Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: RMS Titanic

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Lincolnshire ex Liverpool
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks (Given)
    330
    Thanks (Received)
    1026
    Likes (Given)
    1614
    Likes (Received)
    4415

    Default RMS Titanic

    I have just been looking at the crew list of the Titanic. The majority are catering and firemen / greasers and you would expect. Some only did the run job from Belfast to Southampton , they were the lucky ones who didn't sign on for the maiden voyage. Captain John Smith joined the ship in Southampton. There are photographs alongside some of the names and it is surprising how old they looked even though they were mostly in their 20's , 30's and 40's. Large handlebar moustaches and bowler hats. The youngest person on the list is a 14 year old bellboy. A few names in the deck department are listed as lookouts and window cleaners , I don't know if this is what they signed on as or part of their duties as AB.

    On TV's History channel a couple of nights ago there was a programme about an expedition to find the midship section and stern of the Titanic using remote controlled vehicles. They wanted to find why the ship broke apart before sinking. After the sinking White Star denied the ship had broken apart saying she had sunk as a complete ship. I have watched a previous programme which said there was a fire in the stoke holds before the ship left Belfast and the fire was still burning when she set off for her maiden voyage although this was not mentioned as a possible cause of plates being weakened.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    15,789
    Thanks (Given)
    7360
    Thanks (Received)
    7664
    Likes (Given)
    10582
    Likes (Received)
    33210

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    Taking a ship to sea in under unseaworthy conditions would have been a crime even in those days Louis . And would have left a lot of people with egg on their faces. Financially it may of been a disaster for Many prominent people among the shareholders who knows ? Going back in time will be of no avail, the jury of the day have delivered their verdict , which over the years story wise has been altered to suit all the characters involved , no doubt with a few more embellishments by other parties interested in taken advantage of another disaster. Good to see you can question which to you seems dubious. Cheers JS

  3. Thanks Doc Vernon thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Long Eaton
    Posts
    3,380
    Thanks (Given)
    522
    Thanks (Received)
    3438
    Likes (Given)
    7787
    Likes (Received)
    9001

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    There was a TV programme last year about the sinking of the Titanic.
    The theory was that she had a fire in is her bunkers, hence the reason that the delivery crew left her in Southampton.
    The guy showed photographs of her in Southampton, with darker patch on her hull where the bunker was on fire.
    His theory was that the fire damaged the bulkhead between the boiler room and the rest of the ship and as a result couldn't holdback the force of water.
    He ignored the fact that the original claim that rivets were defective,which was broadcast in another programme.
    I thought Bob Ballard had discovered all of the wreckage, which was scattered over a vast are of the seabed.
    Vic

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cooma NSW
    Posts
    4,451
    Thanks (Given)
    3569
    Thanks (Received)
    2499
    Likes (Given)
    12298
    Likes (Received)
    10059

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    Hi Louis
    I think the persistent talk of a fire in the stoke-hold makes one think that it was true, despite the talk of poor riveting; if that fire had been going on for any length of time it's obvious that the hull plating would have been weakened. With the huge amount of coal needed to drive those engines it would have been like a small coal mine down there, and we all know how long some coal mines burn underground, and the tremendous heat they generate.
    Des
    Last edited by Des Taff Jenkins; 12th February 2019 at 12:01 AM.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sunbury Victoria Australia
    Posts
    16,162
    Thanks (Given)
    4818
    Thanks (Received)
    5433
    Likes (Given)
    55094
    Likes (Received)
    21770

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    According to one 'expert' out here it was not uncommon for the fires for boilers to extend out beyond the fir box of the boilers.
    But went twice to see the exhibition of Titanic remnants brought up from the sea bed.
    There was a very large piece of her hull as part of the display and it was pointed out the fault in the rivets, being made of iron not steel.
    They failed in the cold waters resulting in the split in the bow section.

    But for ever and a day there will be theories of what caused the disaster, and in the end it will all come down to speculation.
    Happy daze John in Oz.

    Life is too short to blend in.

    John Strange R737787
    World Traveller

  7. Likes Louis the fly, osheadenis liked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,614
    Thanks (Given)
    1512
    Thanks (Received)
    2125
    Likes (Given)
    6408
    Likes (Received)
    7051

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    Don't forget lads Titanic was double hulled she was plated out with rivets and then had strakes of steel right around her hull from fore to aft, The fire theory myself I would dismiss. She was at the wrong place at the wrong time she took the route she should have never took Capt. Smith was under pressure from shipowner J._Bruce_Ismay for her to speed at a top rate of knots as he and White Star where desperate to take the Blue Riband And unfortunately ignored ice warnings as early as 9pm that night all a recipe for disaster.
    Last edited by Red Lead Ted; 12th February 2019 at 08:47 AM.
    {terry scouse}

  9. Thanks j.sabourn, Louis the fly thanked for this post
  10. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    15,789
    Thanks (Given)
    7360
    Thanks (Received)
    7664
    Likes (Given)
    10582
    Likes (Received)
    33210

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    #1... The only people who knew if she broke apart would have been witnesses to the sinking and that is the survivors. Their testimony must be among the minutes of the enquiry. People ashore will have no idea unless told otherwise , where did the owners get their info. to make such a statement that she sank in one piece. Maybe from later artists impressions and their own wishful thinking maybe ?. The only thing at any enquiry that you may attend as a witness is to answer questions put to you honestly. Most normal people do just that and don’t volunteer gratuous information as you see a lot of thrill seekers do wanting to see their faces in media reports. The Aussies have a good word for such, it is mongrels. You will also usually find among those same survivors the ones to make the most dramatic claims are the ones so disruptive at the time and have the least to complain about. JS
    As regards fires in the stokehold I think in 1912 the ER spaces fire fighting equipment would have probably been steam smothering. The original source of course coming from the boilers, what contingency’s they had for fighting boiler room fires. Then wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe someone who has studied the Titanic in detail re fire fighting capabilities would be able to clarify. JS
    Last edited by j.sabourn; 12th February 2019 at 09:29 AM.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Waterlooville Hampshire UK
    Posts
    7,241
    Thanks (Given)
    1648
    Thanks (Received)
    3553
    Likes (Given)
    3652
    Likes (Received)
    12810

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    If the actual bunkers were on fire and the coal was a slow smoulder it's highly unlikely that this would have caused a major metallurgical problem . To try and put it out with Steam smothering would have been an absolute nightmare all you would have done is basically damped it down and I presume in that that have been done anyway.

    When it comes to the metallurgical arguments about the rivets you have to consider that the Steel plating for the hull was produced from the old open hearth furnaces in Scotland and because of the way it was produced it had relatively high amounts of oxygen sulphur and phosphorus included in it this is fine but once you get below 32 degrees fahrenheit and I believe they were in the zone below that you start to get a low temperature embrittlement . What the embrittlement would have done is once the plate was impacted and a small fracture generated around the rivet hole which is obviously a weaker point than the fracture would extend totally due to the embrittlement of the plate . The rivets of which they were about 6 million have a quarter of the strength of a similar size nut and bolt because of the material they are made from and the collision Force would have sheared the rivets . The argument over the rivets came down to the fact that most of the rivets were put in with a riveting gun because of the size of the riveting gun used some had to be put in by hand and they use the same rivet for both jobs where they should have used rivets of a different structure because of the mortality involved . I would suggest that that technology was not fully understood at that time and that wrought iron rivets would have been my an informed choice to rivet the plates together

    When I lived in Southampton many years ago are used to regular look at the memorial there to the engineers of the Titanic at the engine room crew Who all went down with it . And I would like to think that in this day and age we would have better damage control and a much better designed to start from .

    It has been said many times if the officer of the Watch had aimed it square on at the iceberg it is less likely that the damage caused would have ended up with the Titanic sinking . That's the one major problem with hindsight there is never any around when you actually need it
    Rob Page R855150 - British & Commonwealth Shipping ( 1965 - 1973 ) Gulf Oil -( 1973 - 1975 ) Sealink ( 1975 - 1986 )

  12. Thanks j.sabourn thanked for this post
  13. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Lincolnshire ex Liverpool
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks (Given)
    330
    Thanks (Received)
    1026
    Likes (Given)
    1614
    Likes (Received)
    4415

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    I must agree with Terry. Ever since the disaster different theories have been put forward as to why this great ship sunk. Perhaps it is because it was so unexpected and the loss of life was so huge , everyone thought the Titanic really was unsinkable. Human error and the immense pressure on Captain and crew is the logical conclusion although many will still not accept this.

  14. Thanks Red Lead Ted thanked for this post
    Likes happy daze john in oz liked this post
  15. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Long Eaton
    Posts
    3,380
    Thanks (Given)
    522
    Thanks (Received)
    3438
    Likes (Given)
    7787
    Likes (Received)
    9001

    Default Re: RMS Titanic

    The other problem is that we compare today's technology of yesteryear. The rivets were probably the best at that time.
    Vic

  16. Likes Red Lead Ted liked this post
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •