Who actually designed the Titanic?

[Corinna Rueger]

If you believe the book "Shipbuilders to the World" , Titanic's designer Alexander Carlisle resigned from his post at Harland and Wolff because of personal problems with his brother-in-law Lord William James Pirrie and was then replaced by Pirrie's nephew Thomas Andrews.
It's also stated that Carlisle didn't agree with the changes Ismay and Pirrie wanted to make in his original designs (number of lifeboats , etc.).
For me , all this sounds a bit like Pirrie needed a man who didn't question his orders - and so he replaced Carlisle with Andrews.
It seems like Andrews never fought for a double hull or a greater number of lifeboats as it is said in most books written about the Titanic.
I also wonder what had happened to Andrews if he had survived the sinking. Would he have resigned from Harland and Wolff and would Pirrie have blamed him for what had happened ?

I really would like to hear your opinion on this.

Regards,

Corinna

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

I am not an expert on this but will take a stab at your post.

First, the ship withstood a lot of stress. More than it was expected to, so the strength of the ship was pretty good in my opinion.

Second, the ship davits could be made to hold more boats, and the H&W built the ship to BOT specs.

Guessing what would of happened if..... tend to be rather difficult questions to answer not being the people. But for Pirrie to balme Andrews would mean that H&W was at fault and I do not think that Pirrie believed that the builders were at fault.

In the world of contracting (and that is basically what H&W was) one must express what they feel is the best product. But it is the customer who is the ultimate decision maker as to what is included in any final design for anything. BOT did not require them, so it was left to the customer, if White Star had asked for them, H&W would have included them.

My two cents worth. And that is high!
Maureen.

 

[Dave Gittins]

If you read Carlisle's testimony at the British inquiry, and that of Sir Norman Hill, you'll find a big discrepancy between what Carlisle says he thought and what he actually did. According to him, he thought there should be more boats but never said as much, either to Ismay or to a BoT committee that examined the matter of lifeboats. His conduct seems quite odd.

Carlisle's contribution to the Olympic ships tends to be overlooked in the weeping over Thomas Andrews. Many of the fine features of the ships were the work of Carlisle, such as their classic profile.

It's not too clear whether Carlisle resigned or retired. Either way, it may have had nothing to do with lifeboats and a lot to do with Pirrie's financial mischief. His handling of H & W's money bordered on the illegal and was very secretive.

 

[Martin Pirrie]

In a post under the General thread title started in December 2001 on this site, the roles of Andrews and Carlisle were discussed at some length.

In precis, Pirrie was starting to make his mark on the company and Carlisle, although his brother-in-law, may not have fitted Pirrie's vision of H & W.

Carlise was a good naval architect in his own right and many, if not most, of the features of Olympic and Titanic were his.

I wrote earlier that Carlisle was not so thick skinned as Pirrie and took early retirement, quite possibly under some pressure from Pirrie.

That pressure may well have been something to do with Pirrie's secretive financial and business affairs mentioned by Dave Gittins. The plans for Titanic and Olympic were virtually handed to the H & W design office as a "fait accompli" by Pirrie after his famous dinner party with Ismay at his London home and the financial agreements for any contracts were never discussed.

 

[Corinna Rueger]

I read the discussion in the General thread. Quite interesting , indeed.
I also went through Carlisle's testimony at the British Inquiry. What I found hard to believe is that during the whole Inquiry , almost no one seemed to be interested in the role of Lord Pirrie. He's hardly mentioned although he played an important role during the construction of the Olympic as well as the Titanic.
In my opinion , Pirrie was even more influencial than Ismay . After all , it was Pirrie who had the connections to J.P.Morgan - and Morgan was the one who actually owned the Titanic.

Talking about Thomas Andrews : Although I'm a great admirer of Thomas Andrews I sometimes doubt that he was more than one of Pirrie's marionettes.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Two things. At the time of the inquiry, Pirrie was in bad health. He may not have even been in England, having gone cruising on his yacht to recuperate. (The information I have is a bit conflicting).

The other point is that Pirrie had friends in the right place, namely the governing Liberal Party.

I doubt if it matters much, except perhaps on the lifeboat story. Pirrie might have confirmed or denied Carlisle's version.

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

Pirrie was in England, he travelled to England via Larne to Stranraer (Scotland) and then travelled south to his house in England.
Alexander Carlisle was not afraid to answer Lord Pirrie, Carlisle was the only Director who had not been appointed by Pirrie.

It is well known that Carlisle had belived that an increase in lifeboat capacity was due, following reports from Denmark following the sinking of DS Norge in 1904. The Titanic davits were manufacted in Denmark.

A point to note, neither Alexander Carlisle or Thomas Andrews Junior never described their occupation as Designers, they used the term "Shipbuilder" or "Director"

 

[Dave Gittins]

James, I've solid evidence that Pirrie was at home at Witley Court at the time of the sinking, that's agreed, but where was he at the time of the hearings? According to one source, he was in the Baltic on Valiant. I have evidence that later in the year he travelled across France to join Valiant at Marseilles. Maybe his crew was taking the ship about Europe and he was joining it when it suited him. It seems odd to me that I've never seen any reference to him going to the hearings as a spectator, or reacting to them in any way.

There must be some reason for him not being called to the court, especially as Carlisle testified that at the two meetings where lifeboats were mentioned, Pirrie and Ismay did all the talking. Maybe it was his friends in the government, or perhaps he was not about the place. There's a faint smell of fish about the place.

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

Dave, Lord and Lady Pirrie travelled as I say to England via Scotland in February. There is an incident about stones being thrown at them by angry "protesters" against Home Rule. Remember that Lord Pirrie was not well and had to go through an operation, this is why he travelled to England. Lord Pirrie had "friends" in the government, but not high enough up. He did like the idea of being in "Society". As for being called to the Enquiry, well it is just proof that Carlisle, Andrews and Wilding were the real designers of the ships. Pirrie's concept, but he sold it to Ismay. Pirrie had plans to build larger ships, that's why he built the Thompson Dock.

 

[Frank Mallia]

Hi all this is the first time on posting on this incredibly informative board. I am Frank from Malta my interest in titanic started very recently so still a bit green about things, I was browsing through a site about Mr. Thomas Andrews http://www.angelfire.com/az/thosandrewsmemorial/ there are several quotes one really got me :- "Even my dullest apprentice sees the way we're half-buildin' these ships. They're askin' me things like - 'Why do the bulkheads only go up to the waterline, Tommie? Why are we puttin' in electric watertight doors when the water's just goin' to pour over into another compartment, Tommie?' We all have a bad feelin' about it."
If they knew about this problem why wasn't it fixed? was Ismay to blame for this? Thanks

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Hallo, Frank. Those quotes are not from Thomas Andrews. They are from William Barnes, who claims to be the re-incarnation of Andrews. Forget about them, they have nothing to do with reality.

 

[Dave Gittins]

As Bob says, it's total twaddle. He doesn't even know that the bulkheads went up to well above the waterline. I'd like to give this Barnes person a short quiz on naval architecture. Then we'd see if he was really Thomas Andrews! Tom was a member of the Institution of Naval Architects (not then Royal) and the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (USA). I don't think Barnes has applied to join either!

Designing Titanic was a team effort. Lord Pirrie was responsible for the general size and shape of the ship. Alexander Carlisle did the interior, fittings and equipment. Thomas Andrews seems to have been concerned with the structural details. Edward Wilding did the mathematics concerned with stability, displacement and hull resistance. Many others contributed to the details. The role of Andrews is frequently exaggerated, as happens when somebody dies young.

 

[Frank Mallia]

thanks a lot Bob, sounded a bit confusing to be honest, still I wish to ask why where the bulkheads not built to higher decks? where these in some sort an eye sore to first class passengers?

 

[monica e. hall]

Poor Frank - asks a simple question! There is quite a lot of discussion on the Board about this in various hidey-holes. Here's one:
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5921/6585.html
Have you found the search facility? You can enter bulkheads AND Andrews, or another combination you fancy, and find out quite a lot.
I don't think it was a question of eyesores. Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the Great Eastern with safety in mind many years before the Titanic - complete double hull (a ship within a ship) + watertight bulkheads rising to the main deck etc., and that proved its worth when the ship had an accident. But it did make life difficult for the hospitality crew in those days in that they had to keep running up decks, over the top of the bulkheads, and down the other side. The only alternative was to put in watertight doors, so gradually the safety aspects were slackened in favour of ease of daily operating and bulkheads were lowered, and double skins carried to above the waterline, but not extending the whole way up. I think that's more or less correct, but others around here know far more, and will surely tell me if I am wrong!

 

[monica e. hall]

Incidentally, on the topic of Mr. Barnes's interpretation of Thomas Andrews .... Thomas Andrews was a member of the professional classes in Northern Ireland, and it is highly unlikely he spoke with much of an Irish accent. And I think it is extremely unlikely that any apprentice would have addressed him as "Tommie".