Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

[Firestar]

The thing is, you never really see people treating the disaster as if it were serious any more. People aren't nearly as respectful to the lives lost as they used to be. People already make tons of jokes about it, and we've already started to make jokes about 9/11 and other tragedies. I just wonder, how does time truly make a difference? The same amount of people were lost, if not 100 years ago but yesterday we would still be very respectful to it.

[RMS Gigantic]

And captain Smith did precisely what ship owner Bruce Ismay told him to do, which eventually led to the disaster. The captain sailed north into unsafe areas to shorten the distance, ignored iceberg warnings, still maintained 20 knots at night, continued sailing after the impact. The real tragedy is that he knew all of this was wrong. Smith was responsible for all the lives lost, but he paid for it with his own.

It's list time again!

• Titanic was not so much as running with her last five of her 29 boilers lit. Titanic had the ability to go 23.75 knots, possibly more, but didn't! Speed wasn't something the crew was after.
• I got the following image from http://www.paullee.com/titanic/ice.html:
  
  According to the image, the top red line is the route Titanic was originally meant to take: the more southernly of the two shipping routes used by ships of the era for the spring and, if I remember correctly, fall seasons. The middle red line is the route Titanic altered her course to after recieving ice warnings; note the bend further south. The bottom line is what they changed that shipping route to after Titanic's loss.

You can get all of your questions relating to that night answered here: http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=38260&mode=full

Researchers have no reason to lie.

The thing is, you never really see people treating the disaster as if it were serious any more. People aren't nearly as respectful to the lives lost as they used to be. People already make tons of jokes about it, and we've already started to make jokes about 9/11 and other tragedies. I just wonder, how does time truly make a difference? The same amount of people were lost, if not 100 years ago but yesterday we would still be very respectful to it.

Yes, but when today lives are lost, investigators look into the cause and the details for a better picture of how it occured and, in this case, what it was like.

[Chitch]

I'm confused..

How is any of this going to change the outcome of the actual disaster, again?   

 

In the 33rd dimension...the Titanic is now arriving in NY harbor...see how nice that works out? 

Jim

[Subwolf]

Another interesting fact that support this book is that the captain of the Carpathia reported several icebergs as far as two miles away. This proves that the visibility was more or less normal at night in those weather conditions, clear skies and calm seas. When the moon isn't present you can see large objects from some distance by the help of the stars.

But again, a captain who wants to live or keep his job does not sail a vessel that size into a field of icebergs at a speed of 20 knots, nor does he continue sailing after a major collision...a recipe for disaster.

[Captain Cadet]

i saw a channel said that if she cept on corse she wold have made it to new york

[RMS Gigantic]

But again, a captain who wants to live or keep his job does not sail a vessel that size into a field of icebergs at a speed of 20 knots, nor does he continue sailing after a major collision...a recipe for disaster.

A captain in those days was told to keep moving full steam ahead through ice, and the engines were stopped early into the sinking. Keeping the engines going at all has a reason in itself, but it is some technical reason that I cannot recall, relating to the workings of that type of steam engine, I believe it was. As for the visibility of the iceberg, read this: http://home.comcast.net/~georgebehe/titanic/page16.htm

And, for another thing, wouldn't 6th officer Moody, whose job was to watch he helmsman constantly to make sure orders are being carried out correctly, instantly see the mistake and correct it almost immediately? "... He was standing behind and/or to one side of Quartermaster Hitchens who was at the helm in the Wheelhouse," as Art Braunschweiger says in the TRMA forum topic I have linked to twice now.

[IRI5HJ4CK]

you should be able to spot a large object like that from some distance.

I'd rather listen to the grandchild of officer Lightoller, and she has no reason to tell lies.

This is my opinion, although it doesn't really matter anyway since Titanic is gone and thats the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned...

If it was flat calm, there would be no water breaking at the base of the berg. That might be a reason why they didn't spot it as quickly as they could of done using plain sight.

As for the grandchild...money makes people tell lies very quickly. Although i'm not saying that this is the case with this particular story, but in general, when money is involved...trust nobody.

Jack.

[Firestar]

A captain in those days was told to keep moving full steam ahead through ice, and the engines were stopped early into the sinking. Keeping the engines going at all has a reason in itself, but it is some technical reason that I cannot recall, relating to the workings of that type of steam engine, I believe it was. As for the visibility of the iceberg, read this: http://home.comcast.net/~georgebehe/titanic/page16.htm

And, for another thing, wouldn't 6th officer Moody, whose job was to watch he helmsman constantly to make sure orders are being carried out correctly, instantly see the mistake and correct it almost immediately? "... He was standing behind and/or to one side of Quartermaster Hitchens who was at the helm in the Wheelhouse," as Art Braunschweiger says in the TRMA forum topic I have linked to twice now.

Interesting how you pretty much ignored Subwolf's quite convincing statement:

Another interesting fact that support this book is that the captain of the Carpathia reported several icebergs as far as two miles away. This proves that the visibility was more or less normal at night in those weather conditions, clear skies and calm seas.

[RMS Gigantic]

Interesting how you pretty much ignored Subwolf's quite convincing statement:

I have a link at the end of the second paragraph to one person's essay on that idea.

I also noticed while reading through the apparently ignored TRMA topic, it turns out the iceberg that sank the Titanic appeared rather small. There is a java application on http://www.paullee.com/titanic/iceberg.html. Give it a shot: click the check boxes a few times until the two outlines appear, and let the simulation run.

[clanky]

But again, a captain who wants to live or keep his job does not sail a vessel that size into a field of icebergs at a speed of 20 knots, nor does he continue sailing after a major collision...a recipe for disaster.

I have been on ships sailing through iceberg fields at higher speeds than that, and the captain kept both his job and his life.

Don't forget that everyone believed the Titanic to be "virtually unsinkable".

As I said above it is very easy to sit at home having commanded the Titanic in SS08 and think that you are qualified to second guess the people who were there, it is very easy to state things as facts when there is little or no evidence, it is very easy to apportion blame, but what does any of that achieve.

All the lessons which can be learned from the Titanic disaster have been learned, there is no point in dragging it up again and again.

[Firestar]

If Shipsim is any guide, we should know how long it takes for Titanic to turn..
In 20/20 hindsight, it may have been better to hit the iceberg head-on..

According to RMS Gigantic's virtual trials, ShipSim has greatly underestimated Titanic's turning power.

[Subwolf]

I have been on ships sailing through iceberg fields at higher speeds than that, and the captain kept both his job and his life.

Don't forget that everyone believed the Titanic to be "virtually unsinkable".

As I said above it is very easy to sit at home having commanded the Titanic in SS08 and think that you arequalified to second guess the people who were there, it is very easy to state things as facts when there is little or no evidence, it is very easy to apportion blame, but what does any of that achieve.

All the lessons which can be learned from the Titanic disaster have been learned, there is no point in dragging it up again and again.

Sounds like you failed to notice that another Titanic book has just been released, then a debate about this will be nothing but natural.

A passenger ship moving at 20 knots at night in an area like that with berg warnings issued would be concidered very unsafe. It will not happen today.

I'm only saying that what this woman says makes sense, and I'd rather listen to a grandchild of an officer who was on the bridge of the Titanic, than a bunch of people born 80 years later who think they know exactly what happened and calling her a liar. No thanks.

[RMS Gigantic]

Sounds like you failed to notice that another Titanic book has just been released, then a debate about this will be nothing but natural.

A passenger ship moving at 20 knots at night in an area like that with berg warnings issued would be concidered very unsafe. It will not happen today.

I'm only saying that what this woman says makes sense, and I'd rather listen to a grandchild of an officer who was on the bridge of the Titanic, than a bunch of people born 80 years later who think they know exactly what happened and calling her a liar. No thanks.

Moving at 20 knots or more through an ice field was common practice. It is deemed unsafe today mainly because of Titanic's demise, but at the time, it's how captains were trained.

I would prefer to listen to a sizable group of people who have dedicated their lives to researching information and characteristics about the ship, than to someone who has chosen to trash the reputations of those onboard it, as well as disregard information very commonly agreed upon by researchers. So she's a second or third generation offspring of one of the men onboard; it doesn't mean she spent a half of an ounce of research to make sure her story was even logical! She says White Star Line somehow managed to gather all of the officers prior to the testimony and coach them to answer the questions with some massive lie, a conspiracy somehow constructed in under 24 hours, but that in no way explains how the officers' story matches perfectly with those of all of the non-officer witnesses! Furthermore, trying to spot an iceberg as small as that one at over eight thousand feet away would be virtually impossible under the conditions offered on that night during that time, as the simulation in my previous link shows.

I'd like you to name a reason why researchers who display all of their learnings in the public domain would have any reason to lie. In return, I will offer one for this particular woman: she could want to produce hype for her book so people would get it and she, in turn, get a more sizable amount of money.

[Dazzle MN]

To the best of my knowledge the best practice for the OOW at the time would have been to plough straight into it instead of getting the helmsman to correct the helm. However it is easy to say that, I was not there, no-one knows how they will react until the situation is put upon them, that is why drills are so important on ships now days it is just a pity that there is very little time for them, especially on very busy ships.
Regardless of that the real people to blame is the company and at the time the Board of British Trade and Transport, lack of lifeboats, lack or survivors, simple as that, fortunately the Titanic disaster brought about a great publication called SOLAS, Safety Of Life At Sea. Every Mariner worth his salt knows that this expanding publication is the seafaring Bible, second only to COLREG, and then of course the IMO brings out a series of great little publications on a vast series of subjects, some compulsory some not, check the IMO publication on LSA and FFS, great read  

[--tractorman--]

Whilst talking about the Titanic, is anyone watching the series about her? Last night it was on and they were remaking one of her anchors, next time it's something to do with the engines or something.. very good..

[Dazzle MN]

oh where is this airing? that would be an interesting watch, thanks for the heads up

[--tractorman--]

Channel 4, not sure how often its on, but it was on at 10pm last night..

[LucAtC]

Hello,
Just to get a point of comparison with a head on collision, the ferry Aquitaine accident crashed at 7 knots into a linkspan at Calais some years ago. MAIB made a nice report worth reading, be it for the technical details about the pitch controls or the consequences of the accident. It should also be kept in mind that the energy is proportional to the square of the speed.
Regards,
Luc

[The Ferry Man]

KE = 0.5mv²
 

[lolmax123]

i figured it out one egine in full ahead the other egine in halg reverse hard a port when back of ship starts coming up to the berg you put the egine in reverse in full and turn hard a starbord to avoid a stern collison

[Al Bundy]

i figured it out one egine in full ahead the other egine in halg reverse hard a port when back of ship starts coming up to the berg you put the egine in reverse in full and turn hard a starbord to avoid a stern collison

How long time did it take for you to figure this out? I am asking because Murdoch had only 38 seconds to get the message about the berg, figure out a solution and see it carried out. Not much time to consider ramming the berg or evade it.

However I am sure (this is my opponion only and no evidence) that Murdoch had enough knowledge about the engines and their influence of the course.

If it was me and with the knowledge we have today I would still not have rammed the berg. Again in my opponion and not supported by evidence, it would have made greater damage. If the bow were crumpled, but not torn off, you would have a lot of dead weight hanging there, not contributing to boyancy. The chockwave alone could make a lot of damage to the hull.

I dont believe the claims she make in the book. I think that she is mixing things. I somewhere have heard that there were such a mistake in helm turning under Lightollers command but that was under 1st world war, as the navy were using one order and civil shipping the other.
Also, if they made a wrong order 4 minutes before the impact, why did they not just keep turning? They would easily make a 90 degree turn in those 4 minutes.
Also, why should Hitchens be confused? It was not the first time Titanic had to turn.

[freeciv]

However I am sure (this is my opponion only and no evidence) that Murdoch had enough knowledge about the engines and their influence of the course.

     I don't think he knew enough about the ships handling and the engines performance. It was the ships maiden voyage so no one had any "experience" with the ship and her engines.

[Al Bundy]

     I don't think he knew enough about the ships handling and the engines performance. It was the ships maiden voyage so no one had any "experience" with the ship and her engines.

That is where we differ in opponion. Murdoch had served on the Olympic for almost a year so he should have some handeling knowledge of vessels of that size, and to how revolutions of engines influence the helm it should have been in his education as an officer.

[freeciv]

That is where we differ in opponion. Murdoch had served on the Olympic for almost a year so he should have some handeling knowledge of vessels of that size, and to how revolutions of engines influence the helm it should have been in his education as an officer.

This is true.
However in an emergency he most likely never thought about his options, he probably just instinctively turned.

[x19Titanic12x]

Yes, in one case you get a ship with a damaged bow and passengers falling over and spilling their drinks..
In the other case, it's a matter of one flooded compartment too many, and a sinking ship..

I would agree, but wouldn't the bow tip over enough- just enough- that the water in the foward compartement spill over towards the next, and so on, still dooming the ship?