Titanic sinking a century ago

[JDgreen227]

I have collected quite a few books on the subject of the disaster, seen the movies (but not in 3D yet) and the TV schedules have listed quite a few specials on the upcoming 100-year anniversary of the event, beginning 4/9 around here. It has long been a subject of interest to me, mainly because of the "what-if" factors surrounding it. Anyone else here planning to follow the coverage?

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

Yes, the wife and I are both interested in history including the Titanic incident. We are attending a dinner on April 14th featuring the menu that was served in 1st class that fateful last night. Local theater is having a film festival of sorts that weekend featuring all the different movies that were done on the subject over the years. Interested in seeing "A Night To Remember" on the "big screen".

 

[zzvyb6]

I too am a Titanic follower, mainly because of the options the crew had to save more passengers and perhaps save the ship, but were not followed.

If they had opened the "water-tight" doors, she would have settled flat and gone down more slowly. Going prow down allowed water to enter via the anchor ports (and over the deck) increasing the flooding rate.

Also, she was equipped with collision mats that were not used. These are like steel mesh blankets that might have allowed her pumps to keep up with the inflow (and certailnly given a rescue ship more time to arrive on scene. The mats are suspended over the side to reduce water flow rate into a hull breach.

Although her rudder was very undersized, putting her into a hard starboard turn at full power might have cut down the water pressure at the slice (as she rolled to port and also given her more time.

Of course the decision to turn and try to avoid the berg was the killing flaw. If she had hit it nose on, there would have been quite a thud, but she would have stayed afloat. Remember, one of her sister ships (Olympic) crashed first. There were some lessons not learned there, certainly.

A nightmare for some crew member or passenger who might have tried to advise the captain of these options and being told to buzz-off.

As in all disasters, it was a combination of things that sank her, not just one.

 

[DKCDKC]

I've been on the Queen Mary II sailing over the site of the Titanic sinking... They salute it each time they pass.

Love the movies and documentaries on the Titanic - and other sea disasters as well. I live in the mountains, but love short visits on or to the sea. We travel by ship because my wife cannot fly. For those interested, some planning will get you a passage both ways across the Atlantic for little more than a plane ticket, and you get almost two weeks at sea. Great way to travel. I can only imagine the atmosphere on the Titanic.

Despite the Titanic, and even the Andra Doria and Concordia, I feel pretty darn safe on big ships.

 

[Lloyd_E]

FYI: In our provincial Capitol City - Halifax - there is a graveyard with 100's of deceased passengers. Halifax was a major port for co-ordinating the disaster relief.

Titanic in Nova Scotia

The role Halifax, Nova Scotia, played in the Titanic disaster.

Titanic In Halifax: Curious Public Were Urged To Avoid 'Circus' During Tragedy

Titanic film fans flock to Halifax for J. Dawson grave - World - CBC News

James Cameron's Titanic



In fact a lot of the movie was shot here in the city as well as off-shore.


Lloyd

 

[JDgreen227]

FYI: In our provincial Capitol City - Halifax - there is a graveyard with 100's of deceased passengers. Halifax was a major port for co-ordinating the disaster relief.

Titanic in Nova Scotia

The role Halifax, Nova Scotia, played in the Titanic disaster.

Titanic In Halifax: Curious Public Were Urged To Avoid 'Circus' During Tragedy

Titanic film fans flock to Halifax for J. Dawson grave - World - CBC News

James Cameron's Titanic



In fact a lot of the movie was shot here in the city as well as off-shore.


Lloyd

Not trying to go off topic, but to me anything Titanic-related as regards Halifax has been long overshadowed by the December 6th, 1917 disaster in the harbor there, where a collision led to the biggest man-made accidential explosion in the world.

 

[Combustix]

Although her rudder was very undersized, putting her into a hard starboard turn at full power might have cut down the water pressure at the slice (as she rolled to port and also given her more time.

Of course the decision to turn and try to avoid the berg was the killing flaw. If she had hit it nose on, there would have been quite a thud, but she would have stayed afloat. Remember, one of her sister ships (Olympic) crashed first. There were some lessons not learned there, certainly.

A nightmare for some crew member or passenger who might have tried to advise the captain of these options and being told to buzz-off.

As in all disasters, it was a combination of things that sank her, not just one.

I agree she had a smaller rudder than normal but what doomed her in the turn was throwing the engines full astern thereby decreasing the water flow over her rudder, which explains the sluggish turn. If they had stayed a full ahead there chances would probably have been much better

interesting in that they ordered a starboard turn and hit on the starboard side. This was due to back in the early 1900's the turn was made toward the side you wanted the stern to go.

E.J. Smith I just read had recently made that same trip as Capt. of the Olympic, the Titanics sister ship. I'm sure as a Captain with his experience if a passenger comes to tell you how to drive your ship or keep it from sinking I would probably tell them to buzz off to. Unless it was the Chief Engineer. Him I would listen to.

 

[JDgreen227]

When I originally began reading about the sinking, I wondered at the time why the pumps couldn't keep the ship afloat, but after research I learned that the ship builder himself (Thomas Andrews) said the 2000 ton per hour pumping capacity of the ship would only keep the ship afloat for a few extra minutes, as the hull breaches were letting in that much water in every five minutes.

 

[jonyyuma]

When I originally began reading about the sinking, I wondered at the time why the pumps couldn't keep the ship afloat, but after research I learned that the ship builder himself (Thomas Andrews) said the 2000 ton per hour pumping capacity of the ship would only keep the ship afloat for a few extra minutes, as the hull breaches were letting in that much water in every five minutes.

Thanks for the facts. I enjoy reading about Titanic too.. have seen all the movies, but 3D ?I remember the first book about the ship actually being broken into pieces on the bottom. National Geographic, I still have it here.They had previously thought she was in one piece and could be raised intact?

 

[Combustix]

JDgreen227, if my memory serves me right I believe the water tight bulkheads did not extend all the way up for each zone. Thereby once the water reached the top it started to spill over into the next compartment. If the watertights extended all the way up she may have had a fighting chance if she was a 2 or 3 compartment ship. This means you can flood two or three compartments completely, and you should remain afloat. Big problems develop with say the pool being higher than your metocenter, or your fresh water tanks being slack, this would effect your transverse stability which becomes a big issue. Modern ships have an emergency dump were they can mt the pools in minutes.