did not think the ship was going down.
Q - I suppose you realised that the ship was taking in more and more water as you were attending to these boats?
A - Yes, my Lord, and yet I did not think at that time that the ship was going down.


.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Colonel Gracie said - "There was a very palpable list to port as if the ship was about to topple over." and mentioned it again "Second officer Lightoller ordered all passengers to the starboard side because of the very palpable list to port, when the great ship suddenly appeared to be about to topple over."

Topple over in the dictionary states that it means - To overturn, to be head over heels, or to capsize. It is my understanding that Colonel Gracie believed the ship was about to roll over and capsize.


Mr. Hemming told the US Inquiry - "The Captain was there, and he sung out: "Everyone over to the starboard side, to keep the ship up as long as possible." One has to wonder why the Captain gave this order. Perhaps he too believed the ship was in immediate danger of rolling over and capsizing and ordered the passengers to the starboard side hoping that it would stop the ship listing further to port and stop her capsizing.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
43
63
Calm down, I referring to what the survivors said or thought and these two videos. Don't judge me.
How did the first link imply it was listing to the point it seemed like it would topple over? Are you talking about after the break up when the stern settled back in the water?
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
By the way Aaron_2016, I proberaly correct, but I guess the second video was made by you wasn't it?

I made it a few years ago using Daz Studios. Just wanted to see how the ship may have sunk if I based it entirely on survivor accounts.


.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,576
630
188
I refer more to the second link but she did tilt really heavily to Port to the point that Lifeboats on the Starboard Side had trouble being lowered.

I might have used the wrong term saying she's might have capsized.

In response to the Aaron_2016, video, It's extremely good!
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Thanks. The survivor accounts vary so much and I could have made the sinking animation a dozen different ways owing to the contradictions of the survivor testimony. I originally wanted to make a video about the collision but even though it took a matter of seconds for the collision to take place there are no many conflicting testimonies that it is difficult to figure out what happened. e.g. Hichens said the order to turn the helm was given after the telephone was answered, but Fleet said the ship was already turning before he reported it.

Even today the witnesses to the terrible events in London contradict each other.......(Censored).....
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
You're right. Not sure if this board is family friendly, (discussing a shipping disaster after all). I have deleted the text about the London attack.


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,400
740
248
Germany
There were only 2 who mentioned that the port list was so great the the ship "nearly capsized" which were Gracie and Thayer Jr. However what seems to get lost is the mention of Thayer Jr. that the ship got on even keel (so no great port list) also this was very late in the sinking close to the final plunge.
 

Similar threads