If the titanic does sink...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[mvsmith]

*off topic*

anyone like my sig?lawl(h)!!!!

Like Stu, I don’t care for big, space-wasting signatures, especially after seeing them six times on one page, but I do like the message.

[Shipaddict]

Big, disorted. don't like it much

[Stuart2007]

Like Stu, I don’t care for big, space-wasting signatures, especially after seeing them six times on one page, but I do like the message.

Hang on... your the second person to agree with me on something this year

Stu

[mvsmith]

Hang on... your the second person to agree with me on something this year

Stu

I think I’m the same person twice.

Marty

[Stuart2007]

No. If you include your second time agreeing with me that brings the total to three!

Stu

[ozziesailor]

guys to solve ur mystery i am a hugh titanic fan, and i can say with confidence that she hit an iceberg on her starborn side opening a a gash ok 4 and a half cargo and boiler room compartments. she was only designed to only have the first 4 take on water due to the larger bulkhead walls at the front of the ship.
she hit the iceberg at around 18.5 knots because they had reversed thrusted the engines (big mistake). during the sea trials she wasnt tested on speed but moveability and during that time she was only bought to 20 knots (not max speed).
rumors have been said that if she had hit head on with the iceberg like the Queen mary accident with the navy ship she would have survived the crash but would of been badly crippled. ( if u dont believe me try it in the sim) caption Smith was asked to try and beat the record for that particular crossing but unfortunately was incompleted.
With saying that they believe that 20 mins before the accident the second in command was handed a warning of iceburgs in the area but chose to ignore it and not inform capton smith.

juz to answer ur question

[Stuart2007]

With great respect to vstep I don't know if smacking the iceburg with the Titanic and studying the result would necessarily satisfy- say- the marine accident investigation board. If the metal was as poor as suggested, it could well have caused lots of little minor damage all along the hull through the shockwaves.

As for the rumour about Capt Smith being asked to beat the speed record- there is no evidence for this (note: This is not denying it, just seeking proof). I don't think you should rely too much on that Cameron film for providing factual data (don't rely on it for entertainment either... Just as a cure for insomnia).

I am surprised to learn that they never tested the maximum speed in sea trials. I can see it now "Welcome aboard Titanic Sir... Our arrival date? Err, no idea. We've no idea how fast it is..."

Stu

[Al Bundy]

With great respect to vstep I don't know if smacking the iceburg with the Titanic and studying the result would necessarily satisfy- say- the marine accident investigation board. If the metal was as poor as suggested, it could well have caused lots of little minor damage all along the hull through the shockwaves.

Yeah, Titanic hitting a stationary object that probably will not give way for anything is not an experience I would like to try. Not only will it kill all in the bow but there would be multiple personal damage as well of people breaking legs etc. Titanic did not have crumble zones like a car so, like Stu says, the shockwave alone would be terrible. Imagine a boiler coming of its base and hitting the side, furniture and porcelain flying around etc.     

As for the rumour about Capt Smith being asked to beat the speed record- there is no evidence for this (note: This is not denying it, just seeking proof). I don't think you should rely too much on that Cameron film for providing factual data (don't rely on it for entertainment either... Just as a cure for insomnia).

Titanic was not build for setting speed record. It was not as fast as Lusitania. They wanted luxurious interior in stead. The Rumour is probably because a passenger overheard Captain Smith and Bruce Ismay discussing lighting more boilers the next day (sunday). They wanted to get to New York ahead of ETA and surprise everybody. "Well Mr. Ismay I believe you may get your headlines" 

I am surprised to learn that they never tested the maximum speed in sea trials. I can see it now "Welcome aboard Titanic Sir... Our arrival date? Err, no idea. We've no idea how fast it is..."
Stu

Hehe but it is true. Remember Titanic was only no. 2 in the series of 3 ships so it did not have that much attention. They did put her at full speed in order to measure the stopping distance but no one measured the top speed.

Ozziesailor, the last Icewarning came a few hours before the impact from the Maseba. It was never handled to the bridge. Too bad though because it did put icebergs in the path of Titanic. The Marconi was not a part of ships navigation but there for the passengers amusement. Bride and Philips was not employed by White Star Line but Marconi.

Also you say that it was a big mistake to full reverse engines. Even if there is no proof about that and Titanic buffs has discussed that manoeuvre over and over again, the world have had 95 years to think about the order, Murdoch had 38 seconds to think of an action, order it and see it carried out.

A funny sidenote is that at the time of funder, the sailors did no longer get paid. I dont know if it applied to the offices as well. I cannot remember the source of that but it could have been Titanic Commutator or Atlantic Daily Bulletin. 

[Stuart2007]

The real point that I was making though is nearly a centur later who can trust any 'evidence'. I wouldn't trust any large scale enquiry these days, let alone one that far back.

The problem being that all participents of an investigation decide the outcome before the investigation. In other words, white star wanted to avoid blame as far as possible, the british government would want to avoid sending pannick through the shipping world and the american government would just want to hold someone to blame. So evidence will esily be distorted for personal gain.

Stu

[Al Bundy]

The real point that I was making though is nearly a centur later who can trust any 'evidence'. I wouldn't trust any large scale enquiry these days, let alone one that far back.

Of course you always have to be critic about the sources, but most evidence today is based on personal letters and stories told by the survivors right after the foundering. But the older you get, the more you tend to remember that may not have taken place.

The problem being that all participents of an investigation decide the outcome before the investigation. In other words, white star wanted to avoid blame as far as possible, the british government would want to avoid sending pannick through the shipping world and the american government would just want to hold someone to blame. So evidence will esily be distorted for personal gain.

Stu

You are probably right about that but transscripts of the court investigations are available today and you can read the various questions and answers. For instance Bruce Ismay giving evidence about the speed (British inquiry questions 19048 - 19054)

But always be critic about what you hear, especially theories about switching Titanic and Olympic

[Stuart2007]

But always be critic about what you hear, especially theories about switching Titanic and Olympic

I treat those theories with the contempt they deserve!

It is well documented that people can be coerced into giving incorrect evidence by suggestive questioning (doesn't imply fraud, it's just a well documented problem).

Was Mr Ismay on the bridge at the time and could he estimate speed (he was a desk driver, not a commander).

But the transcripts just record what was said- or alleged- at the time. The amount of money that was riding on the outcome of the investigation (not only millions £ in insurance etc).

I am very cynical and trust nothing where someone may have had a motive to lie. (but not saying they DID)

Stu

[ozziesailor]

Quote removed. No need to repeat all that... Just look above/I\ Stu


this is not true, all ships have crumble zones. look at the 2d picture at the front of the post the very front of the ship it hasnt been cut out but i have the full cut out verison in a book i have and there is a room at the very bow of the ship that is not accessible at all. this is the ships crumble zone, but unfortunately like u said it be a harsh bump but i would prefer to have passengers injuried then passengers drowning to death with no ship

p.s for the record im not refering to the movie that was bought out, i have 20 books and on the titanic and like i said i have been a big fan of it since i was 10 yrs old 

[Stuart2007]

I'm sorry. But the weight of 45000 tonnes doing 20.45 MPH (18kts) smacking into a stationary object would be equivelant to the average car smacking into an iceburg at some 920,000 miles per hour... That is one hell of an impact zone!

I am not a marine engineer either, but I very much doubt that enough of the shock would be taken up in the 'crumple' zone as you put it to save the rest of the ship... You wouldn't need very much of a shock to then start popping out rivets. Maybe sinking the ship faster.

The problem is, I think, that people just take the viewpoint of the first book they read that makes sense. Yet for every plausible theory there will be plausible theories AGAINST it (along with countless ridiculous theories).

I think this might be a question for Luc...

Stu

[LucAtC]

Aargghh, Stu, thank you including me in the contest.
Now, you are plainly wrong about the speed at which your car would have to ride to dissipate the same energy: 0.5*18²*45000000=0.5*V²*1500 gives 3117 knots (4.7 Mach).  To give a more common equivalent in the same domain, it can be compared with 33 ton falling on the bow of Titanic at the speed of sound.
Of course, this huge energy is dissipated in the ship, and not in the car. With the same energy per ton, it could be compared with a car  having a mass of 1500kg crashing on a wall at a speed of ... 18kts.

Commonly, the collision bulkhead had to be placed at no less than 1/20th of Lbp from the bow, and from 1949 on, passenger liners above 800ft must be four or more compartment ships. But if flooding could have had various origins, collisions at the bow were to happen against the beam of other vessels, ie soft targets.
Except for Niagara, I don't remember any front collision above manoeuvring speed against piers or quays being cited, and if that had happened, land would not have been far away: That is surely why there is such an international watch for icebergs or growlers.
Unlike cars, there are no front collision tests made with passenger liners (or any ship that I know of, but I am not sure). Well, is crumble zone not a specific word for cars? The implementation of a bow dissipating the energy of the collision purely by crushing came together with welding on a large scale, I think.

Now, my feeling also is that a front collision with the iceberg could have been also lesser catastrophic, and I can completely follow the ideas presented in http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/

Also, I completely agree that if the speed had been consistently lower, and if Mr Ismay... and if 1st Officer Murdoch..., and if the steel..., and if the rudder ..., and if the weather messages..., and if the marconists..., and if the bulkheads..., and if ... if... perhaps Titanic (or was it disguised Britannic?) wouldnt ... what?

What can be expected from the study of such an accident, is how to improve safety at sea. New ideas or suggestions are very welcome, but what can be said about the Titanic drama that has not yet been repeated hundreds of times?
The fascination for such a tragedy cannot hide the fact that such a blame game is at the verge of depreciating (?) the memories of these seamen, who surely knew much better than anyone today what they had to do, the more they were deeply involved, to say the least. Who dares to say his personal judgment is better than Murdoch's?
Regards,
Luc

[Al Bundy]

Was Mr Ismay on the bridge at the time and could he estimate speed (he was a desk driver, not a commander).

You are right, he was not on the bridge at the time of the impact. The questions I was referring to was dealing with the top speed of Titanic. It was to support my argue that Titanic was not build to take the Blue Ribbon.

The problem is, I think, that people just take the viewpoint of the first book they read that makes sense. Yet for every plausible theory there will be plausible theories AGAINST it (along with countless ridiculous theories).

Indeed. As good old Sherlock Holmes said once: When all alternative options are exhausted, the one that is left, how unlikely it is, must be the truth. (something like that). So the only theory that does not have a counter theory, must be the truth.

this is not true, all ships have crumble zones.

You are talking about the forepeak. In the deckplans it is marked "store". I don't think it was build to be able to crumble but as Stu I am not a Marine Engineer.

Now, my feeling also is that a front collision with the iceberg could have been also lesser catastrophic, and I can completely follow the ideas presented in http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/

I was just reading this paper when you posted. Parks E. Stephenson I a very good researcher. David G. Brown takes it further in this: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1515/

Also, I completely agree that if the speed had been consistently lower, and if Mr Ismay... and if 1st Officer Murdoch..., and if the steel..., and if the rudder ..., and if the weather messages..., and if the marconists..., and if the bulkheads..., and if ... if... perhaps Titanic (or was it disguised Britannic?) wouldnt ... what?

Brittanic?? Hmmm but yeah there are a lot of what if, but it is just that: What if (speculations). "What if Titanic was not there" but it was, so the "what if's" are not important. The learning experience is.

[LucAtC]

My favour went to Britannic, not Olympic, I know that for sure, the rest is quatsch (kwatch, couatche?).
The deceleration could also be assessed, taking a car as a comparison.
The car dissipates the kinetic energy in a fraction of a second (say one to two tenths), meaning horizontal accelerations somewhere between 10 and 5g.
Depending on the plating and the frames, the collision energy could be dissipated in ... 2.5 seconds? At a mean speed of 5 m/s, 12.5 meter crushed?  0.4g mean deceleration if things were linear, which is doubtful, nevertheless in a range of possible values.
and also there is no science in all that, just elementary mechanics
Regards,   
Luc

[Al Bundy]

and also there is no sence in all that, just elementary mechanics

Indeed

[greyhill]

I remember that being on the news, didn't realise that it was the highlander.

found a photo if the European Highlander sitting pretty nearly at Cairnryan port, captain tried to dock in storm when hit by a +100mph gust, silly boy.

[LucAtC]

Now, my feeling also is that a front collision with the iceberg could have been also lesser catastrophic, and I can completely follow the ideas presented in http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/

This citation of course only concerns the head-on collision assessment made by Edward Wilding, senior Naval Architect of the shipyard. I have some difficulties to follow all developments made in the posts, mostly because I feel they are somewhere between re-reading testimonies and rewriting new theories, not more plausible than the existing "mainstream" ones. The supposed grounding seems a somewhat far fetched guess.
Regards,
Luc

[Stuart2007]

Of course- I didn't add into the formula that energy increases squarly to the speed. Silly me :O

Stu