The Man responsible for the Titanic's sinking.

DEFTLEFTHAND

William Murdoch the First officer of Titanic on the fateful night. It was hinted at but never fully layed on Murdoch in the inquires after the tragedy in 1912, considering that he died in the sinking.

He was given orders at 10pm from the Captain to keep course and speed and to follow safety procedures with ice. At 11.40pm an iceberg was reported dead ahead, half a mile out and Murdoch made a fatal error. He ordered a full stop, engines in astern and the port around manoeuvre from the ships wheel.


By putting the engines in reverse he compromisied the action of the ships rudder, slowing the turning process. If turned at full speed at that distance the ship would have had more manoeuvreability and should have veered off in time. His other option was to put the engines to full stop and let her hit by the bow, damaging the vessel but not fatally.

fin12

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

William Murdoch the First officer of Titanic on the fateful night. It was hinted at but never fully layed on Murdoch in the inquires after the tragedy in 1912, considering that he died in the sinking.

He was given orders at 10pm from the Captain to keep course and speed and to follow safety procedures with ice. At 11.40pm an iceberg was reported dead ahead, half a mile out and Murdoch made a fatal error. He ordered a full stop, engines in astern and the port around manoeuvre from the ships wheel.


By putting the engines in reverse he compromisied the action of the ships rudder, slowing the turning process. If turned at full speed at that distance the ship would have had more manoeuvreability and should have veered off in time. His other option was to put the engines to full stop and let her hit by the bow, damaging the vessel but not fatally.

There was a fire burning in a coal bunker for weeks, it even set sail while still on fire, this cause the bulkheads to be weakened. I believe this is the main reason the titanic sank.

Junkyard Tom

Pretty stern appraisal of a difficult situation.






Stern

DEFTLEFTHAND

fin12 wrote: »

There was a fire burning in a coal bunker for weeks, it even set sail while still on fire, this cause the bulkheads to be weakened. I believe this is the main reason the titanic sank.

Coal fires were common for steamers of the day. It wouldn't have compromisied the ship to such an extent.

Itssoeasy

fin12 wrote: »

There was a fire burning in a coal bunker for weeks, it even set sail while still on fire, this cause the bulkheads to be weakened. I believe this is the main reason the titanic sank.

That fire is known to have been out by the day of the sinking. It may have weakened the bulkheads around it but it may have only hasened the sinking if it did fail. The ship was doomed when the iceberg separated the hull plates beyond the four compartments that it could stay aloft were breached. The bulkheads not sealed at the top and the fact they didn't go to the top deck of the ship. I think they only went to C deck but I'd have to check.

endacl

fin12 wrote: »

There was a fire burning in a coal bunker for weeks, it even set sail while still on fire, this cause the bulkheads to be weakened. I believe this is the main reason the titanic sank.

Nah. The main reason it sank is that it filled up with water.

An Ri rua

Lots of different blamegames out there. Some say it was an ancestor of Rosanna Davison's. Ike Burgh.

PS it's not like The shipping company weren't forewarned about Murdoch. They got a short telegram from an irate American prior to embarking from Liverpool, simply saying "I ain't sailing with no crazy fool. STOP"

Comer1

It was Rose"s and Jack's fault for having sex before marriage in a Reanult.

Quantum Erasure

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty stern appraisal of a difficult situation.






Stern

take a bow

Itssoeasy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

William Murdoch the First officer of Titanic on the fateful night. It was hinted at but never fully layed on Murdoch in the inquires after the tragedy in 1912, considering that he died in the sinking.

He was given orders at 10pm from the Captain to keep course and speed and to follow safety procedures with ice. At 11.40pm an iceberg was reported dead ahead, half a mile out and Murdoch made a fatal error. He ordered a full stop, engines in astern and the port around manoeuvre from the ships wheel.


By putting the engines in reverse he compromisied the action of the ships rudder, slowing the turning process. If turned at full speed at that distance the ship would have had more manoeuvreability and should have veered off in time. His other option was to put the engines to full stop and let her hit by the bow, damaging the vessel but not fatally.

I have to say I think that's unduly harsh on someone who mad a split decision 106 years ago. Also, any disaster never hinges on one persons actions. I mean if you go through the titanic maiden voyage the phrase "if but for.." if applied to an action then the ship may not have hit the iceberg.

Itssoeasy

endacl wrote: »

Nah. The main reason it sank is that it filled up with water.

Brilliant.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That fire is known to have been out by the day of the sinking. It may have weakened the bulkheads around it but it may have only hasened the sinking if it did fail. The ship was doomed when the iceberg separated the hull plates beyond the four compartments that it could stay aloft were breached. The bulkheads not sealed at the top and the fact they didn't go to the top deck of the ship. I think they only went to C deck but I'd have to check.

If anything it prolonged the ships life, in the process of putting out the fire they moved huge amounts of coal to the port side. This created an extra ballast, the ship went down from the bow and never took on a severve list to starboard or port.


Intially the Carpenter Andrews thought she'd capsize and go down in an hour. He was unaware of the movement of coal that afternoon.

Itssoeasy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

If anything it prolonged the ships life, in the process of putting out the fire they moved huge amounts of coal to the port side. This created an extra ballast, the ship went down from the bow and never took on a severve list to starboard or port.


Intially the Carpenter Andrews thought she'd capsize and go down in an hour. He was unaware of the movement of coal that afternoon.

There are witness reports of the ship listing during the sinking. Andrews wasn't the carpenter he was the designer of the ship and I've never heard of him believing the ship would capsize.

Itssoeasy

Also, there are so many conflicting reports of what happened that night that unless there is proof of Thomas Andrews saying the ship would capsize. In the 1958 film a night to remember had an officer from the titanic on the night of the sinking as a consultant so if that had been a worry surely he would have heard it. It's not in that film which is seen as a very accurate retelling of the sinking and its never suggested the boat would capsize.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Itssoeasy wrote: »

There are witness reports of the ship listing during the sinking. Andrews wasn't the carpenter he was the designer of the ship and I've never heard of him believing the ship would capsize.

Carpenter was his position on that voyage, a team of Haarland & Wolf execs travelled on every maiden voyage of their ships to check their running order.


Andrews sounded the ship after the collision and informed Captain Smith at 00.10hrs that she was making water in 6 compartments and could sink in an hour.


She never took on a heavy list to either side during the sinking. Even righting herself for a period an hour and half into the sinking.

KevRossi

This is worth a look, I always got the impression that it was accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9w5bgtJC8

0:30 - Iceberg spotted.
1:05 - Titanic collides with an iceberg.
6:06 - The ship has stopped as damage inspections are carried out.
7:44 - Captain Smith orders engines to 'Half Ahead'.
19:41 - Titanic stops for the last time.
20:04 - Excess steam is vented.
38:08 - The Titanic begins taking on a 'starboard list'.
43:03 - Thomas Andrews estimates 1-2 hours before the ship sinks.
46:23 - The first distress calls are sent out.
48:38 - Lights of another ship are spotted on the horizon.
53:07 - Most lifeboats are prepared to evacuate passengers.
58:20 - Carpathia responds to Titanic's distress calls.
1:01:29 - Lifeboat 7 is launched.
1:05:03 - Lifeboat 5 is launched.
1:06:04 - The telegraph operators begin using 'SOS'.
1:07:22 - Lifeboat 5 encounters lowering difficulties.
1:08:02 - Officer Boxhall launches the first distress rocket in an attempt to signal the ship on the horizon.
1:10:24 - The Carpathia confirms it is on it's way.
1:11:03 - Steam stops venting from the funnels.
1:13:20 - The starboard list is eliminated as Boiler Room 5 floods.
1:21:28 - Lifeboat 8 leaves.
1:28:22 - Suction pumps are activated.
1:31:33 - Lifeboat 6 is launched.
1:36:57 - Water is up to the Titanic's nameplate.
1:39:37 - Titanic begins listing to port.
1:41:43 - Lifeboat 16 is launched.
1:46:54 - Lifeboat 14 is launched.
1:51:18 - Lifeboat 14 is dropped 4 feet into the sea from its falls after they jammed.
1:51:42 - Lifeboat 12 is launched.
1:52:29 - Lifeboat 9 is launched.
1:58:53 - Lifeboat 11 is launched.
2:00:41 - Lifeboat 13 is launched.
2:05:21 - Lifeboat 13 is pushed aft by the discharging condenser, jamming it on the falls.
2:05:50 - Lifeboat 15.
2:05:42 - Lifeboat 13 cannot release itself as Lifeboat 15 comes down on top of it.
2:07:07 - Lifeboat 13 is released and is pulled out from underneath Lifeboat 15 as 15 lands in the water.
2:07:38 - Lifeboat 2 is launched.
2:09:31 - The lights on the horizon disappear.
2:11:52 - Lifeboat 4.
2:12:22 - Lifeboat 10.
2:22:12 - It is now 2AM. The Titanic has 20 minutes left.
2:26:10 - Collapsible Boat D is launched.
2:29:39 - The last messages from the Titanic are heard.
2:30:46 - Collapsible A is slid off the Officers' Quarters roof.
2:31:03 - The Wireless Room is abandoned.
2:31:42 - Collapsible B is thrown from the roof of the office quarters. It lands upside down in the water.
2:34:01 - Survivors distinctly hear 4 explosions from deep within the ship.
2:39:23 - All remaining power is lost. The ship breaks in two.
2:40:36 - Titanic is gone. Rescuers do not arrive for another hour and 40 minutes.



For information disproving the Coal Fire Theory: http://wormstedt.com/Titanic/TITANIC-...

For information disproving the Switch Theory: http://www.williammurdoch.net/article...

For information disproving the Weak Steel / Rivets Theory: http://marconigraph.com/titanic/rivet...

con747

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

William Murdoch the First officer of Titanic on the fateful night. It was hinted at but never fully layed on Murdoch in the inquires after the tragedy in 1912, considering that he died in the sinking.

He was given orders at 10pm from the Captain to keep course and speed and to follow safety procedures with ice. At 11.40pm an iceberg was reported dead ahead, half a mile out and Murdoch made a fatal error. He ordered a full stop, engines in astern and the port around manoeuvre from the ships wheel.


By putting the engines in reverse he compromisied the action of the ships rudder, slowing the turning process. If turned at full speed at that distance the ship would have had more manoeuvreability and should have veered off in time. His other option was to put the engines to full stop and let her hit by the bow, damaging the vessel but not fatally.

I reckon you just got "the titanic who was to blame" up on googles top searches tonight. Somewhere:rolleyes:

Itssoeasy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Carpenter was his position on that voyage, a team of Haarland & Wolf execs travelled on every maiden voyage of their ships to check their running order.


Andrews sounded the ship after the collision and informed Captain Smith at 00.10hrs that she was making water in 6 compartments and could sink in an hour.


She never took on a heavy list to either side during the sinking. Even righting herself for a period an hour and half into the sinking.

But she did list though. We have a difference of opinion as to the severity of the list on the night of the sinking but the ship did list and at least one survivor tried to measure the list. Also, second officer lightoller testified he sent crew to open a gangway door which he presumes they did but they were never seen again.

Yes because a corridor that ran the length of the ship flooded.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Lightholler one of the officers who survived made a claim that even if Titanic had a full compliant of life boats they wouldn't have got them off in time. In the two hours and 20 mins they had from collision to sinking they got off 16 lifeboats, the port side emergency boat, and two collasipibles. The last collaspible overturned and washed off deck as the ships bridge went under.

If the ship had listed heavily during the sinking the boats and that side would not have been capable of being launchdd.

houseplant

What happened, is this breaking news?

Itssoeasy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Lightholler one of the officers who survived made a claim that even if Titanic had a full compliant of life boats they wouldn't have got them off in time. In the two hours and 20 mins they had from collision to sinking they got off 16 lifeboats, the port side emergency boat, and two collasipibles. The last collaspible overturned and washed off deck as the ships bridge went under.

If the ship had listed heavily during the sinking the boats and that side would not have been capable of being launchdd.

extra lifeboats would have just caused hassle given the way the lifeboats they had were lowered during the sinking. The whole thing reads like a mess.

Just to be clear you're the one adding severe to me saying the ship listed during the sinking which it seems we bought agree it did.

whisky_galore

I bought a ticket and didn't sail. Will my travel insurance cover it?

Still waters

An Ri rua wrote: »

Lots of different blamegames out there. Some say it was an ancestor of Rosanna Davison's. Ike Burgh.

PS it's not like The shipping company weren't forewarned about Murdoch. They got a short telegram from an irate American prior to embarking from Liverpool, simply saying "I ain't sailing with no crazy fool. STOP"

Was it B.A Baracus

Hoop66

All these people trying to blame boiler fires etc are clearly in the pay of big ice.

Van Doozy

2:22:12 - It is now 2AM

Church on Tuesday

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also, there are so many conflicting reports of what happened that night that unless there is proof of Thomas Andrews saying the ship would capsize. In the 1958 film a night to remember had an officer from the titanic on the night of the sinking as a consultant so if that had been a worry surely he would have heard it. It's not in that film which is seen as a very accurate retelling of the sinking and its never suggested the boat would capsize.

Yes and No.

It's a good film,the best out there, but it doesn't portray the splitting of the ship and other details.

There were many eye witness accounts who stated the ship separated before it sank, which at the time was meet with a kind of ridicule.

Only with the discovery of the wreck was that assertion finally given credence.

corner of hells

The titanic sinking was a true story ?

Hoop66

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Only with the discovery of the wreck was that assertion finally given credence.

I remember the National Geographic issue when they first got pics of the wreck, it was incredible. I pored over it for weeks.

Ash.J.Williams

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

take a bow

this is riveting

witchgirl26

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

William Murdoch the First officer of Titanic on the fateful night. It was hinted at but never fully layed on Murdoch in the inquires after the tragedy in 1912, considering that he died in the sinking.

He was given orders at 10pm from the Captain to keep course and speed and to follow safety procedures with ice. At 11.40pm an iceberg was reported dead ahead, half a mile out and Murdoch made a fatal error. He ordered a full stop, engines in astern and the port around manoeuvre from the ships wheel.


By putting the engines in reverse he compromisied the action of the ships rudder, slowing the turning process. If turned at full speed at that distance the ship would have had more manoeuvreability and should have veered off in time. His other option was to put the engines to full stop and let her hit by the bow, damaging the vessel but not fatally.

Massively over simplistic view. There were a number of what if's that could have changed things.
1. The speed they were doing. There had been reports of icebergs in the region from other ships however there was a pressure to not delay the maiden voyage and slow down so they were actually going too fast considering conditions.
2. Lack of wind in the area made spotting icebergs difficult and also missing binoculars in the crows nest.
3. None of the officers were used to a ship of Titanic's size and logic used on smaller ships didn't always follow through - like the turning. in a smaller ship, it would have been the right move.
4. Lack of understanding of just how much of an iceberg is under the surface at the time.
5. The fact that icebergs were quite southerly that year in general and wouldn't normally have been in the path during that time of year.
6. The rivets used were not the absolute best quality. They had ordered "best" as opposed to "best best" in an error so they may not have been as strong as they should have been.
7. The fact that the watertight bulkheads only went as far as E deck meant that it could cause a spill effect.
And many many others.
Murdoch's actions were based off experience in smaller ships where a manoeuvre like that would have worked had a larger effect.

JustAThought

Of course the issue with the RIVETERS and the political/ sociological climate at the time in Belfast was never discussed in any film - too hot a topic. The specialised tradesmen and labourers who built the boat in BELFAST allegedly had seams of the interior and exterior bulkheads that were purposefully not riveted together correctly - another major contributor to the failure of the bulkheads and leter confirmed after footage of the wreck on the seafloor was made.

Pertty low to blame one man in an idle afternoon even if he is long dead, for such a catastrophic event and all thise deaths.

Transatlantic record anyone?
Or do people just watch films and take their history from hollywood these days.

Not to mention the illegal trawler crew and its captain that did not stop to pick up survivors - I’d be putting a lot of weight on them. etc

Church on Tuesday

Hoop66 wrote: »

I remember the National Geographic issue when they first got pics of the wreck, it was incredible. I pored over it for weeks.

I highly recommend Dr. Robert Ballad's Titanic: Last Great Images for anyone interested in detailed pictures of the wreck.

valoren

Still waters wrote: »

Was it B.A Baracus

Let's Face it, he would have been B.A. Brrracus had he sailed.

Minime2.5

If the exact same thing happened today in the same place would the vast majority of people have survived

Itssoeasy

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Yes and No.

It's a good film,the best out there, but it doesn't portray the splitting of the ship and other details.

There were many eye witness accounts who stated the ship separated before it sank, which at the time was meet with a kind of ridicule.

Only with the discovery of the wreck was that assertion finally given credence.

Well that's the most glaring mistake and as you say there were more than a few survivors who said it at the investigations that they say the ship break apart. You'd think that if you were in that awful situation a ship the size of titanic breaking apart would be a think you'd remember clearly. I think the lights had gone out on the ship at that point so maybe it wasn't noticed.

There is difference in survivors recollections of many major events of the night. The song being played by the band wasn't unanimous. Where captain smith was last seen is a debate. There was a member of the crew who saw Thomas Andrews staring at the picture of Plymouth sound in the smoking room but the time is off by around twenty minutes. There was a huge noise heard which it was stated were the engines breaking loose and crashing through the ship which has been proven wrong.

The position of the ship was wrong. And then of course there is the issue of the Californian and captain Stanley lord. I don't know about that ship and flares and what they didn't see or did see.

Stephen Gawking

Take a 'bough' sir.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty stern appraisal of a difficult situation.






Stern

Hoop66

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

this is riveting

Any more jokes like that and I'll keel you.

Toots

Van Doozy wrote: »

Time stamps in the video, not the actual time of the night.

valoren

My grandfather was alive when he saw the Titanic in Belfast. He told people it would sink but everyone ignored his warnings yet he continued to give people those warnings. He kept on trying to warn people it was going to sink until he was eventually escorted from the cinema.

Hector Savage

It was a moonless night too ... made it all the darker ... good thread btw, gets my mind of things..

Still waters

JustAThought wrote: »

Of course the issue with the RIVETERS and the political/ sociological climate at the time in Belfast was never discussed in any film - too hot a topic. The specialised tradesmen and labourers who built the boat in BELFAST allegedly had seams of the interior and exterior bulkheads that were purposefully not riveted together correctly - another major contributor to the failure of the bulkheads and leter confirmed after footage of the wreck on the seafloor was made.

Pertty low to blame one man in an idle afternoon even if he is long dead, for such a catastrophic event and all thise deaths.

Transatlantic record anyone?
Or do people just watch films and take their history from hollywood these days.

Not to mention the illegal trawler crew and its captain that did not stop to pick up survivors - I’d be putting a lot of weight on them. etc

Why didn't they rivet the lanels correctly?

And tell us more about the illegal trawer and its crew, I've never heard of them and I've a few books read on the titanic

Charles Babbage

While there are all sorts of details, the sinking of the Titantic comes down to one thing, sailing too fast at night. A slightly lower speed at night would likely have meant that we would never have heard of the ship. The Titanic was the second a series of ships, the Olympic was the first one and H&W were proud of it, the Titanic was largely the same and would not be notable if it hadn't sank.

The desire to speed wasn't Murdoch's decision.
In April, the hours of real darkness are only about 8 hours, one third of the day, it simply wasn't worth it since you could have gone faster in daylight.

Huntergonzo

Titanic is one of the most fascinating tragedies of all time and probably one of the most studied.

As for the 'man responsible', I don't think there is one in this instance, but it is human nature to look for someone to blame I suppose. For me Titanic's sinking was a series of factors, such as:

1. The fire in the coal bunker which raged on for several days and weakened the bulkheads.

2. Steaming at near full speed in an ice-field and ignoring some of the warnings that were sent, especially the last one where Philips told the Californian to 'Keep out, shut up, I'm working Cape Race'. Although to be fair I believe these guys were retained by Marconi and under serious pressure to get their work done.

3. The shortage of lifeboats, which was perfectly legal at the time.

4. There being no requirement for ships to keep a 24hr wireless service, if there was perhaps the Californian would have come to the rescue as their operator had already gone to bed by the time Titanic started sending out distress signals.

5. Speaking of which the crew of the Californian while they can't be blamed for the tragedy, they were negligent in their duty. 2nd Officer Herbert Stone saw the rockets and reported them to captain Stanley Lord who quite dismissively chalked them down as 'company signals'. This ship was likely only 10 miles away or so but chose to brush off the signals rather than investigate them.

6. Weather conditions, it was a freakishly calm night for the north atlantic, by all accounts the ocean was as smooth as glass with no moon either to light up their surroundings. If the sea had of been a bit choppier, maybe the look outs would have seen the water breaking at the iceberg and spotted it a bit earlier.

7. Bad luck, in fairness this played a part to, it generally does in these tragedies, wrong place wrong time.

Finally as for Murdoch, to be honest I've never really considered him responsible, he was just doing what he was told in maintaining speed and heading and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. He done his best to avoid the berg and done his best to load the lifeboats (over half the people saved were loaded in by Murdoch).

Like many others he lost his life that night and will never get the chance to tell his story.

Itssoeasy

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Titanic is one of the most fascinating tragedies of all time and probably one of the most studied.

As for the 'man responsible', I don't think there is one in this instance, but it is human nature to look for someone to blame I suppose. For me Titanic's sinking was a series of factors, such as:

1. The fire in the coal bunker which raged on for several days and weakened the bulkheads.

2. Steaming at near full speed in an ice-field and ignoring some of the warnings that were sent, especially the last one where Philips told the Californian to 'Keep out, shut up, I'm working Cape Race'. Although to be fair I believe these guys were retained by Marconi and under serious pressure to get their work done.

3. The shortage of lifeboats, which was perfectly legal at the time.

4. There being no requirement for ships to keep a 24hr wireless service, if there was perhaps the Californian would have come to the rescue as their operator had already gone to bed by the time Titanic started sending out distress signals.

5. Speaking of which the crew of the Californian while they can't be blamed for the tragedy, they were negligent in their duty. 2nd Officer Herbert Stone saw the rockets and reported them to captain Stanley Lord who quite dismissively chalked them down as 'company signals'. This ship was likely only 10 miles away or so but chose to brush off the signals rather than investigate them.

6. Weather conditions, it was a freakishly calm night for the north atlantic, by all accounts the ocean was as smooth as glass with no moon either to light up their surroundings. If the sea had of been a bit choppier, maybe the look outs would have seen the water breaking at the iceberg and spotted it a bit earlier.

7. Bad luck, in fairness this played a part to, it generally does in these tragedies, wrong place wrong time.

Finally as for Murdoch, to be honest I've never really considered him responsible, he was just doing what he was told in maintaining speed and heading and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. He done his best to avoid the berg and done his best to load the lifeboats (over half the people saved were loaded in by Murdoch).

Like many others he lost his life that night and will never get the chance to tell his story.

The bulkhead may have played a part but I think it's given too much weight.

Well that reply to the Californian was in part because the machine had been broken the day before so they were making up the back log of telegrams they were sending. It's another what if because if they hadn't been swampt it's likely the ice warning may have gotten to the captain and maybe things would have turned out differently.

I think titanic had more lifeboats than was required at the time given its tonnage which is how it was calculated. There was provision for more but it wasn't required or wanted so there weren't enough.

The tragedy may have had a good outcome in that after there was a requirement for a 24 hour wireless at sea.

The Californian and its place in the this event are weird to me. Yes the crew as whole aren't to blame but Stanley lord till the day he died was trying to fix his reputation. Wasn't it always the case the the crew told him of the rockets but didn't push the issue ?

Yeah poor murdooch was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it wasn't him on the bridge at the time of the accident it would have been someone else.

Itssoeasy

Still waters wrote: »

Why didn't they rivet the lanels correctly?

And tell us more about the illegal trawer and its crew, I've never heard of them and I've a few books read on the titanic

I've never heard of a trawler either but there is a theory that there was a third boat in the area that night and it's what both titanic and Californian say and not each other. As I said it's a theory but the crew of the Californian said they say a large ship not a trawler which would surely be easily distinguishable.

Charles Babbage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The Californian and its place in the this event are weird to me. Yes the crew as whole aren't to blame but Stanley lord till the day he died was trying to fix his reputation. Wasn't it always the case the the crew told him of the rockets but didn't push the issue ?

The point about the rockets that struck me was that there seemed to scope for interpretation of the rockets, which meant that there didn't seem to be a clear signalling code for rockets, akin to SOS or CQD. Like an international convention that 3 red rockets meant distress and come immediately.

Was there no such convention?

Itssoeasy

https://www.titanicinquiry.org/downloads.php

If anyone wants to read about the British and American inquiries to the disaster the link above has them. I used to have them in book form but a burst can of coke in a bag wrecked them.

Itssoeasy

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The point about the rockets that struck me was that there seemed to scope for interpretation of the rockets, which meant that there didn't seem to be a clear signalling code for rockets, akin to SOS or CQD. Like an international convention that 3 red rockets meant distress and come immediately.

Was there no such convention?

There were company rockets but titanic was firing white rockets not red ones.

JustAThought

Still waters wrote: »

Why didn't they rivet the lanels correctly?

And tell us more about the illegal trawer and its crew, I've never heard of them and I've a few books read on the titanic

It was to do with the political forces and loyalty in the dockyards and amongst the different ( trades/working) crews in the shipyard at the time. The workers could not afford to strike or lose their jobs (look what happened an organised strike with huge support and milomentum at the time with Jim Larkin ) but up north it was extremely volatile at the time - you’d need to google your IPP, Home Rule , Redmond and Carson history to get a sense of it. Suffice to say sime of the crews dis not complete the job properly in whole lengths of the Titanic where the rivets were not finished securely - a firm of industrial sabotage/ political protest that had an impact on the stability and ability of the T to withstand the forces of that night.

The boats that spotted the rockets and eventually came to the rescue of the Titanic both swore in the inquest/ investigation that there had been a third trawler much closer to the lifeboats in the area that night. She was fishing illegally. Many survivors swore and testified to seeing a white trawlers light in the vacinity - both captains of the carpathia and the california also said there had been another boat - a fishing boat or trawler at least an hours distance from them. It remains one of the hidden maritime mysteries who this boat and her crew was. Had they gone to the pightbiats rescue many of those who frize to death in the lifeboats would have been saved. She has never been identified.

JustAThought

I had a nerdy interest in this years ago but am in the wrong house to identify the books! Suffice to say that when i visited the Titanic museum a few years back with my sterling clenched in my hand I was devastated at the quality of the books in their giftshop - I was planning on doing a whole lot of new nerdy book purchasing - turned out I had better ones at home and a much greater selection!!!! One I loved had the complete inventory lists for the maiden voyage in it - a bit OCD but amazing reading!!

Huntergonzo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The bulkhead may have played a part but I think it's given too much weight.

I agree completely, I believe it was a factor in that it probably weakened the structure and possibly took some attention away from other day to day duties, but most of the other major factors are more relevant in my view.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well that reply to the Californian was in part because the machine had been broken the day before so they were making up the back log of telegrams they were sending. It's another what if because if they hadn't been swampt it's likely the ice warning may have gotten to the captain and maybe things would have turned out differently.

Yes I remember reading that they were swamped and under pressure so I understand Philip being abrupt. I think it was just a frustrated young man who made another error in a long string of errors which caused the accident.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think titanic had more lifeboats than was required at the time given its tonnage which is how it was calculated. There was provision for more but it wasn't required or wanted so there weren't enough.

The tragedy may have had a good outcome in that after there was a requirement for a 24 hour wireless at sea.

I think nobody is at fault for the above 2 issues really, it was very standard practice at the time not to carry enough lifeboats for everyone as the thinking was to make ships so safe that you don't need lifeboats, and yes I believe the Titanic actually carried more lifeboats than required by law.

Same goes for the lack of a 24hr wireless service, this was not required under law.

If the Titanic tragedy done any good at all, at least it corrected these 2 issues, pity it took such a horrible tragedy though!

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The Californian and its place in the this event are weird to me. Yes the crew as whole aren't to blame but Stanley lord till the day he died was trying to fix his reputation. Wasn't it always the case the the crew told him of the rockets but didn't push the issue ?

I think the role of the Californian and Stanley Lord is one of the most fascinating parts of this tragedy and I still don't fully know how I feel about it. Again I certainly wouldn't blame them for the tragedy, they were not in charge of the Titanic end of, but they turned a blind eye to a nearby ship that was listing and firing rockets, by any standards that is negligent.

I think undoubtedly 2nd Officer Stone was weak in the whole thing, I'd like to believe I'd have been more inquisitive in his position and pressed the issue, but that's very easy to say in hindsight. Same goes for Captain Lord, but if nothing else would curiosity not have stirred him out of bed?

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah poor murdooch was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it wasn't him on the bridge at the time of the accident it would have been someone else.

I agree completely, I've never really considered him responsible, he did his best in a horrible situation, whereas many others could have been frozen with fear/shock.