What if the designers should have raised the bulkheads


Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Burel Jean-Pierre

Guest
Hi.
All the participants on this thread seem to have omitted one aspect : rather than raising bulkheads which give further problems ( the higher in the hull the more openings have to be sealed on a passenger liner ; can portholes withstand high water pressures ...), why did the designers neglect the possibility of rendering the top bulkhead deck watertight ? That might have slowed water a bit but added stability problems .
There is a reprint of the Shipbuilder special number on Aquitania , and in the first chapters it extensively deals with damage control. It seems that she could have floated , having been fitted with a watertight deck .
Regards .
JPB
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>why did the designers neglect the possibility of rendering the top bulkhead deck watertight ? That might have slowed water a bit but added stability problems .<<

Only guessing here...I could be wrong...but the idea simply may have never occured to them. Another possiblity is that it just might have occurred to somebody but was rejected as too complicated. Complicated watertight subdivision doesn't gaurantee survival, especially if it's not set properly to begin with.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
Raising the bulkheads is of no consequence when the water comes in from below. Flooding of the forepeak; holds #1, 2, and 3; boiler room #6; boiler room #5; and boiler room #4 all came from below. By that time, Titanic's fate was sealed. Water may have poured over top of some bulkheads, but it was insignificant as a cause for the loss of the ship.

Addition of a watertight bulkhead deck may have prevented Titanic from foundering as it did. However, every "improvement" creates new problems. Such a deck might have caused stability problems which could have resulted in serious listing. Think about "the night" if all of the port lifeboats were out of commission because the ship was leaning to starboard.

--David G. Brown
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
I have to add my voice to this (again! I can almost here the collective moan!
wink.gif


Burel wrote: why did the designers neglect the possibility of rendering the top bulkhead deck watertight ? That might have slowed water a bit but added stability problems .
There is a reprint of the Shipbuilder special number on Aquitania , and in the first chapters it extensively deals with damage control. It seems that she could have floated , having been fitted with a watertight deck.

Adding to Michael's comments, we do not know that the designers did neglect the idea of a watertight deck. They may well have rejected the idea due to commercial considerations.

I agree with Burel that this might have saved Titanic in the circumstances she was in, but as jhe knows stability was a cruicial problem. As David pointed out, stability problems could have resulted in a serious listing. If a watertight deck was at the water line or not far above it, and if water ingressed [sic?] above the watertight deck and on to it, the pocket of air beneath might well have created not just a list but a capsize. Capsize is surely any mariner's worse fear in a sinking situation. I don't know; I am not a mariner.

Let me say that I think many people in this thread have considered the problems with raising watertight bulkheads, an idea which is not the miracle cure that some people present it as.

I am confused with your comment, Dave which I wonder if you can explain to me; Raising the bulkheads is of no consequence when the water comes in from below.

I know that no matter whether her bulkheads had been raised, Titanic was doomed with seven watertight compartments from the forepeak to boiler room #4 flooding, as you say. But, surely raising the bulkheads *is* of consequence whether water is coming from below (through the double bottom or ship's sides or both) or not.

In the scenario where fewer compartments (say, three or four) are flooding and water is entering from below, higher watertight bulkheads may well save a ship; so surely it *would* be of consequence? Or are you saying that it was no consequence in Titanic's case? If you are, does that mean that you accept that the flooding in boiler room #4 was beyond human control/beyond the pumps' capacity to control? Or does it mean that you think that a higher watertight bulkhead (to the underside of B-deck) between boilers #4 and #5 would not have saved the ship in any circumstance with just the forward six compartments to boiler room #5 flooding?

Sorry for all these questions, I'm just confused as to what's being said here.

Respectfully, with
Best regards,

Mark.
(Trying in vain to beat Mike's 4,433 post record(!) without divulging the contents of a dustbin.)
sad.gif
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
With the forward half of the ship flooding from below, there really was no way to have built a commercial passenger ship that could have survived. Even if the bulkheads had extended to the strength deck, the secondary flooding through stairways, portholes, doorways, and ventilators would have done the rest.

Erik's paper at his upcoming Topeka Summit digs into another matter--the ability of the structure of the ship to support such massive flooding. I cannot steal his thunder here, but I think I can say that the strains on the hull were sufficient to cause destruction of various sorts in addition to the original ice damage. Proof of this lies in two pieces at the bottom of the Atlantic--the bow and stern sections of Titanic.

Let me say that attempts to build an "unsinkable" ship are noble, but impossible. Somebody will always find a way to fill the damn thing with water. Titanic was built to "be its own lifeboat." That is, to float long enoug for rescue ships to come and take off the passengers and crew. That's really a pretty sophisticated and sound approach to passenger safety. The problem in Titanic's case is that the Carpathia was not a 22-knot ship (I'll not mention the other "C" ship for fear of another argument). Titanic really floated a good long time--as is evidenced by the fact that all 16 regular and 2 of the collapsible lifeboats were properly launched. That is a tribute to the quality of both the naval architecture and the construction of the vessel.

But, higher bulkheads would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the night because the fatal flooding was coming up from the bottom. The ship would still have foundered.

Higher bulkheads, however, would have changed the course of events leading to the foundering. Water would have been more concentrated in the forward half of the ship. This would have put strain in different places on the hull. The breakup might have occurred sooner and farther forward. (Or, maybe not. I don't have a crystal ball.) My point is that higher bulkheads may have caused an earlier demise of the ship, say at 1:20 a.m. instead of 2:20 a.m. That would have increased the loss of life.

I still hold that the firemen's tunnel and the vestibule of watertight doors in way of bulkhead D are keys to the rapid loss of the bow forward of bulkhead D. However, that tunnel/vestibule feature did not sink the ship. It was the overall pattern of the iceberg damage and resulting flooding, coupled with the subsequent destruction of the vessel's structure and secondary flooding, that finished the job.

--David G. Brown
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
Hi!

Dave wrote: With the forward half of the ship flooding from below, there really was no way to have built a commercial passenger ship that could have survived. Even if the bulkheads had extended to the strength deck, the secondary flooding through stairways, portholes, doorways, and ventilators would have done the rest.

So as I understand it you do not think that any watertight subdivision arrangement whatsoever would have saved Titanic from sinking?

But, higher bulkheads would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the night because the fatal flooding was coming up from the bottom. The ship would still have foundered.

I am sorry, but I am still confused here. You emphasize flooding from 'the bottom' but surely that's where all flooding comes from when a ship sinks? I mean you may get secondary flooding from ports and gangways and so on once the ship has started to settle, but otherwise all flooding before that is from the ship's bottom and below the waterline. Or if you mean the double bottom, why is that different to the ship's sides just above it? Everything floods all the same.

Had it been in the original design, with the proper strengthening and structural reinforcements to accompany it, I believe a higher bulkhead between boilers 5# and #4 may have saved the ship, provided that the flooding in boiler room #4 was either under control or slow enough not to matter before people were all evacuated. So if my understanding of your clarification is right, I'll have to disagree. Experienced naval architects would surely not have put higher bulkheads in Britannic with additional structural stiffening if they agreed. And although she sank in a notably different situation to Titanic, Britannic did *not* break up (excluding her bow damage, caused by the explosion and the sea floor) and niehter is there any solid evidence that any of her bulkheads collapsed.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
In my opinion, Britannic's changes were mostly for public consumption. Their effectiveness was proven--nil.

Raising the bulkheads in Britannic did not improve the ship's chances of survival from the sort of damage received by Titanic. However, higher bulkheads did make it more resistant to foundering from a T-bone collision with another vessel. The low freeboard of the bulkheads in Titanic might not have been sufficient in a T-bone accident in rough water to have saved the ship.

Britannic did not break apart because of the swiftness of the foundering. Titanic's framework and plating was forced to endure enormous strain over a long duration. This is quite different from the rapid (by comparison) loss of its sister. There is one other major difference between the founderings of the two sisters, but first...

Wilding is pretty specific that once the forepeak, the holds, and boiler room #6 were flooded that the ship was doomed. This was the flooding scenario that was finally accepted by the British inquiry. I believe that if a bulkhead failure can be said to have "doomed" Titanic, it was bulkhead D betwtween hold #3 and boiler room #6. By the time bulkhead E failed (if that's what Barrett saw), the ship was already consigned to Davy Jones.

In his Topeka paper Captain Erik is attempting to address the overlooked damage to Titanic--that caused by the sinking. Too much attention is paid only to the direct ice damage and flooding. That was not the only source of destruction. As the ship flooded, it lost buoyancy. That meant portions of the hull were forced to hold up thousands of tons of weight for which they were not designed. Erik is exploring the outcome of that unfair weight distribution and unfair strain on the ship's hull.

Without stepping on his paper, I'm forced to look back to my book, "Last Log." In that work I discuss that the flooding in boiler room #4 was probably the result of "hogging" of the hull caused by the loss of buoyancy forward. I suggested that plates moved, rivets popped, and water came through the openings. If Captain Erik is right, I was wrong by half.

I am not saying that downflooding did not occur. Water did go down into the ship through a variety of openings. Read Lightoller's adventure with the fiddley to get an idea of how much secondary flooding contributed to the ultimate foundering. My point is that the ship was doomed by the upwelling of water through the bottom--not water coming down from the top.

Which brings us back to why Britannic did not break apart like Titanic. One ship sank bolt upright as it filled by the bow. The other went down by the bow, but then rolled over and secondary flooding along the majority of its length became the death blow. From descriptions of the event and the appearance of the ship on the bottom, Britannic filled more evenly over its length than did Titanic. This meant that while the hull of Britannic came under enormous strain while foundering, that strain did not exceed the strength of the hull to resist. The ship stayed in one piece.

One final note--a "failed" bulkhead does not mean a complete and total collapse of the wall. It covers a multitude of possibilities. For one, the structure could rack out of square and allow the steel watertight door casting to "pop" out of its jamb. Or, the rivets holding one plate could "unzip" and allow a seam in the wall to open. Another possibility is that the foot of the bulkhead (where the weight of the water is concentrated) could come adrift. All that is necessary is for some sort of opening to develop through which water can flow faster than it can be pumped overboard.

-- David G. Brown
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
Hi!

I am still confused on a few points, but it's going clearer.

Wilding is pretty specific that once the forepeak, the holds, and boiler room #6 were flooded that the ship [Titanic] was doomed. This was the flooding scenario that was finally accepted by the British inquiry.

I understand this, but we are talking Titanic 'as constructed.'

I believe that if a bulkhead failure can be said to have "doomed" Titanic, it was bulkhead D betwtween hold #3 and boiler room #6. By the time bulkhead E failed (if that's what Barrett saw), the ship was already consigned to Davy Jones.

I don't believe that bulkhead E failed. Cal Haines among others has pointed out the physical impossibility of such a collapse without a number of occurances which were not observed that night during the sinking. It is not just one bulkhead, but also the bunker bulkheads, making a set of three even if two of them were no way as strong. I'm sure you've heard them before so I won't bother writing them up now.

My point is that the ship was doomed by the upwelling of water through the bottom--not water coming down from the top.

I see that now, but personally in the sense of Titanic 'as designed' and without any hypothetical changes which have been discussed on this thread.

Raising the bulkheads in Britannic did not improve the ship's chances of survival from the sort of damage received by Titanic.

Respectfully, I don't think that that statement can be justified. Had Britannic suffered the same flooding as Titanic, her watertight subdivision certainly stood her in better stead, even if only to float longer. Britannic's design was certainly influenced by a desire to as far as possible allow her to survive similar damage to her ill fated sister. While public consumption was also in mind, I feel that the White Star Line did themselves become safety freaks. You do not do such an extensive redesign just for the public, surely, when a few good adverts will do?

I see that in Titanic's case much strain and damage occured in the ship's hull apart from the primary iceberg damage, but I still don't see how we can be positive that an arrangement of different watertight subdivision could not possibly have saved the ship from sinking, or at least prolonged her life significantly.

I realise that Britannic's situation was markedly different, as I said in my last post, but that does not explain the (apparent) lack of any indications of strain visible underwater. As I said, the bow damage is primarily explained by the explosion(s), not to mention the seabed collision, but even so you would surely expect to see some. I don't know what information the wreck's owner has on it. Diving expeditions have not been so technical in that respect. Britannic was after all moving rapidly in comparison for much of the sinking.

Even a 'leaking' bulkhead may well have some advantage in keeping a ship afloat for longer, but I still cannot understand your reasoning that no watertight subdivision arrangement would have saved Titanic, unless your argument centres around such 'strain/stress failures' like bulkheads failing or hulls breaking. Or does this scenario utilise Erik's theory about the hull's experiences?

I am sorry this is turning into a long discussion, and I don't mean to be rebutting every idea, but I've found much of this thread confusing. I am hectic tommorrow, so might not have chance to read here for a while. One of my worries is a history examiner who felt I had acheived an A in one exam (the highest possible) and a U (the lowest possible) in another, despite my teacher's belief that both were roughly the same standard.

If I'm still confused it will just be easier for me to leave the thread and let everyone discuss it in peace. Everyone else clearly understands it.

Respectfully, with
Best regards,

Mark.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
The paper entitled, "Watertight Sub-division," published in The Shipbuilder Annual International Number 1914, is of particular relevance here. Before you guys continue with your discussion, I recommend that you read what the author, George Dickie, had to say on the subject.

Another paper, this one written by Leonard Peskett and published in the same volume, contains a memorable quote that I plan to keep in my back pocket:

<font color="#000066">"Sub-division in every case must be controlled not solely by the logic of mathematical investigation, but with due reference to the owner's requirements -- the real controlling factor in all designs."

Parks
 
B

Burel Jean-Pierre

Guest
The raising of watertight bulkheads on the Titanic is and will remain an opened question , except if you look at
the final analysis of profesionnal engineers .
Lord Mersey is quoted as saying : "public opinion is of very little value against the opinion of the experts ."

This analysis has been done in profesionnal circles as far back as 1997 and is presented in two artcles
entitled "the sinking of the Titanic- investigated by modern techniques" ( Paper presented at the feb/1997 meeting of the Royal Institution
of Naval Architects by Hackett and Bedford ) , and "Titanic and the Lusitania : a final forensic analysis " in
Marine Technology for Oct. 1996 Pp 241-289 , by WH Garzke , DK Brown , AD Sandiford , JW woodward , PK Hsu.

The first article contains a detailed analysis of the sinking and flooding processes based on computer calculations of flooding and resulting waterline ;
whilst the second deals with the steel question and the breakup process .
The authors deal with most of the controversial aspects of the sinking extensively , and
put pay to most of the fantastic theories suggested by the recent media interest .

Then what do they say to us :

1/ Effect of raising the height of watertight bulkheads : (#1 , 5.1-5 Pp19))
-raising the bulkhead between no4-5 BRm to C Deck : " ... when n°5 BR is full ... the top of the bulkhead between no4 and 5 BR is
now below the waterline and therefore water will be able to spread along C deck
, and into the unflooded spaces below , with consequential eventual loss . This conclusion contradicts that of Wilding at the inquiry , but was arrived at using modern computer technology .
2/Effect of E deck being made watertight : if No4 BR is undamaged , the ship is unlikely to sink
since D deck is not immersed . If No4 BR is flooded , D deck is now well immersed forward , and the condition of the ship depends on what openings are immersed forward .
3/" From the practical aspect , making E Deck watertight should involve many difficulties , including watertight trunks being carried to C deck , and there are objections to such a deck as the inquiry recorded .
Carrying the watertight bulkheads between no4 and 5 BRms up to D deck , and in fact all bulkheads forward to that level , could be done with little modification to the layout . As we have seen this wouldn't have saved the ship ...
If the bulheads had been carried up to C deck , it does not appear that this would have saved the situation as suggested by the inquiry .

Some final words by Hackett and Bedford , and I feel this is material to be thought about when stepping on anything more elaborate than a skateboard : ( conclusion 9.4 Pp 45 ) The studies we have made show that the design of the Titanic is configured to comply with today's regulations ( 1996) with only a few exceptions involving the most recent residual damage stability requirements ....

Happy travelling !!!
JPB
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Lord Mersey is quoted as saying : "public opinion is of very little value against the opinion of the experts ."

If Lord Mersey would have listened to the experts then Mr. Wilding's would be better understood.
 
B

Burel Jean-Pierre

Guest
Edward Wilding was undoubtedly treated very unfairly by the enquiry which was mostly bored by his technical evidence.
But notice that the authors I have quoted endorse all but a few of his conclusions.
Worse than that , his empiric calculation are mostly vindicated by modern technology not available or even undreamed of at either the time of the enquiry or of the sinking .
My final view is that before endlessly debating empty ideas , it's good to have a look at what the experts have to say .

The idea still is " what if the top bulkhead deck of the Titanic had been made watertight ?"

Regards .
JPB
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
JPB-- Wilding did some amazing forensic work, considering that he and his staff were limited to paper, pencil, and slide rule. His calculations, however, may not be as accurate as they appear. From the testimony I get the impression that his original flooding calculations were based on the eyewitness descriptions of flooded compartments. Either these original calculations did not "sink" the ship, or they did not sink it in the fashion desired by Lord Mersey. So, in so many words Wilding admitted that he "cooked" the numbers by changing the location and increasing the amount of the flooding until the calculations produced the desired outcome. The testimony indicates several increases in the flooding were necessary to make the theoretical ship "sink" fast enough.

Virtually all of the modern computer simulations are based on the final numbers and flooding pattern suggested by Wilding. That's why he looks so good. The modern computer generated drawings are certainly more impressive, but they can't help but come to the same conclusions as Wilding if they begin with his data.

However, when I read Wilding there are times when I see him as carefully "seeding" his testimony with hints to future researchers. For instance, his famous 12 square feet--if you read the whole context you discover he was not talking about the size of any hole through the skin, nor the aggregate size of holes through the shell plating. He was speaking about the effective size of the opening as influenced by the resistance to flooding resulting from the interior divisions and watertight subdivisions. That suggests the holes through the shell may have been much larger--but the ship's interior resisted the flow of water so that the effect was that of a 12 square foot opening.

It is always dangerous to try to read intent into the words on a printed page. In the case of Wilding, I'm willing to take that risk. I believe he was proud of Titanic and defensive of Harland & Wolff. He was also aware that Lord Mersey was in charge of the hearings. Facing all that, I think he was motivated to leave behind hints to future researchers. If there is a "mother lode" of fresh Titanic material, it is probably contained within his testimony.

--David G. Brown
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Hmmm, maybe it's just me but isn't this going to be discussed in a week or so.

In my paper that will be published here (in a slimmed down version)I will go into Wildings testimony and my conclusions as a result.
 
B

Burel Jean-Pierre

Guest
I'be interested to look at your conclusions and interpretation of Wilding's testimony .
Please do reference any ideas that you put forward in comparison to the Question number in the text . It'll be easier to follow your reasoning then .
Regards .
JPB
 
Aug 19, 2002
17
1
133
COULD TITANIC HAVE BEEN SAVED?

The raising of the bulkheads is a very common discussion-also of opening all the watertight doors on the Tank Top to allow water to flow aft. It was said the ship would sink on an even keel. This received huge attention when portrayed on television, showing a large Titanic model being flooded from the first 5 compartments with all 12 watertight doors open. The result? The lighting system extinguished much eariler, because water flooded the dynamos situated on the Tank Top. The ship totally capsized before all the lifeboats could be launched. The program did not take into account, the water discharged by the ships pumps, therefore a quicker sinking.
Could Titanic have been saved? We all know the ship was designed to float with the first 4 watertight compartments flooded. The flooding of these compartments was contained by the watertight doors.The flooding of Boiler room #6 the fifth compartment doomed the ship. The crucial point is to prevent water filling boiler room #6. Let us examine the damage in this room. Fireman Fred Barrett, stated that water burst through the starboard side 2 feet above the floor plates, extending the length of the room, and into boiler room #5. In 5 minutes the water was waist deep. In 10 minutes it was flooded to a depth of 8 feet.In an hour water reached the top of the watertight bulkhead at E deck. During an investigative dive to the ship, sound waves penetrated the mud line showing clearly the damaged hull plates cause by the iceberg. The damage found here supports Barrett's statement.
To prevent water rising in #6, I would open the watertight door to #5 and to #4. Water would enter #5 and flood the bilge. This area is 2 feet in depth to the tank top. Boiler room #5 is 92 feet in width and 57 feet in length. This area beneath the boilers can accommodate tons of water, and the pumps already running to cope with water entering throught the 2 foot damaged hull, can now discharge water from #6. There are three-3 inch, one-5 inch and two-3 inch suctions in this room.These pumps alone could not cope with the inflow from boiler room #6, hence the open watertight door to #4. This room has the same dimensions as #5 with three-3 inch, one-4 inch and two-3 inch suctions.Besides the boiler room pumps there were 5 ballast and bilge pumps. These pumps from # 5 and #4 should be able to cope with the damage caused to #6. As long as #6 compartment was prevented from flooding, Titanic would float.
The boilers would not explode. Boiler room #6 flooded to 8 feet in 10 minutes with no explosion. In number # 5 and #4 the boiler furnaces were being drawn, the steam vented through the funnels. Boilers in rooms #3 and #2 supplied the emergency lighting and provided power for running the pumps. Boilers in room one were cold. Boiler room #1 boilers are accounted for in the debris field - intact. Film footage was taken of INTACT boilers inside the hull. No split seams or dislodged boilers or damage to Titanic's forward hull portion indicates all boilers are intact within the forward hull.

First and foremost it is theory, thought out in the comfort of one's living room, with no time limit and not on a sinking ship. The biggest fault lies in opening watertight doors. These doors are meant to contain water to the damaged sections of the ship. The captain, chief engineer and Thomas Andrews might shudder at the thought of allowing water to flow into undamaged sections of the ship. Perhaps this thought helped in sinking Titanic.

Your thoughts anyone?
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Good afternoon all,

Coming fresh off four days of nothing but the technical aspects of Titanic you can imagine that my brain is pretty fried. However, I will attempt anyway to answer Larry's question.

Could Titanic have been saved??

My blanked answer to this question is NO. Now of couse this is just a theory, but I think had Titanic somehow managed to limp her way to New York that would have had to cut the bow off and put on a new one, a few years later theere would have been some signs of strain and pain in way of the recip room, similar to those that effected the Aquitania after the 1919 grounding in the Mersey.

Titanic suffered a variety of problems that night one of which was intake of water coupled with a damaged keel. Opening or closing doors wouldn't have helped, because it wasn't the doors or entrance of water that was sinking the ship. It was the stress that allowed the water to enter that began the sinking and the break up.

If one looks at the testimony you will find that we have testimony supporting that in the first 20 minutes after the allision (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH COLLISION) holds 1 and 3 the forepeak tank only, and to a lesser extent boiler room 6 where flooding. We know that water was entering the bottom of the firemens tunnel but we don't know for sure from where. So we can with relative certainty say that boiler room 6 and hold 2 where taking water at a much slower rate then the compartments on either side.

I know what this means, does anybody else?? Look for a revision of my paper in late October.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Hi Larry, a few thoughts of my own. I agree with Erik on the above as I was at the same conferance and we literally spent four days discussing the problems in detail. This after independant research spanning two years. On the matter of opening the watertight doors, the streight answer is no way no how. If you have rapid flooding...which the Titanic did...opening up doors to let it spread farther and faster is the very last thing you ever want to do from a damage control standpoint. Isolation is the key to survival, or at the very least, buying yourself enough time to keep the casualties down to a minimum. The Titanic's problem was that they couldn't keep it isolated long enough to get everybody off.

I think you can forget any help from the pumps. We know that they were working, but as their maximum capacity was only 1700 tons per hour. As the rate of water being taken on was far greater, they were way overmatched.

The stress that Erik mentions is a very important factor to consider too. All too often, nobody thinks of it. They need to start. When you have enough stress to start sheering rivets and allow seams to split, your problems are going to start to snowball at a far faster rate then you can effectively do anything about. Especially given the poor understanding of damage control back in 1912.

My own opinion is that attempting to move the ship north put excess strain on the forward sections and actually served to aggravate existing problems. After studying the extent of the damage, and given what we know of what did happen, we were frankly amazed that the bow didn't fall off within the first hour.

On the matter of investigative dives to the ship, I would treat the results of the side scanning sonar with extreme caution. For one thing, there is no way to readily destinguish between iceberg damage and damage caused by impact with the bottom. For another, the images that weren't shown indicate that there was more damage on the port side of the bow then the starboard.

Regarding the boilers, I think it's worth noting that none of them exploded, and the reason for this was because the crew vented excess steam befor it could become a problem.
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
I would just like to add my tuppence worth here to this discussion.

First, it was not the bulkheads that caused Titanic to sink. She was not constructed to hit an iceberg or to contain more than four compartments being flooded. A lot of people like to blame the design of the ship, but by building the bulkheads further up this causes different problems and it is a matter what is more beneficial. Even today by making alterations to a ship will solve one problem and create a new one.

As for Edward Wilding, Harland and Wolff based on the notes Wilding had made at Queen's Island, did a CAD of the sinking of Titanic in 1992 and the result was extremely close to what had happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads