Titanic yet again.

rickles23
1st January 2017, 14:38
Hi,
Let's start 2017 off with another theory on the Titanic sinking.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/titanic-doomed-by-fire-raging-below-decks-says-new-theory-808472.html

A new theory that a fire in a coal bunker on the liner RMS Titanic contributed to its sinking has been put forward.

Must have been a slow week newswise..(Scribe)

Regards

Barrie Youde
1st January 2017, 15:11
It seems clear that plenty of people knew about the fire.

My own experience of sailing in coal-burning ships is almost nil; and by the application of modern standards, it seems inconceivable that Titanic would ever have left the quayside at Southampton with even the hint of the existence of such a fire.

Can anybody explain what were the practices of the day? Would any shipmaster really have put to sea with knowledge that there was an unintended fire in the bunkers? It seems quite incredible.

Mad Landsman
1st January 2017, 15:20
The person with this 'Startling new theory' based on 'Fresh evidence' has obviously got a book to sell and television programme to promote.

From what I have read he seems to be using the Erich Von Daniken system of 'proof' - Declare something is remotely possible and on the next page say that it actually happened.


Just a brief scan of the internet with show that the theory has been around for at least 30 years, probably longer in written works, so if he has "spent 20 years researching the subject" then he seems to have just spotted an opportunity to jump on someone else's ideas, and make some money.
And while there are punters who will take anything on board, who can blame him.

Barrie Youde
1st January 2017, 15:33
ML

Your post makes complete sense; and either there was an unwanted fire when the ship was still relatively safe in harbour - or there was not.

I wonder what the truth on that point might be?

Mad Landsman
1st January 2017, 15:38
There is a book devoted completely to the work in the Boiler/Engine rooms:
'Down Amongst the Black Gang: The World And Workplace Of Rms Titanic's Stokers' by Richard P. De Kerbrech. - I read a borrowed copy.

Is does, I seem to recall, mention the bunker fire - It was a smouldering fire, not the intense inferno claimed by the 'new research' - Trimmers were still working inside the affected bunker while the coal was smouldering in order to empty it and put hoses inside.
The fire, as I understood, was extinguished well before the ship hit the iceberg.
The writer of this new 'revelation' refers to bunker numbers - They were not numbered, according to the book, but the boiler rooms were. The affected bunker was aft of Boiler room 6.

And: I have not really studied the subject so I may be wrong is assuming that the book was accurate.

D1566
1st January 2017, 16:00
Hi,
Let's start 2017 off with another theory on the Titanic sinking.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/titanic-doomed-by-fire-raging-below-decks-says-new-theory-808472.html

A new theory that a fire in a coal bunker on the liner RMS Titanic contributed to its sinking has been put forward.

Must have been a slow week newswise..(Scribe)

Regards
The article seems to be from 2008?

Mad Landsman
1st January 2017, 16:19
Try these more recent links:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/titanic-sunk-after-fire-weakened-9540959

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078008/amp/Was-FIRE-real-reason-unsinkable-Titanic-went-Documentary-claims-boiler-room-blaze-raging-liner-set-sail-Southampton.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/huge-fire-ripped-titanic-struck-iceberg-fresh-evidence-suggests/

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/titanic-the-new-evidence

Biggles Wader
1st January 2017, 20:55
Just watching the documentary.Real post truth era rubbish.One "expert" even said they ran at full speed to reduce fuel consumption because they were low on bunkers.And the bulkhead failed because of heat damage rather than the impact shock of clobbering an iceberg at 22 knots.

Farmer John
1st January 2017, 23:27
Surely everybody knows it wasn't really the Titanic but the sister ship, deliberately sunk to cover up the damage from the collision? And the rivets were wrong, and all the waiters sliding down the coal heaps on tea-trays knocked the hole in the side.

It's still sunk.

D1566
1st January 2017, 23:41
One "expert" even said they ran at full speed to reduce fuel consumption because they were low on bunkers.
Ever tried telling the Police you were speeding to get to the filling station before you ran out of petrol? :) Me neither!

Gareth Jones
2nd January 2017, 00:26
Under certain conditions coal can self ignite due to oxidisation - it never reaches the kind of temperatures needed to melt iron or steel.
An old 2nd mate who had sailed on coal fired ships once told me it was commonplace for coal bunkers to smoulder - he said no-one worried except the stokers who had to handle it.

spongebob
2nd January 2017, 02:04
Industrial plant's coal bunkers are always liable to sponteiously combust and most modern installations are fitted with detectors and quenching systems that take care of emergencies.
In the days of coal fired steamships and good steaming coal with higher volatiles etc the risks would have been high and none of these niceties would have existed if an early steamship's coal bunker making the job of exstiguishing a lot harder and hazardous. Many an older Navy stoker or Merchant fireman has told me stories about this problem
The NZ Shipping CO's passenger/ cargo steamship Papanui , built 1898 and about 6500 gt , was abandoned. and beached on Saint Helena Island on 12/9/1911 after her no five bunker caught fire and was out of control after five days of efforts to quench it.
I have a diary of a passenger to NZ on this ship in 1907 and he refers to this later event which is also quoted on Google

Bob

Winmar
2nd January 2017, 08:45
Did anyone else notice that the programme was littered with "experts"? None of these experts were actually marine experts. The grassy knoll springs to mind.

stehogg
2nd January 2017, 09:15
Watched the programme with a very open mind as with all theorist accounts,maybe it should not be dismissed out of hand,I can still recall all the contraversy over the sinking of the Derbyshire and subsequent incidents involving similar vessels.(Applause)

Dartskipper
2nd January 2017, 10:42
The author was on radio 5Live last night. Apparently, an expert at a University in London has applied for funding to recreate the bunker in question, to the same specifications and scantlings and fill it with coal and set fire to it again to see what "really happened". The steel wasn't as thick as it should have been etc. etc.:rolleyes:
The author was also claiming first dibs on solving the "mystery" over a "mark" on the starboard side of the hull that nobody had ever seen before in the region of the bunker on fire.
I turned the radio off.

Barrie Youde
2nd January 2017, 10:44
Spontaneous combustion I can understand well enough: but in making any sense of the reports of it aboard Titanic, the matter of chronology is highly significant - i.e. who knew what and when; and did she really leave Southampton with such a fire?

Or when was the combustion first observed? When was it first reported to the bridge?

It still seems incredible that she would ever have left Southampton in such a condition

ianian
2nd January 2017, 11:05
Load of old rubbish.

A.D.FROST
2nd January 2017, 12:32
coal bunker ragging inferno,so hot it buckled the bulk head plates,yet the hull paint was still wet from the yard(Scribe)(the iceberg took more paint of the ships side). The best bit was how they brought the photographs to life.

Tmac1720
2nd January 2017, 12:39
I was approached to take part in this programme but when I seen the script I quickly declined the offer and am really glad I did because it turned out to be even more boll*cks than the script even suggested. For example we are short of coal so we speed up by burning more to get to harbour quicker !!!!! As for the "mark" on the side, it appeared to have vanished by the time it left Belfast Lough. As I pointed out at the time if the "mark" was a heat signature why didn't the shell paint blister or peel off and as for the coal trimmer covering over the damage by rubbing it in dirty oil with his bare hands no less....... obviously superman was part of the crew or the trimmer had asbestos fingers. In any event the "fire mark" was high up on the shell and yet the theory was the base of the bunker collapsed due to heat distortion. As I said I'm glad, really glad I walked away from that rubbish.

Barrie Youde
2nd January 2017, 13:34
One version of events seems to claim that the fire was extinguished after leaving Belfast and before sailing from Southampton and another version of events is that the fire was still alive in mid-Atlantic at the time of the collision.

Both of those events seem possible, particularly if supported by other evidence; but all of the other evidence which has been put forward succeeds only in making either one of these two events seem highly unlikely!

William Clark8
2nd January 2017, 14:05
Can't wait till the next 'What really caused the Titanic to Sink

TommyRob
2nd January 2017, 14:47
Retro analysis may not always be good but in some instances it is. HMS Glorious is a case in point where the establishment clearly sought to protect some of its own by misinformation and discrediting brave men. We will be able to read the official enquiry one day - if we live until 2041. Diligent work by journalists and historians seems to have teased out the real story long before this day of infamy arrives. Anybody care to place a bet on how many papers will eventually see the light of day?

Farmer John
2nd January 2017, 14:52
One comment in the prog was "The mark follows the lines of the plating" or some such thing. I REALLY couldn't see that in any way. My eyes perhaps.

I think the buckling was due to King Alfred not watching the cakes closely enough.

Duncan112
2nd January 2017, 15:32
I don't believe that smouldering coal was at all uncommon during the coal fired era - now at the time the Titanic sailed there was a coal strike (Coal had to be transferred to Titanic from other ships to enable the voyage to take place) so White Star would have been unwilling to discharge this coal, bearing in mind the difficulty of replacement. Now, the affected bunker was on the starboard side of the ship - burning this early would have led to the Port List - also beloved of conspiracy theorists. Damage to the plating - don't think so - looks like a water mark on the photograph!!

John Jarman
2nd January 2017, 15:50
I watched the tv documentary as well and thought it was very poorly scripted and hyped by the originator, so as to be open to ridicule.
The burning of the coal because they were short, I think, was badly explained. I understood it was to quickly burn off the coal in the fire affected bunker to empty it as soon as pos., and this is why Titanic was run at full speed. Maybe I took it this way because of reading about Titanic's bunker fire many years ago and along with power plant bunkers, you need to empty them completely, while continuously watering, asap.
I think that there is no doubt that Titanic sailed with a bunker fire, the seriousness of which was not fully realised, until just before or just after sailing from Southampton - bunker fires were not uncommon in steam ships back then and I don't think the ship's schedule would have been changed because of it being her maiden voyage and all the pressures. She was, after all, 'unsinkable'!
The evidence from firemen that survived the sinking, did mention (at the enquiry) that once the bunker was empty, the bulkhead showed signs of being burnt and buckled.
Did it affect her sinking????????

JJ.

david freeman
3rd January 2017, 08:05
cOal in coal bunkers, smoldering: this tale is almost incredulous: What of the coal trade around the world by bulk ships with holds full of coal, of all sorts of grades from quality anthracite-coking and steaming coal, brown coal?? I sure some one out there if is caused the loss of a ship (Because of catching fire?) and not shifting-Tipping in a high seas causing an undue list, will have a brown underpants tale too tell??? Or even gassing-gasses given off causing lack of o2 in the hold and being a danger to both crew and shore steveadors in ports of discharge.
I for get that Naval Architects book written by that lecturer in South Shields on the Construction of merchant Ships (Two Volumes) . A must in Part B NavaL Architecture? (In the 60's) I can still see this lecturer prancing up and down the boards trying to instill Naval Architecture into what some would call engineers??

rickles23
3rd January 2017, 08:39
Hi,

Well I did state that it must have been a slow week newswise..(Scribe)

david freeman
3rd January 2017, 08:46
cOal in coal bunkers, smoldering: this tale is almost incredulous: What of the coal trade around the world by bulk ships with holds full of coal, of all sorts of grades from quality anthracite-coking and steaming coal, brown coal?? I sure some one out there if is caused the loss of a ship (Because of catching fire?) and not shifting-Tipping in a high seas causing an undue list, will have a brown underpants tale too tell??? Or even gassing-gasses given off causing lack of o2 in the hold and being a danger to both crew and shore steveadors in ports of discharge.
I for get that Naval Architects book written by that lecturer in South Shields on the Construction of merchant Ships (Two Volumes) . A must in Part B NavaL Architecture? (In the 60's) I can still see this lecturer prancing up and down the boards trying to instill Naval Architecture into what some would call engineers??

Was It Alan? Stokoe?
The 'angle of repoise' or what ever that was is? Grain cargoes have to have the peak of loadings 'distributed and sacked/bagged cargo loaded around the crown of the cargo to prevent shifting og cargo in a heavy sea? Or is this a heavy story for the new year.
I know some cargo's are more liable to shift and have a delicate 'angle of repoise'? (What ever the term in Mr Stokoe's book?)

Barrie Youde
3rd January 2017, 09:19
#26 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=26)

Quite so!

It certainly is incredible that Titanic would ever have left either Belfast, Southampton, Cherbourg or Queenstown with fire in her bunker-coal.

(Save only that it seems incredible today that a cross-channel ferry might ever have left Zeebrugge with her bow doors open.)

It would be interesting to know the truth about when any fire was first reported and what action was taken.

CliveH
3rd January 2017, 09:58
I watched the tv documentary as well and thought it was very poorly scripted and hyped by the originator, so as to be open to ridicule.
The burning of the coal because they were short, I think, was badly explained. I understood it was to quickly burn off the coal in the fire affected bunker to empty it as soon as pos., and this is why Titanic was run at full speed. Maybe I took it this way because of reading about Titanic's bunker fire many years ago and along with power plant bunkers, you need to empty them completely, while continuously watering, asap.
I think that there is no doubt that Titanic sailed with a bunker fire, the seriousness of which was not fully realised, until just before or just after sailing from Southampton - bunker fires were not uncommon in steam ships back then and I don't think the ship's schedule would have been changed because of it being her maiden voyage and all the pressures. She was, after all, 'unsinkable'!
The evidence from firemen that survived the sinking, did mention (at the enquiry) that once the bunker was empty, the bulkhead showed signs of being burnt and buckled.
Did it affect her sinking????????

JJ.


White Star Line never claimed that Titanic was unsinkable. That was written by a journalist at the time, marvelling at this wonderful ship, he stated that it was "practically unsinkable....."

Clive

Duncan112
3rd January 2017, 10:10
Bukl coal is well known to be problematic, a couple of links here https://www.ukpandi.com/fileadmin/uploads/uk-pi/LP%20Documents/Carefully_to_Carry/Coal%20Cargoes.pdf and http://www.iea-coal.org/documents/82476/7685/Propensity-of-coal-to-self-heat-(CCC/172

Now it was the practice to dampen coal to "Keep down dust" - in reality increasing the deadweight of the cargo and, as I remarked earlier due to the coal strike there is a fair to middling possibility that some of the coal loaded was not of the finest quality which is again more problematic.

As to the wisdom of leaving port with a bunker fire - in today's environment it might be considered foolish - much as not reducing speed in ice would be so regarded but it was probably normal procedure then.

John Jarman
3rd January 2017, 11:05
This link is useful:-

http://titanic-model.com/db/db-03/CoalBunkerFire.htm

JJ.

tsell
3rd January 2017, 11:18
1951, en route to Jamaica with a full cargo of coal, we hove to mid-ocean, for the burial of Larsen a popular AB who had died as a result of a burst stomach ulcer.
The full complement was ordered on deck for the service. Subsequent to the burial a barrel of rum was broken and all hands participated in a kind of wake for poor Larsen.
The captain and mate were known to be drinkers and it almost turned into a party as a second keg was broken and a good hour passed before duty was resumed.
Some of us deck crew remained with the mate, eagerly accepting a few drops of the remaining dregs, when a fireman rushed up to inform the mate of a fire below and asked for hands.
Six of us went down to the stokehold and saw the head of the first bunker glowing some way back.
Wheelbarrows and shovels were given to us and we loaded the burning coal and wheeled it to the farthest fireman who shovelled it into his boiler. This went on for some time as the burning coal was trimmed and loaded into the barrows until only black coal was at the face.
When I asked why the hoses weren't turned on, I was told we would have been asphyxiated by the fumes and when I asked how the fire started, I was told that it happens all the time by sparks hitting the coal dust, but, "we're not normally on deck, getting pissed!"
I think I lost a couple of stone, but when back on deck, the six of us who had been below were awarded two bottles of Negrita Rum!
On the 12 to 4 watch, it was the only time I ever committed the cardinal sin of falling asleep at the wheel! (There - I've admitted it!!) I'll never forget being wakened by my relief, to be informed that I was about to run us into Stromboli - half a planet away! I was already seventeen, so no excuse!

Taff

Varley
3rd January 2017, 11:50
Taff, that is broadly what Pa told me was the solution. Bunker fires cause by spontaneous combustion were commonplace (same risk as with moisture in coal as cargo rather than sparks I think) he had been told when visiting a coal burning merchantman (when at stationed at Gibraltar? during WWII). They were controlled by digging out the hottest part of the bunkers first (this may have been the same Chief that showed him the brass templates that he used to make up his steam recip. indicator card returns 'to the office'). Didn't a bunker fire figure in the excellent fiction Wreck of the Mary Deare?

Barrie Youde
3rd January 2017, 11:52
#32 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=32)

Many thanks, John.

Fascinating!

Particularly fascinating is that Lightoller (senior surving navigator) stated that he had no knowledge of the fire. That is astonishing.

Les Gibson
3rd January 2017, 12:54
Of course he would say that wouldn't he?

John Jarman
3rd January 2017, 13:14
#32 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=32)

Many thanks, John.

Fascinating!

Particularly fascinating is that Lightoller (senior surving navigator) stated that he had no knowledge of the fire. That is astonishing.

Thanks Barrie.

In the documentary it was stated that Ismay and the Chief of White Star (forget name) were concerned about the passengers hearing of the fire and the crew, especially the firemen, were sworn to secrecy.
That 'boss' returned his ticket and did not embark!!

JJ.

Barrie Youde
3rd January 2017, 13:47
Was Ismay ever questioned at either Inquiry as to the fire?

If so, what did he say then?

If Ismay was not questioned about the fire at either inquiry, where did the recent TV programme obtain its present evidence that Ismay was concerned as to any fire?

If Ismay knew about the fire, it is not credible that Lightoller did not also know.

Duncan112
3rd January 2017, 15:09
#32 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=32)

Many thanks, John.

Fascinating!

Particularly fascinating is that Lightoller (senior surving navigator) stated that he had no knowledge of the fire. That is astonishing.

Lightoller was very careful in what he said -

14639. From Belfast you came to Southampton. On the journey did you hear anything about a fire in the bulkhead between Section 5 and 6?
- I did not.

14640. Have you at any time heard anything about a fire?
- In a coal bunker?

14641. Yes.
- No.

14642. In the ordinary course of things would a matter of that sort be reported to you as an Officer?
- No, not if it was slight, or I may say unless it became serious.

14643. Would it be reported to the Captain?
- Very probably.

14644. Whose particular duty would it be to see that any fire occurring there was put out?
- The Engineer's.

The implication being that he had not heard anything officially about the fire but it would only be reported if it became serious - it is unfortunate that he was not questioned as to what serious was.

I also note that he questioned the location of the fire - where there other fires??

Keeps us all amused but, as Lightoller said in reply to Senator Burton's query

Burton - I will get you to state, not only from your actual knowledge of the immediate effect, but also from your experiences as a navigator and seaman, what the effect of that collision was on the ship, beginning with the first effect, the immediate effect; how it listed the ship, if it did; what effect it had then, and what, in your opinion, was the effect on the ship that resulted from that collision.
Lightoller - The result was she sank.

Stephen J. Card
3rd January 2017, 15:32
The Titanic inquiry in NY, and later in UK was questioned by Harold Sanderson, Director of White Star Line. All of this information this information can be found quite easly on the WWW.


NOTES: Spontaneous combustion of coal had caused a stubborn fire in the starboard bunker in the aft corner of Boiler Room No. 6. Fireman J. Dilley testified before the American inquiry held by Senator Smith of Michigan[3] that he had been among 12 men assigned to fight this coal bunker fire. The coal on top of the bunker was wet, but the bottom of the pile was dry. The coal pile began to smolder. The fire was detected from its sulfurous odor during the ship's departure from Southampton on her maiden voyage. It is uncertain how long this fire had burned, but from testimony of surviving stokers at the inquiries, it appears that it burned for at least 72 hours. The 12-man crew made every effort to put it out. Those fighting the fire were alarmed at their inability to extinguish it. The engineering officers instructed these men not to converse with the passengers so as not to alarm them.
Mr. Dilley indicated in his testimony before the Mersey Inquiry, concerning this fire, that while it was still burning, there was talk among the stokers that once the passengers were put ashore, New York City fireboats might have to be called to help extinguish it. As a precautionary measure to prevent a coal pile fire in the forward starboard bunker of Boiler Room No. 5 through heat transfer, the coal there was also fed into the furnaces. It is believed that the fire was extinguished during the evening watch (4-8 P.M.) on Saturday, April 13, by a combination of wetting down the coal pile with a fire hose and ultimately removing the burning coal into the furnaces.
During the period the fire burned, steel in the lower corner of the transverse watertight bulkhead between Boiler Room Nos. 5 and 6 ultimately became cherry red[4]. ...


End.


This 'so called' photo in the press showing a black mark on the ship's side is interesting. This photo is taken at Belfast (I think) and appears to be taken BEFORE the ship was drydocked and painted. Hmmm? Already bunkers on board? Unlikely. The other flaw in the 'scorch' marks, well, it is known the bunker fire was in the after end of No. 6 boiler at the bulkhead between No. 5 & No. 6. There is bunker at the forward bulkhead. Adjacent compartment was a cargo hold and above the Mail Room and above that, 3rd Class accommodation. The marks on the photo are too far forward and too high up to have come from a 'bunker fire'.

Harold Sanderson gave his answers at the inquest. The bunker went on 'afire' on the delivery voyage from Belfast to Southampton. The stokers went at flat out to 'dig out the fire'. All they had to do that was dig out the coal and put it into the boilers! One of the firemen says that the fire was out before the sinking, other says not. I'd rather the testimony of the Leading Fireman.

I think the cause of the sinking was the ice damage and nothing to do with the fire at all!

JJ..

"That 'boss' returned his ticket and did not embark!!"

I think would be Harold Sanderson. Ismay that did the voyage and lived to make the it to NY... in the Carpathia!

Sanderson knew about the fire before Southampton. Ismay may or may not have been told. Lightoller joined the ship as Chief Officer and then stepped down to become Second Officer from Southampton. As the Navigator it is possible he was not aware about the fire.


That 'boss' returned his ticket and did not embark!!

Farmer John
3rd January 2017, 16:07
If you have land above coal measures and the underlying coal starts to combust (not necessarily raging flames and a towering inferno), it can cause problems for years. One farm that my one time boss worked was said to be difficult to grow any corn crop on, as it would catch fire, and this was a problem for years.

Barrie Youde
3rd January 2017, 17:11
The only really surprising thing to come out of this piece of research seems to be that, even at the two enquiries in 1912, no (or very few) eyebrows were raised at the idea of the ship leaving port with fire in her bunkers.

It also seems that the ice-damage was so extensive (by way of the side-swipe which occurred) and breached so many different compartments that buoyancy was inevitably lost (and immediately so) regardless of any damage or weakness which might have been caused by the fire - which seems to have been safely extinguished some hours before the collision in any event.

Perhaps Lightoller was telling the truth when he said that he knew nothing about the bunker-fire. As Stephen points out, that is at least possible, however unlikely it might seem by the standards of today. Plainly Ismay knew, because he told the enquiry so. The idea that anybody should have kept knowledge of the fire from Captain Smith is so far-fetched as to be not credible, even now.
That such information might not have trickled down from EJ Smith as far as his Second Officer is nonetheless difficult to understand today.

Engine Serang
3rd January 2017, 17:40
Terribly over-hyped and ultimately disappointing programme.
Channel 4 failed to distinguish between an obsessed author and a marine expert.
Coal is rarely used for propulsion nowadays but huge amounts are afloat all the time as a valuable bulk cargo. Coal cargo can give off methane and can also self heat which can lead to spontaneous combustion, but this rarely leads to a raging inferno and is containable with good management.
I would imagine that in 1912 the White Star Line had plenty of experience in handling coal bunker fires.
To give a bit of balance Channel 4 should have discussed coal fires with a superintendent from a bulk coal ship owner, management from a major coal import terminal, P&I and perhaps Class. I've never sailed with a coal cargo but there must be a lot of SN posters who have.

borderreiver
3rd January 2017, 18:19
Steel hull can become brittle when heated This was one of the questions in the Kurstan accident . a hot brittle steel hitting ice could have caused a creak.

Stephen J. Card
3rd January 2017, 19:20
A bunker has six sides!

1.There was a double bottom below the bunker.

2. The deck above the bunker.

3. The face of the bunker facing the boiler fronts. Scuttles on the bunker to bring the coal out for use.

4. The centreline bulkhead. This was not complete top to bottom because the two bunkers were not common port and starboard.

5. The after side of the bunker. This would have been a watertight bulkhead and would against the bunker of No. 5 boiler Room (fwd).

6 The outboard side of the bunker would be the shell plating.


The 'gash' caused by the berg ran from the bow to approximately 300 ft. The damage went past the bulkhead between boiler rooms 6 & 5. They know because the 'gash' ended in No. boiler room 5.

They said that the plating must have glowed at 'cherry red'. Where. They could not see Sides 1, 2 3 or 4. No. 6 could also not be seen as it was 'outside' against to the Atlantic. In the inquest they also take coal from the No 5 (forward) bunker because it was against to the bunker on fire. They had to because they would have expected a larger fire involved No. 5 bunker as well.

Just thinking. If the hotspot on the bulkhead they knew that. If it was against the sea then the Atlantic would be doing a good job to keep the steel cool. Yes?

The Leading Fireman said at the inquest that the fire was almost over.

I doubt the ice had anything to do with. Now about the breaking ship during the final dive, well might have been like in the movies, but that shows the breakup way aft, between the boiler room 1 and Engine room.

They knew about the fire as the ship came down to Southampton. The trails handover was as soon as she left Belfast. If there was any doubt about the ability to deal this fire they would have immediately taken the ship to the yard and said, "Ho Mate, the ship is on fire when you gave it to me, fix it!"

Stephen J. Card
3rd January 2017, 19:34
Steel hull can become brittle when heated This was one of the questions in the Kurstan accident . a hot brittle steel hitting ice could have caused a creak.


More on the Kurdistan:


"The inquiry into the failure of the Kurdistan did not establish precisely the sequence of failure of the ship's longitudinal structure, which showed both brittle and ductile fracture. Given that the ship's shell plates were found to have 27J Charpy transition temperatures of between 5 and 20C, the steel in contact with the sea water was close to or below its transition and that in contact with the heated cargo was above. The displacement of oil by water entering the cargo tanks lowered the steel temperature to below its ductile/brittle transition.
Calculations of the thermal stresses in the ship resulting from the carriage of a warm cargo in a cold sea indicated that a high tensile stress level would have been present in the shell and bilge keel. It is thought that the stresses due to the impact of a wave on the bow, superimposed on the high thermal stress and the stresses due to the moderate wave bending moments, triggered the fracture of the Kurdistan's bilge keel. The toughness of the shell plate was insufficient to arrest the propagating crack and complete failure ensued. The initiation of the fracture was due to the classic combination of poor weld metal toughness and high stresses in the presence of a defect."


I see, but there is a difference. TITANIC was riveted, KURDISTAN was welded. Shouldn't that make a differences?

Stephen

Dave Woods
3rd January 2017, 19:44
For those in the UK on Freeview Channel 37 and 38 starting at 2100 tonight there is "Titanic - Anatomy of Disaster"

Dartskipper
3rd January 2017, 20:07
Subsequent to the sinking of Titanic, Lightoller had a Bermudan rigged schooner built to his own design by Cooper at Conyer. Named Sundowner, she was 58ft x 12ft 2ins, and was powered by an auxiliary Gray motor.

In 1940, she was sailed by Lightoller from Chiswick to Southend and then Ramsgate, with a crew consisting of his son and a Sea Scout, for Dunkirk. On the way she rescued the 5 crew of another vessel Westerly that had caught fire and was abandoned. When Sundowner arrived at the beaches, there was nobody to rescue, so she entered Dunkirk harbour where she loaded 122 troops and brought them safely home to Ramsgate. (Information from "The Ships that Saved an Army" by Russell Plummer.)

Sundowner still exists, and is a member of the Association of Dunkirk Little Ships. I believe she remains at Ramsgate in the ownership of the East Kent Maritime Trust who maintain an excellent museum based in the old Clock House that was once the offices of the General Steam Navigation Company (Eagle Steamers.)

david freeman
3rd January 2017, 21:03
More on the Kurdistan:


"The inquiry into the failure of the Kurdistan did not establish precisely the sequence of failure of the ship's longitudinal structure, which showed both brittle and ductile fracture. Given that the ship's shell plates were found to have 27J Charpy transition temperatures of between 5 and 20C, the steel in contact with the sea water was close to or below its transition and that in contact with the heated cargo was above. The displacement of oil by water entering the cargo tanks lowered the steel temperature to below its ductile/brittle transition.
Calculations of the thermal stresses in the ship resulting from the carriage of a warm cargo in a cold sea indicated that a high tensile stress level would have been present in the shell and bilge keel. It is thought that the stresses due to the impact of a wave on the bow, superimposed on the high thermal stress and the stresses due to the moderate wave bending moments, triggered the fracture of the Kurdistan's bilge keel. The toughness of the shell plate was insufficient to arrest the propagating crack and complete failure ensued. The initiation of the fracture was due to the classic combination of poor weld metal toughness and high stresses in the presence of a defect."


I see, but there is a difference. TITANIC was riveted, KURDISTAN was welded. Shouldn't that make a differences?

Stephen

With the T2's and liberty US built all welded ships, I seem to recall while at college in the 60/70's BOT Exams Were there not tails of welded hulls failing at sea in low sea temperatures (ICE fields), and was not a Steel test added to the Requirements of ships steel plate to include a 'NOTCH TEST' ( resistance to brittle fracture?)

Stephen J. Card
3rd January 2017, 21:33
I had the same information. Something to be like, "Don't worry about riveted ships. Riveted ships have thousands of crack arrestors!" I'm just thinking if riveted plates, and under stress because of heat/cold, would fail in a similar way?

Stephen

Les Gibson
3rd January 2017, 23:21
Carried coal from Newcastle NSW to Chittagong on the Dartbank. I remember walking along the shaft tunnel and feeling the extreme heat from the cargo. So I can imagine that under certain conditions it could ignite. I am pretty sure that the OM organised the mates to check in the tween decks at regular intervals to ensure that all was well.

Stephen J. Card
4th January 2017, 02:10
Carried coal from Newcastle NSW to Chittagong on the Dartbank. I remember walking along the shaft tunnel and feeling the extreme heat from the cargo. So I can imagine that under certain conditions it could ignite. I am pretty sure that the OM organised the mates to check in the tween decks at regular intervals to ensure that all was well.



Lower thermometer down the sounding tubes to the double bottoms.

Over several depths, note the temperatures and graph it. Take readings every hour at least. It will show up what is happening.

Barrie Youde
4th January 2017, 02:30
#47 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=47)

The programme shown last night served as a reminder that the collision happened late in the 8-12 watch on the Sunday evening. The evidence relating to the bunker-fire shows that the fire was out at approximately 1800 hrs on the Saturday evening, or comfortably more than 24 hours before the collision. Whatever else it might do, this evidence makes complete horsefall of any idea that Titanic was using excessive speed on Sunday evening in order to reach New York before she might explode. It also means that any excessive speed used on the Sunday evening was necessarily the result of some other motive unconnected with any fire.

kewl dude
4th January 2017, 06:00
USA CBS National News today January 3 had a guy on there that said the fire began while Titanic was still on the ways. Back in those days were ships fueled while still on the ways?

Greg Hayden

Binnacle
4th January 2017, 10:48
Titanic books are always good stocking fillers at Xmas, especially the ones with all the answers, now it's moved to TV. I didn't watch. There's always a considerable amount of hoo-ha generated by those "experts", one year it was the key of the binocular box was missing, hence not sighting the berg in time, this time the hoo-ha seems to about a fire in the bunkers and the second mate telling a falsehood. I sailed on five coal burners, however I am unable to say whether we ever had a fire in the bunker or not, engineers can handle these incidents without consulting deckies.

Here's an experienced seaman's opinion of it all, free of waffle

"CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ADMIRABLE INQUIRY INTO THE LOSS OF THE TITANIC (1912). by Joseph Conrad ...
I think that even in the United States there is some regret that this zeal of theirs was not tempered by a large dose of wisdom."

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/contit02.htm

"And that's the truth. The unsentimental truth stripped of the romantic garment the Press has wrapped around this most unnecessary disaster."

Stephen J. Card
4th January 2017, 11:30
USA CBS National News today January 3 had a guy on there that said the fire began while Titanic was still on the ways. Back in those days were ships fueled while still on the ways?

Greg Hayden



I'll bet there were hundred of fires during the building of the ship. Must have been as the coke fired oven for heating the rivets. Probably some forgot to douse the fire last night. :-(

JohnBP
4th January 2017, 12:02
I have been following the news on the claim that the Titanic's side plates may have been compromised by a bunker fire. Bunker fires were common in these days and i am surprised that someone in Ireland would claim to know more than the subsequent investigations, court proceedings and their findings. 22 engineers and many engine room staff died keeping the boilers full of coal to provide steam for the generators so that power was provided to essential parts of the vessel.. I have been to the Titanic road tour (Toronto Canada) and read a lot about the engineering staff... so you old coal guys out there is this claim credible?

Barrie Youde
4th January 2017, 12:40
Hi, John,

There is another thread in this forum called "Titanic yet again".

The fire-evidence has been discussed here very recently and might be of interest.

Best wishes.

JohnBP
4th January 2017, 13:55
Thanks Barrie, did not know.... John

Barrie Youde
4th January 2017, 18:02
The claim now seems to be that Titanic should have been of sufficiently stout construction to survive a glancing blow with a large iceberg at 22 knots; and that it was only the fire (extinguished more than 24 hours previously) which weakened that integrity. It is clear that it was not the fire which caused her to be making 22knots at the time of the collision.

As to whether a properly built ship undamaged by fire could reasonably be expected to survive a glancing blow with a solid object at 22knots, no doubt Captain Schettino (at a mere 15.5 knots in a much more modern ship) would confirm the lack of realism in any such proposition.

As to how large was the iceberg, there is substantial evidence that ice fell onto the decks of Titanic at the time of impact; and there can be little doubt that its solidity could be equated quite reasonably with solid rock. The height of the iceberg was plainly above the deck-level of this vessel, the largest moving object in the world at the time.

In a glancing blow with anything solid, the risk of ripping the side out of any ship is a real one.

Should there be no room to turn,
Ease her, stop her, go astern,
As every honest sailor knows,
To save her from the worst of blows.

I am neither a shipbuilder nor a metallugist but it strikes me as being plain daft to suggest (as the present claim quite clearly suggests) that any ship should be expected to survive a side-swipe with an iceberg at 22knots. End-on, perhaps, if very lucky, but not a glancing blow to the ribs.

Farmer John
4th January 2017, 23:59
I think the suggestion is that she sank faster, and someone might have got there to save those in the water.

To say that we have ventured into a world of conjecture will sell no books or programmes.

Without a doubt, Jack the Ripper did it.

It is one of the few flourishing industries around.

Samsette
5th January 2017, 01:23
CNN carries the story today and the Smithsonian's part in keeping it going.

Some wag Tweeted CNN with the information that the lookout had used his cell phone to alert the bridge and, that it had all been caught on CCTV. Wouldn't surprise me if some will believe that.

She may have gone down but, she will never be forgotten. She has made more money since her sinking than Lord Ismay ever imagined.

David K
5th January 2017, 03:57
Ever tried telling the Police you were speeding to get to the filling station before you ran out of petrol? :) Me neither!

... Working "Traffic" ( Yeah, I was a Traffic Cop! Paid to be a P.... and very good at it!! ) years ago, I actually did have one "violator" offer that as an excuse. And yes, she did get the "Ticket", although an IQ test might have been more appropriate!(*)) LOL !!.... David K

rickles23
5th January 2017, 08:39
Hi,
From the Coastguards:

The Coast Guard has conducted numerous experiments in attempts to determine means for accelerating the disintegration of icebergs. These have included gunfire, mines, torpedoes, depth charges, and bombing. However, the use of conventional explosives or combustibles proves difficult.

In addition to the operational hazards of approaching and boarding an iceberg in a seaway; the theory of explosive demolition shows that a 1,000 lb charge of conventional explosives would be needed to break up approximately 70,000 cubic ft of ice (a growler weighing 1,960 tons) and a hundred such charges would be needed for the destruction of an average berg.

Furthermore, to melt a medium-size berg of 100,000 tons would require the complete theoretical heat of combustion of over a quarter of a million gallons of gasoline. Such methods are, of course, economically, as well as practically unsound.

In 1959 and 1960, the Ice Patrol conducted a series of tests using the combustion of thermite. Early experiments by other scientists indicated that thermite, which explodes in ice with an extremely high temperature, would have a thermal "shock" or fracturing effect on icebergs.

Ice Patrol experiments demonstrated that, under operational conditions, such was not the case. Natural deterioration remains the most practical process for the elimination of icebergs."

Regards

jg grant
5th January 2017, 09:19
I read in the past, and I cannot quote the source that there was a problem with the supply of rivets and there composition. The problem was known about by the builders at H&W but there was a time frame for the ship to be built for whatever reason and bust a gut getting to NY for prestige perhaps?. These rivets did not reach spec but were used anyway and in this account I read it was theorised that in the cold NA water they had contracted. In itself not a great problem but slamming many thousands of tons of ship into many thousands of tons of ice is going to cause major damage and the iceberg doesn't care. So there it is, Victorian arrogance getting told off by mother nature at a terrible cost of human life, mostly steerage.

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 10:52
#58 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=58)

FJ hits the nail on the head.

Immovable object/irresistible force/excessive speed - all else is indeed conjecture!

I would like to propose a posthumous Nobel Prize for science to Frank Sinatra, who once sang a song on the very point, without even mentioning the Titanic or any other ship, as far as I can recall!

alan ward
5th January 2017, 12:03
Hi, John,

There is another thread in this forum called "Titanic yet again".

The fire-evidence has been discussed here very recently and might be of interest.

Best wishes.

The most comprehensive,exhaustive site I found on the Titanic is Enclycopedia Titanica.They can tell you which members of crew were left handed!

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 12:12
Many thanks, Alan.

Useful knowledge!

Stephen J. Card
5th January 2017, 13:10
The most comprehensive,exhaustive site I found on the Titanic is Enclycopedia Titanica.They can tell you which members of crew were left handed!


Very true. The fellows have done their R E S E A R C H ! Done very it very too. Also with help from YEARS of research with the Titanic Historic Society.


I would not say everything they come up with is 100% correct.

One problem is with 'language'. English from something today is not the same as from 1912. On top of it, English Sailor Language, is something that a lot of the researchers take as literal. If you remember things you heard at sea and use those comments today I doubt if ship's officers today would understand. I am frequently in touch with good friend and researcher, one of the best, Ken Marschall.

Stephen

Les Gibson
5th January 2017, 15:02
At the risk of being accused of racism, I have to relate the story of the Irish salvage company who after 5 years of struggle have managed to raise the iceberg

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 16:34
Does anybody know how big was the ice berg?

Titanic is stated to have had a draught of 34 feet and a moulded depth of 64 feet (measured to where is unclear).

But if ice from the iceberg was falling onto a deck which was even only 30 feet above water level, this suggests that the iceberg itself would have a draft of at least 60 feet - and was therefore not a thing to be brushed aside lightly! (These suggested figures are almost certainly under-estimated.)

(I'm guessing that an ice-berg is about two-thirds underwater. Is that right?)

Does anybpdy know?

Duncan112
5th January 2017, 16:46
These photos keep cropping up Barrie - but most probably we will never know

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/chilling-photograph-of-iceberg-that-sank-the-titanic-emerges-147487545-237441571

Farmer John
5th January 2017, 17:11
I have had a first hand account of the fact that Titanic was launched, 'cos my Granny went to see it. Anything after that I have from far more indirect sources, but I do think it is unlikely to turn up unexpectedly now.

Stephen J. Card
5th January 2017, 17:16
(I'm guessing that an ice-berg is about two-thirds underwater. Is that right?)

Does anybpdy know?


10% above, (30ft) 90% submerged.... 300 ft!

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 17:22
#68 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=68)

Thank you, Stephen!

Stephen J. Card
5th January 2017, 17:27
Because the damage was over five compartment, the 'gash' must have been at least 300 ft.

The technical people say that if it was a 'gash' she would have founderd very quickly. Because of the time lines to flood the compartment, and they do know how long it too, the damage was of approximately 12 sq ft... spread over 300 ft of the hull. Not a gash at all, but more like buckled plates, open seams, rivets sheared etc. I guess the damage caused by the fire in the coal bunker was of no consequence.

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 17:28
#66 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=66)

Very many thanks, Duncan!

I can hear an "Ooof!" and an "Oh, Christ!" from Murdoch, as he sucked his teeth!

Barrie Youde
5th January 2017, 18:46
#70 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=70)

By every process of logic, mathematics and elimination, all of this must be right.

Steve Oatey
6th January 2017, 19:33
Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, short watertight bulkheads, open watertight doors etc etc We've heard a lot of theories, but if it didn't hit the iceberg, none of this other stuff would have mattered. That's why it sank.

Stephen J. Card
6th January 2017, 22:10
CONCORDIA. Two Compartment vessel. 2.5 hours sunk.

TITANIC Two Compartment vessel but 5 were opened. Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, etc. I would think the berg is a lot bigger than the Gigilio rock 2.5 hours sunk.

100 years difference. I think I'd still stick with a Belfast-built vessel.

:-)

Graham Wallace
6th January 2017, 22:10
Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, short watertight bulkheads, open watertight doors etc etc We've heard a lot of theories, but if it didn't hit the iceberg, none of this other stuff would have mattered. That's why it sank.

Get back to work, do not worry about icebergs!

When are we meeting for lunch?

Graham

JohnBP
8th January 2017, 12:40
Mmmm Graham, would that be a curry... J

Tmac1720
8th January 2017, 12:47
It wuz sabotue..... stabat...sabetat..... guys from Swan Hunter wot done it...

WilliamH
8th January 2017, 16:20
I saw an interesting piece on a programme called Mysteries of the Museum about the Titanic. The piece related to the wireless traffic at the time of the sinking, the researcher said it was chaos because all the operators on the vessels in the North
Atlantic were transmitting at the same time and so important information could not be passed. Maybe some of our radio members will be able to give more information on procedures at the time.

fred henderson
8th January 2017, 18:39
I have merged the two threads that were running on this subject. The other was mysteriously in the BP Tankers Forum. I know that BP has been responsible for a number of disasters, but I do not think that they sank the Titanic!

Steve Oatey
10th January 2017, 03:31
Get back to work, do not worry about icebergs!

When are we meeting for lunch?

Graham

Icebergs may be a concern soon, Graham, if this weather continues!!

Ten days off coming up, so lunch in there somewhere.
Steve

TonyReynolds
8th February 2017, 15:31
I have read a couple of old marine engineering books which refer in large part to coal bunkers. It was clear to me that:
1. Fires in coal bunkers were relatively common so that all the books contained advice on how such fires should be treated.
2. The ships' engineers and stokers were expected to know how to deal with such fires.
3. Quenching the whole bunker with water was highly discouraged since the effect of water on the fire, while it is still in the body of the coal in the bunker (there is a lot of residual heat due to the heating of the coal surrounding the seat of the fire), is the production of carbon monoxide gas which is inflammable and, in the correct air/fuel ratio, explosive.
4. The nautical wisdom of the time was that the coal bunker should be re-trimmed until the sight of the fire could be found. this should then be spread out and extinguished using copious amounts of water.

It may be that the fire was still being damped down when the ship sailed - but such a situation does not appear to have been so out of the ordinary in those days.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.

Barrie Youde
8th February 2017, 17:26
#87 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=87)

Many thanks, Tony.

This makes much sense of things.

Mad Landsman
8th February 2017, 18:59
#87 (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=87)

A further point has sprung to mind regarding '3'.

I recall that in the production of coal gas, steam was used alternating with air. This, I think, produced not only carbon monoxide and methane but hydrogen.
Some ships' stokers may, no doubt, have also done some time in gas works and would have been well aware of this.