# The Titanic, will they ever let it rest in peace?



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

*The Titanic, will they ever let it rest in pieces?*

I don't know if any of you have been watching all the resurgence of the stories and news media coverage behind the Titanic.

Besides the re-release of the 97? movie by James Cameron with Leo Decaprio, in 3D, there is a whole slew of documentaries and
investigations into what happened that fateful night?

1300 souls died, only about 300 of those were ever recovered so more than likely hundreds could have been trapped inside in steerage class, which was equivalent to baggage in the whole. The story about one man that got into a lifeboat with his wife, is interesting, because he was successful businessman until word got out in Canada that he had survived by jumping in a lifeboat with the women. After that he was shunned and his business dried up.

I'm not trying to make light out of the tragedy and so many lives lost, but amazed that the mindset back then was that the sink was considered unsinkable. Submarine warfare was not invented on a large scale yet, but a torpedo in the right place would have 
probably not caused it to sink, unless more than one watertight bulkhead was comprised. 
Now this was 1912 and the design was a few years before that, but you would have thought that even before the maiden voyage, there would have been some testing and worse case scenario analysis?


There had been some scientific analysis that microbial bacteria is devouring the ship up. and all that's going to be left in 
few more years , are the rust residue of it's activity, similar to coral. 
Leave it to nature even at that depth 3000 meters? to take care of any manmade intrusions. 

CBC News is broadcasting from Halifax tonight on the Titanic story.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Yeah.

I. Don't. Care. About. _Titanic_.

More people die every day because of a lack of clean drinking water. Let's stop fetishizing 100 year old disasters and put as much attention into contemporary disasters--you know, the ones that we can do something about.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Now that the one hundred anniversary is here hopefully this will be the last we hear.
With today's technology such a thing would likely not have happened but that can be said for many other disasters.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> CBC News is broadcasting from Halifax tonight on the Titanic story.


I'm interested in documentaries and I'll be watching.

It is still impossible to comprehend that there had been only 20 lifeboats for the 2,200 passengers.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I empathsize with andrewf -the media has really "run away" with this story - I don't remember this much attention focused on the event. Likely the 100 anniversary is part of the cause - but....

I often reflect on the following three points on the tragedy of the Titanic sinking.
1. The tragedy represented a failure in the promise of technology (of the day). The ship was THE most advanced of it time. It represented the future, and "the future" was gone, without a trace, shortly after it started.
2. The tragedy cut through class structure - many wealthy "untouchables" died along with non-wealthy.
3. Human arrogance and hubris can lead to some awful consequences - the ship should never have been going that fast through those waters with the iceberg warning that was in place.

I agree andrewf that there are many other more pressing matters at hand - you quote a very good example - but without an understanding the human condition, and the frailties therein, we may invite other, similar tragedies.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I loved the 1997 version of the film and am still considering seeing the new 3D version. Anyone here see the 3D version yet?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

This thread reminded me of a picture I took in Italy with carverman in mind. I could read through the sharpie marker something about awaiting further orders from the Captain of the ship (picture is not doctored) Mother nature is very dangerous we just take that for granted most of the time


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

It (the event, and the ship) is a piece of history. Will "they" ever let WW1 WW2, the Civil War, The Boer War, the 100 day war, or any other event rest in peace? How about 9/11? The Halifax explosion? How about we let personal finance rest for awhile?

It is terribly interesting, with a number of different nuances and points of discussion. I do prefer the historical aspect of the ship and the disaster, so I will be watching the documentaries, but I'll skip the flick.

TT


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> I'm interested in documentaries and I'll be watching.
> 
> It is still impossible to comprehend that there had been only 20 lifeboats for the 2,200 passengers.


Many of them were launched just half full!

Just found out why on the Geographic channel. "Titanic..the closed case"

Some facts about it.

Back then the British Board of Trade regulations required only 16 lifeboats for any boat over 10,000 tons.
Although the Titanic was over 46,000 tons, her design was to stay afloat in case of collision or hitting a running aground and
20 life boats was considered sufficient and exceeded her mininum requirements. 

She had a *double bottom hull *and compartmentalized so each compartment's bulk head could be sealed off,
and she would stay afloat with 4 forward compartments or two central compartments filled with water, or
so they thought. No one considered a gash that spanned several compartments over the entire length of the
ship. 

Overconfidence in her design and being promoted to the passengers and crew that she was deemed " practically unsinkable", 
a lot of precious time was wasted, and many passengers returned to their cabins thinking that there was no danger.
When it was evident she was going to sink, many lifeboats had been lowered with only a few survivors that were herded into them.

There was NO REQUIREMENT to have lifeboats available for all passengers on board. Many in steerage class (3rd class) were not
even allowed up on the upper decks where the lifeboats were and very few of these got into the lifeboats at the last minute. 

That night as she crossed the Atlantic, a Artic cold front/temperature inversion with colliding air masses plunged the temperatures down as she entered the Labrador current, where the icebergs were present. 
The water temperature samples taken by other boats in that current placed the water temperature at the freezing point of water. but moving salt water doesn't freeze. Anybody immersed in water that cold if not drowned would succumb to hypothermia in
a matter of minutes. 

Even though 2 watches were on the boat looking out for icebergs, the fatal iceberg was not seen to them until it was too late
as it was obscured by the conditions of the night and the brillance of the star light sky. 

The cold air above the water and clear cold night air produced a mirage above the water. So a lot of passengers that
managed to get to the lifeboats saw immense number of twinkling stars and the horizon was obscured with them,
so the light signals from the Titanic to passing ships (Californian) were mistaken as twinkling stars and the siloutte
was miraged such that the Titanic still afloat was mistaken for another freight ship.

The Titanic sunk in about a little of 2 hrs.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

crazyjackcsa said:


> It (the event, and the ship) is a piece of history. Will "they" ever let WW1 WW2, the Civil War, The Boer War, the 100 day war, or any other event rest in peace? How about 9/11? The Halifax explosion? How about we let personal finance rest for awhile?
> 
> It is terribly interesting, with a number of different nuances and points of discussion. I do prefer the historical aspect of the ship and the disaster, so I will be watching the documentaries, but I'll skip the flick.
> 
> TT



For someone interested in Marine History I'm sure there is plenty of interest, the other events you suggest have in fact shaped the world we live in very different in my mind.


----------



## Dave (Apr 5, 2009)

I love the Titanic movie. It reminds me to remain humble.

"Not even God himself could sink this ship."
- Employee of the White Star Line, at the launch of the Titanic, May 31, 1911


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Daniel A. said:


> For someone interested in Marine History I'm sure there is plenty of interest, the other events you suggest have in fact shaped the world we live in very different in my mind.


Says you. The Titanic disaster is the single largest event that shaped modern sea going safety requirements. With the advent of wireless, it heralded the era of rapid moving information and a increased pace to the news cycle. It's still mentioned in media study courses to this day. 

It's an incredible story with far reaching ramifications, especially in the blind faith in technology to solve problems.

Add that to a disaster that was truly a cavalcade of avoidable and unavoidable errors and mistakes, it's fascinating. Far more than any Hollywood starlet.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Yes that is my opinion.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

*Some interesting trivia from the GEographic channel which is running a full week of discussion and documentaries on the tragedy.
*
- The Titanic (deemed virtually unsinkable) could have possibly stayed afloat had the ice berg not been spotted and she hit the iceberg dead on.
The way she was designed with 16 compartments (with bulkheads) across the length of the ship that could be sealed off to separate the front and rear from flooding anywhere along the length of the ship. Apparently (according to design) up to 6 compartments could have been comprimised and flooded and she could have stayed afloat with a hit dead on the iceberg.

(Of course this is all theory and speculation at this point.)

The other thing that is strange about the sinking, is that she split in two just before sinking but the double keel instead of breaking off completely separating the bow from the stern kept the bow attached to the stern which then dragged the stern down with it. 
Had the stern broken free, at least the theory was, that it might have stayed afloat for a few more hours, allowing rescue of most of the stranded passengers and crew.

At the time the Titanic (and her sister ship OLYMPIC were the biggested and supposedly the fastest ships in the world. A business man could (theoritcally) go from Southhampton to New York in 5 datys with a cruising speed of 21 knots, or about 39kph.

Although there were only 20 life boards aboard for 2,240 people, each lifeboat could only carry 47 people (if filled to capacity)
for a total of 940 people out of the 2,240 aboard. Some were only partially filled bringing the total survivors to a bit over 700.

The 2 steam engines and turbine powered by coal used over 600 tons of coal per day, it required 176 firemen/stokers to
keep the boilers burning. Over 100 tons of ash had to be disposed in the ocean each day. The firemen/stokers called
"blackies" were labourers hired part time and never had a chance. 

She had 4 400kw steam powered generators (and two auxillary standby units) to supply power and lighting. These used
the last of the 4 smoke stacks in the rear (the two massive steam engines and turbine used the front three smoke stacks).

Ship weighed 46,000 tons and over 882 feet long. Cost in 1909-1912 dollars was 7.5 million. In today's dollars that would
be well over 400 million. 

Also found out that the ship (Californian) was dead in the water because she had come a across a piece of the
Greenland glacier (called a icewall) that had broken off and was 30km long?) by 3 km wide? How they could
measure the length and size dead in the water is beyond me. 

This is speculation of course, but had the Titanic not hit that fatal iceberg but continued on, she might have
still hit the ice wall or the lookouts (who were not equipped with binoculars during that voyage) may have spotted
the huge iceberg and allowed her to stop in time. \
According to the Geographic story, the engines were thrown in REVerse and they tried to steer it around the iceberg..
but that came too late. 

..and parts of the Titanic are now in museums all over the world, a small piece of her outer hull that broke off and could
be lifted from depths of over 12,000 feet is in a Las Vegas museum..where they can charge for admission for many years
to come..and probably make more from visitors wanting to see the relics than what it cost originally to build!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Today is the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, although not the biggest ship sinking tragedy, probably one of the most famous.


*In the final analysis.....*

The designer who worked for Harlan & Wolff in Belfast, *originally specified 64 lifeboats for the Titanic and her sister ship the Olympic.*

He was turned down by Harlan&Wolf and others because of the belief that it was safer to have passengers stay on an "unsinkable
ship" rather than take their chances in small lifeboats on the ocean. 

Each wooden lifeboat could carry a MAXIMUM of 47 passengers (1 tiller operator and ( 46 presumed here) ....
provided the passengers were seated in an orderly fashion and not taking up more than the standard allowance.

The ice berg was sighted by the two lookouts in the crowsnest and the warning bell rang 3 times. The engines were
thrown into reverse, but it is not known if the helmsman would steer correctly with the props in reverse with the
forward momentum of the 46,000 ton liner still acting against the trust of the props. 

IE: How long would it take to turn the Titanic around, travelling at 39 to 40 km per hour?

Lets assume it took 30 minutes for the designer of the ship to verify the damage below and relay to the captain that it was
going to sink. The ship sank in a little over 120 minutes, leaving 90 minutes to get the passengers onto life boats.

With 90 minutes left and 700 people into 18 wooden boats,(the two collapsible were not used until the last and they had trouble deploying them as the ship began to sink)..... and 700 souls that were saved, it would take approximately 43 seconds per
passenger to get into the boat and about 15 minutes to load 37-38 passengers AND lower the boat in the water. 

Assuming 9 lifeboats per side and 90 minutes available in total, although more than 1 could have been lowered simutaneously per side with the other side, if the evacuation was orderly, it would be about 10 -15 minutes per lifeboat.

*Now if the ship had carried 64 lifeboats (32 per side), would the formula have worked in the 90 minutes left from the time the order was given until it sank? *
Certainly more people would have been saved, but was there enough time left to save all..except maybe the captain? 

*Who wants to figure it out? *
whether 64 life boats (46 passengers each) for 2300 passengers with 90 minutes left, *would have made any difference in saving everyone* (including the crew) in the tragedy?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Titanic..the saga continues...

All over the world, and especially in America, the Titanic seems to be resurfacing as the most famous shipwreck in the history of the world,
or so we are led to believe.

In England, they cast a 16 ton monster anchor reproduction and dragged it from the foundary to the center of town with 20 English draft horses.
- auction sales of recovered memobilia or items that family members have turned in to the auction houses around the world are
selling for 10 thousand or more.

- reproductions of the 1st class smoking room for the gentlemen with ornate carved mahogany woodwood, period chairs upholstered with authentic horse hair..the best kind, and artisan stain glass windows exude the luxury of those tha
t had a chance to smoke there for the 3 days. The ladies had their own lavishly appointed reading/tea rooms where no expense was spared either.
White Star line gave Harlan & Wolff, a blank cheque to equip and fit the Titanic, and her sister ship Olympic, with the most luxurious appointments that the world had never seen before.

- Even the steerage class (3rd class) had "comfortable rooms" with 9 bunks and a wash basin with running water and an electric light. To deaden the sound of the all steel room, a wooden panel on one wall. All this luxury for $36 one way passage (about $800 today).

- and leave it to the Americans to find ways to make money off any famous tragedy..Las Vegas Titanic exhibits pale in comparison to Pigeon Forge TN, USA, (tourist trap mecca next to Dollywood), where there is a scaled replica museum of the Titanic with two stacks only. They also have some authentic recovered pieces from the wreck, and yes, managed to carve and reproduce the Grand staircase the focal point of the ship. 

For an admission charge, you can go in and be greeted by a gentleman with a beard and white naval uniform (Captain Smith I presume?) and the tour guides are dressed in period costumes as maids etc.
For a "few hundred" you can even arrange to get married "on board the Titanic" and have pictures of your wedding party taken inside.

Ah the grandeur, the splendor, the nostalgia of the Edwardian period..and the US dollar..of course!

-


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

dubmac said:


> I empathsize with andrewf -the media has really "run away" with this story - I don't remember this much attention focused on the event. Likely the 100 anniversary is part of the cause - but....
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> ...


Ahh ... but the theories and followup information is part of why people are still interested.

First it was that Titanic was going too fast plus designers not considering a length-wise gash. 

Then there was the suspicion that sub-standard steel plates plus low temperatures resulted in the damage being un-survivable.

There's also the contention that the coal miners strike motivated the White Star line to offload coal from other ships to supply Titanic. The coal transfer started a fire in one of the coal bunkers. The claim is that twelve men were trying to put out the fire throughout the voyage, with talk of the fire getting out of control and needing New York city fire boats to help out. If true, it would explain why she was steaming quickly.


Then there's my personal favourite - the sinking was an insurance scam gone wrong. Sister ship Olympic had collided with a Royal Navy ship, had considerable damage that was not insured and when the Royal Navy was cleared - White Star was on the hook for. If Olympic was repaired properly - Titanic's delivery would have to be delayed. So the theory is that Olympic was patched up and palmed off as Titanic. She took on passengers but the scuttling that was to be reported as a "sinking" didn't go as planned. Meanwhile, Titanic was re-labelled Olympic and had a long, successful career.



Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Ahh ... but the theories and followup information is part of why people are still interested.
> 
> First it was that Titanic was going too fast plus designers not considering a length-wise gash.
> 
> Then there was the suspicion that sub-standard steel plates plus low temperatures resulted in the damage being un-survivable.


Haven't heard of that theory, but even if the steel was substandard, a ship that displaced 46,000 tons + passengers, coal and provisions would have quite a bit of kinetic energy imparted when it collided with the iceberg where about 1/10th of it is visible above water and the bulk below the surface. 
Hitting the iceberg head on would cause a huge energy transfer to occur into the ship, probably killing a lot of the
passengers with it sinking in a matter of minutes.. The energy and gforces would be something in the order of 4 times the square of the speed it was going , I believe. So even the water temp was at freezing and the steel was not as good as it could have been, a side swipe would still cause a tremendous amount of damage.

here is some calculations of the forces involved if the impact was head on..
http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=282





> Then there's my personal favourite - the sinking was an insurance scam gone wrong. Sister ship Olympic had collided with a Royal Navy ship, had considerable damage that was not insured and when the Royal Navy was cleared - White Star was on the hook for. If Olympic was repaired properly - Titanic's delivery would have to be delayed. So the theory is that Olympic was patched up and palmed off as Titanic. She took on passengers but the scuttling that was to be reported as a "sinking" didn't go as planned. Meanwhile, Titanic was re-labelled Olympic and had a long, successful career.
> Cheers


I think that is just cockameny theory.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

More people actually died off the shores of Canada when The Empress sank, yet I bet not many here ever heard of it before you googled it did you? It would seem only important to remember and learn from sensational tragedies


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> More people actually died off the shores of Canada when The Empress sank, yet I bet not many here ever heard of it before you googled it did you? It would seem only important to remember and learn from sensational tragedies


The Empress of Ireland (which collided with another ship in the St.Lawrence) was a Canadian Pacific steamship liner. Although the tragedy is equivalent to the Titanic in scale of lives lost, we as Canadians do not glorify our maritime disasters as much or make movies and billions of dollars from those tragedies like the Americans. (Not sure if this is a cultural thing?)

From Wiki....
_The ship's cat on the Empress was named Emmy. *It was said to have been a loyal orange tabby who had never once missed a voyage. But shortly before the liner's final voyage, the cat repeatedly tried to leave the ship before its departure on May 28, 1914.* The crew could not coax her aboard and the Empress departed without her. It was reported that Emmy watched the ship sail away from Quebec City sitting on the roof of the shed at Pier 27, which would later become a place for the dead pulled from the river after the Empress went down_

Perhaps our animals are smarter than led to believe and can sense danger long before it happens? 

And then there was...
The Halifax explosion, the result of a French munitions ship colliding in Halifax is another maritime disaster...a lot of lives were lost in the
surrounding dockyard areas and the captain and crew abandoned ship leaving her to burn and explode causing the loss of 2000 lives.
_]According to estimates, roughly $35 million Canadian dollars in damages resulted (in 1917 dollars; adjusted for inflation, this is about CAD$500 million in 2007 dollars)._]


The Titanic movie was the highest grossing movie in history, I believe, more than Gone with the Wind.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Something very odd I just noticed on the Empress wiki page

Children	4 of 138 survive
Women	41 of 310
Men 172 of 609

How do 172 men survive and only manage to save 4 children? I learned about the Halifax explosion in school, but I'd never heard about this until today. Even the Edmund Fitzgerald is far more known


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> More people actually died off the shores of Canada when The Empress sank, yet I bet not many here ever heard of it before you googled it did you? It would seem only important to remember and learn from sensational tragedies


Can you explain what you mean by "more"? The listings I can find have Titanic at 1,523 while the Empress is listed at 1,012 - which is comparable but does not seem as more.

*Edit:* I may have found the answer ... the wiki page says more "passengers" than Titanic as opposed to people. Did you mean passengers?


IAC, knowing about it depends on individual ... being both interested and a fast reader, I'd read of the Empress at least twenty years ago. 

IMO, part of the issue is the most consider Canadian history to be "boring" compared to US or European (or at least my classmates did!). Then there's the factor of the victors writing the history. 

Most people will usually assume that Titanic or Lusitania as the world's largest maritime loss of life but in WW2, the Wilhelm Gusloff was sunk by a Russian submarine with the loss of approximately *9,500* lost. For a peacetime loss that is more comparable to the Titanic, there is the ferry _MV Dona Paz_ with an estimated 4,341.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters

For more Canadian content, there's the capsizing of the _Victoria_ on the Thames River in London, Ontario on May 24th, 1881. I find it interesting as it is a relatively small river to have a loss of 181 people.
http://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/59596/data
http://www.victoria-park.com/johnmilner_victoria.html


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> Haven't heard of that theory, but even if the steel was substandard, a ship that displaced 46,000 tons + passengers, coal and provisions would have quite a bit of kinetic energy imparted when it collided with the iceberg where about 1/10th of it is visible above water and the bulk below the surface.
> 
> Hitting the iceberg head on would cause a huge energy transfer to occur into the ship, probably killing a lot of the
> passengers with it sinking in a matter of minutes.. The energy and gforces would be something in the order of 4 times the square of the speed it was going , I believe.
> ...


I think you are wrapping together a bunch of different options for the steel theory. As I recall, it was about the steel plating being brittle from too much slag - where the idea was that more damage happened in the side swipe.
http://www.weldreality.com/ship titanic cold water.htm

Though the latest explorations seem to indicate the steel was fine.
http://www.lostliners.com/content/flagships/Titanic/wreck2.html

There is also attention to the iron versus steel rivets used in construction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.titanic1.org/articles/brittle-steel.asp

As for the "could Titanic survive is head on collision", that is a different theory.


I also believe the insurance scam is crap. It would take too many people to keep their mouths shut - though it is interesting that Olympic's sea trials took two days while Titanic's were much shorter plus not done at full steam.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Something very odd I just noticed on the Empress wiki page
> 
> Children	4 of 138 survive
> Women	41 of 310
> ...


I guess most of the men were insomniacs? The wiki site does say that most of those asleep were lost.

As for learning about these events, I recall reading them first and only the Halifax explosion being in the school materials.


Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> I think you are wrapping together a bunch of different options for the steel theory. As I recall, it was about the steel plating being brittle from too much slag - where the idea was that more damage happened in the side swipe.
> Though the latest explorations seem to indicate the steel was fine.
> There is also attention to the iron versus steel rivets used in construction:


Yes, the rivets seem to be key in one hypothesis of the failure in the steel hull. Watched this on Geo.."Last seconds of the Titanic", where a US Naval engineer examines the chain of events that led to the sinking.

Although the steel used for the hull plates was fine for that period in time, the rivets used on the steel 1 inch thick plating were of two different grades due to a new riveting machine used and the traditional manual methods. For some reason the bow was riveted with manual labour and the higher quality steel rivets (higher shear strength) could not be used, so they uses a lower grade of steel with slag impurities to allow the riveters to be able to compress the rivet and expand it in the holes.

These lower grade rivets were used in the first 5 sections right where the iceberg collided. The rear part of the ship was put together with a better grade steel rivets where they used the new riveting machine. Over 3 million rivets were used.

The US naval officer had some rivets made with the same grade of steel and slag impurities and they tested these on two 1 inch steel plates in a huge hydraulic press monitoring the thousands of PSI to determine failure of the rivet and the 2 plates being forced by the press.
Based on the mass of the ship (46,000 tons) and another ship later after the sinking reporting the estimated height/lenght of the iceberg that supposedly came in contact with the Titanic, it was deemed to be over 4 times the mass of the ship as only 1/8 of the berg is visible above water.
With some calculations of the estimated force of the impact on the steel plates, they determined that the forces on those rivets 
by the collision could be as much as 14,000 PSI!

The rivets manufactured to the specs they found in England for the rivets of that period with the slag started to strain at 8,000 psi and failed at 10,000 PSI completely. At that point the two pieces of steel plate had a huge gap between them where water would be coming in.

However, even with that theory, it was a chain of events that led to the sinking, as the designers never entertained a collision with an iceberg in the hull design, only the typical naval accidents of the day.

1. The wireless radio operator was too buys with telegraphs from 1st class customers to heed the early warnings of the icebergs from other ships.
2. The captain has his own agenda (arrival schedule in NYC) and had made the trip several times, even in the Olympic, so he just altered the course a bit more south to try to avoid them to keep the pace and schedule.
3. The lookouts in the crows nest didn't have binocs to help them, although the wind chill was freezing up there and they had no eye protection,so couldn't see that far out because their eyes were watering from the freezing cold.

4. When they saw the berg just a few seconds before they hit, they were travelling at two high a speed to completely steer around it. 

5. After they hit and saw the severe damage, the wireless couldn't get a response from the wireless operator in the Californian because
the operator had gone to sleep after the Titanic wireless operator told him to shut down and stop interfering with his transmissions. 
There was no transmissions of priority msg (MSG) that indicated the captain should be notified immediately and the Californian operator was not aware of this prefix.


So although no individual can be singled out in this tragedy, the chain of events led up to the sinking. Maybe stronger rivets would have helped in the bow..and maybe not. 

after the ship started to sink...
6. The captain of the Californian ignored the emergency flares because he claimed he wasn't aware of what they meant.

7. Not enough lifeboats for all the passengers on board, and because this was a maiden voyage they had not set up any lifeboat drills because 
a) the reality was there was only enough for 1st class passengers (pretty embarrassing just to do a drill on the wealthy paying passengers)
and ignore the rest in 3rd class. Many women and children in 3rd class perished, so they all didn't get on the lifeboats in time. 
b) everyone thought at least until the last couple of hours, that the ship was unsinkable.




> As for the "could Titanic survive is head on collision", that is a different theory.


The results would probably been the same, only the time factor in the sinking would be the variable. The rivets would have popped as the tremendous forces on the hull with a headon would have probably caused it to buckle. 




> I also believe the insurance scam is crap. It would take too many people to keep their mouths shut - though it is interesting that Olympic's sea trials took two days while Titanic's were much shorter plus not done at full steam.
> 
> The sea trial would not have prepared them for the collision. White star even placed a guarantee group onboard of engineers, fitters, electricians and the chielf
> designer himself, who all perished. Interesting though that the Olympic apparently had 20 years of service in her active lifetime. Not much about the
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

<Even the Edmund Fitzgerald is far more known>

That is mostly because of the song that Gord Lightfoot wrote about the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

BTW..this may be a strange coincidence, but one of the CEOs of Nortel (before it sank) was Edmund Fitzgerald in 1982.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> [ ... ]
> 
> The results would probably been the same, only the time factor in the sinking would be the variable. The rivets would have popped as the tremendous forces on the hull with a headon would have probably caused it to buckle.
> 
> ...


For the head-on, maybe and maybe not. The computer models in the one documentary years ago weren't considering much of this when it was concluded a head-on crash would have been fine. The other factor that comes to mind is how far back the rivets would pop from a head-on.


As for sea trials - I'd have expected both sea trial to be the same length and at full speed. After all, isn't the trial to make sure everything is working? If so, why was Titanic's one day and only half speed?


As for "Gigantic", maybe it's your search criteria. 

The name of the third ship was changed to the "lucky name" of Britannic. It wasn't as she only had a four year life. She was operating as hospital ship in Kea Channel of the Aegean sea when on Nov 21st, 1915 - a mine (or some claim torpedo) sunk her.
http://www.starway.org/Titanic/Sister_Ships.html
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/britannic.shtml


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

dubmac said:


> I empathsize with andrewf -the media has really "run away" with this story - I don't
> remember this much attention focused on the event. Likely the 100 anniversary is part of the cause - but....
> 
> [ ... ]


Whether the media has over done it or not .... apparently some are finding it a revelation that it's a historical event instead of just a movie.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ne...-cameron-titanic-was-real-mindblown-jgiro.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...ht-Titanic-disaster-was-just-a-film-plot.html


Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> For the head-on, maybe and maybe not. The computer models in the one documentary years ago weren't considering much of this when it was concluded a head-on crash would have been fine. The other factor that comes to mind is how far back the rivets would pop from a head-on.


Well a lot of it is STILL educated speculation.
I was watching another program with the director (James Cameron)of the movie "Titanic", where he gathered a panel of naval experts from the US that did research in the US Navy's model ship tanks and came up with some "educated" conclusions of what may have happened at the moment of collision and sinking. The recreation of the sinking in the movie has some flaws in it, on the sinking. One is the angle of the stern before the stern finally broke away and went down separately 3 kms down to the bottom. The stern was concluded to be 23 degrees up from the surface of the water, not 19 degrees like previously though, and not pointing straight up like the movie (Leo hanging on to the rail of the "poop deck" as the stern went down. 
These movie segments/ images were CGI based on the works of a painter that painted the pictures of the sinking, 
and he got his information from documentation available from the survivors.... who might have exaggerated a bit.

Amazingly the Ttianic did not capsize as is customary with most large ships..like the recent "sinking" of the Costa Concordia.

James Cameron commented that if he had the funding he would re-release the movie on DVD with the more accurate scenes in the future, so there is more money to be made from this maritime disaster in future years. 

One of the interesting parts of the show was towards the end of the expert analysis, he posed questions of what they
would have done at the time, knowing she would sink in a little over two hours.

Some of the answers were a bit absurd
- put all 1300 people left without life boats on the surface of a iceberg.
- move backwards and try to steer towards the iceberg field towards the stopped ship (Californian) to off load
survivors..

- and lastly this one..gather ALL 3000 cork filled lifejackets and stuff them into the 5th compartment to maintain some
percentage of boyanancy on the bow. Even if the first 4 compartments were completely flooded, the theory was
that she would still stay afloat at least long enough for a rescue ship to come by a few hours later.

The perplexing question is: if you KNEW the boat was about to sink...would you give up your lifejacket to
try and keep the ship from sinking? 





> As for "Gigantic", maybe it's your search criteria.


That comment came from one of the stories on the Geo channel. The commentator mentioned that when the Titanic and Olympic was being built, White Star (eyeing the money to be made with immigrants in steerage class going to America)
was actually considering a third ship that was to be named "Gigantic".
After the Ttianic disaster, and loss of life, to the steerage passengers, women, children included, they gave up on that idea
and chose a "less agressive" name for the third ship. 



> The name of the third ship was changed to the "lucky name" of Britannic. It wasn't as she only had a four year life. She was operating as hospital ship in Kea Channel of the Aegean sea when on Nov 21st, 1915 - a mine (or some claim torpedo) sunk her.
> http://www.starway.org/Titanic/Sister_Ships.html
> http://www.titanic-titanic.com/britannic.shtml
> 
> Cheers


Thanks for the update. Interesting that with even a double hull in places and all kinds of improvements,
she either hit a mine or was sunk by torpedo in 1916 during WWI hospital ship duty. At least they had
enough lifeboats this time from the lessons learned from the Titanic. 
Seems to me that White Star Lines was just plain unlucky with their ships.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> Well a lot of it is STILL educated speculation.
> 
> I was watching another program with the director (James Cameron)of the movie "Titanic", [ ... ]
> 
> ...


Yes ... it is speculation. And likely if it was the rivets, then either head-on or sideways - it would still sink. It would be interesting to have updated computer models to see if there would be more time with a head-on collision.

I saw parts of the same show ... interesting. As for the "give up your life jacket" - I suspect the passenger who used his pocket knife to rip open his life jacket to keep his wife entertained would not have made that choice if he thought the ship would sink.


As for Gigantic aka Britannic, I suspect the commenter was mistaken. Britannic was being built *before* Titanic sunk. According to the wiki, she was laid in Nov 30th, 1911 then launched in Feb 26th, 1914. I've also always heard that three ships had been ordered at the same time. As for Britannic's sinking, yes there were improvements but the documentary I saw indicated that if Brittanic had been fully loaded at the time, likely the loss of life would have been worse. 


As for unlucky - I'm not sure I'd count being in a war zone as unlucky.


A far more gruesome sinking with approximately three times the loss of the Titanic was the SS Cap Arcona. 

The nazis had loaded concentration cap prisoners on her to get rid of the evidence. RAF bombers attacked plus the SS and police on shore shot any survivors trying to swim ashore. Of at least 4,500 prisoners - 350 survived. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona

What's the connection with Titanic you ask?

The SS Cap Arcona was used for filming Goebbels propaganda film _Titanic_. Some of the footage was re-used in the British film _A Night To Remember_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1943_film)


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> What's the connection with Titanic you ask?
> 
> The SS Cap Arcona was used for filming Goebbels propaganda film _Titanic_. Some of the footage was re-used in the British film _A Night To Remember_.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1943_film)
> ...


Never saw that before. Interesting though because Hollywood has done the same thing many times (turn a historic event into an American hero story) U571 for example


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> There's also the contention that the coal miners strike motivated the *White Star line to offload coal from other ships to supply Titanic*. The coal transfer started a fire in one of the coal bunkers. The claim is that twelve men were trying to put out the fire throughout the voyage, with talk of the fire getting out of control and needing New York city fire boats to help out. If true, it would explain why she was steaming quickly.


This is an interesting part of the story that has some anomalies. Apparently the coal miners went on strike earlier that year and basically shut down the entire British industry (not sure about home heating), so that nothing was moving for about 6 weeks until the gov't and the miners reached an agreement on minimum wages and they went back to work 3 days before the Titanic was to sail. 

The cold bunkers in the Titanic had to be enormous, since she had 29 bolers and 167 stokers working in 4 hr shifts. The boilers consumed 700 tons of coal of day..that's a lot of coal. For a 7 day voyage that would be around 4900 tons of coal. If the strike ended 3 days before she was about to sail where did they get that much coal to load in the Titanic? Certainly not from the coal mines of Wales where the miners had just returned back to work, but by transferring from other White Star ships, as you
mention above. 

As far as the coal bunker fire.....

_"But we didn't need such help. *It was right under bunker No. 6 that the iceberg tore the biggest hole in the Titanic*, and the flood of water that came through, sir, put out the fire that our tons and tons of water had not been able to get rid of.

"The stokers were beginning to get alarmed over it, but the officers told us to keep our mouths shut---they didn't want to alarm the passengers."_


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Never saw that before.
> 
> Interesting though because Hollywood has done the same thing many times (turn a historic event into an American hero story) U571 for example


While I have seen similar "Americanization" of other events such as U571 - for this film, I don't believe this was the case. 

The 1958 movie was filmed in the UK at Pinewood studios. Then too, the wiki article states:


> A Night to Remember won the 1959 "Samuel Goldwyn International Award" for the United Kingdom at the Golden Globe Awards


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_to_Remember_(1958_film)

Usually an "Americanized" film has:
1) the characters switched to be American to broaden the appeal, which didn't seem to be the case in the hour or so I watched last night.
_and_
2) is submitted for American awards - not the international category.


I suspect it is a UK production of an American book but I'm not sure how to confirm it.

Tidbits:
a) Walter Lord, the author, travelled on Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, as a boy.
b) Apparently, from the debut in 1955 to today, the book has never been out of print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_to_Remember_(book)


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> The Titanic movie was the highest grossing movie in history, I believe, more than Gone with the Wind.


That was true then ... however Avatar surpassed Titanic for theatre gross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
Supposedly, when the home entertainment revenue is added in - both are over $3 billion.


Also - if you thought the insurance scam theory was bogus - how about the Egyptian mummy or German U boat torpedo? 
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...y-curse-insurance-scam-reasons-205106898.html :biggrin-new:


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> While I have seen similar "Americanization" of other events such as U571 - for this film, I don't believe this was the case.


I was referring to the German version of Titanic which you had linked to (U571 had nothing to do with Americans, and enigma was cracked before they even entered the War.. Also shows the Americans being tolerable of blacks and calling Germans racist and other subtle propaganda etc)


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> I don't know if any of you have been watching all the resurgence of the stories and news media coverage behind the Titanic


Halifax needs the tourism $$$! Couldn't get a restaurant reservation on Saturday night, hotels were booked, walking tours of 15 Titanic sites, restaurants had "Titanic" dinners that ran all the way to the full 13 course, there's walking tours maps, cemetery dedications, and a musical !!! But maybe it was just the first warm weekend . . .


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> I was referring to the German version of Titanic which you had linked to (U571 had nothing to do with Americans, and enigma was cracked before they even entered the War.. Also shows the Americans being tolerable of blacks and calling Germans racist and other subtle propaganda etc)


Ah! I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the UK movie instead of the original.


Cheers


----------

